.

[johnyj]

Just heard that there is a consensus among chinese miners: They will not favor a change that moves transaction off-chain, since that will reduce their mining fee income 

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Keep trying.

Learn some chinese first before you tell a lie

Provide some evidence so we can verify your claims, please.

Learn some chinese and search for the truth there, language is the same technology barrier that core devs setup to confuse outsiders from making proper decision 

[Lauda]

Learn some chinese and search for the truth there, language is the same technology barrier that core devs setup to confuse outsiders from making proper decision 

Without a source your claims are FUD and lies, as always. Keep trying.

Hmm, if jumping up from 1MB to 2MB is controversial then perhaps we should try incrementing to 1.1MB or something just to get our feet wet.  If we like it then we can try 1.2MB and so on.  Waiting until the backlog is huge is not wise.  The tension between full blocks = higher fees and barriers to adoption is certainly interesting.  Personally I think we should favor adoption for now and defer cranking up fees until a little later.

I like that. Anyone have thoughts?

It would not be bad; we'd get some experience with HF's. An increase of 100 KB every X amount of blocks until we reach 2 MB.

[johnyj]

I implied that the intent of this contentious hard fork is to remove Core's commit access to the dominant software implementation.

Regarding core software commit access, I heard that there are 5 core devs who have it: Gavin, Jeff, Wladmir, Greg, Pieter

So how the implementation of another fork outside of the core repo remove their commit access?

In fact I think in a direction difference situation, if those 5 people could not reach agreement about what should be implemented in the current git repo. Then nothing can be done, since each of them have the permission to revoke any change committed by others. So if one of them want to have one commit which is not welcomed by the other people, fork is the only way to go. Otherwise any implementation will only stay at test net without any hope of entering the core repository

This is the biggest contradiction: If you want a decentralized libertarian style community, you must have hard fork. If you want to avoid hard fork, then you must use a communism model

[johnyj]

Hmm, if jumping up from 1MB to 2MB is controversial then perhaps we should try incrementing to 1.1MB or something just to get our feet wet.  If we like it then we can try 1.2MB and so on.  Waiting until the backlog is huge is not wise.  The tension between full blocks = higher fees and barriers to adoption is certainly interesting.  Personally I think we should favor adoption for now and defer cranking up fees until a little later.

I like that. Anyone have thoughts?

It would not be bad; we'd get some experience with HF's. An increase of 100 KB every X amount of blocks until we reach 2 MB.

Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly

[Lauda]

Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly

Surprisingly? I was(am) supportive of dynamic blocks, 2 MB blocks (once the validation problem is fixed), and other proposals. What I'm not supportive is: 1. Controversial hard forks; 2. 2 MB blocks with a bad workaround for the validation problem. Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin.

[franky1]

Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly

Surprisingly? I was(am) supportive of dynamic blocks, 2 MB blocks (once the validation problem is fixed), and other proposals. What I'm not supportive is: 1. Controversial hard forks; 2. 2 MB blocks with a bad workaround for the validation problem. Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin.

yet Lauda for months has been kissing blockstR3am's ass and saying that 2mb rule chance done by core as part of aprils rollout that includes segwit was a bad idea..

but now finally Lauda is seeing the light that a 2mb+segwit is possible, isnt bad and can actually help everyone in the community.
it only took him 2 months to finally concede his biased devotions.

so maybe now Lauda can stop the bullshit nonsense about R3 and classic hate and start being open minded to core doing a 2mb segwit.. that way things like confidential transactions and all the other tx bloat wont impact the blocks as much as there would be capacity to grow

[Fatman3001]

I'll fire down my classic nodes if we get 2mb+segwit in april. No coup, no drama, no contentious fork.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

By the way, you know that pre-fork coins could also be sold off on majority-fork exchanges? Particularly because early adopters might be a little pissed off at the commit keys for bitcoin's dominant implementation being in the hands of a junior dev who wants to make the question of inflating the money supply a democratic one (jtoomim). How do you know who controls millions of pre-fork coins? You can be sure that I'll be dumping everything the second Toomim gets the keys to the kingdom, and I know several likeminded people.

This is the most likely outcome. Once we start selling everything and the price starts crashing, everyone will join in on it. I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground. 28113.50234684 Ƀ (84.89%)

Gavin said himself that he doesn't see bitcoin as a store of value, just a means of exchange like any other currency:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204.msg1714#msg1714

This is my feeling about the loud-and-proud forkers. They're not very invested in bitcoin; they aren't big holders. They don't care about bitcoin's value proposition -- they don't bother to understand the limitations of the system and they don't care if they burn it to the ground. Those of us who have been investing in bitcoin for years don't take these issues lightly.

Yeah, says the guy who joined on Nov 29, 2013. bitcoin value = $1100  

SFYL. Keep the chin up there, old boy. It may come round again. Core diehards like you believe the  Central Banks are queuing up to buy your coinz at $2300 each - just get rid of the pesky "users" first.

Maybe it's because they aren't "bagholders" that allows others the clarity of vision to see where bitcoin is really going to go. Perhaps your need for a Messiah is clouding your own judgement.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly

Surprisingly? I was(am) supportive of dynamic blocks, 2 MB blocks (once the validation problem is fixed), and other proposals. What I'm not supportive is: 1. Controversial hard forks; 2. 2 MB blocks with a bad workaround for the validation problem. Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin.

Come on, what you want to say is "Im not supportive of this at all"   

Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin

Not true at all. There is quite a good team getting behind it. Anyway, nothing for you to worry your little head over, eh?

Or is it?

[disclaimer201]

Are we still discussing this tedious subject? I've been supportive of 2MB blocks for long and would like to see the FUD debunked that it could lead to confirmation issues and that we all need to run in panic or wait for LN (absolutely free of charge of course   ) .

[madjules007]

I implied that the intent of this contentious hard fork is to remove Core's commit access to the dominant software implementation.

Regarding core software commit access, I heard that there are 5 core devs who have it: Gavin, Jeff, Wladmir, Greg, Pieter

So how the implementation of another fork outside of the core repo remove their commit access?

In fact I think in a direction difference situation, if those 5 people could not reach agreement about what should be implemented in the current git repo. Then nothing can be done, since each of them have the permission to revoke any change committed by others. So if one of them want to have one commit which is not welcomed by the other people, fork is the only way to go. Otherwise any implementation will only stay at test net without any hope of entering the core repository

This is the biggest contradiction: If you want a decentralized libertarian style community, you must have hard fork. If you want to avoid hard fork, then you must use a communism model

Read what I wrote again. I bolded the pertinent word. Core no longer has commit access to the dominant implementation if the majority of nodes run node software that is incompatible with Core (i.e. Classic). I'm not suggesting a majority of nodes would actually run Classic in reality, but that's the idea and the intent, yes. If, at the time of the hard fork, both miners and validating nodes do not approach consensus, multiple surviving blockchains are virtually guaranteed.

Forking is fine. Just do it with consensus -- that's all Core supporters ask. Hard forking to different consensus rules with only a temporary majority of hashing power (75% or realistically even less) and no realistic way to determine true node proportions simply threatens to break bitcoin into multiple blockchains. There is zero reason to assume a significant majority of nodes will be running Classic even if miners temporarily pool their hashpower to an extent that activates the hard fork.

Here's the important thing: If miners approach consensus, this ensures that hash power does not continue to build on the pre-fork-consensus chain -- i.e. miners will build on only one blockchain. Achieving node consensus is far less likely -- miners are far more centralized, and many nodes on the network rarely upgrade to newly-released versions, after all. If miners are building only on one chain, it won't matter if nodes have not achieved consensus. Nodes enforcing the old rules will just be observing a dead chain.

But if both miners and nodes do not achieve consensus, miners will build blocks based on different rule sets, and nodes will validate them based on different rule sets. This inevitably results in multiple surviving blockchains that can never be reconciled, and bitcoin will cease to be a single, cohesive ledger. This is why miner consensus (approaching 100%) is so important -- because of the impossibility of achieving full node consensus.

Again, forking is fine. Just do it with consensus -- or otherwise implement your fork as a stated altcoin. There are two camps here: one camp that either doesn't understand or doesn't care whether bitcoin is broken into multiple ledgers forever based on differing rule sets, and another camp that wants to avoid that. The block size debate is not worth breaking consensus over. The issue occurs to me as quite paltry, to be honest.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Again, forking is fine. Just do it with consensus -- or otherwise implement your fork as a stated altcoin. There are two camps here: one camp that either doesn't understand or doesn't care whether bitcoin is broken into multiple ledgers forever based on differing rule sets, and another camp that wants to avoid that. The block size debate is not worth breaking consensus over.

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell Fatty. He's just very set in his ways.

[madjules007]

By the way, you know that pre-fork coins could also be sold off on majority-fork exchanges? Particularly because early adopters might be a little pissed off at the commit keys for bitcoin's dominant implementation being in the hands of a junior dev who wants to make the question of inflating the money supply a democratic one (jtoomim). How do you know who controls millions of pre-fork coins? You can be sure that I'll be dumping everything the second Toomim gets the keys to the kingdom, and I know several likeminded people.

This is the most likely outcome. Once we start selling everything and the price starts crashing, everyone will join in on it. I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground. 28113.50234684 Ƀ (84.89%)

Gavin said himself that he doesn't see bitcoin as a store of value, just a means of exchange like any other currency:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204.msg1714#msg1714

This is my feeling about the loud-and-proud forkers. They're not very invested in bitcoin; they aren't big holders. They don't care about bitcoin's value proposition -- they don't bother to understand the limitations of the system and they don't care if they burn it to the ground. Those of us who have been investing in bitcoin for years don't take these issues lightly.

Yeah, says the guy who joined on Nov 29, 2013. bitcoin value = $1100  

SFYL. Keep the chin up there, old boy. It may come round again. Core diehards like you believe the  Central Banks are queuing up to buy your coinz at $2300 each - just get rid of the pesky "users" first.

Maybe it's because they aren't "bagholders" that allows others the clarity of vision to see where bitcoin is really going to go. Perhaps your need for a Messiah is clouding your own judgement.

Break out the ad hominem, why don't you? Since your argument hinges entirely on personal attacks, I'll have you know that this is not my first bitcointalk account, nor did I sign up on bitcointalk before I started investing in bitcoin. Please explain how my opinions could only be held by a "bagholder." That will be difficult since it's a purely personal attack with no basis in fact or reason.

It's funny because one of the principal arguments I see on this forum is that small blocks hinder adoption -- that we need bigger blocks to foster adoption, and that cheap/no fees is a great selling point to new adopters. And what, pray tell are these new adopters supposed to do? Well, buy bitcoin, of course!

[franky1]

lol

madjules007 and lauda use the word "ad hominem" alot.

i guess they circle jerk in the same social networks and talk to each other alot and think it somehow makes them look smarter by saying "ad hominem" as much as they can.

is it some word of the month competition you lot have. or do you truly think that spouting waffle that includes the word "ad hominem" makes whatever you say sound like religious scripture that should be trusted, believed and followed.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

lol

madjules007 and lauda use the word "ad hominem" alot.

i guess they circle jerk in the same social networks and talk to each other alot and think it somehow makes them look smarter by saying "ad hominem" as much as they can.

is it some word of the month competition you lot have. or do you truly think that spouting waffle that includes the word "ad hominem" makes whatever you say sound like religious scripture that should be trusted, believed and followed.

How very ad hominem of you.

Goodnight everybody!!

[jonald_fyookball]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

"Trick the miners"?

Oh you can't be serious.  Do you believe
miners aren't capable of making a rational
decision whether they want to support
2MB blocks or not?

As far as miners coercing users, I feel
this is a disingenuous argument.  Miners
can't meaningfully exist without users. 
If miners did something entirely unreasonable,
no one would use their coin.  Users are free
to support the network that they feel offers
the greatest overall value, not necessarily just
the highest hashing rate.

In regards to my own posts above (I'll let gmaxwell speak for himself), it wasn't about whether miners are capable of being rational -- the implication was that a small group of highly centralized pool operators are easy to persuade to do what you want (in hopes that they will influence node operators). That's much easier than persuading thousands of node operators to do what you want. And that's the great danger of a contentious hard fork. Getting a majority of miners to temporarily point their hash power somewhere is much simpler than getting the majority of node operators to upgrade their software, particularly when the consensus rule changes it makes are controversial.

Maybe you should speak for gmax actually. Lol. Your point is very clear!

OK I get it and I agree that's a possibility.

However its not necessarily a high probability
that miners will get tricked in such a manner.

If it does unfold that way, well I guess
that would be the karma of not satisfying
the community's reasonable request for
2MB.

[madjules007]

lol

madjules007 and lauda use the word "ad hominem" alot.

i guess they circle jerk in the same social networks and talk to each other alot and think it somehow makes them look smarter by saying "ad hominem" as much as they can.

is it some word of the month competition you lot have. or do you truly think that spouting waffle that includes the word "ad hominem" makes whatever you say sound like religious scripture that should be trusted, believed and followed.

How very ad hominem of you.

Goodnight everybody!!

LOL, indeed.

Franky, personal attacks aren't legit. They don't prove anything. They are a dishonest form of argument. If you don't like the words "ad hominem", then just remember that.

sAt0sHiFanClub argued that my opinions are wrong because "I am a bagholder." Not only can he not prove that "I am a bagholder" but he can't prove that this has any meaning whatsoever to the debate. It was purely an insult, intended to degrade from my character and therefore prove me wrong (even though it is 100% irrelevant to the subject). Is that a dishonest form of argument or not?

[madjules007]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

"Trick the miners"?

Oh you can't be serious.  Do you believe
miners aren't capable of making a rational
decision whether they want to support
2MB blocks or not?

As far as miners coercing users, I feel
this is a disingenuous argument.  Miners
can't meaningfully exist without users. 
If miners did something entirely unreasonable,
no one would use their coin.  Users are free
to support the network that they feel offers
the greatest overall value, not necessarily just
the highest hashing rate.

In regards to my own posts above (I'll let gmaxwell speak for himself), it wasn't about whether miners are capable of being rational -- the implication was that a small group of highly centralized pool operators are easy to persuade to do what you want (in hopes that they will influence node operators). That's much easier than persuading thousands of node operators to do what you want. And that's the great danger of a contentious hard fork. Getting a majority of miners to temporarily point their hash power somewhere is much simpler than getting the majority of node operators to upgrade their software, particularly when the consensus rule changes it makes are controversial.

Maybe you should speak for gmax actually. Lol. Your point is very clear!

OK I get it and I agree that's a possibility.

However its not necessarily a high probability
that miners will get tricked in such a manner.

If it does unfold that way, well I guess
that would be the karma of not satisfying
the community's reasonable request for
2MB.

I wouldn't view it that way. I'd view it as karma for pushing the community to break consensus. I strongly believe that rule changes, due to the irreparable nature of chain forks, should be done with extreme caution. The mob rule approach of XT and Classic push the hard fork as quickly as possible, without acknowledging the danger of a hard fork when there is no consensus on the new rules among either miners, or nodes.

At 75% activation threshold, you say it is not necessarily a high probability -- I respect your opinion. But I disagree. And I can't imagine being able to justify the risk.

[jonald_fyookball]

there is no HF without them at all regardless of how many people switch.

Hardforks are orthogonal with miners. If a miner is not complying with the rules of the network, then as far as the network is concerned they simply aren't miners. It was "classic"'s choice to gate their hardfork on miner support-- perhaps not a bad choice (though 75% is pretty much the worst possible threshold)-- but no force of nature made them do that.

The best reason for classic to use mining support as the trigger is, I believe, because most of the support for it is substantially fabrication and they believe it will be easy to trick the small number of miners needed to reach 75%, and by taking away 3/4 of the network hash-power they hope to coerce the users of Bitcoin to follow along. I think they greatly underestimate miners and the users of Bitcoin.

"Trick the miners"?

Oh you can't be serious.  Do you believe
miners aren't capable of making a rational
decision whether they want to support
2MB blocks or not?

As far as miners coercing users, I feel
this is a disingenuous argument.  Miners
can't meaningfully exist without users. 
If miners did something entirely unreasonable,
no one would use their coin.  Users are free
to support the network that they feel offers
the greatest overall value, not necessarily just
the highest hashing rate.

In regards to my own posts above (I'll let gmaxwell speak for himself), it wasn't about whether miners are capable of being rational -- the implication was that a small group of highly centralized pool operators are easy to persuade to do what you want (in hopes that they will influence node operators). That's much easier than persuading thousands of node operators to do what you want. And that's the great danger of a contentious hard fork. Getting a majority of miners to temporarily point their hash power somewhere is much simpler than getting the majority of node operators to upgrade their software, particularly when the consensus rule changes it makes are controversial.

Maybe you should speak for gmax actually. Lol. Your point is very clear!

OK I get it and I agree that's a possibility.

However its not necessarily a high probability
that miners will get tricked in such a manner.

If it does unfold that way, well I guess
that would be the karma of not satisfying
the community's reasonable request for
2MB.

I wouldn't view it that way. I'd view it as karma for pushing the community to break consensus. I strongly believe that rule changes, due to the irreparable nature of chain forks, should be done with extreme caution. The mob rule approach of XT and Classic push the hard fork as quickly as possible, without acknowledging the danger of a hard fork when there is no consensus on the new rules among either miners, or nodes.

At 75% activation threshold, you say it is not necessarily a high probability -- I respect your opinion. But I disagree. And I can't imagine being able to justify the risk.

We basically agree.

To clarify though I'm not saying getting 75% is low probability.  I'm saying getting 75% and most individual miners not understanding what's going on,  is low probability.

Although caution should be exercised, I don't think it means the community should just acquiesce to the status quo and avoid rocking the boat at any cost.

[bitboy11]

If you knew the real story behind Gavin's departure then you might understand why, albeit that's not really public. However, there are only a small amount of 'experts' who want 2 MB. You can exclude Garzik from this list though, he wants it for different reasons than Gavin (e.g. experience with HF's).

Please enlighten us Lauda!
Or are you baiting us with nonsense?
Everything you say, we can reverse. You said that "there are only a small amount of 'experts' who want 2 MB". Please show us the data to prove this. Somebody can easily say "there are only a small amount of 'experts' who don't want 2 MB". Who is right and who is wrong?

Since you are an expert on all matters concerning bitcoin and I obviously suffer from "personal incredulity" please explain to me exactly what is Confidential Transaction Codes. I would like to ask you to explain in great, in-depth detail why this data is not transparent or why it needs to be hidden and to prove that it and Segregated Witness is in fact not some Trojan Horse or "Bitcoin Core/Blockstream" control mechanism that we as yet do not recognize.