adamstgBit (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 01:58:07 PM |
|
so after all the discussion that's been happening, i feel it's time for a new poll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
Next BillGates
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:00:35 PM |
|
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
|
|
|
|
Outlander
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:04:40 PM |
|
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently! IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless!
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:14:02 PM |
|
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently! IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless! my poll is meaningless? how so? we'll see if there's anyone that believes 1MB limit should stay in place forever. my guess is more or less everyone is onboard for some kind of an increase.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
September 15, 2015, 05:16:38 PM Last edit: September 15, 2015, 05:37:50 PM by LaudaM |
|
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does: -snip- if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation.
Adam, how about you stop the propaganda (obvious as there is 100% for the first choice for now)? This does not help anyone. This poll will not make a difference at all. Besides the options 1 and 2 aren't properly written. Option 2 still gives room for support of bigger blocks, just not now. Option 1 has no defined time. Instead of actually proposing something better, you guys focus on fighting the Core vs XT, no increase vs increase and similar. We should be discussing BIP106 and a potential mixture with BIP100 (or some other solution that is better; no BIP101 is not).
Update: Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. -snip- The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become. I concur.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
Kprawn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1073
|
|
September 15, 2015, 05:32:03 PM |
|
Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. I have worked with a bunch of programmers for years and luckily for us, we had a clear direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 07:51:46 PM |
|
Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. I have worked with a bunch of programmers for years and luckily for us, we had a clear direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become. like this. http://cointelegraph.com/news/115264/dash-the-first-decentralized-autonomous-organization
|
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
September 15, 2015, 07:58:15 PM |
|
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does: -snip- if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation. BS. In Switzerland all 'users' decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar economy/politics. That's the reason why Switzerland performs better than their feudalist competitors.
|
|
|
|
LFC_Bitcoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3528
Merit: 9547
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
|
|
September 15, 2015, 08:00:59 PM |
|
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently! IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless! my poll is meaningless? how so? we'll see if there's anyone that believes 1MB limit should stay in place forever. my guess is more or less everyone is onboard for some kind of an increase. I voted for an increase but I'd like it to be as & when it's required. I don't want 8MB or 20MB blocks brought in now as I think that'd be ridiculous at this point. Maybe increase very soon to 2MB then in a number of years (whenever required) go up to 4MB & so on.
|
|
|
|
NorrisK
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1007
|
|
September 15, 2015, 08:30:32 PM |
|
I would like them to implement a blocksize on a sliding scale, just as how block difficulty is calculated. If more blocks are filled, max size increases. If less blocks get filled, block size decreases. Shouldn't be too hard I guess?
|
|
|
|
Mickeyb
|
|
September 15, 2015, 08:40:13 PM |
|
Isn't this like 10th pool about the block size increase that we had until now?
Anyways, I have voted for an increase in some way, but to make it clear not the XT thing and the BIP101.
I think that we need bigger blocks to keep Bitcoin competitive and growing. After all that I read about this problematic(and I read a lot), I feel that there is no perfect solution, but I think that us staying with 1MB blocks would just choke the growth and slow down the adoption.
|
|
|
|
unamis76
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
September 15, 2015, 08:50:07 PM |
|
Although simple, this poll is effective, as it contemplates the three biggest options right now and isn't a "partidary" poll (doesn't make you choose between Core or XT). You are voting on an idea, not on a client. No battles is what we need Voted.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 16, 2015, 04:53:36 AM |
|
just what we need,another block size debate thread.
|
|
|
|
Kakmakr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3444
Merit: 1957
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
|
September 16, 2015, 05:22:44 AM |
|
Give us bigger blocks without the side shows and we will be happy. I voted for some kind of increase even though no immediate panic is needed for now. The Core vs XT debate is over, everyone is in agreement that we need bigger block sizes no matter what will be implemented.
|
..Stake.com.. | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄ ██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀ ██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██ ██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄ █ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄ █ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █ █ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌ █ ██████████ █ ▐ █ █ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌ █ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █ █ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌ █ █▐ █ █ █▐▐▌ █ █▐█ ▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄ ██ ▐█▌ ██ ████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████ ████████▄███████████▄████████ ███▀ █████████████ ▀███ ██ ███████████ ██ ▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀ ▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀ ▀███████ ███████▀ ▀█████▄ ▄█████▀ ▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | ..PLAY NOW.. |
|
|
|
Liquid71
|
|
September 16, 2015, 06:51:05 AM |
|
Give us bigger blocks without the side shows and we will be happy. I voted for some kind of increase even though no immediate panic is needed for now. The Core vs XT debate is over, everyone is in agreement that we need bigger block sizes no matter what will be implemented.
You shouldn't speak for everyone unless you are sure you know everyone's opinion.
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
|
|
September 16, 2015, 07:03:28 AM |
|
i want it to be dynamic, it will auto-adjust when the limit needs to be raised not before and not after
repeat when the new limit is saturated
|
|
|
|
trashman43
|
|
September 16, 2015, 07:21:30 AM |
|
i don't like the options.
i chose "be raised in some way" but really my opinion is "be raised in some way carefully and gradually with emphasis on security over cheap fees"
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 16, 2015, 03:35:14 PM |
|
i don't like the options.
i chose "be raised in some way" but really my opinion is "be raised in some way carefully and gradually with emphasis on security over cheap fees"
right ~80% of users think it should be raised in some way, i think we can all agree that at the very least it could be raised carefully and gradually~20% of users think "stay the same for now", which seems to indacte that they will vote "should be raised in some way" given some time or the right conditions full blocks >80% of blocks? It's good to see 0% think it should never be increased
|
|
|
|
yayayo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1024
|
|
September 16, 2015, 03:43:13 PM |
|
i don't like the options.
i chose "be raised in some way" but really my opinion is "be raised in some way carefully and gradually with emphasis on security over cheap fees"
right ~80% of users think it should be raised in some way, i think we can all agree that at the very least it could be raised carefully and gradually~20% of users think "stay the same for now", which seems to indacte that they will vote "should be raised in some way" given some time or the right conditions full blocks >80% of blocks? It's good to see 0% think it should never be increased It's not suprising at all. The critical point is not if, but how much and in which way. I'm for block size increases as well, provided that decentralization is not hurt. Because without a healthy, decentralized network Bitcoin is worth zero. Therefore I'm strongly opposing BIP101, because it is an extremist position that does not care about decentralization at all. Successfully scaling Bitcoin requires an upper layer that reduces data load on the blockchain in addition to small increases to maximum block size. ya.ya.yo!
|
|
|
|
. ..1xBit.com Super Six.. | ▄█████████████▄ ████████████▀▀▀ █████████████▄ █████████▌▀████ ██████████ ▀██ ██████████▌ ▀ ████████████▄▄ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ▀██████████████ | ███████████████ █████████████▀ █████▀▀ ███▀ ▄███ ▄ ██▄▄████▌ ▄█ ████████ ████████▌ █████████ ▐█ ██████████ ▐█ ███████▀▀ ▄██ ███▀ ▄▄▄█████ ███ ▄██████████ ███████████████ | ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████▀▀▀█ ██████████ ███████████▄▄▄█ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ ███████████████ | ▄█████ ▄██████ ▄███████ ▄████████ ▄█████████ ▄██████████ ▄███████████ ▄████████████ ▄█████████████ ▄██████████████ ▀▀███████████ ▀▀███████ ▀▀██▀ | ▄▄██▌ ▄▄███████ █████████▀ ▄██▄▄▀▀██▀▀ ▄██████ ▄▄▄ ███████ ▄█▄ ▄ ▀██████ █ ▀█ ▀▀▀ ▄ ▀▄▄█▀ ▄▄█████▄ ▀▀▀ ▀████████ ▀█████▀ ████ ▀▀▀ █████ █████ | ▄ █▄▄ █ ▄ ▀▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀ ▄▄█████▄█▄▄ ▄ ▄███▀ ▀▀ ▀▀▄ ▄██▄███▄ ▀▀▀▀▄ ▄▄ ▄████████▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄██ ████████████▀▀ █ ▐█ ██████████████▄ ▄▄▀██▄██ ▐██████████████ ▄███ ████▀████████████▄███▀ ▀█▀ ▐█████████████▀ ▐████████████▀ ▀█████▀▀▀ █▀ | . Premier League LaLiga Serie A | . Bundesliga Ligue 1 Primeira Liga | | . ..TAKE PART.. |
|
|
|
adamstgBit (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 16, 2015, 03:50:57 PM |
|
i don't like the options.
i chose "be raised in some way" but really my opinion is "be raised in some way carefully and gradually with emphasis on security over cheap fees"
right ~80% of users think it should be raised in some way, i think we can all agree that at the very least it could be raised carefully and gradually~20% of users think "stay the same for now", which seems to indacte that they will vote "should be raised in some way" given some time or the right conditions full blocks >80% of blocks? It's good to see 0% think it should never be increased It's not suprising at all. The critical point is not if, but how much and in which way. I'm for block size increases as well, provided that decentralization is not hurt. Because without a healthy, decentralized network Bitcoin is worth zero. Therefore I'm strongly opposing BIP101, because it is an extremist position that does not care about decentralization at all. Successfully scaling Bitcoin requires an upper layer that reduces data load on the blockchain in addition to small increases to maximum block size. ya.ya.yo! yes i agree, all this discussion has lead me to the same conclusion. after some improvement to reduce the amount of redundant traffic on the network, block size limit should increase dynamically based on keeping a small but constant pressure on fees. bacily something like retargeting block size to keep avg block size at 50%full with some ultimate upper limit to make sure its never prohibitively expensive to run a full node at home. and this upper limit should be adjusted upward as internet connectivity / PC get better.
|
|
|
|
|