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

[BitProdigy]

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??? 

[1714898374]

1714898374

[1714898374]

1714898374

[1714898374]

1714898374

[quakefiend420]

Anyone could fork the repo and add only block size increase code, sure.

But then they'd be on the hook to continue backporting Core changes into it.

[knight22]

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??? 

The only thing you can do is pushing on core team to scale bitcoin ASAP.

[tvbcof]

Sure.  Just wait until it is necessary.  Even staunch small-blockists like me have no real problem with raising the block size as long as it

 - is necessary
 - can contribute to support of a real solution for scaling
 - is safe
 - does not compromise the security and autonomy of the solution which is the most important and valuable thing about Bitcoin to me.

In no way, shape, or form is allowing nearly free purchases of frappacino worth sacrificing any of the above mentioned aspects.  If Bitcoin were going to 'take off' under near-free transaction fees it would have done so within the last decade when the infrastructure was supported by inflation alone and fees were negligible.  That it did not means that there is really no demand for native Bitcoin used in that role and other solutions are simply more competitive.

I have hope that frappacino-coin will be implemented as a sidecoin so in reality Bitcoin will be used for such purposes but in a way which is safe, scalable, flexible, and highly robust.  Best of all worlds with no tangible downsides...except that it will blow up any hopes that TPTB would have of tracking.  The fact that the pre-mature seeming thrust to do the BitcoinXT hostile takeover happened leads me to believe that sidechains will actually work quite well and there was really no choice but to try to do it as a hail Mary and hope for the best.

[balu2]

Yes, there is a way. Why aren't we doing it? I think we are and we should. Gavin just chose to ignore the consensus process and try a hostile takeover to become the benevolent dictator of bitcoin (this is actually not exaggerated).

The problem is: everyone is paying too much attention to and giving that attempt of a hostile takeover with a rogue software too much credit.

XT is very simple Gavins' way to circumvent consensus principles in the devteam.
All this isn't even about the blocksize. Blocksize is just the fassade for a blatant hostile takeover attempt. Blocks aren't even half full right now.

[balu2]

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???  

The only thing you can do is pushing on core team to scale bitcoin ASAP.

Or pushing Mike and Gavin to leave the space asap. I think we should do both ...

[Kprawn]

The stress test, and the $5000 per day dumped into it, just showed that Bitcoin can in theory handle 200 tps and that the block size can be adjusted as the need arise in the future.

Our Lead developer and his Dev team, just need to decide when to impliment it, based on the need and the trend in the market. Not based on the opinion and the hype surrounding the agenda being pushed

by the Mike/Gavin team and their cronies. 

[Holliday]

Sure.  Just wait until it is necessary.  Even staunch small-blockists like me have no real problem with raising the block size as long as it

 - is necessary
 - can contribute to support of a real solution for scaling
 - is safe
 - does not compromise the security and autonomy of the solution which is the most important and valuable thing about Bitcoin to me.

In no way, shape, or form is allowing nearly free purchases of frappacino worth sacrificing any of the above mentioned aspects.  If Bitcoin were going to 'take off' under near-free transaction fees it would have done so within the last decade when the infrastructure was supported by inflation alone and fees were negligible.  That it did not means that there is really no demand for native Bitcoin used in that role and other solutions are simply more competitive.

I have hope that frappacino-coin will be implemented as a sidecoin so in reality Bitcoin will be used for such purposes but in a way which is safe, scalable, flexible, and highly robust.  Best of all worlds with no tangible downsides...except that it will blow up any hopes that TPTB would have of tracking.  The fact that the pre-mature seeming thrust to do the BitcoinXT hostile takeover happened leads me to believe that sidechains will actually work quite well and there was really no choice but to try to do it as a hail Mary and hope for the best.

This guy... makes a lot of sense.

[Mickeyb]

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!

[Denker]

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!

[coinableS]

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.

[ticoti]

Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want

[NewLiberty]

Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want

On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know.
There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet.
These are being solved.  Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so.
It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood.

[croTek4]

Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want

On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know.
There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet.
These are being solved.  Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so.
It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood.

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

[knight22]

Yes,it is a way, but nobody knows why, some bitcoin core people don't want

On the contrary, those who pay a little attention do know.
There are a finite number of reasons why the block size can't raise much just yet.
These are being solved.  Bitcoin Core will increase the size only after it is safe to do so.
It is not so hard to be patient once more of it is understood.

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

Ah yes, that private company which we will all have to rely on. Thanks but no thanks.

[valiz]

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

Ah yes, that private company which we will all have to rely on. Thanks but no thanks.

Such diversionary tactics will soon become ineffective, I suggest you find something else to keep repeating until there's no tomorrow. You should come with some real arguments to support your position. I can also start repeating Gavin and Hearn work for CIA/NSA or whatever, but that would get us nowhere. 

[croTek4]

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

Ah yes, that private company which we will all have to rely on. Thanks but no thanks.

Such diversionary tactics will soon become ineffective, I suggest you find something else to keep repeating until there's no tomorrow. You should come with some real arguments to support your position. I can also start repeating Gavin and Hearn work for CIA/NSA or whatever, but that would get us nowhere. 

Something a Blockstream supporter would definitely say.

[jdbtracker]

Begin implementing Keccak with SHAKE, compress the transactions as they flow through the network on their way to the miners. creating an extra layer of security while systematically forming random lists of active nodes, time stamped for freshness.

Keccak is fast, it'll make it easy to create SPV transactions for thin clients, maintaining security for the network regardless of device.

[turvarya]

I wonder why nobody on here is mentioning this:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

As far as I know, it is just Bitcoin Core, with the bigger-block code in it.
(But do be honest, I haven't checked yet)

[valiz]

I wonder why nobody on here is mentioning this:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

As far as I know, it is just Bitcoin Core, with the bigger-block code in it.
(But do be honest, I haven't checked yet)

Because few people know what a branch is, and around 99% of the XT supporters will run the released version. Perhaps around 95% would keep the default settings.

So that branch is as good as nonexistent.