Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[LiteCoinGuy]

Why is Bitcoin forking?

Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.

That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.

...

A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.

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



In Satoshis words i trust   

[1714906995]

1714906995

[1714906995]

1714906995

[1714906995]

1714906995

[LiteCoinGuy]

Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86%

8MB:
F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)
AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda
BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b
BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a
KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076
Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992
21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927
Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)


https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/

[Eastfist]

Why is Bitcoin forking?

Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.

That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.

...

A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.

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



In Satoshis words i trust   

Not a cult? Gotta be more responsible for your own decision making in life. May some bad shit happen, don't blame Satoshi. This isn't a game.

[Lauda]

Total known mining power supporting big blocks: 68.86%

8MB:
F2Pool (19.77%): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)
AntPool (16.68%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/1c7ce8b32ffa6f3ceb6a343828bc6d9fbf10a06bb884ecee042d6740716d0bda
BTCChina (11.86%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/498e4a4225a9cd147ec5091fbcf2a3ca2a9a0f8e18566af50e37c1802360b82b
BW pool (7.14%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/0fe25d362c3567ec7d9b485aa8d77c10c27bc464c610eab8639fc3876518cd4a
KNCMiner (4.63%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/4022ca10810c7ce69a17bc612a94c1114cabd7fa8141106c12b0c402ecd68076
Slush (4.63%): https://twitter.com/AlenaSatoshi/status/631369094718164992
21 Inc (4.15%): https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/fa142a8cac0a292d8319b8f8cd048dcb6c577dafcdd0a96842eedfeb9ab07927
Huobi (unknown): https://i.imgur.com/JUnQcue.jpg (Chinese)


https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/

Supporting bigger blocks =/= supporting Bitcoin XT. However, it looks like only a handful of people around here realize this. I can't stress it enough though. Obviously pools from China are going to like that upgrade once other miners start getting (more) orphans, so this isn't really a surprise.
As long as Hearn doesn't call the shots, I'm fine.

[LiteCoinGuy]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

[forevernoob]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

[Lauda]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Wrong:
1) We are not running out of time as the average block size is not near 1 MB.
2) Read BIP 100 and 102.

Core is implementing bigger blocks as well and possibly even sooner than XT.

[LiteCoinGuy]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

[forevernoob]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month?
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

[harrymmmm]

When all it comes down to is : they dont like the fact that this fork is NOT being led by bitcoin core devs.

I don't like it either. I believe users and miners want to stick with Core given a choice. I would very much prefer Core devs to initiate "bigger blocks" fork, but they were rejecting it because they believe it's not a long term solution, and for some reason, they don't want to implement this "quick fix" to buy time while they work out this "long term solution". Now XT has given each of us a voice and it's everyone's own decision to vote. I am waiting for developments and I will vote when the time comes.

That's fair enough, and describes my position exactly as well.
It would only need core devs to throw us a bone to stop all this nonsense, but well ... egos.

[meono]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month?
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Very rare that i see a post that suit its poster's username.

Bravo.

[LiteCoinGuy]

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month?
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

The reason why the big-blockians are calling for an increase in early 2016 is that at the current pace, the network will get saturated in mid-2016, and "traffic jams" will become a recurrent "feature". They claim (and I fully agree) that such state will be disastrous for bitcoin. Thus, that proposal is the same thing as denying the increase: it will result in saturation and traffic jams by mid-2016.

The Blockstream devs openly want that to happen because they believe that a "fee market" is necessary and will somehow make bitcoin better, and that the traffic must be prevented from growing. Delaying the increase until 2017 will lead to that.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.

look at Nielsen's Law:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem.

Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install.

How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk  if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully?

If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using.

And you think that will solve somehow by letting the blocks stay at 1MB? What kind of currency would you have when only some transactions can go through?

You would solve nothing but destroying what you want to keep.

But yes... the downloading of blocks is way too slow. I don't know why that is. I mean every filesharing p2p software is faster most of the time. Maybe it needs only having more nodes connected to?

...

A quick check let me read that the versions from 0.10 download the blockchain sequencial. Such allowing faster downloads. Guess they work on speeding up things.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal.  The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place.  Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect.  Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network.  In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time.  Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain.  If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top.  If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin?  If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one?

Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee.  And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue.  Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes.  If it doesn't, something else will.  

Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.

*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.

And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?

I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.

Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners.

I do not agree with either parts of your post. Filling up a block costs money, and I doubt that someone would be able to make huge blocks without that costing them a lot. Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening.
There is no risking with a proper hard fork. Why risk using third party solutions; i.e. meaning we stop relying on the protocol itself?

So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks?

And you await the spammers to fill a considerable amount of 8MB blocks? What about no block limit at all? Why spamming then? Minimum fee would ensure that it is costly and it would be useless. So everyone who wants to do it would be free to do... only it would not make sense.

You have not? What about those recent spam attacks that happened? A lot of people were complaining about their transactions not going through because the blocks were full. The market did not adapt that time, nor do I understand why people think that higher fees are going to be beneficial to Bitcoin.

The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM.
Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works.

*lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it.

Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly.

[bitcoinmasterlord]

People can't agree because almost everyone around here is closed minded. At first I was willing to accept Gavins proposal, however that did not turn out to be the best choice of action and thus I began changing my stance towards this matter. I'm willing to compensate to a 2 MB increase as Jeff proposed and I openly welcome other solutions (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). However, people on the other side of the argument do not seem to want to compensate to anything. It's their way or no way at all.

You can't say that people on the other side are not able to negotiated with. If you think a 2MB block is a solution of some kind then this might sound to others like nonsense. And you don't need to take compromises when you think the compromise is bad. You woud fight for what you want instead.

I think that is a valid thing to do. Not accepting things that are unacceptable. That has nothing to do with being a blockhead. Of course each party can throw this word to the other party but it won't solve anything. At the end the network decides. And hopefully the networks majority is filled from those that want to have bitcoin a longterm project. Not making it an expensive thing on the same level like things we already had before only to promote some altcoins...

[forevernoob]

Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.

*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that?
What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT?
Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin.

And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?

I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.

Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners.

Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network.
There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network.

*lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it.

Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly.

Fiat without fees? Ever heard of inflation?

[meono]

Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.

*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.

I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that?
What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT?
Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin.

And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?

I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.

Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners.

Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network.
There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network.

Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys



Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain

[jones techbit]

Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future.

[VeritasSapere]

This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

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

[DooMAD]

This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

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

That's a relief.  Was starting to think I was the only one who saw it that way and was almost beginning to question if there were any sane people left here on the forum.  I couldn't agree more.  There are still far too many people here that, for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, mistakenly believe Bitcoin should behave more like a closed-source project, where a single team of developers make all the decisions and the userbase has no freedom to choose.  And worse still, some people think a fork proposal is an attack on the system.  They've got it completely backwards.  Not being able to fork would be an attack on the system.  

Thank you for restoring my faith that there are still some people left who understand this correctly.