Topic: Core developers: we want bigger blocks - page 2. (Read 4241 times)

I disagree, I think that not increasing the block size will centralize Bitcoin. Also the opposite is true in terms of it being a dictatorial approach. If we think that we must have the consensus of the core developers even if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team can hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin so decentralized. I would prefer seeing an increased block size within Bitcoin core, but I do not think that will happen I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. That is why we must hard fork away from Core if we want bigger blocks.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

At this point I think it should be obvious that kicking the can down the road IS a sensible thing to do.
It could be an safe (almost insignificant) block cap increase, and would offer hope for the majority who want bigger blocks but don't want the contentious fork.

Holy mother of monkey milk, someone gets it.

Aahh damn. This whole thing is getting really annoying.
Bigger Blocks are inevitable.That is what many think and also want. But most of us don't want a fork the way XT is doing it.
This I can totally accept and agree.
As I said several times keeping the Blocksize limit at 1MB is wrong!
So raise the fucking limit at core to 2MB or 4MB and we should have more time for other as well needed solutions and implementations like sidechains and LN. WE WILL NEED BOTH (bigger blocks and offchain solutions) and maybe more we don't know yet!!

Stop that stupid trench warfare because this is what is affecting ALL OF US!God damn Egos!!

there was no consensus for a fork, bitcoin xt took a dictatorial approach.

Bitcoin xt centralizes bitcoin since it makes it very expensive to run a full node, and eliminates miners fees therefore as block halves so does the security.

Also Bitcoin Xt seems to cripple tor nodes, and has a list of banned ip addresses, essentially a from of censorship.
 
In the bitcoin world decentralization is your friend and goes with the spirit of Satoshi.

Lets stay with bitcoin core, the reckless approach taken by bitcoin xt is causing the price to collapse.

IIRC, the consequences is appearing.
look, if we want a bigger block, you will have to pay lots of money for your hard drive.

Right, the truth can be like an accelerant.

The same could be said for all sides of this "argument". This type of comment is detrimental to actual discussion and contributes nothing but fan the flames.

Funny, how the XTshills always answer in this histrionic way.

As far as I know, no there is not. Most likely because Jeff might not proceed until support to ensure its not time wasted (of course, thats just a baseless assumption on my part).

Indeed -- this we know. However, how do we best deal with that? How do we agree on the best way to increase the limit? Are 8MB blocks really necessary at this point? (I think not)..... are blocks larger than 1MB necessary at this point? (I think so)

But as a bitcoiner who is not a developer or a miner, I don't feel I have much say....

I'm for a blocksize increase, but this is not a good reason.  I appreciate his/their creation, but argument from authority is a flimsy pretense.  Bitcoin is way bigger than satoshi now.

Fact is, Satoshi never intended the blocksize limit to stay this way.

This, pretty much. Are we really going to conclude that bitcoin just won't scale.....forever? 7 transactions per second, this is what we will limit ourselves to? I don't see the basis for all the opposition to increasing the block size. Take time, do it proper, make the implementation go smoothly...... but I just don't understand the opposition.

LOL are you aware the fakeXTnodes campaign are created by the antiXT to discrete the stats?

Seems like you're a clueless victim they're seeking for.

To avoid forks from happening often, I see. But why create fake nodes? (see: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1155836) Not to hurt those XT supporters, but are you really going to fake stats just to show there are some support on your side?

Not to mention we're not pushing the limit of the infrastructure. We currently have the technology (storage & bandwidth) to support this.

 

one reason is because they do not want to fork bitcoin every year in the case they want to do it more thrifty and choose, for example 2MB only

realistically speaking bitcoin has the potential to grow huge, in a short amount of time, you never know, when the fully adoption, will begin seriously 8mb would be a low value also but at least it will offer a bigger room

Look at the history chart of bitcoin transaction volume and avg blocksize.

So you think its too much but you havent given any downside.

Yes, but why 8x of the current block? Are they (Gavin and Hearn) expecting for a massive influx of bitcoin users in the coming years? The "room for growth" is not on par and realistic with what's happening in bitcoin right now.


Scaling? Increase by 8x is too much, I think.