Why do most people not want to hear anything from you?
Updated OP to remove irrelevant content.
Topic: A well reasoned solution to the block size issue... (Read 651 times)
Updated OP to remove irrelevant content.
I know that currently most forum members don't want to hear anything much from me but I would like to just say that this: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is the best solution to the current issue with block size that I've seen so far (and the author is no fan of mine either).
Why do most people not want to hear anything from you?
Vote is not good, should strive to reach 100% consensus, and that can be done step by step
You never vote for the answer of 1+1, it will always be 2 no matter what you vote. You don't need vote if a fact is understandable for everyone. The reason why people need a vote is typically because no one can clearly understand what is the consequence of certain decision
I think currently almost everyone have a consensus that block size limit will be raised
First and most important, Satoshi set this limit temporarily, he also suggested the way to raise the block size limit when the time comes. As the creator of bitcoin, his opinion should be highly respected
And from end user point of view, if the system is not able to handle enough amount of transactions, then the payment network will only be able to handle large transactions (Who can afford a very high fee), all the small transactions will be dropped, people have to rely on off-chain solutions which lacks many of bitcoin transaction's superior property, this is not a simple and robust enough solution
So the only difference is that how large the new limit should be, or how fast it should be raised. I think it is easy to reach a consensus of conservative approach when facing uncertainty (If you did not change too dramatically from the current status, you will be very likely to handle the incident if there is any)
A rule of thumb when it comes to IT infrastructure upgrade, you always start to plan an upgrade when 3/4 of the capacity is reaching, and the load should drop below 25% of the capacity of the new infrastructure, means a 3x increase in capacity when upgrading
You never vote for the answer of 1+1, it will always be 2 no matter what you vote. You don't need vote if a fact is understandable for everyone. The reason why people need a vote is typically because no one can clearly understand what is the consequence of certain decision
I think currently almost everyone have a consensus that block size limit will be raised
First and most important, Satoshi set this limit temporarily, he also suggested the way to raise the block size limit when the time comes. As the creator of bitcoin, his opinion should be highly respected
And from end user point of view, if the system is not able to handle enough amount of transactions, then the payment network will only be able to handle large transactions (Who can afford a very high fee), all the small transactions will be dropped, people have to rely on off-chain solutions which lacks many of bitcoin transaction's superior property, this is not a simple and robust enough solution
So the only difference is that how large the new limit should be, or how fast it should be raised. I think it is easy to reach a consensus of conservative approach when facing uncertainty (If you did not change too dramatically from the current status, you will be very likely to handle the incident if there is any)
A rule of thumb when it comes to IT infrastructure upgrade, you always start to plan an upgrade when 3/4 of the capacity is reaching, and the load should drop below 25% of the capacity of the new infrastructure, means a 3x increase in capacity when upgrading
A 100% consesus is idealistic bullshit.. You will never get everybody to agree on some solution, that is just not how humans work. There are always some ego trippers that want their solution and only theirs..
The 90% that is being proposed is already quite high. 60-75% would be more realistic imo.
Vote is not good, should strive to reach 100% consensus, and that can be done step by step
You never vote for the answer of 1+1, it will always be 2 no matter what you vote. You don't need vote if a fact is understandable for everyone. The reason why people need a vote is typically because no one can clearly understand what is the consequence of certain decision
I think currently almost everyone have a consensus that block size limit will be raised
First and most important, Satoshi set this limit temporarily, he also suggested the way to raise the block size limit when the time comes. As the creator of bitcoin, his opinion should be highly respected
And from end user point of view, if the system is not able to handle enough amount of transactions, then the payment network will only be able to handle large transactions (Who can afford a very high fee), all the small transactions will be dropped, people have to rely on off-chain solutions which lacks many of bitcoin transaction's superior property, this is not a simple and robust enough solution
So the only difference is that how large the new limit should be, or how fast it should be raised. I think it is easy to reach a consensus of conservative approach when facing uncertainty (If you did not change too dramatically from the current status, you will be very likely to handle the incident if there is any)
A rule of thumb when it comes to IT infrastructure upgrade, you always start to plan an upgrade when 3/4 of the capacity is reaching, and the load should drop below 25% of the capacity of the new infrastructure, means a 3x increase in capacity when upgrading
You never vote for the answer of 1+1, it will always be 2 no matter what you vote. You don't need vote if a fact is understandable for everyone. The reason why people need a vote is typically because no one can clearly understand what is the consequence of certain decision
I think currently almost everyone have a consensus that block size limit will be raised
First and most important, Satoshi set this limit temporarily, he also suggested the way to raise the block size limit when the time comes. As the creator of bitcoin, his opinion should be highly respected
And from end user point of view, if the system is not able to handle enough amount of transactions, then the payment network will only be able to handle large transactions (Who can afford a very high fee), all the small transactions will be dropped, people have to rely on off-chain solutions which lacks many of bitcoin transaction's superior property, this is not a simple and robust enough solution
So the only difference is that how large the new limit should be, or how fast it should be raised. I think it is easy to reach a consensus of conservative approach when facing uncertainty (If you did not change too dramatically from the current status, you will be very likely to handle the incident if there is any)
A rule of thumb when it comes to IT infrastructure upgrade, you always start to plan an upgrade when 3/4 of the capacity is reaching, and the load should drop below 25% of the capacity of the new infrastructure, means a 3x increase in capacity when upgrading
I know that currently most forum members don't want to hear anything much from me but I would like to just say that this: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is the best solution to the current issue with block size that I've seen so far (and the author is no fan of mine either).
If you really want your opinion to have some real effect, join the mailing list on sourceforge and communicate with those who matter. BitcoinTalk has turned into a marketplace where people are more interested in being trusted, increasing post count & activity count. Maximum people over here has no interest in what Garzik is saying.
Personally, I think, what you are saying is correct. But, Gavin & Hearn are desparate to have a Hard Fork. Because NSA/CIA has given them the task of address blacklisting.
Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners
I dont know, isn't it a bit far fetched to go as far as saying Gavin & Hearn are disinfo agents of the NSA/CIA and are in coperation to meet an agenda of these institutions? that's pretty heavy to swallow. Granted I don't like some of the stuff these 2 plan for BTC; but thats too much.
I know that currently most forum members don't want to hear anything much from me but I would like to just say that this: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is the best solution to the current issue with block size that I've seen so far (and the author is no fan of mine either).
If you really want your opinion to have some real effect, join the mailing list on sourceforge and communicate with those who matter. BitcoinTalk has turned into a marketplace where people are more interested in being trusted, increasing post count & activity count. Maximum people over here has no interest in what Garzik is saying.
Personally, I think, what you are saying is correct. But, Gavin & Hearn are desparate to have a Hard Fork. Because NSA/CIA has given them the task of address blacklisting.
Ref: Freezing BitCoin addresses by regulating miners
Well I don't know you personally, I am not a fan or not a fan. But I think that all parties engaging in a meaningful discussion is always a good thing if we can keep the fud out of the picture.
I would like to respond to some things in the article: "What is bitcoin"- I just look at it as currency myself, like the dollar or euro but with much better features. However I understand that someone looking at the bigger picture, especially regulations that are developing, might see the picture differently.
"Risky hard fork"- I am not sure that it is so risky. I have read a lot on the topic and I think that the hard fork can go smoothly.
"The primary reason to change is removing a roadblock to bitcoin growth" as I see it the case is not this, but rather to avoid the bottle necks that will surely happen soon if the problem is not addressed. If this is not addressed, then bitcoin will lose its market leader position and be replaced by a better crypto. There are several alt coins that could be great replacements for bitcoin. We are on the verge of seeing this happen.
Fees and the fed: I disagree with the fed comparison. Low fees are essential to wider adoption, an increase in fees would benefit alt coins. This isn't a bad thing, because if bitcoin can't or won't improve, then it deserves its fate. Beware hubris.
Proposal: I really like you idea, and I hope others will read this paper and comment. A floating solution makes more sense than a static 8 mb increase (or whatever the size ends up at).
Discussion: I like your presentation of ideas here, and again I hope some will bother to read this and reach an conclusion, whether the agree or disagree with you, on what the solution should be. I don't have much to say about this part, as I feel your discussion was pretty thorough.
Thanks for writing this up it was a really interesting read.
I would like to respond to some things in the article: "What is bitcoin"- I just look at it as currency myself, like the dollar or euro but with much better features. However I understand that someone looking at the bigger picture, especially regulations that are developing, might see the picture differently.
"Risky hard fork"- I am not sure that it is so risky. I have read a lot on the topic and I think that the hard fork can go smoothly.
"The primary reason to change is removing a roadblock to bitcoin growth" as I see it the case is not this, but rather to avoid the bottle necks that will surely happen soon if the problem is not addressed. If this is not addressed, then bitcoin will lose its market leader position and be replaced by a better crypto. There are several alt coins that could be great replacements for bitcoin. We are on the verge of seeing this happen.
Fees and the fed: I disagree with the fed comparison. Low fees are essential to wider adoption, an increase in fees would benefit alt coins. This isn't a bad thing, because if bitcoin can't or won't improve, then it deserves its fate. Beware hubris.
Proposal: I really like you idea, and I hope others will read this paper and comment. A floating solution makes more sense than a static 8 mb increase (or whatever the size ends up at).
Discussion: I like your presentation of ideas here, and again I hope some will bother to read this and reach an conclusion, whether the agree or disagree with you, on what the solution should be. I don't have much to say about this part, as I feel your discussion was pretty thorough.
Thanks for writing this up it was a really interesting read.
I would like to just say that this: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is the best solution to the current issue with block size that I've seen so far.
Jump to: