What would be Satoshi's opinion on blocksize debate ?

[Erkallys]

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

Since you seem really aware of what's going on, could you explain simply, in a few lines, what is exactly Segregated Witness ? I still don't what it is after reading posts talking about it many times .

[franky1]

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

Since you seem really aware of what's going on, could you explain simply, in a few lines, what is exactly Segregated Witness ? I still don't what it is after reading posts talking about it many times .

imagine a normal 1mb block is
{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}

segwit 1mb block is not including signatures.. twisting whats included to fit more transactions in
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}
and a second block (merkle tree)
{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}

by default people will only get the main 1mb block (no sigs) (making older non segwit clients not validate signatures
and if you want the signature data to be a full node (fully verifying node) you will receive:(1.5mb-2mb) if you add a parameter to ask for it
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}

[Erkallys]

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

Since you seem really aware of what's going on, could you explain simply, in a few lines, what is exactly Segregated Witness ? I still don't what it is after reading posts talking about it many times .

imagine a normal 1mb block is
{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}

segwit 1mb block is not including signatures.. twisting whats included to fit more transactions in
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}
and a second block (merkle tree)
{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}

by default people will only get the main 1mb block (no sigs) (making older non segwit clients not validate signatures
and if you want the signature data to be a full node (fully verifying node) you will receive:(1.5mb-2mb) if you add a parameter to ask for it
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}

So only updated clients will be able to send 2 MB blocks, assuring the compatibility with the older ones by not rejecting them ?

[franky1]

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

Since you seem really aware of what's going on, could you explain simply, in a few lines, what is exactly Segregated Witness ? I still don't what it is after reading posts talking about it many times .

imagine a normal 1mb block is
{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}

segwit 1mb block is not including signatures.. twisting whats included to fit more transactions in
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}
and a second block (merkle tree)
{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}

by default people will only get the main 1mb block (no sigs) (making older non segwit clients not validate signatures
and if you want the signature data to be a full node (fully verifying node) you will receive:(1.5mb-2mb) if you add a parameter to ask for it
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}

So only updated clients will be able to send 2 MB blocks, assuring the compatibility with the older ones by not rejecting them ?

"compatibility" yes.. but then making those older ones still "compatible" to receive 70% data.. but no longer fully validating it.. so making them no longer full nodes. and just "compatible" nodes.

which is a bit pointless as fullnodes will want to be full verifying nodes and so they would upgrade just to be full nodes again.. so if they are upgrading. they might aswell upgrade to include the 2mb hard limit. rather than segwits twist of data..
or even both..

EG why wait till 2017 to need to upgrade a second time causing the debate and delays all over again..

users should upgrade sooner, to allow them to have a buffer.. then in 2017 miners can upgrade in their own time when they are ready to push more transactions. that way users have had a whole year to prep for the miner upgrades

[Erkallys]

lets not confuse the debate

blocksize vs segwit
is different to R3/toomin vs blockstream

basing the debate just on the code.. (blocksize vs segwit) is a better discussion to have as ANYONE can release an implementation of 2mb or segwit. and so WHO is not as important as WHAT.

EG
R3/toomin have lost out due to their agenda..
although nearly everyone including core says that 2mb is a way forward. doing it via R3's implementation may also have other ramifications later, unrelated to 2mb upgrade. so lets put a line in the sand and kick r3/toomin to the curb.. and just talk about the code, blocksize vs segwit.

EG if gmaxwell, luke jr, adam back, hundreds of other programmers and even CIYAM released a 2mb implementation.. of CLEAN code.. the drama would settle and we can concentrate on the real code debate. and decide what to upgrade to based on code preference rather than social agenda of corporations

Since you seem really aware of what's going on, could you explain simply, in a few lines, what is exactly Segregated Witness ? I still don't what it is after reading posts talking about it many times .

imagine a normal 1mb block is
{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}{TXID: input : output : signature}

segwit 1mb block is not including signatures.. twisting whats included to fit more transactions in
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}
and a second block (merkle tree)
{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}{TXID: signature}

by default people will only get the main 1mb block (no sigs) (making older non segwit clients not validate signatures
and if you want the signature data to be a full node (fully verifying node) you will receive:(1.5mb-2mb) if you add a parameter to ask for it
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}
{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}{TXID: input : output}{TXID: signature}

So only updated clients will be able to send 2 MB blocks, assuring the compatibility with the older ones by not rejecting them ?

"compatibility" yes.. but then making those older ones still "compatible" to receive 70% data.. but no longer fully validating it.. so making them no longer full nodes. and just "compatible" nodes.

which is a bit pointless as fullnodes will want to be full verifying nodes and so they would upgrade just to be full nodes again.. so if they are upgrading. they might aswell upgrade to include the 2mb hard limit. rather than segwits twist of data..
or even both..

EG why wait till 2017 to need to upgrade a second time causing the debate and delays all over again..

users should upgrade sooner, to allow them to have a buffer.. then in 2017 miners can upgrade in their own time when they are ready to push more transactions. that way users have had a whole year to prep for the miner upgrades

You say that people should strat to upgrade. Does that mean than the Segregated Witness Core version is already avalaible to everyone ?

[franky1]

You say that people should strat to upgrade. Does that mean than the Segregated Witness Core version is already avalaible to everyone ?

no i mean when people who want to be full nodes, have to upgrade due to segwit in the near future of 2016. part of that upgrade should also be 2mb hard limit ontop to allow for enough buffer space ready for any surprises in 2017..

[n691309]

I was wondering what would be Satoshi's opinion on the blocksize debate. I mean : would he be pro-Classic or pro-Core, a.k.a. 2 MB or 1 MB blocks ? Maybe someone has a quote from him that show what he would think about it.

He would help his own project and would increase the bocksize to 1 or 2 mb does not matter much, but at least he would increase it.

[Erkallys]

You say that people should strat to upgrade. Does that mean than the Segregated Witness Core version is already avalaible to everyone ?

no i mean when people who want to be full nodes, have to upgrade due to segwit in the near future of 2016. part of that upgrade should also be 2mb hard limit ontop to allow for enough buffer space ready for any surprises in 2017..

This seems nice, I'll search informations about it.

I was wondering what would be Satoshi's opinion on the blocksize debate. I mean : would he be pro-Classic or pro-Core, a.k.a. 2 MB or 1 MB blocks ? Maybe someone has a quote from him that show what he would think about it.

He would help his own project and would increase the bocksize to 1 or 2 mb does not matter much, but at least he would increase it.

Everyone seems to agree on this, but would he increase it via Core or via Classic ?

[n691309]

I was wondering what would be Satoshi's opinion on the blocksize debate. I mean : would he be pro-Classic or pro-Core, a.k.a. 2 MB or 1 MB blocks ? Maybe someone has a quote from him that show what he would think about it.

He would help his own project and would increase the bocksize to 1 or 2 mb does not matter much, but at least he would increase it.

Everyone seems to agree on this, but would he increase it via Core or via Classic ?

I think with the oldest one and the 'fundamental' which i think is Core, i don't like the Classic one.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

This question is a little too "WWJD" for me.

Satoshi was just a man. His invention was brilliant but we shouldn't deify him.

His opinion on this matter isn't known because we do not know who he is, and I think he was brilliant enough to understand the only way bitcoin truly would meet his objectives was if there wasn't someone with god-like influence over the project.

[Erkallys]

I was wondering what would be Satoshi's opinion on the blocksize debate. I mean : would he be pro-Classic or pro-Core, a.k.a. 2 MB or 1 MB blocks ? Maybe someone has a quote from him that show what he would think about it.

He would help his own project and would increase the bocksize to 1 or 2 mb does not matter much, but at least he would increase it.

Everyone seems to agree on this, but would he increase it via Core or via Classic ?

I think with the oldest one and the 'fundamental' which i think is Core, i don't like the Classic one.

At least I agree with you. I don't like Classic too. I hope and think that Satoshi would think like us.I don't like Classic because they're doing a secession, by breaking the consensus rule, one of the most important of all the Bitcoin protocol. And you, why do you don't like it ?

This question is a little too "WWJD" for me.

Satoshi was just a man. His invention was brilliant but we shouldn't deify him.

His opinion on this matter isn't known because we do not know who he is, and I think he was brilliant enough to understand the only way bitcoin truly would meet his objectives was if there wasn't someone with god-like influence over the project.

Satoshi is Bitcoin's father. The father near always know what's better for his son, and the same rule applies here. Satoshi is certainly the most brillaint man of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and what he would think is fundamental.

[Klestin]

There's really no room for debate on what Satoshi would favor.  He originally coded a 32 MB cap for block size, and implemented a 1 MB cap as a stopgap anti-spam measure, expressly intended to be temporary.  Unless he plans to poke his head out and provide an opinion, this is the best information we have on the subject.

[jonald_fyookball]

Didn't satoshi also say anyone against increasing it "is a first class grade A faggot"?

[Erkallys]

Didn't satoshi also say anyone against increasing it "is a first class grade A faggot"?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it would come from you, Bitcoin Classic-lover...

[jonald_fyookball]

Didn't satoshi also say anyone against increasing it "is a first class grade A faggot"?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if it would come from you, Bitcoin Classic-lover...

It was a joke obviously.  Not taking your troll bait.

[PakistanHockeyfan]

He wouldn't have an opinion to share as he is rather anonymous and keeps to himself now.

[calkob]

At this point, what satoshi would think is probably irrelevant, yes it was great to get it started but now that bitcoin has a massive adoption and some great minds involved it really dosn't matter ehat satoshi woould think.....

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Speculating on what his opinion would have been is as silly as asking WWJD

We can't answer without bias, and all asking such a question is give us a false sense of authority to our biased answer.

"I did this because Jesus would have" type of BS.

I believe using his name to give authority to one position or the other is the last thing the architect of a decentralized payment system would have wanted.

-=-

Now for my opinion, I believe Satoshi would be behind SegWit and would increase the core block size when SegWit is shown to not be enough.

But I can't claim that would have been his position, because that actually is my opinion, so the bias is obvious.