Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability

[iluvpie60]

I guess another fork is needed(for those of you who don't know bitcoin was forked before)

What do you all think about a hard fork? Better than a soft one?

EDIT UPDATE Oct 22nd 2014: Gavin makes an AMA(ask me anything) on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2jw5pm/im_gavin_andresen_chief_scientist_at_the_bitcoin/

EDIT: Gavin has posted some thoughts below, please see posts 69, 78, 80, 96, 216, 240, 243
EDIT: Also please see this from Gavin: https://bitcoinfoundation.org/category/chief-scientist/

Article from Coindesk:
http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/
 


"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.

Doing so would require a super duper hard fork and “some risk”, Andresen conceded in a new Bitcoin Foundation blog post, but he concluded that such proposals are ballin for the long-term viability of bitcoin as a global payments system."

So the model of huge difficulties is coming to roost is honestly how I see it. The difficulty is way too high for the reward that is going out now as one of the things, the second thing is that yes more transactions need to be included obviously in the future.


Gavin says """

“Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where peepz start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: roll out a barrel of hard forks that increase the maximum block size, and implement a rule to increase the size of a fork over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time.”""

I would tend to agree with a solution that increases or decreases by itself honestly.


Obviously edited the above to be my goofy self hehe

I appreciate Gavin and everyone responding! Good discussion and the entire point of this forum..

[Gleb Gamow]

I guess another fork is needed(for those of you who don't know bitcoin was forked before)

What do you all think about a hard fork? Better than a soft one?

How many forks can we has needz of eh? But more to the point, how delicious will a fork full of bitcoin taste?

http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/


"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.

Doing so would require a super duper hard fork and “some risk”, Andresen conceded in a new Bitcoin Foundation blog post, but he concluded that such proposals are ballin for the long-term viability of bitcoin as a global payments system."

So the model of huge difficulties is coming to roost is honestly how I see it. The difficulty is way too high for the reward that is going out now as one of the things, the second thing is that yes more transactions need to be included obviously in the future.


Gavin says """

“Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where peepz start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: roll out a barrel of hard forks that increase the maximum block size, and implement a rule to increase the size of a fork over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time.”""

I would tend to agree with a solution that increases or decreases by itself honestly.


Obviously edited the above to be goofy. Read full article here http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/

Such wouldn't be needed if alts satisfied the myriad niches, only using Bitcoin proper as a means to record transaction by those desiring to convert to fiat, among only its other strong attributes.

[deepceleron]

"News" is not something that has been on the hard-fork wishlist for over two years: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist

[Vod]

"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

[bigasic]

I figured that a few hard forks would be required during the lifetime of Bitcoin. Its part of the game. You don't know what youll need or when youll need it. So, of course major edits, forks might be required.

[bitllionaire]

it is obvious a necessary to do this
as bitcoin gets more popular its features need to be adapted to the situation,so this is the most logical next stop
great decissions of Gavin

[BrunesBTC45]

I figured that a few hard forks would be required during the lifetime of Bitcoin. Its part of the game. You don't know what youll need or when youll need it. So, of course major edits, forks might be required.

Of course it is. It might be required but doesnt mean they need it.

[CtrlAltBernanke420]

I guess another fork is needed(for those of you who don't know bitcoin was forked before)



Gavin says """

“Agreeing on exactly how to accomplish that goal is where peepz start to disagree – there are lots of possible solutions. Here is my current favorite: roll out a barrel of hard forks that increase the maximum block size, and implement a rule to increase the size of a fork over time, very similar to the rule that decreases the block reward over time.”""

I would tend to agree with a solution that increases or decreases by itself honestly.


Obviously edited the above to be goofy. Read full article here http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-bitcoin-hard-fork/

This answers it, there will alway be an orginal bitcoin blockchain available. But the one most people use will be much faster and more efficient and lightweight. It will essentially be akin to cutting the umbilical cord which limits the amount of transactions each second. However it will allow the protocol to trim much older transactions that are not needs to verify if a coin is authentic or not. Once it has been created, spent, and confirmed, you do not really need much more info than that. But you can still decide to keep the previous 5 transactions, or 20 transactions..

The actually bitcoin protocol, as I was once described, would be perhaps only a few weeks behind from the trimmed version, and these other forks would have much more data than the "Visa Debit/Credit Card bitcoin."

But this would likely set it free.

In some sense the main argument made, is that once you fork bitcoin, it is no longer bitcoin, but rather some other alt coin.

If a different alt coin can work within the 21million btc mined and no more, than no they will not fill the gap. Bitcoin can do it on its own. Will the people understand, will they care. Perhaps those are the 'risks' "it comes with some risks"

[iluvpie60]

"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

ahhh very interesting point. I knew there were some draw backs to making changes but this was not one that I had considered. If a block size is doubled then it is very possible more junk and low transactions will be included per block. So what if we have someone spamming 1 satoshi again and the block size is 32 MB and 70% of that gets taken up by bs? That would be very interesting to see how that is dealt with.

I suppose another consideration is people operating nodes at an average internet speed would be disadvantaged eventually, which further makes an incentive to make some kind of centralized bitcoin node network. But hopefully internet speeds will be even better and cheaper by the time this would be an issue.

[BIGbangTheory]

"Bitcoin Foundation (Master) Chief scientist Gavin Andresen has proposed increasing the number of transactions allowed on the bitcoin network by raising the maximum block size by 50% per year.

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

Not necessarily. Just because there is more space on a per block basis does not mean that the miners will be willing to fill that space for free. The miners very well could choose to keep the blocks "empty" rather then give away free space, as having a larger block does somewhat increase the chance that a block will be orphaned

[justusranvier]

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?

Serious question.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?

Serious question.

Because it's easier for people to conceptualize miners as automatons. Them having their own volition and responding to incentives complicates the mechanistic view people tend to take on this issue. It's the same reason economics is so counterintuitive yet so many people have an opinion on it. "We'll just raise the minimum wage, then employers will pay the workers more."

[cbeast]

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?

Serious question.

Because it's easier for people to conceptualize miners as automatons. Them having their own volition and responding to incentives complicates the mechanistic view people tend to take on this issue. It's the same reason economics is so counterintuitive yet so many people have an opinion on it. "We'll just raise the minimum wage, then employers will pay the workers more."

The onus is on users to include fees, but they will have many options ranging from micropayments to discounted subscriber based transaction validation. Such services will form competitive coalitions. The miners that don't include transactions will simply be blocked from the subscribed whitelisted mining services. You will be able to make no fee transactions if you subscribe to these services. I suspect venders will have this option first, but consumers may opt for them as well. It will be their choice to become centralized selfish miners and thus have their blocks orphaned. After all, who would choose to reward selfish miners and risk their blockchain being forked?

[Eisenhower34]

I'm no protocol know-it-all, but wouldn't increasing the maximum block size increase the number of "no fee" transactions?  As the block reward drops, the protocol relies on those fees to keep miners interested. 

Why do people say things like this as if the miners are helpless pawns, unable to decide what goes into their blocks or not?

Serious question.

There are enough miners so that it would be very difficult for them to work together to achieve the maximum TX fee per TX. If 90% of the miners were to only include TXs that include a certain fee but 10% of the miners include all unconfirmed, valid TXs (they can not include more because of the larger block size) then it would be possible to send a 0 fee TX, it would take longer to get confirmed but it would still be free. The result is that the miners have no reason to exclude low/no TX fees.

[Q7]

Basically I'm not against the idea of having a hard fork. We need to plan for long term solution and accept the fact that one day fees will be the one we'll need to rely on to continue to survive. The question is what the side effects are. Will hackers take advantage during the hard fork or ended up a mess considering the size of bitcoin

[pawel7777]

There's discussion going on (with Gavin and others) and more details in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=813324.0

[LiteCoinGuy]

lets do it now and not in 1 year or so.

[ilpirata79]

A "hard fork" can be planned in advance giving everyone the time to update the client.
Give it some rest. It's not the end of the world. Calm down, get some pills.

Best regards,
ilpirata79

[IIOII]

I remain sceptical on any block size increase, because it promotes centralization of nodes. If Gavin's plan is implemented there will be progressively less full nodes being able or willing to participate in the network because bandwidth and storage requirements are too demanding. A non-conditional yearly 50% increase is a very bold figure. It's not even clear if technology will be able keep up with this rate longer term.

If block size increases really can't be circumvented through other measures, they should not be done in a static irreversible step-by-step increase (comparable to coin issuance) but instead in a dynamic way that allows for increases and decreases based on previous usage (comparable to difficulty adjustment). Doing it that way would allow systemic self-regulation, always providing as much bandwidth as necessary but not (much) more than needed. So some healthy competition between transactions (size, fees) remains in place and resources (bandwidth, storage) are much more likely of being used responsibly and not being wasted.

[stromma44]

It is necessary to allow more transactions to be included in future if Bitcoin has to be used much more, but for now the blocks are filled only by about 20% in average, so I guess the increase doesnt need to be so huge (+50% every year)