Coalition For 8MB

[Smokeasy]

The 2-4-8 route is still based on guesswork, though.  I'd still rather see a flexible and dynamic implementation based on actual traffic, but with safeguards in place to prevent dramatic increases.  That would also give the benefit of not being a temporary kludge than needs to be altered later.  BIP106 is still the best 'platform' or starting point on which to build on, but it needs tweaking a bit first, as the current proposal would likely increase too quickly.

The problem with 2-4-8 is the ambiguity of scheduling it right, there are multiple versions floating around (with 3 and 6 years to get to 8MB).

It wouldn't be a problem if there were smaller increases (or decreases) more frequently.  For example, there's no point doubling to 4MB if we're only going to end up averaging 2.5MB for a while.  

The biggest challenge with changing the rules is getting the whole ecosystem to agree on them. We all individually have our pet theories as to how we would do it properly, but the actual solution needs to literally "resonate" with Bitcoin as a whole as it's supposed to serve the interests of that single whole.

Different parties in the system have their own considerations for themselves as the internal environment is highly competitive. In a recent days I have come to realize that Bitcoin only needs to change if something threatens it as a whole. In other words, if there is a system that can do its job better and as of right now there is no such system.

To put it simply, there are multiple ways to change the rules and only one way to keep them.
The latter always wins if there is much disagreement as it has the most gravity.

Fair point, but in the course of trying to find a solution that the whole (or at least a significant majority) of the ecosystem can agree on, how do we prepare for the inevitable accusations of "populist tactics" from that group?  The ones who are probably going to disagree just for the sake of being disagreeable because they believe that maintaining a hostile environment is the best route to enforcing ideals that would inevitably lead to an exclusive chain that the average person won't be able to transact on:

Decentralization increases if contentious forks are met with hostility: forked coins could immediately be sold, businesses who transact in them could be ostracized, individuals who support them should be discredited.

The simple fact is, there is no solution that won't come under fire simply for not being of primary benefit to a small, but decidedly noisy, minority.

Shareholder-style voting where votes are weighed based on ownership percentages could address the issues of a noisy minority.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/09/21/a-solution-to-bitcoins-governance-problem/

[1714949622]

1714949622

[1714949622]

1714949622

[1714949622]

1714949622

[JeromeL]

The biggest challenge with changing the *consensus* rules is getting the whole ecosystem to agree on them. We all individually have our pet theories as to how we would do it properly, but the actual solution needs to literally "resonate" with Bitcoin as a whole as it's supposed to serve the interests of that single whole.

Different parties in the system have their own considerations for themselves as the internal environment is highly competitive. In a recent days I have come to realize that Bitcoin only needs to change if something threatens it as a whole. In other words, if there is a system that can do its job better and as of right now there is no such system.

To put it simply, there are multiple ways to change the rules and only one way to keep them.
The latter always wins if there is much disagreement as it has the most gravity.

I agree, and I am happy you realized that. But make sure to differenciate between consensus changes and non-consensus change. Non-consensus changes can be implemented progressively with minimal coordination from the network (for example node broadcast policies, ...).

[coalitionfor8mb]

The biggest challenge with changing the *consensus* rules is getting the whole ecosystem to agree on them. We all individually have our pet theories as to how we would do it properly, but the actual solution needs to literally "resonate" with Bitcoin as a whole as it's supposed to serve the interests of that single whole.

Different parties in the system have their own considerations for themselves as the internal environment is highly competitive. In a recent days I have come to realize that Bitcoin only needs to change if something threatens it as a whole. In other words, if there is a system that can do its job better and as of right now there is no such system.

To put it simply, there are multiple ways to change the rules and only one way to keep them.
The latter always wins if there is much disagreement as it has the most gravity.

I agree, and I am happy you realized that. But make sure to differenciate between consensus changes and non-consensus change. Non-consensus changes can be implemented progressively with minimal coordination from the network (for example node broadcast policies, ...).

Yep, that's why people should be aware and responsible for their actions and choices.
It's the third "key", as I call it.

[pavan@hosur]

i dono what about that 8MB problem can let me know whats that problem always all are talking about the 8MB per block why we need to change the block size? in there any issues?

[coalitionfor8mb]

i dono what about that 8MB problem can let me know whats that problem always all are talking about the 8MB per block why we need to change the block size? in there any issues?

It's the next bandwidth target for Bitcoin's unified single ledger in order to counter potential competition in this space, but only when it becomes feasible to implement over high-speed home networks. There is no need to change any time soon, as the current limit needs to prove itself in action first.