Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101

[Liquid71]

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.

Yepp I totally agree. The pressure is there. Core Devs have to make decisions now. Otherwise it will be XT. Not my prefered client to be honest but in the end I will have to go with the majority.

Good to see large bitcoin businesses moving on the block size increase.

Pressure is going to get things moving.

Forget it. They will be banned and moved away into the altcoin industry.

lol banned?

Who is going to ban bitcoin businesses from operating in the space?

Oh you mean on this forum? Who gives a shit about placement on this forum if the businesses choosing bigger blocks hold the majority of bitcoin customers in their back pocket?

yay maybe Visa enters the industry and takes control of Bitcoin, can't wait

[johnyj]

Some kind of middle ground to take BIP101, one step ahead than XT

But bitcoin price crashed following this announcement: Any kind of action without consensus is killing bitcoin. You can keep fighting inside the community, just to wake up with a coin that worth nothing, and together goes all those so called industries

[GODLIKE]

Bitcoin dropping to hell again... and I don't fuckin know what to do.

[tvbcof]

Nice try.  BIP101 is just Gavin's old exponential bloat that guarantees 8GB blocks and bakes in severe centralization which is exactly what his sponsor's demand.  I'd give it maybe a month before they start ramming in Mikes spyware changes from XT anyway.

Here's my BIP idea.  I've suggested to one of the Blockstream guys that they consider it as probably the last golden opportunity to fix the glaring defects in Bitcoin:

 - Shitcan sha256 completely if the miners really are being cocks and don't even throw them a bone (of a form I won't bother to discuss here.)

 - Switch POW over to a random shifting set of algorithms which are ASIC unfriendly.

 - Make not only transfer nodes be rewarded, but have a weighted reward based on distributions of various kinds (geographic, jurisdictional, political, etc.)

These were the goals which I envisioned for the 'paracoin' project (which was spurred in large part by one of the numerous attempts that Hearn has made over the years to make sure Bitcoin gets swallowed by giant corporates.)

I hope that there is a skunk-works project somewhere is going on which would have such a thing ready as an alternate when Hearndresen spring their trap.  I would not only support it, but I would be likely subject my BTC stash to it via proof-of-burn if there is a reason to do so.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin dropping to hell again... and I don't fuckin know what to do.

Fade the weakness.  Buy and let the bulls take you higher.

People are freaking out about the blocksize but the reality is
that consensus is forming and pools are voting to increase.
Plus the block halving is coming next year.  

Its a good opportunity.

[meono]

Nice try.  BIP101 is just Gavin's old exponential bloat that guarantees 8GB blocks and bakes in severe centralization which is exactly what his sponsor's demand.  I'd give it maybe a month before they start ramming in Mikes spyware changes from XT anyway.

Here's my BIP idea.  I've suggested to one of the Blockstream guys that they consider it as probably the last golden opportunity to fix the glaring defects in Bitcoin:

 - Shitcan sha256 completely if the miners really are being cocks and don't even throw them a bone (of a form I won't bother to discuss here.)

 - Switch POW over to a random shifting set of algorithms which are ASIC unfriendly.

 - Make not only transfer nodes be rewarded, but have a weighted reward based on distributions of various kinds (geographic, jurisdictional, political, etc.)

These were the goals which I envisioned for the 'paracoin' project (which was spurred in large part by one of the numerous attempts that Hearn has made over the years to make sure Bitcoin gets swallowed by giant corporates.)

I hope that there is a skunk-works project somewhere is going on which would have such a thing ready as an alternate when Hearndresen spring their trap.  I would not only support it, but I would be likely subject my BTC stash to it via proof-of-burn if there is a reason to do so.

Wow you're very close in beating turtlehuricane for his champion position.

I think you should turn off your computer, and get laid (even you must pay for it) to unclog your dick , i mean your head abit.

God bless you

[danielW]

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.

Except for the fact that raising block size does not scale.

[meono]

iBit just jumps on board :

http://w3.itbit.com/blog/itbit-endorses-bip101-larger-block-sizes

[meono]

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.

Except for the fact that raising block size does not scale.

except, you're confused between fact and opinion. Typical among the XT bashers tho.

[BitProdigy]

My hope is that they run BIP101 without XT's "extra features", I think is a much higher chance of consensus in that case, and much lower chance of bitcoin splitting into two chains.

I think the BITCOIN COMMUNITY should write and sign a letter like a petition issuing our demands on this issue. That we want equal choices and equal opportunity for all proposed BIPs and we want 90% consensus rather that 75%. Something like that. Who's with me??

[jonald_fyookball]

Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement.

The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple.....

Yes, it sure is.

[coinpr0n]

Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement.

The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple.....

I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info.

[turvarya]

Literally no one here noticed this is on blockchain.com, not blockchain.info. Looks fake, and if those CEOs we're going to announce this they'd each release a statement.

The lack of critical analysis is frustrating, don't be sheeple.....

I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info.

You should know, that turtlehurricane doesn't know much, about the big players in the Bitcoin-ecosystem.

[kelsey]

yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads 

[Lauda]

yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads  

The economic majority does. However, XT supporters are misinterpreting information and spreading lies. Let's make this a bit more visible:
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

In our opinion, BIP 101 should be pulled into Bitcoin Core.

This is a interesting website that nobody had posted about (or I've missed it). Although some of the information about XT supporters is invalid or outdated, the website seems nice.

[Swordsoffreedom]

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).

Seemed like a miswording since a Blacklist implies bitcoins fungibility there are only 21 million Bitcoins so affecting supply would be a no go, deanonymization part is fine.

Edit in: Prioritizing would have been better but yah people needed context on that one have it now.

[dothebeats]

yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads 

Because they represent a large portion of the industry wherein bitcoin manifests. The economy mainly decides in this kind of decisions, not the miners and the devs because the economy will be the one that will be hurt the most in case shit happens.

[kelsey]

yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads 

Because they represent a large portion of the industry wherein bitcoin manifests. The economy mainly decides in this kind of decisions, not the miners and the devs because the economy will be the one that will be hurt the most in case shit happens.

i think though tis the traders who decide 

[Rampion]

Pools already lining up to support big blocks

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%).

This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy.

Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits.

Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit:

I want an incorruptible non-government controlled store of value upon which a new global currency can be built. I don't care about low transaction fees or fast confirmations as I already have those. I want a place to store my wealth that can't be stolen via inflation of the money supply. A wealth asset that is safe and can be converted to any medium of exchange that I want when I choose. I want a digital gold. I want privacy. I want a money which is not centrally controlled but rather controls the growth of centralized institutions and gives more power back to individuals enabling us to make economic judgments and allocate scarce resources in a distributed manner not in a centralized one. I think this is what Satoshi also really wanted and I think we're gonna get it.

[dachnik]

Pools already lining up to support big blocks

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC

Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%).

This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy.

Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits.

Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit:

I want an incorruptible non-government controlled store of value upon which a new global currency can be built. I don't care about low transaction fees or fast confirmations as I already have those. I want a place to store my wealth that can't be stolen via inflation of the money supply. A wealth asset that is safe and can be converted to any medium of exchange that I want when I choose. I want a digital gold. I want privacy. I want a money which is not centrally controlled but rather controls the growth of centralized institutions and gives more power back to individuals enabling us to make economic judgments and allocate scarce resources in a distributed manner not in a centralized one. I think this is what Satoshi also really wanted and I think we're gonna get it.

Yep, that's what concerns me about BIP101: we are going to be at 12Mb limit in the beginning of 2017 and at 16Mb limit in the beginning of 2018.
It increases gradually over time and seems overly optimistic, and it's not clear if the network can sustain itself without any limit at all.

My guess, is that having a static hard cap has more of a psychological effect on preventing attacks than anything else, because an attack cannot have long lasting effects with a known ceiling on block size, so attackers simply won't bother.

The 8Mb cap, on the other hand, looks like a reasonable compromise, at least from the standpoint of being competitive as a transactional medium. With 8Mb blocks Bitcoin will have only twice the pre-fork capacity of its closest PoW competitor, so going for anything less might endanger Bitcoin's position as a leader in this space.