Topic: Blocksize - December 2015 (Read 2854 times)

If the Core team tests the 2MB block implementation for 2 months, and give a 5 months notice for the hard fork, I think it is not a problem.

People need to stop making conclusions on their own and posting them around here when they lack the required knowledge. What Classic is doing is bad, and Core will not follow their lead like the person above me posted. Rushing a hard fork is very bad, especially without proper consensus.
A hard fork needs time to be deployed else we risk cutting off every user and service that does not update (2-3 months as an update period is not enough; a year is more suitable). Another problem with Classic is that it is willing to fork off once they reach a lower consensus threshold. This means that they do not care about the ecosystem and will end up harming it.

My guess is the 'bitcoin core' devs will simply state that they will 'implement' the 2mb increase that classic wants ...immediately after

seg witness or perhaps the other way around..thus keeping control of the project ...assuming a sensible not drag'd out timeline yet...

BUT who knows they have not (unsure which camp is right/wrong on this) anyway core devs in my view ..have to keep the masses

more informed and move at a brisker pace...if they feel 'uncomfortable' about the pace of change ..they need to tell the community

and drum up more support (more coders) and have better PR of wtf their long term plans are rather then the

'we are core dev group...we know best..go away"

hopefully they will adjust ..but in any other 'project' with this kind angst/fud etc ..where both parties AGREE EVENTUALLY block

size needs to be up'd probably to 2mb...well....deal with it and adjust your coding goals accordingly (and or yell for resources to improve

timeline etc) or don't be surprised about some folk using such for FUD and their own purposes (assuming that is what 'slighted' core devs think)

its the 'big leagues now boys' real money at stake....step up or step aside ....seems to be the mantra ...

anyway I know squat ..just what it seems like to me 2mb is gonna come 'eventually' the drama is worse then the 'hard fork' imho

so if they could 'reasonably' get out 'seg witness' and then 'promptly' state soon after the hard fork to 2mb...the 'majority' of the

community would probably accept this and it would tone down the FUD imho

I have a feeling that the blocksize limit is never going to change. We can't just change Bitcoin like that.

If BitcoinClassic implements the 2MB first and all the miners and most payment processors support it, will BitcoinCore exist in the future?

It has become a more complex issue that has more to do with the governance of Bitcoin itself as opposed to the actual blocksize. I am a proponent of increasing the blocksize, and a critic of Core. Presently I am supporting Bitcoin Unlimited as my favored implementation. Here is a chronological list of articles that explain my position well:

1. https://medium.com/faith-and-future/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1#.tkz6v39wg

2. http://konradsgraf.com/blog1/tag/block-size-debate

3. https://medium.com/block-chain/on-block-sizes-e047bc9f830#.q3sl3d11s

4. https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.e6tlubrv7

5. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

6. https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.7ek47hakx

There is also much productive discussion in the bitco.in forum which has become the new home for the Bitcoin Unlimited community, we now have five alternative implementations that support increasing the blocksize limit which are XT, BU, Btcd, BPC and most recently the development of Bitcoin Classic has also been announced. This is how we move forward by decentralizing development.

http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles.html
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-232

yeah it seems only 'soft forks' and only 'hard forks' in an emergency.....so lots of forks that 'supposedly' will play well with one another (I hope

do not want any more in common with beanie baby collectors then hanging around forums hoping price will go up ....I have too much in common with

their lives as it is)

link

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement


anyway seems to be the point of this post by core devs me thinks?

This is a free market. If you lower your transaction fee, your transaction will not get confirmed.

I am trying to take this all in as I learn and understand all the technology here. So in dumbed down talk, can someone explain to me what it means to have the core forked and also what they are talking about with the 2,4,6,8 solution?  Thank whom ever helps in advance.

lower the transaction fee, dont raise it !

I think we should be raising it as long as we don't have the LN operative and dealing with the insane amounts of transactions per second needed to make Bitcoin a viable global payment settlement network, but once LN is working we will not need to keep making the blocksize bigger. For now, I constantly change my mind about it and im not sure if we should raise it.

we will see an increase to 2-4 MB in the next 5 months i guess.

they can rise it even now, or when they want, the real question is, will the general consensus accept the rise? it seems no, otherwise it would have been done already

Nope, I think you've got that (bolded) very wrong.

Any scheme that disregarded the negatives of blocksize increases were defended against, necessarily because the campaign to join that coterie who wanted exponential increases came before any objections. Very rarely did anyone state what their preference was, they just said "BIP101 is a poor choice".

So let's not have this "everyone's as bad as each other", because those who defended against BIP101 and XT were not pushing any unified/coherent agenda, they were simply defending against others trying to impose their position.

Will the Devs raise tx-rates in December?

It's rumored to be a "live possibility".

Only as much as there has been a concerted attempt by some to rule out the possibility of raising it at all, which has the potential to set a dangerous precedent if the other proposed solutions don't pan out as intended.  Let's not go crazy, but there should be a happy middle ground somewhere.  We'll likely need every possible tool at our disposal, so we shouldn't rule any of them out.

Yes, it's pretty clear to me that with so many different ways to increase the tx rate without touching the blocksize, that there is an undue emphasis on the blocksize as a debating point. The other ideas barely got any hearing above the voices of those telling us that blocksize must go exponential, with as large a blocksize for the exponent to operate on as possible.

In other words, we've been experiencing the inverse of what you're warning against; there has been several months now of a concerted attempt to rule out the possibility of keeping the blocksize as small as possible. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps a coin flip then.  It would be difficult to be more arbitrary or impartial than a coin.

I suppose that depends on how many people elect to use it, which will depend on how good it is.  We'll hopefully find out in the not-too-distant future.



That might be the agreement, but it might not be.  If you wish to reduce emphasis on the blocksize as an issue, that's fair enough, provided you aren't attempting to rule out discussion completely.

Do you mean the Scaling Bitcoin conference? These videos are here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmwaDulmQtX-H8FOSQTKqMg
Some live streams will be later today.