Topic: Industry Endorses Bigger Blocks and BIP101 (Read 2712 times)

The good thing is that BIP101-enabled code (once deployed) would still follow the longest chain if the rest of the network decided to cap the block size at a static flat 8Mb. There simply won't be any block producers that would want to shoot higher than that. So there is no contradiction here.

But, I do agree, that BIP101 seems to be designed to significantly shift the balance of power in the network from regions with higher hashing capacity towards the ones with higher bandwidth, which is much harder to increase quickly in order to counter some potential abuses that may arise from this shift. Plus, the effects of block sizes larger than 8Mb on network's structural integrity are unknown at this stage.

We need to collect more data on network dynamics under the new hard limit in order to see how fast the technology is able to catch up and what other issues may arise from the increased capacity. For example, how the new limit affects the amount of full nodes and whether an average home internet connection is able to handle the load. Going with a static flat 8Mb limit might create some turbulence down the road, but eventually the tech will advance to the point that we will be "back to normal" with the new data to evaluate and decide how to move forward.

Even under bitcoinXT's own parameters, only miners can vote for the fork to be triggered. Only one of the companies that signed this document is directly involved with mining. I've seen many people trying to argue that with those captains of industry showing support to BIP101 adoption of Gavin's and Mike's proposal is unavoidable. That's not the case however. Those businesses are not the entirety of bitcoin ecosystem, and even if we disregard the vote mechanism embedded in bitcoinXT miners are still a very important part of the bitcoin economy. Like it or not, Chinese miners are a huge part of the mining business and they have good reasons to veto bitcoinXT, BIP101 or even everything Mike Hearn is involved with. Given that Mike has said that bitcoin could do without China if the miners won't agree with him. If making the CEOs of those western companies sign this document in an attempt to make his worst case scenario sound more reasonable then all I have to say it that I'm disgusted.

Yep, that's what concerns me about BIP101: we are going to be at 12Mb limit in the beginning of 2017 and at 16Mb limit in the beginning of 2018.
It increases gradually over time and seems overly optimistic, and it's not clear if the network can sustain itself without any limit at all.

My guess, is that having a static hard cap has more of a psychological effect on preventing attacks than anything else, because an attack cannot have long lasting effects with a known ceiling on block size, so attackers simply won't bother.

The 8Mb cap, on the other hand, looks like a reasonable compromise, at least from the standpoint of being competitive as a transactional medium. With 8Mb blocks Bitcoin will have only twice the pre-fork capacity of its closest PoW competitor, so going for anything less might endanger Bitcoin's position as a leader in this space.

Most of them support either 8MB or Garzik's BIP100. Gavin's and Hearn's BIP101 is getting extremely little support (less than 1%).

This is because even the most business-minded CEOs of funded startups who dream of taking on board 2 billion users in 6 months understand that going to 8MB to then double the block size every fucking year till we reach 8GB blocks (!!!) is simply reckless and crazy.

Almost everybody knows that bigger blocks are needed rather sooner than later - what the SANE people in this community is trying to do is to reach a reasonable and safe consensus about how and when to increase such limits.

Finally, I guess that even the CEOs of hyper-funded startups understand what bitcoin users are looking for when they use bitcoin... Quoting a thread on reddit:

i think though tis the traders who decide 

Because they represent a large portion of the industry wherein bitcoin manifests. The economy mainly decides in this kind of decisions, not the miners and the devs because the economy will be the one that will be hurt the most in case shit happens.

Seemed like a miswording since a Blacklist implies bitcoins fungibility there are only 21 million Bitcoins so affecting supply would be a no go, deanonymization part is fine.

Edit in: Prioritizing would have been better but yah people needed context on that one have it now.

The economic majority does. However, XT supporters are misinterpreting information and spreading lies. Let's make this a bit more visible:
Supporting BIP 101 =/= supporting XT.

Bitpay:

---

---

This is a interesting website that nobody had posted about (or I've missed it). Although some of the information about XT supporters is invalid or outdated, the website seems nice.

yes a bunch of company CEOs should decide where BTC heads 

You should know, that turtlehurricane doesn't know much, about the big players in the Bitcoin-ecosystem.

I'm mostly against the move, especially XT-style, but please ... you should know by now that blockchain.com belongs to the same company blockchain.info.

Yes, it sure is.

My hope is that they run BIP101 without XT's "extra features", I think is a much higher chance of consensus in that case, and much lower chance of bitcoin splitting into two chains.

I think the BITCOIN COMMUNITY should write and sign a letter like a petition issuing our demands on this issue. That we want equal choices and equal opportunity for all proposed BIPs and we want 90% consensus rather that 75%. Something like that. Who's with me??

except, you're confused between fact and opinion. Typical among the XT bashers tho.

iBit just jumps on board :

http://w3.itbit.com/blog/itbit-endorses-bip101-larger-block-sizes

Except for the fact that raising block size does not scale.

Wow you're very close in beating turtlehuricane for his champion position.

I think you should turn off your computer, and get laid (even you must pay for it) to unclog your dick , i mean your head abit.

God bless you

Fade the weakness.  Buy and let the bulls take you higher.

People are freaking out about the blocksize but the reality is
that consensus is forming and pools are voting to increase.
Plus the block halving is coming next year.  

Its a good opportunity.

Nice try.  BIP101 is just Gavin's old exponential bloat that guarantees 8GB blocks and bakes in severe centralization which is exactly what his sponsor's demand.  I'd give it maybe a month before they start ramming in Mikes spyware changes from XT anyway.

Here's my BIP idea.  I've suggested to one of the Blockstream guys that they consider it as probably the last golden opportunity to fix the glaring defects in Bitcoin:

 - Shitcan sha256 completely if the miners really are being cocks and don't even throw them a bone (of a form I won't bother to discuss here.)

 - Switch POW over to a random shifting set of algorithms which are ASIC unfriendly.

 - Make not only transfer nodes be rewarded, but have a weighted reward based on distributions of various kinds (geographic, jurisdictional, political, etc.)

These were the goals which I envisioned for the 'paracoin' project (which was spurred in large part by one of the numerous attempts that Hearn has made over the years to make sure Bitcoin gets swallowed by giant corporates.)

I hope that there is a skunk-works project somewhere is going on which would have such a thing ready as an alternate when Hearndresen spring their trap.  I would not only support it, but I would be likely subject my BTC stash to it via proof-of-burn if there is a reason to do so.

Bitcoin dropping to hell again... and I don't fuckin know what to do.