Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[WestHarrison]

I'd be very happy to be able to wire money anywhere in the world, completely free from central control, for only $20. Equally I'll happily accept more centralized methods to transfer money when I'm just buying a chocolate bar.

That discussion many years ago is very educational.  I agree that for services to be built on top of the layer 0 fees would need to be bigger and that tinkering with Bitcoin as is always leads to certain unknowns, but when I read this 20 dollar figure per transaction fee I can't help but feel uncomfortable.

Who would even use Bitcoin at this cost? If only a few fringe cases of people would use btc by then, then who would actually buy bitcoin and at what cost? Would btc come crashing down to a couple of bucks? If that's the case then the 20 dollars would be an important fraction of the actual BTC bought to transact across the world. 

[funkenstein]

Also relevant:

http://coin-vote.com/poll/55d5fbe74df0a76e09bafeea

[LiteCoinGuy]

[VeritasSapere]

Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.
-snip-

Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.

So we should just trust them that they will do it eventually even though they have been unable to come to an agreement? Because if everyone just trusts the blockstream/Core developers that they will do this. They could just get their way like that, all they need to do is stall the development for long enough. I refuse to entrust Bitcoin with a small group of Core developers, we should not trust anyone in such a way, Bitcoin is meant to be trustless. Since that is the reality now, choose Core and we will not increase the block size, or choose XT and we will increase the block size. If you can point me towards another alternative hard fork or if you can show me definitively that Core will definitely increase the block size I will rest my case.

I would like to ask you personally, how long would you wait for the block size increase, before you lose faith in the Core development team? Since if we wait longer then it takes for the blocks to fill up, blockstream will get its way and we will be forced to use third parties instead of being able to use Bitcoin directly. If that did happen however I would simply start using a different cryptocurrency.

[hodedowe]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.




Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

[meono]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

[croTek4]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

.002 at current maket price is about $0.46 we're not using bitcoin to pay 46 cents per transaction!!

[sintax]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.

Oh did you actually?

And did you check the source of material that you read?

Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result

I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!

[kokojie]

Faster blocks > bigger blocks

Faster confirmation is what the user wants

[VeritasSapere]

Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:

• XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
• The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
• The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.

Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.




Edited to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--


Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.

I am not convinced by your arguments, I have already addressed what you have said here. Could you please try and rebuttal the arguments I have already presented in this thread.

[TheAnalogKid]

You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking.  For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay.  There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.

In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee.  That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well.  You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT.  Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it.

BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB?  Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth.

[Kazimir]

Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.

Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.

Nonsense. Jeff Garzik, Pieter Wuille and Adam have each proposed several alternatives to increase the block size. It's not like Gavin and Mike are the only ones who are willing to increase the block size. The problem is how they try and push their proposal in a way that's very bad for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[VeritasSapere]

You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.

Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking.  For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay.  There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.

In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee.  That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well.  You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT.  Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it.

BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB?  Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth.

Indeed, the 1MB block size limit was only put in place as a temporary measure. To quote Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore."

"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

This has all been presented in the article by Mike Hearn which everyone should read, since it presents the arguments concisely of why we should fork. A must read for anyone wanting to research this subject and be well informed:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

[dasource]

<snip>

Good collection of info, thanks.

[VeritasSapere]

Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.

Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.

Nonsense. Jeff Garzik, Pieter Wuille and Adam have each proposed several alternatives to increase the block size. It's not like Gavin and Mike are the only ones who are willing to increase the block size. The problem is how they try and push their proposal in a way that's very bad for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

This is not true, because the Core development team can not agree on increasing the block size there is essentially a stalemate within the Core development team. The only way forward if we want bigger blocks is by forking away from the Core development team. If I am wrong then please point me towards a Core client that I can run now that will support bigger blocks in the future?

[Slark]

Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.
-snip-

Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.

Core can be upgraded, it is possible. But people need to understand that every block change MUST be done via forking. There will be old fork with 1MB and new upgraded bigger fork existing simultaneously.
But Core developers are fighting about size, properties etc. of new block so I doubt that will happen soon.

[VeritasSapere]

Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.
-snip-

Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.

Core can be upgraded, it is possible. But people need to understand that every block change MUST be done via forking. There will be old fork with 1MB and new upgraded bigger fork existing simultaneously.

It is technically possible I agree however it seems to be practically impossible because of the people involved within the Core development team that can not come to an agreement, leading to a stalemate. That is why Core will never increase the block size. Indeed it is good to remember that any change to the block size will lead to a fork. I do not think that the Core development team should be the "authority" or "official" development team, such notions do not belong in Bitcoin. Bitcoin is meant to be free and decentralized. Hard forking away from the “official” development team can be considered part of Bitcoins birthing pains and one of the ultimate expressions of this freedom and decentralization.

[chek2fire]

People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

and better this

Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

[VeritasSapere]

People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

and better this

Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

I do agree with Charlie Lee that such a hard fork should be a measure of last resort, which is why I agree with BIP101 forking Bitcoin, since I think that is the situation we are in now. I think that if we stay with Core we will have one megabyte blocks forever since it seems clear that the Core development team just can not agree with each other on this issue, leading to a stalemate.

[chek2fire]

core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm. The evolution never need a shock to be successful.