. - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 04:34:56 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 04:19:54 PM

...
any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."

Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy

hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 04:19:54 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 03:50:41 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 03:31:01 PM

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious?

that's a big if, for now. so...contention.

gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB.

8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit.

further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken.

none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course.

this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks.

XT has joined Classic in their goal to achieve consensus for 2MB (https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html). Unlimited nodes will handle 2MB but there doesn't seem to be more of a chance that they will mine a 8MB block after a 2MB HF than tomorrow or yesterday. So if the argument against a HF is that it would be a contentious HF, then where is the contention if Core decides to join the party?

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 04:19:54 PM

...
any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."

Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 19, 2016, 03:50:41 PM

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 03:31:01 PM

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious?

that's a big if, for now. so...contention.

gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB.

8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit.

further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken.

none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course.

this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks.

Quote from: Cuidler on February 19, 2016, 03:58:45 PM

We can wait for Bitcoin to become very hard to use when people constantly sends more transactions than can even be included in blockchain, also know as denial of service attack, but this will erode a lot of trust in Bitcoin as well, very likely beyond repair. So not much safer choice eighter - unless you believe people will be happy to use Bitcoin with 1) huge fees, 2) long 1st confirmation times 3) never confimed transactions. I dont know of any coin with restricted blocksizes so people can hardly use it, yet very popular and people eager to use this coin Roll Eyes

any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.

bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 03:31:01 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

We can wait for Bitcoin to become very hard to use when people constantly sends more transactions than can even be included in blockchain, also know as denial of service attack, but this will erode a lot of trust in Bitcoin as well, very likely beyond repair. So not much safer choice eighter - unless you believe people will be happy to use Bitcoin with 1) huge fees, 2) long 1st confirmation times 3) never confimed transactions. I dont know of any coin with restricted blocksizes so people can hardly use it, yet very popular and people eager to use this coin Roll Eyes

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: figmentofmyass on February 19, 2016, 03:31:01 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Quote from: Factmine on February 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious?

figmentofmyass

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1483

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Quote from: Factmine on February 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.

here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.

if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

Hmm, then maybe the right thing to do is boost it now, this time, to the maximum of 32MB (or whatever the maximum possible is). Someday won't we need huge blocks to get the throughput? If we don't *ever* boost the size then won't that constrain the adoption of Bitcoin?

dumada

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Quote from: Factmine on February 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

So why are people moaning about hard fork? It has happened before and there is no problem at all.

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: Factmine on February 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

The problem is there's no time for a six month notice -- if Core devs didn't pretend there;s no problem & oust those who proposed solutions, we'd have time to spare.
As it is, we do not.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Factmine on February 19, 2016, 01:10:06 PM

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice.

Factmine

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: blunderer on February 19, 2016, 12:51:23 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before.

blunderer

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 19, 2016, 08:21:28 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:55:11 PM

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:44:24 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:34:31 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:30:37 PM

How can we make it worse for an attacker? Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space. Angry

Me either. I asked; you didn't answer; condoning avoided. What can we do instead?

I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:34:31 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:30:37 PM

How can we make it worse for an attacker? Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space. Angry

Me either. I asked; you didn't answer; condoning avoided. What can we do instead?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:30:37 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:21:25 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:05:41 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 06:58:30 PM

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

We don't.

How can we make it worse for an attacker? Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

I don't condone violence in the Bitcoin space. Angry

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 07:21:25 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:05:41 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 06:58:30 PM

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

We don't.

How can we make it worse for an attacker? Enlist the support of militaries to make them cut it out?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: David Rabahy on February 18, 2016, 07:05:41 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 06:58:30 PM

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

See this doesn't seem like a really great reason. How do we know this isn't happening now with Classic nodes?

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 18, 2016, 06:58:30 PM

Tell me again what's to stop Chinese miners from spinning up thousands of nodes in order to get the protocol they want?

Er, nothing is stopping them but the risk of breaking confidence in Bitcoin and ruining it.

Topic: . - page 3. (Read 24771 times)