block size limit poll

[adamstgBit]

so after all the discussion that's been happening, i feel it's time for a new poll.

[1715006616]

1715006616

[1715006616]

1715006616

[1715006616]

1715006616

[Next BillGates]

I really didn't understand this block size thing.

[Outlander]

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]

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]

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.

[Kprawn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

just what we need,another block size debate thread.

[Kakmakr]

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.   

[Liquid71]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[adamstgBit]

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.