You can't have it both ways

[jonald_fyookball]

I find it amusing that so many posters
are screaming "Don't touch core.  Anything
that's not core isn't Bitcoin!".

I suspect many of those were the
same people who last year said
"Bitcoin isn't decentralized.
It's controlled by a few core devs!"

[LFC_Bitcoin]

we all just want agreement

Pretty much this.
Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. 

[ashour]

3 out of 5 core devs are on the BlockStream paycheck list. The core development team can be bought out but not bitcoin itself. The bitcoin should have kicked out the core developers that work for BlockStream, bitcoin needs to adjust and move forward and it can't happen if 3 of 5  core  developers are against innovation. 

[DooMAD]

Other gems include:

• "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but you can't fork the code"
• "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
• "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them"

The small-blockians are basically just generating oxymorons to throw around.

[tiggytomb]

The sooner the better, it changes or remains the same it still has an uphill struggle to reach it's peak and will still have support from all those currently involved, it's hard to scroll through all these threads and find something that is not focused on this topic right now.

Myself personally I would prefer it to be left as it is with the initial intention left alone to take whatever path it needs to take, if it is not good enough for what people need then an alternative coin will need to be created and run on it's own merits and not on the back of what Bitcoin has thus far achieved.  This is just my opinion and with that said whichever way it goes I will still support it.

[VeritasSapere]

The sooner the better, it changes or remains the same it still has an uphill struggle to reach it's peak and will still have support from all those currently involved, it's hard to scroll through all these threads and find something that is not focused on this topic right now.

Myself personally I would prefer it to be left as it is with the initial intention left alone to take whatever path it needs to take, if it is not good enough for what people need then an alternative coin will need to be created and run on it's own merits and not on the back of what Bitcoin has thus far achieved.  This is just my opinion and with that said whichever way it goes I will still support it.

Increasing the block size has always been a part of the original vision of Bitcoin. Therefore anyone who thinks it is better arbitrarily restricting the size of the blocks then they should be the ones that create the altcoin. Bitcoin should stick with the original vision of satoshi. Therefore if you think it is better having a blockchain that restricts the amount of transactions that can be carried out on it, and that therefore it should become prohibitively expensive so that we need to use third parties in order to even transact. That should be implemented as an altcoin and let the market decide if that is really what it wants.

[VeritasSapere]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335

[ashour]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only.

[jdebunt]

we all just want agreement

Pretty much this.
Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. 

An agreement in this "pissing contest" would surprise me tbh. One party will cave in as the deadline grows closer if you ask me.

[Holliday]

I won't touch XT != don't touch Core

[Muhammed Zakir]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only.

No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size.

[ashour]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only.

No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size.

BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes.

[Muhammed Zakir]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only.

No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size.

BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes.

Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time.

[NorrisK]

we all just want agreement

Pretty much this.
Hopefully there can be some kind of compromise reached in the next few months. If not hopefully one wins & the other dies so we can continue on the currently crumbling road that leads to the moon. 

The only middleground I can currently think of would be to gradually adjust max blocksize based on the avarage network load. Just like mining difficulty is readjusted every two weeks, the same could be done for max blocksize?

[Mickeyb]

we all just want agreement

^^ Exactly this! Everybody is sick and tired of the uncertainty. We want the consensus so we can move forward with the development, adoption and other important stuff.

[dothebeats]

we all just want agreement

If only the devs of different implementations could work around as a team, that would be great. I mean, yes, you work for different companies but still you work for the same project: bitcoin development. Other ideas might come out of your heads, why not merge your ideas together to form a much better bitcoin? If one party remains on getting too hard-headed, consensus will never be met.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time.

Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them.  The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks.

[NorrisK]

Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time.

Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them.  The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks.

Still if you go for that solution you are only supporting a direction that is completely biased and full of disclosures about their involvement in the sidechain business...

[brg444]

Most of the pro-XTs say when blocks become full, people use sidechain for transactions but sidechain needs space to support this. If there is no storage, how can sidechains work? In fact, sidechain needs more time to finish its development. Core devs are not stupid to not increase block size for such a long time.

Once a large proportion of low value transactions are moved onto sidedchains, they need far fewer transactions on the bloackchain to support them.  The increase in transaction size is very small (assuming they dont go mad with the spv scripts) and will have plenty of room in the now near empty blocks.

This assumes everyone will want to transact on sidechains which is obviously not true.

More importantly not everyone will use the same sidechains and therefore transfer of coins between them necessitate large size transactions which compete for regular transactions in blocks.

Don't let the trolls fool you. The sidechains business model does not, in any way, suffer from larger blocks. It is more likely it would benefit them so your Blockstream paranoia is just that, FUD. 

[brg444]

How about this one:

I want the block size increased, but I want to see it implemted in Core.

I am sorry but you can not have it both ways.

This probably won't happen since most of the bitcoin core developers are on the BlockStream paycheck list. BlockStream doesn't want bigger blocks implemented because that would kill their business model. I think that the only option to include BIP100/8MB blocks would be to kick out the 3 bitcoin core developers who work for BlockStream and replace them with community chosen developers who their only goal would be to contribute to the bitcoin technology only.

No, you are wrong! Sidechains will be more successful in bigger block size because it's transactions need more size.

BlockStream is trying to block the path to bigger blocks, side chains along big blocks won't happen any time soon. The point of side chains is to replace the need of bigger block sizes.

Yes maybe if you are totally ignorant about what sidechains offer then yes you could say they replace bigger blocks.

Those who actually have a clue and don't have a tendency for pulling things out their ass will know this ain't the case though...