Developer of bitcoins core have planing hard fork, do you agree?

[densuj]

Because of block size problem developer of bitcoins have planing for do hard fork, it is like there are no solution about this problem, is hard fork becoming best solution? or it will become like ethereum.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/04/bitcoin-core-developers-work-new-2-mb-hardfork-proposal/

[1715391954]

1715391954

[pinkflower]

Its about time! Its good that they are open to the increase in block size. It means that they are really looking for a real solution to scale BTC. I am happy with the news and I hope this will close the scaling debate and on for the community to debate on other issues that will bring BTC to new heights.

[ethereumhunter]

if they want to do this, then in my opinion, the price of bitcoins will be fall to deep, because there is too many supply from demand and its not good for bitcoin itself and maybe this will change many people prediction that bitcoin will reach high price in future and could be the other solution for the economic global.

[shield132]

Are they really going for hard fork or this information is wrong? Because as I remember, theymos said that they aren't going for any hardfork in future, at least he had big hopes on that to won't happen. And if there will be hard fork, than I think they maybe will increase it's limited number and if that will happen, this will cause it's fall and people's trust will become from high to lower.

[Labumi]

if they want to do this, then in my opinion, the price of bitcoins will be fall to deep, because there is too many supply from demand and its not good for bitcoin itself and maybe this will change many people prediction that bitcoin will reach high price in future and could be the other solution for the economic global.

All possibilities will indeed happen, but it will all happen if what will happen in the future. So if the price indeed bitcoin down because it is sure there will be a price drop over the reason the bitcoin. Such as a lack of interest in bitcoin and also because too many stock while very little demand and vice versa. All that we think can indeed occur, but which can only specify it all is the period or time. Just wait and do my best for this now and see the future for the better

[Dahhi]

I won't really call it a hard fork, it is more of a soft fork to help miners do their job faster. And it won't have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.

[kiklo]

I won't really call it a hard fork, it is more of a soft fork to help miners do their job faster. And it won't have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.

Dude,  

The new Recommendations is a HARD FORK!!


A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.
Any alteration to bitcoin which changes the block structure (including block hash), difficulty rules, or increases the set of valid transactions is a hardfork.

Why do you guys spread so much Bullshit, the article States HARD FORK.

 

[LoyceV]

I won't really call it a hard fork, it is more of a soft fork to help miners do their job faster. And it won't have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.

^^ Agreed.
It could also be very good for Bitcoin: at the moment it can't grow further, as it can't handle more users doing more transactions.
More users means a higher value, which benefits miners again.

[kiklo]

I won't really call it a hard fork, it is more of a soft fork to help miners do their job faster. And it won't have a negative impact on the price of bitcoin.

^^ Agreed.
It could also be very good for Bitcoin: at the moment it can't grow further, as it can't handle more users doing more transactions.
More users means a higher value, which benefits miners again.

Are you guys just stupid or what,


HARD FORK!!!

 

[kiklo]

By the Way , Guess who called it First.

To Increase BTC Transaction Capacity all they had to do was the following.
Increase BlockSize or Decrease Blockspeed , either or both would work

BTC Transactions Congestion Problems  

Simulation Example
each block has 1 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 4200 transactions per block with a 10 minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes
6 Blocks * 4200 Transactions =  25200 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

BTC Transactions Congestion Solutions  

Simulation Example Updated with Larger BlockSize and Shorter BlockSpeed
each block has 2 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 8400 transactions per block with a 2½ minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes

24 Blocks * 8400 Transactions = 201600 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

Compare Updated Simulation with Original
201600 / 25200  = 8
Updated Version can handle 8X the Transaction Capacity.  

Now the educated asshats that live in these forums will tell you it can't work or it is a security risk, (They are Lying!)
Real World Examples.
PoW coin LTC has a 2½ minute block time with no problems whatsoever from it.
In Fact Chinese Mining Pools are over 51% of the BTC Hash rate , and are also over 51% of the LTC Hashrate.
In Fact some alts run at a 30 second blockspeed.
Oh, they also will complain, it will affect the Block Reward and Halving Dates,
(All of that are Variables that can be modified to compensate for the changes)

If they lower the Blockspeed,
then they will have to increase the Final Supply Number of Bitcoins or allow it to get to the Final Supply Number 4X faster than it would have.

If they only increase the BlockSize ,
then the Block rewards and halving dates are not affected, and will not need modification.
But Transactions grow will be directly proportional to the increase in BlockSize.
IE: 2 MB Block only Double the Transaction Capacity
     8 MB Blocks would increase by 8X also  

 

FYI:
Also Included in my list of Predictions ,
is a Major BTC Dump in Late Jan. 2017 .   

[aso118]

They are not planning a hard fork. There is a proposal to increase the blocksize to 2 MB.
The current focus is on Segwit. Only if this doesn't result in a significant improvement in the congestion situation, will an alternate proposal be considered.

[shinratensei_]

Yey, 2 MB is coming.

May antpool will use SegWit?

[piloder]

Better for them is to focus on segwit right now, may be some of the core devs have agreed on having next harfork proposal but i don't think it will be accepted by community, all users need to upgrade to get hardfork activated which is very hard to achieve right now and in future too.

[kiklo]

Better for them is to focus on segwit right now, may be some of the core devs have agreed on having next harfork proposal but i don't think it will be accepted by community, all users need to upgrade to get hardfork activated which is very hard to achieve right now and in future too.

Segwit is dead in the Water, and the BTC Core Knows it.
Mining Pools are blocking it and will not change their minds.

 

[kiklo]

They are not planning a hard fork. There is a proposal to increase the blocksize to 2 MB.
The current focus is on Segwit. Only if this doesn't result in a significant improvement in the congestion situation, will an alternate proposal be considered.

Can you not understand the English Language?

They use the Word HARD FORK in the above Article.

Segwit will Never be activated, Core knows this.


 

[shinratensei_]

Better for them is to focus on segwit right now, may be some of the core devs have agreed on having next harfork proposal but i don't think it will be accepted by community, all users need to upgrade to get hardfork activated which is very hard to achieve right now and in future too.

Segwit is dead in the Water, and the BTC Core Knows it.
Mining Pools are blocking it and will not change their minds.

 

Can you give some explanation about this?
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

[kiklo]

Better for them is to focus on segwit right now, may be some of the core devs have agreed on having next harfork proposal but i don't think it will be accepted by community, all users need to upgrade to get hardfork activated which is very hard to achieve right now and in future too.

Segwit is dead in the Water, and the BTC Core Knows it.
Mining Pools are blocking it and will not change their minds.

 

Can you give some explanation about this?
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

Chinese Mining Pools had a meeting in Hong Kong and all agreed to going to a 8 Megabyte Block size with a Hard Fork.
This would give the miners 8X the current transaction capacity , which would last them for years to come.

BTC Core has been trying to trick the mining pools into activating segwit, which is why they have not released an 8MB blocksize.
Once segwit is activated, they will be able to use the Lightening network to steal transaction fees from the Miners by making people use LN instead of BTC network.

By keeping the blocksize lower , this decrease the miners ability to process transactions and give BTC Core  an advantage with LN,
which LN is the Banks taking over Bitcoin.
LN will integrate fraction reserve banking into BTC, it will be no different than Banks if this happens.


 

FYI:
That article is AntPool trying to trick BTC core into hard forking with an 8MB blocksize, (which is what the miners want).
Once the Hard fork is done, Antpool would activate Segwit on their Pool, however the other Chinese Mining Pools would not , so without 95% segwit fails ~Nov 2017.
That way they keep their word , but they know Segwit will still fail.  Chinese Mining Pools Collusion at work.
BTC Core is Dirty too, but at least the miners are not trying to turn BTC into a fractional reserve like BTC Core is with LN.
Miners will win this battle.

[Pursuer]

are there any truth to these news that we have been seeing about the Core Developers and the block size, hard fork and all those different things we here?

I mean a reliable source not a known shit-news site.

[rajasumi3]

Its better that they are starting the hard fork.its better for everyone .but i would recommend not to release too manh blocks because it might decrease the price of bitcoins and bitcoins might loose its worth which it is havkng now .its better for everyone to release some blocks .kudoos

[Carlsen]

I think that something needs to be done with the block size problem.
And this hardfork is only plan B, if Plan A (segwit) is denied by the mining community.
The article says as well that it’s not even completely developed.
It will still take a long time until we will know which plan will be finally the supported solution.