The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero

[Pecunia non olet]

it's gavins way or the highway

you got it

[Pecunia non olet]

Looks like China is cashing out. They communicate on the market...

better get cover to not get crushed

[Odalv]

Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)

=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block

We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.

[Muuurrrrica!]

Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)

=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block

We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.

the answer is quite simple

To me there is no question about it, the future is:

Altchains + merged mining =

Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale

Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.

altchains - what else?

Each chain can hold a few million users.
Maybe it'll take some more time with most people to let reality sink in.

There is really no rational reason to mash everything onto one blockchain - it's even impossible

[1Referee]

It's something that has to happen. Can't understand why these threads pop up regularly.

1MB is enough for current transactions, but it will need a far higher amount if you want to make it future proof.

[RoadStress]

Fuck sakes, if Satoshi was so smart why the hell didn't he add 20 MB by default? he would have saved us from this mess. Geeeeez.

Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all.   From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block.   There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).

The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later.   There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi.  It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time.  There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB.

Of course people that have their own agenda like MP will chose to ignore or not reveal the true history of this 1MB limit. I think things are pretty much clear and done regarding this subject. Sathoshi never intended for a block size limit. It was introduced because we didn't know how to handle spam and it was the easier and the fastest way to limit it. But now after a period of time we can develop technical stuff to deal with the spam in other way than limiting the block size. Go Gavin fork! Suck it MP!

We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.

We already have it. Blockchain pruning. Just needs more development and testing. People anti-fork choose to ignore things that are real and that are helpful!

[a fool and his money ...]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

[Buffer Overflow]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

I agree. An attack on stagnation, such as keeping the outdated 1MB temporary cap.

[NotLambchop]

^
Buffer Overflow?  If 1MB overflows, just alloc more mem.  Problem solved, amirite?

[sgbett]

Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)

=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block

We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.

Lets see. 1 billion transactions a day, at let say the equivalent of $0.0001 per transaction meaning the equivalent of $100,000 in fees *per block* and 2.8GB a day is a problem?

You also assume that in the time it takes to go from the current volume of 100k transactions per day to 3 billion, we never implement IBLT? Oh the horror, another proposal from Gavin Andreson  anyone would think he was one of the lead core devs or something!

If you don't like the 20meg block size because you prefer the idea of side chains thats fair enough. At least be honest about it.

[sgbett]

Increasing limit is not solution.
a) there are 7,000,000,000 people (let say only 1,000,000,000 will use bitcoin)
b) everybody makes 2-3 transactions per day
c) 1 transaction takes 230 bytes
d) there are 240 blocks per day (24 * 10)

=> (1,000,000,000 * 3 * 230)/240 = 2,8 GB per block

We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.

the answer is quite simple

To me there is no question about it, the future is:

Altchains + merged mining =

Multiple chains, easy convertibility, no central point of failure, efficiency, no problem to innovate, no hardfork dramas and no problem to scale

Bitcoin bagholders for some reason like to argue for monotony instead of diversity. I think that line of thought is unhealthy.

altchains - what else?

Each chain can hold a few million users.
Maybe it'll take some more time with most people to let reality sink in.

There is really no rational reason to mash everything onto one blockchain - it's even impossible

You are a classic example of "I can't imagine that X is possible, therefore X is not possible".

If there is a good reason why all transactions can't happen on chain, i've yet to hear it. They don't *have* to, sure. But they *could* despite your immense short sightedness.

[sgbett]

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

Only [MP] would try and hard fork the blockchain just to get his own way! ... whilst all the time accusing everyone else of being the villains

[Rawted]

Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway

This is easily the biggest problem I have with the foundation and the direction they are taking Bitcoin in. Between Gavin as lead dev, and Brock Pierce on the board, Bitcoin is in for some dark days.

[sgbett]

Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway

This is easily the biggest problem I have with the foundation and the direction they are taking Bitcoin in. Between Gavin as lead dev, and Brock Pierce on the board, Bitcoin is in for some dark days.

Lets go back to BCwinnings question first of all. "Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?"

It's a great question, if the decision had been made to increase the block size to 20MB and "put a fork in it" so to speak If that's the case you are going to have to cite some reference.

Whether or not *you* think that Gavin testing 20mb block size implies it is one thing. Whether or not you read some of the prior discussion about 20MB being the first increase in a series that would be coded into the protocol over time is another thing. Whether or not you are reading media hyperbole and accepting it as fact, thats yet another thing.

So - no change has been proposed yet, and certainly nothing has been agreed, and BCwinning's summation of that is "it's Gavins way or the highway"...?

Thats one level of ignorance.

Reading some dude's misinformed opinion on BTC about whats going on. Not bothering to check then extrapolating. Thats a whole other level.

Lets be clear if you are a drama junkie you'll find all sorts of crap you can glom onto in the world of BTC. Meanwhile everyone else will just plod on with the boring truth.

When eventually the core devs have thrashed this out, and when an actual BIP is in place, at least then you can whine about it.

Your protests are going to look even more petulant then though, because if its become a BIP then its likely that the majority of devs are on board.

If the majority of devs are on board, its probably going to happen. Then the majority of users will upgrade, then any pathetic attempt to fork the blockchain will be seen for exactly what it is. This proposed change is intended to benefit  *everyone*.

The one person who has made an actual argument against it, has done so from the position of it benefiting the few.

Everyone else against is arguing from ignorance, because not one of them have yet explained what the benefit is of *not* increasing the block size.

[tss]

sad to see the responses here.. check here for reason

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946745.0

upgrade yes.  bloat, no.  we're no where near any limits and markets SHOULD decide themselves.  

please lets not let others abuse the bitcoin blockchain.  btc blockchain is for btc transactions ONLY.

It's for anything miners include into a block

That's how Bitcoin works, miners can include anything they want into blocks and the only mechanism bitcoiners have to incentive them is including fees.
As far I know there is no mechanism in place to ensure data in the blockchain contains any transactions at all. It could be just my personal photos I'd want to be backed up and if I pay enough fees miners will probably add them to the blockchain.

You can argue there should be such a mechanism ensuring blocks are made up of transaction data, and I'd agree. That would require yet another hardfork.

YES, currently, you would have to pay a lot of fees to store a single photo.

I AM AGAINST btc blockchain being used to store x megabytes per .0001 btc miner fee.  this would devalue btc by giving access to the huge miners network for outsiders to profit at the expense of the btc miner.

i remember in the beginning of 2014 there were arguments from software developers that the bitcoin transaction size limits were hindering them from using the blockchain for their own non btc projects.

they must have gotten their way as i'm assuming with an increase in block size the transaction size will also be lifted giving them what they have been pushing the foundation to do for months in their greed.

if the block size is raised but the tx size is the same or smaller.  i think that will keep our resources btc related.  

i'm all for making btc useful in the future.

[QuantumCurrency]

If the TX fees get too high, perhaps we should ask the FED for a subsidy. 

[BCwinning]

Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway

This is easily the biggest problem I have with the foundation and the direction they are taking Bitcoin in. Between Gavin as lead dev, and Brock Pierce on the board, Bitcoin is in for some dark days.

Lets go back to BCwinnings question first of all. "Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?"

It's a great question, if the decision had been made to increase the block size to 20MB and "put a fork in it" so to speak If that's the case you are going to have to cite some reference.

Whether or not *you* think that Gavin testing 20mb block size implies it is one thing. Whether or not you read some of the prior discussion about 20MB being the first increase in a series that would be coded into the protocol over time is another thing. Whether or not you are reading media hyperbole and accepting it as fact, thats yet another thing.

So - no change has been proposed yet, and certainly nothing has been agreed, and BCwinning's summation of that is "it's Gavins way or the highway"...?

Thats one level of ignorance.

Reading some dude's misinformed opinion on BTC about whats going on. Not bothering to check then extrapolating. Thats a whole other level.

Lets be clear if you are a drama junkie you'll find all sorts of crap you can glom onto in the world of BTC. Meanwhile everyone else will just plod on with the boring truth.

When eventually the core devs have thrashed this out, and when an actual BIP is in place, at least then you can whine about it.

Your protests are going to look even more petulant then though, because if its become a BIP then its likely that the majority of devs are on board.

If the majority of devs are on board, its probably going to happen. Then the majority of users will upgrade, then any pathetic attempt to fork the blockchain will be seen for exactly what it is. This proposed change is intended to benefit  *everyone*.

The one person who has made an actual argument against it, has done so from the position of it benefiting the few.

Everyone else against is arguing from ignorance, because not one of them have yet explained what the benefit is of *not* increasing the block size.

IF is a might huge ASSumption.
It is gavins highway I think you have blinders on not to see it.
I haven't see him open to any other options such as revert the BS spam code.
That he pushed for to begin with. If the pool operators care about making money, they would raise the transaction fee
to push the dice sites out of business. I have no issue with the block size in creasing.
My issue is with the hard coded limits and the perception that there will be more hard forks in the future for the very same thing when satoshi had it right already.

[sgbett]

Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?
Why not make it dynamic. Oh because it's gavins way or the highway

This is easily the biggest problem I have with the foundation and the direction they are taking Bitcoin in. Between Gavin as lead dev, and Brock Pierce on the board, Bitcoin is in for some dark days.

Lets go back to BCwinnings question first of all. "Why 20? why not 40 60 80 or 100?"

It's a great question, if the decision had been made to increase the block size to 20MB and "put a fork in it" so to speak If that's the case you are going to have to cite some reference.

Whether or not *you* think that Gavin testing 20mb block size implies it is one thing. Whether or not you read some of the prior discussion about 20MB being the first increase in a series that would be coded into the protocol over time is another thing. Whether or not you are reading media hyperbole and accepting it as fact, thats yet another thing.

So - no change has been proposed yet, and certainly nothing has been agreed, and BCwinning's summation of that is "it's Gavins way or the highway"...?

Thats one level of ignorance.

Reading some dude's misinformed opinion on BTC about whats going on. Not bothering to check then extrapolating. Thats a whole other level.

Lets be clear if you are a drama junkie you'll find all sorts of crap you can glom onto in the world of BTC. Meanwhile everyone else will just plod on with the boring truth.

When eventually the core devs have thrashed this out, and when an actual BIP is in place, at least then you can whine about it.

Your protests are going to look even more petulant then though, because if its become a BIP then its likely that the majority of devs are on board.

If the majority of devs are on board, its probably going to happen. Then the majority of users will upgrade, then any pathetic attempt to fork the blockchain will be seen for exactly what it is. This proposed change is intended to benefit  *everyone*.

The one person who has made an actual argument against it, has done so from the position of it benefiting the few.

Everyone else against is arguing from ignorance, because not one of them have yet explained what the benefit is of *not* increasing the block size.

IF is a might huge ASSumption.
It is gavins highway I think you have blinders on not to see it.
I haven't see him open to any other options such as revert the BS spam code.
That he pushed for to begin with. If the pool operators care about making money, they would raise the transaction fee
to push the dice sites out of business. I have no issue with the block size in creasing.
My issue is with the hard coded limits and the perception that there will be more hard forks in the future for the very same thing when satoshi had it right already.

All you people saying this change is happening are the ones making the assumptions. Is it definitely happening. You have some proof over and above everyone assuming that it is?

[Buffer Overflow]

If Gavin doesn't update the bitcoin core with a more realistic block cap size, then you can sure someone else will.

[ElectricMucus]

If Gavin doesn't update the bitcoin core with a more realistic block cap size, then you can sure someone else will.

I'm imagining an epic shitstorm when there is 100 different forks of the original Bitcoin, all claiming to be the one and only true to the holy satoshi, all incompatible to each other. People would even trade them against each other and there is a race to decimate the competition by dumping as many pre-fork coins as possible.
Probably won't happen, but is the thought that counts.