#Blocksize Survey

[Adrian-x]

the Miners follow us, they dont want to mine a coin no one accepts. Miners can mine all the alt coins they want, I'm only accepting Bitcoin and mining it too.

So you're going to be the first to stick your neck out and start accepting XTcoins, in order to begin establishing its alleged economic majority?

Such a brave choice.  XT needs more White Knights like you, since smoothie chickened out.

OK, I'll happily pay you in XTcoins for whatever you want to sell.  Got any silver, gold, or prepper gear/camping supplies?

nice try, Blockstream-coin if it survives will be an alt, I suspect Gmax and co will eat some humble Pie and move over to working on the Original Bitcoin.

the whole idea of a fork being a divorce is ludicrous and shame on you for speeding such crap, almost every significant upgrade to bitcoin has resulted in a hard fork, this upgrade will be no different, it's a problem developers dont want to fix bugs for feer of fracturing the network now is the time to do it as you know it only gets harder as we go forward.  

There has never been a contentious hard fork of Bitcoin, so in any case, XT's would be necessarily be "different."

And that's why you Gavinista's authoritarian junta is not going to happen.

In a contentious hard fork, somebody (the most hardcore Gavinista ever) has to stick their neck out and be the first to accept XTcoins, at the risk of them becoming worthless if their contentious fork fails.

OTOH, those staying safely with the previously demonstrated multi-billion dollar economic majority may seek to exploit the ideological (over)commitments of XTcoin's White Knight first actors, in the form of MPEX's XTcoin Short.  No wonder you don't want to sell your silver for my XTcoins!

Given enough leverage, Team Core will move XT's world onto the ash heap of history.   

Watch and learn, n00b...   

Every day blocks are orphaned by competition for the longest chain, each orphan represent a failed fork, the reason miners stop mining the shortest chain is they mine coins that will be accepted by the users of the network. This is not political or risky, the chain that accommodates the most transactions and uses create a market for miners to sell the coins they mine and so will be the longest.

This is how Bitcoin works, and has always worked.

I've known "how Bitcoin works" since before you made your account here.  But thanks for the (partial) refresher.

What you left out is the key role of the economic majority, and more specifically, the risk incurred by those (brave) actors who are first to attempt defection from it.

I'm not sure you do know how it works, the economic majority dont defect, the incentives ensure the majority's interests are best served.
You call this a hostile hard fork and an Altcion because you have another agenda that requires you to use political manipulation and fear to choose a path that is not in there best interests.

You are losing credibility by trying to elevate your understanding of Bitcoin by bench marking of my membership date. what relevance is that? 

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm not sure you do know how it works, the economic majority dont defect, the incentives ensure the majority's interests are best served.
You call this a hostile hard fork and an Altcion because you have another agenda that requires you to use political manipulation and fear to choose a path that is not in there best interests.

You are losing credibility by trying to elevate your understanding of Bitcoin by bench marking of my membership date. what relevance is that? 

Your relatively recent membership date became relevant when you presumed to lecture me on Mining 101 and How Bitcoin Works.

Actualizing XT's theoretical economic majority just got harder, as the risk of defecting from Bitcoin's is now compounded by the additional uncertainty generated by NotXT and PseudoNode.   

What you call "political manipulation and fear" others call "computer science."



#R3KT

[flix]

MeniRosenfeld
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

Sorry for being the odd one out in theymos' list, not having my stance on the issue clear . I will clarify it, but only after I explain at length why I reject the whole premise of the question.
This used to be a technical debate about block sizes. We were presented with two bad choices: Keep it at 1MB which is obviously too low, or increase to 8MB/20MB which is obviously too high (obvious to me anyway). As a community we've failed to reach a compromise, and I think that if more people pushed for a reasonable number like 3-4 MB in the short term (including also Gavin and Mike on one extreme, and Peter on the other), things would be different now.
Given that compromise failed, Gavin and Mike went ahead to push Bitcoin-XT, and now the real issue isn't about technology, it's about the philosophy of Bitcoin evolution. To me, Bitcoin-XT represents a somewhat reckless approach, which in the name of advancement shatters existing structures, fragments the community, and spins the ecosystem into chaos. Whereas Bitcoin Core represents a frigid approach, where no technology improvement will ever be made because consensus can't be reached, and where we can't do anything about the fact that we can't do anything, because of the delegitimization of attempts to change the status quo by forking and letting the best currency win (and make no mistakes, there will be many necessary technology improvements down the road; the block size limit pales in comparison).
Both choices are bad.
I had plans once to write a paper about the game-theoretic aspects of changing the Bitcoin protocol, the contingencies in case of a fork, and how the mere threat of a fork can create a Schelling point which would prevent it from happening. I regret never getting around to it, because it might have been illuminating in the current debate. (For that matter, the other paper I had plans for writing was about transaction fees and how they relate to things like a block size limit; I regret that too, but again the block size is no longer the real issue).
But anyway, I do strongly believe that the possibility of forking Bitcoin - even if at first it has no consensus - is vital to Bitcoin's health, growth and survival. It's the glue that holds everything together and makes sure the Bitcoin economy has a say in case something goes wrong with the development. Ideally a contentious fork would forever remain a theoretical possibility - but if it is possible it means it can happen, and that's what we're seeing right now. Rejecting a fork on the grounds that it's a fork is wrong.
Of course, there are grounds to reject Bitcoin-XT on the grounds that its timing and method are wrong. The objection to the technical change was too strong to just gloss over it. We're definitely not anywhere near the point where Pieter, Greg or Wladimir can be conceivably considered rogue and we should break away from them. Mike and Gavin have, quite arrogantly I would say, assumed that this is just like any other software change and that virtually everyone will just automatically follow them, where the reality is far from it. They didn't properly consider the consequences of making this move without enough support. (They might reply that they have been fighting for this for a long time and exhausted all other options, but I don't accept this - they made many attempts at persuasion, but not enough at compromise).
So here we are, having to choose between two bad alternatives. The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).
But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...

Given the choice between short-term sticking with 1MB or going all the way to 8MB, I am in favor of going to 8MB.
Given the choice between sticking with Bitcoin Core or switching to Bitcoin-XT, I am in slight favor of sticking with Bitcoin Core, but that could change any time.

All that said, the parent post explaining theymos' policy makes no sense to me. As explained above, the possibility of forking is an integral part of Bitcoin. As long as Bitcoin-XT has non-negligible support as the true Bitcoin implementation, even with nothing resembling unanimous consensus, it is a part of what Bitcoin is, and of course is on topic on a Bitcoin subreddit.
Even if for some reason we take a purist approach that Bitcoin = Bitcoin Core, I'd imagine that most posts about Bitcoin-XT would compare it in some way to Bitcoin Core, and as such are on-topic (just like a post comparing Bitcoin and Litecoin would be on topic).
I'm considering upgrading the above to a post, but honestly, since it includes a discussion of Bitcoin-XT, I'm not even sure it passes the moderation rules...

[RoadTrain]

I think Meni is quite rational here. Calling for a compromise is what we should be doing, I believe.

[GreenStox]

No increase until the block doesnt reach 70% fullness, its no reason to increase it until we have low block size.

I`d prefer the 8mb one if they would do it, but i think its not needed.

But anyway its not us who decide but the miners... Talking about decentralization... Bitcoin is a fucking oligarchy!

the Miners follow us, they dont want to mine a coin no one accepts. Miners can mine all the alt coins they want, I'm only accepting Bitcoin and mining it too.

its the network that gives Bitcoin its Value, the network is us, the best theory to prove his is Peter R's Metcalfe's Law correlation  miners mine for value the value is in the network.

Perhaps Bytecoin can resolve this issue, the whole point of this centralization in bitcoin is getting worse and worse.
 Our bitcoins are held hostage by a few greedy miners and stupid devs.

It's obvious that the blocksize should be increased, but its the plain old divide & conquer bullshit, and there are plenty of followers on the other side too, which could cause fork in bitcoin.

We really need a real decentralized system, not a pseudo one.

[RoadTrain]

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you...

[NextTroll]

The Bitcoin Network will probably reach the 7 tps level in 2016 at current growth rates. With a maximum block size of 1MB this will force an increase in fees and stress the network, unless the rules are changed to allow larger blocks.

Here is a summary of several major proposals by the core developers on how to solve this issue:

For near-term increase:
Gavin Andresen: Currently favors "8MB very soon, then automatic double every two years till it hits 8GB in distant future", aka BIP101. Also finds Jeff Garzik's BIP100 (see below) acceptable.
Mike Hearn: Agrees with Gavin on BIP101. Currently working on implementing the increase in an alternative client, Bitcoin XT, to provide full node operators with a real choice.
Jeff Garzik: Favors "8MB after miner negotiation and a delay period before enforcement, stepping up/down on maxblocksize possible after with similar miner voting, absolute upper limit for the hard fork at 32MB", aka BIP100. Also proposed "2MB immediately and nothing further", aka BIP102, as an emergency stopgap in case adoption takes off, fees ratchet up and the sudden ecosystem meltdown puts further growth in danger.

For very conservative increase:
Pieter Wuille: "First increase scheduled at 2017 (to ~1.04MB, I believe), then automatic increase some 17% per year till 2GB in distant future", aka "Draft BIP103" (nominally un-numbered).
Luke-jr: Finds Pieter's proposal an acceptable compromise, though generally favors smaller blocks, occasionally expressing views that even 1MB blocks are too big.

Against increase until "something X is implemented":
Adam Back: Proposed "Extension blocks", aka a sidechain-lite, that allows migration to bigger blocks with only a soft fork. Also favors only migrating when sidechain tech is ready, against hard-forks in general.

Against increase in near-to-medium term future:
Gregory Maxwell: Against hard-forks in general, also against bigger blocks in the short-to-medium term future.
Mark Friedenbach: Against hard-forks in general, also against bigger blocks in the short-to-medium term future.

Staying neutral:
Wladimir J. van der Lann (Core lead dev): "You guys wake me up when you have a consensus, not gonna merge anything till then" (not actual words)

I vote with BIP100 or BIP101

[GreenStox]

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you...

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

[RoadTrain]

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you...

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

What if it's their primary plan? That's possible.

[DooMAD]

My first choice is BIP101, but if certain corners of the community are absolutely hellbent on torpedoing it through increasingly fraudulent means (the 'notXT' spoof client, impersonating satoshi, reddit and forum censorship, calling it an altcoin, general FUD or misinformation and all the other underhand and dishonest shit that's currently going on), I would settle on this proposal as a compromise or fallback.

However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves.

  

[Possum577]

Consensus, consensus, consensus...if we start to lose consensus we end up like fiat - it IS that simple.

Also, the more opportunities you have share your voice, the better, I invite (and strongly encourage you) to participate in this poll to echo you opinion in as many places as possible on this forum...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1153896.0

Thank you.

[flix]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

[RoadTrain]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two (or ever since the Bitcoin inception).

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

[desired_username]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two.

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

It's not realistic to desire that an average person should run a full node.

Even Satoshi foresaw that.

[RoadTrain]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two.

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

It's not realistic to desire that an average person should run a full node.

Even Satoshi foresaw that.

Tell Roger Ver about that, it's his assumption, not mine.

And there's no point in appealing to Satoshi, he's not infallible.

[GreenStox]

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you...

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

What if it's their primary plan? That's possible.

I suspect that bitcoin has been infiltrated by shadow forces from behind and many devs are controlled by marionettes from behind, so the sabotage can be intentional, to divide & conquer.

It's not a conspiracy, since many devs have been in the CFR meetings where the elite are meeting too.

[iCEBREAKER]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Wow, Bitcoin Jesus certainly has picked his cross to die on.

It's a shame for someone with such a great reputation to instantly blow it by becoming known as Roger "100MB blocks are easy" Ver.

[Adrian-x]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Wow, Bitcoin Jesus certainly has picked his cross to die on.

It's a shame for someone with such a great reputation to instantly blow it by becoming known as Roger "100MB blocks are easy" Ver.

your the odd ball, BIP101 is an improvement that is necessary for bitcoin to prosper, XT is the only viable option to implement this upgrade at this time, you've spread loads of FUD calling it an altcoin  .

on one is going to die on a cross, some of us want liberty and freedom more than you. Ver, just happens to be a leading figure in the bitcoin space. but anyway looking at the sheep and the Bitcoin wealthy I think your doing a good job for the next growth spurt.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

I think he did not calculate that one accurately
We are not just concerned about the size but the speed of the internet connection and geographical regions we may see larger adoption but in areas where the requirements for a speedy connection are met.

On the other hand incentivization to run Bitcoin nodes is non-existent per se besides feeling more secure from online exchange risk and nodes do not it face the issues of miner centralization near cheap electricity so I guess there may be a point for an increased userbase resulting in more nodes but in a capacity that can't really be measured till we start pushing that limit.

(mumble did a speed test on wifi down = 16mbp up = 4.87 mbps)
Plan offers 20-50mbp down 10 up ISP's over advertise compared to actual for local bandwidth purposes but sizing aside not the main issue.

MeniRosenfeld
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).
But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...

A voice of reason in the storm sides with Meni on this.

[iCEBREAKER]

BIP101 is an improvement that is necessary for bitcoin to prosper, XT is the only viable option to implement this upgrade at this time, you've spread loads of FUD calling it an altcoin  .

BIP101 is still in the very early 'concept' phase.  You are remiss to make flat, broad assertions based on positive assumptions about how it will do in the later prototype/testnet/deployment stages.

XT, as defined on Trolltalk and /r/bitcoin, is most certainly an altcoin:

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.

The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

If can't accept that, please fuck off to /v/bitcoinxt.