VeritasSapere
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 19, 2015, 11:31:33 PM |
|
Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree with each other on this issue. So the only way that the Bitcoin block size can be increased is by a hard fork. What matters here is not the agreement of the Core developers but the consensus of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be. To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses, It would also be better to keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain. However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners. We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people or what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want. https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
|
|
|
|
bitboy11
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 19, 2015, 11:44:38 PM |
|
You are wrong. Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them. If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.
I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify. As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today. However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools. On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 19, 2015, 11:45:27 PM |
|
Conclusion Restricting the size of blocks to 1MB permanently is great if you are a major financial services company Blockstream. You could co-opt a very robust network, act as a trusted intermediary and force direct users off the chain onto centralized services. For the same reasons, it is a horrible idea if you even want to keep open the possibility that individuals will be able to participate in that network without using a trusted third party as an intermediary.
Just a small correction here.
|
|
|
|
bitboy11
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 19, 2015, 11:53:27 PM |
|
@VeritasSapere I fully agree with all of your points.
|
|
|
|
Cryddit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1132
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 19, 2015, 11:55:53 PM |
|
I have to roll my eyes that the same people who were railing against the centralization of power with the devteam when it looked like the devteam was in favor increasing block sizes, are now saying that we must get devteam consensus now that the devteam has been successfully divided on this issue.
Calm down, guys. You got what you wanted in the first place: Decentralization of power. Now there is Bitcoin-Core and Bitcoin-XT, and real decentralization of power to the actual community of users and miners. The community, not the developers, gets to decide using the normal consensus rules for a hard fork. And that's a good thing, right?
Unless, maybe, it looks like people might not be stupid enough to pick the inferior network you think maybe you can make a bigger profit by limiting them to? So now you have to scream more about XT and how the choice shouldn't even exist because maybe the users will be smart enough to make the right one?
Tough toenails. The world moves on, and the 1MB block size limit is just another barrier that it's time to overcome.
Bitcoin does not exist to line Blockstream's pockets.
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 12:01:51 AM |
|
Calm down, guys. You got what you wanted in the first place: Decentralization of power. Now there is Bitcoin-Core and Bitcoin-XT, and real decentralization of power to the actual community of users and miners. The community, not the developers, gets to decide using the normal consensus rules for a hard fork. And that's a good thing, right?
true that. there is nothing to be afraid of. just keep your bitcoins in your own wallet and you will have both coins after a fork. miners and economy decides which one wins in the end (i dont believe two coins with same hashing algo can coexist for long.) Bitcoin does not exist to line Blockstream's pockets.
+1000 not for anyone pockets ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) imho bitcoin is there to empower people - nothing more, nothing less
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 12:09:36 AM |
|
What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?
Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM
|
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 12:30:32 AM |
|
What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?
Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM
I noticed he doesn't come here much anymore too. Maybe his RL is getting in the way of his Bitcoin obsession or he woke up and realized this place is a worthless troll fiesta that requires you respond to the same stupid questions over and over again. Tangible Cryptography is dead because of the letter he received a while back. He might have just woken up and realized it's not worth it for murricans to be involved at this point. A lesson you recently learned unfortunately. I hope people in this country realize how restricted their freedom is compared to the rest of the world. If nothing else, Bitcoin is a good example of that.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 09:16:43 PM |
|
What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?
Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM
Failed at browbeating us into accepting his coffees-on-the-blockchain proposal. Then, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rage-quit ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif)
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 09:44:23 PM |
|
Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0
I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.
I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.
IMO Mike Hearn's plan would probably work. The market/community would find a way to pay for the network's security, and it would be easy enough to become a full node that the currency wouldn't be at risk. The max block size would not truly be unlimited, since miners would always need to produce blocks that the vast majority of full nodes and other miners would be able and willing to process in a reasonable amount of time.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.msg1492629#msg1492629
|
|
|
|
turvarya
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 09:47:34 PM |
|
You are wrong. Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them. If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.
I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify. As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools. On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs? That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does. I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down. The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess.
|
|
|
|
meono
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 09:54:09 PM |
|
What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?
Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM
Sad to see him left. Too many reasons to suspect but i hope he didnt leave because of troll like iCEBREAKER It could be worse, he got unlucky like you and put in jail? Iknow his business was like a brokerage for bitcoin trading. So i wish he's ok. Maybe you should contact him? You might have tons of advices for him
|
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 20, 2015, 10:42:18 PM |
|
What ever happened to DeathAndTaxes (OP of this thread)?
Last Active: April 22, 2015, 11:53:28 AM
Sad to see him left. Too many reasons to suspect but i hope he didnt leave because of troll like iCEBREAKER It could be worse, he got unlucky like you and put in jail? I know his business was like a brokerage for bitcoin trading. So i wish he's ok. Maybe you should contact him? You might have tons of advices for him I have made minimal effort to contact him. I may try harder next week. I think I have his personal email from some business we did a long time ago. If he has been arrested like I was then his attorney is telling him to a) stay off the internet (here, reddit, etc.) and b) not to communicate with people that may be witnesses for or against him - which could be just about anyone. I had to "drop out" from the time I was arrested until the case was finally dismissed.
|
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
phelix
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1020
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 21, 2015, 01:30:16 PM |
|
Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin WhitepaperLimiting bitcoin to 1 MB forces users of bitcoin to use a 3rd party financial institution (Blockstream / Lightning Network). Which goes against the very reason bitcoin was created. Is there anybody seriously disputing that? Still it should be done in a responsible way. We should cram all core devs into a small room and wait until we see orange smoke (=reasonable compromise). Alternatively merge something like BIP 102 to take the drama out of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 21, 2015, 02:47:05 PM |
|
I disagree. Satoshi aint here anymore so go find someone else to redirect your daddy issues.
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 22, 2015, 06:04:37 AM |
|
I disagree. Satoshi aint here anymore so go find someone else to redirect your daddy issues.
ROFL The founder founded and fled. lol
|
|
|
|
tadakaluri
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 22, 2015, 07:38:14 AM |
|
As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.
|
|
|
|
Kexkey
Full Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 237
Merit: 100
Smile while thinking.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 22, 2015, 02:27:38 PM |
|
Is there anybody seriously disputing that? Still it should be done in a responsible way. We should cram all core devs into a small room and wait until we see orange smoke (=reasonable compromise). Alternatively merge something like BIP 102 to take the drama out of the discussion. Well something like that is going to happen pretty soon: https://scalingbitcoin.org/Hopefully constructive discussions lead to solutions and most importantly *consensus* in the following months...
|
This digital signature is not a digital signature.
|
|
|
BurtW
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 26, 2015, 06:04:08 PM |
|
Max block size could be retargeted periodically alongside difficulty adjustments using average block size and the frequency of full blocks in a period with the hard-coded value as a floor.
Have you written a BIP?
|
Our family was terrorized by Homeland Security. Read all about it here: http://www.jmwagner.com/ and http://www.burtw.com/ Any donations to help us recover from the $300,000 in legal fees and forced donations to the Federal Asset Forfeiture slush fund are greatly appreciated!
|
|
|
wlefever
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1174
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 26, 2015, 07:51:24 PM |
|
As recently proposed by Core developer Sergio Lerner, is to hold onto the 1 megabyte limit, but speed up the block interval. If 1 megabyte blocks are found every five minutes instead of 10, that would allow for double the amount of transactions on the network while also decreasing confirmation times.
Where has he proposed this, can you please post a link? There are some problems with this proposal, with the main one being increased orphan rates. Check out the following discussions on this topic: Block intervals and decentralization and Block Spacing and Security
|
|
|
|
|