Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too

[LiteCoinGuy]

over 10 % XT Nodes within 3 days.

[1713868625]

1713868625

[1713868625]

1713868625

[1713868625]

1713868625

[1713868625]

1713868625

[forevernoob]

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

So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.

[VeritasSapere]

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

So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.

Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties.

[meono]

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

So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.

Go use paypal if you dont know the difference.

I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence.

[forevernoob]

Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties.

No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee.
I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work.
Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work.
There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain.

Go use paypal if you dont know the difference.

I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence.

Don't you have any better argument than that?
I'm not shocked, pal.

Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees. 

[VeritasSapere]

Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties.

No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee.
I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work.
Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work.
There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain.

Go use paypal if you dont know the difference.

I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence.

Don't you have any better argument than that?
I'm not shocked, pal.

Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees.  

I am not saying that there should be no fee, however if we do have massive adoption and we only have a one megabyte block size then a normal transaction will cost way to much for an average person and it would only be practical for large payment processors or extremely large organizations to use the main chain directly. If that happened I would just stop using Bitcoin and transact on a different blockchain instead. I would like to continue using Bitcoin myself but if the fee costs more then the product that I am purchasing it would no longer make sense for me to use Bitcoin since thankfully competition does exist and I can use a blockchain that does not have this arbitrary limit put in place.

I do not actually think that Bitcoin will get mass adoption if this limit is put in place. Since one of the advantages of Bitcoin is that we do not need third parties, “forcing” people to use third parties for Bitcoin will take away some of its advantage. I do realize that eventually most transactions will have to be performed off chain, however I think that it is more important to increase adoption first and keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective, increased adoption would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.  

I do agree with you however that insulting a persons intelligence is not a good argument lol.

[medUSA]

As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you.

BIP 100:
Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
<snip>

I am aware of BIP102. It's the least radical proposal. I thought it would unite various factions and bitcoin could then move forward. I am still waiting for signs that Core is implementing BIP102. I think communications among the devs has broken down and there is too much hostility to come to any middle ground. Average users like us have no sway over the Core devs' direction, XT gives us a chance to voice out. 

Those not sure what BIP100/102 proposes, here is a summary:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153957.0

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 chart show day averages. Hitting the limit one or twice a day doesn't pull the day average up. When the chart shows a peak, it means blocks are hitting the limit very frequently in a day. Raising the limit is a preemptive move, planning ahead before it gets really bad.

[Eodguy149]

I don't think anyone actually believes that blocks should stay 1mb forever, most devs just disagree on the right way to accomplish the block size increase. A hard fork is not a trivial thing, especially now that the Bitcoin market cap is over $3 billion, and most want a solution that will last the life of Bitcoin so that a hard fork never has to happen again. It's a difficult situation with valid arguments on both sides.

[VeritasSapere]

I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

In a perfect world we could have infinitesimally small transactions being transacted in-chain but I dont think this is viable long term, so LN may be a solid solution for this. maybe in the future we can have everything on the chain but not anytime soon.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well.

that is the problem. i would stay with Core too but not with artificial 1 MB blocks  


first block mined with XT

https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d


12.5 % XT Nodes

[hikedoon]

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    

       Thank's LiteCoinGuy,  that link was worth reading.

[peligro]

What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org"....

LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot.

I don't think theymos is against the raising of max block size limit. He only gave out an order that bitcoin xt is an altcoin once it forked.

I doubt that he believes that the majority of users will go with bitcoin xt, that's simply not imagineable.

So far i understood it all the time so that theymos supports a bigger block size. Or am i wrong?

[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.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

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.

The guys not only are puttin dodgy code that will kill privacy (the Tor blacklist is just a work of evil) the thing is, 75% is shit nothing when it comes to a hard fork, it should have been 90% minimum.

[peligro]

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

Heya  

Off the top of my helmet:

1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder
2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees)
3) They want to encourage alt-coin use  

Point 3... what is a lightning network other than an altcoin? It might be a sidechain but still it is not bitcoin.

Point 1... If you think it is easier to handle only a couple of big transactions then you are right. With a block size limit of 1 we would turn bitcoin into a high value transportation system with fees compareable to paypal. And we would get far away from what satoshi wanted, providing an alternative to the current fiat system. That would only work with small transactions possible and that means the transaction can't be worth less than it's fee.

Point 2 is nonsense. I don't think they don't think so. They know it will be so. They only think that instead users will use their sidechain then. Bringing them personal profits.

This developer team is so corrupt at the moment. It's no fun watching at.

[peligro]

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.

I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly.

So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then.

[funkenstein]

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.

I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly.

So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then.

The argument is that with bigger block size, the space is less valuable, so the required fee will be lower, so -- easier to send microTX/dust/spam.  If you make it easier and cheaper, then more people come to fill the space, and in the end you are faced with the same problem again - except this time it is now unfeasible to even run a node on reasonable hardware/pipe.   

[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. So if we the people want bigger blocks it must be done through a hard fork, whether that is XT or another proposal. The ability to hard fork exists so that such disagreements can be resolved and so that we have the ability to disrupt the centralization of power that can come to exist within a development team.

[Lauda]

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.