This Calmed Me Down A Bit About The Blocksize Debate - page 2.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:43:04 AM

Quote from: desired_username on August 20, 2015, 07:26:04 AM

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:21:56 AM

Adam Beck on reddit 2 days ago:

Quote

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

This is just false. 8GB would take 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago I was on dial up and now on fibre.

Adam Back wants to derail natural scaling because it seriously affects the goals of Blockstream (having user transactions taking place on top of bitcoin through their "payment hubs".)

This not my point. OP wrote that Adam is only for 1MB limit. That is not true. He also agrees to bigger blocks. But way more conservative.
And I want to point out that I am pro bigger blocks as well.
I'm not on any side.
Bigger blocks yes.4MB or 8MB I don't care. But not the way XT is pushing it.

The reality is that if you are running a full node or if you are a miner you have to choose sides. Since just like in a democracy there is no such thing as a neutral position. Not voting in a democracy also has consequences. In the case of bitcoin if you are running a full node or mining, not adopting XT can be counted as a vote for Core. That is why we must choose between these two extremes. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

oblivi

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 501

8MB is still a very random figure to drop over there. Sure one could think the blockstream guys have an agenda but im really a lot more scared about the code that Mike&Hearn are trying to push with the excuse of the blocksize increase.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: onemorexmr on August 20, 2015, 07:45:31 AM

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:43:04 AM

Bigger blocks yes.4MB or 8MB I don't care. But not the way XT is pushing it.

how would you do this change?
imho letting miners decide what protocol changes are bitcoin is how it was designed in the first place.

Bump, no one pushes shit, Its the consensus of the bitcoin network that decide to fork or not.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:43:04 AM

Bigger blocks yes.4MB or 8MB I don't care. But not the way XT is pushing it.

how would you do this change?
imho letting miners decide what protocol changes are bitcoin is how it was designed in the first place.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: desired_username on August 20, 2015, 07:26:04 AM

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:21:56 AM

Adam Beck on reddit 2 days ago:

Quote

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

This is just false. 8GB would take 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago I was on dial up and now on fibre.

Adam Back wants to derail natural scaling because it seriously affects the goals of Blockstream (having user transactions taking place on top of bitcoin through their "payment hubs".)

This not my point. OP wrote that Adam is only for 1MB limit. That is not true. He also agrees to bigger blocks. But way more conservative.
And I want to point out that I am pro bigger blocks as well.
I'm not on any side.
Bigger blocks yes.4MB or 8MB I don't care. But not the way XT is pushing it.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: The00Dustin on August 20, 2015, 04:51:57 AM

Quote from: S4VV4S on August 20, 2015, 03:51:06 AM

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

I was in the same boat, but all of the name calling I see coming from those against the bigger blocks, all the political spin (such as the constant "XT is an altcoin" BS), and all of the Orwellian "not censorship" manipulation (I don't even use Reddit, but it's also on bitcoin.org and this forum) were really grating my nerves. I finally couldn't stand it anymore and replaced Core with XT. It was really difficult for me to do because I'm flat out against many of Mike Hearn's ideas, but I realized that even if XT wins the blocksize battle, Core will be modified to support larger blocks (as it likely will before it comes to that), so I can switch back to Core at that point and not be a part of any other nonsense that might come from XT. The fact that I can switch back is what really relaxed me.

The censorship is on both sides... look at the self-moderation threads on the subject on this forum, where posts are being deleted. I respect your decision, but I think it might be a mistake to follow that route.

Mike have included code into his submission to invade your privacy and to ban people from using Bitcoin, under the auspice of protecting the network. He managed to devide the community and spread panic amoungst the

investors and merchants.

He also included code within the change, to make things easier for his Lightning nework to succeed. {Self interest} I cannot agree on that kind of tactics and principles.

fryarminer

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

desired_username

hero member

Activity: 886

Merit: 1013

Quote from: Denker on August 20, 2015, 07:21:56 AM

Adam Beck on reddit 2 days ago:

Quote

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

This is just false. 8GB would take 20 years. Hell, 10 years ago I was on dial up and now on fibre.

Adam Back wants to derail natural scaling because it seriously affects the goals of Blockstream (having user transactions taking place on top of bitcoin through their "payment hubs".)

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Adam Back on reddit 2 days ago:

Quote

...I also proposed a simple compromise: 2MB immediately, then 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years and then re-evaluate what to do next based on experience with how well lightning, sidechains etc work in practice. 4 years is a really long time in Bitcoin, and I think racing off into the future with an 8GB block is inadvisably risky. Very hard to predict 20 years into the future and likely wrong in one direction or other with deleterious effects.

https://www.reddit.com/user/adam3us

Kazimir

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1011

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 01:37:01 AM

Peter Wuille

Blockstream Co-Founder

1mb

Actually, Pieter proposed an excellent suggestion to slowly and moderately increase the block size limit. I think this would be a wise middle ground, hopefully something that all devs are willing to consider as a reasonable compromise.

Even if they think it's not perfect, it's not that dramatic. And it's most definitely way better to have a least a unanimous decision for the time being, rather than strictly holding on to each own's position and risking Bitcoin to be split up in Core and XT (which is devastating).

Seriously... Nobody can claim that Pieter's proposal of growing by 2^1/16 (≈ 4.4%) every 2²³ seconds (≈ 97 days), or about 17% per year, is in any way ridiculous or damaging or shortsighted.

n2004al

legendary

Activity: 1134

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 20, 2015, 12:35:41 AM

This video ------> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWhShzzELg Grin

I am not a specialist so my question can seem strange or to simple to have answer. But if everyone can, please answer me. What the difference between 8mb, 2mb and 1mb? What this comport for bitcoin and what are the bad things if from 1mb goes to 2mb or even 8mb. As I know everything will be more smoothly if the amount will go 8mb. Why not then 8mb? What is this discord? Why this discord?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:55:18 AM

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

Quote for note of a XT bashers.

Amazing stuff comes from XT basher so far.
Most of them are twisted retard

Proof ? :

Quote from: ?? on ??

How are developers responding to this severe limitation of Bitcoin's usage. There are currently 72000 (!) unconfirmed transactions but it seems they don't really want to acknowledge it.

Perhaps set a limit of tx/s to discourage spamming the mempool and block malicious nodes.

ChetnotAtkins

full member

Activity: 131

Merit: 101

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

The00Dustin

hero member

Activity: 807

Merit: 500

Quote from: S4VV4S on August 20, 2015, 03:51:06 AM

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

I was in the same boat, but all of the name calling I see coming from those against the bigger blocks, all the political spin (such as the constant "XT is an altcoin" BS), and all of the Orwellian "not censorship" manipulation (I don't even use Reddit, but it's also on bitcoin.org and this forum) were really grating my nerves. I finally couldn't stand it anymore and replaced Core with XT. It was really difficult for me to do because I'm flat out against many of Mike Hearn's ideas, but I realized that even if XT wins the blocksize battle, Core will be modified to support larger blocks (as it likely will before it comes to that), so I can switch back to Core at that point and not be a part of any other nonsense that might come from XT. The fact that I can switch back is what really relaxed me.

Enzyme

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

I believe we need bigger blocks, it is the only way to become ready for the future, and many more users of bitcoin.

NorrisK

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1007

Quote from: S4VV4S on August 20, 2015, 03:51:06 AM

Quote from: Cryddit on August 20, 2015, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 20, 2015, 01:58:56 AM

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives.

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only. A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves. How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves? Hmmmmmm......

Conflict of interest much? Nawww, couldn't be. But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

They do it now because they want to be ahead of the problem instead of it becoming a problem... Yhrre is nothing fishy about the timing, just common sense.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: S4VV4S on August 20, 2015, 03:51:06 AM

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

It's not like they jumped with XT idea out of the blue. There was an extensive debate but it was going nowhere. Some people don't see 1mb as a problem at all, some see it as a problem but hope lighting network/side chains will provide solution etc.

Waiting for the full blocks to start thinking about solutions doesn't make any sense, it'll probably get more messy than it is now.

So instead of engaging in pointless discussions, repeating the same arguments over again, they decide to 'do something' and allowed people to vote (by switching to XT or staying with Core).

Was it the right move? I don't know.

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

The main alternatives to increasing the block size would be a more radical redo of the blockchain system - a proposal for something called the Bitcoin Lightning Network has gotten the most attention - or simply waiting around and seeing how the system organically adjusts to hitting its capacity limits.

HCLivess

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1090

=== NODE IS OK! ==

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Quote from: Cryddit on August 20, 2015, 02:07:42 AM

Quote from: BitProdigy on August 20, 2015, 01:58:56 AM

I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.

Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.

It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives.

It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence.

Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only. A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves. How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves? Hmmmmmm......

Conflict of interest much? Nawww, couldn't be. But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream?

That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this:
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
This whole situation is just too fishy.

I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT.
Not the way it is being forced upon us.
And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra".

Topic: This Calmed Me Down A Bit About The Blocksize Debate - page 2. (Read 2828 times)