Core developers: we want bigger blocks - page 3.

Dissonance

full member

Activity: 167

Merit: 100

Quote from: dothebeats on August 18, 2015, 11:54:57 AM

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

They are trying to get ahead of the problem of scaling up bitcoin. Next time there is bubble the transactions will spike and we will start hiting a wall. Its better to deal with it now then wait for a crisis to hit.

Dissonance

full member

Activity: 167

Merit: 100

If by next year if we are filling 8mb blocks the miners will be very profitable because it would mean a lot more people using bitcoin and higher prices. There is really no reason not to do it unless someone has a better way of increasing t/s.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: dothebeats on August 18, 2015, 11:54:57 AM

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Blocksize limit is just a limit, it does not mean the block must be filled completely.

But we need head room for growth. Being proactive is what ensures a smooth experience for new wave of users.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

I just can't understand why Gavin and Hearn wants to push 8mb block size if the 1mb block size isn't filled most of the time? I've been following this XT vs QT battle for a while now, and I just can't see the reason how feasible it is to multiply the block size limit by 8 if 1mb isn't filled most of the time. Or am I missing something vital here?

Saruman

full member

Activity: 225

Merit: 103

Wizard

Why almost everyone want bigger blocks? What is wrong with the actual size?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: valiz on August 18, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

The XT redditards are not realizing that the core developers want bigger blocks. Peter Wuille (sipa) actually came with a proposal called "Block size according to technological growth." [1]. Unfortunately Gavin and Mike consider that as too conservative and keep threatening the redditards that no 8X block size increase NOW equals doom and gloom. The redditards refuse to understand that this XT hard fork can do much more harm than leaving the max block size to 1MB for a while.

To all you XT guys, please please please try to understand that there is no urgency to increase the max block size and the core developers want to do this in a safe and reasonable way. You seem to see a sizeable group of important bitcoin core contributors as a malevolent group seeking to control everything, and at the same time you miss that there are 2 guys with dubious intentions that are trying to convince you to use only their code with their untested patches. XT is not only the forced block size increase, it is also another set of modifications and whatever those 2 guys want to do in the future. You're seeking to distrust a sizeable group of experienced people in order to trust only 2 people.

[1] https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3

Do you realize that proposal would give us 10Mb Blocks in 2030 ?

Its not even reasonable, its down right stupid. His 17% technological growth is no where to be found in 30 yrs of the internet infrastructure.

Instead of following someone's words blindly, do a little research yourself, you would have known the growth rate is around 44% annual .

valiz

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

BTC trader

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 10:19:35 AM

You do realize, that one of this dubious persons is one of the biggest if not THE biggest contributor to Bitcoin. The guy Satoshi made lead on this project.
Gavin never said, not in the past and not in the present, that BitcoinXT is the only solution. He took a bold step, since the Bitcoin Core-dev team was stuck, also thanks to the veto from gmaxwell(who has obvious a conflict of interests).

Which is proposing a dangerous controversial hard fork to push his code against the experience of most others. I heard rumours he has some links to those secret government organizations, hopefully they are wrong. I wonder why is he siding with that other guy which I read was proposing blacklists and such. The right step for him would be to come back and reach common ground with the core devs. It is not impossible.

Anyway I'm fully behind the current core developers and I think we should go with a safe and reasonable approach towards increasing the max block size.

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: valiz on August 18, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

The XT redditards are not realizing that the core developers want bigger blocks. Peter Wuille (sipa) actually came with a proposal called "Block size according to technological growth." [1]. Unfortunately Gavin and Mike consider that as too conservative and keep threatening the redditards that no 8X block size increase NOW equals doom and gloom. The redditards refuse to understand that this XT hard fork can do much more harm than leaving the max block size to 1MB for a while.

To all you XT guys, please please please try to understand that there is no urgency to increase the max block size and the core developers want to do this in a safe and reasonable way. You seem to see a sizeable group of important bitcoin core contributors as a malevolent group seeking to control everything, and at the same time you miss that there are 2 guys with dubious intentions that are trying to convince you to use only their code with their untested patches. XT is not only the forced block size increase, it is also another set of modifications and whatever those 2 guys want to do in the future. You're seeking to distrust a sizeable group of experienced people in order to trust only 2 people.

[1] https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3

You do realize, that one of this dubious persons is one of the biggest if not THE biggest contributor to Bitcoin. The guy Satoshi made lead on this project.
Gavin never said, not in the past and not in the present, that BitcoinXT is the only solution. He took a bold step, since the Bitcoin Core-dev team was stuck, also thanks to the veto from gmaxwell(who has obvious a conflict of interests).
On the other hand people are cheering theymos for censoring here and on reddit.

TransaDox

full member

Activity: 219

Merit: 102

Quote from: valiz on August 18, 2015, 09:36:16 AM

The XT redditards are not realizing that the core developers want bigger blocks. Peter Wuille (sipa) actually came with a proposal called "Block size according to technological growth." [1]. Unfortunately Gavin and Mike consider that as too conservative and keep threatening the redditards that no 8X block size increase NOW equals doom and gloom. The redditards refuse to understand that this XT hard fork can do much more harm than leaving the max block size to 1MB for a while.

To all you XT guys, please please please try to understand that there is no urgency to increase the max block size and the core developers want to do this in a safe and reasonable way. You seem to see a sizeable group of important bitcoin core contributors as a malevolent group seeking to control everything, and at the same time you miss that there are 2 guys with dubious intentions that are trying to convince you to use only their code with their untested patches. XT is not only the forced block size increase, it is also another set of modifications and whatever those 2 guys want to do in the future. You're seeking to distrust a sizeable group of experienced people in order to trust only 2 people.

[1] https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3

It's not about block size. It's about control of the network. Block size is just the catalyst.

They have always said the 51% attack was impossible. Well. This is what one looks like.

valiz

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

BTC trader

The XT redditards are not realizing that the core developers want bigger blocks. Peter Wuille (sipa) actually came with a proposal called "Block size according to technological growth." [1]. Unfortunately Gavin and Mike consider that as too conservative and keep threatening the redditards that no 8X block size increase NOW equals doom and gloom. The redditards refuse to understand that this XT hard fork can do much more harm than leaving the max block size to 1MB for a while.

To all you XT guys, please please please try to understand that there is no urgency to increase the max block size and the core developers want to do this in a safe and reasonable way. You seem to see a sizeable group of important bitcoin core contributors as a malevolent group seeking to control everything, and at the same time you miss that there are 2 guys with dubious intentions that are trying to convince you to use only their code with their untested patches. XT is not only the forced block size increase, it is also another set of modifications and whatever those 2 guys want to do in the future. You're seeking to distrust a sizeable group of experienced people in order to trust only 2 people.

[1] https://gist.github.com/jl2012/8f1f4d29f1e171ed9ca3

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: harrymmmm on August 18, 2015, 06:25:04 AM

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 06:09:10 AM

People should keep in mind, that running a BIP101-full-node or mining BIP101-blocks is just symbolic for now. There won't be any changes happening till January 2016.
That means plenty of time for Bitcoin Core(or even a complete other client) to implement another solution and convince people to switch to them.

This is a thing that worries me.
I see the events unfolding in this way, but it may already be too late for the core devs to fork a cap increase by jan 2016.
And that's only happening after they get flexcap checked out and decided ok/nok
Either they find a way to piggyback off the existing xt fork (at least everyone will have heard about it coming), or they will need to fork around the middle of next year which is after xt's possible trigger time.

Before xt starts mining, i'm pretty sure they will have something decided, but it might be too late.
tick tock...

I disagree.
The main players here are the miners, without miners(75%) there is no fork. It seems like they are not happy with the client-fork anyways. So, if there is a solution which made some progress in the next few months, than they might just not switch to XT and sit it out till the other solution arrives. It might be likewise with full node operators(They seem less predictable to me)
The January 2016-"deadline" just put some pressure on the other developers, who don't seem to have moved much in the last months.

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: turvarya on August 18, 2015, 06:09:10 AM

People should keep in mind, that running a BIP101-full-node or mining BIP101-blocks is just symbolic for now. There won't be any changes happening till January 2016.
That means plenty of time for Bitcoin Core(or even a complete other client) to implement another solution and convince people to switch to them.

This is a thing that worries me.
I see the events unfolding in this way, but it may already be too late for the core devs to fork a cap increase by jan 2016.
And that's only happening after they get flexcap checked out and decided ok/nok
Either they find a way to piggyback off the existing xt fork (at least everyone will have heard about it coming), or they will need to fork around the middle of next year which is after xt's possible trigger time.

Before xt starts mining, i'm pretty sure they will have something decided, but it might be too late.
tick tock...

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 10:46:02 PM

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 10:35:07 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 17, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 09:11:47 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on August 16, 2015, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

How?

Seems like 3/5 developers of core dont want to increase block size for their own reasons.

I dont think 3 people should be stopping development on a technology such as bitcoin.

Hence why people can choose what they want (I vote for bigger blocks by using XT).

If the consensus stays with core then that's what the free market decides.

If the opposite is true then great the free market decided. That is the main thing that people have a choice and consensus will win out in this situation one way or the other.

Personally I support BIP100 for now to see how things goes.

But there is no implementation of BIP100 for now, is there?

People should keep in mind, that running a BIP101-full-node or mining BIP101-blocks is just symbolic for now. There won't be any changes happening till January 2016.
That means plenty of time for Bitcoin Core(or even a complete other client) to implement another solution and convince people to switch to them.

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Once at least 75% of the blocks are processed by Bitcoin XT, but no earlier than January, it will upgrade to a block size of a maximum of 8Mb (and double that limit every two years). The nodes that then still run the old “Bitcoin Core” software would find themselves excluded from the system.

Eodguy149

hero member

Activity: 578

Merit: 554

I think the larger issue at hand here is how consensus is reached in order to make a change. The issue happens to be block size at the moment but the way this is handled is much more important than what is decided.

TheMage

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Litecoin Association Director

Quote from: smoothie on August 17, 2015, 10:35:07 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 17, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 09:11:47 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on August 16, 2015, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

How?

Seems like 3/5 developers of core dont want to increase block size for their own reasons.

I dont think 3 people should be stopping development on a technology such as bitcoin.

Hence why people can choose what they want (I vote for bigger blocks by using XT).

If the consensus stays with core then that's what the free market decides.

If the opposite is true then great the free market decided. That is the main thing that people have a choice and consensus will win out in this situation one way or the other.

Personally I support BIP100 for now to see how things goes.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

No it doesn't necessarily.

You don't know the future and what bitcoin prices would be and how competitive mining would be.

Let's deal in facts and not hypotheticals.

Thanks Grin

Lifting the cap on max block size would allow the bitcoin network to self regulate.

Miners would be able to determine what max block size they are willing to risk being orphaned and the probability that they are okay with. Call it SELF IMPOSED BITCOIN MINING RISK APETITE.

Some miners will pick 1 MB others 2.7 MB others 5.9 MB. But they will have the risk (the bigger the block) of being orphaned and wasting resources mining that block.

Essentially the network of miners and block sizes would be self-regulating.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 17, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 09:11:47 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on August 16, 2015, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

How?

Seems like 3/5 developers of core dont want to increase block size for their own reasons.

I dont think 3 people should be stopping development on a technology such as bitcoin.

Hence why people can choose what they want (I vote for bigger blocks by using XT).

If the consensus stays with core then that's what the free market decides.

If the opposite is true then great the free market decided. That is the main thing that people have a choice and consensus will win out in this situation one way or the other.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitcreditscc on August 17, 2015, 10:11:03 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 17, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 09:11:47 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on August 16, 2015, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

And thus the problem is right in your mindset. We don't need to do it with bitcoin core, we simply have to pick which fork we like , which one appeals to us. Guys this is not a corporation, it's a silent democracy where your vote is your node's version number. Some of us who did not like certain changes stuck to some older clients and there is even a group who are still running version 0.7

Simply put, users and service providers will ultimately decide which one has the majority, and the rest will follow. But see the devs at the top unlike average joe and jane, know that if they do not move their coins past a certain threshold, can weigh their options in the future , double spend on one chain, then continue with the other like it's just another monday.

The fascinating about this whole ordeal is to see how much knowledge of our bitcoiners have . Frankly i feel very sad to see most of these idiots are probably here to hope for a price soar. Their lack of understanding bitcoin is absurd.

Somehow bitcoin is becoming a cult, where everyone will only agree to words of a fews, no matter what.

I see a thread of member asking the bitcoin core devs to add blocksize increase so they can use bitcoin core and not bitcoin XT. Sad isnt it? while they're given a choice they decide to ask their masters anyway.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Quote from: bitcreditscc on August 17, 2015, 10:11:03 PM

Quote from: VirosaGITS on August 17, 2015, 09:20:00 PM

Quote from: TheMage on August 17, 2015, 09:11:47 PM

Quote from: balu2 on August 17, 2015, 07:43:09 AM

Quote from: TheMage on August 16, 2015, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I don't want bigger blocks. The consensus does not want bigger blocks.

As block rewards drop to zero transaction fees will be the only thing left to pay miners to secure and run the network. Increasing block size jeopardizes this important mechanism.

You are one of a very select few group of people that do not believe larger block size increases are needed.

We aren't only 'a select few' ... could be easily be a majority.

All of the people who think "don't fix what isn't broken" (which is wisdom) are against an increase at this point in time.

I think the discussion is manipulated by the xt shills who try to appear like a majority when they are a minority that just posts a lot more. Probably some of these xt shills are on some bank or governments payroll.

I hope you arent calling me an XT shill.

Regardless. Increasing the block size limit is something that must be done sooner or later. But not much later. But i don't agree with XT. We need to do it with Bitcoin core.

And thus the problem is right in your mindset. We don't need to do it with bitcoin core, we simply have to pick which fork we like , which one appeals to us. Guys this is not a corporation, it's a silent democracy where your vote is your node's version number. Some of us who did not like certain changes stuck to some older clients and there is even a group who are still running version 0.7

Simply put, users and service providers will ultimately decide which one has the majority, and the rest will follow. But see the devs at the top unlike average joe and jane, know that if they do not move their coins past a certain threshold, can weigh their options in the future , double spend on one chain, then continue with the other like it's just another monday.

...or maybe i just don't think switching everyone to a Alt-Coin is the way to go? XT isint exactly BTC its effectively a new coin from different devs. Its not a mind set, its a practice thing.

Topic: Core developers: we want bigger blocks - page 3. (Read 4241 times)