The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero

[bitcoin1992]

Hopefully it goes down to 0 so I can buy all of them for free.

[tss]

I still dont get how there are people supporting 1MB forever. Whats the point? dont you see its a dead end? I dont even get why this is a discussion.

I guess it starts with thinking every god dammed thing is a conspiracy of some sort. Add to that a lack of understanding about the protocol and you have "Gavincoin" plummeting to zero. 

is transaction size limit going to increase along with block size limit?

[shmadz]

Bitcoin does not exist for your enjoyment. It does not exist for the benefit of all. It exists because there is a demand for an alternative to the current, corrupt, banking system.

Micro-payments can be left for some other less secure alt-coin or side-chain.

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners. This is the key. The Blockchain does not, by itself, solve the Byzantine Generals problem. It is the alignment of incentives that even makes this project possible.

The Blockchain is not infinite, and without the majority of the hashing power, it will not be secure.

Transaction fees should be implemented on a floating, market price, and the block size should remain fixed. (*until there is a reason to increase it which provides a proper profit incentive for the miners to accept such a change*)

Bitcoin is simply too important to fuck with, and your pathetic attempt to fork it will fail.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact.  The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks.   For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size.  If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all.  People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

[shmadz]

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact.  The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks.   For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size.  If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all.  People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

[ajareselde]

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact.  The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks.   For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size.  If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all.  People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

the whole idea of bitcoin is two-sided, on one hand you have decentralisation, but on the other hand, through all the reward halving all i can predict is the opposite; mining centralisation.
and with majority of hashing power, who will control changes made on bitcoin ? the one in control of the hash ofc.
its all just a little bit loose, even knowing that there is a team of dev's figuring things out, im sceptical about future sometimes..

[thelibertycap]

There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time.

I am sorry Sir but for the meeting of central banks you can try next door, these are cryptoanarchists that think different.

I guess cryptoanarchists will have to support other real fungible digital cash/altcoin in the end anyway and leave the bitcoin to provide VISA scale transactions.

I am 50/50 on the fork. There might be no reason to resist regulating and centralizing bitcoin and supporting the Gavin's fork so bitcoin can go mainstream quickly. I mean why get attached to Bitcoin so much when we have so many altcoins, just pick the right one that suits you.

[sgbett]

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact.  The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks.   For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size.  If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all.  People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

You have a big block so that there are more transactions, so even though the individual transaction fee is still low, the *total* of those fees is sufficient incentive to miners.

At first I thought like you did, then I realised how simple the answer actually was.

[Pecunia non olet]

You have a big block so that there are more transactions, so even though the individual transaction fee is still low, the *total* of those fees is sufficient incentive to miners.

At first I thought like you did, then I realised how simple the answer actually was.

For this to be true those transactions need to take place on the netowrk. That was the point of the thread, i think: they won't take place on the network as it's inaccessible for people with low bandwidth or HDstore aswell as unattractive to people who are interested in a decentralised network or want to run full nodes (most who know about the tech will want to have that).

So the gavinfork builds on the presumption massadoption will happen, which it won't with this kind of recource use.

So what you get is an unsustainable network in the long run. You will be forced to either scale down, enforce fees with central planning (communist style) or raise the 21 mln max coins to keep the network running in the end of the day.
But before you meet that dead end most people with a brain (and money) will have moved to a more sustainable and viable coin or actually back to the integer Mpcoin chain we use today (in case they ever left it).

Bitcoin can be scaled, but it can't be scaled ahead of demand or it'll be unsustainable. Fact.

Miners will not even accept the fork as it robs them from future income. So there will also be no consensus in the network. All this fork does is make look Gavin and his cheerleaders like complete idiots and undermine investors confidence.

[plopper50]

Most pools limit the block size they will accept. What's going to change if the fork goes through and they continue limiting the block size they will accept? It will make no difference unless the pools start accepting giant blocks.

[tss]

Bitcoin does not exist for your enjoyment. It does not exist for the benefit of all. It exists because there is a demand for an alternative to the current, corrupt, banking system.

Micro-payments can be left for some other less secure alt-coin or side-chain.

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners. This is the key. The Blockchain does not, by itself, solve the Byzantine Generals problem. It is the alignment of incentives that even makes this project possible.

The Blockchain is not infinite, and without the majority of the hashing power, it will not be secure.

Transaction fees should be implemented on a floating, market price, and the block size should remain fixed. (*until there is a reason to increase it which provides a proper profit incentive for the miners to accept such a change*)

Bitcoin is simply too important to fuck with, and your pathetic attempt to fork it will fail.

i agree with this all.  why will no one comment on... do we not care?

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

[DeathAndTaxes]

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE).  The new code doesn't change that.  You can make a txn as large as a block.  That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size.  So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

[hyphymikey]

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE).  The new code doesn't change that.  You can make a txn as large as a block.  That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size.  So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

[Buffer Overflow]

WILL ALLOWED TRANSACTION SIZE BE INCREASED?

Txn size check uses the same constant as block size check (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE).  The new code doesn't change that.  You can make a txn as large as a block.  That being said most nodes consider a txn >100KB to be non-standard regardless of the block size.  So transactions larger than 100KB won't be relayed by most nodes, and won't be added to a block unless the miner is running custom software. Standard vs non-standard is a node behavior it isn't part of the consensus rules.

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.
 

[DeathAndTaxes]

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.

It was all correct until the bolded part.  Non-standard is still valid.  Standard vs non-standard only controls the behavior of nodes for relaying or including txns in a block.  A non-standard txn is still valid and thus a block containing a non-standard txn is also valid.   All nodes will validate and accept the block without issue and miners will extend that chain.

Standard = nodes will relay the txn and miners will include the txn by default
Non-standard = txn is still valid but it is not relayed or included in a block by default
Invalid = txn violates consensus rules and any block containing it is invalid. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

What would happen if I put a large fee on a non-standard transaction? Are these nodes/pools able to see the larger fee and push my transaction through?

No.  If a miner has a method to directly accept the txn and it meets their requirements then you could submit it directly to the miner.  Non-standard means that nodes will refuse to relay the txn, store it in a memory pool, or include it in a block.  Changing the fee won't make it standard.

[Buffer Overflow]

Nodes won't relay nonstandard transactions, unless the node is modified.
A miner could choose to include a nonstandard in a block, but would be pointless as the rest of the network would disallow the block. Wasted effort.

It was all correct until the bolded part.  Non-standard is still valid.  Standard vs non-standard only controls the behavior of nodes for relaying or including txns in a block.  A non-standard txn is still valid and thus a block containing a non-standard txn is also valid.   All nodes will validate and accept the block without issue and miners will extend that chain.

Standard = nodes will relay the txn and miners will include the txn by default
Non-standard = txn is still valid but it is not relayed or included in a block by default
Invalid = txn violates consensus rules and any block containing it is invalid. 

Thank you for correcting me.

[tss]

You guys are delusional. It's time to fork for fuck sakes, we'll need to deal with this eventually anyway.

why are you such a cheerleader?  discussion and understanding is the goal not follow and comply.

[Stephen Gornick]

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

The client would likely need some additional changes ... kind of like as if starting a new altcoin except this one happens to accepts Bitcoin private keys and UTXOs at some starting point (where the fork will begin).  

Otherwise, Cryddit describes pretty well why the (existing) protocol software is very discriminating to the "losing" chain (which has less hashing power than the chain with the "most work".  The two chains just won't co-exist even if there is a certain percent of miners that will continue to mine on it:
 - http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10440800#msg10440800

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

You guys are delusional. It's time to fork for fuck sakes, we'll need to deal with this eventually anyway.

why are you such a cheerleader?  discussion and understanding is the goal not follow and comply.

It's as simple tho. We are on a dead end, if we don't do it now, we'll have to do it later, which will be worse.