Blocksize - December 2015

[Zarathustra]

I understand the next block size meeting will be soon. Coming up to the meeting and wondering if anything has changed and where things stand as of now? What do people consider will be the likely outcome?

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS THREAD ON TOPIC. I NOTICE ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT GAVIN WHERE TROLLS HAVE TRIED TO DISRUPT THE THREAD BY TALKING ABOUT RACISM OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I HOPE THIS THREAD CAN AVOID THE PAID TROLLS AND PEOPLE WILL STICK TO THE TOPIC

You seem to be a paid troll, since you start this thread with ad hominems. Don't expect a discussion on a higher level when you start a topic that way.

Let's try to keep to the topic please. Your post doesn't add value and is exactly what I was hoping to avoid.

Your topic was about which ones you do believe to be paid trolls. You can't avoid an ad hominem discussion by opening one.

[Cuidler]

Miners do not want the block size to be too high as they do not have the facilicity to handle too large block size. They might get higher fee from smaller block size when people compete to get included in a block.

Yes, but if you increase fees and limit the number of people who can use Bitcoin at all, then Bitcoin will definitively loose its today market share because other altcoins have to be used to fill the gap (no more transactions possible to add once Bitcoin blocks are full everytime) - not something Bitcoin miners want to happen.

[Lauda]

Yes, but if you increase fees and limit the number of people who can use Bitcoin at all, then Bitcoin will definitively loose its today market share because other altcoins have to be used to fill the gap (no more transactions possible to add once Bitcoin blocks are full everytime) - not something Bitcoin miners want to happen.

It doesn't limit anyone until we are constantly hitting the limit without spam transactions, which we aren't. There is still time to discuss, decide and implement. I guess a bump to 2MB should not be harmful and would be a temporary solution that would enable more time (if consensus can not be reached yet).

Because of all I have read in these forums and other media, most people advocate a raise in block size, so it is very likely that it will come sooner than later. I do not know if it will pop up from that meeting, though.

Correct. Most people agree with raising the limit in one way or another. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to spread misinformation (however, there is a small group that prefers staying at 1MB). 

[BillyBobZorton]

Its in december 7 as far as I know, in china. I don't think a clear agreement will be meet. Core devs will stick to improving the protocol and keeping BTC decentralized and XTrojan Andresen and Hearn will keep pushing their big blocks agenda.

[solex]

No decision will likely to be made and Core will be forked.

Agreed. This is the last chance for Core to remain the reference client.

There is no point in a 1MB limit anymore because blocks can be reduced to a small fraction of their normal size during propagation.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-the-magic-of-iblts-could-boost-bitcoin-s-decentralization-1448382673
“Ideally, if we can cram this thing [IBLT] into two IP packets,” he said. “We are lightning fast.”

[brg444]

No decision will likely to be made and Core will be forked.

Agreed. This is the last chance for Core to remain the reference client.

There is no point in a 1MB limit anymore because blocks can be reduced to a small fraction of their normal size during propagation.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-the-magic-of-iblts-could-boost-bitcoin-s-decentralization-1448382673
“Ideally, if we can cram this thing [IBLT] into two IP packets,” he said. “We are lightning fast.”

AFAIK they already achieve that using the Relay Network. Could definitely be an improvement to have this baked into the protocol but from where I stand it does nothing to mitigate the externalization of costs to full nodes.

[tnrmedia]

We must need to support CORE for the BITCOIN long lasting future. If any changes needed, they must be implement with the Core. If we encourage third party wallets like XT, Bitcoin becomes Altcoin.

[Cconvert2G36]

We must need to support CORE for the BITCOIN long lasting future. If any changes needed, they must be implement with the Core. If we encourage third party wallets like XT, Bitcoin becomes Altcoin.

Amen, must be implement with the Core. Down with third party wallet.

[NorthPixel]

We must need to support CORE for the BITCOIN long lasting future. If any changes needed, they must be implement with the Core. If we encourage third party wallets like XT, Bitcoin becomes Altcoin.

The core developers have to be changed as well. These guy should be neutral to all new ideas. They should not have conflict of interest and biased.

[Carlton Banks]

OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".


There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"

[DooMAD]

OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".


There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"

While it's technically a misnomer, many of the scaling solutions under discussion, such as Lightning Network and payment channels, will likely still require a larger blocksize in order to function effectively.  With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

[Carlton Banks]

OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".


There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"

While it's technically a misnomer, many of the scaling solutions under discussion, such as Lightning Network and payment channels, will likely still require a larger blocksize in order to function effectively.

Under what load? Lightning roll-out now would increase the potential tx rate by orders of magnitude. There is no orders of magnitude growth in Bitcoin use right now, so contrary to your assertion, I believe Lightning right now would function effectively. What you mean is probably more like "function effectively with Billions of Bitcoin users", which is plausible.

With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.

[virtualx]

OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".


There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"

Do you mean the Scaling Bitcoin conference? These videos are here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmwaDulmQtX-H8FOSQTKqMg
Some live streams will be later today.

[DooMAD]

OP is incorrect. There is no "Blocksize meeting", no "next Blocksize meeting", because there was no "previous Blocksize meeting".


There is a Scaling Bitcoin workshop. There is no "Blocksize meeting"

While it's technically a misnomer, many of the scaling solutions under discussion, such as Lightning Network and payment channels, will likely still require a larger blocksize in order to function effectively.

Under what load? Lightning roll-out now would increase the potential tx rate by orders of magnitude. There is no orders of magnitude growth in Bitcoin use right now, so contrary to your assertion, I believe Lightning right now would function effectively. What you mean is probably more like "function effectively with Billions of Bitcoin users", which is plausible.

I suppose that depends on how many people elect to use it, which will depend on how good it is.  We'll hopefully find out in the not-too-distant future.

With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.

That might be the agreement, but it might not be.  If you wish to reduce emphasis on the blocksize as an issue, that's fair enough, provided you aren't attempting to rule out discussion completely.

[teukon]

Maybe what's needed is an arbitrary decision by an independent impartial small group, ...

Perhaps a coin flip then.  It would be difficult to be more arbitrary or impartial than a coin.

[Carlton Banks]

With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.

That might be the agreement, but it might not be.  If you wish to reduce emphasis on the blocksize as an issue, that's fair enough, provided you aren't attempting to rule out discussion completely.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that with so many different ways to increase the tx rate without touching the blocksize, that there is an undue emphasis on the blocksize as a debating point. The other ideas barely got any hearing above the voices of those telling us that blocksize must go exponential, with as large a blocksize for the exponent to operate on as possible.

In other words, we've been experiencing the inverse of what you're warning against; there has been several months now of a concerted attempt to rule out the possibility of keeping the blocksize as small as possible. Wouldn't you agree?

[DooMAD]

With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.

That might be the agreement, but it might not be.  If you wish to reduce emphasis on the blocksize as an issue, that's fair enough, provided you aren't attempting to rule out discussion completely.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that with so many different ways to increase the tx rate without touching the blocksize, that there is an undue emphasis on the blocksize as a debating point. The other ideas barely got any hearing above the voices of those telling us that blocksize must go exponential, with as large a blocksize for the exponent to operate on as possible.

In other words, we've been experiencing the inverse of what you're warning against; there has been several months now of a concerted attempt to rule out the possibility of keeping the blocksize as small as possible. Wouldn't you agree?

Only as much as there has been a concerted attempt by some to rule out the possibility of raising it at all, which has the potential to set a dangerous precedent if the other proposed solutions don't pan out as intended.  Let's not go crazy, but there should be a happy middle ground somewhere.  We'll likely need every possible tool at our disposal, so we shouldn't rule any of them out.

[teukon]

I understand the next block size meeting will be soon. Coming up to the meeting and wondering if anything has changed and where things stand as of now? What do people consider will be the likely outcome?

Will the Devs raise tx-rates in December?

It's rumored to be a "live possibility".

[Carlton Banks]

With an abundance of engineers and developers gathered in one place, it makes sense to have at least some discussion about the blocksize.  Whatever people want to call it, there still has to be some sort of direction agreed upon, otherwise tensions will only increase.

And the direction for the blocksize might get agreed upon as "hodl". Presenting a change in the blocksize as a fait accomplis is as unhelpful as prejudging or precluding any other changes in this debate. There literally is nothing special, no exceptional status at all, to the blocksize as a variable. It's not the magical "tx-o-meter" that the simple minded debaters present it as.

That might be the agreement, but it might not be.  If you wish to reduce emphasis on the blocksize as an issue, that's fair enough, provided you aren't attempting to rule out discussion completely.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that with so many different ways to increase the tx rate without touching the blocksize, that there is an undue emphasis on the blocksize as a debating point. The other ideas barely got any hearing above the voices of those telling us that blocksize must go exponential, with as large a blocksize for the exponent to operate on as possible.

In other words, we've been experiencing the inverse of what you're warning against; there has been several months now of a concerted attempt to rule out the possibility of keeping the blocksize as small as possible. Wouldn't you agree?

Only as much as there has been a concerted attempt by some to rule out the possibility of raising it at all, which has the potential to set a dangerous precedent if the other proposed solutions don't pan out as intended.  Let's not go crazy, but there should be a happy middle ground somewhere.  We'll likely need every possible tool at our disposal, so we shouldn't rule any of them out.

Nope, I think you've got that (bolded) very wrong.

Any scheme that disregarded the negatives of blocksize increases were defended against, necessarily because the campaign to join that coterie who wanted exponential increases came before any objections. Very rarely did anyone state what their preference was, they just said "BIP101 is a poor choice".

So let's not have this "everyone's as bad as each other", because those who defended against BIP101 and XT were not pushing any unified/coherent agenda, they were simply defending against others trying to impose their position.

[Amph]

I understand the next block size meeting will be soon. Coming up to the meeting and wondering if anything has changed and where things stand as of now? What do people consider will be the likely outcome?

Will the Devs raise tx-rates in December?

It's rumored to be a "live possibility".

they can rise it even now, or when they want, the real question is, will the general consensus accept the rise? it seems no, otherwise it would have been done already