#Blocksize Survey

[flix]

Doesn't say much.. apart from "let´s work together" and come to the scaling Bitcoin conference in September.... but at least it's a start.

An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21809/open-letter-bitcoin-community-developers/

As active contributors to Bitcoin, we share this letter to communicate our plan of action related to technical consensus and Bitcoin scalability.

Bitcoin is many things to many people. However, the development and maintenance of Bitcoin is a human endeavor. Satoshi sought review and cooperation, and the subsequent work by Bitcoin’s developers has made the system more secure and orders of magnitude faster. The Bitcoin developer community is dedicated to the future of Bitcoin, looks after the health of the network, strives for the highest standards of performance, and works to keep Bitcoin secure on behalf of everyone.

In the upcoming months, two open workshops will bring the community together to explore these issues. The first Scaling Bitcoin workshop will be in Montreal on September 12-13. The second workshop is planned for December 6-7 and will be hosted in Hong Kong to be more inclusive of Bitcoin’s global user base.

We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops. It’s great to already see broad excitement for the event and the high concentration of technical participants attending.

Wladimir J. van der Laan

Pieter Wuille
Cory Fields
Luke Dashjr
Jonas Schnelli
Jorge Timón
Greg Maxwell
Eric Voskuil
Amir Taaki
Dave Collins
Michael Ford
Peter Todd
Phillip Mienk
Suhas Daftuar
R E Broadley
Eric Lombrozo
Daniel Kraft
Chris Moore
Alex Morcos
dexX7
Warren Togami
Mark Friedenbach
Ross Nicoll
Pavel Janík
Josh Lehan
Andrew Poelstra
Christian Decker
Bryan Bishop
Benedict Chan
฿tcDrak
Charlie Lee
Jeremy Rubin

[flix]

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.

For the sake of completeness I Have been searching for arguments online in defense of 1MB. I cannot find any document or video which represents the 1MB forever position.

Can anybody please provide a link to such a video/paper/post?

[flix]

a16z Podcast: Hard Forks, Hard Choices for Bitcoin
WITH ADAM BACK AND ALEX MORCOS
http://a16z.com/2015/09/02/a16z-podcast-hard-forks-hard-choices-for-bitcoin/

So in the interest of airing all options for solving Bitcoin’s scaling problem, we invited two more experts from the Bitcoin world, Adam Back and Alex Morcos to share their views on alternate ways to scale the Bitcoin blockchain.

Back is a well-known applied cryptographer, whose longtime focus has been digital currency. Back invented hashcash, a proof-of-work system, which, among its other applications, is used in Bitcoin mining. He’s the cofounder of Blockstream.

Morcos is the founder of Chaincode Labs, based in New York City, and was a co-founder of quantitative trading company Hudson River Trading. He’s more recently become immersed in the Bitcoin world.

It seems like both Adam and Alex favour bigger blocks too, they just have a different approach to how to scale.

Seriously... who is in favour of 1MB blocks forever? Link please!

[hdbuck]

a16z Podcast: Hard Forks, Hard Choices for Bitcoin
WITH ADAM BACK AND ALEX MORCOS
http://a16z.com/2015/09/02/a16z-podcast-hard-forks-hard-choices-for-bitcoin/

So in the interest of airing all options for solving Bitcoin’s scaling problem, we invited two more experts from the Bitcoin world, Adam Back and Alex Morcos to share their views on alternate ways to scale the Bitcoin blockchain.

Back is a well-known applied cryptographer, whose longtime focus has been digital currency. Back invented hashcash, a proof-of-work system, which, among its other applications, is used in Bitcoin mining. He’s the cofounder of Blockstream.

Morcos is the founder of Chaincode Labs, based in New York City, and was a co-founder of quantitative trading company Hudson River Trading. He’s more recently become immersed in the Bitcoin world.

It seems like both Adam and Alex favour bigger blocks too, they just have a different approach to how to scale.

Seriously... who is in favour of 1MB blocks forever? Link please!

Not saying 4eva^tm. altho...


The economics of sinking Garzikcoin aka BIP 100.
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/29/the-economics-of-sinking-garzikcoin-aka-bip-100/

Vox populi, vox dei, no more.
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/19/vox-populi-vox-dei-no-more/

Bitcoin is unfair. That’s the point and so it shall remain.
http://www.contravex.com/2015/03/08/bitcoin-is-unfair-thats-the-point-and-so-it-shall-remain/

The future of Bitcoin regulation
http://trilema.com/2013/the-future-of-bitcoin-regulation/#selection-103.295-103.500

The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

Who Controls Bitcoin?
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/

Meditations on Cypherpunk Nightmares
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/meditations-on-cypherpunk-nightmares/


Hope this selection of articles widens a bit your view on the subject.

[flix]

Hope this selection of articles widens a bit your view on the subject.

Thanks!

Always love to read different views.

[DooMAD]

The economics of sinking Garzikcoin aka BIP 100.
http://www.contravex.com/2015/08/29/the-economics-of-sinking-garzikcoin-aka-bip-100/

Somehow I figured it wouldn't take long for that shit to start.  Once you finish telling everyone that Gavin and Mike are basically the equivalent of terrorists for daring to propose a fork, then the focus switches to Jeff and then he's just as scary/bad/evil/etc and no one should trust him because he dared to propose a change, so he must want power for himself, right?  So eventually absolutely anyone with a proposal that involves a blocksize increase becomes an enemy of the "true" Bitcoin?  Is that basically where this shit is headed?  Because I guarantee you're going to run out of credibility if you cry wolf again.  Bunch of fear-mongering fuckwits, the lot of you.

[hdbuck]

Lol but basically, we were right about Gavin.. From the very begining.. So how about you read and learn baby  

In the end, we, "fuckwits", are the only ones really fighting, givin no concessions, for you fools bitcoiner's best interest.



 

[poeEDgar]

Why is BIP102 not included?

[DooMAD]

Lol but basically, we were right about Gavin.. From the very first start. So how about you read and learn baby

We "fuckwits" are the ones fighting for you bitcoiners best interest.

No, you've just reinforced your own baseless assertions to the point where you've actually started to believe them.  Others are willing to compromise and find a balance between capacity and decentralisation, but you aren't.  Either start making concessions, or guarantee a messy split when the fork does happen.  You attacked 20mb without proposing an alternative, you attacked 8mb without proposing an alternative, and now you're attacking BIP100 without proposing an alternative.  Where's your alternative?  Is there even an inch of ground you're prepared to give?  What increase in blocksize would you find acceptable?  Either be reasonable and negotiate, or lose your say altogether and get left behind.  No one is going to waste their time talking to a brick wall.  Your choice.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Lol but basically, we were right about Gavin.. From the very first start. So how about you read and learn baby

We "fuckwits" are the ones fighting for you bitcoiners best interest.

No, you've just reinforced your own baseless assertions to the point where you've actually started to believe them.  Others are willing to compromise and find a balance between capacity and decentralisation, but you aren't.  Either start making concessions, or guarantee a messy split when the fork does happen.  You attacked 20mb without proposing an alternative, you attacked 8mb without proposing an alternative, and now you're attacking BIP100 without proposing an alternative.  Where's your alternative?  Is there even an inch of ground you're prepared to give?  What increase in blocksize would you find acceptable?  Either be reasonable and negotiate, or lose your say altogether and get left behind.  No one is going to waste their time talking to a brick wall.  Your choice.  

When someone can't even tell the difference between "Gavin" and "Garzik" its time to put them on ignore.  (hdbuck, not you DooMAD)

[hdbuck]

Fork you man there is no alternative to be found to bitcoin! Cant you just get it?
Im starting to be really irritated by your constant fud and unfounded, untested, illogical bullshit

such ignorance wtf.


Cant wait for you sheeple to Fork the Fuck off.

[funkenstein]

If you think this kind of thing could somehow be useful but you're not sure you trust Themos to officiate, you could use a public fraud-proof voting system:

http://coin-vote.com/poll/55e8a33299baadff0a34acb7

[DooMAD]

Fork you man there is no alternative to be found to bitcoin! Cant you just get it?
Im starting to be really irritated by your constant fud and unfounded, untested, illogical bullshit

such ignorance wtf.


Cant wait for you sheeple to Fork be Fuck off.

So to clarify, regardless of how many people (Sheeple?  Really?  Could you be any less mature?) push for larger blocks because it's an entirely legitimate and acceptable view, until the blocks are regularly full and the mempool starts to grow as well, you will staunchly and vehemently oppose any proposals that involve an increase?  Even resorting to baseless accusations and character assassinations of any developers proposing a fork?  Even though that will degrade the service for the average user?  Is that pretty much the sum of it?  Constant FUD and derision of anything that differs to your equally untested view?  

There's literally no reasoning with you (or brg444, or iCEBREAKER, or your other fellow cronies feeding off MP's elitist rhetoric).  Despite every attempt to find common ground with you, you simply don't want there to be any.  Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.  Why should anyone acknowledge your view if you won't acknowledge theirs?  When the majority find benefit in scaling, you're more than welcome to stay behind and trade amongst a small handful of noisy extremists who are incapable of allowing compromise.  Everyone else will leave you in the dust.  That's how it'll end.

[hdbuck]

Lol, whatever you so smartass, get lost.

Cant be bothered anymore with your fallacies, altho the more pitiful part is you may actually buy this nonsense..

In the end, you will be ruined, i will be cheering.

Ignored.

[RoadTrain]

Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.

Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you?

[DooMAD]

Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.

Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you?

I get the impression at times they feel that anyone with a view supporting larger blocks doesn't care about jeopardising decentralisation.  Like we've somehow forgotten that it's important.  That's why they can only see it as an "attack", they genuinely believe we don't understand the importance of decentralisation.  We do.  But there are valid concerns about capacity and it's vital we get the balance right, so we propose smaller increases, or dynamic increases and decreases, or letting the miners choose, but apparently none of these are viable options to the handful of "asset class" militants who reject everything out of hand.  It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is "GTFO my chain, peasant".  So what's the point in trying to engage with them?  If they want a blockchain all to themselves, that's exactly what they're going to get when everyone else leaves them behind.

[poeEDgar]

It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is "GTFO my chain, peasant".  So what's the point in trying to engage with them?

I believe you have just stated Gavin's position.

I asked Andresen whether, if XT were to achieve full acceptance, he would then include all the earlier Bitcoin core devs in the new XT team. He replied that “[XT] will have a different set of developers.”
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future

"My way or the highway."

[brg444]

Fork you man there is no alternative to be found to bitcoin! Cant you just get it?
Im starting to be really irritated by your constant fud and unfounded, untested, illogical bullshit

such ignorance wtf.


Cant wait for you sheeple to Fork be Fuck off.

So to clarify, regardless of how many people (Sheeple?  Really?  Could you be any less mature?) push for larger blocks because it's an entirely legitimate and acceptable view, until the blocks are regularly full and the mempool starts to grow as well, you will staunchly and vehemently oppose any proposals that involve an increase?  Even resorting to baseless accusations and character assassinations of any developers proposing a fork?  Even though that will degrade the service for the average user?  Is that pretty much the sum of it?  Constant FUD and derision of anything that differs to your equally untested view?  

There's literally no reasoning with you (or brg444, or iCEBREAKER, or your other fellow cronies feeding off MP's elitist rhetoric).  Despite every attempt to find common ground with you, you simply don't want there to be any.  Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.  Why should anyone acknowledge your view if you won't acknowledge theirs?  When the majority find benefit in scaling, you're more than welcome to stay behind and trade amongst a small handful of noisy extremists who are incapable of allowing compromise.  Everyone else will leave you in the dust.  That's how it'll end.

How many strawmen, lies and general butthurt can you fit in one post. WOW

The "majority" you speak of doesn't exist. It is a product of "the masses" own hubris and incapacity to process that Bitcoin is not a democracy and that if they're poor, no amount of social media upvotes, likes, tweets or medium articles is gonna change anything about Bitcoin's governance. The latter is executed by people who pay and maintain the system. The miners, the nodes, and most importantly the holders (and yes the amount of bitcoin you have in your wallet weights in the discussion). The number of fiat showing in your bank account though, is irrelevant. Yes this goes for the VCs, bankers, entrepreneurs.

Now you need to reconcile with the fact that it has been a long going attempt to weaken Bitcoin through centralization under capture of corporate interests. Understand that way before the block size debate really started getting traction from a post by Matt Corallo on the bitcoin dev list, Gavin was running around every telling all the Bitcoin companies around that the blocksize was a no-brainer issue. These same start-ups went to all the VCs in the country selling them on models all most likely built on ridiculous assumption about the scale of mainchain transaction growth. Visa number eventually? Why not? "It's just a number, right?"

These same startups after a couple of months are starting to see their funding dry up but they can't go back to their VC with a 7 tps controversy. Now rather than blame their poor business acumen and false expectations they are lobbying their old friends from back in the Bitcoin foundation days. After thinking twice it came to me that Gavin most likely had no difficulty convincing them to sign this letter.

There are perfectly sensible, technical reasons to believe it is absolutely essential to keep the max block size reasonably close to the network actual average demand. Whether that is done through a flex cap or a fixed schedule it remains that we need to be absolutely conservation as we err in unknown territories.

More importantly, hitting or filling the blocks are absolutely not a bad thing and would likely develop into an healthy fee market. Obviously we cannot confirm this yet but I guess maybe we'll see next week? It is imperative that we get this right. I'm sure you have observed how contentious the hard fork is at this stage in Bitcoin's growth, it may be our last chance to arrive to consensus on one.

[bambou]

Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.

Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you?

I get the impression at times they feel that anyone with a view supporting larger blocks doesn't care about jeopardising decentralisation.  Like we've somehow forgotten that it's important.  That's why they can only see it as an "attack", they genuinely believe we don't understand the importance of decentralisation.  We do.  But there are valid concerns about capacity and it's vital we get the balance right, so we propose smaller increases, or dynamic increases and decreases, or letting the miners choose, but apparently none of these are viable options to the handful of "asset class" militants who reject everything out of hand.  It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is "GTFO my chain, peasant".  So what's the point in trying to engage with them?  If they want a blockchain all to themselves, that's exactly what they're going to get when everyone else leaves them behind.

Nonsense.

You need to understand that the bigger blocks that are being pushed today is literally the same as pushing for centralization.

Purely scaling is not "only" a matter of blocksize anyway.

Moreover, there aint no testing, no data, no nothing. So imho people against such reckless and clueless increase are the ones that actually cares for the sake of bitcoin.

You're being mindfucked hard : either you get it, or you dont, but then it will not be a great loss once you fork outta here.

[brg444]

Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.

Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you?

I get the impression at times they feel that anyone with a view supporting larger blocks doesn't care about jeopardising decentralisation.  Like we've somehow forgotten that it's important.  That's why they can only see it as an "attack", they genuinely believe we don't understand the importance of decentralisation.  We do.  But there are valid concerns about capacity and it's vital we get the balance right, so we propose smaller increases, or dynamic increases and decreases, or letting the miners choose, but apparently none of these are viable options to the handful of "asset class" militants who reject everything out of hand.  It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is "GTFO my chain, peasant".  So what's the point in trying to engage with them?  If they want a blockchain all to themselves, that's exactly what they're going to get when everyone else leaves them behind.

Nonsense.

You need to understand that the bigger blocks that are being pushed today is literally the same as pushing for centralization.

Purely scaling is not "only" a matter of blocksize anyway.

Moreover, there aint no testing, no data, no nothing. So imho people against such reckless and clueless increase are the ones that actually cares for the sake of bitcoin.

You're being mindfucked hard : either you get it, or you dont, but then it will not be a great loss once you fork outta here.

x1000

DooMAD you are in way over your head you need to step back from it and gather your thoughts you are currently playing right into their hands.