Bitcoin Forum
June 28, 2022, 08:26:29 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Public statements from large mining farms regarding block size limits.  (Read 2146 times)
letsplayagame
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:15:43 AM
 #1

I see many statements from well known community members and core developers about present and future block size limits.

I do not see a lot of are statements from the largest mining farms.

I have heard Blockstream has been attempting to lobby some of these groups. Are there any links to statements from large mining farms?

Chess, Bitcoin, Privacy and Freedom
Code:
Make BTC Donations via XMR.TO or Shapeshift XMR: 47nMGDMQxEB8CWpWT7QgBLDmTSxgjm9831dVeu24ebCeH8gNPG9RvZAYoPxW2JniKjeq5LXZafwdPWH7AmX2NVji3yYKy76
icon
Automate your trading like a pro. Lightning fast execution.
Start trading
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
CipherAnthem
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:19:34 PM
 #2

Gavin is the one doing lobbying on big businesses, including miners. I have not heard that Blockstream have been doing any lobbying so far, but hopefully they will soon to bring some balance to the lobbying done by Gavin, Mike & co.
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1076


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
August 15, 2015, 12:47:39 PM
 #3

Gavin is the one doing lobbying on big businesses, including miners. I have not heard that Blockstream have been doing any lobbying so far, but hopefully they will soon to bring some balance to the lobbying done by Gavin, Mike & co.

Sure, let's offer these miners a profit share with the lightning network... Roll Eyes guess bitcoin goes down the drain. It's like we have goal conflicts everywhere. I feel, like we are having politics on that topic, at the moment. Not interest free geeks who want to support a decentralized currency.

Well, hopefully sane people will win.

Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.
wtogami
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 263
Merit: 250



View Profile
August 15, 2015, 09:35:59 PM
 #4

Gavin is the one doing lobbying on big businesses, including miners. I have not heard that Blockstream have been doing any lobbying so far, but hopefully they will soon to bring some balance to the lobbying done by Gavin, Mike & co.

Would you prefer political lobbying, or a science and engineering based approach to improve Bitcoin to make it safer to increase the block size in the future?

If you appreciate my work please consider making a small donation.
BTC:  1LkYiL3RaouKXTUhGcE84XLece31JjnLc3      LTC:  LYtrtYZsVSn5ymhPepcJMo4HnBeeXXVKW9
GPG: AEC1884398647C47413C1C3FB1179EB7347DC10D
Nicolas Dorier
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 552


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 02:02:37 AM
 #5

Here you go http://cointelegraph.com/news/114577/chinese-mining-pools-propose-alternative-8-mb-block-size

Quote
We do not necessarily consider an 8 MB block size limit a temporary solution, as we cannot predict what will happen years into the future. But we do think 8 MB is enough for the foreseeable future, presumable at least for the next three years. An increase to 20 MB however, is too risky, and we do not like the proposed Bitcoin-Xt alternative either. We do, on the other hand, support BIP 100 as proposed by Jeff Garzik

Most miners would agree over night to a kick the can solution.
This is why I think we should have informal approval voting, which allow miners to vote multiple BIP at the same time without discarding those who are not mutually exclusive.
Once vote would reach 95%, then, we can plan the fork in the future at an agreed date by the core devs.

Bitcoin address 15sYbVpRh6dyWycZMwPdxJWD4xbfxReeHe
Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:53:31 AM
 #6

Quote from: (miners)
we do think 8 MB is enough for the foreseeable future
(...)
we do not like the proposed Bitcoin-Xt alternative either
If they agree with 8MB, exactly what do they not like about XT?

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
Nicolas Dorier
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 552


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 12:36:41 PM
 #7

Quote
If they agree with 8MB, exactly what do they not like about XT?

Ask them, but if they are like me, one of the problem is XT is not only about 8MB improvement, but also the dumb doubling.

The second problem, is that such a fork might eventually break (momentarily or forever, yet don't know) the network into 2 simultaneous currencies, each calling themselves Bitcoin, because it is contentious by nature, people will loose money, and the fault will fall on service providers that will have to pay the bill.
Not everybody support 8MB, so you can't expect to call it "a consensus".

Personally I support 8MB (and only that, no doubling) but not XT.

I think a better voting process should be put in place for miners to express what BIP they "approve" before planning any BIP in the source code for activation, this would have spared us lots of blood.

Bitcoin address 15sYbVpRh6dyWycZMwPdxJWD4xbfxReeHe
Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 16, 2015, 01:38:06 PM
 #8

Ask them
done

Quote
but also the dumb doubling.
What?  Huh

Quote
The second problem, is that such a fork might eventually break (momentarily or forever, yet don't know) the network into 2 simultaneous currencies, each calling themselves Bitcoin, because it is contentious by nature, people will loose money, and the fault will fall on service providers that will have to pay the bill.
Not everybody support 8MB, so you can't expect to call it "a consensus".
Well this problem is MUCH worse if there are two up to date versions (one Core, one XT).

If the newer Core version would integrate these changes (thus no need for a separate XT version anymore), and only become effective if >75% is using the newer version (like XT does), then there is pretty much zero incentive to deliberately stick with the old version.

Whereas in a Core vs XT situation, people might stick to the latest Core, thus causing the whole 'two currencies' situation to persist.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
NLNico
Legendary
*
hacker
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1269


DiceSites.com owner


View Profile WWW
August 16, 2015, 01:46:18 PM
 #9

Quote
but also the dumb doubling.
What?  Huh
XT implements BIP 101 that says "8 MB from 2016-01-11" and a double every 2 years (so 16 MB at 2018) and up to 8 GB by 2036.

Nicolas Dorier
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 552


View Profile
August 16, 2015, 04:26:34 PM
 #10

Ask them
done

Quote
but also the dumb doubling.
What?  Huh

Quote
The second problem, is that such a fork might eventually break (momentarily or forever, yet don't know) the network into 2 simultaneous currencies, each calling themselves Bitcoin, because it is contentious by nature, people will loose money, and the fault will fall on service providers that will have to pay the bill.
Not everybody support 8MB, so you can't expect to call it "a consensus".
Well this problem is MUCH worse if there are two up to date versions (one Core, one XT).

If the newer Core version would integrate these changes (thus no need for a separate XT version anymore), and only become effective if >75% is using the newer version (like XT does), then there is pretty much zero incentive to deliberately stick with the old version.

Whereas in a Core vs XT situation, people might stick to the latest Core, thus causing the whole 'two currencies' situation to persist.
Will be interesting to know what they are saying.
Yes called that "dumb doubling", because crystal balling growth of resources and hard coding it is what I call "dumb", I prefer more adaptive proposal. :p

Bitcoin address 15sYbVpRh6dyWycZMwPdxJWD4xbfxReeHe
ujka
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 01:38:01 PM
 #11

I see many statements from well known community members and core developers about present and future block size limits.

I do not see a lot of are statements from the largest mining farms.

I have heard Blockstream has been attempting to lobby some of these groups. Are there any links to statements from large mining farms?

LiteCoinGuy listed some in this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0

Quote
BTC_ISTANBUL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331
Merit: 250


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 06:11:07 AM
 #12

Why do they name it Bitcoinxt? They can easily create a new coin and they can do any modifications they want to make.

The XT Manifesto is below, although it says 'We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain', only big farms who has the fastest internet connection and fastest miners.The BTC can go forever as it is.Do they need excitement, why do they want new but not needed modifications?

The XT Manifesto
Bitcoin XT incorporates changes that didn't make it into Core, or are very unlikely to, due to differing philosophies.

The principles XT uses to guide decisions on patches are as follows:

We try to follow the founding vision of the Bitcoin project, as defined by Satoshi's writings. That means:
We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain.
We aim for mainstream adoption, by people who may not be ideologically motivated.
We focus on the user experience, as ultimately, how users experience Bitcoin is fundamental to the project's success.
Better is better. Changes can be useful even if more work remains to be done, or there are theoretically better proposals not backed by working code. Put another way, perfect is the enemy of the good.
Truly mainstream adoption is not inevitable; it requires hard work by everyone. We must never make decisions based on the assumption of inevitable success.
There is a clear decision making process, and product decisions are made in a timely manner.
We maintain a professional working environment at all times. The developer discussion forum is moderated and troublemaking, nastyness, Machiavellianism etc will result in bans.

ujka
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 06:52:41 AM
 #13

BTC_ISTANBUL, you're in the wrong thread.
Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 10:14:33 AM
 #14

The BTC can go forever as it is.
No it can't. Increasing the block size limit is inevitable. If at some point in the near future, sending a Bitcoin transaction is by no means an assurance that will actually be mined, then Bitcoin would become useless. Higher fees doesn't help either. If more and more people are using Bitcoin (which was we all hope for, I assume?) then 1MB blocks are simply not enough.

I don't necessarily agree with XT, a more moderate approach like Pieter Wuille's proposal would be better imho. But simply holding on to 1MB blocks is too shortsighted.

However I strongly DISagree with XT as it is. It should be merged into Core (and adjusted if necessary to find a compromise), splitting Bitcoin into Core and XT is very bad.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
bastilar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 730
Merit: 501


View Profile
August 19, 2015, 02:13:04 AM
 #15

The BTC can go forever as it is.
No it can't. Increasing the block size limit is inevitable. If at some point in the near future, sending a Bitcoin transaction is by no means an assurance that will actually be mined, then Bitcoin would become useless. Higher fees doesn't help either. If more and more people are using Bitcoin (which was we all hope for, I assume?) then 1MB blocks are simply not enough.

I don't necessarily agree with XT, a more moderate approach like Pieter Wuille's proposal would be better imho. But simply holding on to 1MB blocks is too shortsighted.

However I strongly DISagree with XT as it is. It should be merged into Core (and adjusted if necessary to find a compromise), splitting Bitcoin into Core and XT is very bad.

I agree. I'm not only making a movie about bitcoin, I'm trying to make a new living from mining it.

This split is going to ruin all that i have plus crash btc prices and I"m going to get really pissed at GAvin and his supporters. I agree the block size needs to be increased but not in the crazy all of a sudden way that bitcoin xt seems to be doing.
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!