question | Bitcointalksearch.org

SISAR

hero member

Activity: 651

Merit: 518

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on July 04, 2015, 09:18:23 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

So Greg Maxwell and Adam Back aren't respected anymore? lol

They're pushing for sidechains to correct increasing volume.

Fine but it would be better to have sidechains and faster block time, like 2 minutes * 1MB block = increase almost as big as with Gavin's proposal but noticably faster transaction confirmations.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on July 04, 2015, 10:38:32 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 04, 2015, 09:34:23 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on July 04, 2015, 09:18:23 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

So Greg Maxwell and Adam Back aren't respected anymore? lol

They're pushing for sidechains to correct increasing volume.

Except they're not advocating for the blocksize to stay the same either. What was your point again?

My point is, you are making it sound like it's Gavin's way or the highway and that's not true.

This is precisely the point that the Gavinistas are making, and also the point to which this entire exchnage is based. Colin said:

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Remind me again what it is you're talking about?

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 04, 2015, 09:34:23 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on July 04, 2015, 09:18:23 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

So Greg Maxwell and Adam Back aren't respected anymore? lol

They're pushing for sidechains to correct increasing volume.

Except they're not advocating for the blocksize to stay the same either. What was your point again?

My point is, you are making it sound like it's Gavin's way or the highway and that's not true.

Adam Back (who developed Bitcoins security system) wants a very slow metered change over time. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/354qbm/bitcoin_devs_do_not_have_consensus_on_blocksize/cr15oke

Greg Maxwell doesn't see it as a problem that sidechains can't solve. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11318788

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: neurotypical on July 04, 2015, 10:16:33 AM

Quote from: Amph on July 03, 2015, 03:14:13 AM

-snip-
i'm wondering why it cannot be automatized in the code with an algorithm without the request of an hard fork every time you need it, for example the code just scale it if we need 2MB, 4 MB and so on...

If it was automatized people would complain that they don't have a say. Right now you can "vote" by running a node of the fork you like, without that option people would complain as well as they already do now.

It clearly states that:

Code:

  8MB cap
  ... doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
  ... for twenty years

In other words: it is going to be automatized for 20 years.

Have you guys opened the link at all or am I the one missing something?

neurotypical

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 503

Quote from: Amph on July 03, 2015, 03:14:13 AM

Quote from: Harry Hood on July 03, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

What's the hold up?

Is there some vote coming? Is Gavin waiting for consensus? Also, why Gavin proposes a slow increase over several years?

because chinese do not want a 20MB increase, but apparently they don't like the slow increase too, at first they were with gavin on it, now they changed their mind, maybe they don't want a multiple fork happening every time

i'm wondering why it cannot be automatized in the code with an algorithm without the request of an hard fork every time you need it, for example the code just scale it if we need 2MB, 4 MB and so on...

If it was automatized people would complain that they don't have a say. Right now you can "vote" by running a node of the fork you like, without that option people would complain as well as they already do now.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on July 04, 2015, 09:18:23 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

So Greg Maxwell and Adam Back aren't respected anymore? lol

They're pushing for sidechains to correct increasing volume.

Except they're not advocating for the blocksize to stay the same either. What was your point again?

wagabee london

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 100

the devs should work for the community and do there work no more arguing all propositions from the devs should be discuss and there should be a vote for bigger blocks

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

I thought that people were already aware of this. This isn't exactly new, as there were several threads that were either discussing or mentioning this.

Quote from: H.W.Z on July 03, 2015, 08:30:37 AM

We have got some extent of consensus for the block size increase! They are coding and testing it. The official version will be launching soon! We need to be patient!

I doubt that you have a source for that. I guess many don't realize is that by switching to XT you're essentially saying I agree that Mike and Gavin should be in control rather than the current team.
It isn't just about the block size. However, I'm not saying whether it is bad or good, I'm just trying to point that out.

I wonder if the Core team will ever decide to follow up with that increase?

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

So Greg Maxwell and Adam Back aren't respected anymore? lol

They're pushing for sidechains to correct increasing volume.

yayayo

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1024

Quote from: Carlton Banks on July 03, 2015, 04:00:12 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

The second least popular argument is Gavin's proposal. Sorry, but there's a way to increase the transaction rate, and the majority of the industry don't think it's a good proposal. Splitting Bitcoin into altcoins has the potential to harm Bitcoin more than if we just wait until people come together around a good proposal. So, just wait till someone proposes a good idea.

Exactly! The main reason why Gavin doesn't push his crude idea is that he hasn't support from a meaningful majority (people that actually have a say in this - not the manipulated reddit crowd). If he would push for it, he would very likely fail and will loose all respect as a developer. Because of the havoc any controversial hardfork will cause, Gavin will then be known as a dictator who tried to destroy Bitcoin.

People who advocate blindly for max_blocksize increases should take notice of the recent chain-split event... people will run even less full nodes if blocksize increases excessively, so such problems would have more impact than today.

ya.ya.yo!

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ?? on ??

This use of the term "altcoins" is a name people throw around to be derogatory. Any Bitcoin hard fork could be considered "an altcoin", so unless you plan to get a blocksize increase with a soft fork, prepare to be using an "altcoin". Bitcoin will become what it becomes, regardless of what name you give it.

Which is more hyperbolic, using the altcoin slur or saying that the block size will never increase unless we adopt the XT client?

We need more transaction capacity, is increasing the block size the only way to achieve it? The answer is no. And none of the devs, again, not even Gavin, think that. It's the most crude way to do it, and it comes with the most problems also.

Getting rid of the block size limit will be a part of the successful idea that increases transaction capacity. But it will not be the only part, and it will not be the most important part.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: colinistheman on July 02, 2015, 09:08:09 PM

But if the software never sees the light of day, then there is no chance for change.

Not true.

No-one (who is respected) is arguing for no increase. No-one. That's the least popular argument.

The second least popular argument is Gavin's proposal. Sorry, but there's a way to increase the transaction rate, and the majority of the industry don't think it's a good proposal. Splitting Bitcoin into altcoins has the potential to harm Bitcoin more than if we just wait until people come together around a good proposal. So, just wait till someone proposes a good idea.

H.W.Z

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

We have got some extent of consensus for the block size increase! They are coding and testing it. The official version will be launching soon! We need to be patient!

wagabee london

full member

Activity: 406

Merit: 100

bitcoin needs bigger blocks to go mainstream bitcoin xt is needed the devs and the miners should vote and take a decisión the transactions are too slow for big merchants to accept bitcoin

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: Harry Hood on July 03, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

What's the hold up?

Is there some vote coming? Is Gavin waiting for consensus? Also, why Gavin proposes a slow increase over several years?

because chinese do not want a 20MB increase, but apparently they don't like the slow increase too, at first they were with gavin on it, now they changed their mind, maybe they don't want a multiple fork happening every time

i'm wondering why it cannot be automatized in the code with an algorithm without the request of an hard fork every time you need it, for example the code just scale it if we need 2MB, 4 MB and so on...

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014