If you want bigger blocks but hate BU...

[jonald_fyookball]

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/

[jonald_fyookball]

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/

Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.

Yeah, the original reason was spam, not for any of the other reasons small blockers espouse. 

[DomainMagnate]

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/

Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.
One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin.
" So 32x bigger
blocks (32x more transactions)
would correspond to about 32
= 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC
= 1 million USDollars."

[LoyceV]

Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.

Satoshi also said it can be increased again in the future. Read satoshi's post:

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.

This is 5.5 years ago now!

[davis196]

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/

Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.
One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin.
" So 32x bigger
blocks (32x more transactions)
would correspond to about 32
= 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC
= 1 million USDollars."

More transactions means more demand for bitcoins which equals to a higher bitcoin price.
I guess that this is the logic behind this sentence.
Bitcoin Original,bitcoin unlimited,bitcoin magnificent etc.... This is the most obvious way to destroy btc.

[vm_mpn]

Ok, so why is returning back to original 32 MB block size is a non-starter with core devs? Is it a spam issue and what are the possible remedies?

[jonald_fyookball]

Ok, so why is returning back to original 32 MB block size is a non-starter with core devs? Is it a spam issue and what are the possible remedies?

When Satoshi put the 1mb spam filter, the network was not very mature -- mining was CPU or GPU , difficulty was low, and fee markets hadn't even really emerged yet.
The spam attacks today are of an entirely different nature -- wheareas before it was about trying to bog down the miners' computers, today a spam attack is about
trying to fill up the blocks to congest the network, which is actually easier with a smaller block.

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

The real reason why its a non-starter with core is obviously the involvement of Blockstream.  Their roadmap/agenda is certainly not interested in 32mb blocks.

[thejaytiesto]

How many short lived memes are you big blockers going to promote until you realize we are stuck with conservative block sizes if we want bitcoin to work?

Im not saying let's keep 1mb forever, but BUcoin doesn't work, and 32 MB out of nowhere is certainly a stupid idea.

Segwit is needed in order to properly raise the blocksize anyway.

Do any of you use their brain at all?

[jonald_fyookball]

How many short lived memes are you big blockers going to promote until you realize we are stuck with conservative block sizes if we want bitcoin to work?

Im not saying let's keep 1mb forever, but BUcoin doesn't work, and 32 MB out of nowhere is certainly a stupid idea.

Segwit is needed in order to properly raise the blocksize anyway.

Do any of you use their brain at all?

You sound like a blockstream shill. 

You have zero proof that "BU doesn't work".

Imo, segwit is a poison-pill bloatware that is not needed.

[Paashaas]

Bigger blocks are nice but it wont make Bitcoin mainstream, 1Gig+ blocks are needed unfortunately i dont wanna wait atleast 10 years before the sheeps can start using Bitcoin. In the end we need side-chains, each chain with there own specialization. The network will cripple when we have a few more waves of new users, it doesn't matter if we have 2mb ore 32mb blocks. I'm very certain Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have.

[Lauda]

I "predicted" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post). This is becoming really absurd. I wonder how long it takes to validate a "worst case" 32 MB block.

[Foxpup]

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.

This is becoming really absurd. I wonder how long it takes to validate a "worst case" 32 MB block.

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.

[Kprawn]

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/

Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.

Yeah, the original reason was spam, not for any of the other reasons small blockers espouse. 

I disagree... the other reasons was the impact that this would have had on disk space needed for the Blockchain and also the spinoff affect of

that to people that has to run a node. He knew this would lead to a situation where less people would be able to run a node and he wanted to

avoid or delay that until the network has grown big enough. I think this was a very good idea to have nodes with smaller Block sizes at the

start, when there were less transactions and people willing to experiment with this technology. 

[Sundark]

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?

[jonald_fyookball]

BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic?

many people still running those nodes, which is good.

[unamis76]

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?

[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.

[Iranus]

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/

Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.
One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin.
" So 32x bigger
blocks (32x more transactions)
would correspond to about 32
= 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC
= 1 million USDollars."

The reason that an increased amount of transactions results in a stronger Bitcoin is because people see Bitcoin as being more convenient or more legitimate to use which results in more people using Bitcoin - more people using Bitcoin results in more merchant adoption of it and wider acceptance which in turn again results in more users and a higher price.

[unamis76]

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...

[0xfff]

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