BIP 100 and BIP 101 = i like both... - page 4.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:53:27 AM

I do not understand the point of letting miners vote AND limiting them.
Miners are not kids in the supermarket. And if they are, why give them more power in the first place...

one battle at a time 32MB is another limit that makes perfect sense right now.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

If you end up pushing the developing countries into a situation where they have no miners at all (so all just running SPV clients) then I wonder how much they'll end up actually trusting Bitcoin (as that is something controlled by those with high speed internet in the rich developed countries).

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on August 25, 2015, 10:53:14 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 25, 2015, 10:49:46 AM

32MB allows for like 50X increase in traffic, it would be years away. and when it came down to it poeple would sell their bitcoin and you'd know what to do.

Where did you come up with a 50X increase in traffic with a 32x increase in the block size limit?

i figure we aren't quite at the very limit yet, all blocks are <900KB avg block size is like 500KB ish and network is running fine

so ~50X

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 25, 2015, 09:43:49 AM

There is a silver lining on the horizon - BIP 100 from Mr Garzik. Looks like a good compromise to me.

BIP 100:

Protocol changes proposed: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

   -Hard fork, to
   -Remove static 1MB block size limit.
   -Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
   -The historical 32MB limit remains.
   -Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
   -Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
   -Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
   -Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
   -Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

i would be happy if such thing would be adopted...and after that - Bitcoin to da Space Wink

!

This I must say, is a great take on the current situation of where bitcoin lies. Why not adopt some elements of different BIPs instead of choosing only one for the fork? If this happens, the potential upgrade could maximize the most out of the current code and we may not even need to see forks happening around quite often.

Btw, haven't seen a link for BIP 102 yet. Anyone here have it?

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

I do not understand the point of letting miners vote AND limiting them.
Miners are not kids in the supermarket. And if they are, why give them more power in the first place...

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 25, 2015, 10:47:24 AM

I like the idea of BIP100 except for the 32meg limit. It would be much better if we do not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now. I like BIP101 because it is a more permanent solution. If BIP100 did not have the 32meg limit I would absolutely support that instead.

This is the misinformation that I keep talking about. You think that BIP101 is a permanent solution. 8 GB blocks are not a permanent solution. If Bitcoin achieves its supposed goals, then 8 GB will be a inefficient temporary solution.
A 32 MB limit gives enough room for other solutions to be developed and implemented (they're much more efficient).

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 25, 2015, 10:49:46 AM

32MB allows for like 50X increase in traffic, it would be years away. and when it came down to it poeple would sell their bitcoin and you'd know what to do.

Where did you come up with a 50X increase in traffic with a 32x increase in the block size limit?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: meono on August 25, 2015, 10:48:39 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on August 25, 2015, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:43:59 AM

Am I mistaken or BIP100 has a blocksize hard cap at 32 mb while BIP101 goes up to 8 gb?

So we are seriously concerned now that 32 MB is going to become an issue in the next year or two so we should be thinking GBs per block?

If the point was to have all the world's txs on Bitcoin then it seems odd that only the part of the world that has the very best internet will be able to use it in a few years.

Very smart argument there

Since when bitcoin users = bitcoin nodes?

Its very clear from Satoshi that he doesnt even expect users to run nodes.

Current network: 6800 nodes ,

Most users even use thin wallets.

right which is why MAYBE GB limits would be OK but we are way to far away from that to make any reasonable choice about it now.

right now BIP 100 would have us set for years.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 25, 2015, 10:47:24 AM

I like the idea of BIP100 except for the 32meg limit. It would be much better if we do not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now. I like BIP101 because it is a more permanent solution. If BIP100 did not have the 32meg limit I would absolutely support that instead.

32MB allows for like 50X increase in traffic, it would be years away. and when it came down to it poeple would sell their bitcoin and you'd know what to do.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on August 25, 2015, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:43:59 AM

Am I mistaken or BIP100 has a blocksize hard cap at 32 mb while BIP101 goes up to 8 gb?

So we are seriously concerned now that 32 MB is going to become an issue in the next year or two so we should be thinking GBs per block?

If the point was to have all the world's txs on Bitcoin then it seems odd that only the part of the world that has the very best internet will be able to use it in a few years.

Very smart argument there

Since when bitcoin users = bitcoin nodes?

Its very clear from Satoshi that he doesnt even expect users to run nodes.

Current network: 6800 nodes ,

Most users only use thin wallets.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

I like the idea of BIP100 except for the 32meg limit. It would be much better if we do not have to go through all of this again in a few years from now. I like BIP101 because it is a more permanent solution. If BIP100 did not have the 32meg limit I would absolutely support that instead.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: meono on August 25, 2015, 10:39:40 AM

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:36:35 AM

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

NO, it cant, You need another hard fork

This is a kick the can down the road solution.

Fucking speechless that ppl want to choose this.

Oh.... they assumed these "CEOs" dont vote for BIP100 because they dont know about it..... come on. Please. They have millions dollards interest in bitcoin while these folks are nothing but in their underwear behind a screen, being armchair experts.

all we really want is a kick the can down the road solution anyway.

if scaling bitcoin = no block size limit ( or massive GB limit ) , fine then we are moving in the right direction slowly and cautiously, i see nothing wrong with that...

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:45:27 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 25, 2015, 10:40:20 AM

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:36:35 AM

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

32MB limit is a hard limit on ANY network msg

it will have to be removed when we need blocks bigger then 32MB

its going to be like the block size limit debate only with 3 Gavin like forks from hell! mahahaha

we're going to need a better way to achieve consensus

And when the 32 mb will be reached we'll have this debate all over again? Fuck no.

Yes read my post. Fork, fork fork fork.... is what they want.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:43:59 AM

Am I mistaken or BIP100 has a blocksize hard cap at 32 mb while BIP101 goes up to 8 gb?

So we are seriously concerned now that 32 MB is going to become an issue in the next year or two so we should be thinking GBs per block?

If the point was to have all the world's txs on Bitcoin then it seems odd that only the part of the world that has the very best internet will be able to use it in a few years.

Thus - we want GB blocks that the developing world can't handle - therefore we don't want the developing world to use BTC.

Bring on the alts then I say.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 25, 2015, 10:40:20 AM

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:36:35 AM

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

32MB limit is a hard limit on ANY network msg

it will have to be removed when we need blocks bigger then 32MB

its going to be like the block size limit debate only with 3 Gavin like forks from hell! mahahaha

we're going to need a better way to achieve consensus

And when the 32 mb will be reached we'll have this debate all over again? Fuck no.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: CIYAM on August 25, 2015, 10:29:54 AM

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:28:10 AM

BIP100 looks like a compromise but I still prefer BIP101. It gives much more capacity.

As it came first (of all the BIPs to do with blocksize) exactly how is it a compromise (i.e. it can't be a compromise to the other BIPs so what is it a compromise to)?

Having increases just being automatic based upon a non-scientific theory about the increase of bandwidth doesn't seem like a better idea to me.

Getting the miners to vote on it at least makes sure you don't have any big troubles (if they are struggling to handle the bandwidth then they would vote not to increase until they had good enough hardware and connectivity to do so).

Am I mistaken or BIP100 has a blocksize hard cap at 32 mb while BIP101 goes up to 8 gb?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:36:35 AM

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

32MB limit is a hard limit on ANY network msg

it will have to be removed when we need blocks bigger then 32MB

its going to be like the block size limit debate only with 3 Gavin like forks from hell! mahahaha

we're going to need a better way to achieve consensus

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: glub0x on August 25, 2015, 10:36:35 AM

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

NO, it cant, You need another hard fork

This is a kick the can down the road solution.

Fucking speechless that ppl want to choose this.

Oh.... they assumed these "CEOs" dont vote for BIP100 because they dont know about it..... come on. Please. They have millions dollards interest in bitcoin while these folks are nothing but in their underwear behind a screen, being armchair experts.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: knight22 on August 25, 2015, 10:28:10 AM

BIP100 looks like a compromise but I still prefer BIP101. It gives much more capacity.

I agree, 32MB limit? come on are we gonna have another fork debate down the road?

glub0x

legendary

Activity: 892

Merit: 1013

I am not sure to understand one point of BIP100
Can the 32 mb be removed? It is not so clear to me in his text (no native english ... )

Quote

and a 2nd hard fork at 32MB, assuming users choose to scale that high. The 32MB
hard fork is largely coincidental a wholenetwork upgrade at 32MB was likely needed anyway,
for historical reasons unrelated to this proposa

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Klestin on August 25, 2015, 10:32:27 AM

Everyone seems to forget that the exponential rate of BIP 101 can be adjusted with a soft fork.

but BIP 100 auto adjusts

everyone vote BIP 100 and be done with this madness

Topic: BIP 100 and BIP 101 = i like both... - page 4. (Read 3374 times)