Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 11. (Read 8082 times)

i agree.. miners wont jump to 2mb instantly.. the 2mb rule is not an "average" but a "maximum"
it would in reality look more like like a slow increase..  eg 1.025mb, 1.05mb, 1.1mb growing slowly..  all of which are acceptable as the 2mb is a "maximum" not an average, and not rejected because the 1mb maximum is no longer inforce.

one part is as i said only when there is a majority of users able to cope with it (consensus) and the other is where transactions are pouring in and causing bottlenecks (filling mempools and risking mempool crashes if not handled/flushed sooner)..
where miners know if they let in more tx per block... even just 100 extra tx's(1.025mb) at first they can get an extra 100 transactions which means 100x tx fee..

again wont be a jump to full bloat 2mb in days.... i just meant 2mb POTENTIAL, which will naturally grow with time and user demand to send transactions

worded differently:
so imagine 1mb is about 4000 tx's maximum potential
it wont jump to suddenly hash 8000 tx's tomorrow.. it just means moving the goal posts, miners can hash out 4001tx's, 4010, 4100, 5000. blah, etc.. basically any number between 0 and 7999.. without the community arguing..
and the more tx the miner allows the more tx fee's it can eat

I'm a HW engineer.  So my grasp on the SW is a little infirm.  (Unfirm?)  I'll leave the SW comments to the SW weenies. 

It will take mining HW slightly longer to perform an SHA256 hash on 2MBytes of data, as opposed to 1MByte.  It is unlikely to require a full 2x of time...but it's likely to be greater than 1.25x.  (This is all "back of the napkin" estimation.)  If I'm paid the same for a 2MByte block as for a 1MByte block, then I'll go for the 1MByte block because I can produce more of them in a given amount of time.  This is particularly true if my HW is older (and thus slower) since I cannot compete as well at 2MBytes. 

If there is free choice, at my level, then to persuade me to crunch 2MByte blocks, there would need to be a pay increase per block.  The pay increase would need to meet or exceed the cost (to me) of the extra crunch time and extra electricity.  Otherwise...if I am still allowed to crunch 1MByte blocks...and there is no "shift differential"...then I would never crunch 2MByte blocks. 

lets say there are 6000 users who are dedicated and enthusiastic full node users

1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

then miners will see 83% consensus for 2mb and miners will hopefully choose to start mining 2mb blocks as the community is ready for it..
bitcoin continues and 83% are happy... but the downside is that 1mb segwit clients will throw away 2mb blocks, because even after cutting out signatures the data is still over 1mb.. making segwit left behind dropping blocks and not able to be part of the network.. as they "handshake" other nodes to say that they are several blocks behind everyone else and refusing to accept big blocks..
so its not really an altcoin.. is just being put into retirement with less data then the rest

now..
imagine
1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

same numbers..
but this time miners chose to do 1mbsegwit blocks (1.5mb reality archival blocks)..
everyone is happy as all 5000 fullnodes will receive full archival data(1.5mb) (aslong as segwit allows archival by default) as segwit is sending out 1mb non-witness blocks to the 1000segwits, which is below the 1mb segwit limit so they approve... and 1.5mb archival blocks to the 5000 full nodes, which is below the 2mb limit so all implementations approve.
but like i say, only if segwit mining by default sends full (archival(with sig) blocks in standard format all implementations can understand.. where truncated versions(no witness) is a non-default second option(for their own kind to experiment with).

now..
imagine
 same demograph of users.. but this time there are dissent in the mining ranks.. one miner stays at 1mb(but isnt segwit), another stays at 2mb
the 1mb miner would not have staled his attempt when he sees a 2mb block. because it will reject 2mb by default due to it not being 1mb.. and continue to solve a 1mb block..
5000 users will accept the 2mb as it solved first and ignore the 1mb block as it came second place (fastest solution wins)
but the 1000 segwit users will orphan off the 2mb mined blocks and accept only the 1mb mined block.

but now when the 1mb miner wants to send funds.. only 16% of users see's the coinbase(fresh coin) as valid to spend as only 16% chose to reject the 2mb block. which can cause the 1mb miners coinbase to be unspendable and piss the 1mb miner off..
eventually the 1mb miner agree's to be part of the 2mb community and know it has a chance to spend its coins as the majority of nodes will accept it.

now the segwit users are left limp because they reject blocks that cant truncate down to 1mb and as said in the first scenario.. they are left to retire as they cannot keep up with the block height of the 83% others..

again its not really an altcoin. but a fork that might take some time to get miners to realise what rule allows them to spend their coinbase without headache.


not sure. as i dont believe ive ever read plans for btcc to change the algorithm..

Bitcoin Classic is a respond from (Chinese) mining industry against Bitcoin Core.
A good respond ... 2Mb is not bad and make room for developping others tools.

Bitcoin Core can stay ... but, at the end ... only evolving software win.
Like all P2P network from the year 2000.

This ^ all depends on what bitcoin is designed for (this is up for debate). The fact that bitcoin transacts faster and cheaper than the traditional banking system is still a good thing whether the TX cost is $0.04 or $0.004 and if the transaction gets 1 confirmation in 10 minutes or 1 hour is still better than wiring money internationally and possibly taking 3days to a week.

Disclosure: I am neutral in all of this debate. Just looking at both sides.

Apologies in advance for the dumb questions...

If the fork takes place...if "Bitcoin Classic" does indeed materialize...does this mean that the original blockchain and the new chain with bigger blocks will both still function at the same time?  In this case, isn't "Bitcoin Classic" just another alt coin?  

Also, unless BTCC plans to start the whole mining ecology from scratch, then the new blockchain would need to work correctly and seamlessly with the existing SHA256 mining hardware out in the world...yes?  

I cannot imagine BTCC being successful, if all the BTC miners and farms in the world must purchase new equipment before they can participate.  (Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the bigger players would be delighted?)

-tfeagle

im still wondering why are people fighting over only having 1 solution..

as long as lets say bitcoin unlimited allows a 2mb limit. bitcoin-core has a 2mb limit, bitcoinj has a 2mb limit, bitcoin classic has a 2mb limit and the other half a dozen popular implementations have a 2mb limit.. along with the dozen lesser known implementations having a 2mb limit..

then the world will continue and all 2 dozen implementations can co-exist all happily using the 2mb rule..

I don't personally believe classic is the solution but a product I am working on involves using bitcoin for micro-payments, similar to the way nickel peep shows and newspaper stands and soda machine work - and those can make a lot of money but they can't make as much online because of credit card transaction fees and chargebacks.

Right now sometimes the way this is done is through the purchase of "tokens" to reduce the transaction costs - but with bitcoin that isn't necessary, the fee is paid by the buyer and is small.

With micro-payments for digital access, you do not even really need to wait for confirmations, just seeing the transaction on the P2P network is enough to know that you will probably be paid and if a double-spend is performed, you just ban the user from your service.

With that model, if it works, there will be increase in transactions many of which are very small in value.

So yes, the number of transactions is a problem that needs to be solved.

But no, I don't think classic is the solution we need.

I'm not choosing sides. I'm completely neutral on the whole block size situation.

But how does your statement above hold true if Gavin willfully gave up the CORE dev position to someone else?

but think outside of the box..

now imagine its 2016 and 3 million people who grew with bitcoin and loved it for fast transactions in 2009-2014... (not hard to imagine, as thats the reality)

but these 3million people are now noticing bottlenecks .. soo this 3 million people will get pissed off with delayed transactions and so they lose faith in it.. and cause a price crash..

they will tell their friends to ignore the "we use bitcoin" video as transactions are not instant. are not virtually free and all the other issues that are very relevant and apparent right now.. and so bitcoin adoption falls.. not rises, because the utopian dream of bitcoin has been lost, and replaced by greed of miners and politics of dev groups

and now your dream of buying a house for 1btc is laughed at because the world can see that bitcoin dev's refuse to adapt to demand, refuse to buffer a safety net, refuse to adapt before demand.. and your 1btc never reaches the price of a house..

If your goal is for your 1 BTC to be able to buy a house in the future, then the price of 1 BTC needs to increase.

The reason why the US Dollar is worth so much is because the US Dollar is used (and accepted) all around the world (it is used as part of a very high percentage of worldwide transactions). Many other government fiat currencies have similar correlation. It has often been speculated that new merchants accepting bitcoin would be positive for bitcoin's price.

Why would someone buy 1 BTC for several hundred thousand dollars (or a fraction of 1 BTC that makes 1 BTC worth several hundred thousand dollars)? The answer ultimately needs to be because they can spend parts of that 1 BTC at a wide variety of merchants and have the total cost be less then using credit cards and physical cash. In order for the price to go from ~$385 to ~$300k, a very large number of people need to buy 1 BTC, and as stated above, they will want to spend that 1 BTC.

Granted some people may buy 1 BTC in order to speculate that the price of BTC will increase, however the price increases from speculators is limited and there needs to be reasons other then speculation that the price of BTC will rise in the future to buy BTC.

Your transaction to buy your house is going to be a very small one (in terms of blockchain size), however in order for your 1 BTC to be valuable enough to buy a house, then many other people need to be buying (and spending) BTC at the same time.

let's see what exchangers support this ALT coin...Coinbase, Bitstamp(Coinbase's twin brother, with the SAME investor behind) , BTC China...

Ah, you're among those that think gold is not money but investment vehicle.

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

I am not so sure about this.

At the end of the day, in order for the price of bitcoin to increase over the long term, it needs to be used by a larger user base, and each member of the user base needs to use it for a greater share of the total commerce they take part of. Both of these will require much larger block sizes.

I acknowledge this is not a statistically significant data sample, however as of block 393904, the smallest of the last 7 blocks was ~910 kb, and 3 were greater then 970kb. According to blockchain.info, there is roughly 8.8 MB worth of unconfirmed transactions (with total fees worth ~1.48 BTC) in it's mempool, and this is at a time when 3 blocks were found in the last 8 minutes.

When discussing the urgency of raising the block size, you need to remember that your "joe user" is not going to care about how long it takes on average to get a transaction confirmed, they are going to care about how long it takes their transaction confirmed. On the same subject, there will sometimes be "spikes" in the number of transactions per second, and if the maximum block size is not sufficient to get all of the transactions quickly confirmed during times of these "spikes" then it will create a negative user experience, and users may not wish to continue using Bitcoin.

I would also say, if, for arguments sake that the maximum block size does not need to be raised immediately, then is there any harm in raising it prior to it being necessary? I don't claim to be an expert, however I would think that the result of raising the max block size to 2MB prior to being necessary is that we would mostly see blocks that are under 1MB with an occasional ~1.95MB block that is the result of testing. 

you gotta laugh though


then tell luke JR and the other mining pools that are all friends with blockstream to stop being so greedy with 4cents a tx minimum.. bring it down to 0.4cents.. TODAY

then come together and reduce the tx fee..

as for segwit.. there are easier ways to do this that by default sends out full tx data (including signatures).. without changing the merkle tree/blocks of that node.. but if lite versions want less bloat. they send a header command and the node sends out a truncated version purely for the benefit of that lite client. that way by default older non segwit clients get the same data as they always would with signatures.
because changing the merkle tree is just playing the 3shell game,, showing the ball is under one shell and trying to not let people see the bloat still exists if you look at all 3 as a whole.. which non-segwit implementations wont like


EG, imagine
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
=1mb data of: 4000 tx's with signatures

segwit hypothesises
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
SegwitLite receives 1mb data of: 6000tx's without signatures
segwit archival/non segwig receives 1.5mb data of 6000tx's with signatures..

If my intention was to FUD the price lower then 250 would not be nearly low enough.

No, we don't need to increase the block size overnight. But I'd rather have it done in the next three month than in one year. Bitcoin will get a lot of publicity this summer and it will not offer sufficient space for the next breakthrough.

What about these empty blocks that are mined all the time now from 'rogue' pools, if this phenomenon increases it means the remaining miners must pick up the transactions. So if BTC hits it off even remotely with the general public, the problem will only escalate.

Ridiculous to call Classic a takeover attempt. It offers a solution to prevent the next crisis. Unless you believe - or rather want- Bitcoin to stay in a niche, Classic is the minimal consensus. So, stop whining unless you want to use this price depression to push down the price further with your FUD so you can load up at $250.

and thats the solution i also thought of..
but funny that they rejected it to stick to their agenda

This would have been lovely!