Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 110. (Read 154790 times)

whatever you say ... for every argument you make, there's a counterargument.

the blockchain isnt going to be 1000GB+ a year
" blockchain pruning " solutions are already being worked out to fix the storage issue
most likely the home user will not even notice that the blocks are larger
since the transcation amount will have to increase exponentially to get close to filling those bigger blocks and that may not happen for 5-10 years

I'm pretty independent.  I've been reading the bitcoin-assets stuff and would say that some of my conceptions are a startling mirror of what they are up to so it would be fair to consider me 'in their camp'.  I don't know what the MP crew's actual driving motivations are so I cannot really go to bat for them.  I like what I see though.

Actually, in my mind the union of a defensible Bitcoin backing healthy sidechains ecosystem is where I really see value.  I've got nothing to do with the Blockstream guys either, but it would be even more appropriate to consider me as 'in their camp'.  Again, it's really the symbiosis of the two efforts where I really see a future worth working towards.  Success of either effort is a positive, but the combination would be, in my mind, a home run and may be tenable.

do not say Gavincoin will win a war. I think it won't for a few simple reasons:
-Users who don't update are automatically not on Gavincoin
-many users will choose a small blockchain over a large one when presented with a choice (me included)
-all it takes is a single exchange that exchanges Mpcoin to make sure it survives and wins
-the old chain is more integer (it is the original 'Bitcoin')

it all depends how the broaders userbase is educated on their choice and the users will not choose Gavincoin as it incapacitates them and brings them no real benefits - they will tell you to go fork yourself when told about 1000gb storage and all the other things.
The ultimate choice will be down to the userbase ... and they will choose dogecoin and litecoin ... but if they had to choose between Gavin and Mpcoin they will stay on the old chain.

So this whole shitshow is total bogus.

Most people will possibly try out both versions and will find Mpcoin is just better for them as they can afford to store the blockchain on their homecomputers and it doesn't use so much bandwidth. Gavincoin won't win it - even if it has more support initially and all the hype-sheitsters, exchanges and 95% miners behind it. People will find it's crap and return to Mpcoin ... or more likely Litecoin.

Seriously all of these pro-fork people that are so sure Gavincoin will be the winning chain look like apes.

Guys, this discussion and all your arrogance is just too funny but carry on ....

Apologies for thinking you were in that camp originally defending MP. I too would like to see a side chain demonstrated on testnet, but am skeptical of its concept. I'll remain agnostic until it is released as an open source. Until then, I am perfectly okay with altcoins handling local currency needs and Bitcoin serving as reserve currency. I still think it should increase tps somehow to be taken seriously as a payment system. Until an argument for low tps finds traction, it's hard to take it seriously.

I never said anything one way or another about that and never thought much about it until about 20 seconds ago.  Now that I do, however, it is kind of interesting...

I've heard (but don't know) that some outfits are shutting down their hashing due to being in the red (which, as I've said multiple times, is an almost inevitable situation which we must assume will occur from time to time no matter what the price, fees, blocksize, whatever due to simple economics and supply/demand.)  Those blinking off must be pools who own most of their own gear because it should not cost much to run a pool generally and if you can find a few miners who will hash for you (for whatever reason) then why not keep running?

This means that there are idle resources which can power up.  Let's guesstimate that 95% of miners are straight up good corporate citizens and who appropriately love Big Brother and The Bitcoin Foundation.  They'll upgrade to 'gavincoin' like they should and keep right on hashing (and honor the appropriate red-lists when they come out.)  --edit:  Actually as much as anything it would be that said miners don't want their multi-million dollars worth of gear all wired in in a tidy datacenter confiscated and/or their connectivity cut off by their network provider...who doesn't want their multi-million dollars worth of gear confiscated...

This leaves the other 5%.  Some of these will hash on bitcoin-legacy.org (domain free to a good home, BTW.)  Maybe the BTC they get will be worth less, and maybe there is a better chance that they'll be worth almost nothing compared to the state approved GVC [gavcoin|govcoin], but they'll win a lot more of them since the difficulty will plummet.

bitcoin-legacy will have to live under the Sword of Damocles having only a minority of the world's sha256, but there are probably some kludgy protections against some of the mischief which could be wrought upon it through attack though.

You know what?  A light, tight, and defensible Bitcoin core is exactly what 'sidechains' needs, and sidechains have the potential to attract a great deal of sha256 since they would be created by-and-for autonomous entities who simply need the benefits of a solid exchange currency.  Here's an idea.  The so-called 'mpcoin' could patch in the SPVP op-code which would benefit sidechains (and others) and leave the gavin-bloat behind as a play for resources.

Here's to living in interesting times.

That's the kind of people that cause trouble, as I've previously stated.

Since when is security a concern? After Gavin hardfork you better not talk about security.

"you are potatoes that have already their mind made up for chaos and war"

  OMG, I've never laughed so hard at a bitcointalk.org post.

Hubris has killed many endeavors. Network effect is very powerful, but not all powerful. My understanding is that the 10 minute block is ideal from a security standpoint. Are faster block altcoins still less secure than Bitcoin with larger blocks?

i'm laughing at this debate, believe me. You are making decisions like prehistoric cavemen.

do you some some fixation with potatoes or something ? this is a bitcoin thread
maybe you should  get back to your farm ASAP

I didn't know “shitcoin” was a technical term.

no, reaching 99% to 100% consensus is certainly possible (in groups of ANY size) but you people don't know how to go about it - and i don't hold a large enough stake in btc to care to help you arrogant assholes out. Only you are behaving likea sack potatoes doesn't mean consensus can't be reached. I do know about the most up to date and advanced tools for consensus making but you are potatoes that have already their mind made up for chaos and war. And i don't care. Just to let you know most of you are stupid like a sack potatoes and there's enough things you are unaware of when it comes to finding consensus. Most of you can't even properly define it - including Mr. Andresen.

shitcoins will not overtake bitcoin

i havent heard specific details from gavin but i was under the impression there will still be 6 blocks per hour and the only change is the blocks will be able to scale up to 20MB only  IF  AND WHEN there are sufficient transactions ,  84,000 transactions or something like that......

I would like to know more details myself to be honest before voting on something i only half understand but i think everyone agrees 7 tps is not enough so its a matter of when and not if ......

 

Currently altcoins with faster blocks can handle 10-20x higher tps than Bitcoin. When demand for higher tps increases, some of these altcoins may have chipped away some network effect by then. Would they then have the network effect advantage of already handling higher tps? Where is the analysis of block speed vs. size?

many as in more than 51% ?
the strongest chain is going to win

i like theymos idea of setting a date say 2 years from now say february 2017  to increase to 2MB and then when we reach that date setting a new date of february 2019 to increase to 5MB blocks,increase to 10MB in  feb 2021 etc

What hard fork did you think I was talking about? According to MP , tvbcof, et. al. many miners would not switch to the new 20M fork.

the current mining pools  with all the hashing power might have something to say about about that

its not like theyre going to just quit and throw all their asics in the garbage just because the block size changes

whichever chain is the strongest will be mined and the other disregarded ,i would say its probably going to be increased to 20MB whether everyone "agrees" or not ......

What I support most strongly is that we do substantially-delayed hard forks with conservative values. Then doing hard forks regularly isn't such a big issue.

For example, Bitcoin Core can be immediately modified to increase the max block size to 2 MB on a specific date 2 years from now. I think that pretty much everyone would be basically OK with this max block size (and even higher values might be widely acceptable). By the time the change actually takes effect in 2 years, everyone will already have upgraded because very few people use 2-year-old software. Businesses and users won't have to go out of their way to choose one fork over another, and so there will be less room for messiness.

Then if a really nice academic study convincingly arguing that 5 MB blocks are safe is published 1 week after the 2-year-delayed change is added, another 2-year-delayed change can be added right away with very little extra cost. After ~2 years, the max block size will increase to 2 MB, and then a week later change to 5 MB.

Yes, 2 years is a long time. But I'm confident that Bitcoin will survive that long with 1 MB blocks.