...

[turtlehurricane]

...

[Blazr]

This seems like a sort of propaganda there is no tricks happening from Gavin, we need to go ahead and fork to increase block size, this has been agreed by everyone. The only issue is how.

I think we should do it the same way we did it the last 2 times we had to change the blocksize. People seem to forget we changed this before and it wasn't nearly as controversial of a change.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core provides.

Currently it contains the following additional changes:

+Support for larger blocks. XT has support for BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen, which schedules an increase from the one megabyte limit Bitcoin is now hitting.

+Relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core will simply drop unconfirmed transactions that double spend other unconfirmed transactions, forcing merchants who want to know about them to connect to thousands of nodes in the hope of spotting them. This is unreliable, wastes resources and isn't feasible on mobile devices. Bitcoin XT incorporates work by Tom Harding and Gavin Andresen that relays the first observed double spend of a transaction. Additionally, it will highlight it in red in the user interface. Other wallets also have the opportunity to use the new information to alert the user that there is a fraud attempt against them.

+Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent.

+DNS seed changes: bitseed.xf2.org is removed as it no longer works, and seeds from Addy Yeow and Mike Hearn are (re)added to increase seed diversity and redundancy.


tl;dr it's just Bitcoin Core but with ability to have larger blocks, a bug fix, and two minor things that are useful for app developers.

[Blazr]

This seems like a sort of propaganda there is no tricks happening from Gavin, we need to go ahead and fork to increase block size, this has been agreed by everyone. The only issue is how.

I think we should do it the same way we did it the last 2 times we had to change the blocksize. People seem to forget we changed this before and it wasn't nearly as controversial of a change.

Yeah because Bitcoin wasn't nearly as big or nearly as worth as much that and Satoshi was at the helm and everyone trusted him. Don't forget Satoshi trust Gavin enough to give him the emergency keys, even though everyone thinks he is an enemy.

The second time it was changed it was done under Gavin, Satoshi wasn't around. Gavin just picked 1MB blocks and nobody complained. Nobody really cared, I remember when it happened clearly.

Yes of course Satoshi didn't just give him the alert keys, Gavin was appointed lead developer of Bitcoin Core by Satoshi - he gave him commit access to the Bitcoin Core source code repository,

The good news is everyone knows drama is like rocket fuel for Bitcoin so hopefully we have enough fuel to hit the moon

[LiteCoinGuy]

the 1 MB blocksize was a temporary fix and now 3 devs are holding bitcoin back  


Should Bitcoin grow, even if the network changes its structure as a result?

   The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

    — Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

[Blazr]

the 1 MB blocksize was a temporary fix and now 3 devs are holding bitcoin back  


Should Bitcoin grow, even if the network changes its structure as a result?

   The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

    — Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

Great quote. I had not noticed it before. It sums up the whole blocksize issue really, it needs to be changed. The whole XT situation is now a different problem to the blocksize situation IMO. I want the blocksize increased, but I am totally against this incredibly dangerous way to try and change Bitcoins design.

[smoothie]

Let's not forget that the bitcoin core developers excommunicated Gavin for being a selfish nutcase. Now he is trying to destroy bitcoin with outright terrorism via month long transaction spam attacks and declaring Bitcoin is forked when he does not have the ability to do so. He's causing the entire bitcoin community to lose money just because he is butthurt

Please back up your claim with evidence about gavin being the culprit behind the recent spam attack on the bitcoin network.

Otherwise please STFU 

thanks

[uvt9]

Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size.

Except that it can only perfectly function at the rate of 3tx per second.

[meono]

Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size. This is what the Bitcoin core developers already agree on.

ignoring everything I wrote and posting a red herring is aggravating. Ignorance is the only reason this debate still exists. I will no longer respect people who spread this misinformation.

wtf? you're the one that dont understand shit and spread BS.

lol why did you open your mouth to remove all doubt?

[meono]

Let's not forget that the bitcoin core developers excommunicated Gavin for being a selfish nutcase. Now he is trying to destroy bitcoin with outright terrorism via month long transaction spam attacks and declaring Bitcoin is forked when he does not have the ability to do so. He's causing the entire bitcoin community to lose money just because he is butthurt

Please back up your claim with evidence about gavin being the culprit behind the recent spam attack on the bitcoin network.

Otherwise please STFU 

thanks

Oh yeah i'm also waiting for this, Mr. NOT SPREAD MISLEADING INFORMATION!


What a piece of shit.

[meono]

Let's not forget that the bitcoin core developers excommunicated Gavin for being a selfish nutcase. Now he is trying to destroy bitcoin with outright terrorism via month long transaction spam attacks and declaring Bitcoin is forked when he does not have the ability to do so. He's causing the entire bitcoin community to lose money just because he is butthurt

Please back up your claim with evidence about gavin being the culprit behind the recent spam attack on the bitcoin network.

Otherwise please STFU  

thanks

I know it was him and the BitcoinXT crew, they were trying to prove Bitcoin needs bigger blocks and failed miserably. He is so desperate at this point it is amusing.

The only thing Gavin destroyed was his reputation and credibility. Maybe he should do something useful and terrorize Dogecoin.

So in summary:

" i pulled shit out of my ass, put it in my mouth, then spit it out on screen for you guys to see ..."

The only reputation being destroyed is yours,... if its actually worth anything.

[meono]

Says the guy with dozens of bitcointalk accounts, that's real legit.  

What can i expect from a guy who just pass opinions as facts Then got a nerve to keep repeating it when asked for proof?


Keep repeating shit does not make it truth. Got that?

You can assume i have dozen accounts all you want, only admins here can know the truth. Retard.

[DooMAD]

Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size. This is what the Bitcoin core developers already agree on.

Yes, we will clearly continue to be able to fit 10 minutes worth of transactions from a global populace into two-thirds of a floppy disk for the rest of forever.   

Fees alone will not solve scalability.  If you honestly believe that then you don't understand this system as well as you claim to. 

Here's an honest question to those who advocate keeping a 1MB block:  how long would the backlog of transactions have to get before increasing the blocksize would become a viable option in your opinion?  I genuinely want to know just how far you're prepared to cripple the network to justify your agenda.

[DooMAD]

Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size. This is what the Bitcoin core developers already agree on.

Yes, we will clearly continue to be able to fit 10 minutes worth of transactions from a global populace into two-thirds of a floppy disk for the rest of forever.  

Fees alone will not solve scalability.  If you honestly believe that then you don't understand this system as well as you claim to.  

Here's an honest question to those who advocate keeping a 1MB block:  how long would the backlog of transactions have to get before increasing the blocksize would become a viable option in your opinion?  I genuinely want to know just how far you're prepared to cripple the network to justify your agenda.

Under organic circumstances the Bitcoin transactions per day will increase slowly, and a slight increase in transaction fees will keep things running smoothly. Currently we are nowhere needing a blocksize increase, and Bitcoin transactions per day are growing steadily but definitely not exponentially.

I love Bitcoin so of course if there was a problem I'd support the fix. There simply is no problem though. Spam attacks helped prove that, transactions increased by insane amounts that would never happen naturally and network still ran fine.

Perhaps there was some ambiguity in my post.  That's not what I asked.  Those recent transactions may well have been spam, but if the network did grow to a point where it was filled by legitimate transactions, what figure in MB would you be willing to see the backlog reach before supporting larger blocks?

[tertius993]

Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size. This is what the Bitcoin core developers already agree on.

Yes, we will clearly continue to be able to fit 10 minutes worth of transactions from a global populace into two-thirds of a floppy disk for the rest of forever.  

Fees alone will not solve scalability.  If you honestly believe that then you don't understand this system as well as you claim to.  

Here's an honest question to those who advocate keeping a 1MB block:  how long would the backlog of transactions have to get before increasing the blocksize would become a viable option in your opinion?  I genuinely want to know just how far you're prepared to cripple the network to justify your agenda.

Under organic circumstances the Bitcoin transactions per day will increase slowly, and a slight increase in transaction fees will keep things running smoothly. Currently we are nowhere needing a blocksize increase, and Bitcoin transactions per day are growing steadily but definitely not exponentially.

I love Bitcoin so of course if there was a problem I'd support the fix. There simply is no problem though. Spam attacks helped prove that, transactions increased by insane amounts that would never happen naturally and network still ran fine.

Please explain how increasing fees will allow the network to scale beyond 7 transactions per second?

(For the sake of argument I'm assuming that the current capacity limit is 7 TPS which seems to be a widely accepted number.)

[tertius993]

You are not answering the question - how does increasing transaction fees increase the capacity for legitimate transactions?

[chek2fire]

the panic seems to begin. We have seen the price drop and we see more in the next days. This move from Gavin is very stupid and not necessary atm. In my opinion is suspicious to do this in this period of time when bitcoin  seems to stabilize almost one year after the mtgox problem and crash.

[tertius993]

You are not answering the question - how does increasing transaction fees increase the capacity for legitimate transactions?

By making it impractical to send dust and spam due to cost, leaving more room for legitimate transactions.

Which is not increasing capacity is it?  Merely prioritising the capacity we have.  And when the block is full of legitimate transactions, all paying a fair fee, what then?

[LiteCoinGuy]

But the exchange rate is even more important, at least until the reward drops to zero. So if the goal is to keep the network as secure as possible over the next ten or fifteen years, we should be focusing on doing things that are likely to increase the exchange rate. All of the things that come to my mind that make Bitcoin more valuable (like increasing the number of people using Bitcoin, increasing security using multisig wallets, allowing people to innovate and leverage the security of the blockchain for things other than payments) will benefit from a larger maximum block size.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/block-size-and-miner-fees-again


an artificial 1 MB block is the worst outcome. let us increase it to 8 MB so that Bitcoin can live up to its full potential  

[LiteCoinGuy]

we need fees to increase up to 0.50 $ , 1 $ - the poor people on the planet can use something else!

 
/s