Core developers: we want bigger blocks

[Klestin]

Let the miners decide their fees. Block size and miners accepting transactions for a fee are two different topics.

Holy mother of monkey milk, someone gets it.

[harrymmmm]

At this point I think it should be obvious that kicking the can down the road IS a sensible thing to do.
It could be an safe (almost insignificant) block cap increase, and would offer hope for the majority who want bigger blocks but don't want the contentious fork.

[VeritasSapere]

there was no consensus for a fork, bitcoin xt took a dictatorial approach.

Bitcoin xt centralizes bitcoin since it makes it very expensive to run a full node, and eliminates miners fees therefore as block halves so does the security.

Also Bitcoin Xt seems to cripple tor nodes, and has a list of banned ip addresses, essentially a from of censorship.
 
In the bitcoin world decentralization is your friend and goes with the spirit of Satoshi.

Lets stay with bitcoin core, the reckless approach taken by bitcoin xt is causing the price to collapse.

I disagree, I think that not increasing the block size will centralize Bitcoin. Also the opposite is true in terms of it being a dictatorial approach. If we think that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team can hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin so decentralized. I would prefer seeing an increased block size within Bitcoin core, but I do not think that will happen I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. That is why we must hard fork away from Core if we want bigger blocks.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

[madjules007]

Amusing how Mike Hearn's own article does not mention tens of thousands of lines of blacklist software which he wrote. This is a much bigger issue than blocksize, which at this point is obviously just to distract from the real purpose of XT. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Bingo. The block size issue is just being used to force Hearn's vision of bitcoin on the community without us realizing it.

At this point I think it should be obvious that kicking the can down the road IS a sensible thing to do.
It could be an safe (almost insignificant) block cap increase, and would offer hope for the majority who want bigger blocks but don't want the contentious fork.

Indeed. The block size issue is actually not very significant, and could be handled without all this drama. We don't need 20MB blocks, we don't need to figure out the absolute best way to implement dynamically adjusting blocks yet. We just need to scale to current needs, and go from there. If we can't do that, at least in the interim..... I'm really sad for this community.

[DooMAD]

I'm really sad for this community.

I'm really sad for this community too, but only because you'll believe anything turtlehurricane tells you, even when it's complete bullshit.  Keep blindly buying into the fear campaign.  It's not like you should stop to question it or anything.   

[meono]

I'm really sad for this community.

I'm really sad for this community too, but only because you'll believe anything turtlehurricane tells you, even when it's complete bullshit.  Keep blindly buying into the fear campaign.  It's not like you should stop to question it or anything.   

lmao,

[croTek4]

Amusing how Mike Hearn's own article does not mention tens of thousands of lines of blacklist software which he wrote. This is a much bigger issue than blocksize, which at this point is obviously just to distract from the real purpose of XT. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Your false statements have been proven wrong over and over again, but still you keep on going with them.

[VirosaGITS]

Amusing how Mike Hearn's own article does not mention tens of thousands of lines of blacklist software which he wrote. This is a much bigger issue than blocksize, which at this point is obviously just to distract from the real purpose of XT. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Your false statements have been proven wrong over and over again, but still you keep on going with them.

It does give a hook for certain individual to get a form of control and power over the network which is exactly what its not supposed to be. A centralized authority over a decentralized system kind of beat the purpose.

A feature where the network can vote to reduce priority temporarily for an ip range could work.

[meono]

Amusing how Mike Hearn's own article does not mention tens of thousands of lines of blacklist software which he wrote. This is a much bigger issue than blocksize, which at this point is obviously just to distract from the real purpose of XT. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Your false statements have been proven wrong over and over again, but still you keep on going with them.

It does give a hook for certain individual to get a form of control and power over the network which is exactly what its not supposed to be. A centralized authority over a decentralized system kind of beat the purpose.

A feature where the network can vote to reduce priority temporarily for an ip range could work.

Are you aware that you can turn this featurr of completely and it does not affect the blockchain at all?

Do you know many wallet clients have their own rules for peer connection? Thats essentially the voting system you're looking for.

I think we're done with this FUD....

[VirosaGITS]

Amusing how Mike Hearn's own article does not mention tens of thousands of lines of blacklist software which he wrote. This is a much bigger issue than blocksize, which at this point is obviously just to distract from the real purpose of XT. https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/commit/73c9efe74c5cc8faea9c2b2c785a2f5b68aa4c23

Your false statements have been proven wrong over and over again, but still you keep on going with them.

It does give a hook for certain individual to get a form of control and power over the network which is exactly what its not supposed to be. A centralized authority over a decentralized system kind of beat the purpose.

A feature where the network can vote to reduce priority temporarily for an ip range could work.

Are you aware that you can turn this featurr of completely and it does not affect the blockchain at all?

Do you know many wallet clients have their own rules for peer connection? Thats essentially the voting system you're looking for.

I think we're done with this FUD....

No FUD here. Just the fact on the effect of that code if its put in. And as its said right there on the code commenting, there's a better way to do it. Check the code yourself, this wouldn't let the end user tick a box and make it all disappear.

[bittydude]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

[madjules007]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I agree. Kick the can down the road, TBH. See how adoption plays out, and develop a more robust plan for dynamically adjusting block size. For now, 3-4MB is more than enough. No need to build Rome in a day here.

That's partly what pisses me off about XT -- so much fear being pushed on people. Unnecessary fear. "We have to do this YESTERDAY!!!111!!1111"

[bittydude]

IMO, getting new developers behind core in a democratic fashion every so often should be our main concern. Having this much power in such few hands is not ideal. Its cause for concern in regards to safety, responsability, consensus and corruption.

[cbeast]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

The fact that they won't belies their "alterior" motives.

[VeritasSapere]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

[harrymmmm]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

Even a 2MB cap would stiff xt imho.
Adam tweeted he was in favor of 2MB as 'soon as safely possible', but wanted to analyze flexcap first coz it's better.
I think something will come along soonish, especially if xt gets traction.

[valiz]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

You can't change the max block size without a hardfork anyway. It's not like you are tweaking a knob. Perhaps you are confusing the software fork with the blockchain hard fork.

Please go ahead with the XT-CIAcoin and suffer the consequences. You are free to do so

[VeritasSapere]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

You can't change the max block size without a hardfork anyway. It's not like you are tweaking a knob. Perhaps you are confusing the software fork with the blockchain hard fork.

Please go ahead with the XT-CIAcoin and suffer the consequences. You are free to do so

I do realize that any increase to the block size requires a hard fork, I think that Core will never increase the block size so therefore supporting a hard fork is de facto not supporting Core. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks and wild conspiracy theory against XT instead of having solid arguments. Can you explain to me how XT is a CIA coin?

[oblivi]

Please update core to allow 4mb blocks. Meet in the middle and stiff arm XT. They want doubling blocks every 2 years, thats quite an adoption XT is anticipating.

I would actually support Core again if they did that, but they have not done that and I do not believe they will. I would love to be proven wrong on this issue. The ability to hard fork is the greatest expression of the freedom and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin protocol. If we did not have this ability the Core developers would essentially have absolute power over the development of Bitcoin. It would be wrong if these five people had such power over Bitcoin something that is intended to be decentralized and trustless, I refuse to trust these people with such power. We the people are free to choose what path the development of Bitcoin will take, that is part of the reason why I support a hard fork.

You can't change the max block size without a hardfork anyway. It's not like you are tweaking a knob. Perhaps you are confusing the software fork with the blockchain hard fork.

Please go ahead with the XT-CIAcoin and suffer the consequences. You are free to do so

I do realize that any increase to the block size requires a hard fork, I think that Core will never increase the block size so therefore supporting a hard fork is de facto not supporting Core. I see a lot of ad hominem attacks and wild conspiracy theory against XT instead of having solid arguments. Can you explain to me how XT is a CIA coin?

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

This sounds pretty CIA to me. And don't get me wrong, I want bigger blocks and I was support XT until I realized there is a lot of fishy things going on here, can't trust that at all, so I will stay with Core for sure. We have still a long way to get near 1MB blocks limit, we are at the half at best, I dont see the big necessity for big blocks NOW.

[cbeast]

We have still a long way to get near 1MB blocks limit, we are at the half at best, I dont see the big necessity for big blocks NOW.

It was growing and even full for awhile. Demand for bitcoins is shrinking with the price. So as long as the price keeps dropping, there really is no need to bother doing anything at all with Bitcoin.