The blocksize war

[Wind_FURY]

Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".

I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.

I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?

Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.
 

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

[1714652204]

1714652204

[1714652204]

1714652204

[FinneysTrueVision]

Their forum is dead too

Code:

https://forum.bitcoin.com/

Bitcoin.com has gone full scam and is now promoting Ethereum and a Bcash sidechain called Smart BCH in order to keep scamming people by selling them worthless tokens on their Uniswap clone called Verse DEX. They created their own token, where insiders like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu, were given early access through a private sale. Bcash's leaders will quickly abandon their principles at the first opportunity they see to make a quick buck. These people never cared about scaling, they just wanted to grab power for themselves so they would be able to build their scams on Bitcoin.

[apogio]

Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".

I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.

I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?

Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.
 

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

Thank you.

It is interesting that almost everyone remembers the "block size war" as the end of it in 2017 and with the shitcoin called bcash. In truth this "conflict" about scaling bitcoin lasted at least 5 years and it definitely wasn't just bcash versus bitcoin with only 2 sides. There were many sides or better said many different proposals for different approaches which we may categorize in a simple way into 2 or 3 categories.

1. The group saying bitcoin should scale using the second layer and should not have a hard fork.
2. The group saying bitcoin should only scale on-chain (layer one and only layer one) by hard forking to a bigger block size
3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.

Of course this is an oversimplification since for example the second group consists of many different approaches like one saying we should have a one time fork to a massive block size while another saying we should let the miners choose to change the size at any time they wanted, etc.

Yeap, that's what I thought.

[franky1]

3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.

Slightly off-topic, but this group (as in anyone who support both off-chain and on-chain upgrade) is alive and well although most of them aren't in hurry for block size increase. And i wouldn't even categorize SegWit2x in this group when it was more about politic rather than technical issue.

if you actually read the block data of which flag bits in blockheaders reached which thresholds to trigger which events, you will see it was actually the NYA agreement that triggered segwit activation.. they just back tracked on the later promise of the 2x base limit.. becasue their actual agenda was just to get segwit activated using the blackmail of rejecting blocks that didnt display their flag bit in blockheader

if still unsure who to believe.. check the immutable blockchain data.. and which bits were associated with which proposal method of activation



the blue line(NYA) https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
 needed 80% which then triggered the red line(segwit) to then reject non compliant blocks and achieve the unnatural 100% because all outliers were rejected leaving only compliant blocks being seen

note how segwit didnt even get 50%(upto july) demand until the blackmail of the mandated activation was a thing
note segwits unnatural clean linear line to 100% . its unnatural has no wiggles due to the block rejection campaign of the mandated activation proposal triggered due to the NYA agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77


other thing to note.. the other proposal of a UASF didnt even get 20% at all..


the reason why core were demanding segwit activation before november 2017 is because they were sponsored to make segwit(a feature to offer gatways to corporate subnetwork of middlemen payment charging routes) which had a deadline of from november 2016-nov2017 to activate or the core devs wont get their bonus

the NYA group are ofcourse the corporations that sponsored the core devs in the first place for segwit. rather than a rival.
the 2x element of NYA plea was never coded and was always an empty promise. just a false promise attempt to garner more support for what they really just wanted.. segwit

[bitmover]

It is interesting that almost everyone remembers the "block size war" as the end of it in 2017 and with the shitcoin called bcash. In truth this "conflict" about scaling bitcoin lasted at least 5 years and it definitely wasn't just bcash versus bitcoin with only 2 sides. There were many sides or better said many different proposals for different approaches which we may categorize in a simple way into 2 or 3 categories.

1. The group saying bitcoin should scale using the second layer and should not have a hard fork.
2. The group saying bitcoin should only scale on-chain (layer one and only layer one) by hard forking to a bigger block size
3. The group saying both at the same time. This was short lived and was very messy mainly seen in SegWit2x which had its own separate issues.

Of course this is an oversimplification since for example the second group consists of many different approaches like one saying we should have a one time fork to a massive block size while another saying we should let the miners choose to change the size at any time they wanted, etc.

I would add segwit. Which virtually increased block size and was not implemented in bcash and other forks.

It is somehow a on chain scale.  So now we have on chain and off chain scale solutions, with lighting network

[pooya87]

I would add segwit. Which virtually increased block size and was not implemented in bcash and other forks.

It is somehow a on chain scale.  So now we have on chain and off chain scale solutions, with lighting network

SegWit falls under the first group (main scaling should occur on second layer and the first layer should scale without hard fork), otherwise you are right that SegWit also offers an on-chain scaling by increasing the block size but it is through the soft-fork as I said in the first category which makes it a limited scaling.

It's a bit off-topic but bcash has implemented more of SegWit than you know. From the SegWit way of transaction serialization for sighash all the way to the bech32 address format.

[Wind_FURY]

Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".

I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.

I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?

Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.
 

Read "The Long Road To Segwit: How Bitcoin's Biggest Protocol Upgrade Became A Reality" by Aaron Van Wirdum. He's definitely the most trustworthy person you can find that wrote about the subject-matter.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/the-long-road-to-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality

That write up will give you the history, what caused the "Scaling Debate", the context why, and why the the Core Developers chose the path where we are today.

Thank you.

Plus be careful of those trolls and charlatans who will gaslight you and spread disinformation that will sort of look real and would look like they make some sense. When in doubt, you can always reach out to trustworthy people like Aaron Van Wirdum and others through Twitter.

https://twitter.com/aaronvanw?lang=en

Some of them will reply back, others won't, but it's important not to fall in the mind-trap of the Anti-Bitcoin-Trolls who will pretend to be Bitcoiners but are actually playing 4D Chess. Always reach out and good luck to your Bitcoin journey!

[KalOlak]

Hello. I am interested in learning about "The blocksize war".

I have been in Bitcoin since 2020, and therefore, I don't know the history before 2020. I know that it was a "debate" regarding the block size, but I want to read details about it.

I can google it, but I don't know who to trust. So, knowing that there are many knowledgeable people in this forum, could you tell me more about this period?

Of course, any relevant website, video, article is more than welcome.

The Tragedy of the Commons (game theory) occurs when individuals, acting in their self-interest, deplete shared resources to the detriment of the entire community. In the case of Bitcoin, larger block sizes might lead to more transaction throughput but can strain the network and decentralization.

For example: In the IPv4 protocol, IP addresses are used to uniquely identify devices on the internet. However, the pool of available IPv4 addresses is limited, consisting of only ~4.3 billion addresses. As the internet has grown exponentially and more devices are connected, the demand for IP addresses has increased significantly. Various organizations, internet service providers (ISPs), and businesses require IP addresses to allocate to their customers or devices. Initially, IP addresses were allocated freely, and there was no strict regulation on their distribution. However, this led to a situation similar to the Tragedy of the Commons. As for today the price of every IPv4 address is ~$50.

As of today, the consensus in the Internet network is that each individual does not need to create their own ISP. Instead, each person rents a communication channel and rent IP from one of approximately a million of ISPs. Similarly, a similar consensus could exist in the Bitcoin network, where access to the Bitcoin network is provided to anywhere from one to eight million individuals or companies, while the remaining eight billion people would either rent access to the Bitcoin network or lease open channels in the Bitcoin Lightning Network or rent another L2 Bitcoin solution.

[franky1]

when in doubt. trust the blockchain data as arbitrators. not some idiot on social media that makes a blog.

read what the block data shows as the timeline of events,  not some social queen

[DooMAD]

But it's worth noting that blockchain data alone leaves out a significant detail.  Intent. 

A hard fork proposal was announced by Bitmain prior to the activation of SegWit.  This is all very well documented, but certain disinfomation agents like franky1 continue to sweep it under the rug because it doesn't fit their agenda or their attempts to distort history.  The declaration was always there that a hardfork would take place if SegWit were likely to activate.  And thus, BCH happened.

Bitmain wanted nothing to do with SegWit because it was a threat to their business model.  They were always going to pursue the existence of a blockchain where SegWit was not activated.  See the ASICboost controversy for further detail.  It's clearly a lie for franky1 to insinuate that the hardfork was anything to do with the method by which SegWit was activated.  Whether it had been NYA, UASF or Core's original proposal, Bitmain would have been pushing for a hardfork regardless.

But since franky1 is a sociopath, he will now proceed to come up with some more ridiculous technobabble about how his delusional version of history is somehow accurate (it isn't).  I hope everyone enjoys the rest of this topic getting thoroughly derailed because franky1 is an obnoxious piece of shit who won't accept reality.

[franky1]

note: all the drama queens use drama of blogs to talk about drama.. but ignore the actual block data that refers to bytes of data that refer to code and rules and reason and triggers of changes of rules..

yes there were many debates and attitudes.. but when it actually boils down to what actually occurred and what actually changed and what actually caused what.. rely on the code, and the blockdata

everything else is just social drama of who thinks what opinion belongs to be more important to them..
the blockdata will teach you which parts were important to the network and protocol rules and reveals how certain things had natural selection and some had unnatural selection.. which due to the blockchain being immutable it cant be edited and twisted by social drama.. trust block data not a opinion blog

the real social drama queens do not like their agenda of ass kissing a common cultish group being dismantled. so they turn things into REKT campaigns to try making those against their agenda disappear..

the best way to fight against social drama queens is to rely on facts.. and leave the queens to flap about making themselves look like idiots changing their scripts and try different ways to ass kiss their cultish narrative agendas of blind faith, following and trust of a centralist group humans they want to treat as immortal gods

[Wind_FURY]

But it's worth noting that blockchain data alone leaves out a significant detail.  Intent.  

A hard fork proposal was announced by Bitmain prior to the activation of SegWit.  This is all very well documented, but certain disinfomation agents like franky1 continue to sweep it under the rug because it doesn't fit their agenda or their attempts to distort history.  The declaration was always there that a hardfork would take place if SegWit were likely to activate.  And thus, BCH happened.

Bitmain wanted nothing to do with SegWit because it was a threat to their business model.  They were always going to pursue the existence of a blockchain where SegWit was not activated.  See the ASICboost controversy for further detail.  It's clearly a lie for franky1 to insinuate that the hardfork was anything to do with the method by which SegWit was activated.  Whether it had been NYA, UASF or Core's original proposal, Bitmain would have been pushing for a hardfork regardless.

But since franky1 is a sociopath, he will now proceed to come up with some more ridiculous technobabble about how his delusional version of history is somehow accurate (it isn't).  I hope everyone enjoys the rest of this topic getting thoroughly derailed because franky1 is an obnoxious piece of shit who won't accept reality.

He knows the facts, and he doesn't truly deny it. It's not about "accepting it or not", it's about playing 4D Chess and gaslighting people into questioning what the actual facts of actual reality is. It's really wicked. To a newbie, the wall of text full of techno-babble will look like, "Oh he probably is very smart", without verifying if all that he has been saying is true.

To the newbies who are too lazy to DYOR, you should just look at franky1's trust-rating and read what gmaxwell and Achow said about him.

[franky1]

yes do your own research (windfury just quotes his mentor(doomad) like a robot, never actually attempts to learn how things work for himself) they love to agree and defend each other and ignore facts.. whatever doomad beleives, windfury defends to the end

learn WHY gmax said what was said.. because it was doomads disciples that cried to him years ago with their social drama
they were the ones that put the useless trust rating system into negative.. and now they pretend its their ammo to say im wrong becasue of it.. reality is they use social drama to control the narrative and not actual data, code backed evidence

so they and all readers of this forum should do actual research using block data that does not lie. compared to their social quotes of the people they enjoy..


i do laugh that windfury is using a blog post as his evidence and yet the world can see the blockdata header bits and also code to see what actually happened.
a linear(straight diagonal) jump from 45% to 100% in just weeks, after wavering for 9 months shows something unnatural happened in july 2017. .. especially when 100% acceptance of anything in a decentralised world is unnatural. even core devs think that 100% majority acceptance is an unachievable threshold to set for activations. because unnaturally it will never get it.. unless forced, coerced, miscounted. ignoring the non voters, abstainers, objectors

but hey.. seems certain idiots believe certain peoples opinions way above data, statistics, code and math

try to stick to immutable data, math, logic, code as the true source of facts of bitcoin history when doing research. not the social drama of fangirls of a corporation that wants to promote empty promises. (empty promises still not met 6 years later)

[BlackHatCoiner]

do your own research

Aren't you bored already with that line? You've been spitting that every time you're losing an argument. "Do YoUR owN ResEArCH!". Research what. Give us to understand. Talk to us, not at us. Use links, quotes, whatever.

learn WHY gmax said what was said..

Tell us what he said. Where he said. Why he said. Give us some context.

so they and all readers of this forum should do actual research using block data that does not lie. compared to their social quotes of the people they enjoy..

Give us the fucking block data that is gatekeeping the truth. Please. Something more than utter girly whining.

[franky1]

so they and all readers of this forum should do actual research using block data that does not lie. compared to their social quotes of the people they enjoy..

Give us the fucking block data that is gatekeeping the truth. Please. Something more than utter girly whining.

you dont have blockdata? shame, you should not have been talked into pruning by your mentor doomad.. i guess he doesnt want you having the blockdata, i wonder why

as for explanations.. i even made it easy for you.. scroll up, you will see a visualised image of the block header bit flags of the events.. you can verify it with blockdata, which you can find in a full node..
and no dont be a empty lemming trying to get me to paste all of 2017's block data into a forum post. because, unaware to you its alot of data.. you can however very easily do your own independent research and verification.. you first just need to avoid your mentors advice, and instead be a proper bitcoin node user and have the blockdata(as thats where you will find the block data) and then you can check it out for yourself

also if i was to just paste block data into a forum. you wont look at it, you will instead just auto reply a cry that you cant trust it.. so only option (the rational option) would be for you to run a full node and get your own copy of blockdata from diverse nodes thus you cant cry that im spoonfeeding you info for you to ignore/distrust

and thats the wonderful think about blockchains. you can actually independently get blockdata from diverse nodes thus not have to trust a single provider, try it, it will be a new experience for you

if you then want to cry about not finding code.. well source code can be found on github. so go research there too

i would have thought after the number of years of your existence in this forum you would have learned by now where to find blockdata and code.. rather than what appears all you have learned is to only find out what you can repeat is from your mentors forum post content

so usea full node and look at the blockdata. dont rely on blog/forum posts. actually do the research from the source, then you can verify social posts accuracy..

rather than your current method of just wanting to believe a social media user on face value you get your troll army of like minded people to cry t moderators that you are not getting your way in life

its been years. its time you learn, not just repeat the agenda of your mentor

[BlackHatCoiner]

you dont have blockdata?

The diagram might be correct, and as the NYC and the miners activating segwit are concerned, they can be verified, indeed. The UASF, though, cannot be confirmed, as that votes weren't timestamped anywhere. I'm still unable to see where the blackmailing is.

also if i was to just paste block data into a forum. you wont look at it, you will instead just auto reply a cry that you cant trust it.. so only option (the rational option) would be for you to run a full node and get your own copy of blockdata from diverse nodes thus you cant cry that im spoonfeeding you info for you to ignore/distrust

For your info, I'm running Bitcoin Core v24, and I've been running a full node (or full archived node as your little head comprehends) about two years now. You, on the other hand, are questionably even running some Bitcoin client.

[DooMAD]

the actual block data that refers to bytes of data that refer to code and rules and reason and triggers of changes of rules..

Block data alone doesn't give readers of this topic any insights into mining hardware manufacturers announcing a unilateral hardfork.  Block data alone doesn't explain how a particular forkcoin refused to change its network magic and would have left Bitcoin users at risk of replay attacks.  To truly understand the history, an individual reading this topic would need at least some context by which to understand the data.  You are in complete and total denial of the real reasons why things changed.  

BCH devs stated their intentions and wrote their code.  They declared their fork was going ahead and they took all the necessary steps to enact their plans.  In response, Bitcoin developers were compelled to act in order to mitigate the damage which those (highly irresponsible) BCH devs would have caused if left unchecked.  Deny it all you want, but that's what happened.  Cause and effect.  Action and reaction.  You witnessed it happen with your own eyes.  You were there.  But you are either seemingly still utterly incapable of understanding what you saw, or you do understand it and you're in denial.

Also, what is it you even hope to accomplish if you did manage to convince some gullible newbie to believe your elaborate little cover-up?  Are you lonely?  Do you need someone as equally unhinged as yourself to be paranoid-delusional with?  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you thought this was how you made friends.  Do you think if you lie to people enough that they'll eventually join you in your wonderful little land of make-believe?  

Absolute freakshow.

[franky1]

the actual block data that refers to bytes of data that refer to code and rules and reason and triggers of changes of rules..

Block data alone doesn't give readers of this topic any insights into mining hardware manufacturers announcing a unilateral hardfork.  Block data alone doesn't explain how a particular forkcoin refused to change its network magic

funny part is by knowing the mandated code, date, and block header bits invoolved in all the proposals. (which i told your cult to research), and the blockdata they can read it and learn.. and piece it all together to finally understand

and realise the trigger dates of which events caused what to happen. to realise that the hardfork was actually from the NYA+core (segwit supporter group) ignoring certain blocks abstaining from voting segwit in.  which then caused the non flagged blocks to go out in a different direction. thus it was not some other group doing something to unilaterally split, its blocks being ignored/rejected by NYA+custum core code.. where other group NOT DOING ANYTHING(abstaining) seen blocks non segwit flagging

even you just admitted they didnt even change the network magic..
because they didnt want or cause the split..

ill make it simple.. the segwit supporting groups changed code.. the non segwit supporting group did not change code.. so you cant say the segwit abstainers caused a fork

it was the core+NYA side that ignored blocks(using custom code)

get it yet
if not read more code, read more blockdata.. and also your idol (gmax) admitted to the split.. he branded it with his buzzword a bilateral split. so before you start next pretending it was not caused by segwit side to pretend there must not have been a hardfork at all.. you would be wrong yet again because it was a hard fork. caused by the segwit activation games. not those abstaining from supporting segwit

if you dont know where to find block data or code or know how to read it. well try learning how to. do some research

the point of DYOR is partly do research. but also YOUR OWN. meaning actually put some effort to learn for yourself instead of seeking people that agree with your pre-existing opinion based on social nonsense

rely on actual source data. not a buddy of yours that agrees with you..
confirmation bias is not your friend, stop relying on it

[franky1]

you dont have blockdata?

The diagram might be correct, and as the NYC and the miners activating segwit are concerned, they can be verified, indeed. The UASF, though, cannot be confirmed, as that votes weren't timestamped anywhere. I'm still unable to see where the blackmailing is.

also if i was to just paste block data into a forum. you wont look at it, you will instead just auto reply a cry that you cant trust it.. so only option (the rational option) would be for you to run a full node and get your own copy of blockdata from diverse nodes thus you cant cry that im spoonfeeding you info for you to ignore/distrust

For your info, I'm running Bitcoin Core v24, and I've been running a full node (or full archived node as your little head comprehends) about two years now..

the blackmailing is the MANDATED ACTIVATION caused by ignoring blocks that abstain from flagging segwit. funny part is you and i have discussed this many times and i have even linked you the the code.
you will notice on the chart the absolute unnatural linear straight line. of 100% is showing that the nodes only kept segwit flagging blocks and rejected (left unseen) any abstaining blocks

a full node is FULL meaning full featured. meaning archiving and verifying. hense the term FULL
ability to deactivate archiving came much later(recent years) thus full by default is archive and verify..
turning archiving off is not full.. becasue you are offering less peer services to other nodes..
LESS services is not FULL services

its your forum wife/mentor doomad that has taught you bad lessons that pruned node should be called "full" stop listening to him. he is an idiot and makes you look like one too.

im shocked you asked me where the blockdata is, you seem to be active on the forum for years and todays admission is you have a full node for 2 years, so you should know exactly where to find blockdata, but then again im not shocked your forum wife/mentor did not teach you this basic knowledge.. i hope you have now learned

but now you do know where to find block data. and you have a copy on your hard drive(todays admission by you) you now know where to find the blockdata. so go use it, its why its there, to use
just dont rely on your forum wife for information.. use the actual blockdata and code to direct you. then you dont have to trust or believe anyone. because you can research independently for yourself

[DooMAD]

even you just admitted they didnt even change the network magic..
because they didnt want or cause the split..

So your argument is BCH announced a hardork, officially stated the day it would go ahead and wrote the code to make it happen, because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPLIT?  Is that the level of fuckwittery we're going with now?

ill make it simple.. the segwit supporting groups changed code.. the non segwit supporting group did not change code.. so you cant say the segwit abstainers caused a fork

*facepalm*

If Core devs hadn't been able to look at BCH's code repository, which they could see forked from their own repository, then they wouldn't have been able to see what network magic BCH was using.  If you try to apply some logic for the first time in your life, you might comprehend that this means the BCH code existed before Core decided to take action to protect BTC users.  Do I have to provide a link to the developer discussion about it again?

Here you go:   https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

BCH code clearly existed first.  They caused it.