Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto PLEASE resolve this debate? 1MB blockstream vs 8MB Gavin Blocks - page 4. (Read 5092 times)

I'm not sure that it's logical to proceed with a technically unsound fork based on the idea that we can fork again when things go wrong. Ideally, forks will not be the result of crisis (where a lot of real money is at stake), but of deliberation and consensus. I didn't mean to imply that a fork should be taken lightly at all. I don't think hard forks should be used as a test bed for ideas -- especially ideas as unscientific as using Moore's Law as the basis for increasing block size limit.

It's not as simple as tick-tock-tick-tock... just ask Intel.

Of course, that same logic cuts both ways.

If we assume that this "isn't going to be the last fork that bitcoin sees" and we aren't "so afraid of the idea that the block size limit won't permanently be decided by the next fork", then there's no reason not to go ahead with the "8000x increase into the protocol" over the next 20 years, since we can always create a soft fork in the future to slow or stop the growth if/when needed.

Dunno why but this comes to my mind:

so 1 MB blockstream would be increase to 8MB by Gavin Anderson in 2016 right?
anyway, could anyone tell me the advantage and disadvantage by 8MB Gavin Blocks ?
i just curious about it, i just want to know from positive side and negative side, thanks

Indeed, but if the limit is raised, we inevitably have to prepare for the case that the space will be used, whether or not that growth in transaction volume is tied to organic adoption, and whether or not we understand today the incentives that may exist for spamming the blockchain tomorrow. So whether or not we believe the limit will be relevant doesn't matter; if the possibility is there, then we need to consider the implications for network security.



I don't know the mechanics that well. But if, in theory, blocks were large enough to cause significant delays in block propagation times, orphaned blocks become a significant concern.... for one thing, anyway.

Personally, I think it's naive to think that we can determine the best limit today, for the rest of eternity. I don't think we can begin to understand the problems that may come with a scaling of the magnitude suggested by BIP 101. I think scaling should be undertaken on a need basis with technical rigor (neither of which have been put forth in BIP 101 IMO).

I also don't think people should be so afraid of the idea that the block size limit won't permanently be decided by the next fork. It isn't going to be the last fork that bitcoin sees. It simply can't be, if we approach the idea of scaling responsibly, and with the utmost regard for network security and consensus.

That is your assumption. What if satoshi suddenly appears and decides to go along with Gavin's idea and support the larger block size option? If that's the decision by him, would everyone that generally opposes to the idea, agree to it? If we need a person to decide for us, what is the point of having community power?

Well, keep in mind that miners won't be required to create larger blocks, they'll just have the opportunity to do so if they want to.

If I remember correctly, Satoshi added the 1 MB limit in 2010 to prevent some sort of DDOS attack?  If so, then there are a few important questions:

1) Is that DDOS attack still a viable threat if the maximum blocksize limit is removed?

2) If it is still a viable threat, then is it possible to prevent the attack with some method other than a hard block size limit?

3) If it is not possible to prevent the attack with some other method, then is it possible to determine the best limit today, in the near future, and in the long term, without needing to have this debate repeatedly for the rest of bitcoin's existence?

Why do you say that?

Bitcoin is still working just fine.

If someone wants to implement a variation on the protocol, they can go ahead and do that.  If they get enough people that join their protocol variation, then they will have a consensus among their participants.

Yeah, I heard he got hit by a bus like three years ago. People be trippin, though.


Indeed. I've seen a few quotes from Satoshi regarding increasing the block size, and his general opinion seemed to be, "if/when it's needed." I'd say that coding an 8000x increase into the protocol that is in no way connected to actual capacity needs doesn't really line up with that.

well it does not look like the consensus mechanic is working either, seeing how many other solution have pop out and now we have a complete chaos

satoshi should have left the limit to 32 like it was at the beginning, right now we would face another problem like ddos, which i'm sure would be much easy to handle, by a consensus point of view

If Satoshi is dead, he must have been Hal Finney.  ....If he or she or they are still alive... it would not help to intervene here... There will to my knowledge not be a 100%

trusted way to communicate to everyone other than to send a transaction with a message from Satoshi's Bitcoin address. The other accounts would most probably be hacked

already. What can be said about this, that can change people's minds?.... " Developers must stop making changes to the Bitcoin protocol to benefit their own projects and

rather make changes when it is necessary. Stop stuffing your own pockets and your ego's and put the protocol first. " 

Thanks. I didn't know that Satoshi had already spoken. What's the debate then?! He CREATED bitcoin. Let's honor his wishes. He never spent any of his bitcoins (nor his heirs if he is dead), so we know that he is not corrupted but makes decisions based only on what is really good for Bitcoin!

We should increase the block size, but not the presently proposed version as a coder has found evidence that the code includes measures to de-anonymise people's identity when using bitcoin. They claim that it is only used for dealing with ddos attacks but bitcoin is resistant to ddos due to it's decentralized nature (miner facilities in China, Washington State, Hong Kong, and Iceland).

I am nominated by self himself Satoshi Nakamoto to have the right to tell that both of groups have their right to think whatever they want. Everyone will have its road and the best and the stronger variant will win. I talked and I decided that and in this way should and will be. Peace brothers !!! 

Sorry.  Fixed that.

That's a very bold assumption here. Not that certainly at all.

In my personal opinion, Satoshi is almost certainly already dead.

However, he fortunately already expressed an opinion about increasing the blocksize before he disappeared:


Sounds like he was in favor of increasing the block size when it is needed.  The only question is:

"Is it needed yet?"

Yea right. People won't change sides just because Satoshi voices his opinion. People will say "oh well looks like Gavin already got to satoshi and that's why he supports XT", or "Satoshi wants to keep everything under his control and that's why he supports core".

Also as I have mentioned before I don't think Satoshi will ever get involved in this debate or any others.
This is an experiment to him and he needs to see absolute proof that a decentralized system like this can work out issues.
If he were to get involved it would show that bitcoin is not ready for decentralization and requires a central figure to make decisions.

Perhaps we're doomed to be taken advantage of for the rest of eternity by centralized financial institutions. At least they can handle transactions.

In addition, blockstream's only interest in small blocks is so they can implement lightning network as one of the first and most trusted hubs. Without small blocks, there is no need for lightning network.

In the end, though, we need a decentralized way to deal with issues regarding a decentralized network.

As someone else has already pointed out, if a single person such as Satoshi is needed to resolve this issue or any issue, then Bitcoin is a failure.

Satoshi Nakamoto,

Please come out of hiding and resolve this debate.

1MB Blockstream vs 8MB Gavin Blocks?

I really love Bitcoin and don't want to see it go down in flames.

Thanks,
Your friend and admirer.