1 year from now 2MB HF will be proposed will you support it? - page 2.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: achow101 on April 02, 2016, 01:21:01 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on April 02, 2016, 12:25:37 PM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

...
That is simply not true. Bitcoin has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

The 1 MB maximum blocksize limit was added,, I believe in 2010, via a hard fork.

Edit: The previous effective blocksize limit was 32 MB.

Nope, there was no hard fork. There was no need to as there was not enough transaction volume to even come close to the limit. The limit was simply just added in this commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d2174b6f5f3fac2463c7ebc2dbb9004b3740d23.

so you have just proved blockstreams contention doomsday is a non thing.
if USERS ungrade their clients in hours/days or weeks.. knowing miners wont make more transactions then the present limit.. there wont be a fork..
and then when miners deem that there are enough nodes not to be a fork, they then start making bigger blocks.

its kind of funny that the blockstream fanboys own arguments actually make their positions meaningless..

the only reason there would be a fork is by blockstream fanboys refusing to upgrade.. like a self fulfilling prophecy.. not upgrading because of a hardfork will itself be the cause of a fork.

the code is not the contention or the fork. but the desire of blockstreamers to delay or refuse is the cause of the fork

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: hv_ on April 02, 2016, 01:14:23 PM

For proper decicision making in any risk exposed business you need to provide some prestudy that contains an analysis covering
Status quo, Future expectation / simulation
Many different solutions to compare, Risks

All that needs to be really done independent from say 2-3 institutions like MIT, ETH Zürich, accenture,...

I don't see how this is relevant to the person that I've quoted. They stated that the block size limit should double every year, without mentioning any "side", developers and whatnot. You don't need third party institutions for minor calculations based on true information (when sources are provided).

Quote from: hv_ on April 02, 2016, 01:14:23 PM

but nothing is done here

What do you mean by "done here"?

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: ArticMine on April 02, 2016, 12:25:37 PM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

...
That is simply not true. Bitcoin has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

The 1 MB maximum blocksize limit was added,, I believe in 2010, via a hard fork.

Edit: The previous effective blocksize limit was 32 MB.

Nope, there was no hard fork. There was no need to as there was not enough transaction volume to even come close to the limit. The limit was simply just added in this commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/9d2174b6f5f3fac2463c7ebc2dbb9004b3740d23.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on April 02, 2016, 12:59:17 PM

Quote from: hv_ on April 02, 2016, 12:05:56 PM

Why?

Just no analysis again....

There have been plenty of analyses over time. You can't blame me if you either haven't been here long enough or are unwilling to search (there are too many threads about this).

I'm willing to shortly explain it to you. What are we looking at here, doubling every two years?

No thanks Lauda. Nobody really is able to condense all threads here.

For proper decicision making in any risk exposed business you need to provide some prestudy that contains an analysis covering

Status quo

Future expectation / simulation

Many different solutions to compare

Risks

?....

From that all can easy derive / vote the best choice.

All that needs to be really done independent from say 2-3 institutions like MIT, ETH Zürich, accenture,...

Thats how you can save lot of threads and politics, but nothing is done here and a flaw remains and looks like a joke in financial business....

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: hv_ on April 02, 2016, 12:05:56 PM

Why?

Just no analysis again....

There have been plenty of analyses over time. You can't blame me if you either haven't been here long enough or are unwilling to search (there are too many threads about this).

I'm willing to shortly explain it to you. What are we looking at here, doubling every ~~two~~ ~~years~~ year?

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

...
That is simply not true. Bitcoin has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

The 1 MB maximum blocksize limit was added,, I believe in 2010, via a hard fork.

Edit: The previous effective blocksize limit was 32 MB.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on April 02, 2016, 11:26:16 AM

Quote from: defined on April 02, 2016, 11:17:10 AM

Exponential growth is the road to mass use of bitcoin

Actually it isn't. What Bitcoin needs is a secondary layer (e.g. Lightning Network).

z

Why?

Just no analysis again....

shinep

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

I support this whole-heartedly

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: defined on April 02, 2016, 11:17:10 AM

Exponential growth is the road to mass use of bitcoin

Actually it isn't. What Bitcoin needs is a secondary layer (e.g. Lightning Network).

defined

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

One year from now is too late. The road map should be to double block size every year. Exponential growth is the road to mass use of bitcoin, doubling block size only once is not going to do that.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on April 02, 2016, 11:05:08 AM

Thats pretty confusing pool question, as far as I know some Core members agreed to try put code for 2MB HF voting this July release of Bitcoin Core, with 12 month grace period for activation.

Yes, that is correct. There is nobody that could sign such an agreement for everyone who is involved in Core (some seem to think otherwise).

Quote from: ATguy on April 02, 2016, 11:05:08 AM

The problem is 12 month grace period which is unnecessary too long.

That's debatable. I've recently read somewhere that someone will suggest a shorter one (not sure where; I'll try to find it).

Quote from: ATguy on April 02, 2016, 11:05:08 AM

With such long grace periods you need to plan ahead. So argument we are fine now is worth nothing because you dont consider what can happen during one year at least.

Not really, no. Segwit should be deployed and activated and we should see the capacity growing over time.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Thats pretty confusing pool question, as far as I know some Core members agreed to try put code for 2MB HF voting this July release of Bitcoin Core, with 12 month grace period for activation.

The problem is 12 month grace period which is unnecessary too long.

Quote from: Denker on April 02, 2016, 06:46:50 AM

Right now we don't have any issue why we should rush through a hardfork.Things should be done properly.And scaling is not only raising the blocksize!!
Furthermore there's still space in the blocks.So all the noise is ridiculous.

With such long grace periods you need to plan ahead. So argument we are fine now is worth nothing because you dont consider what can happen during one year at least.

With such long grace periods for activation you really need to be good central planner (this reminds me of Soviet Union five-year plans, we all know how good their central planning over comparable long periods went...)

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

There is again so many empty blahblah about HF risks.

Point us to a rigorous risk analysis why this HF (just 2MB) is worse than a SF + SW + LN including all use cases for a frictionless growth compared to the past...

I say just a bit provocant: HF fear is good for making politics & business. I cannot buy this w/o independent study.

But yes nobody might be able to do this or just dont want to and we are still in the boat.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Maslate on April 01, 2016, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 01, 2016, 05:19:08 AM

At this stage, will be a better solutions than just rushing into a hard fork for the sake of doing it to achieve a power grab. If I have to chose between the lesser of two evils, I will chose to go with the Core Road map. Let's gamble on something and see if this decision will be the best one for now. If they fail, we just support the next team. ^smile^

Hard fork is not a problem as it has happened several times to bitcoin. This happens every day in many altcoins.

Proof it!
I know of 1 hard fork. And that was due to some serious issue. Right now we don't have any issue why we should rush through a hardfork.Things should be done properly.And scaling is not only raising the blocksize!!
Furthermore there's still space in the blocks.So all the noise is ridiculous.
And you can not compare some stupid altcoins with a lousy market cap with Bitcoin where some serious money is at stake.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: Lauda on April 02, 2016, 03:09:02 AM

Quote from: RussianRaibow on April 02, 2016, 02:12:51 AM

I knew about the accidental hardfork, but I didn't realize how quickly it was fixed. That makes this whole argument that much more ridiculous. A few hours is nothing.

You're comparing the incomparable here (Bitcoin back then and Bitcoin now - when the size of the ecosystem is concerned). Additionally, let's not forget that there was at least 1 known double spend due to this problem (OKPay IIRC).

theres so much fail in this post.

firstly the number of NODES is not much different.
secondly if people know its going to happen. there wont be double spends.. a planned fork does not need 12 months. especially if an unplanned fork got fixed in HOURS!!.

seriously. will you stop bashing your head against the blockstream bible and start thinking for yourself

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: RussianRaibow on April 02, 2016, 02:12:51 AM

I knew about the accidental hardfork, but I didn't realize how quickly it was fixed. That makes this whole argument that much more ridiculous. A few hours is nothing.

You're comparing the (almost) incomparable here (Bitcoin back then and Bitcoin now - when the size of the ecosystem is concerned). Additionally, let's not forget that there was at least 1 known double spend due to this problem (OKPay IIRC).

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 31, 2016, 03:48:51 PM

the HK round table, had agreed to put forth a 2MB block limit incress in ~1 year's time

You still don't understand what happened at the roundtable.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 31, 2016, 03:48:51 PM

But Core doesn't seem to have a road map.

It does.

I would support it only with a proper consensus threshold and grace period.

RussianRaibow

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

I AM A SCAMMER

Quote from: adamstgBit on April 01, 2016, 12:08:37 PM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Fascinat on April 01, 2016, 09:40:54 AM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

Quote from: Maslate on April 01, 2016, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 01, 2016, 05:19:08 AM

At this stage, will be a better solutions than just rushing into a hard fork for the sake of doing it to achieve a power grab. If I have to chose between the lesser of two evils, I will chose to go with the Core Road map. Let's gamble on something and see if this decision will be the best one for now. If they fail, we just support the next team. ^smile^

Hard fork is not a problem as it has happened several times to uᴉoɔʇᴉq. This happens every day in many altcoins.

That is simply not true. uᴉoɔʇᴉq has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

I thought uᴉoɔʇᴉq has hard forked before, in 2012 or 2013? If you give enough notice, hard fork can be implemented properly.

Once, completely accidentally. The fork was caused by a major bug which literally broke uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Other than that, there have been no hard forks in uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

its worth noting it took a few hours to get all the miners running the right version again.
and remarkably my TX ( which was sent DURING the "bug which literally broke" ) ended up working!

so there was 0 notice and miners all upgraded within a few hours.

I knew about the accidental hardfork, but I didn't realize how quickly it was fixed. That makes this whole argument that much more ridiculous. A few hours is nothing. I'm ready for a hardfork to 2+ MB right now. All it would do is allow for more room, it wouldn't force blocks to be 2MB, it would just be the MAX size.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4788

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Fascinat on April 01, 2016, 09:40:54 AM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

That is simply not true. uᴉoɔʇᴉq has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

I thought uᴉoɔʇᴉq has hard forked before, in 2012 or 2013? If you give enough notice, hard fork can be implemented properly.

Once, completely accidentally. The fork was caused by a major bug which literally broke uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Other than that, there have been no hard forks in uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

from none. to once. so how about the millions of bitcoin created in the early years..
wait, thats twice that we have had a hard fork..
wait.. lets just clear this matter up

august 2010.. making millions of bitcoin
february 2012.. version message
march 2013.. db bug

so now there are three..

the funny thing is. when the code was released, and by this im not talking about how long it took to debate what and how it should be done.. im talking about when the code was actually released.. it did not take 12 months for everyone to move over.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 11:34:12 AM

Quote from: Fascinat on April 01, 2016, 09:40:54 AM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

Quote from: Maslate on April 01, 2016, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 01, 2016, 05:19:08 AM

At this stage, will be a better solutions than just rushing into a hard fork for the sake of doing it to achieve a power grab. If I have to chose between the lesser of two evils, I will chose to go with the Core Road map. Let's gamble on something and see if this decision will be the best one for now. If they fail, we just support the next team. ^smile^

Hard fork is not a problem as it has happened several times to uᴉoɔʇᴉq. This happens every day in many altcoins.

That is simply not true. uᴉoɔʇᴉq has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

I thought uᴉoɔʇᴉq has hard forked before, in 2012 or 2013? If you give enough notice, hard fork can be implemented properly.

Once, completely accidentally. The fork was caused by a major bug which literally broke uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Other than that, there have been no hard forks in uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

its worth noting it took a few hours to get all the miners running the right version again.
and remarkably my TX ( which was sent DURING the "bug which literally broke" ) ended up working!

so there was 0 notice and miners all upgraded within a few hours.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: Fascinat on April 01, 2016, 09:40:54 AM

Quote from: achow101 on April 01, 2016, 09:22:31 AM

Quote from: Maslate on April 01, 2016, 08:32:55 AM

Quote from: Kakmakr on April 01, 2016, 05:19:08 AM

At this stage, will be a better solutions than just rushing into a hard fork for the sake of doing it to achieve a power grab. If I have to chose between the lesser of two evils, I will chose to go with the Core Road map. Let's gamble on something and see if this decision will be the best one for now. If they fail, we just support the next team. ^smile^

Hard fork is not a problem as it has happened several times to uᴉoɔʇᴉq. This happens every day in many altcoins.

That is simply not true. uᴉoɔʇᴉq has had no intentional hard fork ever. We have only had soft forks.

I thought uᴉoɔʇᴉq has hard forked before, in 2012 or 2013? If you give enough notice, hard fork can be implemented properly.

Once, completely accidentally. The fork was caused by a major bug which literally broke uᴉoɔʇᴉq. Other than that, there have been no hard forks in bitcoin.

Topic: 1 year from now 2MB HF will be proposed will you support it? - page 2. (Read 2342 times)