Topic: I have a question about the blockchain size... (Read 1067 times)

I might have not understood everything but...

The idea is not the technical possibility, but the consensus needed between all the actors no? They all have interest in seing the smaller possible blocks!

So which average does that graph show. If it is an arithmetic mean, and many blocks are under 0.5 Mb, then surely we would need to be using blocks greater than 1Mb for that graph to be accurate?

This map tells you nothing. The 'forkers' are willing to sacrifice just about anything to get the small increase in tps.

No. Classic is DOA (Dead on Arrival).

You don't have the support of nodes. A few individuals just jump-started a lot of nodes at once. Without the miners, Classic is dead.

this map opened my eyes, historically there has not been any "impossibility" that's nonsense

whatever it is let's just hope none of these upgrades will mess up the blockchain... that would be disaster and the end of BTC

ethically.. people would upgrade their clients first. and miners would monitor things like bitnodes to see if people are prefering 2mb.
then miners will add their flag, ifthey see significant rise in desire of 2mb..

the miners flag which would be monitored on the blockchain (the 750/1000 blocks showing the flag).. (separate vote to bitnodes)

where there would be a 28 day grace period as extra breath if it reached that trigger.. and after the 28 day grace period, miners are still not automatically going to make big blocks until they are sure their attempts wont get orphaned..

as i said all of the scenario above is the ethical way to do it. and so far, thats what seems to be happening.
2 things that may differ is that miners put in their block flag before people are showing a majority of 2mb nodes. and the other thing is once the miner consensus has been reached and the 28 day period is over some miners might stupidly push forward. which could lead to their blocks getting orphaned. which would mess around with merchants who accept minimal confirmations.

its more complicated then that. but i tried to simplify it as possible into logical and real scenarios. and not the dooms day illogical crap some blockstreamers are spouting out

there is also a proposal for ANY client to add in a basic 2mb rule. but blockstream are pretending its impossible for them to implement

Now we have the nodes support- Do we need the miner to support it as well?? Do we need to have 75% block mined using classic or (classic + size>1Mb)?

I guess we'll see in the long run who really won

No your thinking of Bitcoin XT, it lost the latest one is Bitcoin classic which has a block size of 2mb.

I thought classic had lost

much thanks for the detailed explanation it's good to see I can still use my older client. thanks!

transactions are never lost.
transactions sit in the memory of every mining pool. so all transactions will get added to blocks.

without complicating the scenarios. the only difference you will see is that your transaction will appear in blocks at different times.
all miners will have the pool of transactions so whether its:
(B)ig blocker that happens to remain at a higher blockheight it will be added to their block.
(s)mall blockers would ignore the (B)ig blockers and make their own blocks as if the transaction has not yet confirmed(due to ignoring(B)). so it would be added to their block too.

and if small blockers gained blockheight. the large blocks would get orphaned and the data would align back to the small blockers. so your transaction will exist.. but the number of confirms will change

the ultimate result would be that if a service you use is relying on large blocker data. then there is a chance that a confirmed transaction can be rejected and then when realigning, may show a different amount of confirmations because its now seeing the data of the small blocks. which also has your transaction, but maybe added at a different time.

EG
lets say the current block was 400,000 and you transmitted a new transaction.
both miners receive the transaction but,
(B)ig blocker added it to 400,001
(s)mall blocker doesnt add it to 400,001 for many reasons (i wont complicate the scenario)
(s)mall blocker added it to 400,002

so 30 minutes after you sent the transaction(at 400,003)..
a service viewing (B) chain will see the transaction has 2 confirmations (because it was added to their chain(B) 2 blocks ago)
a service viewing (s) chain will see the transaction has 1 confirmations (because it was added to their chain(s) 1 blocks ago)

then lets say, that at that same 400,003 (s) got blockheight instead (as a scenario). and so (B) orphans off its bigger blocks and grabs (s) chain as thats the new height.
a service viewing (B) chain will then see the transaction now has 1 confirmations (no longer 2 because the block 400,001 that had your tx in the big block doesnt exist)
a service viewing (s) chain will see the transaction has 1 confirmations because its the same data on both chains due to the height that caused orphans on (B)

So now we have the 2MB blockchain implemented by Bitcoin classic... what will happen if I will still be using my older mutibit wallet when majority are using this one? will my transactions still work or everyone will have to upgrade in time? thanks!