Who wants these Bitcoin scaling wars to end?

[1Referee]

fee are still cheap and will be still cheap if bitcoin price will double. This is a fact. And dont say anyone that 0.50$-2$ fee is a high price to transfer money around the world without the needing of the banking system and in many cases completely anonymous.
Is up to miners and to bitcoin ecosystem if they want to keep bitcoin as it is or if they want to do more innovation. And i dont think so that is a good strategy for miners to be against bitcoin developers and bitcoin community.

In most cases it are the faucet farmers that are being the loudest when it comes to complaining about the fees. In order to generate a dozen K's of satoshi's, they probably spend a whole day farming their way through every possible faucet. In order to use their 'dust' they have to include a fee that is double or even tripple in amount, just to move these coins. It's actually very simple, complaining doesn't work, which directly pops up three options for people - 1) to include proper fees according to the network situation. 2) to remain stingy where you have to swallow all the hours of waiting time. 3) choose another coin for sending and receiving transactions. Just QUIT complaining!!

[ssb883]

And one of these days, an alt might surpass bitcoin's dominance.
[/quote]

Same thought here.
It's just a matter of time to happen.
Yes others are just copies but there are other alts that have improvements.
Before the time that there's no bitcoin, what is bitcoin? Altmoney?

A better and new, can surpass the old.

[chek2fire]

https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/858776536035536896

the most can happen is this new system to be replaced by something better than bitcoin. And the reason is simple. Bitcoin works great as it is now and it has a real use in real economy. For that reason has and full block. But imo as and the tweet says from Charlie Shrem the biggest strength of bitcoin is this decentralisation. Everyone must know that if a system is more decentralised then is more difficult to happen changes.
If anyone not like this then there always the banking system or paypal or ethereum to use. In all of them there is a leader and a central organisation that control them.

[lizardbtc]

https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/858776536035536896

the most can happen is this new system to be replaced by something better than bitcoin. And the reason is simple. Bitcoin works great as it is now and it has a real use in real economy. For that reason has and full block. But imo as and the tweet says from Charlie Shrem the biggest strength of bitcoin is this decentralisation. Everyone must know that if a system is more decentralised then is more difficult to happen changes.
If anyone not like this then there always the banking system or paypal or ethereum to use. In all of them there is a leader and a central organisation that control them.

The problem is that some people are only here to try to earn something, so decentralization doesn't mean anything for them until they can earn, pump the coin... I agree with you, if it was so easy to put BU or SegWit it will just show that we are centralized in a way.

Of course conflicts in different views are great cuz if they go in the right direction they can lead to even better solution. The problem here is that neither of BU and SegWit supporters are ready to talk clear about the problem and to see that they have same goal - to make bitcoin transactions faster. But they rather continue to insult each other like they are some children and both want to show that their solution is better and smarter, they don't show us that they are adults... that is the most reason why this situation is just irritating me.

As it goes bitcoin network can live without both for sometime, but eventually something has to be done, hopefully it will at end.

[frodocooper]

if you only see in front you then yeah bitcoin is super expensive but the same answer i gave to you (and people saying bitcoin is not cheap) last year i will give you again: all these prices are super cheap when you compare it with a price in a couple of years.

you guys call bitcoin expensive when it is $200 then it goes to $600 then you still call it expensive then it passes $1000 then the same story.and you will continue saying the same thing in 6 months when price is $1800

Cheap (adjective):
depreciated in value (as by currency inflation)

Current bitcoin price in USD, at time of posting: $1,403.78

Nope, still doesn't look cheap to me.

[JGoRed]

I would love to see the scaling wars end, perhaps it would reduce the miner’s fee and give Bitcoin a bit of a pump.

Of course that would require each side to agree on something or one side to win, which I don't see either happening soon .

[DooMAD]

It's such a difficult prospect now.  Obviously the fact that this hasn't been resolved yet means there isn't a simple answer to the problem.  There seemingly isn't a way to get a super-majority to agree, as positions only seem to become more entrenched and absolute as time rolls on.  A consensus mechanism working in tandem with aligned incentives seemed perfect, but evidently has its pitfalls.  The question now isn't merely "how do we break this impasse?", but "how do we break every future impasse?", because I sadly doubt this is a singular event.  Almost everyone says they don't want a split, but at the same time, don't want to compromise on their vision of how to go forward.  It's almost amusing that neither of the two leading proposals are technically incompatible with each other, but the idea of doing both is clearly unpalatable to almost everyone.  Those who want to implement SegWit generally don't want to increase the blocksize until later; those who want to increase the blocksize generally don't want to implement SegWit.

I'm still here hoping for SegWit plus a dynamic or adaptive blocksize, but that just seems to present yet more opportunities for everyone to disagree about everything.  I still think it's the right way to go, though.  At this stage I'd settle for tiny adjustments if that's what it takes for people to take the proposal seriously.  Since people are now more focused on the behaviour of miners than ever before, they have been removed from the equation and it is now purely an algorithmic proposal, which can both increase and decrease the blocksize:

Code:

If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 2016 of the last difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
    AND (TotalTxFeeInLastDifficulty > TotalTxFeeInLastButOneDifficulty) 
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize +0.01MB 

Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 2016 of the last difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize 
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize -0.01MB

Else
    Network votes for keeping the same MaxBlockSize

(credit to Upal Chakraborty for their original concept)

So in plain English, a tiny, 0.01MB, adjustment to the blocksize can occur each difficulty period, but only if:

• SegWit is implemented
• Either there are sufficiently full blocks to justify an increase to the blocksize, or sufficiently empty to reduce it
• There are more fees generated in the last difficulty period than the previous one to permit an increase, but the blocksize can be reduced regardless of fees, which will deter gaming the system

No gigabyte blocks by midnight bloat and no sudden, sharp drop in fee pressure.  A gradual and sophisticated alleviation to the strain, not a rash and crude hack.  

This proposal is now so moderate that even if there was enough pressure to increase at every single difficulty adjustment (which is beyond unlikely), the maximum blocksize would still only be ~1.25MB after a whole year.

[DooMAD]

Did I kill the thread?  Apologies if a bit of pseudocode is too boring because there aren't enough accusations, witch hunts and personal attacks involved.  Seems that's the only way threads get any attention these days.  Would it help if I called someone a shill?  That always seems to go down well.

[The_Dark_Knight]

For months now, we have seen a verbal battle raging between Bitcoin Core and BU teams and supporters. We have seen personal attacks on people that were at one stage, crucial to the growth of Bitcoin. Some of these people made some big sacrifices to strengthen this experiment. < both in time & money >

~ How can we come together and find some common goal to resolve these issues?
~ Can we leave our personal vendettas behind and move forward?
~ Can we forget about greed and personal interest and put this experiment first again?
~ What would be the white flag moment for both parties to this fight?

Yes, Bitcoin was developed in such a way to make room for these kinds of battles, but things are getting out of hand and personal attacks are quite common these days. We are not civil anymore and most debates are getting very personal and heated.

A lot of power and money are at stake, but let's be civil about this and see if we can appreciate each others opinion without having to resort to "dirty" tactics to destroy the other person or team.

Be the first person to shake the other persons hand and you will see what will happen. ^smile^

Edit : Please DO NOT turn this into another scaling debate, but rather focus on ways to come together to solve these ugly battles.

We all want the wars to stop, but there is so much at stake that is impossible for the wars to stop, both sides have different visions about what bitcoin should be and the only way I see them compromise is if they have too, and with bitcoin getting more adoption and the price so high, that is not going to happen.

[frodocooper]

...

I agree. I support this proposal.

It makes full sense to fix the bugs in the current system, e.g., transaction malleability, and optimize block space usage — which SegWit does — before making changes to block size limits. To do it in reverse, i.e., increasing the block size before fixing bugs and optimizing block space usage, would essentially mean:

• bugs in the current system would amplified in presence and in impact, and
• the ratio of wasted block space to useful block space would be preserved, therefore increasing the amount of resources wasted in propagating and storing these larger, but more wasteful, blocks. In contrast, optimizing block space usage before increasing block size would reduce wasted block space in proportion to useful block space, therefore reducing the amount of resources wasted in propagating and storing these blocks, since there would be less wasteful space to store and propagate.

Furthermore, adapting the block size according to a pre-defined interval's supply and demand is, in my opinion, a much safer method than what is proposed by Emergent Consensus. Emergent Consensus has the potential to unleash chaos on the Bitcoin network in that different pockets of the network may end up mining different blockchains because these different pockets came to different consensus regarding the appropriate block size to use, all before the Bitcoin network as a whole managed to wrangle itself into a universally-accepted block size. Frequent hard forks and chain reorganizations may become the new norm in such a scenario, undermining the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain.

[DooMAD]

Furthermore, adapting the block size according to a pre-defined interval's supply and demand is, in my opinion, a much safer method than what is proposed by Emergent Consensus. Emergent Consensus has the potential to unleash chaos on the Bitcoin network in that different pockets of the network may end up mining different blockchains because these different pockets came to different consensus regarding the appropriate block size to use, all before the Bitcoin network as a whole managed to wrangle itself into a universally-accepted block size. Frequent hard forks and chain reorganizations may become the new norm in such a scenario, undermining the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Indeed.  Emergent consensus is one of those things that sounds marvellous in theory, but the practicalities of making it work in the wild just result in some sort of chaotic free-for-all.  But at the same time, a static limit feels like an opposite extreme in that there's no flexibility at all.  My hope is that if the blocksize has to move, more people can get behind something that's almost as predictable as Bitcoin's algorithmic circulation and supply.  It's the fairest compromise I can possibly think of.

It may need tweaking to include adjustments to the witness space too.  SegWit upon activation with have a 1/4 base - 3/4 witness ratio, so if the 1mb base is being adjusted by +/- .01, then perhaps the witness space should also be adjusted by +/- .03 so that the ratio remains balanced.  Any feedback on that aspect is appreciated.

[QuartzBlockchain]

Bitcoin scaling drama is not a real problem yet for the network but I strongly think altcoins could help trying new solutions and compare which one is the best related to Bitcoin itself.
Maybe after test of time, some tech will arise from others and BTC can adopt those said techs to upgrade its "limits".

[paul gatt]

Bitcoin scaling drama is not a real problem yet for the network but I strongly think altcoins could help trying new solutions and compare which one is the best related to Bitcoin itself.
Maybe after test of time, some tech will arise from others and BTC can adopt those said techs to upgrade its "limits".

Altcoins can not do that. All altcoins are created for personal use, some people create it for profit, others want to create new products that replace old ones. Personal destination. So, altcoins can not help bitcoin. The bitcoin war constantly happens because of bitcoin freedom, and they want to master it, but they never reach their ambition.

[naughty1]

Bitcoin scaling drama is not a real problem yet for the network but I strongly think altcoins could help trying new solutions and compare which one is the best related to Bitcoin itself.
Maybe after test of time, some tech will arise from others and BTC can adopt those said techs to upgrade its "limits".

Altcoins can not do that. All altcoins are created for personal use, some people create it for profit, others want to create new products that replace old ones. Personal destination. So, altcoins can not help bitcoin. The bitcoin war constantly happens because of bitcoin freedom, and they want to master it, but they never reach their ambition.

Maybe you're right, the bitcoin fight happened because of the greed of some people. But the altcoin can support bitcoin, or at least, we can take advantage of the altcoins to earn more bitcoin. Actually, people do not really love altcoin, they look to altcoins to make a profit with bitcoin, which is a trader's job.

[JGoRed]

In most cases it are the faucet farmers that are being the loudest when it comes to complaining about the fees. In order to generate a dozen K's of satoshi's, they probably spend a whole day farming their way through every possible faucet. In order to use their 'dust' they have to include a fee that is double or even tripple in amount, just to move these coins. It's actually very simple, complaining doesn't work, which directly pops up three options for people - 1) to include proper fees according to the network situation. 2) to remain stingy where you have to swallow all the hours of waiting time. 3) choose another coin for sending and receiving transactions. Just QUIT complaining!!

I really don't see a point in farming faucets (at least not anymore in today's market). You probably make the same amount in a week from faucets as you do doing unskilled labor for an hour.  If the faucet users really insist on still using faucets, try a LTC faucet or something.

[BitcoinPanther]

Bitcoin scaling drama is not a real problem yet for the network but I strongly think altcoins could help trying new solutions and compare which one is the best related to Bitcoin itself.
Maybe after test of time, some tech will arise from others and BTC can adopt those said techs to upgrade its "limits".

Altcoins can not do that. All altcoins are created for personal use, some people create it for profit, others want to create new products that replace old ones. Personal destination. So, altcoins can not help bitcoin. The bitcoin war constantly happens because of bitcoin freedom, and they want to master it, but they never reach their ambition.

I think technology wise, altcoin can be used as testing ground.  And segwit movement to LTC is quite a good idea to test segwit capability.  They may say that LTC block may not be full and does not need segwit but they can try a spam attack on LTC network and see how segwit  can solve it.

[feroun]

I think it would be great if we could wait for Litecoin and if everything is working fine. If everything is working, there is no reason for not implementing Segwit in my opinion - except politics of course.

[d5000]

I'm still here hoping for SegWit plus a dynamic or adaptive blocksize, but that just seems to present yet more opportunities for everyone to disagree about everything.  I still think it's the right way to go, though.  

As you know I support your proposal. You maybe should start a separate thread about it - perhaps with a poll - as until now we're discussing it in different threads and so we can't canalize the support. As a goal, there should be the elaboration of a concrete BIP proposal.

Maybe you could add the idea from the "2MB+Segwit" thread to include a hard-coded security block size limit (e.g. 2 MB for the first years and then moving up gradually, it would be best to find a formula to avoid future hard forks).

[DooMAD]

I'm still here hoping for SegWit plus a dynamic or adaptive blocksize, but that just seems to present yet more opportunities for everyone to disagree about everything.  I still think it's the right way to go, though.  

As you know I support your proposal. You maybe should start a separate thread about it - perhaps with a poll - as until now we're discussing it in different threads and so we can't canalize the support. As a goal, there should be the elaboration of a concrete BIP proposal.

Maybe you could add the idea from the "2MB+Segwit" thread to include a hard-coded security block size limit (e.g. 2 MB for the first years and then moving up gradually, it would be best to find a formula to avoid future hard forks).

Technically it wouldn't be a great deal different to the existing BIP 106.  All I've done is tweak that fundamental concept.  

As for the hardcoded limit, with the formula as it stands in the most recent post, it's pretty much guaranteed not to break 2 MB in the first 4 years.  Mathematically, assuming an average block time of ~10 minutes, there are a maximum of 104 difficulty adjustments over a 4 year period, so even if there was a .01 MB increase at every difficulty re-target (the chances of which are infinitesimally small, IMO), the blocksize would still only be ~2.04 MB after 4 years.

If anything, I'm expecting people to tell me it's too conservative now, heh.  A new thread does sound necessary, though.  That way people can argue whether it should be more flexible or not, plus tell me if the proposal needs to include adjustments to the witness size as well as the base to maintain a consistent ratio.

//EDIT:  New Thread Here.

[JGoRed]

I think it would be great if we could wait for Litecoin and if everything is working fine. If everything is working, there is no reason for not implementing Segwit in my opinion - except politics of course.

Digital politics is the only reason the SegWit is not activated already, right? I don’t think anything else is  stopping it.