If you want bigger blocks but hate BU...

[nemgun]

It is good to get back to origins when you are uncertain about what to do, but i think it is a bad idea to apply them. Satoshi's statements are old, and the actual technologies was just theories when he was still comming in the forum back in 2013, only fools could decide to follow what he said, because it is a different time, with different actors and situations.
Better thinking to a reliable solution then applying old sollutions, or old predictions.

[jonald_fyookball]

I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.

I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam?

Not sure what you are asking.

We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with...

Great question and I do not know the answer.  But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack.

[unamis76]

Great question and I do not know the answer.  But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack.

Unfortunately no proposal seems to solve this, neither temporarily nor permanently. But yes, I can also agree that scaling at least won't make it worse.

I've since took the time to read more carefully the link on the OP. The ideas are good, but the end goal is slightly bit unrealistic. Just because Metcalfe's Law has been more or less followed this far it doesn't mean the patter will repeat itself. Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all...

[FiendCoin]

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

I'm glad to see you're looking for other solutions than just shilling for BTU.

We have Bitcoin Unlimited. What will be next? Bitcoin United, Bitcoin Original or maybe Bitcoin Origin.

Why we can't learn how the biggest and the most successful altcoins are managing their forks/updates and implement similar solution?

BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic?

How about Bitcoin Prime 

I fear its really not going to matter what solution to scaling we end up with because we are facing a far more dangerous problem called CENTRALIZATION.

[Lauda]

I "predcited" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post).

Here it is.

A simple Google search away; thanks!

Let them find out the hard way. It's the only way they'll learn. I don't know why you're still trying to educate them.

I don't want the newbies to fall for the false teachings of Jehovah's witnesses.

YES YES YES YES. I don't like segwit. I don't like bitcoin unlimited. This is the answer.

This is almost worse than 'emergent consensus'. You don't really have a valid reason to dislike Segwit that much TBH.

Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all...

It is a bad idea; as simple as that.

[Xester]

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee. Well it is not clear yet but after reading I was shocked that satoshi programmed bitcoin to have huge blocks. But anyway if segwit will be used as code in the mining then I do hope that the mining fee will decrease and the transaction speed will increase.

[AngryDwarf]

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee.

They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit).

[Carlton Banks]

What's the need for this when BU is oh-so popular with real users, and not just with the shill accounts or sybil nodes? 



Desperate, jonald. You're SLIPPING homie

[gredisgold88]

stop all mining bitcoin and flock moved to the mining altcoin, ASIC will die slowly, and if this happens then bitcoin will die slowly. turning to traders for the moment, the right time to move to altcoin and waiting for the continuation bitcoin unlimited. bitcoin original hopefully will not disappear and still has a high price, if the price of bitcoin fell to $ 10 for bitcoin unlimited, is a fear of its own.

[jonald_fyookball]

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee.

They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit).

Right -- with BU , miners can either go for larger OR smaller blocks, whatever is more profitable and that is fine.

It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter.

[Carlton Banks]

It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter.

Sorry to burst your liar-tarian non-aggression principle bubble Peter, sorry, I mean Jonald, but the entire point of Bitcoin's consensus rules is to force certain values and parameters on the network


SLIPPING