The real disastor that could happen (forking Bitcoin)...

[Jet Cash]

Doesn't this apply to SegWit as well?

This doesn't apply to anything and is a ignorant statement. The average confirmation time for normal transactions stays the same regardless of remaining capacity in the block. The blocks right now are rarely full and the only transactions that don't get confirmed are those that don't have a proper fee. The situation would be the same at 2 MB with occasionally full blocks.

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought a transaction was not final until it was included in a block that was accepted in the blockchain. I assumed that if there weren't any slots for the transaction, then its finalisation would be delayed.

If blocks are submitted half empty at the moment, why do we need to increase the blocksize to create more empty space/unused capacity?

[Lauda]

Forgive my ignorance, but I thought a transaction was not final until it was included in a block that was accepted in the blockchain. I assumed that if there weren't any slots for the transaction, then its finalisation would be delayed.

It is good to ask. I was referring to the person that you've quoted. Your thinking is correct; until the transaction gets included in a single block (1 confirmation) it is marked as a zero-conf transaction and is not final.
It's possible to reverse a transaction with 1 confirmation but that is quite hard and becomes much harder the more confirmations that it has; these are things that you do not need to concern yourself with though. Your assumption is also correct, but mostly for transactions that have an inadequate fee. You could "take" someone else's "slot" by including a fee that is a bit higher.

If blocks are submitted half empty at the moment, why do we need to increase the blocksize to create more empty space/unused capacity?

There is no need for this right now. The fork is an political attempt at taking over the development of the main implementation. Segwit offers an adequate increase in transaction capacity (along with other benefits) and should ensure enough space for 2016 (it will grow with adoption).

[sgbett]

Then you don't understand how the actual fiat system works.

btw 25% =/= almost 1/3. It equals 1/4.

There was a mistake in my original statement and miscalculation. 25% of the initial network is more than 30% of the forked network. You're the one who doesn't understand the current system that we're living in. Stop trying to make Bitcoin a democracy. It should be trustless, not a battle between chains.

Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!

100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.


(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")

[Lauda]

Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!

100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.

(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")

Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over.

[Wobberdk]

Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!

100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.

(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")

Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over.

If the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.

[bargainbin]

Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network!

100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks.

(*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair")

Depending on the time that the fork would occur (between difficulty adjustments) you could say that they aren't allowed to. The chain becomes rendered useless for a longer time because of the other majority. It is clear that we can't get everyone on board on a single proposal (and thus 100% consensus is impossible), but nobody sane would recommend a split. Essentially the people behind the fork do not care much about the whole industry and especially not about the users, they just want to take over.

I.e. "not rational actors pursuing enlightened self-interest, the possibility of which Bitcoin failed to take into account."

[Lauda]

If the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.

There's no telling what might happen right now and this does cause some concern for investors. If the proposal only had a required consensus threshold that is higher than 75% there would be less risk with whichever path this goes down.

[Cuidler]

If the majority do not adopt it, then it would be a useless movement and there would be no takeover of anything. Hold your horses, people! It's not such a doom.

There's no telling what might happen right now and this does cause some concern for investors. If the proposal only had a required consensus threshold that is higher than 75% there would be less risk with whichever path this goes down.

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

What about if we need 90% support for not increasing to 2MB, otherwise we increase to 2MB. You see, just 10% could veto such change even if almost 90% would disagree. It is not right to give such small minority much veto power in eighter case in my opinion, 67% mostly used has reasons behind, and 75% is very generous imo if 26% still can be allowed to veto 74% will

[CIYAM]

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Bitcoin is not a political thing (so trying to compare it to such things is just plain silly) - it is the fact that Gavin is trying to treat it that way now that is the issue.

Miners do not want to face risks of not being able to turn their BTC into "fiat" because it actually costs them a lot in electricity bills to keep mining (which secures the network).

If we end up with too much doubt as to what is going to occur then exchanges will stop allowing fiat to be exchanged and miners will be forced to start shutting down mines (due to the expense of running them).

[maokoto]

I see your point but... exchanges might chose to remain open in one fork or another instead of just closing operations. They lose money if they remain closed and if there is a hardfork, I guess it would be better to have some than nothing.

[CIYAM]

I see your point but... exchanges might chose to remain open in one fork or another instead of just closing operations. They lose money if they remain closed and if there is a hardfork, I guess it would be better to have some than nothing.

If you are an exchange and you decide to "remain open" then you are gambling (i.e. if you end up on the wrong fork and you have paid out fiat to people then you have just lost that fiat and gained nothing of any value).

I don't think that exchanges are going to be so brave as to want to gamble.

[calkob]

It is obviously in everyones interest to make sure this does not happen.  there is noway that miners and exchanges are going to make radical changes that could cause a blockchain fork.  and definatly not one that they keep mining.

[Lauda]

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Is Bitcoin a country; a democracy? You're comparing apples and oranges here. Bitcoin is a consensus driven protocol. Participants that started using it have agreed on a set of rules.

What about if we need 90% support for not increasing to 2MB, otherwise we increase to 2MB. You see, just 10% could veto such change even if almost 90% would disagree. It is not right to give such small minority much veto power in eighter case in my opinion, 67% mostly used has reasons behind, and 75% is very generous imo if 26% still can be allowed to veto 74% will

Wrong. If 2 MB blocks are "urgent", "needed right now", "wanted by everyone" there won't be a 5% to oppose it, not to mention 10%. If there is, then those 3 are invalidated. 75% is not generous, it is harmful to the network and all the participants. A hard fork should be an upgrade of the existing chain, not a split into 3/4 and 1/4 pieces.

[Cuidler]

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Bitcoin is not a political thing (so trying to compare it to such things is just plain silly) - it is the fact that Gavin is trying to treat it that way now that is the issue.

Miners do not want to face risks of not being able to turn their BTC into "fiat" because it actually costs them a lot in electricity bills to keep mining (which secures the network).

If we end up with too much doubt as to what is going to occur then exchanges will stop allowing fiat to be exchanged and miners will be forced to start shutting down mines (due to the expense of running them).

If you mean Bitcoin is for privileged group who decide, and not users who have right to vote with the hashing power needed to secure the network, then you just describe totalitarian system which hardly anyone signed up when joining Bitcoin. And your free to follow old rules if you preffer, the same way Im free to follow new rules.

Exchanges can decide what to do, but the big ones showed support for 2MB, so you see problem where there is none.

[jbreher]

Did you buy this account? Your recent posts don't strike me as the CIYAM of old.

For one, why do you think 'two weeks' is in any way relevant?

Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Did you buy this account?

Two weeks is just a guess so feel free to interpret that as two months if you prefer (it doesn't really change the issue one way or the other).

There is a cuase and effect issue here regarding the two weeks:

... miners ... will most likely shut down their hashing operations ... which will reduce the difficulty (in two weeks).

Frankly, I think your entire premise is nonsense, but wanted to start with the above. After thinking about the last quote, would you care to put a better number on 'two weeks'?

[jbreher]

Why should soft forks deploy with 95% but hard forks deploy with 75%?

Why do you claim that soft forks deploy with 95%?

Because they do. Just read the BIPs for soft forks ....

Some specific soft fork proposals are set at 95%. Not endemic to soft forks generally. Got it.

What is the soft fork threshold for the SegWit Omnibus? Anyone?

It is the same as the other previous soft forks. Try actually reading the post I made because I stated that very clearly with references.

So you are saying that The SegWit Omnibus protocol changeset is defined entirely in a BIP, and that BIP lays out a 95% soft fork threshold? Great! That is news I had not yet assimilated.

[Cuidler]

75% is generous, normally you need 67% to change constitution laws in most countries. It is always tradeoff how big minority you want give the right to veto majority will. If you think 5% or 10% can veto 90% majoriy, your probably part of this minority and want more power than you actually have.

Is Bitcoin a country; a democracy? You're comparing apples and oranges here. Bitcoin is a consensus driven protocol. Participants that started using it have agreed on a set of rules.

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus libertatian here ?

[jbreher]

SegWit who want to extend the functionality of Bitcoin, and as part of this extension, they want to split the transaction for storage in two chains (is this correct?) The important section regarding the amount of the transfer and the history link stay in the existing blockchain, but because of the reduction in information, more transactions can be stored in a block.

While this is 'kind of true', it elides some vital detail. The fact of the matter is that any node that wishes to operate in a trustless manner must still validate the signature information. IOW for trustless nodes, there is no data reduction.

This solves the size problem in the short term,

Well, no. Only for non-fully-validating nodes. All nodes that ignore the signature chain will need to trust other -- fully-validating nodes (which get no capacity boost) -- to do the validation for them.

[Lauda]

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

While a hardfork block size increase would be "simpler" in terms of lines-of-code, it is hugely more complicated socially because Bitcoin was specifically designed to make such changes impossible without agreement from every single user (not merely miners).

Well, no. Only for non-fully-validating nodes. All nodes that ignore the signature chain will need to trust other -- fully-validating nodes (which get no capacity boost) -- to do the validation for them.

It does for those who upgrade; those that don't upgrade never needed the increase in capacity.

[knight22]

At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?

No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom.

We don't "need" almost everyone for any change. That's what the minority would like to think but no, if 75% agrees to kick out 25% away. Then 75% have come to a consensus to get rid of the armful 25%. End of story. There is nothing the 25% can do to stop the 75% to do whatever they want.