Bitcoin XT code enabling bigger blocks

[Amitabh S]

... doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)

What does it mean ? It will keep on growing like 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024...

That means we are going to have 1GB block limit by 2030 on XTcoin ?

Awesome

That rationale does not make sense. We are assuming that storage space will be doubling every two years but possibly this won't be true for long.

Also whats Bitcoin XT? Is it an altcoin?

[Muhammed Zakir]

... doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)

What does it mean ? It will keep on growing like 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024...

That means we are going to have 1GB block limit by 2030 on XTcoin ?

Awesome

That rationale does not make sense. We are assuming that storage space will be doubling every two years but possibly this won't be true for long.

Also whats Bitcoin XT? Is it an altcoin?

It is a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features but it hard-forked which makes it kinda-altcoin. However, if majority users use it and if it becomes the larger chain, it maybe considered as main chain.

Github: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt
Stackexchange: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/38181

[goregrind]

There is no consensus on the block size increase so it won't happen. Just wait till the craze fades out.
Contrary to some beliefs around here consensus is not 50%+1

[johoe]

It is a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features but it hard-forked which makes it kinda-altcoin.

BitcoinXT didn't hard fork, nor will it deploy a hard fork automatically in it's current release.  The link at the beginning of the thread point to Gavin's development repository; the patch is not merged into the official maintained by Mike. There is no pull request. It's probably not even ready for serious testing, yet.

So please calm down and wait at least until Gavin thinks the code is ready.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features but it hard-forked which makes it kinda-altcoin.

BitcoinXT didn't hard fork, nor will it deploy a hard fork automatically in it's current release.  The link at the beginning of the thread point to Gavin's development repository; the patch is not merged into the official maintained by Mike. There is no pull request. It's probably not even ready for serious testing, yet.

So please calm down and wait at least until Gavin thinks the code is ready.

What about these? Sorry, I am not a computer geek.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/c81898ec46e4962daf975e352931b848026fdc34

[TierNolan]

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/c81898ec46e4962daf975e352931b848026fdc34

Those are only on Gavin's local repository.

The path is "gavinandresen/bitcoinxt" and it is forked from "bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt" (see the top of the page)

If Gavin wants those changes added to Bitcoin XT, he needs to submit a pull request.  The maintainer of Bitcoin XT (Mike) can then merge the changes into the master branch.  Alternatively, he could say that he wants some changes.  They are probably discussing what is required so when a PR is submitted, it will mostly comply with the requirements.

[iCEBREAKER]

However, if majority users use it and if it becomes the larger chain, it maybe considered as main chain.

It only starts producing larger blocks with a mining majority of 75%, so it's always on the main chain.

You mean an ostensible "75%."  In reality, it would be lower.  BIP66 thought it had "95%" support, which in reality turned out to be 64%.

The more bloated the block, the more likely an empty one will be produced while new tx are verified (which defeats the purpose).

HearnCoin is rubbish; it wouldn't even make a good side chain or alt.

[Muhammed Zakir]

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/c81898ec46e4962daf975e352931b848026fdc34

Those are only on Gavin's local repository.

The path is "gavinandresen/bitcoinxt" and it is forked from "bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt" (see the top of the page)

If Gavin wants those changes added to Bitcoin XT, he needs to submit a pull request.  The maintainer of Bitcoin XT (Mike) can then merge the changes into the master branch.  Alternatively, he could say that he wants some changes.  They are probably discussing what is required so when a PR is submitted, it will mostly comply with the requirements.

You are right. My stupidness! Well, soon it will be hard-forked(or am I wrong?) if they want are going for block size increase and Bitcoin Core on 1MB maximum block size.

-snip-
So please calm down and wait at least until Gavin thinks the code is ready.

I am calm. I just misunderstood that commit. That's all.

[Amitabh S]

BIP66 thought it had "95%" support, which in reality turned out to be 64%.

Can you elaborate? Isn't it pretty easy to ascertain if the 95% of the previous 1000 blocks version 3, or is there any confusion here?

[siameze]

It is a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features but it hard-forked which makes it kinda-altcoin.

BitcoinXT didn't hard fork, nor will it deploy a hard fork automatically in it's current release.  The link at the beginning of the thread point to Gavin's development repository; the patch is not merged into the official maintained by Mike. There is no pull request. It's probably not even ready for serious testing, yet.

So please calm down and wait at least until Gavin thinks the code is ready.

What about these? Sorry, I am not a computer geek.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/c81898ec46e4962daf975e352931b848026fdc34

I think you got the instructions here: http://lifehacker.com/5853250/how-to-sound-like-you-know-what-youre-talking-about-even-when-you-dont

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is a fork of Bitcoin Core with some features but it hard-forked which makes it kinda-altcoin.

BitcoinXT didn't hard fork, nor will it deploy a hard fork automatically in it's current release.  The link at the beginning of the thread point to Gavin's development repository; the patch is not merged into the official maintained by Mike. There is no pull request. It's probably not even ready for serious testing, yet.

So please calm down and wait at least until Gavin thinks the code is ready.

What about these? Sorry, I am not a computer geek.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/c81898ec46e4962daf975e352931b848026fdc34

I think you got the instructions here: http://lifehacker.com/5853250/how-to-sound-like-you-know-what-youre-talking-about-even-when-you-dont

Nope and if you are suggesting me that, I am rejecting it.

[iCEBREAKER]

BIP66 thought it had "95%" support, which in reality turned out to be 64%.

Can you elaborate? Isn't it pretty easy to ascertain if the 95% of the previous 1000 blocks version 3, or is there any confusion here?

If you think this is bad:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/csrumgv?context=3

wait until the Gavinistas attempt their contentious fork with an ostensible (and much lower) "75%" of the network...   

[siameze]

BIP66 thought it had "95%" support, which in reality turned out to be 64%.

Can you elaborate? Isn't it pretty easy to ascertain if the 95% of the previous 1000 blocks version 3, or is there any confusion here?

If you think this is bad:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/csrumgv?context=3

wait until the Gavinistas attempt their contentious fork with an ostensible (and much lower) "75%" of the network...   

"Gavinistas" is my new terminology to refer to the r/bitcoin crowd. +1

[edmundedgar]

BIP66 thought it had "95%" support, which in reality turned out to be 64%.

Can you elaborate? Isn't it pretty easy to ascertain if the 95% of the previous 1000 blocks version 3, or is there any confusion here?

If you think this is bad:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/csrumgv?context=3

wait until the Gavinistas attempt their contentious fork with an ostensible (and much lower) "75%" of the network...  

Actually it works the other way around. A soft fork adds limitations that make previously-valid blocks invalid, so miners who aren't enforcing _any_ limitations are effectively on the "didn't upgrade" side. But a hard fork makes blocks that were previously invalid valid, so if 75% are advertising big-block support but some miners who haven't advertised that aren't validating at all, you'll actually have more than 75% mining the big-block main chain.

PS. In reality you'll have much more than 75% advertising big-block support once the switch-over comes (if it ever does) because most miners will upgrade during the 2-week grace period rather than be left mining dead coins.

PPS. After losing money this way I doubt many miners will continue running with verification completely switched off; They have much better alternatives either by getting blocks propagated faster and mining normally or by at least verifying in parallel and giving up trying to mine on top of blocks once they've found that they're invalid.

[iCEBREAKER]

A soft fork adds limitations that make previously-valid blocks invalid, so miners who aren't enforcing _any_ limitations are effectively on the "didn't upgrade" side. But a hard fork makes blocks that were previously invalid valid, so if 75% are advertising big-block support but some miners who haven't advertised that aren't validating at all, you'll actually have more than 75% mining the big-block main chain.

PS. In reality you'll have much more than 75% advertising big-block support once the switch-over comes (if it ever does) because most miners will upgrade during the 2-week grace period rather than be left mining dead coins.

PPS. After losing money this way I doubt many miners will continue running with verification completely switched off; They have much better alternatives either by getting blocks propagated faster and mining normally or by at least verifying in parallel and giving up trying to mine on top of blocks once they've found that they're invalid.

Fair enough, but don't forget MPEX, etc. plan to sabotage any attempt to raise max_blocksize.  IE, they will falsely advertise >1MB compliance in order to (prematurely) bait the hard fork into a prearranged GavinCoin Short kill box.

As for losing money on invalid blocks, only the pool ops know exactly what strategy they're using and whether or not 'loss leader' invalid blocks are ultimately in the aggregate profitable.

[edmundedgar]

A soft fork adds limitations that make previously-valid blocks invalid, so miners who aren't enforcing _any_ limitations are effectively on the "didn't upgrade" side. But a hard fork makes blocks that were previously invalid valid, so if 75% are advertising big-block support but some miners who haven't advertised that aren't validating at all, you'll actually have more than 75% mining the big-block main chain.

PS. In reality you'll have much more than 75% advertising big-block support once the switch-over comes (if it ever does) because most miners will upgrade during the 2-week grace period rather than be left mining dead coins.

PPS. After losing money this way I doubt many miners will continue running with verification completely switched off; They have much better alternatives either by getting blocks propagated faster and mining normally or by at least verifying in parallel and giving up trying to mine on top of blocks once they've found that they're invalid.

Fair enough, but don't forget MPEX, etc. plan to sabotage any attempt to raise max_blocksize.  IE, they will falsely advertise >1MB compliance in order to (prematurely) bait the hard fork into a prearranged GavinCoin Short kill box.

This is not a serious suggestion. You'd need 25% of mining power to pull it off even if zero miners switched in the grace period, but since most of the remaining miners will switch during the grace period you need more like [conservatively] 45%. MPEX control approximately 0% of mining power, and if they were able to acquire more than 25% they could block bigger blocks the normal way by refusing to upgrade.

[bitcoinarchitecture]

IMO it is not in the best interest of Bitcoin to create two camps, XT and CORE.
We need to stick together for bitcoin to succeed.

[hund]

What most of the silicon valley morons in their ivory towers don't get is: when unemployment rates and inflation keep following the trends and another stockmarket crash and financial crisis happen within next decade nobody in the general population will be able to afford the bandwidth to run bitcoin.
So in a situation where people would need it it has become inaccessible due to bandwidth requirements which almost nobody will be able to meet simply because internet connection speed won't grow in times when people barely can put food on the table.

Increasing blocksize like this will be the end of bitcoin even if the fork doesn't result in instant meltdown.

Bandwidth grow will slow and because the SV guys' prediction doesn't come true bitcoin will be useless.
With increasing the blocksize like that you also accept that your coins become worthless in case either bandwidth doesn't grow as predicted or adoption doesn't grow as predicted. Effectively you tie the fate of bitcoin to the correctness of your estimates, guesses and predictions which will likely fail.

Reminder: nobody knows the future ... so you are one big parade of fails.

[Carlton Banks]

Reminder: nobody knows the future ...

Except you, apparently?

[DannyHamilton]

Reminder: nobody knows the future.

This is the only thing you said that makes sense.  I agree completely.

So, if nobody knows the future, then how can you say any of the following?

- snip -
unemployment rates and inflation keep following the trends
- snip -
stockmarket crash and financial crisis happen within next decade
- snip -
nobody in the general population will be able to afford the bandwidth
- snip -
requirements which almost nobody will be able to meet
- snip -
internet connection speed won't grow
- snip -
this will be the end of bitcoin
- snip -
Bandwidth grow will slow
- snip -
bitcoin will be useless.
- snip -