This Calmed Me Down A Bit About The Blocksize Debate

[BitProdigy]

This video ------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg 

[BitProdigy]

Okay I'm officially on board with Gavin and Hearn and Bitcoin XT after watching this video ----> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JmvkyQyD8w

[meono]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

[NorrisK]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

It is quite clear that there is not conflict of interest at all for all of the co-founders of blockstream... It is clear why they want 1 mb right?

[BitProdigy]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy with which I refuse to base my conclusions upon. It's nice the you list the names and companies of people that disagree with the argument for increased block sizes, but you have presented no actual argument and so have provided no relevant information on which to derive a conclusion on the matter as a list of names of people who disagree is no argument  for or against block size increase.

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

[Cryddit]

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives. 

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only.  A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves.  How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves?  Hmmmmmm...... 

Conflict of interest much?  Nawww, couldn't be.  But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

[S4VV4S]

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives. 

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only.  A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves.  How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves?  Hmmmmmm...... 

Conflict of interest much?  Nawww, couldn't be.  But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

[HCLivess]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, confirmed CIA agent	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, suspect CIA agent	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy with which I refuse to base my conclusions upon. It's nice the you list the names and companies of people that disagree with the argument for increased block sizes, but you have presented no actual argument and so have provided no relevant information on which to derive a conclusion on the matter as a list of names of people who disagree is no argument  for or against block size increase.

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

fixed

[tadakaluri]

The main alternatives to increasing the block size would be a more radical redo of the blockchain system - a proposal for something called the Bitcoin Lightning Network has gotten the most attention - or simply waiting around and seeing how the system organically adjusts to hitting its capacity limits.

[pawel7777]

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

It's not like they jumped with XT idea out of the blue. There was an extensive debate but it was going nowhere. Some people don't see 1mb as a problem at all, some see it as a problem but hope lighting network/side chains will provide solution etc.

Waiting for the full blocks to start thinking about solutions doesn't make any sense, it'll probably get more messy than it is now.

So instead of engaging in pointless discussions, repeating the same arguments over again, they decide to 'do something' and allowed people to vote (by switching to XT or staying with Core).

Was it the right move? I don't know.

[NorrisK]

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives. 

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only.  A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves.  How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves?  Hmmmmmm...... 

Conflict of interest much?  Nawww, couldn't be.  But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

They do it now because they want to be ahead of the problem instead of it becoming a problem... Yhrre is nothing fishy about the timing, just common sense.

[Enzyme]

I believe we need bigger blocks, it is the only way to become ready for the future, and many more users of bitcoin.

[The00Dustin]

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

I was in the same boat, but all of the name calling I see coming from those against the bigger blocks, all the political spin (such as the constant "XT is an altcoin" BS), and all of the Orwellian "not censorship" manipulation (I don't even use Reddit, but it's also on bitcoin.org and this forum) were really grating my nerves.  I finally couldn't stand it anymore and replaced Core with XT.  It was really difficult for me to do because I'm flat out against many of Mike Hearn's ideas, but I realized that even if XT wins the blocksize battle, Core will be modified to support larger blocks (as it likely will before it comes to that), so I can switch back to Core at that point and not be a part of any other nonsense that might come from XT.  The fact that I can switch back is what really relaxed me.

[ChetnotAtkins]

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

[meono]

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

Quote for note of a XT bashers.

Amazing stuff comes from XT basher so far.
Most of them are twisted retard

Proof ? :

How are developers responding to this severe limitation of Bitcoin's usage. There are currently 72000 (!) unconfirmed transactions but it seems they don't really want to acknowledge it.

Perhaps set a limit of tx/s to discourage spamming the mempool and block malicious nodes.

[n2004al]

This video ------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg 

I am not a specialist so my question can seem strange or to simple to have answer. But if everyone can, please answer me. What the difference between 8mb, 2mb and 1mb? What this comport for bitcoin and what are the bad things if from 1mb goes to 2mb or even 8mb. As I know everything will be more smoothly if the amount will go 8mb. Why not then 8mb? What is this discord? Why this discord?

[Kazimir]

Peter Wuille

Blockstream Co-Founder

1mb

Actually, Pieter proposed an excellent suggestion to slowly and moderately increase the block size limit. I think this would be a wise middle ground, hopefully something that all devs are willing to consider as a reasonable compromise.

Even if they think it's not perfect, it's not that dramatic. And it's most definitely way better to have a least a unanimous decision for the time being, rather than strictly holding on to each own's position and risking Bitcoin to be split up in Core and XT (which is devastating).

Seriously... Nobody can claim that Pieter's proposal of growing by 2^1/16 (≈ 4.4%) every 2²³ seconds (≈ 97 days), or about 17% per year, is in any way ridiculous or damaging or shortsighted.

[Denker]

Adam Back on reddit 2 days ago:

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

[desired_username]

Adam Beck on reddit 2 days ago:

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

This is just false. 8GB would take 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago I was on dial up and now on fibre.

Adam Back wants to derail natural scaling because it seriously affects the goals of Blockstream (having user transactions taking place on top of bitcoin through their "payment hubs".)

[fryarminer]

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

Wow.
So translation: Bitcoin Core is dead. We are voting for XT or Blockstream.