The block limit will be raised. There are just no ifs or buts...

[The Fool]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit. Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

I take no sides on this issue.

[1715595121]

1715595121

[1715595121]

1715595121

[1715595121]

1715595121

[1715595121]

1715595121

[1715595121]

1715595121

[1715595121]

1715595121

[notig]

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[SimonL]

I prefer well reasoned arguments, empirical evidence, and an impartial and open mind over sensationalistic grandstanding. If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

You were obviously not around when BIP16/17 was rolled out....

[phatsphere]

I take no sides on this issue.

instead, you are just spreading FUD.
do you know what mining operators are doing?

[misterbigg]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask.

No, anyone with insufficient bandwidth would either not upgrade, or revert to the previous version.

There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

Therefore, you are wrong. One might even say you are The Fool      

[The Fool]

If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

The majority could be as low as 60%. That's 40% of the people with hard-earned bitcoins being coerced into a new system they disagree with.

[The Fool]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask.

No, anyone with insufficient bandwidth would either not upgrade, or revert to the previous version.

As I said:

All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Those who do not upgrade are left with a fork of bitcoin that will be worth little to nothing. Somebody could rename it to "Bitcoin2" but it wouldn't be fungible with the new bitcoin system.

[The Fool]

I take no sides on this issue.

instead, you are just spreading FUD.
do you know what mining operators are doing?

What are they doing?

[Akka]

Oh come on.

Yes I agree this is an important issue. But do we really need 100 Threads about this?

There are some interesting discussions going on about this topic and with more and more threads it gets impossible to keep track.


Also you are paranoid (again):

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit.

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, put these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

Which war? I don't see burning servers and dead Bitcoiners on the streets.

And I have jet to see a single statement about this from SD or GOX.

[The Fool]

...
And I have jet to see a single statement about this from SD or GOX.

Evorhees (the owner of SatoshiDice) wants the block limit raised, last I checked. Now if his users value a limited block size more than SatoshiDice, then maybe SD won't upgrade or fail at it.

[SimonL]

If the max_block_size is raised/removed/algorithmically managed, it will be because the majority wishes it to be so.

The majority could be as low as 60%. That's 40% of the people with hard-earned bitcoins being coerced into a new system they disagree with.

What you are suggesting in reality is two dead chains. No-one, not those that want the block size raised, nor those that want it fixed, would have a viable chain in that situation. A fracture like that is going to completely undermine the confidence in both chains and the Bitcoin economy as we know it. Your fatalistic notions that one side would barrel headlong while a large chunk of the Bitcoin mining community is left straggling is absurd beyond comprehension. No-one wants that, nor would they help perpetuate such an end.

[HorseRider]

Though we have 1M block size limit now, but whether we can change the protocol the raise this limit or not?

[benjamindees]

If you can explain how increasing the block size negatively affects current holders of Bitcoins, I might care about your argument.

[DannyHamilton]

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

I think you are mistaken.  The fees go up (making low value bets impossible) if the block size is NOT increased.  Your understanding of this appears to be backwards, and you may wnat to look into it a bit more. (or else I'm completely confused)

[DannyHamilton]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

[Rampion]

Both MtGox and SatoshiDice stand to lose if the block size is increased. MtGox because it will raise their costs (higher transaction fees). SatoshiDice because they could not accept low value bets.

I think you are mistaken.  The fees go up (making low value bets impossible) if the block size is NOT increased.  Your understanding of this appears to be backwards, and you may wnat to look into it a bit more. (or else I'm completely confused)

You are right, Danny.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Quite simple even for non-techies like me

[justusranvier]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

[Akka]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

As long as the "small Block" Chain has more than 50% of the hashing power, wouldn't it eventually end up to be the longer chain again?

As old Nodes wouldn't accept Blocks from "Big Block" Chain the split would occur as soon as this chain has the majority (>50%)?

[markm]

That chain already has the majority.

But, a split *again* would occur when it got *back* to being longest, yes.

-MarkM-

[Rampion]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node = bitcoin becomes a centralized system where mining supercompanies set their own rules, ala "central bank" = FAIL

If you want superfast, near free transaction you have credit cards, or paypal-like services. Or ripple, or systems built on top of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's value is in its decentralized nature. That's what attracted most of us. It's a secure and decentralized p2p system, and because of this it's an extremely clever store of value.

Kill the decentralized nature and you will kill bitcoin.

[Sukrim]

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node

Exponential growth in block size = unhappy miners = small transactions will be preferred and miners will find a max. block size themselves based on their bandwidth + ability to announce blocks

Also in other news: A server in a data center with a good CPU and a few TB storage costs far less than 100 USD per month. This does not even take into consideration potential special bitcoind hosters.

While it might be expensive, it is nothing that an average person wouldn't be able to afford. Smoking cigarettes is probably still a more expensive hobby than running a full node in a bitcoin environment with 100 MB or even 1 GB max. size blocks.

[DannyHamilton]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

As long as the "small Block" Chain has more than 50% of the hashing power, wouldn't it eventually end up to be the longer chain again?

As old Nodes wouldn't accept Blocks from "Big Block" Chain the split would occur as soon as this chain has the majority (>50%)?

I might have my math messed up a bit here (it's early and I'm not much good at logical thinking in the morning), but if the "big block" chain has >49% of the hashing power and adds a block before the "small block" chain than there is roughly a 1% chance that the "small block" chain will add a block before the "big block" chain adds a second.

At that point the chains will be equal length, but the "big block" chain will have already been working on its next block for the entire time that the "small block" chain was trying to catch up.  The chance that the "small block" chain will add two blocks before the "big block" chain adds one block is something like 0.01% right?  So yes, this means that "eventually" that 0.01% chance should add up over time and the "small block" chain would pass up the "big block" chain.

However, how long is that likely to take? Is my math right if I estimate 5,000 blocks for a 50% chance of passing up the "big block" chain? Isn't that 34 days?  If the "big block" chain stays longer for a month, how many people will "jump ship" from the "small block" chain to the "big block" chain during that time if the "big block" chain is starting to look like a permanent fork?  Enough to increase the hashing percentage from >49% to >50%?  If so then it becomes likely that the "small block" chain will not catch up.

Of course, I suppose it is possible if the split stayed anywhere near 50% that the "big block" chain could remain only a few blocks ahead of the "small block" chain.  Then 6 months later with a small run of luck the "small block" chain could suddenly overtake the "big block" chain and BAM 6 months of blocks orphaned on the "big block" chain.  Since some of those inputs will have been spent elsewhere on the "small block" chain you'd have transactions lost to double-spends all over the place.  What a mess.  Seems like as soon as a "big block" was mined, a release would be quickly offered with a checkpoint to prevent something so devastating from happening, right?

[DannyHamilton]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node = bitcoin becomes a centralized system where mining supercompanies set their own rules, ala "central bank" = FAIL

If you want superfast, near free transaction you have credit cards, or paypal-like services. Or ripple, or systems built on top of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's value is in its decentralized nature. That's what attracted most of us. It's a secure and decentralized p2p system, and because of this it's an extremely clever store of value.

Kill the decentralized nature and you will kill bitcoin.

I don't disagree with you.  Given your thoughts on the matter though, I do however wonder what you would consider to be the "correct" blocksize?

Is 1MB too big?  Should we limit it to 500kB to increase decentralization?  How about 5MB?  Would that be ok?  How do we determine the "correct" blocksize right now, and how do we adjust the "correct" blocksize for changes in technology in the future?

[justusranvier]

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node

Better algorithms will allow average users to process a much higher transaction rate on inexpensive hardware.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0

[markm]

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node

Exponential growth in block size = unhappy miners = small transactions will be preferred and miners will find a max. block size themselves based on their bandwidth + ability to announce blocks

Exponential growth in block size = happy megaminers = large/many transactions will be preferred and megaminers with find a minimum block size themselves based on the small fry's bandwidth and how long the small fry are willing to struggle to keep up with larger blocks before being successfully ousted from the business.

-MarkM-

[Akka]

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

Assuming the chain that accepts larger blocks has at least 49% of the hashing power, the blockchain would most likely split as soon as the first block larger than 1MB was mined (making it immediately the "longer" chain by one block).

As long as the "small Block" Chain has more than 50% of the hashing power, wouldn't it eventually end up to be the longer chain again?

As old Nodes wouldn't accept Blocks from "Big Block" Chain the split would occur as soon as this chain has the majority (>50%)?

I might have my math messed up a bit here (it's early and I'm not much good at logical thinking in the morning), but if the "big block" chain has >49% of the hashing power and adds a block before the "small block" chain than there is roughly a 1% chance that the "small block" chain will add a block before the "big block" chain adds a second.

At that point the chains will be equal length, but the "big block" chain will have already been working on its next block for the entire time that the "small block" chain was trying to catch up.  The chance that the "small block" chain will add two blocks before the "big block" chain adds one block is something like 0.01% right?  So yes, this means that "eventually" that 0.01% chance should add up over time and the "small block" chain would pass up the "big block" chain.

However, how long is that likely to take? Is my math right if I estimate 5,000 blocks for a 50% chance of passing up the "big block" chain? Isn't that 34 days?  If the "big block" chain stays longer for a month, how many people will "jump ship" from the "small block" chain to the "big block" chain during that time if the "big block" chain is starting to look like a permanent fork?  Enough to increase the hashing percentage from >49% to >50%?  If so then it becomes likely that the "small block" chain will not catch up.

Of course, I suppose it is possible if the split stayed anywhere near 50% that the "big block" chain could remain only a few blocks ahead of the "small block" chain.  Then 6 months later with a small run of luck the "small block" chain could suddenly overtake the "big block" chain and BAM 6 months of blocks orphaned on the "big block" chain.  Since some of those inputs will have been spent elsewhere on the "small block" chain you'd have transactions lost to double-spends all over the place.  What a mess.  Seems like as soon as a "big block" was mined, a release would be quickly offered with a checkpoint to prevent something so devastating from happening, right?

Well, there is a more or less simple solution for that.

As "Big block" Nodes can also accept "small block" Blocks, I would include something that somehow "markes" a Block found by a "big Block" miner. Then as soon as at least say 80% of the last 2000 Blocks are "marked", the change activates and bigger blocks are allowed. It could also start a countdown of another 2000 Blocks to give the remaining 20% time to change their mind.

[Rampion]

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = higher fees to get your transaction on a block.

Smaller blocks = more difficult to get your transaction verified = frustrated users = lower adoption  =  possible failure of the currency

Exponential growth in block size = impossibility for average users to run a full node = bitcoin becomes a centralized system where mining supercompanies set their own rules, ala "central bank" = FAIL

If you want superfast, near free transaction you have credit cards, or paypal-like services. Or ripple, or systems built on top of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin's value is in its decentralized nature. That's what attracted most of us. It's a secure and decentralized p2p system, and because of this it's an extremely clever store of value.

Kill the decentralized nature and you will kill bitcoin.

I don't disagree with you.  Given your thoughts on the matter though, I do however wonder what you would consider to be the "correct" blocksize?

Is 1MB too big?  Should we limit it to 500kB to increase decentralization?  How about 5MB?  Would that be ok?  How do we determine the "correct" blocksize right now, and how do we adjust the "correct" blocksize for changes in technology in the future?

I would like a blocksize that allows the average user, with an average connection and an average computer (let's say 5 years old "personal computer") to run a full node.

I know this a non-technical, vague statement. But I think that we should work out a technical solution to achieve that.

[markm]

I don't disagree with you.  Given your thoughts on the matter though, I do however wonder what you would consider to be the "correct" blocksize?

Is 1MB too big?  Should we limit it to 500kB to increase decentralization?  How about 5MB?  Would that be ok?  How do we determine the "correct" blocksize right now, and how do we adjust the "correct" blocksize for changes in technology in the future?

2011 block size sufficed for $32 exchange rates, we have not exceeded that $32 rate in all the time since, so obviously we have plenty of space still.

In fact, we don't even use the space we have, not even half of it maybe, so if using it all cannot get us up to $64 maybe we are throwing too much money into hardware and not enough into the actual currency itself?

Up at $64 or so maybe talking about possibly doubling the size might start to make sense, then again maybe it'll be a few more years yet before we have $64-bitcoin level of actual usage?

-MarkM-

[DannyHamilton]

I don't disagree with you.  Given your thoughts on the matter though, I do however wonder what you would consider to be the "correct" blocksize?

Is 1MB too big?  Should we limit it to 500kB to increase decentralization?  How about 5MB?  Would that be ok?  How do we determine the "correct" blocksize right now, and how do we adjust the "correct" blocksize for changes in technology in the future?

2011 block size sufficed for $32 exchange rates, we have not exceeded that $32 rate in all the time since, so obviously we have plenty of space still.

In fact, we don't even use the space we have, not even half of it maybe, so if using it all cannot get us up to $64 maybe we are throwing too much money into hardware and not enough into the actual currency itself?

Up at $64 or so maybe talking about possibly doubling the size might start to make sense, then again maybe it'll be a few more years yet before we have $64-bitcoin level of actual usage?

-MarkM-

What does exchange rate have to do with any of this?  There variables here are numbers of transactions and fees per transaction.  Exchange rate shouldn't matter.  Note that the number of transactions and fees per transaction are both higher now than they were in 2011.

Due to the necessary delay involved in programming, testing, and adoption waiting until there is a problem before trying to fix it could be disastrous.

[DannyHamilton]

Well, there is a more or less simple solution for that.

As "Big block" Nodes can also accept "small block" Blocks, I would include something that somehow "markes" a Block found by a "big Block" miner. Then as soon as at least say 80% of the last 2000 Blocks are "marked", the change activates and bigger blocks are allowed. It could also start a countdown of another 2000 Blocks to give the remaining 20% time to change their mind.

Which takes me right back to the fact that the blockchain will most likely split immediately as soon as the first "big block" is mined.  There isn't likely to be a "small block" chain overtaking the "big block" chain once the first "big block" is mined if the change is implemented properly.

Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

Yes, but these new nodes would still accept the smaller blocks as well. It will only work, when the longer chain created consist of larger blocks.

[Akka]

Well, there is a more or less simple solution for that.

As "Big block" Nodes can also accept "small block" Blocks, I would include something that somehow "markes" a Block found by a "big Block" miner. Then as soon as at least say 80% of the last 2000 Blocks are "marked", the change activates and bigger blocks are allowed. It could also start a countdown of another 2000 Blocks to give the remaining 20% time to change their mind.

Which takes me right back to the fact that the blockchain will most likely split immediately as soon as the first "big block" is mined.  There isn't likely to be a "small block" chain overtaking the "big block" chain once the first "big block" is mined if the change is implemented properly.

OK, I agree here. But it wouldn't happen from one moment to the next like OP described due to

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

[DannyHamilton]

OK, I agree here. But it wouldn't happen from one moment to the next like OP described due to

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

And I agree here.  This is part of the reason that Satoshi suggested that the increase in blocksize be scheduled far in advance of necessity.  Schedule a blocksize increase in the next release of the reference client that takes effect with block 420,000 (the next halving four years from now).  By the time the increase is triggered, almost everybody is running software that was created in the past four years.

I don't think anybody who understands the issue is suggesting pushing out a protocol that immediately allows larger blocks.

[RodeoX]

The only people here who are confident in their opinions are those with little knowledge of the subject they are certain about.

[kokojie]

OK, I agree here. But it wouldn't happen from one moment to the next like OP described due to

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

And I agree here.  This is part of the reason that Satoshi suggested that the increase in blocksize be scheduled far in advance of necessity.  Schedule a blocksize increase in the next release of the reference client that takes effect with block 420,000 (the next halving four years from now).  By the time the increase is triggered, almost everybody is running software that was created in the past four years.

I don't think anybody who understands the issue is suggesting pushing out a protocol that immediately allows larger blocks.

I think 420,000 is too late, we already have 500KB+ blocks from time to time. I'll bet in 6 months, every block will be 500KB+, and in 1 year all blocks will hit 1MB limit.

[molecular]

The only people here who are confident in their opinions are those with little knowledge of the subject they are certain about.

You could be correct. After reading a bit on the subject I'm not confident with my opinion any more.

[DannyHamilton]

OK, I agree here. But it wouldn't happen from one moment to the next like OP described due to

No in order to raise the Block limit, pools would need to change their version, too.

They tend to not upgrade until a new version is considered save.

And I agree here.  This is part of the reason that Satoshi suggested that the increase in blocksize be scheduled far in advance of necessity.  Schedule a blocksize increase in the next release of the reference client that takes effect with block 420,000 (the next halving four years from now).  By the time the increase is triggered, almost everybody is running software that was created in the past four years.

I don't think anybody who understands the issue is suggesting pushing out a protocol that immediately allows larger blocks.

I think 420,000 is too late, we already have 500KB+ blocks from time to time. I'll bet in 6 months, every block will be 500KB+, and in 1 year all blocks will hit 1MB limit.

Way to miss the point and focus on a completely arbitrary number.  

[johnyj]

You know what, on some of my virtual machines, I have full nodes still running bitcoin 0.3.24, if the fork day arrives, I will hope all the people run to the new chain so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain

[Piper67]

You know what, on some of my virtual machines, I have full nodes still running bitcoin 0.3.24, if the fork day arrives, I will hope all the people run to the new chain so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain

If ALL the people run to the new chain, your quickly mined coins won't be worth much.

[johnyj]

You know what, on some of my virtual machines, I have full nodes still running bitcoin 0.3.24, if the fork day arrives, I will hope all the people run to the new chain so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain

If ALL the people run to the new chain, your quickly mined coins won't be worth much.

It does not matter, I'm a true believer of original bitcoin, I want those coins deadly no matter what they cost 

[markm]

If the new chain is so huge that Big Brother can easily find its nodes, and/or so big that grassroots activists cannot use it without putting their machines into Big Brother's deep-disk-inspected datacentres, maybe on Big Brother's back-doors-built-into-firmware machines, then the whole point of a grass roots, alternative currency is undermined, possibly Silk Road might somehow manage to run it without being taken down but oppressed groups in terrorist/dictaroship regimes that don't have drug money to finance them might be dead in or out of the water. Moving to the new chain might be literal suicide, the cause of torture and execution of friends and loved ones ("co-conspirators", "fellow enemies of the state", etc).

-MarkM-

[DannyHamilton]

. . . so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain . . .

This is impossible.  You need to spend some time learning how bitcoin works.  It will take approximately 140 years to mine all the bitcoin on the old chain.  That is true if you are the only miner, or if every person on the planet runs a 100 THz ASIC.

[rebuilder]

OP, please clarify: by "block limit", do you mean block size limit or the maximum number of blocks in which new bitcoins will be generated?

[DannyHamilton]

If the new chain is so huge that Big Brother can easily find its nodes, and/or so big that grassroots activists cannot use it without putting their machines into Big Brother's deep-disk-inspected datacentres, maybe on Big Brother's back-doors-built-into-firmware machines, then the whole point of a grass roots, alternative currency is undermined, possibly Silk Road might somehow manage to run it without being taken down but oppressed groups in terrorist/dictaroship regimes that don't have drug money to finance them might be dead in or out of the water. Moving to the new chain might be literal suicide, the cause of torture and execution of friends and loved ones ("co-conspirators", "fellow enemies of the state", etc).

-MarkM-

And this is true even if we don't change the blocksize.  You are so worried about the bandwidth resource issue, but don't care about the electricity resource issue?

[DannyHamilton]

OP, please clarify: by "block limit", do you mean block size limit or the maximum number of blocks in which new bitcoins will be generated?

The answer to this question seems obvious:

. . . wants the block limit raised, last I checked. Now if his users value a limited block size . . .

[markm]

You are so worried about the bandwidth resource issue, but don't care about the electricity resource issue?

Oh our freedom fighters are to mine too then, eh? Hmm, I wonder, that is what, supposedly, 80 to 120 watts per 60 gigahash/sec?

Actually their mining gear doesn't maybe need much bandwidth, as they just receive block headers and long poll callbacks and return a nonce, so they can keep one in each home or something. It is verifying the blocks and getting solved ones out to the world soon enough to not be orphaned that needs bandwidth.  Which is unfortunate in a way for some folks because ignorant masses of miners can easily be convinced to blindly trust some pool or other, not caring what the heck their hashes are really being used for just as long as they get paid.

-MarkM-

[ArticMine]

Bandwidth has already dropped close to 80% in price in the four years since Bitcoin started and is expected by industry analysts to keep dropping likely at a faster rate. http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2012/08/02/ip-transit-price-declines-steepen/ I can purchase today an Internet plan with 1TB of data delivered to my home each month (approximately what would be required to accommodate 1/3 of VISA's transactions over the blockchain) today for 349 CAD a month. In a few years this will likly drop to well under 100 CAD and with even more bandwidth. The idea that allowing Bitcoin to scale so that it is useful for a significant portion of the world's will free out the destroys the distributed nature of Bitcoin is simply false.

[markm]

Yeah. It is mostly the "lets have no limit at all" and "lets have no limit all just automation that looks at some numbers miners or spammers or someone can manipulate and blindly reacts to those on autopilot as if the authors of the autopilot algorithm actually knew how best to central-plan the navigation of such tricky waters as those someone can manipulate" ideas that bother me.

They seem to kind of amount to "lets invite all supervillians to come do their worst", whereas the hard coded hard limit seems more like "no matter what the supervillians do, they will never be able to smack down the common grassroots home bitcoiner".

However the "lets multiply by ten in one jump" also seems bad. If ten times the size won't be needed for five years doubling every year would be smoother yet would get us to larger than that sooner; it'd just do it in steps instead of boom its death of Joe Sixminer day today, the block number for his doom is here.

-MarkM-

[DannyHamilton]

You are so worried about the bandwidth resource issue, but don't care about the electricity resource issue?

Oh our freedom fighters are to mine too then, eh? Hmm, I wonder, that is what, supposedly, 80 to 120 watts per 60 gigahash/sec?

Actually their mining gear doesn't maybe need much bandwidth, as they just receive block headers and long poll callbacks and return a nonce, so they can keep one in each home or something. It is verifying the blocks and getting solved ones out to the world soon enough to not be orphaned that needs bandwidth.  Which is unfortunate in a way for some folks because ignorant masses of miners can easily be convinced to blindly trust some pool or other, not caring what the heck their hashes are really being used for just as long as they get paid.

-MarkM-

Now you've lost me.  Blocks get orphaned when other miners don't receive the current block in time to build on it.  It doesn't matter how many "nodes" have the block, if the other miners don't have it, then their blocks become orphaned.  Those miners who don't have the necessary bandwidth resources shut down due to lack of revenue and centralization occurs.

If miners can mine with cheaper electricity, then they can maintain a profit with less bitcoin received per hash calculated.  Those who can't afford the necessary bandwidth resources shut down due to lack of revenue and centralization occurs.

[johnyj]

. . . so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain . . .

This is impossible.  You need to spend some time learning how bitcoin works.  It will take approximately 140 years to mine all the bitcoin on the old chain.  That is true if you are the only miner, or if every person on the planet runs a 100 THz ASIC.

The last statement is strange 

Actually I'm quite satisfied with 50 coins per day, if I took 3600 coins per day, then I will be the whole network, I think many of people here will compete with me to avoid this from happening

[DannyHamilton]

. . . so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain . . .

- snip -
or if every person on the planet runs a 100 THz ASIC.

The last statement is strange  
- snip -

Strange?  Why?

Edit: I didn't try the math on that one.  Is there any chance that the product of the world population times 1 THash works out to be so high that the necessary target can't be represented with 256 bit number?  I doubt it, but now I'm wondering.  Perhaps I'll grab a napkin and see.

Edit 2: Nah, plenty of room in a 256 bit target to accommodate that much hashing power.

[markm]

2^256 is big, did you check if every star in the galaxy had a planet with the same population as Earth and all of those people had 100THh ASICs? As we already know one star's entire output of energy over its lifetime doesn't provide enough energy to even count up to 2^256, don't we?

Are enough galaxies visible to the Hubble that if they all...

-MarkM-

[MineForeman.com]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit. Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

I take no sides on this issue.

Fortunately there is a good way to do this, clone the bitcoind repository, make the changes and ask people to use it.

If the majority of people agree with you the chain will fork in your favour.  It is a kind of bitcoin election.

[DannyHamilton]

2^256 is big,

Yes, I knew this, which is why I made the statement without checking the math.  But then I started to think...

"7 billion times 1 trillion times 600 is big"  I was pretty sure it wasn't nearly big enough to be a concern, but I decided to count the zeros and see if it even approached 2¹²⁸

Turns out it's only about as big as 2⁸².

[mobile4ever]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin.

The work on bitcoin is being done over at github, not bitcoin.org:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.github.com

[DannyHamilton]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin.

The work on bitcoin is being done over at github, not bitcoin.org:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.github.com

Sure, but I think the point that the OP was making is that he believes that the vast majority of users download pre-compiled executables from bitcoin.org.  Whoever posts those executables there will influence a significant portion of the network.

[johnyj]

. . . so that I can quietly and quickly mine the rest of the coins on the original chain . . .

- snip -
or if every person on the planet runs a 100 THz ASIC.

The last statement is strange  
- snip -

Strange?  Why?

Edit: I didn't try the math on that one.  Is there any chance that the product of the world population times 1 THash works out to be so high that the necessary target can't be represented with 256 bit number?  I doubt it, but now I'm wondering.  Perhaps I'll grab a napkin and see.

Edit 2: Nah, plenty of room in a 256 bit target to accommodate that much hashing power.

I mean, why other people's hasing power has anything to do with me if they are hashing on a different chain? The difficulty on the original chain will drop quickly and maybe gpu even cpu miners will be able to mine some coin

[The Fool]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin.

The work on bitcoin is being done over at github, not bitcoin.org:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.github.com

Sure, but I think the point that the OP was making is that he believes that the vast majority of users download pre-compiled executables from bitcoin.org.  Whoever posts those executables there will influence a significant portion of the network.

Exactly.

[Monster Tent]

I dont think people in the US quite understand the issue the rest of us have where bandwidth is not unlimited.

[twolifeinexile]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin.

The work on bitcoin is being done over at github, not bitcoin.org:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.github.com

Sure, but I think the point that the OP was making is that he believes that the vast majority of users download pre-compiled executables from bitcoin.org.  Whoever posts those executables there will influence a significant portion of the network.

But even this, according to Gavin, core developers may develop a "vote by computing power" approach and will not raise the limit if the block generated do not generate enough "Yay". So this concern may have merits, it is actually not as strong as OP indicates.

[tvbcof]

I dont think people in the US quite understand the issue the rest of us have where bandwidth is not unlimited.

Actually much of the US does not have particularly good bandwidth either.  I, for instance, pay $80 for 15G/month.

More ominously, almost all of us enjoy network bandwidth at the pleasure of our ISPs, and almost all ISPs operate at the pleasure of government regulatory bodies.  In the US, at least, the regulatory bodies operate at the pleasure of the lobbyists from corporations and other special interests.

Even 'normal consumer bandwidth' may need to be cut by a large factor to allow something like Bitcoin transactions to slip through the cracks if at some point it starts to threaten more mainstream (and profitable) solutions.

[adamstgBit]

why is this such a big deal?

blocks are still going to be mined at the same rate right?

even if the block limit is not increased the number of tx on the network will still be the same, so bandwidth required to run a full node will be pretty much the same...

no?

wouldn't miners like to mine a bigger block ( more tx pre block = more fees! )

wouldn't an end user like to have his tx included in the next block ( more tx pre block = for sure your tx will be in the next block )

[notme]

why is this such a big deal?

blocks are still going to be mined at the same rate right?

even if the block limit is not increased the number of tx on the network will still be the same, so bandwidth required to run a full node will be pretty much the same...

no?

wouldn't miners like to mine a bigger block ( more tx pre block = more fees! )

wouldn't an end user like to have his tx included in the next block ( more tx pre block = for sure your tx will be in the next block )

I could get on board with something tied to the number of transactions paying at least the minimum fee.

If the amount of fee paying transactions rises, the block size is increased on the next adjustment.  If the fee paying transactions drop, block size is reduced on the next adjustment.

Basically, we need a way to keep the segment allotted to free transactions to stay roughly the same size, but allow the size to grow and shrink with the paying transaction rate.  Free transactions could still take up extra space if there weren't paying transactions, but they wouldn't reserve the space past the adjustment.

[markm]

The max block size is a HARD LIMIT.

It is like going from 8 bit machines to 16 bit machines, or from 16 bit machines to 32 bit machines, or from 32 bit machines to 64 bit machines, or from 64 bit machines to 128 bit machines, or from 128 bit machines to 256 bit machines, etcetera: ONCE DONE WE DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK!

Only world wide catasrophe should force the world to all revert to 16 bit machines or even, really, now we are in the process of moving from 32 bit to 64 bit, ever shut down all the 64 bit machines and go back to 32 bit.

Stop thinking of the HARD MAXIMUM BLOCK SIZE as some kind of "soft" number miners come up with as their most profitable size at a given moment. It is more like can you even buy commodity 128 bit machines yet? How about commodity 256 bit? Ask walmart how many bits you can get as a mass market, best bang for the buck due to the absolutely massive number being sold, machine. Check whether your installed base of miners are using 128 bit machines yet. That kind of a hard limit.

-MarkM-

[adamstgBit]

why is this such a big deal?

blocks are still going to be mined at the same rate right?

even if the block limit is not increased the number of tx on the network will still be the same, so bandwidth required to run a full node will be pretty much the same...

no?

wouldn't miners like to mine a bigger block ( more tx pre block = more fees! )

wouldn't an end user like to have his tx included in the next block ( more tx pre block = for sure your tx will be in the next block )

I could get on board with something tied to the number of transactions paying at least the minimum fee.

If the amount of fee paying transactions rises, the block size is increased on the next adjustment.  If the fee paying transactions drop, block size is reduced on the next adjustment.

Basically, we need a way to keep the segment allotted to free transactions to stay roughly the same size, but allow the size to grow and shrink with the paying transaction rate.  Free transactions could still take up extra space if there weren't paying transactions, but they wouldn't reserve the space past the adjustment.

we do not have to care about the tx fees...
as it stands today, if miners dont want to process a tx because it has no fee they are free to do so.
keep it that way, its fine... its better then fine its perfect!

if the size of the block is so small that miner will only include tx with fees because he cant fit them all and would rather include the ones that pay a fee! the miner no longer has the choice to include a tx with no fee ( i guess he dose but he'd be crazy too do so -_-)

this is simply unacceptable, it will lead to high fees, and because of the high fees hashrate will go up for no reason at all...

make the max block size really really big so this never happens!

and let the miners decide for themselves if they want to include free-tx's, just because he has the space doesn't force him to add the free-tx....

this way miners of the future ( when the block reward is 0 ) will be mining for fees and he will choose his own cut off, maybe one minner will only include a tx with 0.00005BTC. The users will know if you pay 0.001BTC ALL miners will jump at the opportunity to add your tx, but if you only pay 0.000005BTC only 50% of the miners will add your tx ( which means it will take longer to confirm )

if the block size limit is to small, what will happen is the users will start compete for a spot on the block by paying higher and higher fees, NOT GOOD! this will for surely lead to super high fees!

[markm]

Hmm I thought that was sarcasm when I saw the bit about miners driving up hash rates for no reason, but reading more I'm no longer sure if the post is sarcasm or serious.

-MarkM-

[adamstgBit]

Hmm I thought that was sarcasm when I saw the bit about miners driving up hash rates for no reason, but reading more I'm no longer sure if the post is sarcasm or serious.

-MarkM-

I'm just posting my though, seriously;

let the miners choose to include free-tx or not, or wtv cut off they want.
and give them plenty of space to include as many as are available
and everything will balance out

[markm]

Well they have plenty of space, so that part is done. We'll see how the rest works out.

When the need more space signal (blocks getting full?) gets sent, that is when the markets are supposed to adapt, right?

Not order more inventory while you still haven't been able to get rid of the huge amount of inventory already on hand?

-MarkM-

[molecular]

Hmm I thought that was sarcasm when I saw the bit about miners driving up hash rates for no reason, but reading more I'm no longer sure if the post is sarcasm or serious.

-MarkM-

I'm just posting my though, seriously;

let the miners choose to include free-tx or not, or wtv cut off they want.
and give them plenty of space to include as many as are available
and everything will balance out

the criticism here is that miners with access to huge bandwidth will mine huge blocks and disadvantage the smaller miners because these can't dl the block fast enough to restart mining. You need the newest block in order to mine. The fear is that this would result in greater centralization.

[adamstgBit]

Hmm I thought that was sarcasm when I saw the bit about miners driving up hash rates for no reason, but reading more I'm no longer sure if the post is sarcasm or serious.

-MarkM-

I'm just posting my though, seriously;

let the miners choose to include free-tx or not, or wtv cut off they want.
and give them plenty of space to include as many as are available
and everything will balance out

the criticism here is that miners with access to huge bandwidth will mine huge blocks and disadvantage the smaller miners because these can't dl the block fast enough to restart mining. You need the newest block in order to mine. The fear is that this would result in greater centralization.

If you setup your mining rig on a shitty ass connection that's your fault.
min. requirements will keep going up as the network grows, theirs no stopping that.
if bitcoin really takes off, your going to required some really crazy hardware to run a full node.

... greater centralization is inevitable ...

it will still be "decentralized" because no ONE person can control it. but it wont be like the old day where ever single peer ran a full node.

network well being >  maximum decentralization

[adamstgBit]

Here's a hint for those who don't understand the implications:

Right now, all it takes is a small-ish miner who finds say 1 block per week, to fuck up the transaction fees for everyone else. How do they do it? By simply accepting as many zero-fee (and under-priced) transactions as they can, which have been queueing up.

LOL!

i will pay 0.0001 or wtv it cost so that ALL miners take my tx no matter what
i can't imagine why anyone would make a free tx if it would take days to confirm, when you can pay 1 cent and have it confirm much faster

[markm]

if bitcoin really takes off, your going to required some really crazy hardware to run a full node.

... greater centralization is inevitable ...

it will still be "decentralized" because no ONE person can control it. but it wont be like the old day where ever single peer ran a full node.

network well being >  maximum decentralization

Okay so the same decentralisation into two or even three major ATM card companies - per nation or region maybe? There must be more than three in the world, just because I don't see their logos around here doesn't mean that don't exist. The same decentralisation in a few brandnames of major banks, the same so huge that big brother can easily shutdown any darn thing he doesn't like real easy because its nothing like file sharing distributed networks whose nodes are small, agile, and, most importantly, ubiquitous, vast swarms of them everywhere?

So what we bought after all that is done is all the transactions of normal people are out in public view and by having put all ours in open view we might hope to have moral high ground in lobbying that all government transactions budgets etc should also be displayed that explicitly and irrefutably for all to see? But they won't be, of course.

I don't see that we gain anything here, oh wait, yeah, maybe some profit from rise in price of bitcoins if we got in way back now while they are dirt cheap. But we're basically investing in the government having even more invasion into our privacy, not into a grass roots unstoppable ubiquitous agile vast sea of nodes network like the person to person filesharing networks they seem to not be able to shut down?

We're shoving every node of our invisible grassroots network right out there in big brother's face, giving him the physical address of every vital piece of its infrastructure, and thats great, thats what "we" want?

-MarkM-

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

I don't see that we gain anything here, oh wait, yeah, maybe some profit from rise in price of bitcoins if we got in way back now while they are dirt cheap. BUt we're basically investing in the government having even more invasion into our privacy, not into a grass roots unstoppable ubiquitous agile vast sea of nodes network like the person to person filesharing networks they seem to not be able to shut down?

I (and many others) have frequently used the bittorrent comparison when introducing people to Bitcoin, to allay their fears about governments shutting it down (usually that's the first objection people raise).

I would really really really hate to see a future where I can no longer in good faith tell people that disrupting the network would be logistically difficult.

Current debate is a bit like having a goose that has started laying golden eggs, and extrapolating that forcing it to have sex and lay eggs 24/7 will maximize my wealth.  But of course, once I put that policy in place, the end result is that, much to my dismay, the goose drops dead rather quickly.

[tvbcof]

I don't see that we gain anything here, oh wait, yeah, maybe some profit from rise in price of bitcoins if we got in way back now while they are dirt cheap. BUt we're basically investing in the government having even more invasion into our privacy, not into a grass roots unstoppable ubiquitous agile vast sea of nodes network like the person to person filesharing networks they seem to not be able to shut down?

I (and many others) have frequently used the bittorrent comparison when introducing people to Bitcoin, to allay their fears about governments shutting it down (usually that's the first objection people raise).

I would really really really hate to see a future where I can no longer in good faith tell people that disrupting the network would be logistically difficult.

Current debate is a bit like having a goose that has started laying golden eggs, and extrapolating that forcing it to have sex and lay eggs 24/7 will maximize my wealth.  But of course, once I put that policy in place, the end result is that, much to my dismay, the goose drops dead rather quickly.

This is completely classic 'tragedy of the commons'.  It makes all the sense in the world for those who can obtain semi-exclusive access to the back end of the goose to run her dry.  They'll personally be better off in the end no matter how long the goose survives.

An interesting thing about most such tragedies (and there are many examples through history) is that almost every primary actor is capable of completely an honestly convincing themselves that not only are they not the problem, but that their participation is a huge positive if not necessary for the greater good.  Often enough, they can convince a lot of side actors of the same thing!

[Gabi]

I undrstand a limit only as anti-flood measure, except that, miners should decide what transactions include or not in a block and not be forced to not include some transactions due to a limit. Ok, if someone spam a million of transactions then the limit will save us from that, but, considering the normal transaction rate, the limit should allow the miners to include all the normal transaction (if on average there are for example 2000 transactions per block, we need a limit that allow us to include at least them)

This "scarcity" thing doesn't make sense, the limit artificially impose the scarcity to miners, they can't decide to include only transactions profitable for them, they would be forced to include only some and discard the others, even if the fee is ok. If millions of people start to use bitcoin, the limit should allow them all to make transactions.

Note that we will also need a blockchain pruning system, even without raising the limit, if we somehow hit the 1MB limit, the chain will grow at 55GB per year rate. So, modifying or not the limit, we need a pruning system.

[justusranvier]

the criticism here is that miners with access to huge bandwidth will mine huge blocks and disadvantage the smaller miners because these can't dl the block fast enough to restart mining. You need the newest block in order to mine. The fear is that this would result in greater centralization.

There is a very simple solution to that, and Gavin addressed it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1503099#msg1503099 Nobody wants to talk about that, though.

The people who want to keep the transaction rate limited never acknowledge the straightforward solutions to the supposed problems that would result from increasing the limit. They talk about scalability as if there are not known solutions to the problem, and certainly don't offer to help implement those improvements. If the real issue here is home users being able to be equal participants in the network, then why is no one else offering to help crowd fund the development work needed to make that happen so that we can have both high transaction rates and decentralization?

Is it just a coincidence that some of opponents to transaction rate scalability are also involved with other cryptocurrencies or alternate transaction processing networks whose business case is less certain if Bitcoin is allowed to scale?

Why to people need to frame the necessary changes in pejorative terms like "hard fork", when they could just as easily use the neutral term, "mandatory upgrade". We've already had a few mandatory upgrades that only affected miners. This one is different because it also requires full nodes to upgrade as well, but that need was already anticipated. Blocks have a version number for a reason, and all bitcoind/bitcoin-qt clients have the capability to receive notifications from the developers for urgent messages such as a mandatory upgrade. Why is the debate about whether or not we should ever have version 3 blocks at all instead of which features should go in and how to best make the transition? Why are some developers on record participating in a conversation affirming how the block limit would be raised in the future, but today insist the limit was intentionally permanent from the beginning? If the arguments in favour of leaving the limit in place are so strong, why do they need to lie about the past?

[tvbcof]

the criticism here is that miners with access to huge bandwidth will mine huge blocks and disadvantage the smaller miners because these can't dl the block fast enough to restart mining. You need the newest block in order to mine. The fear is that this would result in greater centralization.

There is a very simple solution to that, and Gavin addressed it here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1503099#msg1503099 Nobody wants to talk about that, though.

The people who want to keep the transaction rate limited never acknowledge the straightforward solutions to the supposed problems that would result from increasing the limit. They talk about scalability as if there are not known solutions to the problem, and certainly don't offer to help implement those improvements. If the real issue here is home users being able to be equal participants in the network, then why is no one else offering to help crowd fund the development work needed to make that happen so that we can have both high transaction rates and decentralization?

To facilitate scaling, I prefer to let the free market develop usability methods on a second tier.  I think that this will be less risky, more robust, and will provide much better solutions faster for end-users.

My feeling is that some of the core developers are to prone to write off coordinated state level attacks as wacko conspiracy theories.  For my part, I don't find such attacks at all improbable.

I would only feel comfortable in a solution where the messaging load is capable of being cloaked using steganographic methods.  This means that even consumer grade bandwidth needs to be knocked down by a significant factor.

Is it just a coincidence that some of opponents to transaction rate scalability are also involved with other cryptocurrencies or alternate transaction processing networks whose business case is less certain if Bitcoin is allowed to scale?

Not coincidental at all.  This is a big fork in the road which will have a major impact on the end-point of the Bitcoin solution.

Why to people need to frame the necessary changes in pejorative terms like "hard fork", when they could just as easily use the neutral term, "mandatory upgrade". We've already had a few mandatory upgrades that only affected miners. This one is different because it also requires full nodes to upgrade as well, but that need was already anticipated. Blocks have a version number for a reason, and all bitcoind/bitcoin-qt clients have the capability to receive notifications from the developers for urgent messages such as a mandatory upgrade. Why is the debate about whether or not we should ever have version 3 blocks at all instead of which features should go in and how to best make the transition? Why are some developers on record participating in a conversation affirming how the block limit would be raised in the future, but today insist the limit was intentionally permanent from the beginning? If the arguments in favour of leaving the limit in place are so strong, why do they need to lie about the past?

I don't think that propaganda or careful choice of words is the key to success on anyone's part.

Most participants and probably not being deliberately dishonest.  There are legitimate concerns on all sides, and everyone is coming at things from a somewhat different perception based on their backgrounds and so on.

Edit: syntax.  Then spell check fix associated with the term 'steganography'.

[markm]

Well I am pretty sure Walmart and Joe Sixpack are not going to go with the steganographic option.

So maybe it is a fork in the road:

1) Sell out to Big Brother / Big Business a massively visible, massively scalable to massive backbones easily big enough to drive small business out of the business Big Bitcoin, Megacoin, Bytecoin, Mouthfullcoin, GoAheadAndPigOutcoin, whatever, profit massively on owning more coins initially than "they" do. That could help us finance...

2) Bitcoin? What bitcoin? I thought that got bought up by Big Brother? What is this bitcoin of which you speak? Silk road? Never heard of them. Tor? Of course I support our troops overseas, don't you? The navy developed that, you don't have anything against our navy do you? My house? What about my house? Oh, visible means of support. I have a website, look. Oops, haxor'd! Now I understand why you mention bitcoin! Damn hackers defacing sites, they should stay on the darknet serving our sailors by hacking enemy infrastructure. Who me? Getoutahere!

(Etc.)

-MarkM-

[tvbcof]

Well I am pretty sure Walmart and Joe Sixpack are not going go with the steganographic option.

...

Sure they would.  That is easy.  You just have to give them a button to push on a slick looking GUI.

[markm]

Well I am pretty sure Walmart and Joe Sixpack are not going go with the steganographic option.

...

Sure they would.  That is easy.  You just have to give them a button to push on a slick looking GUI.

Hahahahahahaha, genius! Yo da Man!

-MarkM-

[zimmah]

Whoever runs bitcoin.org runs bitcoin. Unfortunately bitcoin is not decentralized in this regard. At any moment, whoever runs that site can put up Bitcoin 0.9.0, call it an urgent release and dispose of the block limit. Chances are most of the network would upgrade to it with no questions ask. All the naysayers would be left in the dust and with a fork that wouldn't even be worth a nickel per coin.

I'm sorry. The war is lost. Unless one of you buys out bitcoin.org or defames it to the point that it drops off the front page of Google. There is too much lobbying pressure from Mt.Gox, SatoshiDice and others for the block limit to remain.

I take no sides on this issue.

I can't believe this was posted in early 2013.

and nothing has changed.