Who should be in control of Bitcoin's blocksize (poll)

[jonald_fyookball]

whaddya think?

[OmegaStarScream]

whaddya think?

If the creator of bitcoin was planning to make it up to the miners to decide then It should stay that way, giving control to developers will do nothing but make things more centralized, not to mention that I don't know how could you consider someone a "developer"? simply because he contributed to the code once?

[Yuuto]

whaddya think?

I think miners and the community...

I wish there was a way for bitcoin users to vote without having to have hashpower. Because not a lot of bitcoin users actually are able to get hashing power on their devices, but if the miners were the only ones that can vote, it would mean that we are leaving out the majority of bitcoin users.

Definitely not the developers though, because that would mean that bitcoin becomes centralised.

[franky1]

nodes=boss
pools=secretary
devs=workers
(listing in rank of importance)

imagine there was 2 pools and the node rule was 1mb
pool A with 500000000 exahash making a 1.000,250 block
and pool B with 4exahash making 0.999,750 block

pool A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher for every block they tried

NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

imagine there was 2 dev teams
team A offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 5 developers
team B offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 50000 developers
team C offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 5 developers
team D offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 50000 developers

no one downloads their proposal because they didnt advertise well, or people just wanted to stick to what they had already..


imagine there was 2 dev teams
team A offering a proposal of 1mb rule with 5users
team B offering a proposal of 2mb rule with 20user

team A would lose, all that happens is that the orphan/reject stats would be higher cause when the 5 users connect to the network of 25 users. they see there are blocks being made at a higher height. but the 5 users reject the block after download as its not under1mb.. leaving team A rejecting blocks and being left unsynced at a lower height they cant grow from


NODES have to have consensus and accept 1.000,250 block.
and even then thats just to try to keep the over 1mb going because the nodes are just in a orphan drama event.

the only way to make sure that 1.000,250 blocks are acceptable without drama without fuss and with the pools making the blocks able to spend their rewards, is to have node consensus of majority, merchant/services node acceptance and

if the minority want to grow their lower rule. the minority need to completely ignore the majority to not care about the new rules. and only get blocks/communicate with a pool that is only making old rules

[Qartada]

whaddya think?

If the creator of bitcoin was planning to make it up to the miners to decide then It should stay that way, giving control to developers will do nothing but make things more centralized, not to mention that I don't know how could you consider someone a "developer"? simply because he contributed to the code once?

Clearly the OP is trying to get everyone to vote for "miners" and then claim that miners support a larger blocksize, when this is not the case.  Bitmain supposedly supports a larger blocksize, for example, but that doesn't mean that the majority of miners actually do.  Many miners couldn't care less and are just in Antpool, for example, because they just wanted to join a big pool.

[Xester]

whaddya think?

I think the group of person that should have control of the bitcoins blocksize are the bitcoin holders and exchanges. Since we are the ones buying bitcoins and places a huge capital on bitcoins then the miners should consider us as their clients or customers. In any business customer is always right and so the bitcoin holders through the UASF should organize all these things and make it possible.

[AngryDwarf]

I voted miners, but could have easily voted code based algorithm. But that really depends on what the code based algorithm is.

[BitHodler]

Nodes should be an option as we have the freedom to vote on various subjects, right? Now it's like OP wants you to choose from his offered options while there is more to choose, but the option is being kept away.

Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.

[hv_]

AI !

 

[iamnotback]

Your dumb ass poll ignores reality. Nobody can control the block size after the coin has launched and gained significant vested interests. How many years will it take before you finally realize the fact highlighted in yellow below.

The only choice in your poll that makes sense is your 3rd option, if you mean hardcoded into the protocol on launch of the coin.

Its too late to change Bitcoin. You can never do it. Read the yellow below and weep.

Re: It doesnt matter how good of a programer you are, if you get the economics wrong

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN9M4XxPJA

Lol. So true.

@dinofelis, I cited our upthread discussion in the Litecoin community. I also explained there that as a PoW coin matures it becomes much more intractable to gain consensus for significant protocol changes. Bitcoin being the dominant reserve could finance the change to the protocol of a lesser chain, if the quorum whales of Bitcoin who have any vested interest have a consensus to do such an attack. So I guess that is a clarification of my upthread claim that only the dominant PoW could be immutable. The lesser PoW chains are less immutable but the immutability game theory is still somewhat favorable.

The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.

[paul gatt]

I think creators should be allowed to control bitcoin more than anyone, because thanks to them, bitcoin is created, bitcoin is like their child, and they have the right to raise and manage it. However, standing on the stance of society, we are all not allowed to control bitcoin, because at present it is the common property of all. It exists for the benefit of the community, it is allowed to exist independently and not dependent on anyone, the developer is only the one who gives the most benefit to the bitcoin.

[Jet Cash]

Come on guys - we all know that it's Soros and the Rothschilds who control everything to do with money.

[odolvlobo]

The problem with voting "Developers" is that miners can (and do) develop their own code.
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.

Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.

Also, it is easy to say that <insert entity here> should control some aspect of Bitcoin, but it is irrelevant unless it can be shown that <insert entity here> could control that aspect of Bitcoin. Saying that "the community" should decide is meaningless.

[iqlimasyadiqa]

when first created bitcoin certainly has had its own calculations. I think the current blocksize is the determination that was created at first bitcoin created.

[iram3130]

when first created bitcoin certainly has had its own calculations. I think the current blocksize is the determination that was created at first bitcoin created.

The technology should change according to the time. The evolution of currency was not easy to anyone. But it was necessary through the time. Similarly I feel that the current block size will not be holding off for more years so it needs to be widen. Developers or an algorithm would be a better option to do that.

[mindrust]

whaddya think?

Why did you change your avatar? We liked that dude with a fyooked look.

I voted for autocode. I think it would solve the problems we're having right now. But i am against a hardfork too. Bitcoin Corp. should solve the problem by itself. BU's creator is not capable of leading this tech.

[Amph]

The problem with voting "Developers" is that miners can (and do) develop their own code.
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.

Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.

Also, it is easy to say that <insert entity here> should control some aspect of Bitcoin, but it is irrelevant unless it can be shown that <insert entity here> could control that aspect of Bitcoin. Saying that "the community" should decide is meaningless.

if miners could develop their own code why they didn't until now and forked with greater hash their own chain? they know that merchants would not be in agreement

and miners don't have many choice when come to algorithm, they are forced to choose sha256 or all their asic will be useless

[DooMAD]

The premise is flawed, no one group should be able to drown out the others.  There should be an equilibrium between all parties involved.  Developers are wasting their time without nodes, miners and other users.  Miners are wasting their time and money if there are no users to bring utility to the coin.  Users rely on the security provided by the miners.  There's no coin at all without developers.  All parties are important and need to move forward together.  Although I'd still like to see an algorithmic element involved, provided everyone can agree on what form it should take.

[BillyBobZorton]

Nodes have spoken:



Market also has spoken as it goes higher when segwit gets higher.

Core devs got the best talent in the field.

Activate segwit or you are wasting people's time (and money).

[topesis]

This is a difficult question, I think ideally the developers should be in position to decide on the blocksize but  it is possible for them to be pushing for another selfish agenda. I think what is dragging this blocksize debate is that the miners don't understand how this is going to benefit them going forward knowing fully well the LN is going to cut their transaction fee