blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy

[adamstgBit]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point.  increase now = as soon as we can.   we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

[Muhammed Zakir]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point.  increase now = as soon as we can.   we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

And a solution is yet to be found.

[Dire]

Applying that level of security to all these other information systems would be stupendously brilliant, like living a sci-fi movie. Possibly it might be horrifying for the same reason, but fuck it, the 20th century is over.

LOL.

I love the way you just waxed over a possible never ending dystopian nightmare with a 'fuck it, the 20th century is over'. I laughed hard and spat out my tortilla chips.

I agree about the blockchain tech if it comes to fruition though. It'll be amazing.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point.  increase now = as soon as we can.   we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

And a solution is yet to be found.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki

[Muhammed Zakir]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point.  increase now = as soon as we can.   we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

And a solution is yet to be found.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki

Doubling every two years is not a good solution IMHO. A better dynamic increment or a temporary static increment is needed. For example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0.

[gentlemand]

Doubling every two years is not a good solution IMHO. A better dynamic increment or a temporary static increment is needed. For example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0.

But isn't that proposal for maximum block size? There's no need to make blocks that enormous unless there's an actual need for them. It just permits the possibility.

[LiteCoinGuy]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

and 14% of all nodes are already XT nodes ...within 7 days.

hopefully the core devs come to consensus or XT will stay or win. i support bigger blocks. the only way at the moment is XT.

[Muhammed Zakir]

Doubling every two years is not a good solution IMHO. A better dynamic increment or a temporary static increment is needed. For example, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0.

But isn't that proposal for maximum block size? There's no need to make blocks that enormous unless there's an actual need for them. It just permits the possibility.

We need to raise block size limit. A dynamic block size limit is better than a static block size limit because for later, we need to hardfork everytime the block is full or nearly full. A dynamic block size limit can resolve this issue. The proposal I linked above is a good one but we can make it better by making some changes.

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

and 14% of all nodes are already XT nodes ...within 7 days.

hopefully the core devs come to consensus or XT will stay or win. i support bigger blocks. the only way at the moment is XT.

If Mike or Gavin remove patches such as "blacklist of IP", then I might also use XT but XT contains questionable patches and sometimes they add buggy codes too.

[onemorexmr]

We need to raise block size limit. A dynamic block size limit is better than a static block size limit because for later, we need to hardfork everytime the block is full or nearly full. A dynamic block size limit can resolve this issue. The proposal I linked above is a good one but we can make it better by making some changes.

it will double every two years.
personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize.

[onemorexmr]

personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize.

Lol you don't know what you're talking about. There are security-related reasons for a cap on block size, and it's not clear yet how big of a block size is safe.

i just dont think miners are dumb.
if there is a 1GB block i dont think any miner will build on top off it (except it is absolutely necessary)

[Carlton Banks]

Applying that level of security to all these other information systems would be stupendously brilliant, like living a sci-fi movie. Possibly it might be horrifying for the same reason, but fuck it, the 20th century is over.

LOL.

I love the way you just waxed over a possible never ending dystopian nightmare with a 'fuck it, the 20th century is over'. I laughed hard and spat out my tortilla chips.

I agree about the blockchain tech if it comes to fruition though. It'll be amazing.

Well, I'm glad there's at least one other person who's enthusiastic about it, even if you almost choked on your Doritos. If I'm causing people who agree with me to commit involuntary suicide, maybe this is a sign that it's guaranteed dystopia after all  

[Lauda]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

-snip-
1, 2, 3 & 5: I don't think they are against raising block size but they are against XT which is a hardfork without consensus. You are mixing XT with block size increase. Although they have some sort of connection, saying "against block size increase" and "against XT" are completely different.

Thank you sir. Supporting a block size increase (in general, not specific to any limit) =/= supporting XT.
Obviously for you to in order to use their technology/product, you are probably going to have to pay fees. However, if people really think that these fees are going to be high, think again. If they introduce a model with high fees, nobody is going to use their product. Besides, nobody is forcing you to do transactions off chain. Pay the normal (or higher, whichever is necessary) fee and you aren't going to have a problem transacting Bitcoin during heavy amount of TX traffic.

[Carlton Banks]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

[Peter R]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

My apologies LaudaM.  I have always appreciated your commentary.  Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.

The trouble with words (such as censoring) is that we can twist their meanings to prove our points.

I said early that:

"I just find it fascinating how we attempt to contort reason to justify otherwise reprehensible behaviour.  I suppose that it's difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to recognize the extent to which we are guilty of this ourselves."

When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic?  Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?

[Carlton Banks]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

My apologies LaudaM.  I have always appreciated your commentary.  Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.

I patently did not ask for such a list. Peter, why aren't you paying attention to your own argument? It comes across as a little inconsistent when you "resume" an argument that you were not making previously, on the basis of things that people did not say.

[Peter R]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

My apologies LaudaM.  I have always appreciated your commentary.  Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.

I patently did not ask for such a list. Peter, why aren't you paying attention to your own argument? It comes across as a little inconsistent when you "resume" an argument that you were not making previously, on the basis of things that people did not say.

Here are your exact words:

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter.

I am sorry if I mis-interpretted your question, Carlton. When you asked "who?" I thought you were asking me to list some people.  As for the remainder of your comment, a don't think I can parse what you are trying to say.  

In the mean time, you've still avoided my original question.  Let me ask it a different way:

Q: When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic?  Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?

[Carlton Banks]

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.
5. LaudaM (link)
-snip-

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

My apologies LaudaM.  I have always appreciated your commentary.  Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.

I patently did not ask for such a list. Peter, why aren't you paying attention to your own argument? It comes across as a little inconsistent when you "resume" an argument that you were not making previously, on the basis of things that people did not say.

Here are your exact words:

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter.

I am sorry if I mis-interpretted your question, Carlton. When you asked "who?" I thought you were asking me to list some people.  As for the remainder of your comment, a don't think I can parse what you are trying to say.  

In the mean time, you've still avoided my original question.  Let me ask it a different way:

Q: When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic?  Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?

Peter, you're being evasive and manipulative, I have told you once already about my attitudes to the censorship, yet you keep repeating that I am avoiding your questions. Sadly, the evidence is all here for anyone who wishes to look. I am disappointed that you have revealed yourself to be quite so sociopathic, but rather sooner than later I suppose. Don't address me again, I will not reply.

[Peter R]

What I find particularly interesting is the blurring between what is "off-topic" or "too broad in scope" (so that's its removal can be justified as being "objective") with the removal of content that has a certain political slant in the block size debate (its removal would be seen as "biased" or as "censoring").  I found this comic quite accurate in depicting the point I'm trying to communicate:

[jonald_fyookball]

personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize.

Lol you don't know what you're talking about. There are security-related reasons for a cap on block size, and it's not clear yet how big of a block size is safe.

i just dont think miners are dumb.
if there is a 1GB block i dont think any miner will build on top off it (except it is absolutely necessary)

You still don't know what you're talking about.

lol. true.

onemorexmr:  let me break this down for you.  miners will build on any valid block that follows the protocol rules.  Right now we are trying to determine what those rules should be.  the current rule is that no block can be bigger than 1mb but as blocks are getting more and more full, people want to raise it.  Gavin, Jeff,  and Mike all want to raise it.  Unfortunately many of the other core devs dont, because they would rather peruse a sidechain solution with their new company called Blockstream.