This thread is just more propaganda and ad hominem by Gavin fanboys.
No rethorical trick is spared.
Topic: Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize? - page 3. (Read 7087 times)
full member
Activity: 882
Merit: 102
PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds
June 01, 2015, 09:53:25 AM
June 01, 2015, 09:49:50 AM
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.
This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?
What the load of shit you're spilling, and its not even relevant to LaudaM's reply to your BS previous posts.
You're wrong and only spreading FUD about Bitcoin fundamental design.
Now you're spilling the shit about how you're too stupid to understand bitcoin.
Here is the facts for you to take a second look dumbass, this was clear back in 2010 so if you didnt see it, you're a dumbass:
+ Home mining is only to bootstrap bitcoin network
+ Economic dictates as bitcoin network becomes more valuable, mining will become industrial.
+ Bitcoin exchanges are gateways to the bitcoin network, without them bitcoin will only be fantasy among nerds. Ofcourse when you deal with fiat you will have to follow regulation. What are you? fcking 12?
+ As bitcoin become mainstream, bitcoin exchanges are less important. Merchants and business will transact directly using bitcoins.
+ Blocksize must grow as the bitcoin network grows, or you're shooting yourself in the foot when its more expensive to use than WU.
Now, i expect you to sell all your bitcoin and come back as a hater because you had 5 yrs and still dont get it.
Yeah, I don't get whe people do those critics when even satoshi pointed out from the begining that mining would end up done by professionals and not amateurs on their computers except for the very begining. He also doesn't are about equality of distributed BTC.
I'm glad you quoted him. I would never have seen his post as I put him on ignore long ago. I have no issue with mining being controlled by thousands of businesses worldwide. I've posted many times that I expect that to happen. People can't afford to do it anymore. What I see is a small handful of big farms controlling Bitcoin. That's very different. I have to believe I was misled by people on this forum long ago. I see Bitcoin just becoming a MasterCard and Visa competitor where development is eventually controlled by big business just like mining will be. A multitude of services built on differing blockchain technology that are proprietary and controlled by one business or another. What's so magical about that? You know MasterCard has a forum. I can't see spending much time there though. Satoshi lowered the blocksize for a reason and now it needs to be fixed for a different reason. The first reason was safety. The second reason is adoption and profit. They will eventually agree on 8mb and make the change. Every change they make from this point forward will be for business. Nothing we say here will effect that decision because the users don't really matter anyway.
June 01, 2015, 09:47:35 AM
Gmaxwell is steering away from what Bitcoin was used for whilst gavin is trying to prolong the Bitcoin economy as well as allow merchants easier accessiblity. I'm with gavin on this
June 01, 2015, 09:37:19 AM
Maxwell's fear is ridiculous. Let the economy dictates if we will reach 20mb or not.
I dont see that in near future because with current infrastructure, miners wont fill 20mb block.
I dont see that in near future because with current infrastructure, miners wont fill 20mb block.
No. His fear is that some bad intended group will artificially create 20MB blocks and that the numbers of the total nodes will fall below 5k.
June 01, 2015, 09:28:28 AM
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.
This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?
What the load of shit you're spilling, and its not even relevant to LaudaM's reply to your BS previous posts.
You're wrong and only spreading FUD about Bitcoin fundamental design.
Now you're spilling the shit about how you're too stupid to understand bitcoin.
Here is the facts for you to take a second look dumbass, this was clear back in 2010 so if you didnt see it, you're a dumbass:
+ Home mining is only to bootstrap bitcoin network
+ Economic dictates as bitcoin network becomes more valuable, mining will become industrial.
+ Bitcoin exchanges are gateways to the bitcoin network, without them bitcoin will only be fantasy among nerds. Ofcourse when you deal with fiat you will have to follow regulation. What are you? fcking 12?
+ As bitcoin become mainstream, bitcoin exchanges are less important. Merchants and business will transact directly using bitcoins.
+ Blocksize must grow as the bitcoin network grows, or you're shooting yourself in the foot when its more expensive to use than WU.
Now, i expect you to sell all your bitcoin and come back as a hater because you had 5 yrs and still dont get it.
Yeah, I don't get whe people do those critics when even satoshi pointed out from the begining that mining would end up done by professionals and not amateurs on their computers except for the very begining. He also doesn't are about equality of distributed BTC.
June 01, 2015, 09:19:44 AM
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
...
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
...
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
Finally some common sense! Gavin needs to admit and push the 8MB blocks and Maxwell must let go of the centralization fear and accept that Bitcoin can run ok for now with less than 5k nodes. Consensus achieved! I hope the involved parties are reading this or they are notified somehow. I would like to hear their opinion on this.
June 01, 2015, 08:53:04 AM
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.
This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?
June 01, 2015, 08:13:08 AM
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.
I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.
June 01, 2015, 08:07:59 AM
Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.
Where was the consensus to lower the blocks from 32MB to 1MB?
June 01, 2015, 07:28:24 AM
this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)
and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?
and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?
We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...
That's possible with the recent hack. I don't think Satoshi will be back on this board, for two reasons: 1) he owns a lot of bitcoins 2) not everyone may like the bitcoin project
Satoshi has the power of consensus. If Satoshi said "lets stay with 1MB" everyone would see it as the right thing. Same for 20MB.
June 01, 2015, 07:21:56 AM
this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)
and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?
and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?
We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...
That's possible with the recent hack. I don't think Satoshi will be back on this board, for two reasons: 1) he owns a lot of bitcoins 2) not everyone may like the bitcoin project
June 01, 2015, 07:14:41 AM
This warrants more community investigation, and should we find it to be true, we boycott Blockstream and go with the 20MB increase.
It makes no sense to reduce it to some sort of conspiracy theory.
The lightning network has positive features and negative ones, the 20MB increase has positive and negative ones as well.
Ideally, we would need boot.
June 01, 2015, 01:02:07 AM
I found this earlier:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-05-30-audio-lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion-1075510
It is in the press release section. It is a thread about an interview with Gavin and he talks about the 20mb size and other related things. I think everyone should listen to this it might help to put things into perspective.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-05-30-audio-lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion-1075510
It is in the press release section. It is a thread about an interview with Gavin and he talks about the 20mb size and other related things. I think everyone should listen to this it might help to put things into perspective.
May 31, 2015, 11:30:33 PM
It is time for Satoshi to step out of the darkness and to have his/her/their say.... Just a shove in the right direction.
LOL if you don't think people would attack Satoshi for being "out of touch" with Bitcoin as it exists now if his "shove in the right direction" didn't align with their personal agenda for Bitcoin. For large amount of users (and miners, and Bitcoin services), ideology is irrelevant and their primary concern is whether any changes increase or decrease the chances of them making a significant profit in the short-term future. Whether Bitcoin is going to be around in 20 years, much less 50 or 80, is utterly irrelevant to them and always has been.
May 31, 2015, 11:03:51 PM
Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.
nice. thats a great way to push this change. promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.
Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.
May 31, 2015, 10:48:22 PM
Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.
nice. thats a great way to push this change. promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.
May 31, 2015, 09:19:14 PM
...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.
But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design. Here, Gavin explains:
Quote
Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
Satoshi said it can be phased in at a predefined block number far in the future. By the time we reach that block most people will be running the new clients.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.
May 31, 2015, 06:47:23 PM
...The only reason Maxwell has been pushing side chains (if you follow the arguments from the beginning) is because they would allow needed features without bastardizing the original design of Bitcoin. If you're going to change something as fundamental to the original design of Bitcoin as block size why don't you just increase the max coins above 21m or lock the mining reward at 50 coins? The only way to change a basic core design feature of Bitcoin is to admit that the design is flawed. If that's the case then design a new coin that's not flawed, implement all of the corrections you want to the new coin and end this failed experiment. To me this argument is no different than PoW vs PoS. You can't fix that midstream. You need to start over.
But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design. Here, Gavin explains:
Quote
Back in 2010, after Bitcoin was mentioned on Slashdot for the first time and bitcoin prices started rising, Satoshi rolled out several quick-fix solutions to various denial-of-service attacks. One of those fixes was to drop the maximum block size from infinite to one megabyte (the practical limit before the change was 32 megabytes– the maximum size of a message in the p2p protocol). The intent has always been to raise that limit when transaction volume justified larger blocks.
Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?
Satoshi said it can be phased in at a predefined block number far in the future. By the time we reach that block most people will be running the new clients.
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
May 31, 2015, 06:33:19 PM
As a long term observer I think it almost certain that a more accurate valid question would be:
"Is the increased block size method of scaling the reason why 4 core developers and many others have joined Blockstream."
Speaking for myself, I would bet my bottom
Ideally, of course, nobody would require a forced spend, or if they did it would be after their solution was well established and proven. It is the case that a forced spend could clean up some cruft and allow a more realistic, forward-thinking, and decentralization friendly solution to go. It is also true that a new alt could be created but in that case the boot-strapping issue comes to into play more. Maxwell et-al have the credibility to possibly pull it off however. That's my own persona read of course.
May 31, 2015, 05:53:05 PM
Op's proposition is an ad hominem attempt to occlude the valid objections against Gavin's and Hearn's "rush-it-now" blocksize increase.
People should read and think:
https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c
People should read and think:
https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c
Jump to: