Coalition For 8MB | Bitcointalksearch.org

coalitionfor8mb

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Since one of the main values of Bitcoin is that of entertainment, I've just found another good one!

This is bitcoiners before the hard-fork. Grin

By the way, there is some discussion on a more gentle "accelerated programmed 2-4-8" approach here (but please don't spam there) for those who consider a sudden jump to 8MB too steep.

Any ideas about pros & cons can be discussed in this thread.

coalitionfor8mb

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: Kakmakr on September 09, 2015, 01:34:47 AM

It will be interesting to see, if another client {BIP} would be accepted to be submitted. We have some strong feelings

between the two groups of supporters. Will a 3rd group make a difference, or is this the 4th suggestion? I think Willie

Wonka is in there somewhere. Grin

...I would welcome a clean client without all the added extras. Tongue

I agree.

The gist of the situation is that both camps (small blockers and big blockers) have only half the truth,
and they fight each other while standing on the wrong premises that complement those halves.

The only way forward is to recombine the valid pieces on each side and find a middle point.

Quote from: P-Funk on September 09, 2015, 02:41:40 AM

A fork to a fixed 8MB blocksize isn't needed now but might be a good stopgap next year if a better blocksize increase implementation can't be made and agreed upon by consensus. You're nothing but a new account with no credentials, no coding skill, and have very poor English reading comprehension. So don't count me in on your list

Thanks for supporting the idea.

Regarding my account, that's exactly the point.
I'm not interested in taking over the development of Bitcoin.

It's just a test to see if enough members in the community are able to come together
and produce a binary that we can all then agree to use, if we want to.

(by the way, English isn't my native tongue, so if you notice any nuances in the language, you're welcome to point them out)

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1011

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Quote

Larger blocks create too much risk to Bitcoin's decentralization

Bullshit.

Quote

We need a fee market eventually, so it's good for one to develop now

Bullshit.

Quote

Having high fees now will encourage the development of more scalable solutions sooner

Bullshit.
alot of Bullshit later

Quote

Almost all technical experts favor waiting

More Bullshit !

this is the best part....

Quote

We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to.

OMFG they're retarded

Valid comments adamstgBit - like it Cheesy

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:49:40 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.

You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?

Yes, the txs increase around the last halving was tenfold.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3206

Merit: 1069

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:55:36 PM

Quote

We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to.

OMFG they're retarded

yeah , hilarious, they think they could increase it anytime they want, yet we are struggling like two kids fighting for an ice cream forever, there is no immediate solution, the earlier we can get this thing sorted out the better

which mean getting it resolved before the need for bigger block comes true, i'm not buying this whole "we can do it later in 2 sec if needed", big BS

P-Funk

sr. member

Activity: 360

Merit: 250

Token

A fork to a fixed 8MB blocksize isn't needed now but might be a good stopgap next year if a better blocksize increase implementation can't be made and agreed upon by consensus. You're nothing but a new account with no credentials, no coding skill, and have very poor English reading comprehension. So don't count me in on your list

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3458

Merit: 1961

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

It will be interesting to see, if another client {BIP} would be accepted to be submitted. We have some strong feelings

between the two groups of supporters. Will a 3rd group make a difference, or is this the 4th suggestion? I think Willie

Wonka is in there somewhere. Grin

...I would welcome a clean client without all the added extras. Tongue

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 07:49:37 PM

By the way, I welcome both of you, guys (adamstgBit, brg444) into the team.

Do any of you have any experience building the client?

wait what did i sign up for?
...
i write C++ code all day.
but i have never complied bitcoin.
and i never plan to,
things would need to get pretty F'ing bad for me to feel the need to fork bitcoin.
i'm still confident Core will implement bigger blocks in one form or an other in due time.

stuff0577

full member

Activity: 138

Merit: 100

More stuff will come.

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 07:49:37 PM

By the way, I welcome both of you, guys (adamstgBit, brg444) into the team.

Do any of you have any experience building the client?

I prefer 1mb blocks for bitcoin. As there are alternative currencies we can use for some transactions. Grin

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 06:22:53 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

What miners would continue to do without the limit is also fairly hypothetical.
We only know what they are doing now WITH the limit.
So, I suggest we keep the idea intact, but raise the value.

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

in anycase, i'll agree to anything that means bigger blocks.

Thanks!

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:49:40 PM

Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.
You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?

1MB limit 5 years ago seemed like 8MB limit today (if not bigger) and nobody complained.
The fact that not all of the blocks are full now means that miners filter out spam txs on their own.

And the limit plays a different role.
It's not a spam filter, it's a "bandwidth target" for "legitimate transactions", so to speak.

I know what it is. I was using your words.

I have no interest in your 8mb blocks thank you.

coalitionfor8mb

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

By the way, I welcome both of you, guys (adamstgBit, brg444) into the team.

Do any of you have any experience building the client?

coalitionfor8mb

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

What miners would continue to do without the limit is also fairly hypothetical.
We only know what they are doing now WITH the limit.
So, I suggest we keep the idea intact, but raise the value.

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

in anycase, i'll agree to anything that means bigger blocks.

Thanks!

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:49:40 PM

Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.
You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?

1MB limit 5 years ago seemed like 8MB limit today (if not bigger) and nobody complained.
The fact that not all blocks are full now means that miners filter out spam transactions on their own.

And the limit plays a different role.
It's not a spam filter, it's a "bandwidth target" for "legitimate transactions", so to speak.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:59:25 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Quote

Larger blocks create too much risk to Bitcoin's decentralization

Bullshit.

Quote

We need a fee market eventually, so it's good for one to develop now

Bullshit.

Quote

Having high fees now will encourage the development of more scalable solutions sooner

Bullshit.
alot of Bullshit later

Quote

Almost all technical experts favor waiting

More Bullshit !

this is the best part....

Quote

We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to.

OMFG they're retarded

I can only hope you're trolling Roll Eyes

May I suggest you stay in the speculation forum Adam you don't qualify anymore to participate in these discussion.

FINE!
i'll come back in 6 months and see how your Bullshit holds up when the network is faced with constantly full blocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:55:36 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Quote

Larger blocks create too much risk to Bitcoin's decentralization

Bullshit.

Quote

We need a fee market eventually, so it's good for one to develop now

Bullshit.

Quote

Having high fees now will encourage the development of more scalable solutions sooner

Bullshit.
alot of Bullshit later

Quote

Almost all technical experts favor waiting

More Bullshit !

this is the best part....

Quote

We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to.

OMFG they're retarded

I can only hope you're trolling Roll Eyes

May I suggest you stay in the speculation forum Adam you don't qualify anymore to participate in these discussion.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: brg444 on September 08, 2015, 05:50:38 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

Quote

Larger blocks create too much risk to Bitcoin's decentralization

Bullshit.

Quote

We need a fee market eventually, so it's good for one to develop now

Bullshit.

Quote

Having high fees now will encourage the development of more scalable solutions sooner

Bullshit.
alot of Bullshit later

Quote

Almost all technical experts favor waiting

More Bullshit !

this is the best part....

Quote

We could raise the block size quickly in an emergency if we needed to.

OMFG they're retarded

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:48:41 PM

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

I can only leave this here and hope you figure it out

https://bitcoindebates.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

Blocks are filled with about 300kb of legitimate p2p users transactions.

You are trying to tell me we need to switch NOW to a 8000kb spam ceiling?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: coalitionfor8mb on September 08, 2015, 05:39:14 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on it and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

meh i don't buy any of that BS hypothetical arguments. My hypothetical argument is that without any limit at all, miners would continue to mine blocks of ~500KB and would make damn sure to not send out block >10MB because there would be a chance that other miners don't think 10MB block are valid since the average block size is only currently 500KB, and risk getting there block/reward rejected, also miners have an incentive to keep everything running as smoothly as possible. the block limit is pretty F'ing useless IMO. i all see is BS arguemtn that make no sense whatsoever to keep in place a limit which was supposed to be lifted long ago.

in anycase, i'll agree to anything that means bigger blocks.

coalitionfor8mb

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 08, 2015, 05:23:13 PM

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

It would seem that the limit plays an important role in preventing the network from consolidating bandwidth-wise.
Raising it in smaller steps presents itself as a more responsible and safe alternative to any other methods.

Yes, it requires more work from us to keep an eye on and adjust timely, but Bitcoin is "Proof of Work" already,
so that's hardly an obstacle for the community.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

i think it would be fine to remove the limit altogether

that being said i'll support anything that promises to rise it in whatever way.

Topic: Coalition For 8MB (Read 940 times)