[2016-07-27] news.bitcoin.com-Bitcoin ‘Whales’ Vote in Favor of Larger Tx Blocks

[Jambolb2]

Bitcoin ‘Whales’ Vote in Favor of Larger Tx Blocks

Of particular interest were two addresses containing significant amounts of bitcoin voting with the majority. On Bitcoinocracy, results are tallied according to the total amount of bitcoin backing or opposing a statement – so larger holdings matter a lot.

The “whale” addresses were this one containing over 41,748 BTC and this one with 44,998.

The questions addressed many key concerns regarding what might happen in the event of a Bitcoin fork, with some politically-charged wordings. Questions voted on by the large-holding addresses were:

READ MORE : https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-whales-vote-larger-tx-blocks/

[1714055168]

1714055168

[1714055168]

1714055168

[1714055168]

1714055168

[snipie]

The “whale” addresses were this one containing over 41,748 BTC and this one with 44,998.

not enough, changing this drama need imo the bless of all/major parties else we gonna see an ETH random fork again with all its crap (will nevah happens with btc imo)

[botany]

Bitcoin ‘Whales’ Vote in Favor of Larger Tx Blocks

Of particular interest were two addresses containing significant amounts of bitcoin voting with the majority. On Bitcoinocracy, results are tallied according to the total amount of bitcoin backing or opposing a statement – so larger holdings matter a lot.

The “whale” addresses were this one containing over 41,748 BTC and this one with 44,998.

The questions addressed many key concerns regarding what might happen in the event of a Bitcoin fork, with some politically-charged wordings. Questions voted on by the large-holding addresses were:

READ MORE : https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-whales-vote-larger-tx-blocks/

I think everybody agrees on the need to have larger transaction blocks, but disagree on the way forward to achieve them.
Interesting way for bitcoin holders to express opinions without revealing themselves.

[Carlton Banks]

I think everybody agrees on the need to have larger transaction blocks, but disagree on the way forward to achieve them.

Wrong.

Everyone agrees on the need for more transactions. Period.

They disagree on the way to achieve them. Period.

There is more than one way to get higher transaction rates. Blocksize increases are the worst way. Period.


Even 1MB blocks has been bad for node decentralisation: there were over 8000 nodes back in 2012, whereas we have 5500 today. With Bitcoin much more popular today than in 2012, I'm gonna find the case for blocksize increases unconvincing, at a minimum until the trend changes from a falling node count to a rising node count. There's no point in expecting Bitcoin to walk on water if we weaken the structure that made it possible in the first place.

[TraderTimm]

I fail to see how two random idiots with 40k BTC can do anything on their own.

Any real change is up to the miners, and fortunately the bulk of them are Chinese, who aren't susceptible to the drama back-and-forth we've seen in the North American forums. Network effects being what they are, it would take a concerted effort by many to effect a change of any magnitude. Two "whales" aren't going to do jack shit.

This is also, by the way, why Proof-Of-Stake is a piece of steaming dogshit - these two "whales" would be calling the shots in this situation, which is dangerous unto itself. Proof-Of-Work removes this entirely.

[notthematrix]

looks like government attack , when segwith is in they are powerless , they failed with ether now they want to attack bitcoin , well let the sell the coins they can only do it once , so we have dirt cheap coins!

[notthematrix]

here is te problem with those old centralized thinking wales https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlYgNH2t43U&feature=youtu.be&a
in btc this is exactly what is not needed.

[a7mos]

so people started again this unsolved debate ? I thought that there was an agreement that the block size will increase next year and this debate ends !
I hope bitcoiners will get an example from ETH and what happen after that fork.

[notthematrix]

so people started again this unsolved debate ? I thought that there was an agreement that the block size will increase next year and this debate ends !
I hope bitcoiners will get an example from ETH and what happen after that fork.

well eth classic wil slowly disolve.

[Kaneki]

concerns that a similar disputed fork in the Bitcoin blockchain could result in two rival versions of Bitcoin – which would likely drive prices down.

[notthematrix]

concerns that a similar disputed fork in the Bitcoin blockchain could result in two rival versions of Bitcoin – which would likely drive prices down.

very unlikely , segwit will come in soon and "block problem" is solved.
around august core 13.0 well be released , that's why they try this last chance to create drama.
after this it will be not possible because problems are solved.
they only want the price to drop so the wales can buy more , the sheeple that fall for this are called servants and slaves by these kind of people , for them is just a game so don't go wasting you emotions.

[Carlton Banks]

very unlikely , segwit will come in soon and "block problem" is solved.
around august core 13.0 well be released

13.0 won't be Segwit, supposedly anyway. Last I heard, Segwit will be in 13.1 and 12.2. Looking forward to that snappy r/btc shill campaign: "Boycott version 12.2 and 13.1!!!" "Uh, is 13.0 still ok?" ".........um, did you know Classic is now up to version 1?"

[Kprawn]

So in affect we are saying the richest people in the Bitcoin space, must make the calls for the 1000's of others who has a smaller % of coins? What would stop big banks from buying some major stash

of coins, if the decision making would be done, based on ownership... and then having them making all the decisions once again, like they are doing with fiat currencies? Until we know who are behind

these coins and what their agenda is, I would not vote for this. 

[Carlton Banks]

What would stop big banks from buying some major stash

of coins, if the decision making would be done, based on ownership... and then having them making all the decisions once again, like they are doing with fiat currencies? Until we know who are behind

these coins and what their agenda is, I would not vote for this. 

Meh, BigBlocksNow^TM was always a Trojan horse euphemism for "get rid of the cypherpunk dev team". It's never going to happen; only smarter people are interested in the scaling debate anyway, so it's not going to be easy to get that contingent to choose something foolish. Hence the status quo.

[Grinder]

Even 1MB blocks has been bad for node decentralisation: there were over 8000 nodes back in 2012, whereas we have 5500 today.

This is a good point. Those who want larger block sizes but aren't running the full client are a bit hypocritical. I'm running core now but I probably wouldn't with 2 MB blocks and certainly not with 4 MB. It doesn't help that the database pretty much has to be stored on an SSD drive to get decent performance.

[Carlton Banks]

I'm running core now but I probably wouldn't with 2 MB blocks and certainly not with 4 MB. It doesn't help that the database pretty much has to be stored on an SSD drive to get decent performance.

Similar situation for me: before Armory wallet brought out their slimmer Db, I was using a separate SSD drive each for the Bitcoin blockchain and the Armory wallet Db. But we're starting to see a little competition amongst the multi-layer SSD die manufacturers, so prices should fall to a point where even entry level pre-built computers have SSD as a cheap option or a mid-range price point. Takehome: 2-4TB drives as standard makes 4MB blocks seem palatable.

But until fibre/LTE becomes similarly ubiquitous, we can't expect full nodes to recover their numbers (you may note that I consider mobile devices a possible area for growth). Once all facets of the infrastructure can support it, all the smart software optimisations being implemented in Bitcoin now could make the scaling paradigm incredibly robust. That's the only real flaw in the BigBlocks plan to be fair; they insist on increasing the size before the software optimisations to bear the load have been properly devised and tested (or the realisation of the benefits of design improvements using the bandwidth we have right now).