Block size max cap should be raised to 2mb with block halving in July 2016 -Y/N?

[Lauda]

You can't have a dev team that goes against the wishes of like 90% of bitcoiners and also against common sense as a whole. It's insane. We've all gone crazy.

"90%"? Where did this imaginary number come up? The people who support Classic are a minority.

Obviously SegWit is kicking the can down the road the same way as 2 MB increase. Both are just temporary solutions to the onchain capacity limits which Bitcoin will be facing whenever it gets adopted more.

Correct. A HF proposal should be seen just after Segwit though.

And Im not sure 6-9 months grace period is realistical with Core, because of different opinions and vested interests (always follow money) between so many Core developers.

They seem to be okay with a a grace period nearing 1 year. However, more things need to be agreed on before consensus is reached.

[Amph]

we can find another better solution if enough time is given

Delaying the problem != solution to the problem. The LN is the only known 'solution' so far.

i think you didn't understand, i was implying that with enough time we could find a definitive solution, but without time it will be impossible you know, the same way we found the segwit solution, it does not matter if segwit was definitive or not

you didn't know prior to find segwit if it would be definitive or not....

[sgbett]

So lets imagine a hypothetical scenario where I wanted to vote. I copy and paste one of the statements, and sign the message to get this:

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I believe that block size max cap should be raised to 2mb with block halving in July 2016
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: MultiBit HD (0.2.0)
Comment: https://multibit.org
Address: <the address: that contains all 573 of my satoshis>

<the signature: some 88 char long alphanumeric ends with =>
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

When I then paste that in the site, why would I get:

"Invalid signature! Please use bitcoin software to sign the message."

[chopstick]

"90%"? Where did this imaginary number come up? The people who support Classic are a minority.

Okay maybe not 90%, but it's definitely not a minority either. Probably at-least 50%

Labeling Bitcoin Classic / XT / Unlimited as "altcoins" is highly disingenuous. As the Core devs have proven, centralization of the development team can be an extremely negative development, especially when their investors have ulterior motives.

We need competing implementations for the health & future of bitcoin.

Centralizing all the power into the hands of one group of people never works well. A cursory glance at history is all it takes to prove this.

[LiteCoinGuy]

i guess 95% would be ready within 3 months.

[maku]

You may now vote by signing with your coins on Bitcoinocracy. Let us see, which side holders are on...

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/block-size-max-cap-should-be-raised-to-2mb-with-block-halving-in-july-2016

Why bother when we know that holders have no power over bitcoin network at all? We all know our views are not important.
Only miners, hash whales and bitcoin companies could have something to say here.

[Cuidler]

i guess 95% would be ready within 3 months.

Depend on circumstances, if we get huge capacity problems and people not able to confirm transactions (remember 50 seat bus cannot serve more people no mater how much they pay, you need another bus or send them to competetion), then 28 days is plenty of time as well. But if SegWit become usefull and helps enought with the capacity problems, 3-9 months seems reasonable for 2MB hard fork activation time.

But planning ahead instead would be better, it would be only advantegous for Bitcoin if we had such 2MB buffer already, no need to streess the market (thus price) and sending the people to altcoin competetion.
But no, altcoin lovers and centralized hub operators are two biggest fractions in Bitcoin Core and they need to get rich with altcoin prices going up or limiting Bitcoin onchain capacity for their still not existed centralized hub operations - really disgusting for Bitcoin holders and true supporteers.

Why bother when we know that holders have no power over bitcoin network at all? We all know our views are not important.
Only miners, hash whales and bitcoin companies could have something to say here.

I agree, Satoshi concensus = hash decides. This is the only provable fair way to decide. Obviously miners must keep in self interest price and where to sell or spend, so both holders and companies influence miners decission, developers too because they might be important for future code improvements.  Funny some Bitcoin Core developers still thinks they are the most important and others have no power to change Bitcoin rules, saying Bitcoin Core = Bitcoin 

[SebastianJu]

Lauda

Though I'm unsure how far and how fast SegWit can change the problems.

Segwit is necessary for things such as LN. Segwit can only add somewhat more capacity and is not the solution to this "problem". Actually there is no way to directly (on-chain) solve this "problem" without sacrificing decentralization.

Segwit can live pretty fine without the Lightning Network. Surely it is no solution but still a somewhat clever way to raise the capacity of the blockchain.

And well, you know that the argument of nodes becoming too expensive is nothing that I would consider a real problem. If we would have a sudden increase of transactions of 10th of times and would raise the blocksize accordingly ok, then some nodes might switch off. But the areas of blocksize increases we speak now about are far far away from centralization problems.

Besides... we have centralization since a long time now. Miner are no private persons in the majority anymore. And satoshi even awaited that, which is a little bit sad. Then... we have a centralization of development of bitcoin protocol development which seems to be a way bigger problem for the moment. The community was never so divided like it is now. And the reason is disagreement with the centralized decision of the protocol developers.

Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit/Segwit, what happened yesterday would have still happened (ergo not a solution) and caused the same/similar effect.

If someone would try to spam the network with 2mb blocks the same way he did the last days then the price he would have to pay would be a ALOT higher. Well, you might be right, it is still possible since those doing it showed their insanity to spend that amount of money to such stupid and useless act, but it will be way harder to do the same with even doubling the blocksize.


Amph

no, only you see no-sense everywhere, how you can be sure that it will only postpone it and not resolve it, only because segwit was temporary?

I think either a blocksize increase to 2MB nor segwit is able to solve the capacity problem once and for all. It would be cool such a solution would be around the corner but till now there are only temporay solutions discussed. Well, LN, but which bitcoiner wants to use LN? It's like saying "Bitcoin is broken, come lets use ripple, you can push bitcoins around in here too...".


sgbett

So lets imagine a hypothetical scenario where I wanted to vote. I copy and paste one of the statements, and sign the message to get this:

Code:

-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I believe that block size max cap should be raised to 2mb with block halving in July 2016
-----BEGIN BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----
Version: MultiBit HD (0.2.0)
Comment: https://multibit.org
Address: <the address: that contains all 573 of my satoshis>

<the signature: some 88 char long alphanumeric ends with =>
-----END BITCOIN SIGNATURE-----

When I then paste that in the site, why would I get:

"Invalid signature! Please use bitcoin software to sign the message."

And here I went to check if your signature is valid and no, it's not. Until I realized you took out the address.

The signatur would look fine for me, maybe MultiBit creates non standard signatures? Or did you build the block by putting the message and so on together by copypast? Then you might have killed or added a space or something.


chopstick

Labeling Bitcoin Classic / XT / Unlimited as "altcoins" is highly disingenuous. As the Core devs have proven, centralization of the development team can be an extremely negative development, especially when their investors have ulterior motives.

We need competing implementations for the health & future of bitcoin.

Centralizing all the power into the hands of one group of people never works well. A cursory glance at history is all it takes to prove this.

You have a good point naming that a centralization issue. Decisions in the hand of one party is what the risk of centralization is. This is exactly what we have. In fact that is a point we bitcoiners critized often before already. The argument against these worries was that different people can put a version life. Well, it does not really help much now when those having a different opinion had to go so that only one opinion rules.


LiteCoinGuy

i guess 95% would be ready within 3 months.

I think when there is no real solution to stop all the delays for transactions then the complaints about it will become pretty much. I doubt it will be in 3 months already but surely the anger can only rise from now. And I think Segwit has not the ability to fix these things fast enough even when implemented today.

[Lauda]

Segwit can live pretty fine without the Lightning Network. Surely it is no solution but still a somewhat clever way to raise the capacity of the blockchain.

This statement doesn't make sense. I've said that the LN needs Segwit, not the other way around.

If we would have a sudden increase of transactions of 10th of times and would raise the blocksize accordingly ok, then some nodes might switch off. But the areas of blocksize increases we speak now about are far far away from centralization problems.

You can't know exactly how many nodes are going to be shut down at X block size limit. That's is the problem here. You're speculating and considering best-case scenarios.

Then... we have a centralization of development of bitcoin protocol development which seems to be a way bigger problem for the moment. The community was never so divided like it is now. And the reason is disagreement with the centralized decision of the protocol developers.

It is not a problem (yet). It has been like this for years and barely anyone complained. The only reason for which they're doing so now is due to the rejection of their ideas.

If someone would try to spam the network with 2mb blocks the same way he did the last days then the price he would have to pay would be a ALOT higher. Well, you might be right, it is still possible since those doing it showed their insanity to spend that amount of money to such stupid and useless act, but it will be way harder to do the same with even doubling the blocksize.

No, actually it is not going to be "a lot higher" if you're doubling the capacity. Besides, we're still talking about very small amounts of money that is needed to attack the network in this way.

[SebastianJu]

Segwit can live pretty fine without the Lightning Network. Surely it is no solution but still a somewhat clever way to raise the capacity of the blockchain.

This statement doesn't make sense. I've said that the LN needs Segwit, not the other way around.

You wrote "Segwit is neccesary for things such as LN." Which can be read like it was implemented only for LN and LN is the needed next step. Though Segwit is independently raising the capacity and has nothing to do with LN besides that LN might need it.

Well, I hope this doesn't turn into some kind of post war again.

If we would have a sudden increase of transactions of 10th of times and would raise the blocksize accordingly ok, then some nodes might switch off. But the areas of blocksize increases we speak now about are far far away from centralization problems.

You can't know exactly how many nodes are going to be shut down at X block size limit. That's is the problem here. You're speculating and considering best-case scenarios.

And you only see worst case scenarios. It's completely unlikely that with bigger blocks suddenly many nodes will disappear. Besides the owner does it out of anger about the rise. There would be no other reason to do it instantly because blocks would not be full 2mb blocks suddenly. Even when, the increase is so low that it does not really make sense to be troubled by that rise.

Then... we have a centralization of development of bitcoin protocol development which seems to be a way bigger problem for the moment. The community was never so divided like it is now. And the reason is disagreement with the centralized decision of the protocol developers.

It is not a problem (yet). It has been like this for years and barely anyone complained. The only reason for which they're doing so now is due to the rejection of their ideas.

Well for sure it is no problem for someone who completely agrees with the devteam. Though you know there is a huge part of the community that disagrees. And it clearly shows a centralization problem since without centralization this problem would not appear. Users could chose.

And surely it is no "only reason". It is a completely valid reason. Imagine a pool having suddenly 55% and they change something in the protocol. The community is against it but they were ok with the pool all the time. So would you still say that it is no problem because no one complained in the last years and now the only problem is that the community disagrees with the change? Surely not.

If someone would try to spam the network with 2mb blocks the same way he did the last days then the price he would have to pay would be a ALOT higher. Well, you might be right, it is still possible since those doing it showed their insanity to spend that amount of money to such stupid and useless act, but it will be way harder to do the same with even doubling the blocksize.

No, actually it is not going to be "a lot higher" if you're doubling the capacity. Besides, we're still talking about very small amounts of money that is needed to attack the network in this way.

Well, ok, the numbers I have read, someone wrote about costs of 20 to 40k per day might be too high. I have read another figure claiming it might be $5k per day. So it's not really that much. With four times the transactions it might get close to 20k per day. It would be 100k to spam for 5 days then. Dunno if it will be easily done and if someone will give that money for spam then.

[Lauda]

Though Segwit is independently raising the capacity and has nothing to do with LN besides that LN might need it.

This isn't about capacity, LN needs Segwit in other ways and is beneficial for it (e.g. reducing blockchain space needed to change channels). You either need to do more research in this area or stop posting about it. False information isn't helping anyone.

And you only see worst case scenarios.

There are three cases which get considered. However, one has to be prepared for worst case scenarios when scaling large networks. This is what the engineers should be doing, not some optimists without relevant degrees.

Though you know there is a huge part of the community that disagrees.

Only a small part of the community disagrees with the current roadmap.

[SebastianJu]

Though Segwit is independently raising the capacity and has nothing to do with LN besides that LN might need it.

This isn't about capacity, LN needs Segwit in other ways and is beneficial for it (e.g. reducing blockchain space needed to change channels). You either need to do more research in this area or stop posting about it. False information isn't helping anyone.

Honestly, I don't care about LN since I will never use it and I'm pretty sure it will only turn out to be a ripple 2. I did not write about any benefits LN might have from Segwit. I'm not interested in them and would not elaborate about advantages LN can get from segwit. So I wonder what false informations you mean.

And you only see worst case scenarios.

There are three cases which get considered. However, one has to be prepared for worst case scenarios when scaling large networks. This is what the engineers should be doing, not some optimists without relevant degrees.

Oh right. Now I should shut up because I don't have a degree in economics or something like that? Well, I would prefer to remain on the factual level instead on a personal one.

Surely we have to be prepared for the worst case scenario. That's why I will not support LN. Since it will turn out in the worst case scenario that bitcoin is unuseable for normal usage and LN will turn out to be some kind of bank.

Completely different of everything we bitcoiner wanted bitcoin to be in the last 5 years I'm here.

Though you know there is a huge part of the community that disagrees.

Only a small part of the community disagrees with the current roadmap.

I should not mention something about it. It's pure speculation on both sides. I see opinions written down on both sides and even when my impression would be different from yours... it would only be an impression the same way you judgement is one.

[Lauda]

Honestly, I don't care about LN since I will never use it and I'm pretty sure it will only turn out to be a ripple 2.

LN is not centralized. You're starting with false information again.

Oh right. Now I should shut up because I don't have a degree in economics or something like that? Well, I would prefer to remain on the factual level instead on a personal one.

Engineering. If you don't have a relevant degree/knowledge then I have no idea why you're trying to tell the engineers how to do their job. This has nothing to do with a personal level.

Surely we have to be prepared for the worst case scenario. That's why I will not support LN. Since it will turn out in the worst case scenario that bitcoin is unuseable for normal usage and LN will turn out to be some kind of bank.
Completely different of everything we bitcoiner wanted bitcoin to be in the last 5 years I'm here.

Completely false. Bitcoin will not be adopted on a global level (it can't) without solutions such as the LN (which is not comparable to a bank).
We've been in a LN discussion at least once and I've told you all of this. So stop wasting my time or I'll put you back on my list.

Why bother when we know that holders have no power over bitcoin network at all? We all know our views are not important.
Only miners, hash whales and bitcoin companies could have something to say here.

I'm certain that they have. Your definition of a 'holder' is wrong as you must be thinking in very small quantities of money.

[SebastianJu]

Honestly, I don't care about LN since I will never use it and I'm pretty sure it will only turn out to be a ripple 2.

LN is not centralized. You're starting with false information again.

Take it like you want. Ripple started with wanting to be decentralized at some point. LN will be from the start. But that is not the point. The point is using another system than your beloved bitcoin.

It simply will not work out the way the devs think. And forcing them by showing them how "notworking" bitcoin is will turn against them. People would cry out louder to fix the network and it doesn't matter what we think, they would accept the bitcoin solution fixing it. (No, I don't want to discuss that we can push "Bitcoin" around in LN.)

Oh right. Now I should shut up because I don't have a degree in economics or something like that? Well, I would prefer to remain on the factual level instead on a personal one.

Engineering. If you don't have a degree/relevant knowledge then I have no idea why you're trying to tell the engineers how to do their job. This has nothing to do with a personal level.

I'm a coder myself with years of experience though I don't like coding in C and similar languages. I studied but stopped when I worked what I would have worked after studying anyway.

And it is no question of going around claiming that they are right only because they have a master in informatics or something. Facts can be stated and surely they stated all facts that support their position. Still, what was given is mostly guesswork, no facts. It can't be guessed perfectly fine what will happen in 5 years with blocksize raisings. There still will be technical development and hardware advancing.

And trying to fix a network by telling the users to stop using it and using another network is something that never worked. Bitcoiners will be bitcoiners and want to stay as bitcoiners.

Surely we have to be prepared for the worst case scenario. That's why I will not support LN. Since it will turn out in the worst case scenario that bitcoin is unuseable for normal usage and LN will turn out to be some kind of bank.
Completely different of everything we bitcoiner wanted bitcoin to be in the last 5 years I'm here.

Completely false. Bitcoin will not be adopted on a global level (it can't) without solutions such as the LN (which is not comparable to a bank).

So another guesswork for the future. And yes, LN contains the risk of being like a bank at one point. When the bitcoin fees will be so high that no normal user can use it reasonable then what will happen? People will be told to stop buying bitcoins at all and buy and trade them directly and only on the lightning network. Who will use bitcoin then? Those that offer these services and those that still can pay the bitcoin fees. Which will be big companies and exchanges, which are some kind of bank. Well... not exactly the freedom satoshi had in mind.

One more post like this and I'm putting you back on my ignore list. You're wasting my time with nonsense. I've told you all of this at least once.

As long as you only ignore and don't ban me, maybe that would be better. I'm tired of you pushing around the same accusations over and over by mostly pointing out proofs, to support your view, that are guesswork. Or finding a tiny bit of unrelated thing to try to go against my words... even though that thing does not really have anything to do with what I wrote.

[Lauda]

Take it like you want. Ripple started with wanting to be decentralized at some point. LN will be from the start. But that is not the point. The point is using another system than your beloved bitcoin. It simply will not work out the way the devs think. And forcing them by showing them how "notworking" bitcoin is will turn against them. People would cry out louder to fix the network and it doesn't matter what we think, they would accept the bitcoin solution fixing it. (No, I don't want to discuss that we can push "Bitcoin" around in LN.)

LN is not comparable to Ripple or any other form of altcoin. You are obviously among the ones that think that the internet is build on a single layer.

I'm a coder myself with years of experience though I don't like coding in C and similar languages. I studied but stopped when I worked what I would have worked after studying anyway.

Coder != engineer.

And it is no question of going around claiming that they are right only because they have a master in informatics or something. Facts can be stated and surely they stated all facts that support their position. Still, what was given is mostly guesswork, no facts. It can't be guessed perfectly fine what will happen in 5 years with blocksize raisings. There still will be technical development and hardware advancing.

No. The developers do not do that and will respond quite nicely (and openly) if you ask them about the engineering challenges that are present. LN is far from perfect but it is better than anything proposed so far.

And trying to fix a network by telling the users to stop using it and using another network is something that never worked. Bitcoiners will be bitcoiners and want to stay as bitcoiners.

LN isn't 'another network' (definitely not as you view it).

So another guesswork for the future.

No. This is based on calculations and data gathered over time. It might be possible if Bitcoin was solely run on datacenters. A decentralized network scales quite inefficiently in comparison to a centralized one. Look at the TPS that Visa can handle today; Bitcoin doesn't even come close (and won't come close in the foreseeable future without a second layer).

I'm tired of you pushing around the same accusations over and over by mostly pointing out proofs, to support your view, that are guesswork. Or finding a tiny bit of unrelated thing to try to go against my words... even though that thing does not really have anything to do with what I wrote.

Nope. I've provided quite a lot of proof actually (e.g. your lack of understanding of Segwit in another thread). However, we keep going in circles since you don't want to accept some facts (reminds me of another top poster) and admit to being wrong more often (only when you factually are).

As long as you only ignore and don't ban me, maybe that would be better.

A rather interesting implication.

[franky1]

Obviously SegWit is kicking the can down the road the same way as 2 MB increase. Both are just temporary solutions to the onchain capacity limits which Bitcoin will be facing whenever it gets adopted more.

Correct. A HF proposal should be seen just after Segwit though.

And Im not sure 6-9 months grace period is realistical with Core, because of different opinions and vested interests (always follow money) between so many Core developers.

They seem to be okay with a a grace period nearing 1 year. However, more things need to be agreed on before consensus is reached.

lol lauda still shilling as usual.

funny thing is that core devs think its ok to HARD fork at the blockhalving to reduce difficulty. knowing its a short term tweak that would return to normal in a couple months.. there seeming adement that a hard fork in july that has a 2 month effect is great.
but a hard fork that allows years of growth.. strangely requires 16 months of delay to implement?? come on.. wake up..

secondly if the code for 2mb was included in aprils release with a 6-9month grace.. segwit will be active before the grace period expires. so basically segwit will be running long before miners can start making blocks more than 1mb..

meaning again no reason to delay the hard fork code until july, and no reason for a 12 month grace. especially if its weirdly ok to hard fork with 1month grace for luke jr's temporary tweak

so here is a solution that will make all the devs happy.

in april.. have segwit+2mb+difficulty changes.. with the segwit active asap, and the 2mb+difficulty with a 2 month grace period(active at the halving).

that way people only have to download one version in april. rather than downloading in april. may, june, july endlessly causing consensus to not be reached because there are soo many versions confusing people

i really do love the hypocracy and lack of logic of core fanboys

[randy8777]

it doesn't really matter for what option we vote here. the developers will release the update/fork once they think it's time. i just hope everything will be sorted out in a nice way so the shills and fud spreaders won't have anything to fud about. after the 2mb increase it will be a matter of time before people start to complain again. this will never end.

[franky1]

it doesn't really matter for what option we vote here. the developers will release the update/fork once they think it's time. i just hope everything will be sorted out in a nice way so the shills and fud spreaders won't have anything to fud about. after the 2mb increase it will be a matter of time before people start to complain again. this will never end.

exactly. core shills want a 16 month delay so they can keep this debate going on for 16 months and then by the time its active they can then start the next argument straight away defending off another fork ..

but if we get the 2mb implemented sooner.  the debate ends sooner and there will be peace for a long while.

this 2mb proposal has been going on since summer 2015.. if the 2mb code was implemented in 2015 it would be active by this summer and no debate needed until 2018+..
but lauda, icebreaker and carlton love the debate and shillery and want it to continue non stop till summer 2017 and have just a few months of peace before they start up the argument again in 2018+, defending core blindly.

im starting to think they are paid by blockstream per month. and they want the debates to continue just to guarantee ongoing income.
they have not said any logical, mathematical or real scenario's why there needs to be 16 months of delays. especially if the core dev's are happy to release new versions every other month and propose a 'difficulty' hard fork that only has a 2month grace(april to july).

but i do like how Lauda thinks he is the expert, yet its been proven he has not even read any code, and presumes bitcoin is programmed in java..
lauda should stop shilling the "classic vs core" which deflects away from the real debate which is "when will core add 2mb".

its never been about people having to choose a controller. its been about when will 2mb be part of all implementations