#Blocksize Survey

[hdbuck]

lol at dat consensus (eg. poll).

at this point its safe to say we aint gonna fork, at least until we really need it.
but if we would in advance, the fork wont live long.
bye bye centralized governance.
too late at the party, we already are out of any governance's reach!

Now this is Bitcoin

[flix]

Let's Talk Bitcoin! #241 - The 'Big Blockist' Perspective
https://youtu.be/QGD6zouEzW8

with @aantonop

[hdbuck]

Let's Talk Bitcoin! #241 - The 'Big Blockist' Perspective
https://youtu.be/QGD6zouEzW8

with @aantonop

lol no fork this egomaniac dude tellin us what to do with our coins.
fed up with these people.

cf. my sig

[Jeremycoin]

I chose "Any, but with consensus.", because without everyone this problem won't solved.

[DooMAD]

Let's Talk Bitcoin! #241 - The 'Big Blockist' Perspective
https://youtu.be/QGD6zouEzW8

with @aantonop

lol no fork this egomaniac dude tellin us what to do with our coins.
fed up with these people.

cf. my sig

You're going to be fed up for a while longer, then.  You seem to hate any talk of a fork, but it's something people keep discussing and keep pushing for.  Clearly this isn't going away.  And the pressure will only build over time.  The momentum is building against you here.  We get that you think Bitcoin's sole purpose is an investment to make you wealthy and that you want to prevent the fork by any means necessary because you deem it a threat to your investment.  Fortunately, your tactics for preventing the fork appear to consist primarily of telling people to "fork off" and other torrents of equally lame insults.  I'm sure I've explained this before, but just in case you missed it last time, you need to research your investments a little more carefully in future.  If you wanted a coin to invest in, where the code can't be altered and can't be forked by popular demand to support a greater number of transactions, you should have invested in a closed-source coin.  If you wanted a coin the masses can't use, you should have invested in a coin that isn't permissionless.  If you want an exclusive blockchain that only benefits a privileged few, you chose the wrong blockchain.  This train doesn't lead to the destination you thought it did.

Better luck in your future ventures.

[flix]

Looking at this:
http://blocksize.org/bip101.html

It seems that BIP101 actually has all that is necessary to be the main chain. They have miners, wallets, exchanges.... the largest companies.. what is starting to be called "the economic majority".

BIP100 and 8MB only have miners:
http://blocksize.org/bip100.html

The small-blockist camp has wallets and exchanges, but no miners...
http://blocksize.org/contra.html

[hdbuck]

miners need bitcoin holders first and foremost or their minted coins will be worthless.

if they want out with some forked altcoin, that will allow real bitcoiners to get back to mining.

if they secedes, they can only hope for the new users the redditards keeps on praying but that are not here: the mass.. XD

so plz gimme a break.

we control bitcoin.

[flix]

Seeing how the forces are lining up... I think that the most likely outcome is going to be a fork. With BIP101 gaining majority support and a minority supporting a "classic" small-block Bitcoin.

I used to think a fork was the worst possible outcome... but I am starting to reconcile myself to the idea. It might not be such a bad thing to have 2 coins and let people choose.

After all.. there are hundreds of altcoins... they all seem to co-exist and compete just fine.

[hdbuck]

^ yup this i agree, i am all up for a fork, any fork actually.

good riddance of the socialists aka statists aka corporatists aka coffeetiperz with their usgavin usgarzik mofoantonopoulos et al. leading them centralized way to their new masters.

dont mind if i stick with bitcoin. the one and only.

[Lauda]

Looking at this:
http://blocksize.org/bip101.html

It seems that BIP101 actually has all that is necessary to be the main chain. They have miners, wallets, exchanges.... the largest companies.. what is starting to be called "the economic majority".

What nonsense are you talking about? 3 smaller miners and 13 entities is what you call the economic majority? You're essentially saying that Bitcoin has a total of 20-25 companies. Without the miners there is no fork, and these companies can't do anything about it.
Besides, a few vital components are missing in the BIP101 support. We've yet to see the debate resolved.

miners need bitcoin holders first and foremost or their minted coins will be worthless.
-snip-
we control bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure that everyone else has much more to lose than the miners. I doubt that they are holding onto a high percentage of Bitcoins. Why did you change your stance towards the fork?

[hdbuck]

miners need bitcoin holders first and foremost or their minted coins will be worthless.
-snip-
we control bitcoin.

I'm pretty sure that everyone else has much more to lose than the miners. I doubt that they are holding onto a high percentage of Bitcoins.

sure its a balance. imho no blocksize fork proposals until now have actually managed to take into account such sensible equilibrium.
not that i believe there is a problem to be dealt with for a start.. or at least consensually yet.

Why did you change your stance towards the fork?

because if they really want to go for it, i feel the sooner usgavin and its consensus breakers at reddit are out of the picture, the better for bitcoin.

in the end i am sure bitcoin will prevail (because open source, decentralized etc..) on any power grab fork, whether it be by the miners, the gov moles or the devs.

so bring it on! lets do this!

[isvicre]

Surprised to see that Gavin Andresen lead the poll. So many XT shills out there.

[ph.amracyshop]

I voted for Soft fork. Adam Back.

[flix]

Surprised to see that Gavin Andresen lead the poll. So many XT shills out there.

BIP101 is not XT. It could still be merged into Core. This is in fact the scenario that all those who have supported BIP101 without mentioning XT are hoping for.

Actually if this is a power grab by Mike Hearn, he couldn't have chosen a better battlefield. Almost nobody defends 1MB maxblocksize forever.

Core developers should accept BIP101 and fight Hearn's fork over the next technical issue.

[hdbuck]

Surprised to see that Gavin Andresen lead the poll. So many XT shills out there.

the poll started debut august, when the shill storm was ATH.

[isvicre]

But almost everybody who voted for BIP101 is supporting XT. If we do separate poll and ask who wants 1 MB block size I'm sure nobody will support it.

[Lauda]

the poll started debut august, when the shill storm was ATH.

I'm actually surprised by the low number of votes. It looks like people are carefully trying to manipulate polls so that it is not too obvious. I just enjoy when people without zero technical background agree and praise the BIP101 growth pattern.

sure its a balance. imho no blocksize fork proposals until now have actually managed to take into account such sensible equilibrium.
not that i believe there is a problem to be dealt with for a start.. or at least consensually yet.
because if they really want to go for it, i feel the sooner usgavin and its consensus breakers at reddit are out of the picture, the better for bitcoin.
-snip-

Essentially you are not supporting XT, but you rather want to get them out of the way? Interesting approach. People around here are either pro or anti. Another interesting argument is that the development is 'centralized'. However people want to take away the power from a group of developers and give it to just two (which are, considering everything, questionable at best).

[hdbuck]

the poll started debut august, when the shill storm was ATH.

I'm actually surprised by the low number of votes. It looks like people are carefully trying to manipulate polls so that it is not too obvious. I just enjoy when people without zero technical background agree and praise the BIP101 growth pattern.

True true.. ^^

sure its a balance. imho no blocksize fork proposals until now have actually managed to take into account such sensible equilibrium.
not that i believe there is a problem to be dealt with for a start.. or at least consensually yet.
because if they really want to go for it, i feel the sooner usgavin and its consensus breakers at reddit are out of the picture, the better for bitcoin.
-snip-

Essentially you are not supporting XT, but you rather want to get them out of the way? Interesting approach. People around here are either pro or anti. Another interesting argument is that the development is 'centralized'. However people want to take away the power from a group of developers and give it to just two (which are, considering everything, questionable at best).

Ah, yes, im anti any power grab, hence any fork as of how they are now, because besides the fud and the mass adoption propaganda, there is nothing..

So i figured there is no point arguing anymore, just let them flock to whatever untested, unbalanced, centralized fork they want, with their delusional socialist hopes for some sort of mass tipping spamming adoption.

That should give the real bitcoin more oxygen and more context as to what it really is.
Which is decentralized financial freedom, or a *very* high value privilege.

[tvbcof]

Pieter Wuillie and Luke-jr have weird mindsets. The network is now having trouble from time to time with the amount of transactions. How can 1 MB blocks be even too big?

They consider it too big when viewing it from a decentralization point of view. Even at 1MB, mining is centralized, full node count continues to drop drastically every year, the recent fork revealed that majority of hashpower was SPV mining, meaning they were blindly building blocks without even checking if txns were valid! They consider decentralization the upmost important property of Bitcoin because that is the ONLY 1 thing that sets it apart from any other currency today. Their view is that once you lose decentralization, Bitcoin becomes just another currency, ie. vulnerable to manipulation, censorship, inflation like other currencies. With regards to too many txns for 1MB, they can all still work via offchain DBs like coinbase/changetip (just as much of the financial system functions today, only inter-bank settlements are cleared with the central bank) or more promisingly Lightning which has the added benefit of being trustless and instant confirmation.

In short, their view is that bitcoin should not risk decentralization to allow onchain txns for everyone and everything. All of that can be done on higher layers.

This is very well written.  I won't speak for the view of others, but it captures my own mindset to a tee.  Thanks!

I will add that I would find it 'kinda cool' in a way if a $0.12 goat-cheese transaction in Mongolia lived along side a $12,408,671.04 nightly financial services entity settlement, but if it means compromising the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and the robustness that this decentralization imparts, it is simply not worth the trade-off.  If the Mongolian can achieve 99% of the benefit of Bitcoin through use of a proxy system (some sidechain) that is a really good compromise in my mind.  I look forward to being able to make the same compromise myself for 99.9% of my financial activity.

[hdbuck]

Pieter Wuillie and Luke-jr have weird mindsets. The network is now having trouble from time to time with the amount of transactions. How can 1 MB blocks be even too big?

They consider it too big when viewing it from a decentralization point of view. Even at 1MB, mining is centralized, full node count continues to drop drastically every year, the recent fork revealed that majority of hashpower was SPV mining, meaning they were blindly building blocks without even checking if txns were valid! They consider decentralization the upmost important property of Bitcoin because that is the ONLY 1 thing that sets it apart from any other currency today. Their view is that once you lose decentralization, Bitcoin becomes just another currency, ie. vulnerable to manipulation, censorship, inflation like other currencies. With regards to too many txns for 1MB, they can all still work via offchain DBs like coinbase/changetip (just as much of the financial system functions today, only inter-bank settlements are cleared with the central bank) or more promisingly Lightning which has the added benefit of being trustless and instant confirmation.

In short, their view is that bitcoin should not risk decentralization to allow onchain txns for everyone and everything. All of that can be done on higher layers.

This is very well written.  I won't speak for the view of others, but it captures my own mindset to a tee.  Thanks!

I will add that I would find it 'kinda cool' in a way if a $0.12 goat-cheese transaction in Mongolia lived along side a $12,408,671.04 nightly financial services entity settlement, but if it means compromising the decentralized nature of Bitcoin and the robustness that this decentralization imparts, it is simply not worth the trade-off.  If the Mongolian can achieve 99% of the benefit of Bitcoin through use of a proxy system (some sidechain) that is a really good compromise in my mind.  I look forward to being able to make the same compromise myself for 99.9% of my financial activity.

+2 Bitcoin's universality resides in its decentralization, as in the ability for anyone to run a full node or download the blockchain, directly check it, transact within it, etc.

It is not about allowing everybody to freely-SPV-spam the holy ledger with their groceries and let only a handful corporations/devs/miners run the show.

That's what makes Bitcoin precious imho.

PS: also im glad there is still sane people around here. So although I happened to be quite virulent lately, I would like to take this opportunity to thank both for the very calm and wise comments you provide this nutplace with. This gives me indeed hope that bitcoin will overcome any sketchy social attack.