Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[pawel7777]

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

[1714228186]

1714228186

[Grinder]

Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.

Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.

[Quantus]

Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.

Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.

Yeah Bitcoin was never ment to be 100% free

[pawel7777]

Just make sure to put my name in the list of people that didnt want to destroy BTC.

Done.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946154

[Quantus]

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

[AgentofCoin]

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date.
Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind.
There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain.
If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything.
If we fork, we all move.

[Quantus]

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date.
Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind.
There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain.
If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything.
If we fork, we all move.

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin

[Lauda]

Looks like people who have already been here and lived though the past 2 forks show signs of feeling more confident. I guess the only real argument that could be valid for 'ant-fork' supporters would be economics.              Aside from that I still didn't see anything relevant (I'm not gonna discuss this, because that's not my area of interest).

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin

Stop using this term. It is wrong. As it was already stated multiple times in the thread, increasing the limit to 20 MB doesn't mean that the blocks will be full from day 1. The chain will grow bigger over time, not over night.

[AgentofCoin]

The limit increase permits a much healthier outcome for the Bitcoin network and ecosystem.

Today is the limit increase, what will be tomorrow? Are people really wanting to go all in and bet all the todays consensus on the hard-fork? If you read Gavin post about the need for hard-fork, its a totally fear-based move with arguments Bitcoin will be replaced by Altcoins, this means its a matter of time until another need for a hard-fork happen and next time it wont be as trivial need as just increase block-size. I predict next hard-fork will want to increase the number of coins.

So no arguments against, just anti-fork by the rule? If I'm not mistaken, bitcoin has already been forked twice (2013 and 2010?). Are you sure you're on the very first fork?

The last fork was needed the old chain had a really bad bug so bad that no one wanted to use it and it died. This time both chains would be functional.

Thanks.

Point is, since there were forks in the past (for whatever reason) no one can really use "anti-fork by principle" or "if it's forked - it's no longer Bitcoin" arguments. Unless you're on original (dead) fork, then yes you can.

But you are wrong because no Fork in bitcoin history left two viable chains. All the other Forks killed off the other chain, this time both are functional.

If we fork, there will be ample notice and people will prepare for the move with updates and etc., prob with 3 months advance notice of a date.
Anyone who doesn't move to the new fork will be left behind.
There will not be two valid chains. Only one that is valid and one that was the old chain.
If your stupid enough to purposefully stay on the old chain after the fork, and continue to use it, you will ultimately lose everything.
If we fork, we all move.

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything. I can send my coins to the new Giga-bloatcoin chain at any time. But those on the Bloated new chain can't move back to Bitcoin

If the whole Bitcoin ecosystem forks, who you gonna send old fork coins to?
I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.
Any new coins you get on the old fork will not be usable in the new fork. That would be a new ledger that isn't compatible.

[Buffer Overflow]

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything.

If the majority of the hash power switches away from the chain you are on, then that chain will stall as the difficulty is very high. It is certainly not risk free.

[Lauda]

If the whole Bitcoin ecosystem forks, who you gonna send old fork coins to?
I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.
Any new coins you get on the old fork will not be usable in the new fork. That would be a new ledger that isn't compatible.

This understanding is wrong.
Let's classify the Bitcoin of today as chain A. If we fork we will have a Bitcoin B (new chain) and Bitcoin C (old chain - classified as A, when it was the only one). 2 different ledgers will be created from 1. Now when it comes to Bitcoin holdings:
If you had 5 Bitcoin on chain A, now you would have 5 on both chain B and chain C.

I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.

You don't send coins from chain B to chain C. That won't work.

But you are wrong I risk nothing by staying on the old chain its only those who fork that risk anything.

If the majority of the hash power switches away from the chain you are on, then that chain will stall as the difficulty is very high. It is certainly not risk free.

That's one of the dangers. Eventually it would stabilize and return to appropriate levels, although I don't think that chain would survive that long.

[AgentofCoin]

If the whole Bitcoin ecosystem forks, who you gonna send old fork coins to?
I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.
Any new coins you get on the old fork will not be usable in the new fork. That would be a new ledger that isn't compatible.

This understanding is wrong.
Let's classify the Bitcoin of today as chain A. If we fork we will have a Bitcoin B (new chain) and Bitcoin C (old chain - classified as A, when it was the only one). 2 different ledgers will be created from 1. Now when it comes to Bitcoin holdings:
If you had 5 Bitcoin on chain A, now you would have 5 on both chain B and chain C.

I think when you move your coins to a non forked system, they are now lost.

You don't send coins from chain B to chain C. That won't work.

So what happens if you are on Chain A or C, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain B?
Or you are on Chain B, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain A or C?
Thats what I'm referring to. Doesn't the exchange not verify those coin and thus are lost?

[RoadStress]

Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.

Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

Also what you don't seem to understand is that there will be services/project that will gladly pay for some fees for their transactions and maybe there will be people that will gladly pay a fee for having their transaction confirmed in the next block. Don't assume that if you don't do it then nobody else will do it. The current system limits a lot the development and the free access to anyone. Gavin is trying to open the gates for everyone to have access and you people want to keep them shut down and to only open them to the highest bidder.

[Lauda]

So what happens if you are on Chain A or C, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain B?
Or you are on Chain B, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain A or C?
Thats what I'm referring to. Doesn't the exchange not verify those coin and thus are lost?

From my understanding (I could be wrong) they get lost most of the time.
Case 1 (exchange using Chain B): if the exchange has generated a new address, that hasn't been generated on chain A, you will lose your money. The network doesn't know if the address is generated or not,however the funds can still be moved.
Case 1.1 (exchange using Chain B): if the exchange uses an address that was also generated by someone on chain A (not necessarily by the exchange itself), the owner of the address will receive them.
Case 2 (exchange using Chain A/C): the same happens as with Case 1 and 1.1, just switch the chains.

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

Also what you don't seem to understand is that there will be services/project that will gladly pay for some fees for their transactions and maybe there will be people that will gladly pay a fee for having their transaction confirmed in the next block. Don't assume that if you don't do it then nobody else will do it. The current system limits a lot the development and the free access to anyone. Gavin is trying to open the gates for everyone to have access and you people want to keep them shut down and to only open them to the highest bidder.

Finally something good.
Please provide a link to the project, I've missed out.

[RoadStress]

Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!

Also what you don't seem to understand is that there will be services/project that will gladly pay for some fees for their transactions and maybe there will be people that will gladly pay a fee for having their transaction confirmed in the next block. Don't assume that if you don't do it then nobody else will do it. The current system limits a lot the development and the free access to anyone. Gavin is trying to open the gates for everyone to have access and you people want to keep them shut down and to only open them to the highest bidder.

Finally something good.
Please provide a link to the project, I've missed out.

The problem with waiting too long however is that it will stunt decentralized projects like Lighthouse and open bazaar which are limited to 1MB. 

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

684 to 1k (with further optimizations) max participants cannot compete with kickstarter or indiegogo and will make many fundraisers unusable in a decentralized fashion.

[Quantus]

I don't give a fuck about the "perfect app"  I just want my bitcoin the way it is now. We should push it till it breaks then pick up the peaces and then and only then fix what ever broke.

[solex]

I don't give a fuck about the "perfect app"  I just want my bitcoin the way it is now. We should push it till it breaks then pick up the peaces and then and only then fix what ever broke.

FFS. I can't imagine the state of your car.

So what happens if you are on Chain A or C, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain B?
Or you are on Chain B, and you send your BTC to an exchange that is only using Chain A or C?
Thats what I'm referring to. Doesn't the exchange not verify those coin and thus are lost?

The owners of Bitcoin exchanges are not performing chimpanzees at a tea party. If a fork occurred and two chains were similar size then the CEOs of Bitcoin businesses would quickly agree (with Core dev and the mining pools) which chain to use (B) and which chain to ignore (C) , even if this meant suspending trading in the meantime.

This is why Gavin has consulted with many Bitcoin companies/players already, to find out what their view is. He reports that they support scalability by a big margin. Bitcoin businesses are going to want their business model to have the best chance of success, and that does not include crippling the tx throughput on the blockchain which will also cripple business models.

The rejected chain C will quickly find that the difficulty (40+ billion) is way too high for the devoted "anti" rump of miners clinging to it, and it will take several hours to mine each block. This will get worse as the coinbase rewards can't be sold for decent fiat at any significant exchange. Miners will drift to the majority chain. It will probably take 1 year for the difficulty to fall on chain C until it is usable. So chain C will need to be forked in order to slash the difficulty for the few users who still want the 1MB lmit.

[zimmah]

I don't give a fuck about the "perfect app"  I just want my bitcoin the way it is now. We should push it till it breaks then pick up the peaces and then and only then fix what ever broke.

The 1 MB cap is a redundant antispam filter and if it will not be removed Bitcoin will collapse under its own success in the next rally because it won't be able to handle the traffic.

[amincd]

When the 1 MB block limit was put in place, it was done so with the intention of eventually removing it as transaction volumes increased. It was an anti-spam filter, as the poster above notes.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Even if some people don't look forward to a Bitcoin that has blocks larger than 1 MB, they should respect Bitcoin's original vision enough to not try to divide the community by opposing what was long planned.

[benjamindees]

network limitations

20MB block / 10 min = 2MB/min = 0.033MB/s, common even on very very basic household connections.

No, that's not true.  Not in the US, at least.  Even high-end connections have caps of less than 400 GB/mo.  2MB/min is 84 GB/mo, per connection.  That means your node gets four peers, maybe.