.

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

Yes. But Gavin is trying to predict what the network will look like 20 years down the road. While forking is actually a healthy activity that should probably be done every few years. If you can accept that logic, then BIP101 is ridiculous.

Conservatism is the best approach. We should decide between 2MB or 4MB blocks and fork again down the road as needed. All this bitcoinclassic constitution nonsense is yet another distraction that is going to create more division and more delay.

Yes we SHOULD decide but who is WE?

Knock knock...hello... Don't you get it?

Bitcoin core/Blockstream/Maxwellhouse Koolaid refuses to raise it.  Are you going to sit and wait for Godot?

The only way to raise it is have another repository like Bitcoin Classic.

[BitUsher]

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

And Core doesn't either?  What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing? Even Luke-JR is working on a soft serve hard fork option to force through an increase in maxBlockSize if there is a gridlock with a hardfork on scaling the main chain. Most of core is interested in scaling the main chain with flexcap, but perhaps just not as quickly as you prefer?

Please provide evidence if this is not the case , or repent for your misleading comments.

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Anyway, the most important thing is we need to implement a scalability
solution ASAP.  Until that happens, Bitcoin is in "dangerous waters"
to quote Mike... and the market apparently agrees.

These are the two latest viable proposals ... both are fine IMHO, but I am slightly biased towards core because technically its better.

Classic - basically  BIP102 - Earliest March 1st ,16 but possibly in April /may to build up enough consensus (waiting for code and testnet)
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining

Core + Segwit - Code completed, Been in testnet since Dec 31, expected april.
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining

[jonald_fyookball]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

You have to have bigger blocks if you want more transactions, that's why.

It won't kill decentralization... many people have bought into that idea
and Blockstream would love for you to believe it, but
certainly we can raise the limit by a few MB for now.

And no, don't be silly...Hearn isn't going to start an altcoin.  
He's done with crypto obviously.



 

[jonald_fyookball]

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

And Core doesn't either?  What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing?

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

[AZwarel]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

EDIT: Side note. I run a node. I do it for the fun, to learn, and out of speculative altruism. I have seen 3rd world workers sending home 100$ every week to their family. They have got charge a lot, around 10-15%. You say You pay for it. I do not mind if 100k 3rd world people can use blockchain txs and i supply the hardware for it. Why? Not because am so nice, because my stash of BTC will increase a lot more in value if we add millions of new users, than the cost of the upgraded hardware costs me. It is a WIN-WIN. That is speculative altruism, i can afford to invest money, to help more people to use a cheap way to transact. In turn my investment will increase in worth.

[af_newbie]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you.  At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day.  Storage is just one aspect.

[BitUsher]

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha.

[Cconvert2G36]

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha.

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

[AZwarel]

Against fee market at this stage:
Fees can not solve the transaction limit problem. It does not matter how high fees goes - actually it does, because after a given marginal value, more and more people will stop transacting, and just quit bitcoin.

It is simple math: if limit is 7/s, and we have a constant average >7/s incoming txs, than no matter how high fees goes up, the backlog just grows, and grows. Which will result a total halt of new txs/users, who can not, or do not want to outcompete against the smallest bidded fee for next n block. We can than calculate a minimum - a much higher than today - value of bitcoin/transaction which is still economically viable, and likely be paid by only those, who HAS to use bitcoin (criminal uses, capital flight for example).

Limiting the user base so early (the effective volume capacity of the network, aka the amount of money that can be moved in a given time period) also limits (hugely!) the market capitalization, aka the price of unit - so no million BTCs ever.

This will not be solved by Side/LN, etc, as long as BTC itself reaches mainstream, because it HAS to be very valuable on a per unit base, to be both able to facilitate gigantic value transfers (since it has a huge per unit price), and small amount transactions, which can now safely move on "off the block". But not before that, the combined value of offchain transactions (which will be 1000s more /s) must be a fragment of on chain value of BTC transactions, otherwise why don't just use offchain?

[AZwarel]

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you.  At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day.  Storage is just one aspect.

Indeed, i do not see a problem. No professional or amateur user/miner should run a node/mining operation, who can not deal with OMG 3GB/day, or download 20MB in a few secs. I download a lot more per day, and have 300MB/s connection for 35 EUR/month. I think most people running nodes have at least 10th of these specifics, and i think 10 millions have better technical availability TODAY over the world right now.

The hardware/bandwith arguments are pure FUD in my opinion, simple statistical facts contradict them. Netflix is streaming HD+ content for millions, so how is a 2-4-20 MB sync/ avg 10 MINUTE is a problem?
Of course, that does not mean, there are not other problems, i give you that, but i refuse to accept the physical limitation fear. Software problems, yes, some.

[BitUsher]

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

I don't need to trust Classic or Core , and can review and judge the open source code based upon its own merits. I can even appreciate and am happy to use some of Mike Hearn's code- bitcoinJ who I despise, because I understand what it does.

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Believe you me, I'm not going to touch Lightning network, if its centralized, closed source, has DRM, introduces too much risk. Until there is evidence that supports it has those traits I look forward to it.

[dranster]

Oh, people are comparing Hearn with Hitler now?
Hearn just made his opinion public in a wrong way and that has caused the recent crash in prices,
But it will be soon back up, just wait

[Cconvert2G36]

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

[BitUsher]

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

I genuinely would be happy with core + segwit or classic. Both are good and have smart people behind them.

Hearn just made his opinion public in a wrong way and that has caused the recent crash in prices,

Wrong way? He is a liar and fraud. There is no way he is that ignorant on how bitcoin works ...therefore he is shilling for R3...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329647.0

[AZwarel]

This is the beauty of open source software.

If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.

Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down).

I think your opinion does matter. We ARE the market, and if you "recruit" just a few people into bitcoin, as i and most here do - friends, family, coworkers-, and since we are still small in numbers, it does matter. Just a cheer up thought :-)

[loneranger]

If bitcoin is working then its working.

Even if transactions can take 1 hour to complete the fact is they complete and they are secure. That is still an improvement on anything before bitcoin.

If the time to complete becomes an issue people can use another chain for less than 1 hour. Bitcoin will always be number one since its got the first mover advantage. The miners dont switch to another sidechain so BTC is always stronger with more hashing power.

Mike Hearn is talking bull**** as usual.

I think the key difference in the transaction completion time and the number of transactions that can be handled is the fact that all of these transactions are PUBLIC and out of the hands of VISA and MasterCard. I'll take a 1 day completion time if it means that less of my information and spending habits are in the vast databases of VISA/MasterCard/NSA/USGOVT thankyaverymuch.

[Westin Landon Cox]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.

Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.

Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.

[MicroGuy]

Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.

You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.

Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0

I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.

Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.

Great work! You might actually be THE person that saved Bitcoin from the banks! 

[maokoto]

All that Hearn says may be true (I am not very updated on all that). However, Which is the interest in proclaiming dead a project in which you have been working for 5 years when other people still are going on working in it? I don't know. But I doubt that the interest is to just warn users.

[calkob]

At this point I have no idea what to believe.

Someone please hold me.

Me too, "can i have a hug"..................lol