Fork off

[Flashman]

There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Just as much trouble to fork it for lower amount. That's why 20MB now and not just doubling or tripling it. Besides, miners choose how bigger block to make, and it's a small disadvantage to be making blocks very much bigger than anyone else (extra milliseconds to put all the tx together) so there has been a constant game of chicken on block sizes, keeping blocks near to capacity and edging up the size, now it's got to the full 1MB and miners cannot improve capacity without code change.

[Lauda]

There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Exactly. This doesn't harm Bitcoin in any way.
Imagine if the 1MB limit was never documented but was there, would you know about it and/or care? No.

It's not like they are changing the daily supply or anything, numbers, that actually matter.

[Stephen Gornick]

The fork will not happen without miners' explicitly signaling consensus by updating the version number in the blocks they create.

But a miner can rollback to running a node that does not implement the hard-fork in just seconds, should there be any doubt that the hard fork might not succeed.  So just like in March 2013 when v0.8 blocks were ahead by a wide margin that didn't mean that side would ultimately continue as the longest chain.

Firstly it assumes that miners are driven to much by economics and to little by politics than is probably true.  I'm sure that most of the miners who count these days have every likelihoods of looking out days or weeks into the future and taking a monetary hit for a future enduring reward.

If that were true, p2Pool would be among the top 3.

[Flashman]

If that were true, p2Pool would be among the top 3.

p2pool is self limiting, it gets too big, the smaller miners have a rough ride, drop off, therefore it will grow only about same rate as ASIC density. Plus it's more bandwidth intensive than any other mining method and running a node needs non-trivial hardware.

[QuestionAuthority]

The fork will not happen without miners' explicitly signaling consensus by updating the version number in the blocks they create.

But a miner can rollback to running a node that does not implement the hard-fork in just seconds, should there be any doubt that the hard fork might not succeed.  So just like in March 2013 when v0.8 blocks were ahead by a wide margin that didn't mean that side would ultimately continue as the longest chain.

Firstly it assumes that miners are driven to much by economics and to little by politics than is probably true.  I'm sure that most of the miners who count these days have every likelihoods of looking out days or weeks into the future and taking a monetary hit for a future enduring reward.

If that were true, p2Pool would be among the top 3.

You are making the case that miners do control the outcome. If a large share of miners decide not to implement the change then it doesn't happen. If they upgrade and fork anyway (which I know wouldn't happen without consensus) then they would need to "rollback" when they realize the hard fork did not succeed. Hard forks were a different story when you could just make sure Tycho, Slush, eleuthria, Graet, LukeJr and Inaba were on board. It's more difficult today and will become increasingly difficult in the future. Maybe there needs to be a Bitcoin Mining Foundation with free membership and some perks for pool owners so you at least have the ability to communicate with them before a major change. As the mining distribution stands right now, I see about 37% of the hash rate that you may not even be able to contact or easily contact.
 

[smalltimer]

Centralisation in every aspect is what i read here. Well done folks. That was quite fast.

[oda.krell]

Hm... no. They are not.

[QuestionAuthority]

Centralisation in every aspect is what i read here. Well done folks. That was quite fast.

No, you truly don't understand. It's becoming more decentralized. The more time that passes the greater the number of unknown and unavailable miners. Good for decentralization - bad for communication. Without communication there can be no consensus. Without consensus there can be no fork.

[oda.krell]

There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Exactly. This doesn't harm Bitcoin in any way.
Imagine if the 1MB limit was never documented but was there, would you know about it and/or care? No.

It's not like they are changing the daily supply or anything, numbers, that actually matter.

Not exactly. Please note: I'm on Gavin's side in this matter, but the block size limit is an economic factor of the network, so it's not just a meaningless constant that is being changed.

How about the following, crude, distinction of relevance of protocol changes:

1) purely technical adjustments of the protocol without (obvious) economic consequences

2) economically relevant changes that are compatible with the original protocol and its rules

3) economically relevant changes that are not compatible with the original protocol and its rules


Now, whether a change falls under 2) or 3) is a matter of discussion of course, and is precisely the topic of this thread. But using the above terminology, my claim would be that raising block size limit is considered 2) by a majority of users, miners, investors as of now, while only a minority considers it to fall under 3).

The real test will be if and when Gavin seriously pushes for the change: ultimately, the market reaction to a more formal announcement will be the deciding factor. I expect that reaction to be utterly unimpressive, and the change to go through nearly uncontested. If so, have fun with your "MPcoin", daniel.

[BitUsher]

I think it is important that we address these issues before the next bubble where transaction volumes could spike far past 7tps. Gavin is well reasoned to be concerned with both transaction fees and blocksize limits.

I support Gavin and the rest of the developers with these changes.

[danielpbarron]

It will not be as easy as it looks like, especially now when the hashing power is much more distributed between different pools and farms. But we will first see what kind of consequence a fixed 1MB block size will bring when transactions pass 4000 per block

If you haven't seen it already, you haven't been paying attention. Has happened temporarily a few times when luck has given us a cluster of 20 or 30 minute blocks during medium/heavy tx volume...  tx start getting backed up.

No I didn't. But I guess that it is not yet a problem when they can be cleared in a hour or two. For small transactions, I don't care about confirmation, will just deliver the goods when seeing unconfirmed transaction. For larger transaction, wait one day is still faster than most of the bank transfer today

If the long term average number of transactions per 10 minutes is greater then what the network can handle then the average wait time to get a confirmation will always increase until the max block size is either increased or the market evolves so that less transactions are sent per every 10 minutes (on average)

Or you stupid-poor can start paying for the nice things that have so far been dropped into your ungrateful laps.

This is one of the reasons why this should have been done in the past. Less people, less useless complaints.
I wonder what you will say when we start hitting our current limit?

I'll say, "the free ride is over."

This is one of the reasons why this should have been done in the past. Less people, less useless complaints.
I wonder what you will say when we start hitting our current limit?

"Look!  Meaningful transaction fees after only 7 8 9 ? years."

But meaningful transaction fees probably won't happen at all unless the 'tbfcoin' bloatchain fork fails.  To many people are to attached to the quaint notion that indigents get stuff for free after growing up in and environment rife with public services and welfare and such.  Seems that nobody is more attached to this notion of deep subsidies for all than the ardent Libertarians around here.  Go figure?

---

BTW, I think that 'tbfcoin' is more appropriate (and effective and fun) than 'gavincoin'.  The Bitcoin Foundation funds the work and their upper-tier membership are the ones who benefit (or imagine that they will at least.)

Not so crazy about 'mpcoin' either, also for propaganda reasons.  Hopefully it will be just plain old 'bitcoin', but the victors write the history books.

That's not really fair to the real Bitcoin Foundation.

...
I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

I wonder about Multibit (which I don't and cannot use) and whether anyone using it would really know or care what was happening vis-a-vis forks and potential wars associated with them?  As I understand things the client just asks some random unknown someone for an spv proof and maybe verifies it with some headers or some such.  Would people running that client (most these days I would guess) even need to upgrade or push any buttons or anything?

I've always been negative about Multibit (and like things) because as far as I can tell they don't do jack shit to support the network other than increase the head-count of the herd.  When I was more interested in being peeved about it, I theorized that it might be used to more conveniently herd the sheep but I lost interest in trying to find out.  Now I'm more interested again.

JUST CHANGING A NUMBER!? Hey let's just tweak a few more numbers while we're in there! I'm thinking the block reward...

Things like Multibit will probably switch you to gavincoin without notice. The only way to be sure that your funds are being spent on the chain you intended them to is to run your own full node(s).

There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Exactly. This doesn't harm Bitcoin in any way.
Imagine if the 1MB limit was never documented but was there, would you know about it and/or care? No.

It's not like they are changing the daily supply or anything, numbers, that actually matter.

Do you know why there aren't many over-sized blocks? BECAUSE THERE'S A LIMIT!! This is indeed a "number that matters." All the numbers matter. In computer programming, especially cryptography, every number matters! Y'all are in for a rude awakening when you realize Gavin doesn't like Bitcoin.

Hm... no. They are not.

This guy is.

There should be a small fork before the next block reward halving, maybe raise the size limit to 1.5MB just to hold the hands of the crybabies. Then after the halving, raise it to 25MB. I don't understand the reluctance of upgrading. When Bitcoin came out most people were still using Windows XP. All they're doing is changing a number FFS!

Exactly. This doesn't harm Bitcoin in any way.
Imagine if the 1MB limit was never documented but was there, would you know about it and/or care? No.

It's not like they are changing the daily supply or anything, numbers, that actually matter.

Not exactly. Please note: I'm on Gavin's side in this matter, but the block size limit is an economic factor of the network, so it's not just a meaningless constant that is being changed.

How about the following, crude, distinction of relevance of protocol changes:

1) purely technical adjustments of the protocol without (obvious) economic consequences

2) economically relevant changes that are compatible with the original protocol and its rules

3) economically relevant changes that are not compatible with the original protocol and its rules


Now, whether a change falls under 2) or 3) is a matter of discussion of course, and is precisely the topic of this thread. But using the above terminology, my claim would be that raising block size limit is considered 2) by a majority of users, miners, investors as of now, while only a minority considers it to fall under 3).

The real test will be if and when Gavin seriously pushes for the change: ultimately, the market reaction to a more formal announcement will be the deciding factor. I expect that reaction to be utterly unimpressive, and the change to go through nearly uncontested. If so, have fun with your "MPcoin", daniel.

I love how retards like you word your posts as if there is a discussion to be had on this issue. "Derp-dee-derp, here's a list of some options. Don't I sound democratically informed?" Bitcoin isn't a democracy; it is sovereign. You do not change Bitcoin; Bitcoin changes you.

[Brangdon]

You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

A larger block size limit does not preclude miners from rejecting transactions with too low a fee.

Miners are supposed to compete with each other, but that doesn't work well when mining pools are so dominant. Currently they have no real incentive to gouge on fees, but that will change as the block-reward halves and fees become more important. High fees are in all miners interests, so it makes some sense that they will collude on that. We will probably get some small fraction, say 5% of miners who accept low fees, which means a user paying a low fee will have to wait on average 20 times as long for their transaction to be confirmed.

Whatever. The point is that market forces will play out regardless of the block size limit.

[MarketNeutral]

Thank you for the schism.

[Flashman]

A larger block size limit does not preclude miners from rejecting transactions with too low a fee.

I think there's some other lower limit on free tx, like 15,000 bytes per block.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Maybe there needs to be a Bitcoin Mining Foundation with free membership and some perks for pool owners so you at least have the ability to communicate with them before a major change.

You must be trolling.

[QuestionAuthority]

Maybe there needs to be a Bitcoin Mining Foundation with free membership and some perks for pool owners so you at least have the ability to communicate with them before a major change.

You must be trolling.

No, just making the point that there is no organization or consensus that unifies the miners like the org that unifies the businessmen. They can't even contact all of them anymore.

[danielpbarron]

You don't see it yet because it isn't an issue yet, but there will be a market for mining fees. This is a much bigger threat to Bitcoin than the prospect of a bunch of poor nobodies having to actually pay for the seeming miraculous service of sending any amount of wealth anywhere in the world in an hour. You should better worry about the people who literally secure the network. Do you think they will do this work for free? They will not keep mining blocks when the block reward is no longer significant, and users will not make up the difference out of the kindness of their hearts. Supply and demand drive price. There is a finite supply of transaction space, and that is why users will include a fee. This whole hard fork drama is part of the bigger brain-damaged notion that Bitcoin isn't about money.

A larger block size limit does not preclude miners from rejecting transactions with too low a fee.

Miners are supposed to compete with each other, but that doesn't work well when mining pools are so dominant. Currently they have no real incentive to gouge on fees, but that will change as the block-reward halves and fees become more important. High fees are in all miners interests, so it makes some sense that they will collude on that. We will probably get some small fraction, say 5% of miners who accept low fees, which means a user paying a low fee will have to wait on average 20 times as long for their transaction to be confirmed.

Whatever. The point is that market forces will play out regardless of the block size limit.

Miners aren't just gonna drop free money. When the block reward halves, the fees are not going to pick up the slack. There will probably be some combination of the price per coin going up (reflecting the sudden drop in supply), and miners shutting down (reflecting the sudden drop in profit). The fees won't play into it whatsoever. The miners remaining will still include the most amount of free money in their blocks as possible. They aren't going to voluntarily adhere to some magic number. Hard limits are there to force the situation in which miners have to choose between competing sets of transactions, picking the one with the most free money. This isn't even about paying the miners; it would be just as good if all fees were destroyed. The point is that there be competition in the transaction space, or else it will become a socialist wasteland.

[oda.krell]

I love how retards like you word your posts as if there is a discussion to be had on this issue.

You were barely coherent to begin with, so I appreciate the direct admission of defeat to put forward a proper argument.

You do not change Bitcoin; Bitcoin changes you.

How nice. You'll be constantly surprised in the coming years.

[VectorChief]

Bitcoin is here to help solve the problems, not run away from them.
Let's show the world how we do it!

Just a reminder, that Honey Badger is the most fearless animal on the planet, but it needs to grow in order to take on a bigger fish. I suggest the following plan:

Honey Badger grows (via hard fork) into Big Badger and then takes care of the Big Brother.
We seed the Big Brother with blockchain DNA, then X-ray him via transaction inspections and once financial integrity is restored the Big Bro is healed!

[tvbcof]

The fork will not happen without miners' explicitly signaling consensus by updating the version number in the blocks they create.

But a miner can rollback to running a node that does not implement the hard-fork in just seconds, should there be any doubt that the hard fork might not succeed.  So just like in March 2013 when v0.8 blocks were ahead by a wide margin that didn't mean that side would ultimately continue as the longest chain.

They can also stamp damn near anything they like as a version string (I suspect) since few of them don't compile their own binaries (I would think.)  This would afford the ability to intoduce all kinds of mischief if 'TPTB' are basing their order of battle on what they find as a version string comming in from the field.

Firstly it assumes that miners are driven to much by economics and to little by politics than is probably true.  I'm sure that most of the miners who count these days have every likelihoods of looking out days or weeks into the future and taking a monetary hit for a future enduring reward.

If that were true, p2Pool would be among the top 3.

Let me qualify my statement as being the miners who have actually made a notable capital investment.  I believe (but do not know) that this class is becoming rapidly dominant in the ecosystem.  If not now, they will relatively soon as mining approaches a net zero profitability adventure as is destined to be the case no matter what the coinbase, tx fees, tx rate, etc happen to be.

The bothersome thing to me (seemingly alone) is that a large capital investment strongly correlates with the necessity of playing ball with ex-ecosystem powers (the state and corporate elements who oversee and ultimately control all such interests.)