BIP 100 and BIP 101 = i like both...

[LiteCoinGuy]

There is a silver lining on the horizon - BIP 100 from Mr Garzik. Looks like a good compromise to me.

BIP 100:

Protocol changes proposed: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

        -Hard fork, to
        -Remove static 1MB block size limit.
        -Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
        -The historical 32MB limit remains.
        -Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
        -Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
        -Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
        -Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
        -Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.



i would be happy if such thing would be adopted...and after that - Bitcoin to da Space   !  

[adamstgBit]

yes this is acceptable. seems like a middle ground, miners could up the limit to 2MB in a few months, and a year later if w'ere filling blocks 2MB big again they would just up the limit, no debating just the network justifying itself.

hopefully miners are aware of this option and start voting for it.

[CIYAM]

Strange that you guys didn't notice BIP 100 well before BIP 101 (as I am pretty sure that it had appeared weeks before).

Anyway - now perhaps send your newfound information to the bunch of CEOs that have all backed BIP 101 to see if they will also back BIP 100.

[adamstgBit]

Strange that you guys didn't notice BIP 100 well before BIP 101 (as I am pretty sure that it had appeared weeks before).

Anyway - now perhaps send the newfound information to the bunch of CEOs that have all backed BIP 101 to see if they will also back BIP 100.

all that really matters is hashrate.

[CIYAM]

all that really matters is hashrate.

True - but if some of the major pool operators are not aware of BIP 100 then that would be a shame (it seems none of those CEOs were aware of it).

[Lauda]

Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.

hopefully miners are aware of this option and start voting for it.

Yes they are.
BIP 100 support:
DiscusFish / F2Pool
Kano CKPool
BitClub Network

[LiteCoinGuy]

Strange that you guys didn't notice BIP 100 well before BIP 101 (as I am pretty sure that it had appeared weeks before).

Anyway - now perhaps send your newfound information to the bunch of CEOs that have all backed BIP 101 to see if they will also back BIP 100.

i noticed it but it seemed like there could be no consensus about BIP 100 or BIP 101.

XT is an emergency solution for me.

[CIYAM]

XT is an emergency solution for me.

What is the emergency?

That Gavin and Mike are impatient to sack the Bitcoin Core devs and go work for big business?

(I am being rather overly cynical of course - but I really don't see that there is any emergency)

Again - I'll just point out that during the "stress testing" spam attacks I had no problem at all sending BTC txs with zero fees (so those trying to suggest we should panic about solving a problem in getting txs through are just full of shit).

[adamstgBit]

Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.

hopefully miners are aware of this option and start voting for it.

Yes they are.
BIP 100 support:
DiscusFish / F2Pool
Kano CKPool
BitClub Network

because it wasn't well pushed. and at first it seemed overly complex for nothing, at first it seemed an agreement would be made when the BIP went from 20MB down to 8MB. but with so much disagreement, this idea of letting the network form the agreement is looking good.

[CIYAM]

because it wasn't well pushed

So it comes down again not to being technically better but being more "pushed" which is the bullying style tactic that was taken by Gavin and Mike.

Personally I don't like bullies - so I back BIP 100 on principle (even though its author doesn't think much of me).

This whole XT thing actually reminds me of when Gavin tried to kick out Luke-Jr (calling him "poisonous" from memory which was back when BIP 16 and 17 were the issue).

I wouldn't say I am a fan of Luke-Jr myself but I disagree with these sort of "social manipulation" style tactics which is basically how I see the current situation.

[adamstgBit]

because it wasn't well pushed

So it comes down again not to being technically better but being more "pushed" which is the bullying style tactic that was taken by Gavin and Mike.

it would be hard to push something that isn't technically good.

but when it comes down to it all the damn BIPs would do the trick, its just a matter of picking favorites now, so ya its all about pushing for it, a good way to push something would be to claim it's technically  the best solution, and prove it.

[CIYAM]

but when it comes down to it all the damn BIPs would do the trick, its just a matter of picking favorites now, so ya its all about pushing for it, a good way to push something would be to claim it's technically  the best solution, and prove it.

The problem is that the issue isn't actually a technical one except perhaps that of scaling (which when we are talking about the future is full of unknowns).

I think that BIP 100 is a more intelligent approach as it allows the miners (the only people that really matter in regards to block sizes) to vote between themselves as to when an increase should occur (rather than just relying upon a theory that bandwidth will increase much like processing power).

In regards to the bandwidth increasing theory I would invite people to just look at Australia - they were going to implement "fibre to the home" for the NBN rollout initially but under a change of government are now no longer doing this (reducing the bandwidth considerably). So bandwidth really doesn't work like processing power as it is "political" (so anyone making a theory that bandwidth increases will work just like processing power is living in a Utopian world).

[Carlton Banks]

Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.

hopefully miners are aware of this option and start voting for it.

Yes they are.
BIP 100 support:
DiscusFish / F2Pool
Kano CKPool
BitClub Network

because it wasn't well pushed. and at first it seemed overly complex for nothing, at first it seemed an agreement would be made when the BIP went from 20MB down to 8MB. but with so much disagreement, this idea of letting the network form the agreement is looking good.

also, LiteCoinGuy turning around appears to have turned the market! well done LiteCoinGuy 

[tspacepilot]

Let me ask you something directly then (no, this is not an ad hominem attempt). Why did you initially ignore both BIP 100 and 102 when I (along with a few others) were telling you guys to read about both of them?
BIP100 has been around for quite some time and I've talked about it in multiple threads.

[snip]

I was looking for the text of BIP 100 and 102 when I noticed that (what I think is the official) github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) only has BIP 101.
OP links to BIP 100, so that one's solved.  Where can I find the text for 102?

So far, having looked only at the outlines, I like 100 better than 101.

[Lauda]

I was looking for the text of BIP 100 and 102 when I noticed that (what I think is the official) github (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips) only has BIP 101.
OP links to BIP 100, so that one's solved.  Where can I find the text for 102?

So far, having looked only at the outlines, I like 100 better than 101.

BIP102 is just an alternative for everything else, something like a emergency solution proposed by Jeff.
Here are the two links:
Documentation
Github

[knight22]

BIP100 looks like a compromise but I still prefer BIP101. It gives much more capacity.

[CIYAM]

BIP100 looks like a compromise but I still prefer BIP101. It gives much more capacity.

As it came first (of all the BIPs to do with blocksize) exactly how is it a compromise (i.e. it can't be a compromise to the other BIPs so what is it a compromise to)?

Having increases just being automatic based upon a non-scientific theory about the increase of bandwidth doesn't seem like a better idea to me.

Getting the miners to vote on it at least makes sure you don't have any big troubles (if they are struggling to handle the bandwidth then they would vote not to increase until they had good enough hardware and connectivity to do so).

[Klestin]

Everyone seems to forget that the exponential rate of BIP 101 can be adjusted with a soft fork.

[CIYAM]

Everyone seems to forget that the exponential rate of BIP 101 can be adjusted with a soft fork.

So vote for a hard fork to later introduce a soft fork vs. just one hard fork.

Hmm... I think I prefer BIP 100 in that regard (the less forks the better).

[Lauda]

Everyone seems to forget that carrying out soft forks is not as easy as people think.

FTFY.

Having increases just being automatic based upon a non-scientific theory about the increase of bandwidth doesn't seem like a better idea to me.

Exactly. I've been saying this quite often. What Gavin proposed is not sustainable.  I think that if another pool starts showing support for BIP100 that we might be probably heading into that direction (since BIP 100 has already more than 20%).