Core developers: we want bigger blocks

[The Bitcoin Co-op]

It's going to have to fork to allow bigger blocks, eventually. That's pretty much inevitable. What is the value in delaying it? Wouldn't the fork be more damaging in the future, when there are more nodes and investors on the line?

[Amph]

It's going to have to fork to allow bigger blocks, eventually. That's pretty much inevitable. What is the value in delaying it? Wouldn't the fork be more damaging in the future, when there are more nodes and investors on the line?

they think they can find a better solution in a few months time-frame, i believe that if this is the case they should've worked for those solution long way before, now it's too late we need to build immedaitely a solution

or maybe some of them want that those changes are implemented directly in bitcoin core and not in an "alternative client"

[AGD]

Wouldn't it be easier to hardcode a minimum fee of 0.0001 to avoid spamming, rather than dividing the Bitcoin community with a fork?

[agath]

I support large blocks. There should not be any limit, miners choose which transactions to include in their mined blocks with the fees they like more. This is free market, and healthy competition. Bitcoin must not be controlled by a small group of developers. I am switching to XT until Bitcoin Core will support larger blocks. Keep up the great work, Gavin & c.

Fiat money is already controlled by a small selected group of people, if you like fiat money stick to 1 Mb blocks. If you like bitcoin, you should all upgrade to XT.

[coinpr0n]

I support large blocks. There should not be any limit, miners choose which transactions to include in their mined blocks with the fees they like more. This is free market, and healthy competition. Bitcoin must not be controlled by a small group of developers. I am switching to XT until Bitcoin Core will support larger blocks. Keep up the great work, Gavin & c.

Fiat money is already controlled by a small selected group of people, if you like fiat money stick to 1 Mb blocks. If you like bitcoin, you should all upgrade to XT.

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

[agath]

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

[Dusty]

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

+1 :-)

[coinpr0n]

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

Haha. Uhm... you're joking right? Firstly, XT is Core plus a a series of patches (not just larger blocks). Secondly, they cannot co-exist they are incompatible with eachother.

[Denker]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

Sorry but which consenses do you mean?
No decision has been made so far.

The lack of ability to execute according to one's vision within the bitcoin-core dev process has made forking to XT inevitable. If not now, I could have seen another dev creating an 8M fork within the next year given the lack of progress within the group of core devs.

Most of bitcoin-dev don't seem too be interested in what end users want. This disconnect between devs and users is a big big reason that XT has such a groundswell of support. Ignoring what the end user wants will almost always lead to revolt in one way or another

That is the whole situation.

I'm for bigger blocks as well. But it would be great to have more options than just XT.
I hope core devs realize that

[agath]

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

Haha. Uhm... you're joking right? Firstly, XT is Core plus a a series of patches (not just larger blocks). Secondly, they cannot co-exist they are incompatible with eachother.

I will accept the other patches (some of which are useful, like the DNS seed update, others are harmless, like the UTXO querying and DS relaying), because the support of larger blocks is really needed.

By the way why don't you stick to bitcoin core v0.4 for example? v0.11 is the v0.4 plus a series of patches on it.

They are not incompatible, XT is a drop-in replacement, totally interoperable. Increasing the max block size doesn't imply that automatically all mined blocks will be large. They will grow proportionally to bitcoin usage in the world. And when the largest part of miners will mine larger blocks, the new improved chain will take over. Simple, neat.

[coinpr0n]

Uhm.. I support bigger blocks too. But what you are saying doesn't add up: XT has a single commiter, while Core has at least five.

XT is Core with larger blocks.

Core has 5 committers, XT 6.

Haha. Uhm... you're joking right? Firstly, XT is Core plus a a series of patches (not just larger blocks). Secondly, they cannot co-exist they are incompatible with eachother.

I will accept the other patches (some of which are useful, like the DNS seed update, others are harmless, like the UTXO querying and DS relaying), because the support of larger blocks is really needed.

By the way why don't you stick to bitcoin core v0.4 for example? v0.11 is the v0.4 plus a series of patches on it.

They are not incompatible, XT is a drop-in replacement, totally interoperable. Increasing the max block size doesn't imply that automatically all mined blocks will be large. They will grow proportionally to bitcoin usage in the world. And when the largest part of miners will mine larger blocks, the new improved chain will take over. Simple, neat.

My point is about the number of commiters. If XT takes over there will be no Core commiters, so your 6 minus 5 equals 1 commiter.

[agath]

My point is about the number of commiters. If XT takes over there will be no Core commiters, so your 6 minus 5 equals 1 commiter.

I would not bet on it. And after all, if the Core developers leave, it means they would have been useless anyway. The world is big, someone else will take their place.

[desired_username]

My point is about the number of commiters. If XT takes over there will be no Core commiters, so your 6 minus 5 equals 1 commiter.

I would not bet on it. And after all, if the Core developers leave, it means they would have been useless anyway. The world is big, someone else will take their place.

+1

The experiment doesn't depend on any single dev.

Considering the concerted effort to suppress debate about the fork, xt, blockstream and core devs, we are sailing in dangerous waters.

Hedge accordingly.

Personally I will not abandon bitcoin for BlockstreamCoin.

[fryarminer]

Op if you think ppl should stick with bitcoin core if the core team agree to give us bigger block , you really ditch the people that gave you that option in the first place.

Who think of bitcoin future and scalabilty? Not the core team that you're begging. They only do it so they can still be in authority and thats an insult to our intelligence.

Think of this as price matching, i support the business that gave us the best price thus i refuse to pricematch and go to the original business who give us the best price. Vote with my wallet.

I actually had my reasons:

1) so that the post wouldn't be moved to the "altcoin" section, since this is a Bitcoin discussion

2) because the danger is that core developers will harden in their intention and not raise the limit, based on the position of the XT team. There are many people who want and need larger blocks but don't want to "split" the network by adopting XT. By Core increasing the block size, both these and the XT users will get what they want without a split.

This being said, from what I'm reading the so-called "Lightning" network will cause more damage to Bitcoin than the XT fork will cause. It will require new wallets etc. So in the end, if Core does not increase the size, the path to lesser damage is to go with XT. The only danger with XT are the freshly mined coins on the Core chain after the split, which technically could be zero, if people simply upgrade.

[balu2]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

[meono]

Op if you think ppl should stick with bitcoin core if the core team agree to give us bigger block , you really ditch the people that gave you that option in the first place.

Who think of bitcoin future and scalabilty? Not the core team that you're begging. They only do it so they can still be in authority and thats an insult to our intelligence.

Think of this as price matching, i support the business that gave us the best price thus i refuse to pricematch and go to the original business who give us the best price. Vote with my wallet.

I actually had my reasons:

1) so that the post wouldn't be moved to the "altcoin" section, since this is a Bitcoin discussion

2) because the danger is that core developers will harden in their intention and not raise the limit, based on the position of the XT team. There are many people who want and need larger blocks but don't want to "split" the network by adopting XT. By Core increasing the block size, both these and the XT users will get what they want without a split.

This being said, from what I'm reading the so-called "Lightning" network will cause more damage to Bitcoin than the XT fork will cause. It will require new wallets etc. So in the end, if Core does not increase the size, the path to lesser damage is to go with XT. The only danger with XT are the freshly mined coins on the Core chain after the split, which technically could be zero, if people simply upgrade.

Its not that dangerous. Dont listen to those idiots who like drama.

Since Gavin is already planning to fork only with majority of bitcoin economy, most if not all miner will choose the client version as soon as the result shows. (They got two weeks)

The rest of miners who still refuse to switch, will just cause a larger number of orphan blocks than normal. As i said it would be their losses. I dont  believe miners care as much as their return on investment.

Only idiots would actually think it will fork with 75% of miners

If anyone wants to mine coins that are not listed on global exchanges, they should look into altcoins. And belive me bitcoin exchanges dont like plan that undercut their revenue stream ( LightingNetwork and sidechains).

[meono]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

Unless you think majority of bitcoiners are retards with conspiracy, then yes.

[Ghostface]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

We'll all be dead long before this happens so not sure why it should concern us right now. Eventually the block size will have to be increased so why not now? I think the only question is how big should the size be.

[meono]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

We'll all be dead long before this happens so not sure why it should concern us right now. Eventually the block size will have to be increased so why not now? I think the only question is how big should the size be.

That retard couldnt even calculate the fees to begin with. As if he does not know what tx volume means

[TheMage]

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.