Topic: Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize? - page 4. (Read 7087 times)

Fix which problem? Just this one or should we correct the other issues with this fork too. I am questioning Gavin's authority. Why should he decide alone?

Since when did it become some sort of "sin" to correct flaws? Why don't we "question authority" and fix this thing.

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?

Thanks for the explanations on the details of this.  I may not understand exactly how this stuff works but I can make sense of it without being able to code it.  I wonder if anyone involved cares to make a statement here?  Somehow I doubt they will bu tit would be nice.  This is a serious accusation, something that could end careers.

But the 1MB limit wasn't part of the original design.  Here, Gavin explains:

If he/she/they still has the keys the the earliest blocks he/she/they could sign a message saying which devs plans he/she/they prefers, if any. Alternatively he might have a separate solution that nobody else has thought of yet. However, I thought he suggested increasing the block size if became necessary in the future.

One people to decided the whole future about bitcoin fork? Not even in a dream that people will accept this. Satoshi could be the only one for this because he is the original creator of this and he knows what the best for this now or in the future, but for now we need a team of core developer for it to decide what the best for it

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...

Better comments here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/

You theory makes sense. It's quite valid and could explain a lot of what is happening in this decision making process.

there are 3 theories of blockstream

1. it is its own ledger cloning bitcoin tx by tx with altcoins added to the same ledger to allow decentralized exchanging without a central server
(demythed because it will be centralized server based)

2. it is altering bitcoins own ledger to incorporate altcoins aswell

3. is is a mysql centralised server (much like cryptsy, btc-e and other exchanges)

the only way to expand bitcoin would be option 2 as the others are just meanderings waffles hidden behind the existent systems known as exchanges. so on the bases of expanding bitcoins own ledger rather than converting people to use a different ledger (blockstream). i see nothing beneficial that blockstream can offer that is not in existence today

I trust Greg Maxwell far more than Gavin Andresen. Gavin has proven to be nothing more than the token paid dev of Bitcoin big business. 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.

did satoshi predicted sidechain( one could say yes because they are much different than altcoin), but i wanted to know what he thought about it, if there is a quote around maybe...

It is a valid theory and one that can explain why this debate is going nowhere.

blockstream proposes to make a bitcoin with dozens of other altcoins joined to one ledger..

in short if you have bitcoin with 21mill limit and you join another ledger (fixed to it) the limit is now way more than 21mill available coins on that single ledger

... say goodby to the 21million cap of the single ledger..
.. say goodbye to rarity
.. say goodbye to the whole purpose of "bitcoin value"

oh and when adding 10altcoins to the ledger..
.. say hello to atleast a 10x drop in bitcoin value
.. say hello to lukejr, gmaxwll, wuille's premines causing a bigger drop after the rarity drop when they sell their premine
.. say hello to a <$1 bitcoin value

Having read the opinions of the four Blockstream developers in the OP, I feel it wouldn't be difficult to reach an agreement on 2 MB blocks in the near future. Maybe it is also possible to agree on 4 MB blocks.

It would be great if the key core developers sign a public manifesto on these terms. Most of us would definitely follow.

This is strange. They work on the same project but they don't necessarily agree on everything. If you look at the bitcoin source users, you will see there are many people active in the bitcoin source code.

One dev in charge of a project doesn't generally work, because another dev would simply start a fork.

Of course, makes all sense in the world. But in the end what matters isn't the "community consensus" (which isn't).
When it comes down to it what matters who's in control of the bitcoin.org domain and the sourceforge project page.

This does appear to be a potential conflict of interest.
One approach is to make the Bitcoin blocksize larger and adapt it through a fork to process more transactions by itself.

The other is to implement Bitcoin features through the use of sidechains but keep the max size the same for now in effect creating a system of Altcoins that are perfectly intergrated with Bitcoin also known as sidechains and thus becoming a true part of Bitcoin.

If this becomes a question of Bitcoin development then discussion should be moved towards what the majority of users would prefer to have, one option would be to fork with the potential to improve Bitcoin through intergration into sidechains or to fork and increase the blocksize for now, my main question is why a bigger transaction size would interfere with the blockstream idea in the first place and why both couldn't be done in one fork.
__

"The implementation of lightning networks would also require appropriate tweaks to Bitcoin core. Some developers have noted that there is a certain degree of affinity between sidechains and lightning networks.

The deployment of sidechains interoperable with Bitcoin requires the implementation of suitable hooks in Bitcoin Core. That will inevitably take some time, but it’s worth noting that some Blockstream team members are also Bitcoin Core developers.

The Bitcoin Sidechains paper envisages an ecosystem of “sidechains” separate from the main Bitcoin blockchain but interoperable with it. A sidechain can carry bitcoin as currency, in which case users will be able to seamlessly transfer bitcoin between the sidechain and the main blockchain. At the same time, the sidechain can implement changes from Bitcoin Core. For example, a sidechain can implement more powerful scripting features or more watertight privacy.

“Other approaches seek to modify Bitcoin protocols in various ways,” wrote Robert McGrath. “For example, Sidechains aim to create alternative blockchains hanging off the main blockchain, which would help limit the costs of the main blockchain. Another variant is the Lightning network, which aims to allow some transactions to be performed “on the side,” and on send the results to the main blockchain.”

___

We can have a network of arbitrarily complicated transactions, such that they aren’t on the blockchain (and thus are fast, cheap and extremely scalable), but at every point are ready to be dropped onto the blockchain for resolution if there’s a problem,” he said. “This is genuinely revolutionary.”

__



If I read the above quote correctly Eastwind it would send a message to the Blockchain but the sidechain would have its own client and do the work external to the main chain in most cases, instead we would see a shift of weight in the sense that Bitcoin is used as a ledger to track and record transactions with complex instruments moved off the blockchain with the results recorded on the main ledger. It also would be  possible  to have merged mining supplement Bitcoin fees and blocks based on the presumption that Sidechains have their own value in and of themselves.

In other words an interesting article when you consider some of the implications of it.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

If we use the sidechains without increasing the block size in BTC, the sidechains will also fill up our disk.