Topic: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? - page 2. (Read 5452 times)

Why do you guys go aginst this fork?

Exactly. Jack up the price on a product, throttle it's capacity, and let the competition pass it. A great way to kill bitcoin.

Long term, 20MB isn't going to be anywhere near enough block space to encompass full consumer adoption. This wont be the only fork in the road...I see 2-3 more by 2020.

how is having a team less centralized than having one dev? i still see it as a centralized, banks are centralized but they are not controlled by one user...

I'm not anti nor pro the change.  But I think if block size stays the same, off chain transactions might help with scalability.  Not to mention the blockchain's growing size.  

I guess it's also time to look at other technologies like Ripple or OT...  Just my 2c.

The only way to make Bitcoin purely decentralized would be to integrate a client voting mechanism. The system now requires a trusted developer with veto power.

Decentralization>Centralization. There should be a team making decisions, not a sole person.

I think it's important to consider who Satoshi entrusted with the Alert Keys. Basically, he was giving Gavin his full endorsement with that gesture.

Gavin is like our Scotty, he's in charge of the Bitcoin engine room. Allow him to do his job and everything will be fine.

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

LOL I agree. I forgot about that one.

Exactly this is what OP is saying.

You are against why? And what is your solution then to solve the problem?

None at all? Then leave to decide to those that have them.

I disagree the fastest in person payment method is cash. Chip and pin credit card transactions and debit card transactions are way slower. Tap credit card payment methods approach cash in speed but then the merchant accepts the "stolen credit card risk" which is worse than a 0 confirmation XBT transaction. Have you ever been to a restaurant with a group of say 20 people are paying the bill with debit? I have and it can easily take 20 min to an hour. Enough for up to six XBT confirmations on the blockchain.

To answer OP's question, Meni Rosenfeld just published this post today. Definitely worth a read, especially if you consider yourself a pro:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/elastic-block-cap-with-rollover-penalties-1078521

Yes, which becomes less and less possible the bigger the blockchain becomes. So why jump straight to a 20-fold increase in potential blockchain size?


Nope, not in terms of speed. There's no faster payment method than swiping a credit card. Unless you decrease block lengths, bitcoin transactions will not catch up.

A 5-fold increase would have been appropriate in 2013. One of the reasons that people use SPV Bitcoin wallets is because many people use mobile devices that are so heavily infected with DRM that one cannot run a full Bitcoin client. IOS being the perfect example, since Apple uses DRM to censor Bitcoin until early 2014. The device may be perfectly capable and have the CPU, memory, storage bandwith etc to run Bitcoin but the DRM prevents it. This is a serious centralization problem but it has nothing to do blocksize limits.  For example one cannot run a full Bitcoin client on Windows 8.1 RT regardless of the capabilities of the device or the blocksize because the DRM in the device censors it.

The key to decentralization in Bitcoin is to make sure that the enthusiast / hobbyist can run a full Bitcoin node using hardware and software that person controls.

Bitcoin easily beat a credit card or debit card for transaction where 1) The parties are not in each other's presence (so cash is not an option) 2) Either the sender cannot get a credit / debit card or the receiver does not have a merchant account. This is a huge market that furthermore cannot be served by the likes of Coinbase. Those transactions have to be on the blockchain.

Edit: Storage is even less of an issue than bandwidth.  My .bitcoin directory is 37GB. 20x this becomes 740 GB. One can now easily purchase 4TB and 8TB drives. In the horizon there are 10TB+ SSD drives etc. It is the same issue as with bandwidth. One simple cannot in perpetuity constrain  Bitcoin to current technology.

Can you do the math on how much bigger the already bloated blockchain will become? Its size is already impractical for a new user who just wants to use BTC to get around having to use PayPal, Western Union etc.

You will be encouraging reliance on centralization if you increase the limit. Lets face it: bitcoin will never come close to being as fast or convenient as a credit or debit card. There are some niches where it will continue to be an improvement upon pre-existing payment methods, but making the blockchain potentially 20x larger in size is just dumb.

Why not a 5-fold increase to 5mb first instead of going straight for the 20x increase?

I believe jgarzik the OP of the thread is now on the side of keeping the 1 MB limit. He was not happy when I dug up his thread back in 2013.

The problem with the centralization argument is that that the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit are ignoring Nielsen's Law. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ Here is that math: Internet bandwidth grows at an annualized rate of 50% a year. Now start with 1MBit/s in 2009 and figure out what the equivalent amount of bandwidth would be in mid 2016 when the proposed hard fork is supposed to take place. The answer is 20.9 MBit/s. So a 1MB blocksize limit at the start of 2009 is equivalent to 20.9 MB blocksize limit in mid 2016.  

Does it now make sense why Gavin picked 20 MB? He did the math, something the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit have simply chosen not to do.

how about we see these people argue it in this thread :- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347 where everything is summed up real quick but the real professionals

+1 Here is where the anti-20 MB crowd had their chance, and blew it.

I like bitcointalk, but it has an atmosphere that is kind of a mix of that Star Wars bar on Tatooine and a giant food fight.