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

[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)

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.

Oh, nice to see, that you have spoken with all the XT supporters and asked them which branch they are using.
Sadly, I couldn't find the time for that.

[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.

Yes, only when Blockstream is ready.

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

BIP100 is being voted on by miners.
Block size increase in Core is coming sooner than later.
so,
If Block Size isn't the compelling reason to use XT...

The XT marketing fall back plan apparently is that XT is the anti-Blockstream code?

[meono]

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.

BIP100 is being voted on by miners.
Block size increase in Core is coming sooner than later.
so,
If Block Size isn't the compelling reason to use XT...

The XT marketing fall back plan apparently is that XT is the anti-Blockstream code?

Read Mike's blog carefully. Then judge: https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

Its not about anti blockstream. Its about a fair game Bitcoin Blockchain deserve. Blockstream was still an idea, so we cant rely on it as a solution to tx per sec limit.

[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.

BIP100 is being voted on by miners.
Block size increase in Core is coming sooner than later.
so,
If Block Size isn't the compelling reason to use XT...

The XT marketing fall back plan apparently is that XT is the anti-Blockstream code?

Read Mike's blog carefully. Then judge: https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

Its not about anti blockstream. Its about a fair game Bitcoin Blockchain deserve. Blockstream was still an idea, so we cant rely on it as a solution to tx per sec limit.

Exact. I'm not anti Blockstream at all but trying to force a private company on a "trustless" system is a big no no. It's all about choices.

[BitProdigy]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

[BillyBobZorton]

We will need an agreement between how much to raise the blocksize and how much % of transactions go through LN because unfortunately we can't process all of the stuff through the blockchain unless proven otherwise. I think both approaches should be used in conjunction.

[smoothie]

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.

Wrong. Consensus does not exist in the dev team nor should it ever to be considered actual CONSENSUS.

Consensus is about the free market (miners, users, exchanges, businesses, merchants). Developers do not decide which direction bitcoin goes...the people using bitcoin do.

[turvarya]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

Can you read? Read here:
https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html

They never hid the fact, that there are other patches in BitcoinXT and there is even a bigblocks-only branch
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

[meono]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

Who told you it was never mentioned? The FUDster? do you really fall for that easily without even checking?

go read the changelogs of BitcoinXT

This applies to all Core version release, always read changelog


This whole FUD would have been avoided had bitcoinXT was allowed to be discussed from the beginning. Sadly many still dont know much of bitcoinXT and thus the whole thing was said to be "unannounced" "shady"


You can thank Thermos for that. Or was it his agenda all along?

[meono]

We will need an agreement between how much to raise the blocksize and how much % of transactions go through LN because unfortunately we can't process all of the stuff through the blockchain unless proven otherwise. I think both approaches should be used in conjunction.

Thats a wrong way of thinking. Any project should grow organically. Let the market decide the txs going thro sidechain.

As for talking about how much to raise blocksize, it has been 2 yrs of talking. Frankly couples core devs were dead set on NO blocksize increase.

It's often repeated that Satoshi intended to remove "the limit" but I always understood that to be the 500k maximum generation soft limit... quite possible I misunderstood, but I don't understand why it would be a hardforking protocol rule otherwise.

Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0

I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.

I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.

IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.

However, enforcing a max block size is safer. It's not totally clear that an unlimited max block size would work. So I tend to prefer a max block size for Bitcoin. Some other cryptocurrency can try the other method. I'd like the limit to be set in a more decentralized, free-market way than a fixed constant in the code, though.

So, the wiki should be changed, right?

It's not yet known how this issue will be handled. The wiki describes one possibility, and this work shouldn't be removed.

Note even Theymos were supportive, his action tho however completely contradicted it.

[VeritasSapere]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

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 think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, 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 would actually prefer a compromise between XT and Core, but right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so I choose XT. If a third option becomes available with possibly a more conservative block size increase with no other new features I would definitely support that instead.

[NewLiberty]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

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 think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, 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 would actually prefer a compromise between XT and Core, but right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so I choose XT. If a third option becomes available with possibly a more conservative block size increase with no other new features I would definitely support that instead.

I don't buy all the hyperbole.
Both Core and XT are going to hardfork the chain for larger blocks.  Big blocks alone is not reason enough to switch to XT.

This is over 2 months old already, some miners are participating now with block size voting.  This is in Bitcoin Core:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I like that BIP100 takes the block size out of the hands of the developers.  XT should do this instead of relying on developers trying to guess sizes that are both good and safe.

[meono]

I support the block size increase but it seems this can happen with Bitcoin Core, I have yet to find a compelling argument for why I should support XT however, and the TOR blacklisting stuff they never mentioned worries me.

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 think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, 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 would actually prefer a compromise between XT and Core, but right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so I choose XT. If a third option becomes available with possibly a more conservative block size increase with no other new features I would definitely support that instead.

I don't buy all the hyperbole.
Both Core and XT are going to hardfork the chain for larger blocks.  Big blocks alone is not reason enough to switch to XT.

This is over 2 months old already, some miners are participating now with block size voting.  This is in Bitcoin Core:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I like that BIP100 takes the block size out of the hands of the developers.  XT should do this instead of relying on developers trying to guess sizes that are both good and safe.

The proposal is the fork will happen 12 months from now. Thats too late.

[Envrin]

Of course there's a way.  It's just software code, which can be changed.

I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.

[johnyj]

Every core dev have their own plan, and those plans are very complex for public to understand, and they always try to downplay the shortcomings of their solution. So I guess eventually majority of miners will select the solution that is most easy to understand

In this regards, XT is much better than blockstream, since XT does not introduce added complexity. However current core is better than XT, since it does not introduce change at all. When 1MB block start to cause huge problems for transactions, I think if core still insists on 1MB block size, more and more miners will switch to XT, simply because the XT's solution is simpler. Simple means many benefits in the long run

[Amph]

Of course there's a way.  It's just software code, which can be changed.

I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.

and why they aren't doing it instead of creating XT and this whole trouble that this drama is making?

it would have been a much better solution and less dangerous, maybe there was not even the need to fork, but only to upgrade like you go from 0.9 to 0.1...

[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.

[NewLiberty]

Of course there's a way.  It's just software code, which can be changed.

I'm absolutely confident that Bitcoin Core will be modified appropriately when needed, so no need to worry.

and why they aren't doing it instead of creating XT and this whole trouble that this drama is making?

it would have been a much better solution and less dangerous, maybe there was not even the need to fork, but only to upgrade like you go from 0.9 to 0.1...

To get bigger blocks, you have to fork.  Both Core and XT will hard fork.
If you want no fork, you talk to MP.

[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!

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.

[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.