Topic: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns (Read 11181 times)

The quotes you used are correct, any fees taken away from miners going to have consequence in reduced Bitcoin security especially in future when fees become much more important and going to represent higher % of miners income than today.

Any fees paid in offline solutions are fees which miners wont get anymore. Thats why its very dangerous precedent to try limit the blocksize so no more fee paying transactions can be included even though current technology easily support slightly bigger blocks for more transaction fees to collect, and miners understand this.

In a really open system, where there is no limits - except the 21Mio - it would be all up to the game theory and on + off chain scaling projects and groups would deliver a very nice solution in a fair competition.
What we now have is still BSLaudations....
Once the Chinese will understand this soon, they could / should open up the system by own codings.

We can't put all our eggs in the off-chain basket.  There will be consequences if miners don't see sufficient ROI.

Look at this. i d support that one

https://medium.com/@solex1/time-for-bitcoin-1-x-17b54eed2c4a#.q7x1x44r0

oh lauda.. your switching..
one day segwit is the ultimate and only capacity solution
next day segwit is not the capacity solution its designed to solve other features that are made pointless to solve (malleability vs RBF)
next day it has capacity increases as a side effect
next day segwit is not intended to be a capacity increase solution.

seriously.. stop overselling segwit to fit one rhetoric and then underselling it to pretend you have not dedicated your last 6 months of life to pushing for segwit as a ultimate capacity solution.

the question is not about 2 directions constantly running.. its about taking a certain route and everyone following.
because consensus is about making a choice and going for that single route
we wont have a point where there are 2,3,4 different chains all with the 7 year of bitcoin data and satoshis genesis block all working at the same time forever

again, if you think that 2 forks will survive then you have been fed too much of the blockstream rhetoric

the miners and merchants and users would eventually choose one. and the other would just disappear into orphans and eventually no one would build on that chain..

put it this way. if 95% of mining pools upgraded to segwit tomorrow. then within 2 weeks EVERYONE would/SHOULD upgrade too otherwise they are no longer full nodes..(yes users not upgrading is diluting the node count of FULL VALIDATING NODES which has its own risks)

so knowing everyone could/should upgrade to remain full validation nodes. it might aswell include the extra buffer in that same update too
and then at a later date miners can decide when its safe for them to include data above the old limit.

emphasis: releasing the code does not cause a fork. only miners making bigger blocks when the community are not ready is the risk of a fork..which wont happen due to orphans costing the miners money.
so the simple solution is release the code and there wont be a risk

again simply preventing the code even being publicly available to core fanboys is the cause of controversy. not miners, not merchants.. not users.. just devs causing controversy by limiting choice.
if the code was available. people could move across.. then there wont be any orphans or issues because miners would only push passed the old limits when they dont see it as a orphan risk. and that would only happen if the devs got their heads out of the sand

To tell you the truth i dont really like the Segwit and the "hacks" that bitcoin BIPS represent.

However I also dont want to turn bitcoin into a political scene, where you have each group representing their own interests and trying to impose their own hardforks on everyone else.

It is clear that bitcoin needs a separation of powers, and that is why the hardforks should be an unthinkable option. There mere fact that people just mention it, proves that humans have learned nothing from the politics of the past 5000 years.


You will have:

SocialistBTC
LiberalBTC
ConservativeBTC
MarxBTC

Folks do we really need that shit?

It's both interesting and sad how nobody ('forkers') mentioned this before Segwit was actually delivered. You're the ones that want to postpone it now and are going to blame Core later for "delaying" a capacity increase. I'm sure of it.

While the change in the block size limit might seem simple, a hard fork is definitely anything but simple. Additionally, you can see that 2 MB is unsafe without those additional (new) artificial limits added by Gavin. I also don't feel like Segwit is being rushed at all. It's been worked on since 2015 and tested for several months.

Created sick, and commanded to be sound.


Segwit on Litecoin first: 2016!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphaloskepsis


Agreed


No, and yes, that is the storyline. The simple solution sits in the wheelhouse (or was it bikeshed?). While the complex one, is rushed along. 

Well, we can't really state that Bitcoin is very well designed. I'm certain that the developers who are working on it currently, would do a lot of things differently if they could. The only 'good' thing about altcoins is that they can be used to test out some 'difficult' ideas. I don't think that we are going to see such radical re-design (what are the limitations of a HF?), so there's not much 'point' in discussing it in, at least not in this thread. I do wonder if they can get RC1 released before the halving (even though Segwit still has no activation parameters). However, rushing is usually not the right thing to do.

Compact blocks aim to improve bandwidth requirements, i.e. lower them. Additionally, have we already forgotten all the excellent upgrades that they've delivered (e.g. libsecp256k1)?

Yes
Should be repeated every day now!

bitcoin unlimited does. but the guy "RealBitcoin" is suggesting people LOWER their own block limit below any community accepted consensus purely to alleviate that individuals personal internet speed issues. which would ofcourse render that individual not part of the network(amungst other issues).

however the internet speed issue can be resolved by not being stupid and setting your node to connect to 100 other nodes. but instead 1-6 nodes for instance, which even on a slow connection is adequate.

AFAIK the only thing implemented so far is segwit... which only (temporarily) avoids a hardfork, and still increases bandwidth, which is the supposed boogieman of "government control".

I believe that is what bitcoin unlimited attempts to do.  

I don't know the particulars but generally I like the idea
that the blocksize be decided dynamically by consensus not
by protocol rules.

Why only once and a while? I have no objection with Jonald spending all of his time within the bigblock-altcoin development community.

Bitcoin Core developers made Hearn, Andresen, and Peter R. look like schoolboys by designing and implementing a truly innovative, secure, and decentralization preserving way to scale Bitcoin. The FUD-campaign led by XT/ClassicCoin shills has totally failed - it was proven wrong by reality. The fancy extrapolation graphics circulated as propaganda for the simpleminded were not effective in pressuring Bitcoin Core developers to implement a fast route to government control of transactions.

None of the guys involved in the XT/ClassicCoin schemes are being taken serious anymore, with Gavin Andresen giving a prime example of his outright dangerous incompetence by lending credibility to alleged serial scammer Craig Wright.

ya.ya.yo!

I see, the pesky block format is the issue in my opinion. Because it's standardized.

If the transactions were each put arbitrarly in blocks, it would be enough to just verify their hashes to see that they are original,and then there would be no need for the block format.

It would be a very big deviation from the protocol , but it would be interesting to see an altcoin try this.

So then the block sizes would vary, and each node would verify the transaction counts in them, and pass them along eachother.

I still don't understand what you're talking about Franky

luke Jr's independent code next month.. REKT campaign being prepared by you guys yet??

No that would not work at all. We'd have nodes that have differentiating chain heights which would most likely cause a lot more problems. You can already limit the amount of bandwitdh that you want to spend though (e.g. 'blocksonly' mode).

Additionally, after some time most blocks will be above the threshold that you set so it becomes ineffective. It just delays the inevitable.

They used to be good, but now we see them 'contribute' rarely or wrongly (e.g. 'header first mining').