.

[Lauda]

If 2mb blocks take over, cant the people who are working on core just move over to start working on the version that the majority want, or are they that petty, that they will simply refuse?

Everyone can contribute to any implementation that chooses to do so. However, you can't define 75% of the miners are the "majority". What about everyone else in the system? The people working on Core have come together and agreed to a solution. It is called Segwit and it increases the transaction capacity (which is something a lot of people desire). The only downside of Segwit is the added complexity in comparison to the 2 MB block size limit, however it comes with other benefits while 2 MB block size limit doesn't. Essentially if you support Classic, you're telling 'your engineers' that you know how to do their 'job' better than them (even though you have zero knowledge in the area). The majority of people who are currently again Segwit are those which do not understand it. This is called personal incredulity (a fallacy).

[Jet Cash]

Well I'm a relative newbie to Bitcoin, but I have tried to understand the contoversy. As I understand it, not all blocks are fully populated, so there is no guarantee that 2Mb blocks will make any significant difference. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a crisis at the moment, it's at least a year away. SegWit, sidechains, and the other changes that are being implemented will take Bitcoin into a more mature phase without compromising any of its basic ideals. What's the the magic of 2Mb anyway, will there be demands for 4Mb next year? If SegWit gives us a couple of year's grace to consider some further changes, then that must be the better option. Maybe blocks should be variable length to solve the problem once and for all.

[Lauda]

As I understand it, not all blocks are fully populated, so there is no guarantee that 2Mb blocks will make any significant difference. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a crisis at the moment, it's at least a year away. SegWit, sidechains, and the other changes that are being implemented will take Bitcoin into a more mature phase without compromising any of its basic ideals. What's the the magic of 2Mb anyway, will there be demands for 4Mb next year? If SegWit gives us a couple of year's grace to consider some further changes, then that must be the better option.

Occasionally there are full blocks and this is mostly because of transactions that some consider spam (while the 'forkers' keep trying to defend this). Anyhow, 2 MB is not a solution it is a kick of the can down the road. 2 MB block size limit does not have any benefits besides the increase TPS (transactions-per-second). On the other hand, Segwit comes with many added benefits such as simpler script upgrades, sollution to transaction malleability in addition to the increase in TPS (which grows over time; different from the other proposal). Segwit is also very important for LN.

Maybe blocks should be variable length to solve the problem once and for all.

This might seem easy to implement to you but it's actually not. In order for dynamic blocks to be valid one must make sure that there is no way of cheating the system (e.g. big blocks quickly or over a period of time).

[Jet Cash]

Maybe blocks should be variable length to solve the problem once and for all.

This might seem easy to implement to you but it's actually not. In order for dynamic blocks to be valid one must make sure that there is no way of cheating the system (e.g. big blocks quickly or over a period of time).

Thanks for that explanation. Would the same risk apply if there were "trailer" blocks? If the primary block was full, you could add transactions to a secondary block that was hitched on to the first. I'm assuming that the problem comes from the fact that there are too many transactions to fit into the newly mined blocks.

[Lauda]

Thanks for that explanation. Would the same risk apply if there were "trailer" blocks? If the primary block was full, you could add transactions to a secondary block that was hitched on to the first. I'm assuming that the problem comes from the fact that there are too many transactions to fit into the newly mined blocks.

I don't think this is the appropriate thread to discuss this further. You might be on-track with the idea of extension blocks. You can read more about it here for starters. As with every solution, one must prepare Bitcoin for the worst-case scenarios. Once we start working towards optimistic and best case scenarios then the system will be vulnerable.

[Redrose]

Why should Segregated Wittness not be Bitcoin ? If you can't change anything to Bitcoin's code except if you want an altcoin, your money will be worthless soon. By the way, today's Bitcoin is already not like the original Bitcoin's concept.

[Lauda]

Why should Segregated Wittness not be Bitcoin ? If you can't change anything to Bitcoin's code except if you want an altcoin, your money will be worthless soon. By the way, today's Bitcoin is already not like the original Bitcoin's concept.

Ignore the people who claim this. Segwit is essentially just a change of how the data is being stored. Those that do not understand it either oppose it or make idiotic claims (e.g. Segwit is comparable to an altcoin). If anything, Bitcoin Classic is an altcoin. You could say that it creates additional supply, as you will retain your coins on the old chain and also have coins on the new chain (if it comes to this).

[Amph]

Well I'm a relative newbie to Bitcoin, but I have tried to understand the contoversy. As I understand it, not all blocks are fully populated, so there is no guarantee that 2Mb blocks will make any significant difference. In addition, there doesn't seem to be a crisis at the moment, it's at least a year away. SegWit, sidechains, and the other changes that are being implemented will take Bitcoin into a more mature phase without compromising any of its basic ideals. What's the the magic of 2Mb anyway, will there be demands for 4Mb next year? If SegWit gives us a couple of year's grace to consider some further changes, then that must be the better option. Maybe blocks should be variable length to solve the problem once and for all.

bears in mind that adoption can happen suddenly, this mean that if and when it will happen we must be prepared to accomodate it

so the whole "we still have plenty of space" argument it's moot, and it does not make sense

[tss]

although you seem to be very smart for a noobie poster you misunderstand the dilemma between core and classic.  feel free to be the 1% that runs a classic node.  it makes no difference as it will NEVER have a majority vote. you're either a troll or a shill.  i think the latter.

[croato]

I just hope that block size debate will be solved soon one way or another. Consensus over important things is main weakness of decentralized systems like bitcoin so i just hope it wont destroy everything we achieved.

[Bit_Happy]

I just hope that block size debate will be solved soon one way or another. Consensus over important things is main weakness of decentralized systems like bitcoin so i just hope it wont destroy everything we achieved.

If only it were possible:
Let's put "everyone who's fighting/debating the block size changes" into a virtual room and not let them out until it is solved. 

[johnyj]

Why should Segregated Wittness not be Bitcoin ? If you can't change anything to Bitcoin's code except if you want an altcoin, your money will be worthless soon. By the way, today's Bitcoin is already not like the original Bitcoin's concept.

Let's borrow Peter Todd's famous word: If it is already so then why make it worse?  

The fundamental difference here is that many people don't think core devs are enough smart to overthrow the design of Satoshi (If they are, they would have invented bitcoin long before Satoshi), and Satoshi's vision is possibly beyond the comprehension of most of the people here

Of course this view is for those who prefer following authorities. And if you don't like the idea of following authorities, then you should make your own judgement based on your own research and understanding. In fact almost none of the people understand what is segwit, and if you do, it must be a mistake like Lauda said  

[Lauda]

In fact almost none of the people understand what is segwit, and if you do, it must be a mistake like Lauda said  

I said no such thing. If you modify the the last part into "it is highly likely that you actually don't", then that would be more fitting.

The fundamental difference here is that many people don't think core devs are enough smart to overthrow the design of Satoshi (If they are, they would have invented bitcoin long before Satoshi), and Satoshi's vision is possibly beyond the comprehension of most of the people here

This does not make sense. Coming up with an idea and design is one thing, coding it is another. From what I understand, the code has drastically changed since Satoshi left (the code was a mess at that time). He was actually not that good at coding. I'm certain that the current people, that are working on Bitcoin, could redesign it from scratch to make it better (e.g. more efficient). However, I don't think that they could invent something this innovative now.

Consensus over important things is main weakness of decentralized systems like bitcoin so i just hope it wont destroy everything we achieved.

As soon as people stop listening to reason, scientists and engineers then the chances of a systematic collapse start increasing. It does feel like somebody is testing this "weakness" though.

[Quantus]

I love how these 2MB block supporters come out and say "I support 2MB blocks and to show that support I"m going to be running a 2MB node!" But then a few days or weeks later they're all "oh wait this harder then I thought" and shut them off. And the alt coin chains supporters become 1mb block supporters.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

No, 75% is not consensus and this has nothing to do with "my opinion". 90-95% (nobody ever talked about 100%) does not make sense only from a game theory perspective (most people here using this as an argument know nothing about it).

Well then enlighten us.  If 75% is not consensus, then what is? And why?

By definition consensus is 100%. However, in practice that is not achievable, so we use supermajority. The current definition of supermajority which is used by soft forks in the IsSuperMajority function is 95%, which is what we should use for hard forks.

Amen to that!

I prefer core but if 95% of the users want classic then that is what I will use.

Not miners, users.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Why should Segregated Wittness not be Bitcoin ? If you can't change anything to Bitcoin's code except if you want an altcoin, your money will be worthless soon. By the way, today's Bitcoin is already not like the original Bitcoin's concept.

Ignore the people who claim this. Segwit is essentially just a change of how the data is being stored. Those that do not understand it either oppose it or make idiotic claims (e.g. Segwit is comparable to an altcoin). If anything, Bitcoin Classic is an altcoin. You could say that it creates additional supply, as you will retain your coins on the old chain and also have coins on the new chain (if it comes to this).

It can't create additional supply. It can effectively destroy coins.

I use classic chain. I pay vendor, one of my inputs involves coin mined on classic chain. Vendor uses core chain. My transaction is never valid on core chain, so from vendor perspective I never paid vendor. But now I can't get my money back because I sent it to an address I don't have private key for. The coins are effectively destroyed.

If there is a hard fork without a super majority and adequate time for client updates, things like that will happen and the result will be this crypto-coin experiment ends in failure.

Hard forks without a super majority are dangerous, too dangerous to consider.

[Lauda]

It can't create additional supply. It can effectively destroy coins.

I use classic chain. I pay vendor, one of my inputs involves coin mined on classic chain. Vendor uses core chain. My transaction is never valid on core chain, so from vendor perspective I never paid vendor. But now I can't get my money back because I sent it to an address I don't have private key for. The coins are effectively destroyed.

Nonsense. That's not what I meant. The current balances are effectively doubled and you could use your coins twice (in theory). This depends on how long the second chain lives. There was at least 1 double spend in the past because of a similar situation that I know of.

I prefer core but if 95% of the users want classic then that is what I will use.

Not miners, users.

The consensus threshold for Classic is 75%.

[pereira4]

Lightning Network is the only way to make Bitcoin scale. Making blocksize go from 1mb to 2mb solves absolutely nothing. You seem a bit confused about this and sound new, I recommend you do some reading on this before jumping on conclusions that may look like the right thing to do at first but then later on you realize it wasn't.

[el kaka22]

I personally think 1MB blocks are enough without the stress tests. Also 2MB blocks will eat up our storage space fast (double as 1MB blocks). Myself have even not downloaded the blockchain due to the big size.

BTW if miners don't mine zero transaction blocks then there's nothing to debate, as 1MB blocks are enough to accommodate the normal transactions!

[jonald_fyookball]

Lightning Network is the only way to make Bitcoin scale. Making blocksize go from 1mb to 2mb solves absolutely nothing. You seem a bit confused about this and sound new, I recommend you do some reading on this before jumping on conclusions that may look like the right thing to do at first but then later on you realize it wasn't.

No Ln is not the only way to make it scale..it is one way but hasnt been developed yet.  Obviously block size increases are another way and do add capacity.