1 year from now 2MB HF will be proposed will you support it?

[franky1]

...
That is simply not true. Bitcoin has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

The 1 MB maximum blocksize limit was added,, I believe in 2010, via a hard fork.

Edit: The previous effective blocksize limit was 32 MB.

Nope, there was no hard fork. There was no need to as there was not enough transaction volume to even come close to the limit. The limit was simply just added in this commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d2174b6f5f3fac2463c7ebc2dbb9004b3740d23.

so you have just proved blockstreams contention doomsday is a non thing.
if USERS ungrade their clients in hours/days or weeks.. knowing miners wont make more transactions then the present limit.. there wont be a fork..
and then when miners deem that there are enough nodes not to be a fork, they then start making bigger blocks.

its kind of funny that the blockstream fanboys own arguments actually make their positions meaningless..

the only reason there would be a fork is by blockstream fanboys refusing to upgrade.. like a self fulfilling prophecy.. not upgrading because of a hardfork will itself be the cause of a fork.

the code is not the contention or the fork. but the desire of blockstreamers to delay or refuse is the cause of the fork

[1714749456]

1714749456

[1714749456]

1714749456

[1714749456]

1714749456

[1714749456]

1714749456

[achow101]

so you have just proved blockstreams contention doomsday is a non thing.
if USERS ungrade their clients in hours/days or weeks.. knowing miners wont make more transactions then the present limit.. there wont be a fork..
and then when miners deem that there are enough nodes not to be a fork, they then start making bigger blocks.

Yeah, you know what that is called? It is called DEPLOYMENT. The deployment is the whole thing about the threshold and grace period. The miners with that new limit won't make blocks more than the present limit and then when they deem that there are enough nodes and miners to not have a fork (X out of the last 1000 blocks indicated support for their fork) then they start making bigger blocks. This is exactly how deployment works.

What I was saying was that there was no deployment like that to add the 1 Mb limit in. It was simply one version didn't have it, the next suddenly did. It didn't matter back then because there weren't enough transactions to fill up the blocks and go over that limit. That was the deployment, and if that happened now, there would be a fork because there are enough transactions to produce a block larger than 1 Mb.

[franky1]

so you have just proved blockstreams contention doomsday is a non thing.
if USERS ungrade their clients in hours/days or weeks.. knowing miners wont make more transactions then the present limit.. there wont be a fork..
and then when miners deem that there are enough nodes not to be a fork, they then start making bigger blocks.

Yeah, you know what that is called? It is called DEPLOYMENT. The deployment is the whole thing about the threshold and grace period. The miners with that new limit won't make blocks more than the present limit and then when they deem that there are enough nodes and miners to not have a fork (X out of the last 1000 blocks indicated support for their fork) then they start making bigger blocks. This is exactly how deployment works.

What I was saying was that there was no deployment like that to add the 1 Mb limit in. It was simply one version didn't have it, the next suddenly did. It didn't matter back then because there weren't enough transactions to fill up the blocks and go over that limit. That was the deployment, and if that happened now, there would be a fork because there are enough transactions to produce a block larger than 1 Mb.

lol.. i see what your trying to say. but blockstreams refusing to add code purely for the numbskull belief that miners will make bigger blocks when a threshold is reached, is itself just causing controversy to cause controversy.

its like not going out of your basement because you know that going out of your basement means your no longer in your basement. you know there is no risk to getting out of your basement. but you want to stupidly plan that you will only leave your basement 2 years after other people ask you to leave your basement. just to waste peoples time making them wait for you for no good reason but your own stupid desire to stay in your basement.

again you know there is no risk. and u are only doing it to piss people off and feel like other people need to wait for you, like a power/ego trip. thinking it makes you important and wanted by having people begging you to just get out of your basement.

there is no reason at all to refuse to add the code now. and we all know that miners wont make bigger blocks until they are sure that their coins wont get orphaned. so refusing to add the code on the stupid idea that miners will make bigger blocks before the threshold is obsured.

its the blockstreamers that are preventing the threshold from ever getting reached. they should release the code along with their segwit, THIS MONTH.. and not in july with a stupid further 12 month delay.

that way people dont need to upgrade twice.(this month and this july) they can upgrade once. and have the code active when the thresholds are met.

by having the code with a 12 month grace, is going to make people lazy and think they dont need to upgrade.. causing even further delay.
but having a 1 month grace. and then let the miners themselves PREFERENTIALLY wait after that for the threshold. will ensure the blocks grow only when its safe to, without all this delay crap to make people not want to upgrade.

[achow101]

the numbskull belief that miners will make bigger blocks when a threshold is reached,

Why wouldn't they? People complain that there is a backlog, and when the threshold is reached that allows miners to add more transactions to blocks thus getting them more fees and removing the backlog, why wouldn't they? People would complain that miners aren't doing anything and the miners themselves are missing out on fees.

there is no reason at all to refuse to add the code now. and we all know that miners wont make bigger blocks until they are sure that their coins wont get orphaned. so refusing to add the code on the stupid idea that miners will make bigger blocks before the threshold is obsured.

its the blockstreamers that are preventing the threshold from ever getting reached. they should release the code along with their segwit, THIS MONTH.. and not in july with a stupid further 12 month delay.

They can't release something that doesn't exist. And no they cannot just take classic's code because there are significant differences that would need to be worked out that it is better and more effective to write the code for a hard fork separately on the changes that Core has made.

that way people dont need to upgrade twice.(this month and this july) they can upgrade once. and have the code active when the thresholds are met.

People don't need to upgrade twice. The only required upgrade is for the hard fork. There is no requirement to upgrade to still be able to use Bitcoin after segwit's deployment. It is just to use segwit you need to upgrade. They can simply put off the upgrade until the hard fork release is out and have no ill effect.

[franky1]

the numbskull belief that miners will make bigger blocks when a threshold is reached,

Why wouldn't they? People complain that there is a backlog, and when the threshold is reached that allows miners to add more transactions to blocks thus getting them more fees and removing the backlog, why wouldn't they? People would complain that miners aren't doing anything and the miners themselves are missing out on fees.

you mis-understood me.. miners will make bigger blocks when the thresholds are reached. which is natural and good..
but my point was that blockstreamers refusal is due to blockstreamers being numbskulls, purely using a natural thing.. as some kind of doomsday belief..

its like saying you will not make a cup of coffee.. purely because making a coffee means that you have created a cup of coffee...
blockstreamers wont upgrade purely because upgrading means that things will move forward. but they dont want to move things forward unless its on their timescales (massive ego trip)

[BTCBinary]

I will support it. I also think that is getting late for this... Instead of form a year from now it should be made tomorrow already.
Blocks are getting full and the fees are increasing, in a year from now the fees will be impossible to bear and everybody will be using other options. This can seriously put bitcoin at risk

[Lauda]

Instead of form a year from now it should be made tomorrow already.
This can seriously put bitcoin at risk

The only thing that would put Bitcoin at a risk (relevant to this thread) is what you've just proposed.

[achow101]

you mis-understood me.. miners will make bigger blocks when the thresholds are reached. which is natural and good..
but my point was that blockstreamers refusal is due to blockstreamers being numbskulls, purely using a natural thing.. as some kind of doomsday belief..

its like saying you will not make a cup of coffee.. purely because making a coffee means that you have created a cup of coffee...
blockstreamers wont upgrade purely because upgrading means that things will move forward. but they dont want to move things forward unless its on their timescales (massive ego trip)

Who are these "blockstreamers" then? I don't know of anybody working on Bitcoin who doesn't want to upgrade and move Bitcoin forward. Obviously it isn't the Core developers since they are doing segwit, versionbits, and csv, among other stuff which will all move Bitcoin forward. Moving forward and upgrading does not have to be limited to one specific change.

And why do you say that these "blockstreamers" don't want to upgrade and just want an ego trip? Have you any quotes which would support this or is it just speculation based on a (biased) reading of people's words?

[franky1]

People don't need to upgrade twice. The only required upgrade is for the hard fork. There is no requirement to upgrade to still be able to use Bitcoin after segwit's deployment. It is just to use segwit you need to upgrade. They can simply put off the upgrade until the hard fork release is out and have no ill effect.

lets count it
one
two

but if the 2mb was included in aprils release there would be only ONE upgrade. and with a reduced grace period people will know its a priority to upgrade.

blockstream fully know there is no practical reason for the 12 months. but the only EGO trip of having the 12 months is to make it not a priority so that they can circe jerk each other and say that only X% have upgraded in X hours.. purely because the graace period makes it a non-prioority.

they fully know that if it was a priority eg 1 week or 1 month then people can EASILY upgrade in that time.. the 12 months is just to fudge the numbers and get people to wait and not upgrade just so they can pretend that the reason people are waiting is due to hate or lack of desire of the limit increase. when we know its just to do with not being a priority because blockstream want their code to control bitcoin in a way they want it to be controlled

they really love their self fullfilling prophecies just to boost their ego's

[franky1]

And why do you say that these "blockstreamers" don't want to upgrade and just want an ego trip? Have you any quotes which would support this or is it just speculation based on a (biased) reading of people's words?

check out icebreakers 75page censored thread for the circle jerking ego trip of blockstreamers

gmaxwell and luke Jr are definitely on power trips too..

[achow101]

People don't need to upgrade twice. The only required upgrade is for the hard fork. There is no requirement to upgrade to still be able to use Bitcoin after segwit's deployment. It is just to use segwit you need to upgrade. They can simply put off the upgrade until the hard fork release is out and have no ill effect.

lets count it
one
two

Right, but for the lazy person who doesn't want to upgrade unless absolutely necessary, then it is only one, the hard fork release. There is no need to upgrade for segwit because you can simply keep on spending and using Bitcoin as you do now with no ill effect.

but if the 2mb was included in aprils release there would be only ONE upgrade. and with a reduced grace period people will know its a priority to upgrade.

blockstream fully know there is no practical reason for the 12 months. but the only EGO trip of having the 12 months is to make it not a priority so that they can circe jerk each other and say that only X% have upgraded in X hours.. purely because the graace period makes it a non-prioority.

they fully know that if it was a priority eg 1 week or 1 month then people can EASILY upgrade in that time.. the 12 months

Where the hell are you getting the 12 month grace period from? It says that the code will be available by July. So it will be tested thoroughly when the code is available and that will take some time. Then it will be merged in and tested over and over again and then the release process starts and that takes even more time. Between the code being available and the actual release there is probably about two months for all of the testing and the gitian build process to complete. Then it says that it is LIKELY that activation will happen around July 2017 because miners need to upgrade and the blocks supporting the fork need to be produced to meet whatever threshold is set. Absolutely nowhere can I find anything that says that there is a 12 month grace period.

check out icebreakers 75page censored thread for the circle jerking ego trip of blockstreamers

I'd ask you for a tl;dr but I wouldn't get an objective summary of the thread.

gmaxwell and luke Jr are definitely on power trips too..

Really, how so?

[ArticMine]

...
Nope, there was no hard fork. There was no need to as there was not enough transaction volume to even come close to the limit. The limit was simply just added in this commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d2174b6f5f3fac2463c7ebc2dbb9004b3740d23.

Oh please you mean to say that reversing those changes is not a hard fork. Of course it is a hard fork. By your same argument one can introduce a 32 MB blocksize limit after say block 1000000 and claim it is not a "hard fork"

[achow101]

...
Nope, there was no hard fork. There was no need to as there was not enough transaction volume to even come close to the limit. The limit was simply just added in this commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d2174b6f5f3fac2463c7ebc2dbb9004b3740d23.

Oh please you mean to say that reversing those changes is not a hard fork. Of course it is a hard fork. By your same argument one can introduce a 32 MB blocksize limit after say block 1000000 and claim it is not a "hard fork"

Alright, if you want to call it a hard fork, then it's a hard fork. But the difference between that and now is the context of its deployment. They are not comparable.

[ArticMine]

...
Alright, if you want to call it a hard fork, then it's a hard fork. But the difference between that and now is the context of its deployment. They are not comparable.

Yes the circumstances are very different and this is fast becoming a serious problem for BItcoin.

The difference is that it is very easy to hard fork a cypto currency when the community is still small and there are no economic interests adversely impacted by the hard fork. As a coin matures it should be design be very difficult or impossible to hard fork if the hard fork has an adverse impact on existing economic interests. The problem that Bitcoin faces is that it needs to hard fork in order to scale, while at the same time it may be already too late for a hard fork that may have adverse economic impacts on members of the community. The miners trapped behind the Great Firewall of China may be a good example of this kind of economic interest.

There is a very critical lesson here for alt-coin developers.

[Lauda]

The problem that Bitcoin faces is that it needs to hard fork in order to scale, while at the same time it may be already too late for a hard fork that may have adverse economic impacts on members of the community.

What makes you say that? If you're among the people (?) who think that Bitcoin can only scale by increasing the block size limit, then you're wrong. Besides, you should be aware that transacting on a secondary layer is much more efficient (in theory) than transacting on the main-chain.

There is a very critical lesson here for alt-coin developers.

Indeed.

[hv_]

...
Alright, if you want to call it a hard fork, then it's a hard fork. But the difference between that and now is the context of its deployment. They are not comparable.

Yes the circumstances are very different and this is fast becoming a serious problem for BItcoin.

The difference is that it is very easy to hard fork a cypto currency when the community is still small and there are no economic interests adversely impacted by the hard fork. As a coin matures it should be design be very difficult or impossible to hard fork if the hard fork has an adverse impact on existing economic interests. The problem that Bitcoin faces is that it needs to hard fork in order to scale, while at the same time it may be already too late for a hard fork that may have adverse economic impacts on members of the community. The miners trapped behind the Great Firewall of China may be a good example of this kind of economic interest.

There is a very critical lesson here for alt-coin developers.

... And with that very good argument it is much more better to do the HF NOW than next year, where it should be way bigger & more mature and so more harder to do. But I see this argument than used next year to refuse a HF again....

[Fascinat]

According to the road map by the Core development team, the SegWit will be available from April. I will support that.

[Maslate]

That road map was not followed properly. So the SegWit had not come out yet. I am looking forward to the implementation.

[pereira4]

We will see. If we have lightning network, segregated witness, schnorr signatures... and so on and so on, then it might be irrelevant to risk a hard fork at that point, since we will probably still not be at top capacity after all those features are deployed, so it's maybe not worth the risk of both the hard fork itself and node centralization as well. Time will tell, now the focus is on making bitcoin better, and that's exactly what they are doing.

[Denker]

We will see. If we have lightning network, segregated witness, schnorr signatures... and so on and so on, then it might be irrelevant to risk a hard fork at that point, since we will probably still not be at top capacity after all those features are deployed, so it's maybe not worth the risk of both the hard fork itself and node centralization as well. Time will tell, now the focus is on making bitcoin better, and that's exactly what they are doing.

Just SegWit and Schnoor Sigs alone will bring us a capacity boost similar to a 3-3,4MB Blocksize!
Lightning as additional layer will make it much more easier to use micropayments and offers completely new possibilities for business ideas.
Really amazing and I'm looking forward to all of this.