Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[omahapoker]

even though larger blocks would give faster confirmation, it would encourage transaction flooding! giving increase limit of blockchain would not ever encourage the sustainability, if someone had a spare time to do some of the test like stress test, most of the full node users would be in trouble on synchronising them. IIRC this would lead to the complaints from most of the full node users with the problem of the stress test, transaction flooding and/or so on.

the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure.

all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140.

How do you get the idea that with uncapped blocksize we would get a huge increase in blocksize because of transaction flooding?

I mean didn'nt you notice that we had this 1MB limit for years and there did NOT happen anything like that even though the blocks were not even nearly full.

I think that argument already was disproven by reality.

[omahapoker]

if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.

Exactly. I hate to see that the developers behave either immature (Gavin), have ideas that will hurt bitcoin (Hearn) or even want to hurt bitcoin directly with high fees so that their sidechain coin will bring them more profits.

It's like the choice between pest and cholera. Though i think the only way now is to support bitcoin xt but drop support as soon as strange ideas from hearn or gavin come up.

[chek2fire]

i like to see you all when the bitcoin will lost it trust from the people and every coin price will drop below 1 dollar. You must read all of you the basic economic lessons.
Spent one or two hours to read book what means trust and after take part in this bitcoinxt nonsense

[BNO]

One should really support XT because:

• The 1MB was introduces as a quick fix for a problem at that time, It is Nothing like the "Original idea of bitcoin" it was and is a hardcoded arbitrarily number, which everyone knew at that time would have to be changed at some point
• Is it so hard to see that the new develpers just are against XT is for: a) private profit interest b)loss of power and status. This is not for the good of bitcoin
• If a developing country as china (respectively their miners) are O.K. with 8MB blocks everyone else shouldn't have a problem with it. What's all this nonsense about BTC would become a thing of big corporations and so on for a Blocksize of 8 MB?? How large is a video that you watch? This is absolutely no problem for homeusers to use that
• In fact if you are against an increase you are totally promoting big corps to step in. If transactions over the bitcoinnetwork become slow due to artificially low blocksizes, people will "learn" that it is much more hasslefree to send money via Coinbase, bitpay and other services, that use internally an SQL database and work just like an ordinary bank. So you will end up having a super centralized de facto Network of Coinbase etc. which then do 90%+ of the transactions and the original bitcoinnetwork is then just the "clearing network" for those big corps which send from while to while an transaction to another big corp to settle debt between them. /li] NOT increasing blocksizes is just artificially creating a problem so that big corps can step it to solve it.
  The same holds true for all the other solutions: there is a strong private profit interest in not increasing the blocksize. If this solutions are at some point in time so much better and actully ready for prime, then the bitcoinnetwork will accept them - why shouldn't it? But in the meantime there is nothing that speaks against increasing from 1MB to 8, no harm is done. Except you somehow fear for you future profits and want to establish the silly rule that this arbitrary number is not allowed to change
• Bitcoin XT does in no way bad its just "activated" if and only if 75% accept it. No damage done here.
  

You don't have to like Gavin or Hearn, but nothing sensible speaks against 8MB. Its just fear mongering non sense for the sake of private profit. Vote right.

[chek2fire]

the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple

[pedrog]

One should really support XT because:

• The 1MB was introduces as a quick fix for a problem at that time, It is Nothing like the "Original idea of bitcoin" it was and is a hardcoded arbitrarily number, which everyone knew at that time would have to be changed at some point
• Is it so hard to see that the new develpers just are against XT is for: a) private profit interest b)loss of power and status. This is not for the good of bitcoin
• If a developing country as china (respectively their miners) are O.K. with 8MB blocks everyone else shouldn't have a problem with it. What's all this nonsense about BTC would become a thing of big corporations and so on for a Blocksize of 8 MB?? How large is a video that you watch? This is absolutely no problem for homeusers to use that
• In fact if you are against an increase you are totally promoting big corps to step in. If transactions over the bitcoinnetwork become slow due to artificially low blocksizes, people will "learn" that it is much more hasslefree to send money via Coinbase, bitpay and other services, that use internally an SQL database and work just like an ordinary bank. So you will end up having a super centralized de facto Network of Coinbase etc. which then do 90%+ of the transactions and the original bitcoinnetwork is then just the "clearing network" for those big corps which send from while to while an transaction to another big corp to settle debt between them. /li] NOT increasing blocksizes is just artificially creating a problem so that big corps can step it to solve it.
  The same holds true for all the other solutions: there is a strong private profit interest in not increasing the blocksize. If this solutions are at some point in time so much better and actully ready for prime, then the bitcoinnetwork will accept them - why shouldn't it? But in the meantime there is nothing that speaks against increasing from 1MB to 8, no harm is done. Except you somehow fear for you future profits and want to establish the silly rule that this arbitrary number is not allowed to change
• Bitcoin XT does in no way bad its just "activated" if and only if 75% accept it. No damage done here.
  

You don't have to like Gavin or Hearn, but nothing sensible speaks against 8MB. Its just fear mongering non sense for the sake of private profit. Vote right.

Bitcoin Core is going to be rebranded Blockstream Core.

[chek2fire]

BitcoinXT try for political reform of bitcoin to be part of the bank financial system. This is not a simple matter of block increase but this is the future of bitcoin. If you that future to the hand of two developers and if you want bitcoin to have a leader then go to create an altcoin. Is no needing to destroy bitcoin!

[BNO]

the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple

the fear mongering nonsense i just talked about. A sensible, really minor adjustment, that only comes into play if 75% approve is now destroying bitcoin.. Think about it: When in your democracy have been 75% for something?? This limit is very high. I hope they succeed.

[allthingsluxury]

This truly is the debate of our time. I have to say that both sides make valid arguments, in the end the majority is going to win out and the other will slowly fade away. As a business, I will be forced into what the majority decides, as that is what the processors will use.

[chek2fire]

the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple

the fear mongering nonsense i just talked about. A sensible, really minor adjustment, that only comes into play if 75% approve is now destroying bitcoin.. Think about it: When in your democracy have been 75% been for something?? This limit is very high. I hope they succeed.

give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this??

[LiteCoinGuy]

core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm.

source?

[chek2fire]

https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

In recent months the Bitcoin development community has faced difficult discussions of how to safely improve the scalability and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network. To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities. This may be considered as similar in intent and process to the NIST-SHA3 design process where performance and security were in a tradeoff for a security critical application.

Since Bitcoin is a P2P currency with many stakeholders, it is important to collect requirements as broadly as possible, and through the process enhance everyone’s understanding of the technical properties of Bitcoin to help foster an inclusive, transparent, and informed process.

this is how you can proper do something with public discussion and not in the old cowboy style with violence.

[BNO]

give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this??

Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true.
The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity.

AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided.

If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die....

Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected...
 

[LiteCoinGuy]

@BNO

pretty good post  - i would sign that

[chek2fire]

and with the first problem we run to a central power or we create a central ruler to take control of bitcoin?

[chek2fire]

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

[mudiko]

i think we dont need bigger blocks for now.why should we make it bigger earlier which can occur some problem

[DooMAD]

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

Yeah, we should stop being open-source so that no one can alter the code.  That way, a central group of developers make all the decisions and have to agree at all times.  All users then either have to run that pre-approved code, or not take part at all.  That would be much better than the system we have now where people can make a choice.   

Then we can introduce trusted payment channels, too, so there's no need to facilitate more transactions on the blockchain!   

Oh wait, there's already a closed-source project with payment channels.  Why don't you go use that?  Sounds like you'd enjoy it much more than Bitcoin.

[chek2fire]

i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain.

[LiteCoinGuy]

one of the largest pools:



75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment)