Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101

[gizmoh]

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Our community stands at a crossroads. The debate about which path to take has, by and large, been a healthy one, and we have not interposed our own positions or interfered in the discourse. Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing. We believe that work is complete, and it is time to communicate our view in a clear and transparent manner.

After lengthy conversations with core developers, miners, our own technical teams, and other industry participants, we believe it is imperative that we plan for success by raising the maximum block size.

We support the implementation of BIP101. We have found Gavin’s arguments on both the need for larger blocks and the feasibility of their implementation – while safeguarding Bitcoin’s decentralization – to be convincing. BIP101 and 8MB blocks are already supported by a majority of the miners and we feel it is time for the industry to unite behind this proposal.

Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this.

As our community grows, it is essential – now more than ever that we seek strong consensus to ensure network reliability. We pledge to support BIP101 in our software and systems by December 2015, and we encourage others to join us.

Together, we are:

Stephen Pair CEO, BitPay.com

Peter Smith CEO, Blockchain.info

Jeremy Allaire CEO, Circle.com

Sean Neville President, Circle.com

Same Cole CEO, Kncminer.com

John McDonnell CEO, Bitnet.io

Wences Casares CEO, Xapo.com

Mike Belshe CEO, Bitgo.com

- See more at: http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/#sthash.1QLfp5mt.dpuf

[knight22]

Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?!

Our companies will be ready for larger blocks by December 2015 and we will run code that supports this.

Core, your move now or it's XT all the way.

[maokoto]

Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?!

They want blacklisting and deanonymization added in XT. It's the only way to get their business extended 100-fold (by cooperating with authorities).

[meono]

Big companies wanting a scaling bitcoin implementation so they can scale their operations. Who would have thought?!

They want blacklisting and deanonymization added in XT. It's the only way to get their business extended 100-fold (by cooperating with authorities).

Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt?

[LiteCoinGuy]

great move  - ill go with them

[meono]

Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it.

Does not matter Core implement it or not. BitcoinXT will be on the longest chain as it will be compatible after the fork.

So if you support BIP101, you will support BItcoinXT. Even if XT nodes arent majority, It will just be an alt wallet client.

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, pressure is being done to the increment of block size. I sense it is just a mater of time before core implements it.

Does not matter Core implement it or not. BitcoinXT will be on the longest chain as it will be compatible after the fork.

So if you support BIP101, you will support BItcoinXT. Even if XT nodes arent majority, It will just be an alt wallet client.

Good point.  Look at all these FUDsters who don't even understand "I'll quit if they go with XT wahhhhh"... both
XT and Core will work.  Core will be forced to implement BIP 101 because of XT.

Also, so much FUD about Blacklisting.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt?

That story about blacklisting and deanonymization was FUD? Then why include that code in XT at all? Why not BIP101 alone?

PS: Ah, I've got it! Calling something "FUD" doesn't involve brain and hence is much easier than an attempt to critically analyze forum posts.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Also, so much FUD about Blacklisting.

It's the main feature of Bitcoin development process. First they create something kinda disabled, later they add "!" and hide it in other completely unrelated changes, of course, commit notes don't mention "!". Read early Bitcoin commits, Satoshi set this tradition by himself.

[jonald_fyookball]

Another FUD believer, Why even open your mouth to remove all doubt?

That story about blacklisting and deanonymization was FUD? Then why include that code in XT at all? Why not BIP101 alone?

PS: Ah, I've got it! Calling something "FUD" doesn't involve brain and hence is much easier than an attempt to critically analyze forum posts.

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

Also most of the historical discussions here
about blacklisting mean blacklisting of coins,
which would destroy fungibility, whereas this would only
be some kind of node specific blacklisting of IPs
which are optional and controlled by each node
as a DOS defense.  That's my understanding of it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details.

[brg444]

Might as well just copy/paste

All part of the little coordinated XT push. A good cop/bad cop trap for suckers to fall in. Unscrupulous lobbying of VC-backed companies willing to throw a bone to the investors for more funding rounds.

"Look Mr. Banker, we just upgraded the Bitcoin network to support 8X more transactions, that should get us some users! You all know Bitcoin users LOVE to make transactions right, right?"

Until today, our involvement has consisted of listening, researching and testing.

Where is the research? Can we see the "tests"?

Can't these industry "leaders" wait until the actual industry has met for a final push to a resolution (Scaling Bitcoin) until picking sides?

Speaking of "ivory tower" what use should we, the community, make of this pathetic PR coup? Are we supposed to just swallow this and take it for granted these guys have done their research? Of course we shouldn't shame them with our suspicion or any reconsideration or validation of their actual motivations and reasoning.

These are the bankers of the Bitcoin world and you are sucking up them without any discretion because...they're VCs & entrepreneurs so they must know what they're doing and surely what they are doing is for the best of everyone in Bitcoin, right. Right?

[Peter R]

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details.

If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain?

[ArticMine]

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details.

If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain?

That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks.

[Mickeyb]

Well this needs to be fu***ng solved. I am sick and tired of this discussion for almost 2 years now. I hope that this will be solved asap. This is definitely a big slap in the face to the core people. If it's true that big Chinese miners are as well for the block increase, than what are they waiting for God's sake.

Lets implement bigger blocks so we can move forward with the show!

[coinpr0n]

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details.

If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain?

That's what they're supposed to do. But if I were Core dev and ethically against BIP101 I would probably cease working on it altogether.

[brg444]

There is a version of XT that is ONLY Bip 101.
Whether Blockchain, Bitpay, etc will use that
one or the "normal" XT is their decision.

It doesn't matter what their servers will use. It matters what codebase they will promote among their users who don't understand the details.

If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain?

That remains to be seen. The investors in Blockstream would not be very pleased with the 8MB blocks.

Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

[Come-from-Beyond]

If BIP101 is activated, do you think that Core would integrate BIP101 into their codebase to remain compatible with the longest chain?

I don't know what to think of this.

[dothebeats]

I'd still remain neutral, though in this case the industry and the economy has the final say.