Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core

[Lauda]

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT.

[1714029940]

1714029940

[1714029940]

1714029940

[brg444]

X-POST

How many full nodes does "the industry" run?

How much hashing power do they have behind them?

How many bitcoins do they own?

The industry of Bitcoinfiat companies is the economic minority. Their decision have no incidence within the Bitcoin economy.

[knight22]

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT.

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.

Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

A hard fork to XT is solely at the discretion of bitcoin miners and miners have shown they are opposed to XT and BIP 101 with their Coinbase votes.

[Lauda]

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do; thus a workable implementation does not take much time. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong.
Update: Slight corrections. Waiting for a reply from someone who is not on ignore.

[Zarathustra]

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you.

Don't listen to what blockthestream is feeding you.

[turvarya]

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong.

I didn't really want to go into this discussions since I already had them with you at least 2 months ago.
I took a break from that, so I am not sure, if you have been still arguing all that time. For someone who is discussing this topic for such a long time, the statement "Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work" is just plain stupid. You should be aware, that it is not about changing the code, but also getting it to the nodes/miners, which is not a trivial task, everybody who works in Software Engineering knows that. I might even have pointed that out to you personally in the past.
So, could you explain to me, why you are making such a stupid statement? Are you really just an idiot?
Or maybe in your quest of kissing the core devs asses you just don't care of how stupid your statements are, as long as they show the greatness of you masters? Don't you see, that you lose every credibility with such a statement? Or maybe you are just trying to fool your sig-campaign employers into thinking that you are not just spamming the forum?
This are the only 3 possibilities I can think of.

[desired_username]

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.

Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part)

As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business.

Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .

Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit.

[Carlton Banks]

What is the current status on different proposals for this matter?
I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?

Since nobody answered my question, I guess, that nothing changed in the last 2 months. Just another hate against hate-thread.
You guys are ridiculous, but thanks for the reminder, why I haven't been active ...

No, there is no significant progress. Other lateral progress could include CheckLockVerifyTime opcode has made it's way into version 0.12 of the core client, so the last of the barriers to using Lightning will soon be gone.

So, no substantial progress on the blocksize issue, but progress is being made on scaling solutions. Scaling solutions that are going to maintain mining decentralisation.

[LiteCoinGuy]

hopefully this will come to an end in december or january... 

[Lauda]

-snip-
Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.

Your writing style suggest that your sentences are not connected. Thus the statement from the 3rd row was interpreted differently compared to the 2nd one. Yes, the people with the wealth care about the random peasants. It's always been like that. I never said that a backlog of transactions has no negative effect. I said that it would not ruin businesses and definitely not quickly.  If someone is willing to sacrifice security because of being cheap enough to include $0.2 (random amount) in fees, then they can go ahead.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .

Unlimited blocks -> easy attack vector. With BIP101 blocks could become either too big or too small at any point in time which would cause harm. Have you not watched Montreal?

[innocent93]

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

[brg444]

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

Bitcoin XT has!

Unfortunately no one gives a f*ck about it 

[Come-from-Beyond]

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

You are wrong.

[chrisvl]

Agree Bitcoin XT is the best option,the problem is evident 1mb It is not enough to provide a smooth operation

[spartacusrex]

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 

[brg444]

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 

Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward?

If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase?

By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY.

Be patient.

Not tonight dear

[knight22]

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 

Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward?

If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase?

By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY.

Be patient.

Not tonight dear

Waiting forever is irresponsible from a business perspective. End of story.

Enough patience, the deadline is December. Deal with it.

[c789]

XT has code which blacklists IPs. Until that is removed, it can keep sinking to where it deserves to go.

EDIT: This is another unfortunate desire of Coinbase. They have a history of rejecting accounts due to tainted Bitcoins. IMHO this destroys the fungibility property of Bitcoin. If your BTC can be rejected because it was used for undesirable activities in the past (even if you had nothing to do with those activities) then your BTC is not worth the same as other BTC. It's also a form of censorship.

[spartacusrex]

KNIGHT22 vs BURGER44!!

I love you guys..

..

I rest my case.