#Blocksize Survey

[Hazir]

winner is not clear on this one yet. plus number of votes are way too low.

BIP000 is clearly the winner.

,
So why our poll shows that BIP101 by Gavin Andresen. in winning by huge margin? People don't know what they are voting for?
Honestly I wish we could implement voting system for all bitcoin users (in wallets or other bitcoin software), but I have no idea how to block 1 person for voting multiple times.

[brg444]

winner is not clear on this one yet. plus number of votes are way too low.

BIP000 is clearly the winner.

,
So why our poll shows that BIP101 by Gavin Andresen. in winning by huge margin? People don't know what they are voting for?
Honestly I wish we could implement voting system for all bitcoin users (in wallets or other bitcoin software), but I have no idea how to block 1 person for voting multiple times.

 

Maybe because bitcointalk is not representative of Bitcoin 

[HostFat]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s

[hdbuck]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s

[brg444]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s

Then watch this https://youtu.be/mhAsnzidtZ8?t=1379

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=2056

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=37

[newIndia]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s

Then watch this https://youtu.be/mhAsnzidtZ8?t=1379

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=2056

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=37

Sorry to say, the sound quality is very very bad. I can not listen to any of the four.

[hdbuck]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s

Then watch this https://youtu.be/mhAsnzidtZ8?t=1379

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=2056

and this https://youtu.be/gpJrGuZEJsY?t=37

Sorry to say, the sound quality is very very bad. I can not listen to any of the four.

try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tJkr8sfBK8

[DooMAD]

Larger blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

• Those who want to use Bitcoin as a payments network
• Miners
• Merchants
• Payment Processors
• "Mainstream" users

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

• Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class
• Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply
• Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain

Either we find a solution that these groups can all agree on, or we go our separate ways and implement our ideals unhindered by the other group.  Increasingly, it's sounding like these ideals are not compatible.  I'm pretty sure the larger blocks group have been dealt a stronger hand, so the smaller blocks group should be looking for a compromise while they still can.  I'm not naive enough to think that we don't need people to run full nodes, because we do.  But at the same time, people running full nodes have to concede that they aren't much use without the miners.  The miners will want larger blocks to collect more fees by supporting more transactions.  This has to be done in a careful way, granted, but it has to be done.  This "BIP000" belligerence is just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" and you're more than welcome to keep doing it, but it's not part of the discussion everyone else wants to have.  So don't be surprised if you isolate yourselves in the process.

[hdbuck]

oh noes, isolation

lol for centuries, this has been one of the main argument for the socialist bs agenda: "if you are not with us you are alone.."

bouhouohouhouhouh pathetic.

the greatest minds have always been alone standing for their ideas, rejected by the majority of brainwashed sheeples.

you forkers will end up owned by the same corporations (but all together yeayyy), using a centralized system which security would be "under control" and some flashy ph0undation (or LaB, so fancyyy ^^) with their "governance" and "regulations".

so lol no GFY.

bitcoin is sovereign, if you dont like it, go ahead and use any fork altcoin that suits your onchain-micro-transactions-coffee-spaming or just go with XT already.. but you wouldnt uh?  


edit: altho it seems to me the gavinistas are the ones pretty alone in this nonsense..

[hdbuck]

HEY PETER!! so many fancy graphs and "equilibrium points" you came up with at that conf!





just waooow.
so much intellectual... BULLSHIET.


plus, that shwartzy voice of yours.. please don't bother "coming back" tho.


edit: does peter seems lonely? hell yeaaaa ^^


edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD

[Zarathustra]

edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD

The stream blockers (marxist kids@core) won't be able to block the stream. You'll get big blocks next year.

[hdbuck]

edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD

The stream blockers (marxist kids@core) won't be able to block the stream. You'll get big blocks next year.

such arguments.

but hey guess wat? we wont because we actually dont need it.. where my mass adoption?!

too bad cuz i coulda appreciated you noobs forking off asap: need to "isolate" bitcoin from your constant fud and bs.

[DooMAD]

oh noes, isolation

lol for centuries, this has been one of the main argument for the socialist bs agenda: "if you are not with us you are alone.."

bouhouohouhouhouh pathetic.

the greatest minds have always been alone standing for their ideas, rejected by the majority of brainwashed sheeples.

you forkers will end up owned by the same corporations (but all together yeayyy), using a centralized system which security would be "under control" and some flashy ph0undation (or LaB, so fancyyy ^^) with their "governance" and "regulations".

so lol no GFY.

bitcoin is sovereign, if you dont like it, go ahead and use any fork altcoin that suits your onchain-micro-transactions-coffee-spaming or just go with XT already.. but you wouldnt uh?  

Again with the "you only care about microtransactions" BS.  Change the record already.  I've stated enough times by now that your paranoia over microtransactions is just deflecting the issue:

People tend to make the assumption that a larger blocksize would encourage more microtransactions or other transactions sent without a fee.  To an extent, that's possible (but not a certainty by any means), so there is a balance to be struck to ensure there is space enough for legitimate fee-paying transactions, but not so much space that most of the traffic being processed doesn't give any reward for the miners securing the network.  1MB almost certainly isn't enough, but how much is too much?  That's where most of the discourse seems to focus, and rightly so.

Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee.  And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue.  Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes.  If it doesn't, something else will.  

Just about every single opponent of larger blocks is completely fixated on micro-payments and thinks that once those are swept under the carpet that the scalability issue is magically solved forever.  That's just plain wrong.  Larger blocks will become a necessity as the usage increases and prolonging the inevitable is only going to result in more disruption later.  

Get it?  It's.  Not.  About.  Microtransactions.

altho it seems to me the gavinistas are the ones pretty alone in this nonsense..

You're the one who thinks you can have a system where you can ignore the wishes of miners, merchants, payment processors and users.  You've made it abundantly and abhorrently clear what your view of Bitcoin's future is and I'm pretty sure most people don't share it. 

[Zarathustra]

I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).

[hdbuck]

I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).

and you gavinistas gov pigs will be centralized? lmao.







@doomad:




edit: place your bets gents: https://bitbet.us/bet/1191/the-hearn-gavin-scamcoin-will-fizzle-in-2016/

[Zarathustra]

I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).

and you gavinistas gov pigs will be centralized? lmao.

The several big blockians and the 'Bitcoin unlimited' people will be decentralized as well. But together they are a majority to raise the limit.

[hdbuck]

[Zarathustra]

Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories.

[DooMAD]

Anyway, since some are determined to deflect away from technical proposals and throw silly memes around, we'll drag the topic back to one of merit.

The ideal solution is one that doesn't create a blocksize too large for full nodes to cope with, but at the same time, one that doesn't force a large number of people off chain.  Even doubling to 2MB in one go is quite high when you think about it, so we should aim to increase (or decrease) in smaller increments more often, if needed.  One possible route is to take the best elements of BIP100 and BIP106.  BIP100 only considers what benefits the miners and not the users.  BIP106 only considers what benefits the users and not the miners.  So neither is particularly balanced on its own.  If we can find a way of allowing half of the "vote" to go to the miners and half to an automated, algorithmic vote based on traffic volumes, then we maintain some kind of equilibrium that should (in theory, at least) benefit the network as a whole.

Code:

Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig to: 
    raise blocksize limit by 12.5%, 
    lower blocksize limit by 12.5%, 
    or remain at current blocksize limit.  

This vote, however, only counts for half of the total vote and the other half is determined by algorithm based on network traffic:

If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 1008 of the last difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize +12.5% 

Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 1008 of the last difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize -12.5%

Else
    Network votes for keeping the same MaxBlockSize

The 12.5% part is open to negotiation, some think 10% is more reasonable (i.e. BIP105).  If every 1008 blocks is too fast, we could (for example) increase that to 2016 blocks, approximately every two weeks.  Tweaks are inevitable, but I feel it's something that could work if it's not too complex to code.

[iCEBREAKER]

"BIP000" belligerence

BIP000 is just the natural expression of Bitcon's Honey Badger "don't a shit what you say" philosophy reflected in the domain of blocksize debating.

Face it, XT got #REKT.  The Gavinistas can't even keep their fail-nodes and fail-pools up, but expected us to hand them the keys to Satoshi's Kingdom?   

G.T.F.O. noob!  Go play with the other losers at bitco.in or voat/v/bitcoinxt.

(Just kidding, we value your flailings for their entertainment value.)