Isn't this like 10th pool about the block size increase that we had until now?
Anyways, I have voted for an increase in some way, but to make it clear not the XT thing and the BIP101.
I think that we need bigger blocks to keep Bitcoin competitive and growing. After all that I read about this problematic(and I read a lot), I feel that there is no perfect solution, but I think that us staying with 1MB blocks would just choke the growth and slow down the adoption.
Topic: block size limit poll - page 2. (Read 1442 times)
I would like them to implement a blocksize on a sliding scale, just as how block difficulty is calculated. If more blocks are filled, max size increases. If less blocks get filled, block size decreases. Shouldn't be too hard I guess?
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently!IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless!
my poll is meaningless?
how so?
we'll see if there's anyone that believes 1MB limit should stay in place forever.
my guess is more or less everyone is onboard for some kind of an increase.
I voted for an increase but I'd like it to be as & when it's required. I don't want 8MB or 20MB blocks brought in now as I think that'd be ridiculous at this point.
Maybe increase very soon to 2MB then in a number of years (whenever required) go up to 4MB & so on.
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does:
-snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation. -snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
BS. In Switzerland all 'users' decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar economy/politics. That's the reason why Switzerland performs better than their feudalist competitors.
Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. I have worked with a bunch of programmers for years and luckily for us, we had a clear
direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens
running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not
making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but
something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
like this.direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens
running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not
making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but
something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115264/dash-the-first-decentralized-autonomous-organization
Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools. I have worked with a bunch of programmers for years and luckily for us, we had a clear
direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens
running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not
making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but
something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
direction and goal for the company. The task of the engineers/programmers was to find ways to enable these goals. Lately Bitcoin development can be compared to chickens
running around with their heads cut off. Since Gavin has left as Lead Maintainer things has sort of ...uhmmm how can I put it... become more complex? We have Wladimir not
making the big decisions and Gavin wanting to make the decisions, with the help of Mike on the other side. I am not a fan of the whole benevolent dictator thing, but
something has to be put in place to enable quicker decision making in Bitcoin development. The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does:
-snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation. -snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Adam, how about you stop the propaganda (obvious as there is 100% for the first choice for now)? This does not help anyone. This poll will not make a difference at all. Besides the options 1 and 2 aren't properly written. Option 2 still gives room for support of bigger blocks, just not now. Option 1 has no defined time.
Instead of actually proposing something better, you guys focus on fighting the Core vs XT, no increase vs increase and similar. We should be discussing BIP106 and a potential mixture with BIP100 (or some other solution that is better; no BIP101 is not).
Update:
Our developers and community is starting to look like a bunch of incompetent fools.
-snip-
The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
I concur. -snip-
The bigger Bitcoin grows, the harder these decisions will become.
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently!IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless!
my poll is meaningless?
how so?
we'll see if there's anyone that believes 1MB limit should stay in place forever.
my guess is more or less everyone is onboard for some kind of an increase.
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently!IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless!
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
so after all the discussion that's been happening, i feel it's time for a new poll.
Jump to: