Is There A Way To Increase Blocksize And Keep Bitcoin Core??

[madjules007]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

[1714864989]

1714864989

[1714864989]

1714864989

[meono]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

[madjules007]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

[VeritasSapere]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

This debate has been going on for more then two years now. Can you point me towards another fork that I can run instead of XT now? Since I would gladly run that instead especially if it would represent a compromise between these two choices. That is unfortunately the reality at this time. Since if we do not hard fork we will have one megabyte blocks forever, since it seems clear that an agreement on a block size increase within the core development team can not be reached, and this is urgent since we should not initiate a hard fork at short notice when it is already to late, Since that would endanger large financial stakes.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since 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.

I urge everyone to read 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 or what their motivations are, 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]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

This debate has been going on for more then two years now. Can you point me towards another fork that I can run instead of XT now? Since I would gladly run that instead especially if it would represent a compromise between these two choices. That is unfortunately the reality at this time. Since if we do not hard fork we will have one megabyte blocks forever, since it seems clear that an agreement on a block size increase within the core development team can not be reached, and this is urgent since we should not initiate a hard fork at short notice when it is already to late, Since that would endanger large financial stakes.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since 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.

I urge everyone to read 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 or what their motivations are, 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

The debate did not come into its own until a couple months ago when the blockchain was stress tested in order to force the question. (The stress test itself and the appearance of hundreds of XT nodes at once the other day -- new nodes, not old nodes that switched over -- make this whole thing even more disconcerting)

This also doesn't mean "8MB and double every year" is the end-all-be-all. 8 MB is completely unnecessary at the current time, although major Chinese mining pools and exchanges support an 8 MB change. 

What I would like to see is a discussion of how to implement dynamically adjusted block size, to maximize efficiency and not simply cut out Chinese miners with bandwidth that cannot reliably push blocks of such size. In the meantime, 8 MB is just excessive. Just tripling the max limit would buy us a lot of time to develop a more robust solution, and hopefully one which doesn't polarize the community.

[VeritasSapere]

Well this is exactly what we would all want that happens. But the problem is that the core Devs that are against the block size increase have their reasoning.

Now, maybe the game that Gavin is playing is that he wants to scare all of the community with the XT and then when we all see that XT is gaining traction and is not a joke anymore, maybe then the core Devs will let go and make some consensus. At least let's hope so!

This is my hope as well!

I hope that wasn't his "brilliant" plan. He's putting himself out as an outcast. He left core and is now an XT developer. If XT falls apart, he'll be lucky that anyone in the bitcoin space ever trusts him again. Gavin will make a suggestion and the response will be "I don't know Gavin, remember that time you got upset, started your own fork and almost ripped bitcoin in two?".  He'll be the Karpeles of BTC development.

Pretty much. He sort of went rogue and pushed this new vision of bitcoin with a campaign of fear and no compromise, as if it were XT or the highway. I hope that the community continues to back core developers and that we can find a solution to the [very small] issue of block size without introducing this fork.

All of this above makes sense, but in this case, he went all in. He must succeed or he's pretty much done. That means that either he crazily believes that he's right and that he will succeed and shiw us all that he was right from the beginning. Or he really has some hidden agenda that he is trying to rollout together with Mike Hearn.

First of all it does not matter what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code and which code we choose to adopt. As far as I understand it, Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree. What matters here is not the consensus of the Core developers but of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

That's all well and good if people open their eyes and realize that XT is not one of two solutions. It is one of millions. The only commit that should be discussed in this context is one that addresses block size. The analogy to a legislative bill is a good one -- the title of the bill may be "Increase the block size" but the fine print includes a whole lot of other shit that hasn't been discussed.

We need to recognize that there are a lot of parties with big financial stakes in how this plays out. I think it's silly to say Core will never increase the block size. But saying that we don't have a solution yet, therefore XT is the only option, is ludicrous.

Its not ludicrous its the fact.

You can sit there and keep talking about "millions" solution untill eternity. Bitcoin blockchain has to go forward.

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

This debate has been going on for more then two years now. Can you point me towards another fork that I can run instead of XT now? Since I would gladly run that instead especially if it would represent a compromise between these two choices. That is unfortunately the reality at this time. Since if we do not hard fork we will have one megabyte blocks forever, since it seems clear that an agreement on a block size increase within the core development team can not be reached, and this is urgent since we should not initiate a hard fork at short notice when it is already to late, Since that would endanger large financial stakes.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since 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.

I urge everyone to read 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 or what their motivations are, 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

The debate did not come into its own until a couple months ago when the blockchain was stress tested in order to force the question. (The stress test itself and the appearance of hundreds of XT nodes at once the other day -- new nodes, not old nodes that switched over -- make this whole thing even more disconcerting)

This also doesn't mean "8MB and double every year" is the end-all-be-all. 8 MB is completely unnecessary at the current time, although major Chinese mining pools and exchanges support an 8 MB change. 

What I would like to see is a discussion of how to implement dynamically adjusted block size, to maximize efficiency and not simply cut out Chinese miners with bandwidth that cannot reliably push blocks of such size. In the meantime, 8 MB is just excessive. Just tripling the max limit would buy us a lot of time to develop a more robust solution, and hopefully one which doesn't polarize the community.

I was referring to the debate within the Bitcoin development community. Maybe you should release a Fork of your own, gather support for it, or help develop another hard fork. I would support a third option, but right now we only have a binary choice. I do actually agree with many of your points but I am a miner as well so I do have to choose now. Though I do personally think that this should be the last hard fork we ever do for Bitcoin, so the choice that we make should not be a temporary one.

[Linuld]

If there is… why aren't just doing that? This Bitcoin XT stuff is freaking me out, especially now that it has come to light that Bitcoin XT might be sneakily adding in features like blacklisting and not making those public. If the core issue at hand is just the need to increase the block sizes so that we can handle scaling up if adoption increases, isn't there a way to do that and still keep Bitcoin Core? Why don't we just do that??? 

Actually it is a good question why it doesn't happen. I mean a developer only would need to take the code from bitcoin core and implements the codepart from xt that implements the bigger blocks. Then promote his version. I'm sure many many of the xt users would switch to this version.

I don't have a clue why that didn't happen already.

[NewLiberty]

Eternity? This debate has been going on for what, 2 months? Bitcoin has existed for what, 6 years? What are you even babbling about? I agree, bitcoin blockchain has to move forward. 8 MB or 20 MB blocks aren't even necessary at this point, not by a long shot. There is absolutely no reason to rush a hard fork, and certainly not when it is presented as a block size fix, but contains much more.

Its been going on for years, not months.
The issue is worthy of the discussion.

If you've never done globally deployed software development (much less protocol development), this is not a particularly long time for such protocol discussions.
I'm grateful to Gavin for keeping the focus on it, and only wish his proposals were better suited to the protocol (rather than the software).