But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
Here.
Topic: Newly Convinced That BIP100 Is The Best Solution (Read 2142 times)
Here.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going.
Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary.
Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system.
This hypothetical, highly experimental not yet delivered solution gives nothing to removes uncertainties. There is absolutely a balance to find between technical uncertainties and market uncertainties. The last one being neglected up to date.
Offchain solutions exist now. I believe transactions between Coinbase users for example are not recorded on the blockchain. Do we need improvement on that front? Absolutely. Is it coming? You bet is!
Being forced to use "banks" is not the proposition of bitcoin btw. Go read back the whitepaper.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going.
Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary.
Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system.
This hypothetical, highly experimental not yet delivered solution gives nothing to removes uncertainties. There is absolutely a balance to find between technical uncertainties and market uncertainties. The last one being neglected up to date.
Offchain solutions exist now. I believe transactions between Coinbase users for example are not recorded on the blockchain. Do we need improvement on that front? Absolutely. Is it coming? You bet is!
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going.
Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary.
Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system.
This hypothetical, highly experimental not yet delivered solution gives nothing to removes uncertainties. There is absolutely a balance to find between technical uncertainties and market uncertainties. The last one being neglected up to date.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going.
Capacity of the network is flexible and excess can be routed to off-chain solutions when the need for absolute trust is not necessary.
Unintended consequences from drastic changes can cause critical breakdown in the system.
The interesting thing is that the only pool that originally support BIP101 (slush pool) dropped their support code in the block and now no one is supporting BIP 101 anymore. BTCchina pool, once support BIP 100, also dropped their code and back to core
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
Interestingly the big payment processors made a firm stance for BIP101, even gave a deadline date, and are still on that position. They have a lot of weight as they are the one giving the coins themselves the most value. We'll see how it goes.
That's absolutely false. Bitcoin holders are the one giving Bitcoin value. Payment processor are selling Bitcoin for fiat everyday, if anything they are depreciating Bitcoin's value.
I'm sorry I've should also had market makers. ItBit is on that boat.
The interesting thing is that the only pool that originally support BIP101 (slush pool) dropped their support code in the block and now no one is supporting BIP 101 anymore. BTCchina pool, once support BIP 100, also dropped their code and back to core
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
Interestingly the big payment processors made a firm stance for BIP101, even gave a deadline date, and are still on that position. They have a lot of weight as they are the one giving the coins themselves the most value. We'll see how it goes.
That's absolutely false. Bitcoin holders are the one giving Bitcoin value. Payment processor are selling Bitcoin for fiat everyday, if anything they are depreciating Bitcoin's value.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
This is not true for those who rely on the network to handle a lot of capacity. Having uncertainties on the capacity of the network is not good for predicting where your business is going.
The interesting thing is that the only pool that originally support BIP101 (slush pool) dropped their support code in the block and now no one is supporting BIP 101 anymore. BTCchina pool, once support BIP 100, also dropped their code and back to core
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
Interestingly the big payment processors made a firm stance for BIP101, even gave a deadline date, and are still on that position. They have a lot of weight as they are the one giving the coins themselves the most value. We'll see how it goes.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
The smaller the change, the higher the predictability. A drastic change in any aspects of the bitcoin protocol will cause many unpredictable behavior from various participants and the future becomes very risky
The interesting thing is that the only pool that originally support BIP101 (slush pool) dropped their support code in the block and now no one is supporting BIP 101 anymore. BTCchina pool, once support BIP 100, also dropped their code and back to core
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
This is exactly how a consensus building process looks like: Each participants continuously evaluating the current poll of the opinion and adjust their view in the process. When you see that your decision is against majority of the participants' consensus, it is always favorable to re-check your calculation and try to reach consensus if possible
But there is still 50/50 split between change and no change, I guess mostly because there is really no convincing evidence that current block size is not big enough
We have been warned.
One more thing, to clarify how important this is.
If consensus network (at any one point in time) shrinks to the size, that ordinary people with home internet connections are no longer part of it, then their opinion will never be asked again. It simply won't matter anymore. The barrier to entry into consensus will simply be too high for them.
The limit needs to be treated with extreme caution.
If consensus network (at any one point in time) shrinks to the size, that ordinary people with home internet connections are no longer part of it, then their opinion will never be asked again. It simply won't matter anymore. The barrier to entry into consensus will simply be too high for them.
The limit needs to be treated with extreme caution.
If you think a fork is hard to achieve now, just wait until 2020...
I'm not saying it's gonna be easy, but the fork only looks hard, because the solution looks too simple.
I can explain, why anything less than 8Mb is not competitive enough to justify the fork, anything more than that is risky for network's health.
If we just get used to the idea, that we need to come together once in a while to make adjustments it will be healthy for the community.
BIP101 is the best
and BIP 100 is the second best but at least there could be a consensus about BIP 100. so i would support that. 32MB blocks will give us alot of time.
I think it might be a good idea for Core to release a simple 0.11.1 version which let people announce a preference about some of the BIP's out their.
A lot of people are running XT just for this reason (I'm one of them). It's a way to express your preference without shouting all day long on
A lot of people are running XT just for this reason (I'm one of them). It's a way to express your preference without shouting all day long on
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
There is nothing more stable and predictable than a static flat limit of 8Mb per block. It's actually the most simple solution to implement as well (the patch is likely a one-liner). If some merchants and exchanges use semi-custom self-compiled clients, incorporating any sophisticated BIP implementation with voting might cause some incompatibilities and forks in the future (remember BerkleyDB to LevelDB switch).
With static limit (8Mb), we will have both an increased (competitive to other PoW coins) capacity and a potential market for fees, which should satisfy both camps if they are interested in finding consensus at all. Besides, statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all know and value, it's the one that is proven to do the job. Why complicate it?
If we survive the fork (by simply raising the limit to 8Mb) and succeed, it will create a precedent for future adjustments.
In 2020 we might look at this issue again and say: "Jumping from 1Mb to 8Mb worked great, let's move to 32Mb this time if the tech allows the network to be healthy".
If you think a fork is hard to achieve now, just wait until 2020...
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
There is nothing more stable and predictable than a static flat limit of 8Mb per block. It's actually the most simple solution to implement as well (the patch is likely a one-liner). If some merchants and exchanges use semi-custom self-compiled clients, incorporating any sophisticated BIP implementation with voting might cause some incompatibilities and forks in the future (remember BerkleyDB to LevelDB switch).
With static limit (8Mb), we will have both an increased (competitive to other PoW coins) capacity and a potential market for fees, which should satisfy both camps if they are interested in finding consensus at all. Besides, statically capped Bitcoin with gradually increasing soft limits is Bitcoin we all know and value, it's the one that is proven to do the job. Why complicate it?
If we survive the fork (by simply raising the limit to 8Mb) and succeed, it will create a precedent for future adjustments.
In 2020 we might look at this issue again and say: "Jumping from 1Mb to 8Mb worked great, let's move to 32Mb this time if the tech allows the network to be healthy".
Anything is a better solution than Bitcoin XT, so whatever happens, we'll be better off than how it would turn out with Gavincoin. As long as we stay in Core we will not get the shitty extras.
It is fairly easy to estimate how much transactions can be handle by a global usage. It's not that much speculating but yes, it is still a limit but at that point alternate solutions (AKA lightning and sidechains + shared market cap of other major altcoins) can come into play. 8 Gb is fairly enough to ensure a great amount of transaction fees to keep a large incentive to miners and ensure a maximum network security.
Security of the network and the idea of there being a network in the first place, depends on how many full nodes there are, how diversely they are spread across the planet and how able they are to handle the load.
5 super-connected super-nodes with 8Gb blocks would technically still constitute a network, but I'm not sure if you want to call that Bitcoin.
We need to address the block size issue responsibly and re-evaluate network's health with regular intervals.
I still believe that increasing the Block size would be the best option. Some miners already increased the blocksize while others such as Jeff Garzik have spoke in favor of BIP
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
I too still sympathize with the idea of one-off fork to 8Mb. Clean and simple.
Don't forget that markets like predictability. A "kick the can down the road" solution offers none. I wouldn't mind if forking bitcoin was fairly easy but as far as I know, it is not.
Jump to: