The latest consensus from chinese mining community is 2MB hard fork at 90% threshold
https://bikeji.com/t/3172
Topic: Chinese community consensus to stay with Core 1MB. Meeting held Jan 24 Shenzen, (Read 2770 times)
January 25, 2016, 01:46:50 AM
January 25, 2016, 12:59:24 AM
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.
I wonder what percentage of the community understands this fact? I bet it's a low number.
i know.. and sticking to the debate about china.. there reason (supposedly) that 2mb of data is bad, is based on it getting blocked by the great china firewall.. (it wont)
and the laughable part.. segwit pretends to be 1mb.. but the reality of sending full checkable data (txdata+witness(signatures)) is more than 1mb.. because segwit 1mb data drop dream... is just half a transaction of uncheckable stuff, that miners wont want.. they will want the real full checkable data
which defeats the whole data/firewall opposition.. because the data will still be over 1mb of real data.. whether miners process and check 4001 transactions with a 8000tx buffer (2mb) or if they are processing 4001 segwit transactions WITH witness..
January 25, 2016, 12:55:50 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
even with a 2mb limit.. miners dont need to fill that limit..
EG at the moment with 1mb
miners let in 500k-700k of fee paying transactions. and then a handful of free transactions if generous..
some miners (antpool) have been known to prefer to only fill 200k or 700k per block. i really dont see why people still think that 2mb limit means 1.99mb of data for every block in some doomsday scenario..
so, back to the 2mb blocklimit.
miners that want to add more transactions will have 1.005mb of data as their first toe in the water test on processing times.. and when they are comfortable to process transactions without much lag compared to competitors, they will slowly increase adding a few extra transactions to test how fast they can process data.
there is no 0.99 or 1.99 boolean choice.. data can be anything from 250bytes all the way upto 1.99megabytes.. and any amount they want in between..
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.
so even with a 2mb limit your idea works as the miners can then test their limits and increase to add more transactions as they are good and ready
Again, the cost of digging out gold does not have anything to do with the transaction cost of the gold, when gold is dig, miners will leave, if the fee does not rise enough high
FED just printed several trillions of dollars, it does mean that it costs several trillions to do transactions in USD
Anyway, talk here does not mean anything, you can not generate hash power by talk, those who have invested millions and millions dollar and years and years of work building mining farms now finally can have some advantage in this political game
January 25, 2016, 12:50:01 AM
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.
I wonder what percentage of the community understands this fact? I bet it's a low number.
The main issue at the moment (yeah, I watched the 2 hour boring as hell Blockstream video) is that the 2 compromised devs on core have the mother of all conflicts of interest. Keeping the 1MB blocksize is job security. Wake up people!
The Lightening network is non-critical when the main chain can handle entire transactional workload.
January 25, 2016, 12:47:45 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
even with a 2mb limit.. miners dont need to fill that limit..
EG at the moment with 1mb
miners let in 500k-700k of fee paying transactions. and then a handful of free transactions if generous..
some miners (antpool) have been known to prefer to only fill 200k or 700k per block. i really dont see why people still think that 2mb limit means 1.99mb of data for every block in some doomsday scenario..
so, back to the 2mb blocklimit.
miners that want to add more transactions will have 1.005mb of data as their first toe in the water test on processing times.. and when they are comfortable to process transactions without much lag compared to competitors, they will slowly increase adding a few extra transactions to test how fast they can process data.
there is no 0.99 or 1.99 (only 2 choices).. data can be anything from 250bytes all the way upto 1.99megabytes.. and any amount they want in between..
the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data.
so even with a 2mb limit your idea works as the miners can then test their limits and increase to add more transactions as they are good and ready
January 25, 2016, 12:29:41 AM
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
January 24, 2016, 09:27:27 PM
I continue to believe its imperative that the block size remain at 1MB until transaction fees plus the rapidly decreasing block rewards are enough to ensure our mining community is incentivized enough to be continuously reinvesting in the best state of the art hardware to maintain our network security. This is a short term situation that will diminish as the user base grows (smaller fees but more transaction fees) and our network bandwidth and latency improves with technological advancements over the coming years. Keeping the limit in place is the safest way forward however I admit higher fees will push micro transactions off the network, this will be a huge blow but we will survive. I believe in time we can raise the block size manually with hard forks with universal community support if we do it in small 5% increments only when fees become detrimental to adoption until the day comes when we have so many users even a 1Cent fee is enough to ensure our security but that day is still far, far off in a unknowable future.
January 24, 2016, 09:04:21 PM
Actually I think I'm just going to ignore you and your merry men and get on with more interesting stuff like programming.
Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.
Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.
enjoy your liquid coins. im sure they will make you rich once you destroy bitcoin
January 24, 2016, 09:01:56 PM
Actually I think I'm just going to ignore you and your merry men and get on with more interesting stuff like programming.
Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.
Unfortunately some people here are just extremely determined to "rant and shout" in multiple topics in the hope that it will garner support and I am not one of those.
January 24, 2016, 08:46:03 PM
Exactly my point - and if you keep on repeating that change (getting bigger and bigger) then finally the amount of time to even verify all the signatures in your megablocks in 10 minutes will be beyond the capabilities of 99% of the computing hardware available.
Now that would be centralisation!
doomsday myth
blocks wont be 1.999mb straight off the bat.. stop that rhetoric and use logic
miners will know that processing time increases with every tx they add beyond 1mb.. so they would start slowly with something like 1.005mb and grow only when comfortable.. leaving the other 0.995 space as a buffer for expansion when they are comfortable that they can cope
then in a few years another blocklimit rise can be debated.. you act as if there is 8000 tx's that need to be filled in 10 minutes instantly.. and then another myth that bitcoin doessnt need to expand..
how about use logic and see the middle ground.. expand the rules to allow for a buffer to not be needed instantly, but happily exist to allow gentle growth
just like the saga in 2013. blocks didnt suddenly become 0.999mb over night..
and if you think that the general community cant cope with even 2mb.. then tell that to 30million netflix subscribers who happily stream more then 1gb an hour
January 24, 2016, 08:43:52 PM
blah blah blah more reputation attacks and no real content
by the way i have seen all their stuff, i read the roadmap, i read every bip, i have talked to dev's and i have put all that stuff into real life scenario's using logic.
im not a band camp advocate for gavincoin or blockstream. i just want bitcoin to have a bigger buffer to allow growth.
but your endless reputation attacks are meaningless waffle that just distract people from the code debate.. which also means your not using the logic part of your brain and instead using the distraction techniques to delay growth discussions.
the funny thing is that when people point out the code needs debating, instead of answering the question you try to debunk them as knowing anything.. again your distraction technique.
you prefer to avoid questions that might harm blockstreams plans.
i do hope you enjoy your "liquid" coins you have probably been promised in exchange for defending blockstream endlessly
have a nice day
January 24, 2016, 08:31:21 PM
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
Even I can read that.
Exactly my point - and if you keep on repeating that change (getting bigger and bigger) then finally the amount of time to even verify all the signatures in your megablocks in 10 minutes will be beyond the capabilities of 99% of the computing hardware available.
Now that would be centralisation!
January 24, 2016, 08:29:27 PM
Unfortunately when advocates such as you can't actually even read the code then it is easy to see why populists pushing for bigger blocks are getting so much attention.
I would suggest you watch the interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try and learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp).
Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).
I would suggest you watch the interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try and learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp).
Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
Even I can read that.
January 24, 2016, 08:28:19 PM
Unfortunately when advocates such as yourself can't actually even read the code then it is easy to see why populists pushing for bigger blocks are getting so much attention.
I would suggest that you watch the recent interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try to learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp anyway).
Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).
I would suggest that you watch the recent interviews with Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell and try to learn something (but I know that either you are just too lazy to do that or it would most likely be too difficult for you to grasp anyway).
Technology isn't always so simple (if it was then we would have no need for engineers).
January 24, 2016, 11:37:31 AM
so the bankers dont want to be known as bankers anymore lets call them tulips then
im saying if we as a community of millions of people just kept to clean code that has no hidden features that bankers could use against the community of millions of people and that there were many source of the same clean code to debunk the blockstream dictator debate aswell..
basically quashing all the nefarious motive rumours about both bandcamps.. and concentrate on the code for the benefit of the whole community. (rather then ignoring code and arguing about band camps motives)
January 24, 2016, 11:33:06 AM
tulips seems to be stressed 
January 24, 2016, 11:27:39 AM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)
would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??
would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??
You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).
If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.
At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.
blah blah blah.. more rhetoric about blaming banker motives..
i already said a few posts ago,, classic and xt wont be downloaded and ignore the whole gavin/banker motives
is there a hostile take over if all the developers of blockstream and many people not related to bankers all wanted 2mb.. and they all released independant versions that were all clean code and able to talk to eachother.. thus making the motives redundant..
please limit your reply to only talking about the general community of 3million people who do not have banking motives.. who just want some buffer space in blocks, instead of this crappy high fee priority shit due to lack of buffer space
so the bankers dont want to be known as bankers anymore lets call them tulips then
January 24, 2016, 11:21:21 AM
This thread seems to attract a people with a certain kind of opinion. I wonder what may be the reason.
January 24, 2016, 11:19:23 AM
adam back releases 2mb segwit, (fully compatible and communicates to lukejr, YOU, jeff, greg)
would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??
would that be a hostile takeover, would it be preventing anything in adam backs roadmap ??
You seem to imply that we *need* the 2MB blocks ASAP - yet the evidence for that is non-existent (of course it is being pushed by supporters of those trying to rest control of the project from Bitcoin Core).
If Bitcoin Core ends up supporting 2MB blocks it will only be to stop Gavin and others from taking over the project.
At the end of the day they might be forced into doing this but I really don't think that this is a sensible way forward.
BlockStream <> Bitcoin. I understand BlockStream will try to do whatever to keep control over Bitcoin, but giving control to just one group is not in Bitcoin interest. Free market has to decide, not just BlockStream and their flawed vision of Bitcoin as just settlement layer with blocksize limit artifficaly restricted resulting in high fees and demand for other off chain BlockStream services - no thank you, it is the opposite vision of original Bitcoin project and BlockStream and their Bitcoin Core puppet has no right to monopolize Bitcoin.
January 24, 2016, 11:11:50 AM
Can't stump the Trump.
Can't crash the p2p electronic cash.
Can't crash the p2p electronic cash.
Jump to: