BIP100 is Winning!

[adamstgBit]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its only natural that miners would vote for something that gives them more control.
i am not opposed to BIP100 but after reading about BIP1xx i prefer it over all other BIPs.

more info on BIP100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

[Amph]

maybe it's winning by a miners point of view, but what about merchants? i remember that bitpay was pro Xt last time i've checked

[CounterEntropy]

Many have shown support for BIP 1xx as well. But, obviously they are not miners...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/subject.html#10285

[adamstgBit]

Many have shown support for BIP 1xx as well. But, obviously they are not miners...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/subject.html#10285

I love BIP1xx, but didnt hear about it till today, and it seems miners couldn't even vote for that one.

[CounterEntropy]

Many have shown support for BIP 1xx as well. But, obviously they are not miners...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154536.0

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/subject.html#10285

I love BIP1xx, but didnt hear about it till today, and it seems miners couldn't even vote for that one.

Yah... because it has not been assigned a BIP no. by Gregory Maxwell aka blockstream. They dont like proposals that increase MaxBlockSize driven by market demand.

[meono]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its only natural that miners would vote for something that gives them more control.
i am not opposed to BIP100 but after reading about BIP1xx i prefer it over all other BIPs.

more info on BIP100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I'm shocked.... actually not.

After miningRatlabs, you lost all your credits. I'm sure not many here know about it.

[adamstgBit]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its only natural that miners would vote for something that gives them more control.
i am not opposed to BIP100 but after reading about BIP1xx i prefer it over all other BIPs.

more info on BIP100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I'm shocked.... actually not.

After miningRatlabs, you lost all your credits. I'm sure not many here know about it.

miningRatlabs?

[meono]

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools
its only natural that miners would vote for something that gives them more control.
i am not opposed to BIP100 but after reading about BIP1xx i prefer it over all other BIPs.

more info on BIP100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

I'm shocked.... actually not.

After miningRatlabs, you lost all your credits. I'm sure not many here know about it.

miningRatlabs?

wanna play games with the name?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=251423.0

[kingcrypto]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

[adamstgBit]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

[Seccour]

I prefer what i've called "BIP 104" in the french section : BIP 104

For those who don't want to go on the website :

" Assumption: This article is for those, who already understand the bitcoin protocol and aware of the block size controversy. Details of the problem statement can be found in BIP 100. Satoshi's opinion regarding block size can be found here. I will be directly going into the solution without explaining the problem in details.


Solution: Difficulty changes at every 2016 block, i.e. at every 2016 block each full node does a calculation to find the next target. We will do just another calculation here. Nodes will also calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, which is 1 MB for now. If it is found that more than 90% blocks in the last difficulty period is higher than 90% of the maximum block size, then double the maximum block size. If not, then calculate what % of blocks in the last difficulty period is less than 50% of the maximum block size. If it is higher than 90%, then half the maximum block size. If none of the above condition satisfies, keep the maximum block size as it is.

Please note that, while calculating the % of blocks, it is better to take into account the first 2000 of the 2016, than the whole of 2016. This helps to avoid the calculation mistake if some of the last few blocks get orphaned.


Reasoning: This solution is derived directly from the indication of the problem. If transaction volume increases, then we will naturally see bigger blocks. On the contrary, if there are not enough transaction volume, but maximum block size is high, then only few blocks may sweep the mempool. Hence, if block size is itself taken into consideration, then maximum block size can most rationally be derived. Moreover, this solution not only increases, but also decreases the maximum block size, just like difficulty. "

Read more on upalc

[onemorexmr]

I prefer what i've called "BIP 104" in the french section : BIP 104

why dont you talk to gmaxwell and get a real bip-number assigned? anything else is just confusing.

[RocketSingh]

I prefer what i've called "BIP 104" in the french section : BIP 104

why dont you talk to gmaxwell and get a real bip-number assigned? anything else is just confusing.

Have you submitted this to gmaxwell yet for bip number assignment? If you did, what was his response?

I did. On August 18, 2015 he said that normal procedure is to allow some time for discussion on the list and asked me to post the draft text as well. I did not have the draft text ready by then. As you'll see the draft (https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki) was made on August 24, 2015. So, after posting the draft text, I contacted him again for BIP no. Since then, I have not heard of him.

[knight22]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover.

[adamstgBit]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover.

they are free to make more public statements...

my guess is they were contacted by gavin and pressured to sign a doc and they did because they say the real need to incress blocklimit and this WAS the best proposal presented to them

now that they know where miners stand,  0% support XT while 65% support BIP100

they might change there mind, in the end they get what they need a blocklimit increase


We are the bitcoin network,
Your businesses and users will adapt to service us
The will of the network will dissolve your individual opinion
resistance is futile

[meono]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover.

And they can mine all the coins they want. Lets see if they can convince someone to buy those coins at $240/coin. They need a market to be in profit.

[meono]

It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover.

they are free to make more public statements...

my guess is they were contacted by gavin and pressured to sign a doc and they did because they say the real need to incress blocklimit and this WAS the best proposal presented to them

now that they know where miners stand,  0% support XT while 65% support BIP100

they might change there mind, in the end they get what they need a blocklimit increase


We are the bitcoin network,
Your businesses and users will adapt to service us
The will of the network will dissolve your individual opinion
resistance is futile

This isnt ratlabs mining campaign. You can go shill somewhere else.

[Klestin]

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

Any miner can fork bitcoin.  However, nobody is forced to move to that fork.  The exchanges also share power in that.  

As a hypothetical example, let's say that 100% of miners decided they were going to implement some new code that benefited them, at the expense of the exchanges.  If the exchanges and merchants banded together and announced that they were not going to move to the new fork, the miners might quickly find themselves on a worthless chain.  After the difficulty reset (which, barring yet another fork, would take quite a while), any miner who moved back to the main chain would reap the benefits of a grossly reduced difficulty.

In the real world, we all have to work together: miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. A fork in which any one of these groups stands alone would massively set back the public trust in Bitcoin.  Miners (who operate 100% on Bitcoin profits, and who have very small profit margins by definition) would be the worst hit.

[adamstgBit]

seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes.

Any miner can fork bitcoin.  However, nobody is forced to move to that fork.  The exchanges also share power in that.  

As a hypothetical example, let's say that 100% of miners decided they were going to implement some new code that benefited them, at the expense of the exchanges.  If the exchanges and merchants banded together and announced that they were not going to move to the new fork, the miners might quickly find themselves on a worthless chain.  After the difficulty reset (which, barring yet another fork, would take quite a while), any miner who moved back to the main chain would reap the benefits of a grossly reduced difficulty.

In the real world, we all have to work together: miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. A fork in which any one of these groups stands alone would massively set back the public trust in Bitcoin.  Miners (who operate 100% on Bitcoin profits, and who have very small profit margins by definition) would be the worst hit.

i agree, but as a user,  BIP101 BIP100 and BIP1xx are all good enough more me not to care which way it goes. this is probably true for the miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. who cares as long as SOMETHING is done about this problem.

would it be good for anyone to let this thing drag on for another year?

[PolarPoint]

I like the notion of having a variable maxblocksize. I couldn't find the calculation formula in BIP100, this BIP1xx formula could be merged into BIP100.