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

[coolcoinz]

I don't agree, a fork will most likely crash the markets, but if there's no other way... better now than later.

[1715088743]

1715088743

[1715088743]

1715088743

[1715088743]

1715088743

[Kprawn]

To be honest, I am glad that we doing something to bump block sizes. If a hard fork is necessary.. then so be it. I am sick of people bitching

about SegWit and LN and bloated transactions ..... Let's just get this over with, and get some momentum. We need decisive decisions to

improve the technology... not technology that would benefit a selected few. 

[densuj]

I don't agree, a fork will most likely crash the markets, but if there's no other way... better now than later.

Still there are no solution about block size problem until right now and the activation of segwit still got problem from miners because they have made investment into hardware miners with large amount money, the developer must be looking for other ways.

[pinkflower]

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.

What? Are you mental? Do you know what an increase in block size really means? What does it have to do with the supply of BTC? Nothing.

[Maskedman]

I say that we need to wait for SegWit to be activated or not before taking any decision. I just say like that but any kind of hard fork is a bad thing.

[DooMAD]

It's only logical to cover all bases.  People shouldn't see it as a binary decision.  It doesn't have to be either/or between SegWit and 2mb.  If Bitcoin is to truly scale, we'll need the current proposed optimisations, a larger (preferably flexible and adaptive) blocksize, along with other future optimisations and more besides.  If people think that once a decision is arrived at with the current proposals, we can draw a line under it and never think about it again, I'm pretty sure you're going to be disappointed.

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.

"Solution" implies it will solve the problem for good, but again, this won't be the case.  Think of it more as the first of many steps.  The question of how to viably scale could carry on for decades after we've made this decision.

At least, i hope they won't think about using LN at all.

LN has its place.  It has some practical uses and applications, but it should not be mistaken for a magic bullet and certainly shouldn't be seen as a complete replacement for direct interaction with the blockchain.  It has limitations that not everyone seems to be aware of.  Payment channels are only practical for certain varieties of transactions.  At the end of the day, it should just be considered another tool in the arsenal.  It will help, but it's not a final answer by any means.

[digaran]

I'm no expert in the mining section but if doing this can help the network and not just benefiting the big miners, I'd say that they should go ahead with it but first it could be somehow better to have a poll here in this forum and only full members and above ranks could be considered if they ever voted.
And also every member of forum should receive a PM to be informed about such voting taking place, let's be honest every bitcoin person at least has an account here in the main and dedicated forum.

[DooMAD]

but first it could be somehow better to have a poll here in this forum and only full members and above ranks could be considered if they ever voted.
And also every member of forum should receive a PM to be informed about such voting taking place, let's be honest every bitcoin person at least has an account here in the main and dedicated forum.

There's no single definitive "vote" to determine the outcome.  We're in a constant, fluid market.  Those securing the network choose the code they wish to run.  The code that dominates the market determines the rules.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it's actually far better than that.  If you want to have influence in the outcome, run a full node or start mining.  Nothing that is said or done on these forums is binding, so any poll here is purely speculation and opinion.  There is only code and consensus.

[Kprawn]

but first it could be somehow better to have a poll here in this forum and only full members and above ranks could be considered if they ever voted.
And also every member of forum should receive a PM to be informed about such voting taking place, let's be honest every bitcoin person at least has an account here in the main and dedicated forum.

There's no single definitive "vote" to determine the outcome.  We're in a constant, fluid market.  Those securing the network choose the code they wish to run.  The code that dominates the market determines the rules.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it's actually far better than that.  If you want to have influence in the outcome, run a full node or start mining.  Nothing that is said or done on these forums is binding, so any poll here is purely speculation and opinion.  There is only code and consensus.

So the way I understand this is that this is a stop gap between SegWit and the LN that would come later. This will address scaling problems in

the short term, but SegWit and LN will be the ultimate solution.. right? Was this a forced decision, because SegWit did not get the desired

results, because I do not see this as part of the original design. 

[DooMAD]

but first it could be somehow better to have a poll here in this forum and only full members and above ranks could be considered if they ever voted.
And also every member of forum should receive a PM to be informed about such voting taking place, let's be honest every bitcoin person at least has an account here in the main and dedicated forum.

There's no single definitive "vote" to determine the outcome.  We're in a constant, fluid market.  Those securing the network choose the code they wish to run.  The code that dominates the market determines the rules.  Bitcoin isn't a democracy, it's actually far better than that.  If you want to have influence in the outcome, run a full node or start mining.  Nothing that is said or done on these forums is binding, so any poll here is purely speculation and opinion.  There is only code and consensus.

So the way I understand this is that this is a stop gap between SegWit and the LN that would come later. This will address scaling problems in

the short term, but SegWit and LN will be the ultimate solution.. right? Was this a forced decision, because SegWit did not get the desired

results, because I do not see this as part of the original design.  

Either I'm not correctly understanding your post, or I didn't do a good enough job of explaining it.

No, SegWit and LN will not be the ultimate solution.  They will contribute towards scaling, but will not solve it completely.  SegWit is an optimisation and LN is a way to make repeated transactions back and forth less costly in terms of space by temporarily lifting them off the main chain.  Rather than having two addresses sending payments back and forth to each other and being secured into the blockchain each and every time, instead you open a payment channel and don't secure those multiple transactions in the blockchain until you close the channel.  You can fire hundreds of transactions back and forth off-chain and simply record the final balances as a single on-chain entry once you close the channel.  Even with LN, it won't make sense to use it for every transaction you make, so we'll need other proposals and optimisations as well.

[Mastsetad]

I totally understand why this is going to be done (if true), but i'm not sure if what hard fork itself is, can someone explain it a bit for me? That what it is and how it actually works?

[rajasumi2]

Yes i think they are planning for the better good .i think they should release some more blockchains as the price of bitcoins is increasing day and day ,and the supply of bitcoins is very less .kudoos

[pedrog]

Fork it already, activate Segregated Witness, whatever, but just scale it!

It has become a huge pain in the ass everything bitcoin related, one has to check a few sites before doing a transaction or you might end up with it stuck long time.

[franky1]

Yes i think they are planning for the better good .i think they should release some more blockchains as the price of bitcoins is increasing day and day ,and the supply of bitcoins is very less .kudoos

then we will sell bits (100 satoshis) instead of btc's

EG we are no longer in ancint egypt selling gold by the tonne. we are not quite at the stage of selling gold by the gram as the norm. but trying to suggest we make more tonnes of gold or sell gold by the microgram when it has only ever been measured: gram->tonne. messes with scarcity.
its stupid to create more bitcoins or increase CODED units of measure.. that ruins the whole premise of deflationary scarcity.

EG in this village there will only be 2.1 quadrillion gold coin segments. which put together make 21million gold coins.

enough for 21million villagers to have 1 gold coin or 21m villagers to have 10,000,0000 gold segments each.

2 weeks later. ok now everyone can now have 10,000,0000,000 segments.

scarity dies