Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? - page 3.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: gentlemand on June 02, 2015, 01:40:29 PM

Quote from: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 01:18:19 PM

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

It was never really alive in the first place.

Do you seriously believe that VISA could run its payment network using the punch card and tabulating machine technology of the 1930's and 1940's when credit cards first came out? Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit is exactly the same: Assuming the current costs for bandwidth, CPU, memory, computer storage etc. will stay the same for ever.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 3015

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: nutildah on June 02, 2015, 01:18:19 PM

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

It was never really alive in the first place.

ElectricMucus

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1057

Marketing manager - GO MP

Hahaha, where is the debate about alternative proposals, there have been some, yet nobody in the "pro-fork" camp even bothers to dismiss them.
Instead the thread is filled with the same arguments as everywhere else.

I'm losing more an more opportunities to see this forum as anything else than a laughing stock.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 3010

Merit: 8114

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

GenTarkin

legendary

Activity: 2450

Merit: 1002

Quote from: manselr on May 31, 2015, 12:12:06 PM

This is the situation and what we know:

To scale further by any decent increase ... would mean full nodes wanting an incentive for anyone to actually run a full node.
Whos gonna build a server farm to just run full node and not get paid anything!? that would be an idiot thing to do.
The protocol should somehow award full nodes....
Dont ask me how tho... LOL .... a portion of the tx fees?

Fuserleer

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1016

Quote from: NorrisK on June 02, 2015, 09:58:59 AM

How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting..

Block data is high entropy, and high entropy data doesn't compress very well, typically it actually increases in size.

For example, search Google for a file called "million random numbers", it is a VERY high entropy file. Download it and compress it with as many compression tools you can get your hands on, in all cases the "compressed" file will be larger than the source.

Compression of block data in the traditional sense is useless and pointless.

Buttknuckle

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

★YoBit.Net★ 100+ Coins Exchange & Dice

Quote from: not altcoin hitler on May 31, 2015, 12:48:37 PM

I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter.
And he should take his fanclub with him!

One of the fud mongers speaks. DO you care to address the fact that the team opposing the fork has a conflict of interest? Of course not you will just continue to spread fud.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting..

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

Quote from: jubalix on June 01, 2015, 10:42:57 PM

I don't see much issue here

Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.

HD space is still going down in cost.

2TB HDDs are so incredibly cheap these days. In 10 years imagine, 2TB will be like what 2GB is for us now, and we will probably have cheap large SSD disks by then too.

neoneros

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I can draw your avatar!

Thought the increase might be big, how big of a change is it in the core itself? Does a lot depend on the variable that defines the size of the blocks? What is the biggest fear in this?

If you have a room with a lightbulb, and is has to low light for reading, you can change the bulb with a higher intensity so you can read again, no big deal. I cannot think of it that the increase would actually be a big issue for the source and implementation. I could be wrong, not that into the code of the proposed fork itself, but I think the impact and positive outcome are larger than the actual risks that the code would break and be to hasty implemented.

And what if it does fail? It will be tested and tried, then it will slowly be adopted into the chain, if it works we can embrace it, if it fails, we will find out soon enough and we can just all go back a version and learn from it and revise the plans.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Let's go back to the blunt technicalities: what happens if the block size does not grow?

more memory usage (ever growing mempool)
more network contention (unconfirmed tx keep getting flown around and resubmitted)
more double spends (from resubmitted tx)
growing minimal fees (pools trying to deal with the above, and treat any tx without enough fee as spam)

Why? because people with unconfirmed tx would just keep re-submitting and spam, as that's the most effective technique to get *your* transaction through in a congested traffic situation. Just like elbowing is the most effective technique to get through a crowd.

Yes, it would be selfish, but yes it would happen.

So let's face it: limiting block size will NOT reduce network contention or make nodes lighter. Only reduced bitcoin usage would.

Growing fees would achieve reduced bitcoin usage, though, but is that what you really want?

Rampion

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1018

My proposal: a slow, progressive and cautious approach. First we increase to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. Doubling the block size seems the sensible approach - increase it in one single step by x20 seems overkill.

The reasons argued by those who defend a cautious and slow growth are solid; on the contrary, those argued by Hearn and his acolytes are reckless BS.

SuperClam

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1002

CLAM Developer

Quote from: jubalix on June 01, 2015, 10:42:57 PM

I don't see much issue here
Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.
HD space is still going down in cost.

Storage is not a major bottleneck.

Bandwidth and latency are legitimate concerns from my reading of the material; though the current proposed change doesn't saturate either, depending on your personal situation.

One of the issues-at-hand concerns adopting strategies that can easily become centralization forces now, or in the future.

Quote from: shulio on June 02, 2015, 03:05:56 AM

It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind...

Given a serious situation, the network has in the past proven it's ability to fork quite quickly.
Further, even given a backlog in the mempool, users who include reasonable transaction fees with their transaction would be more likely to have their transaction included into a block. Meaning: The network would work fine.

It is a fact that storing and broadcasting your transactions on the chain is not "free".
You are enjoying the resources of the network of full-nodes.

Quote from: shulio on June 02, 2015, 03:05:56 AM

...but they dont provide any solution for it...

There are a variety of solutions that have been proposed, although there is admitted lack of implementations. However, development resources would be more likely applied to a problem that was actually imminent.

Quote from: shulio on June 02, 2015, 03:05:56 AM

...forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this .

Not true.
No Bitcoin will be "lost" -
With the exception of someone who receives an incoming transaction on the "losing" chain (that is not posted to the "winning" chain) and that output is then signed to a different address on the "winning" chain.

fat buddah

full member

Activity: 336

Merit: 102

Get Ready to Make money.

I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.

The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on a change and you need to accept that.

After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)

that is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying.
It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it.

shulio

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1016

Quote from: ticoti on June 01, 2015, 08:57:59 PM

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind, but they dont provide any solution for it, mostly people who are oppose it because they have a fork-o-phobia, forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this .

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: not altcoin hitler on June 01, 2015, 10:07:07 PM

Quote from: ticoti on June 01, 2015, 08:57:59 PM

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it.
Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob.

Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less.

what are all those ways you are talking about? this upgrade is not necessary right, is mandatory, we are already near the limit, there is a chart posted by someone, check it before posting other crap

bitcoin is not fine at all, big companies will never join the network with such a tiny TX limit per second, they simply cannot, they have huge movements of tx per seconds, with their business

jubalix

legendary

Activity: 2632

Merit: 1023

I don't see much issue here

Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.

HD space is still going down in cost.

MicroGuy

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1030

Twitter @realmicroguy

Satoshi was not dumb, he picked Gavin for a reason. Going with Gavin on this, is honoring Satoshi's wishes. Going with the dissenting core devs is mutiny.

humanitee

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 502

There is literally no reason to be against SOME sort of increase. Even the lightning guys said they would need bigger blocks to support a robust lightning network.

Maybe 20 MB is too much all at once, but to say we don't need to fork to at least 4 MB is beyond ludicrous. That would give developers time to fully develop and test solutions to scaling. I realize mining pools are worried about relay times but 1 MB is not feasible for much longer.

Not forking will make me want to sell my coin more than the risk of forking. It is one of the few issues that would cause me to lose faith in the project. Bitcoin goes nowhere without a higher block size, period.

If we continuously delay and pretend like we have other solutions, forking and reaching consensus will become even harder as the network becomes ever larger. This really should have been taken care of sooner.

We will start pricing out micropayments if we wait much longer.

not altcoin hitler

member

Activity: 212

Merit: 22

Amazix

Quote from: ticoti on June 01, 2015, 08:57:59 PM

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not necessary. Totally not. The discussion is bogus nonsense and wears everyone out. Tired of it. There are enough ways to pump up max txs without forking and risking to ruin it.
Gavin is just a crybaby with a pitchfork-reddit-mob.

Shut it already. Bitcoin is fine the way it is. Gavin is corrupt and possibly a CIA mole. The fork is an attack on Bitcoin nothing more and nothing less.

Topic: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? - page 3. (Read 5452 times)