.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

[1714964184]

1714964184

[1714964184]

1714964184

[David Rabahy]

I do feel badly if they just looked like misbehaving peers when in fact they were ok.  Perhaps some other node can give them what they want/need.  Sorry.  Hopefully my node doesn't look like a misbehaving peer to anyone else.

I determine a peer is misbehaving based on mostly huge number of Bytes Sent, longest Ping Times, and low Starting Height (although this is least offensive to me).  An unknown Sync Height is not attractive.

[David Rabahy]

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

[David Rabahy]

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

We don't.

How can we make it worse for an attacker?  Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

We don't.

How can we make it worse for an attacker?  Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space.

[David Rabahy]

How can we make it worse for an attacker?  Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space.

Me either.  I asked; you didn't answer; condoning avoided.  What can we do instead?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

How can we make it worse for an attacker?  Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space.

Me either.  I asked; you didn't answer; condoning avoided.  What can we do instead?

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

[David Rabahy]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

[blunderer]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

[Factmine]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

[adamstgBit]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

[blunderer]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

The problem is there's no time for a six month notice -- if Core devs didn't pretend there;s no problem & oust those who proposed solutions, we'd have time to spare.
As it is, we do not.

[dumada]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

So why are people moaning about hard fork? It has happened before and there is no problem at all.

[David Rabahy]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

Hmm, then maybe the right thing to do is boost it now, this time, to the maximum of 32MB (or whatever the maximum possible is).  Someday won't we need huge blocks to get the throughput?  If we don't *ever* boost the size then won't that constrain the adoption of Bitcoin?

[figmentofmyass]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

[Fatman3001]

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too.  Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see.  Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something.  Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious?

[Cuidler]

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

We can wait for Bitcoin to become very hard to use when people constantly sends more transactions than can even be included in blockchain, also know as denial of service attack, but this will erode a lot of trust in Bitcoin as well, very likely beyond repair. So not much safer choice eighter - unless you believe people will be happy to use Bitcoin with 1) huge fees, 2) long 1st confirmation times 3) never confimed transactions. I dont know of any coin with restricted blocksizes so people can hardly use it, yet very popular and people eager to use this coin  

[figmentofmyass]

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious?

that's a big if, for now. so...contention.

gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB.

8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit.

further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken.

none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course.

this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks.

We can wait for Bitcoin to become very hard to use when people constantly sends more transactions than can even be included in blockchain, also know as denial of service attack, but this will erode a lot of trust in Bitcoin as well, very likely beyond repair. So not much safer choice eighter - unless you believe people will be happy to use Bitcoin with 1) huge fees, 2) long 1st confirmation times 3) never confimed transactions. I dont know of any coin with restricted blocksizes so people can hardly use it, yet very popular and people eager to use this coin 

any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."

[blunderer]

...
any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."

Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy