Opinions of core dev on the change!

[valkir]

Hi

I saw a lot of press and article on the fork problem but will like to know the opinion of some person.

Website with some answer : http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/


Gavin and Mike : ok we know XT

Wladimir J. van der Laan : Core

Jeff Garzik : Core

Gregory Maxwell : Core

Pieter Wuille : Core
     - https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

Adam Black : Core
     - https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us
     - http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup

P. Kaufmann : ?

Cory Fields : ?

Matt Corallo : ?

Nick Szabo : Core
     -https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633011973634961408

Upal Chakraborty : Core
     - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0
     - http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010285.html
     - http://upalc.com/maxblocksize.php

Charlie Lee (litecoin core dev) : Core
     - https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

I will like to create a table of + and - to see what dev think about this.

THanks

[1715307107]

1715307107

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Well, obviously you can add Greg Maxwell and the rest of the devs as Core proposers lol. Im pretty certain Nick is also supportive of Core. Actually few people are supporting core beside Gavin and Hearn themselves.

[Kazimir]

Actually few people are supporting core beside Gavin and Hearn themselves.

You mean: are supporting XT ?

[Kazimir]

Pieter Wuille : ?

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.

Adam Black : Core but link some article too.

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

Jeff Garzik : Core but will like to see some link.

Jeff proposed BIP 102 to increase the block size to 2MB. Intended as a temporary solution, to give us all more time and space to think longer about a more definitive solution.

He earlier proposed BIP 100 where block size limit is dynamically adjusted every 12000 blocks (3 months) depending on block size usage over the past 12000 blocks. Much like how mining difficulty is adjusted.

[valkir]

Thanks Kazimir. I will edit OP.

Keep posting article  

[gentlemand]

Core devs support Core? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

[valkir]

Core devs support Core? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

Gavin and Mike are supporting XT, I'm shocked, SHOCKED! 

Im adding other well know member of the crypto currency community.

[CounterEntropy]

Do not miss this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

[ZephramC]

This is false dilemma. There are actually more than two options!
Is is not either "Core" or "XT".

At least these options should be considered (and their popularity with devs/pools/merchants/nodes clarified):

• Core (and never changing block size, coins cap, block interval, etc.)
• Core for now (with clear intention not to increase block size until (dev) consensus is reached peacefully, with clear commitment not to enforce any forking BIP or put it into wild without thorough* discussion, but with clear intention and commitment to increase block size eventually and not to block it at 1MB forever)
• Some Block size solution (such as BIP100, or dynamical changing block size which includes even possibility to block size decrease if underutilized such as this**)
• Block size increase (to some "reasonable value" 1.2MB-4MB, as a quick fix, using other BIPs than BIP101, formulating new BIP)
• Block size increase to 8MB without XT (for now, postponing any other size increases)
• Block size increase according to BIP101 without XT (block size doubling even after 8MB, final block size 8GB, ..., no XT-like "anti DDOS")
• XT

* - Lengthy does not necessarily mean thorough. "It has been discussed for two years now" does not mean "It has been discussed enough and we ought to make change now!"
** - tl;dr: "Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now.
If it is found that more than 90% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size.
If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 50% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size.
If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is."

[valkir]

Well the question here is more do we want XT or work on core.
I know there is multiple proposition on core and this is why Im trying to find all info about proposition and opinion of dev. 

[valkir]

I need more link. This could help everyone to make their choose.  

P. Kaufmann : ?

Cory Fields : ?

Matt Corallo : ?

[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

[PolarPoint]

Actually, I want to know which dev(s) is against Garzik's BIP102 and what are his/their reasons. The choices are more than a clear cut Core or XT. BIP102 is a good middle ground and why aren't most of the Core devs supporting it?

[valkir]

meono do you have any link for this? Thanks you 

[roadbits]

This block size debate is healthy. It needed to happen and when consensus is reached Bitcoin will be stronger because of it.

[ticoti]

Its all stupid
why dont they implement changes in core,I dont understand this shit

[TPTB_need_war]

why dont they implement changes in core,I dont understand this shittechnology

Correct.

[Alley]

I think it's pretty obvious core devs will make more money with their blockstream project if the 1mb limit stays in place permanently.

[RocketSingh]

Its all stupid
why dont they implement changes in core,I dont understand this shit

Which changes ? There are many suggested here - http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net.

Core Devs are not against block size increase. They are against the way XT is doing it.

[valkir]

http://bipsxdevs.azurewebsites.net/

Nice website. Lets hope many dev will answer.