Coinbase CEO disagree with "The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus Proposal"

[franky1]

are those genuine data, many user can fake their account easily, maybe with stolen id too, so no have one id request is not a guarantee that those user are genuine at 100%

same for the wallets and the other numbers

blockchain.info has 6mill wallets, coinbase has 3.3mill.. i would say to be on a safe bet, lets call it 2million active users that hold some bitcoin. becuase i agree some people make a blockchain wallet for temporary purposes or just to test out some bot scripts and then dump the login.. and as for coinbase not everyone continuously uses bitcoin.

i know personally out of 10 people close to me. all using bitcoin only 1 uses coinbase and only another one uses blockchain.info.. so it could be assumed that the 3-6mill accounts only represent 12% of the population.. meaning there could be 24million+ people... but that again is speculating on a huge scale..

i think 2mill as a safe minimum is a good bet

as for the merchants.. there are actually 120,000 merchants this is because coinbase use to be a USA only and so their merchant push was limited to one country. where as bitpay was international and obviously started earlier. so there are more merchants using bitpay.

[hdbuck]

so even with 90% of blocks being 900k or more.. the average shows as only being 800k.. actual data vs averages dont show the same result

secondly try to rewind your mind back to 2013. where many blocks were only 450k ... now imagine if the block limit was only 500k.. and core wanted to wait 2 years to upgrade it upto 1mb... for the very same reason you are debating..
now imagine what would have happened to bitcoin if the block limit was only 500k right up until 2015..(last year)
then use that scenario to open your mind to the current situation

Yeah I know all what's going on.
Agreed that the blocksize should be increased soon, so with a 2MB block they would have time to work out something better like the sidechains.
Since miners have the control of how much they want to put on a block the increase wouldn't be much of a harm even with the hard fork.

Maybe you should focus on english/portuguese translations.

[BellaBitBit]

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.ys0fqjis1

What do you think guys ? I personally agree with him about the second point "2. July 2017 is too far away to raise the block size"

I think it is good to have dialogue even if it is not something we all agree with.  I also agree that July 2017 is a long time, too much can happen by then.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/the-bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-proposal-too-little-too-late-e694f13f40b#.ys0fqjis1

What do you think guys ? I personally agree with him about the second point "2. July 2017 is too far away to raise the block size"

I think it is good to have dialogue even if it is not something we all agree with.  I also agree that July 2017 is a long time, too much can happen by then.

Yeah, I don't know how segwit will impact the need for bigger blocks but hopefully if the real world impact of segwit isn't what they think and it is needed, they will be open to a hard fork before then. We'll see.

[Lauda]

I meant BIP0009

This document specifies a proposed change to the semantics of the 'version' field in Bitcoin blocks, allowing multiple backward-compatible changes (further called "soft forks") to be deployed in parallel. It relies on interpreting the version field as a bit vector, where each bit can be used to track an independent change. These are tallied each retarget period. Once the consensus change succeeds or times out, there is a "fallow" pause after which the bit can be reused for later changes.

Deploy OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY (BIPs 68 & 112) + BIP113 as first BIP9 versionbits soft fork

They are going to do it soon.

I think it is good to have dialogue even if it is not something we all agree with.  I also agree that July 2017 is a long time, too much can happen by then.

It is way better than rushed HF without consensus and proper rules (e.g. grace period).

Yeah, I don't know how segwit will impact the need for bigger blocks but hopefully if the real world impact of segwit isn't what they think and it is needed, they will be open to a hard fork before then. We'll see.

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

[lumeire]

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

From what I understand segwit can handle a lot more than that.

Anyway I've read from another news that the Xapo CEO doesn't wanna adopt the what these roundtable discussions plan to implement. What's up with these service providers?

[hdbuck]

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

From what I understand segwit can handle a lot more than that.

Anyway I've read from another news that the Xapo CEO doesn't wanna adopt the what these roundtable discussions plan to implement. What's up with these service providers?

They're regulated control freaks

[DarkHyudrA]

Maybe you should focus on english/portuguese translations.

Keep focusing on your trolling on the internet, you're truly a winner.

[Lauda]

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

If you choose the 2 MB block size limit (as Classic proposed), it won't be able to handle that sudden surge in transactions either. So what's the problem again?

Anyway I've read from another news that the Xapo CEO doesn't wanna adopt the what these roundtable discussions plan to implement. What's up with these service providers?

He doesn't have to adopt anything. Nobody can force them to upgrade either. It doesn't matter though. He can't stop the activation of Segwit as that is solely up to the miners.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Segwit gives adequate breathing room (capacity wise) until the HF (if it does happen).

I suspect that is the case, but if there is a sudden surge in transactions caused by a flood of newcomers and vendors, that would be nice but might saturate beyond what segwit can do with 1 MB blocks.

If you choose the 2 MB block size limit (as Classic proposed), it won't be able to handle that sudden surge in transactions either. So what's the problem again?

segwit + 2MB might - but I agree that July 2017 is probably soon enough.

An unexpected increase is usage might require it sooner, that's all I'm saying, is that I hope they are open to doing it sooner if there is an increase that warrants it.

[franky1]

by getting the ball rolling in april with a (generous)70 day consensus (10,000 measure instead of 1000) and followed by a 6 month grace.
giving people about 8 months to wake up and upgrade
would mean that miners can start making 1.001 blocks by christmas this year and slowly get confidence to make bigger blocks by july2017.

but by having 7day consensus in july, and debates about what constitutes consensus for a few months, and then finally triggering the 2mb buffer in july 2017.. miners wont start making 1.001mb blocks until after july.. and wont be getting confidence to grow naturally bigger until christmas 2017..

but here is the funny thing.
this block limit debate has been going on for years, and in summer 2015 a 2mb bip was thought up.. if that was included then. even with a 1 year grace period. it would not have become active until AFTER segwit sorted out the malle issues (spring this year). meaning the last year of debates were meaningless delays for a problem that would not have happened. and for all the doomsday events to have never been doomsdays.

so why delay it any longer

and what makes me laugh is that core think its ok to release a version in november 2015, march 2016 and april 2016 and july 2016..

so if they think its ok to have 4 updates in the space of 8 months... then its certainly ok to have 1 update in that time

[hdbuck]

by getting the ball rolling in april with a 70 day consensus (10,000 measure instead of 1000) and followed by a 6 month grace
would mean that miners can start making 1.001 blocks by christmas and slowly get confidence to make bigger blocks by july2017.

but by having 7day consensus in july, and debates about what constitutes consensus for a few months, and then finally triggering the 2mb buffer in july 2017.. miners wont start making 1.001mb blocks until after july.. and wont be getting confidence to grow naturally bigger until christmas 2017..

but here is the funny thing.
this block limit debate has been going on for years, and in summer 2015 a 2mb bip was thought up.. if that was included then. even with a 1 year grace period. it would not have become active until AFTER segwit sorted out the malle issues (spring this year). meaning the last year of debates were meaningless delays for a problem that would not have happened. and for all the doomsday events to have never been doomsdays.

so why delay it any longer

dont you see? 1MB holding strong.
There lies the current consensus.

[franky1]

dont you see? 1MB holding strong.
There lies the current consensus.

using the data of people that regularly upgrade
core 0.11.2 = 2563
classic 0.11.2 = 1049

just a few weeks ago it was ~2400:~500   = 1mb 83%:17% 2mb
and now it is as shown above 2563:1049   = 1mb 71%:29% 2mb

so consensus is changing. and not holding strong

[hdbuck]

dont you see? 1MB holding strong.
There lies the current consensus.

using the data of people that regularly upgrade
core 0.11.2 = 2563
classic 0.11.2 = 1049

just a few weeks ago it was ~2400:~500   = 1mb 83%:17% 2mb
and now it is as shown above 2563:1049   = 1mb 71%:29% 2mb

so consensus is changing. and not holding strong

Consensus is reached every new block since 2009.

Nothing ever changed sry.

[LiteCoinGuy]

i disagree with him and strongly vote for core at this stage 

[hdbuck]

i disagree with him and strongly vote for core at this stage 

who cares?

[Klestin]

i don't, why suddenly there should be a need for 2mb when we were remained for so long without it, july is still too close for all the blocks to be saturated

it seems a fair target around the halving, so many will notice more the need to hard fork, and you don't get that some will forget to upgrade...

You seem to have missed the "2017" part of "July 2017".  The next halving is a year ahead of this.

[Lauda]

You seem to have missed the "2017" part of "July 2017". The next halving is a year ahead of this.

There's a halving in 2020 after the one in 2016 (i.e. every 4 years on average). What are you talking about?
Update: I might have misunderstood the last part.

i disagree with him and strongly vote for core at this stage 

He's just a single CEO.

[johnyj]

No one takes that round table proposal seriously, don't we lack of these kind of announcement/proposal year over year?  

1. None of the core devs are in the meeting, Adam signed that letter as "individual", these days everyone can represent himself as bitcoin CEO
2. The proposal is just a pie in the sky promise, does not provide any details about the hard fork and how it is going to be implemented
3. It is just a move trying to push in an architecture change (SegWit) that is impossible to pass chinese miners or core devs' approval in near future
4. Chinese miners will understand later that they get nothing by doing everything for Blockstream, and trash it just like they trash the classic support proposal