|
cafucafucafu (OP)
|
 |
August 17, 2015, 04:31:19 PM |
|
A lot has been said recently about XT but what about the other side?
What is the agenda of those who disagree with a block size increase? What do they gain to lose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time a block is mined, a certain amount of BTC (called the
subsidy) is created out of thin air and given to the miner. The
subsidy halves every four years and will reach 0 in about 130 years.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:44:34 PM |
|
As far as I know, there's only one argument against block size increase, blockchain gets big, but that's an inevitability even with 1mb max blocks, eventually it will get too big for desktop computers.
Any change to the network that can be made with 1mb blocks can also be made with 8mb blocks or bigger, so the other proposals can also be implemented.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:46:23 PM |
|
Here I go again, having to explain something multiple times on this forum just because we have too many threads on the same subject. Supporting a block size increase =/= supporting XT. I personally support a block size increase (to what limit, is debatable), but I'm completely against XT. To completely understand those who are completely against a block size limit, you would have to talk to Gregory Maxwell for example. Partially, yes. As far as I know, there's only one argument against block size increase, blockchain gets big, but that's an inevitability even with 1mb max blocks, eventually it will get too big for desktop computers.
-snip-
No. The pruning feature is already partially available in 0.11.0 and should be completely implemented soon, so storage for the average user is not the issue anymore. |
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion) |
|
|
RoadTrain
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:00:13 PM |
|
Interesting summary of the often mentioned accusation against devs that oppose any block size increase: The Blockstream Business Plan https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service. What is sidechannels btw? Did he mean sidechains? In fact, even the LN paper states that it needs bigger blocks to operate smoothly. The OP is arguing that LN itself is centralized, so it's dishonest for Blockstream devs to argue against Bitcoin centralization. One question: what's better - to have a centralized system build on top of a decentralized one or a centralized system built on top of a centralized one? Also, these two kinds of centralization are probably very different, e.g. how costly is it to set up and operate a payment hub as compared to setting up and operating a mining farm of comparable characteristics (can we even compare them)? Moreover, the OP downplays that Blockstream was created to develop sidechains (a completely different matter which he doesn't discuss at all) in the first place, and they became involved in the LN only very recently. Then he assumes they have a plan to monetize on the LN, but doesn't discuss what was their plan before the advent of the LN (did they plan to monetize of sidechains? How?). He's assuming that Blockstream investors want direct monetization, but that's not neccessarily true, e.g. investors can monetize by using their innovation in business. This post might seem good at first glance, but if we dig deeper, it's full of baseless assumptions. |
|
|
|
|
Ilove-Obama
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:20:55 PM |
|
A lot has been said recently about XT but what about the other side?
What is the agenda of those who disagree with a block size increase? What do they gain to lose?
You need to increase the block, otherwise the spam affects bitcoin |
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ |
|
|
|
cafucafucafu (OP)
|
|
August 17, 2015, 06:55:54 PM |
|
But they are small in number. There are others who are also against an increase. They talk about decentralisation, but surely it cant all just be technical? There must be some monetary/idealogical reason. |
|
|
|
|
ashour
|
|
August 17, 2015, 08:05:53 PM |
|
There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
meono
|
|
August 17, 2015, 09:45:01 PM |
|
There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.
Because tps limit issue of blockchain is the whole focus to push ppl over to Blockstream. Its not rumor, its a fact. |
|
|
|
|
Meuh6879
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1011
|
|
August 17, 2015, 09:50:45 PM |
|
What is the agenda September 2015 : Financial Services collapse October 2015 : Bitcoin Rise November 2015 : BIP102 emerge in Bitcoin Core (Block at 2mb) ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Linuld
|
|
September 17, 2015, 12:48:56 AM |
|
I think the illogical reasons against a raise of the max blocksize limit that some bitcoiners bring up can only be explained by something like that. Which is a pity when true. I mean ok, if i would have invested a lot of money into something then i would want to make it a success but i surely would not use my position to exploit the trust others have put into me. And yes, if bitcoin keeps the 1MB limit then this would mean, at some time, that bitcoin will be slow, unreliable, expensive and so on. Which would lead to transactions move into altcoins or sidechains like lightning network. |
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 17, 2015, 12:57:03 AM |
|
MPFAGS, take note: It is essentially pointless to discuss it with many of the involved developers, as they have too great a stake seeing the block size remain where it is |
|
|
|
Holliday
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1010
|
|
September 17, 2015, 01:18:51 AM |
|
My agenda: Bitcoin to remain a robust peer to peer network which isn't designed to work in the best of times, but the worst of times. The network which provides censorship-proof money should be designed in a way that allows it to work when there are groups actively trying to prevent the flow of information. The more information required to make it work, the less robust it becomes.
|
If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 17, 2015, 01:22:05 AM |
|
There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.
There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.
Because tps limit issue of blockchain is the whole focus to push ppl over to Blockstream. Its not rumor, its a fact. Hi OP! BTW these are lying trolls  |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
|
