#Blocksize Survey

[HostFat]

@iCEBREAKER
I'll give you a secret.
With the next fork it will be 1 block for minute, with the reward of 2.5 BTC (and after the halving, 1.25 BTC every minute and so on)

 

Hmm, even the max block size will be probably divided by 10, or even better, it will be made unlimited

[Quantus]

The facts are that the majority of Bitcoin transactions are worth less then 20 cents.  I consider this a micro transaction.
Now going even further I would argue 20% of transactions are worth less then 1 cent. I would consider these transactions spam.

I believe wholeheartedly that the network as it exists today was never envisioned by its creators and will collapse if propagation time between miners, full nodes and users continue to grow.
I believe wholeheartedly maintenance costs of the network will rise substantially with the rise of block size leading to consolidation and control of the network too private companies.   
I agree 1MB blocks do in fact limit the number of transaction the Bitcoin network can handle but this is only an issue for those sending transactions below 1 cent with no fee.

May the Ddos be with you. 



 

[Lauda]

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.

As far as I know, the BIP 101 is not sustainable (doubling every two years). This is just a conclusion based upon information that I've found through the months (not research). I'm pretty sure that developing lands and especially China can't handle the doubling. The problem isn't really the storage, but rather network bandwidth (i.e. increased orphan rates).
Wouldn't BIP 100 be better, having a soft limit between 1MB to a maximum of 32 MB?

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

Fraudulent activity?

[Peter R]

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.

  

As far as I know, the BIP 101 is not sustainable (doubling every two years). This is just a conclusion based upon information that I've found through the months (not research).

What do you believe is not sustainable?  Bandwidth, Blockchain size, UTXO set?  BIP101 seems conservative to me. 

[Zarathustra]

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.

  

Wouldn't it be better to fork away the people with such behavior? What's the benefit to keep them within the bitcoin movement?

[DooMAD]

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.  

Already refuted:

To summarise, he's basically saying if the economy doesn't follow the miners, there's a problem.  Which is a negative spin.

But at the same time, the statement would be equally true if he had phrased it to say that if the economy does follow the miners, there isn't a problem.  Positive spin.  

A subtle change in emphasis makes all the difference.  The only thing he's really giving here is an opinion.  He thinks a fork would be bad and he's trying to make it sound as scary as possible.  He's more than welcome to his opinion, but it's not beyond repute.

If Bitcoin forks and people go with the flow, everything keeps working normally.  There is no drama.  First we'll see if the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  That's how it would work regardless of what the client is called or who coded it.  If it was bitcoin core that introduced the 8mb patch, the fork would occur once the network reaches the consensus threshold and if that happens, we'll then see who tries to fight the current and gets swept away.  Same story, different name.  At the end of the day, it makes no difference.  Another equally valid outcome is that the alternative client reaches consensus and the core devs concede and release a version of core supporting 8mb blocks and then there's no bickering over a silly name or the personalities involved.

It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.  If he wants to keep moving threads to altcoins because of his opinion, I honestly couldn't care less.  It's only going to polarise the discussion, encourage controversy and make people dig their heels in.  If anything, it's generating more support for the alternative client than there otherwise would be.

Feel free to express your opinions, but they are only opinions.  Don't present spin as fact.

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.  

Wouldn't it be better to fork away the people with such behavior? What's the benefit to keep them within the bitcoin movement?

I fundamentally believe Bitcoin is permissionless.  That means I wouldn't want to exclude people just because I don't agree with them doing things I perceive as being immoral to influence the outcome of the fork proposal.  Based on everything I've read, I think the right course of action is a larger blocksize.  If at the end of all this... actually, I should clarify what I mean by that first.  I don't just mean this silly "XT vs Core" spat, but the wider blocksize issue, including alternative proposals we haven't thoroughly explored yet (like my second preference linked to above), so the "end" could be a long way away yet.  But if at the end of it all, there is still no fork and Bitcoin remains at a 1mb blocksize, that simply means we (those of us who want a larger blocksize) didn't state the case effectively enough.  I'll accept that outcome.  I can't promise there won't be an "I told you so" or twelve if that outcome leads to negative consequences down the road, but I'll accept it.  I only believe in forking if it's with consensus, but I'll continue to make the case for larger blocks and call out the BS when I see it.

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

Fraudulent activity?

Was I not clear about that part?

• Running a client to spoof your version and manipulate the figures is not honest behaviour
• Impersonating satoshi to "discredit" the fork proposal is not honest behavior
• Dismissing the fork proposal as an altcoin is not honest behaviour
• Attempting to sweep discussion on both forums and reddit under the carpet is not honest behaviour
• Claiming XT has suddenly introduced the possibility to log or ban IPs when this has always been possible is not honest behaviour.

The best part is, no one can stop them from doing these things.  They're perfectly entitled to do as they please.  But they aren't doing their cause any favours.  People aren't stupid and if they suspect something underhand is occurring, it's only going to make them dubious of the motives involved.

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

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

Fraudulent activity?

Was I not clear about that part?

• Running a client to spoof your version and manipulate the figures is not honest behaviour
• Impersonating satoshi to "discredit" the fork proposal is not honest behavior
• Dismissing the fork proposal as an altcoin is not honest behaviour

This has gone away from a "proposal. It already forked without consensus but lets wait and see...

-snip-
It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.
 -snip-

• Attempting to sweep discussion on both forums and reddit under the carpet is not honest behaviour

It is an altcoin. It forked without consensus. So it does not belong under "Bitcoin" discussion unless if that talks about Bitcoin and not XT solely. The forum is not deleting XT topics but moving it to Altcoin board.

• Claiming XT has suddenly introduced the possibility to log or ban IPs when this has always been possible is not honest behaviour.

Unlike Bitcoin Core, it is "default" behavior of XT.

The best part is, no one can stop them from doing these things.  They're perfectly entitled to do as they please.  But they aren't doing their cause any favours.  People aren't stupid and if they suspect something underhand is occurring, it's only going to make them dubious of the motives involved.

[DooMAD]

-snip-

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

Fraudulent activity?

Was I not clear about that part?

• Running a client to spoof your version and manipulate the figures is not honest behaviour
• Impersonating satoshi to "discredit" the fork proposal is not honest behavior
• Dismissing the fork proposal as an altcoin is not honest behaviour

This has gone away from a "proposal. It already forked without consensus but lets wait and see...

-snip-
It's only an altcoin if it forks without consensus.
 -snip-

• Attempting to sweep discussion on both forums and reddit under the carpet is not honest behaviour

It is an altcoin. It forked without consensus. So it does not belong under "Bitcoin" discussion unless if that talks about Bitcoin and not XT solely. The forum is not deleting XT topics but moving it to Altcoin board.

The best part is, no one can stop them from doing these things.  They're perfectly entitled to do as they please.  But they aren't doing their cause any favours.  People aren't stupid and if they suspect something underhand is occurring, it's only going to make them dubious of the motives involved.

The code has forked, but the blockchain hasn't.  It's an open source coin and that means anyone is allowed to fork the code.  Anyone can make a change to the code and release their own client.  If that client sends and receives altcoins on an alternate blockchain, then yes, it's an altcoin.  If, however, it sends and receives bitcoin transactions following Bitcoin's blockchain, then it's still Bitcoin.  If the fork goes ahead, the longest chain remains Bitcoin and the other one will not be.  Consensus is not a central group of developers reaching agreement.  If you don't want people to be able to release their own clients with their own proposals for how to run the network, why are you using an open source coin?  Neither Core nor it's developers are a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  If you want a coin where the developers make all the decisions and the users have no choice, you have the option of using a closed source coin.  

• Claiming XT has suddenly introduced the possibility to log or ban IPs when this has always been possible is not honest behaviour.

Unlike Bitcoin Core, it is "default" behavior of XT.

Indeed, and if the other thread has simply stated that in an honest fashion, I doubt it would have gone on for so many pages and caused so much of a stir.  The purpose of the thread was to cause a panic and discredit the developers.  Hence dishonest behaviour.  If they had simply said what you just did, I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

Yes, by default, if the node is being flooded or DDoS'd, it will prioritise which connections to keep and which to drop.  But this is nowhere near what the other thread was claiming.  

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
The code has forked, but the blockchain hasn't.  It's an open source coin and that means anyone is allowed to fork the code.  Anyone can make a change to the code and release their own client.  If that client sends and receives altcoins on an alternate blockchain, then yes, it's an altcoin.  If, however, it sends and receives bitcoin transactions following Bitcoin's blockchain, then it's still Bitcoin.  If the fork goes ahead, the longest chain remains Bitcoin and the other one will not be.  Consensus is not a central group of developers reaching agreement.  If you don't want people to be able to release their own clients with their own proposals for how to run the network, why are you using an open source coin?  Neither Core nor it's developers are a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  If you want a coin where the developers make all the decisions and the users have no choice, you have the option of using a closed source coin. 

You are right! Once a >1 MB block is created, the blockchain forks. I did not meant consensus from core developers as consensus. Consensus for >1 MB block is there but not for BIP 101. I am also for maximum block size increase but we haven't got a good solution yet! CMIIW.

• Claiming XT has suddenly introduced the possibility to log or ban IPs when this has always been possible is not honest behaviour.

Unlike Bitcoin Core, it is "default" behavior of XT.

Indeed, and if the other thread has simply stated that in an honest fashion, I doubt it would have gone on for so many pages and caused so much of a stir.  The purpose of the thread was to cause a panic and discredit the developers.  Hence dishonest behaviour.  If they had simply said what you just did, I wouldn't have taken issue with it.

Yes, by default, if the node is being flooded or DDoS'd, it will prioritise which connections to keep and which to drop.  But this is nowhere near what the other thread was claiming. 

Fair enough.

[Lauda]

Was I not clear about that part?
-snip-
The best part is, no one can stop them from doing these things.  They're perfectly entitled to do as they please.  But they aren't doing their cause any favours.  People aren't stupid and if they suspect something underhand is occurring, it's only going to make them dubious of the motives involved.

Yes, you were. My initial thought process couldn't get an answer to who might be doing this, rather than what that fraudulent activity was. This post provides a great answer to both question. People pseudo nodes and similar activity.

• Attempting to sweep discussion on both forums and reddit under the carpet is not honest behaviour

People can't agree on this part alone, thus it is hard to expect that the 'crowd' will reach consensus on something more important (e.g. block size limit).

Consensus for >1 MB block is there but not for BIP 101.
-snip-

Exactly. A lot of people misinterpret the words of others when they show support for something.
supporting bigger blocks =/= supporting XT/BIP 101
supporting 8 MB blocks =/= supporting XT/BIP 101

Even supporting BIP 101 does not necessarily mean that you support XT.

[flix]

We support the implementation of BIP101. We have found Gavin's arguments on
both the need for larger blocks and the feasibility of their implementation - while
safeguarding Bitcoin's decentralization - to be convincing. BIP101 and 8MB blocks
are already supported by a majority of the miners and we feel it is time for the
industry to unite behind this proposal.

http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf

[flix]

25% of Hashing Power is now Publicly Backing BIP100

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9qdj/25_of_hashing_power_is_now_publicly_backing_bip100/

At least 3 pools are now tagging their coinbase signatures with "BIP100" which combined amounts to about 25% of mining hashing power. This includes f2pool Kano pool and Bitclub. It would appear BIP100 has quickly overtaken BIP101 in terms of hashing power support. F2pool previously called BitcoinXT an altcoin and it would appear they are pushing for BIP100's in Bitcoin Core as an alternative. Kano pool made a statement about the switch here.

[coinpr0n]

25% of Hashing Power is now Publicly Backing BIP100

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9qdj/25_of_hashing_power_is_now_publicly_backing_bip100/

At least 3 pools are now tagging their coinbase signatures with "BIP100" which combined amounts to about 25% of mining hashing power. This includes f2pool Kano pool and Bitclub. It would appear BIP100 has quickly overtaken BIP101 in terms of hashing power support. F2pool previously called BitcoinXT an altcoin and it would appear they are pushing for BIP100's in Bitcoin Core as an alternative. Kano pool made a statement about the switch here.

Glad to see BIP100 getting some love through all the noise. It's not quite the binary option some people are making it out to seem.

[Adrian-x]

25% of Hashing Power is now Publicly Backing BIP100

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3i9qdj/25_of_hashing_power_is_now_publicly_backing_bip100/

At least 3 pools are now tagging their coinbase signatures with "BIP100" which combined amounts to about 25% of mining hashing power. This includes f2pool Kano pool and Bitclub. It would appear BIP100 has quickly overtaken BIP101 in terms of hashing power support. F2pool previously called BitcoinXT an altcoin and it would appear they are pushing for BIP100's in Bitcoin Core as an alternative. Kano pool made a statement about the switch here.

Glad to see BIP100 getting some love through all the noise. It's not quite the binary option some people are making it out to seem.

with BIP100 it looks like, miners get to vote on the block size, it isn't difficult for me to think of a scenario where the majority of hashing power votes to limit the block size to compensate for the risk of loosing blocks due to poor propagation time, (this scenario gives advantage to the Voting Majority and penalizes the group with lower total network hashing power and higher bandwidth capacity.)

in this scenario miners are held to the will of the cartel (in other words BIP100 will empower mining cartels) miners can not break from the cartel without a vote, where as with BIP101 miners are welcome to form a cartel, and those miners who want to break the cartel rules are not held hostage by the majority of miners who control the cartel.

[HostFat]

21% attack possible against BIP100?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

[Klestin]

It is an altcoin. It forked without consensus. So it does not belong under "Bitcoin" discussion unless if that talks about Bitcoin and not XT solely. The forum is not deleting XT topics but moving it to Altcoin board.

Code that creates a hard fork is by definition an altcoin?  By that definition, the current Bitcoin itself is an altcoin, and Bitcoin Core discussion doesn't belong here either.  None of us are using the Bitcoin system that existed two years ago - Bitcoin has hard-forked more than once, most recently with BIP 34.  Should we move all Bitcoin discussion to an altcoin board?

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is an altcoin. It forked without consensus. So it does not belong under "Bitcoin" discussion unless if that talks about Bitcoin and not XT solely. The forum is not deleting XT topics but moving it to Altcoin board.

Code that creates a hard fork is by definition an altcoin?  By that definition, the current Bitcoin itself is an altcoin, and Bitcoin Core discussion doesn't belong here either.  None of us are using the Bitcoin system that existed two years ago - Bitcoin has hard-forked more than once, most recently with BIP 34.  Should we move all Bitcoin discussion to an altcoin board?

Did you read second sentence completely? It hardforked without consensus.

-snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
 -snip-

[Lauda]

21% attack possible against BIP100?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3id7f9/21_attack_possible_against_bip100/

Even if it is vulnerable, it only is on paper. As far as I know Jeff is currently working on the paper itself. The paper isn't perfect. Luckily Jeff is a very nice guy, so just bumping him a few times should give the community a quick answer. If there is a problem, I'm sure that it will be resolved (especially since support for BIP100 has been growing).

[HostFat]

It is just funny that there is a "huge support" for something that it seems not working on the paper and still doesn't exist on code   (and so, not even tested)

[Lauda]

It is just funny that there is a "huge support" for something that it seems not working on the paper and still doesn't exist on code   (and so, not even tested)

Not working on paper? So Bitcoin, being vulnerable to a 51% attack as it is, does not work? The code for BIP101 solely exists because of its simplicity, and it has not been tested either. Have 8 MB blocks been tested? Not really,thus the same principles apply.

As I've stated, it would be best to wait for Jeff to answer this before actually continuing this (fruitless) discussion)