Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

[1714299658]

1714299658

[1714299658]

1714299658

[sickpig]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

tl;dr

starting from Jan 2017 a 4.4% increase every 97 days, i.e. 17.7% per year

[cypherdoc]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[smooth]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

[cypherdoc]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.

huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...

[smooth]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.

huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

Reading the work flow description, it seems assigning a number and adding it to the repo should happen together:

If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository

But in fact that seems not to be the case in practice, since 100 and 102 aren't there currently: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...

No.

[cypherdoc]

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"

https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6


edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

what does it mean when Wladimir "merges" a BIP over on github?

?

Wlad @ 2:21AM via email from ML:

Merged #163.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

It means the proposal was accepted into to the official repo of bips.

huh, i thought that was already done when they assigned it a #.  guess not.

Reading the work flow description, it seems assigning a number and adding it to the repo should happen together:

If the BIP editor approves, he will assign the BIP a number, label it as Standards Track, Informational, or Process, give it status "Draft", and add it to the git repository

But in fact that seems not to be the case in practice, since 100 and 102 aren't there currently: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

so it doesn't mean anything in regards to having gained consensus...

No.

thx smooth.  it's great to have someone like you around.

[Erdogan]

1. Hard block size unlimited.

2. Accept as valid blocks of size up to X for the time being, X decided by consensus amongst miners and developers and individuals in the community, re the current block size discussion.

3. Produce max Y size blocks for the time being, value of Y (less than X) decided by a (per def benevolent, since it is voluntary) cartel of miners.

4. Each individual miner produces blocks of max size Z, Z decided egoistically to maximize profit, to avoid technical problems and to minimize risk of orphaning, dependent on his trust of the real consensus of the previous points.

tl;dr no hard limit.

[iCEBREAKER]

I am I the only one who can feel the narrative of the blocksize debate shifting?

That's probably just gas.

The block size will increase "eventually" but Not Tonight, Dear.  

Pieter Wuille's BIP proposal: "Block size according to technological growth"
https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6
edit: btc dev ml announcment http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009763.html

"January 2017"  

Team Gavinista will never go for this.  They demand Dramatic Action Now and Faster, Please.

Too bad that's not going to happen.  If only they understood why the 1MB cap is neither arbitrary nor artificial:

you seem to be focusing on "artificial" limits where that is
not the issue under consideration.  The limits are technical and
relating to decentralisation and security.  I wont go over them again
as this topic has been covered many times in recent months.  Any chain
that tried to go to extreme parameters (very low block intervals, or
very large blocksizes) would have the same decentralisation problems
as Bitcoin would if it did the same thing.  There are a number of alt
coins that have failed as a result of poor parameter choices, there
are inherent security limits.

Adam

[brg444]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

[sickpig]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

because their opinions only partially overlap with Gavin's?

[Erdogan]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

Yeah memory exhaustion. That is one of the limits of nature, that is impossible to come around, an automatic limit. The different stakeholders, as I suggested in my post, will of course make sure, using their own limits, that any valid block can not exhaust memory on their current machinery. So no problem. To avoid orphaning on one side, and to avoid their own machines crashing on the other side, for both reasons, leaving block rewards to others.

[brg444]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

[Erdogan]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent. How do they identify themselves as XT nodes?

[iCEBREAKER]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent.

[Erdogan]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent. How do they identify themselves as XT nodes?

Hello? And fuck your quoting habits.

[smoothie]

Gmax finally getting the treatment he deserves:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f26b7/thank_you_mike_hearn_for_sticking_up_for_us_this/

I score this for Mike.

He's made a strong case for what the original vision was, and maybe from the perspective of "social contract" that should be kept regardless of whether it is viewed as the "best thing" for Bitcoin. Obviously opinions strongly differ on the latter, and maybe that has to do with the context of us now living in a post-Snowden era which didn't exist when that "original vision" was defined. But the argument against the original vision being nodes all in data centers, most people using SPV, etc. is getting very thin.

Hearn has always been quite brilliant about this stuff and much more far sighted than most.  Not only that but he has demonstrated the energy and ability to make his visions come at least close to reality.  (No shit about this, BTW.)

I do hope that people analyze the path forward and make the decision which is best for them about which fork to follow.if they have much choice in the matter.  By now the various visions for the future are much more defined than they were even half a year ago so there is no excuse for people not to put up or shut up.  Fork it soon please!

I will mention again that I am willing to entertain a proof-of-burn to migrate to a solution which holds to and enhances the aspects of Bitcoin which appealed to me when I first got into it.  What would be groovy would be to do it in such a way that the XT folks could re-mine the things.  This would be good to get more people more interested in XT and jump on that bandwagon (and hopefully stop stinking up ours.)

Can you please explain "proof-of burn"?

"remine the things"?

[cypherdoc]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent.

what, no link?  you have this bad habit of seeing support for your arguments where there is none.  for example; Todd has 0 pts while Gavin has 20 upvotes and MOA is just off in his own thuggish world.  i'd bet Todd has even downvotes for this by now.

plus, we already know the 5 largest miners CAN'T do this attack b/c they happen to be in China and behind the GFC.  whoops; another failed simulation based on incorrect assumptions.

[iCEBREAKER]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent.

Hello?

"1.5 percent."  I LOL'ed.  

[iCEBREAKER]

what, no link?

Click the pic Grandpa.