Topic: From all of us newbies: Can you PLEASE dumb down this whole block size debate? - page 2. (Read 1616 times)

many people want 2mb+segwit code in by april and fully active by around christmas.

some meander the option by trying to say its a THis or that.. just to delay any decision

some say it will take longer. some say it doesnt need 12 months but 3 months.

some dont even believe blockstream will ever put the 2mb code in alongside segwit. and when they do it will only be to cover the bloat of their extra data, like confidential payment codes. and not to allow more capacity.
basically reduce capacity with features to keep users begging blockstream for more (to make blockstreams ego grow by feeling needed)

i hope that aprils release include the 2mb+segwit and its all ready and active (passed the grace period) by christmas. and i hope blockstream dont come up with more lame excuses to delay things further.

I think this is definitely the most reasonable solution. Let's get this debate behind us (for now) and focus on the positives!

Do you think it's at all plausible that they will go this route?

Seems to me they cant just blanket cap the size without risking restricting the transactions and creating a log jam.  Is that correct ?    I think bitcoin is a little slow but its possible this is related to integrity also so maybe not negotiable hence the upset

thats why 2M+segwit solves everything.
no need for a 2x POSSIBLE capacity growth based on IF people use different types of transactions. and then another TRUE capacity increase a year later IF core doesnt veto it.

its better to just have 2mb+segwit in April. with a grace period and then allow EVERYONE to have more freedom and choice because EVERY implementation has the code.. the way it should be

There are core, classic and xt supporters. So, they will give different information and sometimes give FUD which make many people confused.
All of them have their own agenda and each of them their idea is better than others, so there's been long debate about it.

I think there's no way to tell newbie about this problem well since there are many FUD or fanboys around.

lol Lauda quotes the mindset of corporate finance(winklevoss) as a voice of decentralization. is this comedy night??
the winkles want people to hand them funds to lock into a trust and use their centralized server to trade "shares" off chain..

lol lauda thinks the need for more real ONCHAIN capacity is about greed. yet its greed that wants to keep it low to artificially inflate fee's for greed then greedily push people onto centralized networks by force using the same reason. again it must be comedy night

The thing about blocksize is that it is simplistic and trivial, and people can grasp the concept instantly. The other simplistic solution is increasing the block creation frequency, but this would mean that mining rewards will need to be adjusted at the same time. imho, both of these solutions will have to be implemented at some stage in the future, but there is no immediate need for them. The better and more sophisticated solutions are harder to comprehend, but are equally important. SegWit, sidechains and other peripheral networks are beneficial and have also been mentioned.

I believe that the core team has the ability and the foresight to enable Bitcoin to expand and grow for the future.

Here's what I don't understand about the blocksize debate, why is it that anyone in the community insists on being right over being happy? Why can't all sides come together for the greater good? Everyone involved in bitcoin regardless of the reason is a member of the bitcoin community and while we might all have different reasons for being here, we all want sustainable growth and continued adoption. I know that all sides might have conflicting viewpoints at times and that's ok, but to say that it's all or nothing is kinda like the kid who threatens to take his ball home if he doesn't like the rules.

Arguing about the blocksize debate is like telling people they should only eat one type of pizza. Everyone has a favorite and sometimes we can convince ourselves that our personal preference is what is best for everyone. Meanwhile, those outside the pizza joint want a slice but can't get in because we in the community are too busy arguing about what fucking pizza we want to bake, so everyone will go hungry.

We understand what we want and we're all bright enough to be here, lets work together towards the common goal and stop fighting.

Maybe those who have much more say in this than me can order some fucking pizza, hack it up, and solve this shit.

The "blocksize debate" won't be the worst thing the bitcoin community endures, it's just the problem du jour.

Keep in mind that one could easily argue that Bitcoin's best aspect is decentralization. It is very important that this aspect does not get harmed. The Winklevoss twins agree with this as well.

Segwit is around 180-190% (realistic usage) which comes pretty close. The Lightning Network does have a theoretical infinite capacity, not so sure about Sidechains.

There's where the urgency to go mainstream is coming from, greed.

They will come, it is just a matter of time.

in short:

a historic scenario that shows there was no big doomsday then so there are no doomsdays now:
in 2013 miners finally got passed a bug that allowed them to start making blocks bigger than 500k. and guess what. they instantly didnt make 0.99mb blocks continuously that very same day.
it took 2 years to grow that large. slowly and naturally without asking anyone for expanding restraints. there was no power struggle acting out an oliver twist scene ("please sir can i have some more")

current situation:
we are starting to bottleneck again and its time to expand. remember increasing the capacity is about POTENTIAL growth. not a doomsday about instant doubling of bloat. let call this a "buffer" because people cant seem to grasp that capacity is about what is capable within a cap, (potential) .. rather than the bloat doomsday of what will happen when the code is activated.

so that denounces all fears of why we should wait 2 years just to get some code activated based on bloat doomsday

next there are 12 different implementations and only one of them is core. we should not feed into the core vs classic debate, nor let only core dictate and veto any/all features the community wants.. but instead think about 2mb AND segwit together harmoniously so that its not a endless debate every 2 years with a further 2 years of waiting and delays.

2mb+segwit offers upto 4x the POSSIBLE BUFFER CAPACITY. which should allow long enough time to not need to scream at the core overlords.

also by getting it added to the April release with a grace period allows more time for people to upgrade. rather then having everyone in a mad rush to upgrade in april for segwit and then having to do it again in july.

sticking only with 1mb+segwit forever is another bad idea because it forces people to seek out less secure and centralized offchain solutions. so extra capacity onchain helps everyone. and allows freedom of choice to stay onchain or utilize offchain possibilities. rather than forcing people offchain.

delaying the code and then extending the grace period helps no one.

do not be fooled by the us vs them. and instead think both together because thats essentially what bitcoin should be, everyone together with no one in power

Why should we be giving ideas to a false flag undercover shill

Thanks to knightdk for putting it clearly and without bias.
Seems to me the exponential time to verify blocks needs to be solved in the long run for bitcoin to be of any real use.

Add to that the human factors involved with the different implementations, like personal interest and people who wants to have the power and the control and you can see why there are such huge problems, getting anything done. Some people will do anything to be the Lead team in this project and others are butt hurt because they lost that position. This issue is much deeper than the technical merit of these implementations. The human factors are the main stumbling block now. ^hmmmm^

Since I'm a noob (status), I'd just like to say I don't give one satoshi about this non-issue drama.

I too have spent some time recently trying to make sense of all the craziness. See my thread here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14179560 where I have posted a couple good articles.

Yes, part of what segwit does is make a part of the lightning network easier to do.

None of these solutions are competing with each other, they can all coexist. It is possible to have all of these solutions at the same time, and I think that that will happen at some point in the future.

Probably. Segwit has an effective increase as a doubling of the maximum block size. AFAIK the lightning network, and sidechains as well, could in theory go infinitely.

I might be wrong about this, so please correct me. I'd be interested to know the truth...

Doesn't the segregated witness transaction malleability fix pave the way for the lightning network? They are not competing solutions, rather one enables the other.

And also, from what I understand, the blocksize reduction achieved by culling unlock scripts from transactions that segregated wintess brings will be insignificant compared to effect of the lightning network.

The most simplistic.

We hold the limit (stay at 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of decentralization and etc.
The benefit is that it prevents theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.
The downside is it causes a slow down in mass adoption, causes filled blocks, creates higher fees, forces users to use other systems.

or

We increase the limit (higher than 1mb), in the interest of protecting the original ideals of the white paper of currency and etc.
The benefit is that it continues and allows for mass adoption, prevents filled blocks, prevents higher fees, allows users to stay on Bitcoin blockchain.
The downside is it causes the theoretical problems that can cause Bitcoin to stray from what protects it from regulations and destruction.

I too look forward to the responses here, as I'm somewhat of a moron when it comes to cryptography and computers.  I never participate in any of the threads dedicated to the blocksize debate because it would be gibberish.  Cheers, hope to read good stuff.

Really looking forward to what you are going to type! This is an important topic for the bitcoin community so I guess newbies like myself are taking the opportunity to learn more about the fundamentals of bitcoin.