Yeah I have 0% respect for that scum bag.
Heh. But how do you
really feel, K?
Nicely said! What do you think about the 2MB increase? Irrespective of Sam, from a technical perspective. It does seam the 7-8 transactions per second is what we can handle now, thus bringing that to 14-15 might be beneficial.
Yes I agree that bitcoin needs a blocksize increase.
That's the reason why we still have /BIP100/ in the coinbase sig
However it would seem that it's impossible to get
just a blocksize increase with everyone advocating other changes.
Seems everyone wants to add their own extras and try and take control of bitcoin,
or as in the case of BIP100, it was simply a tactic to try to stop any size increase by suggesting a solution that garzik was NEVER going to implement -
he's with block stream, and block stream wants side chains, not blocksize increases. I've no idea why he did this.
Yes it would seem that everyone has their own financially motivated agenda they want on top of blocksize changes and no one seems able to just provide a reasonable blocksize change solution.
A short term 2MB hard fork seems very short sighted ... though I have regularly made comments about seeing short sighted things in bitcoin
Any solution that doesn't include expansion to 32MB is too short term a solution IMO due to the problems implementing hard forks.
XT was the other silly extreme: hey lets force continuous blocks size limit changes up to gigabytes ...
I think it's necessary to limit it much lower and see how things progress, since hard forks are hard to come by and getting them to take place involves all sorts of battles, a smaller target seems really the best option, then maybe 5 or 10 years from now review it again.
If we went with a quick decision, larger option, it would most likely end up staying in bitcoin no matter what problems it caused, since once something is implemented, it's even harder to get it undone.
Bitcoin is indeed controlled by miners and pools.
It is by design.
If someone doesn't like that, then go use some other currency.
That's not Bitcoin.
BIP100 had the idea that those who control the network, had the power to control the blocksize.
Yeah I'm still trying to understand why that is considered inappropriate.
Again, Bitcoin is indeed controlled by miners and pools ... ... by design.
When the blocksize limit does eventually increase what will happen?
Well firstly, there's the point that any pools and miners can still set a blocksize limit to whatever they like under the limit.
But whatever the limit is, anyone can still set it lower, but they have to accept any blocks up to the limit.
Currently:
CKPool kano.is has it set at: 988,888
CKPool solo has it at max: 1,000,000
Other pools say they have it at max also ... but here's an interesting thing:
Who puts out the highest average blocksizes of ALL pools/miners?
CKPool solo is on top.
CKPool kano.is is second.
and there's a big gap to 3rd place.
I certainly think that a middle ground 32MB solution is very appropriate.
If it's much lower, then I can see the problems reappearing again in the not too distance future.
I think a 32MB solution has a good life time on it, and then the size can be reviewed again in the distant future if 32MB becomes a limiting issue - and at that point it should be way more obvious where the blocksize is going - then see clearly: is it stable? slow growth? or otherwise?
