Blocks are full.

[jonald_fyookball]

   All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

I say something is definitely better than nothing,
even if it does nothing else than promote unity
in the community. 

Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
control"...right?

[1713891565]

1713891565

[1713891565]

1713891565

[1713891565]

1713891565

[gkv9]

   All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

I say something is definitely better than nothing,
even if it does nothing else than promote unity
in the community. 

Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
control"...right?

So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???

[Lauda]

Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

I say something is definitely better than nothing,
even if it does nothing else than promote unity
in the community. 

Wrong. You obviously lack the understanding in the soft fork vs hard fork case. Essentially a proper hard fork needs time to be deployed. Rushing it can be very damaging to the ecosystem. Currently in both Classic and Core what you're doing is waiting. You're waiting for the code and then you're waiting for consensus and deployment. In both 'nothing' is wrong as 'something' is being done.

So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???

Confirmation time has nothing to do with the capacity. Blocks generation rate will remain the same (i.e. confirmations should take ~10 minutes).

[jonald_fyookball]

Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

I say something is definitely better than nothing,
even if it does nothing else than promote unity
in the community. 

Wrong. You obviously lack the understanding in the soft fork vs hard fork case. Essentially a proper hard fork needs time to be deployed. Rushing it can be very damaging to the ecosystem. Currently in both Classic and Core what you're doing is waiting. You're waiting for the code and then you're waiting for consensus and deployment. In both 'nothing' is wrong as 'something' is being done.

So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???

Confirmation time has nothing to do with the capacity. Blocks generation rate will remain the same (i.e. confirmations should take ~10 minutes).

I'm aware that hard forks need more preparation.

It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
is exactly what core has been doing.

[BitUsher]

It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
is exactly what core has been doing.

My position is quite the opposite in that I support the right of other implementations to openly fork the code and try and take over governance. Individuals without consensus should have this right, they should also be free to choose not to upgrade thus indirectly causing a fork, or choose to cooperate and submit BIPs or leave.

The only reason the 95% of last mined blocks is mentioned is because we understand that it is not really measuring the vote of the people, nodes or economic majority but a less accurate indirect approximation of such a measurement by miners. Bitcoin classic should have the right to fork at 51% or 75% .... these are all arbitrary numbers... but since they are indirect approximations , the lower the number the greater a chance there will be two competing coins. This isn't a threat but a reality. In the short term it would be chaotic , messy , and both sides would certainly lose a lot of value/or one side dying off ... this isn't completely bad , but can create PR problems with investor confidence.

[jonald_fyookball]

It is easy to say "nothing should be done without consensus"
if you're one of the parties holding up the consensus which
is exactly what core has been doing.

My position is quite the opposite in that I support the right of other implementations to openly fork the code and tray and take over governance. Individuals without consensus should have this right, they should also be free to choose not to upgrade thus indirectly causing a fork, or choose to cooperate and submit BIPs or leave.

The only reason the 95% of last mined blocks is mentioned is because we understand that it is not really measuring the vote of the people, nodes or economic majority but a less accurate indirect approximation of such a measurement by miners. Bitcoin classic should have the right to fork at 51% or 75% .... these are all arbitrary numbers... but since they are indirect approximations , the lower the number the greater a chance there will be two competing coins. This isn't a threat but a reality. In the short term it would be chaotic , messy , and both sides would certainly lose a lot of value/or one side dying off ... this isn't completely bad , but can create PR problems with investor confidence.

well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number. 
I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

[BitUsher]

well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.  
I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?

[jonald_fyookball]

well i agree completely but i also think 95% is unrealistic because if it was that clear, there wouldn't be an issue. 75% feels like the right number.  
I think two coins would be bad.  one united bitcoin is ideal.

You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?

I would risk it with 75% because:

1) I don't trust core to put the interests of
the community before Blockstream's interests

and

2) I don't necessarily agree with their
vision of how to scale Bitcoin.  I think
main chain scaling should be the priority
as envisioned by Satoshi.

and

3)  I don't think they should be in
charge any longer.

I'm not looking to persuade anyone of
my opinion, just stating it for the record.

[BitUsher]

I would risk it with 75% because:

1) I don't trust core to put the interests of
the community before Blockstream's interests

and

2) I don't necessarily agree with their
vision of how to scale Bitcoin.  I think
main chain scaling should be the priority
as envisioned by Satoshi.

and

3)  I don't think they should be in
charge any longer.

I'm not looking to persuade anyone of
my opinion, just stating it for the record.

OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?
You understand that the majority of people , even if they disagree with the exact details of cores scaling proposal still want the Core devs to contribute to contribute their valuable code and insights? This included almost all miners.

So if this is the case there is no point in reconciliation or discussions. Good luck with your governance coup! I can tell you one thing ... if 45 devs get replaced by 5 devs because of some backend deals with payment processors and miners, I definitely will be on the other side of that fork. It is absolutely ridiculous to complain about not enough development distribution and than want to fire 45 devs and replace them with 5.

[jonald_fyookball]

OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
 
I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)
having undo influence over a centralized repository.
Which I think they certainly do.

[tl121]

If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

Simple and straight to the point. The end result would be simply that users on slow networks will be unable to catch up.

At least there will be something to catch up to and a reason to upgrade one's infrastructure if one needs to run a full node or wants to watch Netflix.

[BitUsher]

OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
 

This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

[countryfree]

Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

I guess we all know that. BIP 101 was suggesting 8 MB blocks last summer! This didn't go through so the bar has been lowered.

I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.

[Lauda]

Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

I guess we all know that. BIP 101 was suggesting 8 MB blocks last summer! This didn't go through so the bar has been lowered.

8 MB blocks don't solve anything and neither does BIP 101.

I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.

I don't see why investors should become less confident. Bitcoin works and has a very strong network at the moment. The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.

[countryfree]

I don't understand why most miners don't want to see big. We need to find a solution which would allow one hundred times more transactions. Let's imagine 1% of humanity doing one transaction each day. Does that sound crazy?

That would be 71 millions transactions each day but the network is already stressed at 200,000 daily transactions. Unless there are major changes, I can't see a bright future for BTC. And change must come as soon as possible. Every single day without a change makes investors less confident.

I don't see why investors should become less confident. Bitcoin works and has a very strong network at the moment. The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.

Have you met a banker recently? Or asked for a loan? The network's quite adequate at this time, but this hardly matters. This is only the basic prerequisite before an investment shall be considered. And every eventuality shall be taken into account before money is to invested. It's like getting an insurance for your car. If there's a 16-year old in the house, it will cost more.

I know and understand that several talented programmers are working hard to make BTC better, but they've been doing that for over 6 months! I want results. Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.

[BitUsher]

I know and understand that several talented programmers are working hard to make BTC better, but they've been doing that for over 6 months! I want results. Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.

Bitcoin was the best performing currency and asset class last year. If that doesn't satisfy you , I don't know what will.

Bitcoin is an open source decentralized project ... not some company stock... If you are frustrated by progress the problem is than you aren't helping code or paying for a dev to write code.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Investing in BTC today would be like investing in a company where the CEO is paralyzed.

I disagree. I think investing in Bitcoin today is like investing in Apple just after the aquired NeXT and made Steve Jobs their CEO.

Lots of people were sure Apple was doomed and had no chance. Trading near $10 a share at the time if I recall.

[Cconvert2G36]

OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
 

This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

Never fear, governance model is built in:



So now... you know. 

[jonald_fyookball]

OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
 

This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.

[BitUsher]

Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.

Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.