Topic: Who should be in control of Bitcoin's blocksize (poll) - page 2. (Read 1959 times)
It is better we maintain the developers as the devil you know is better than the Angel you don't know.
Devlopers hands down. Let the technical people do their job. Its okay to have an opinion, but people like Ver who are Pseudo economists and not even technical shouldnt be able to stir the pot as much as he has. Also the miners would never raise the block size because they get more money by mining 0 mb blocks and pushing up tx fees.
Well for now, I believe a good solution is to make the block size dynamic. If we can do that in a smart way, we wont have this block size issue ever again.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I do not want to give full control to a piece of code
Not to argue semantics, but technically, you already have. You just happen to agree with the code. The seemingly impossible task would be finding code allowing a flexible cap that enough users would find acceptable, whilst simultaneously acknowledging node resources and not pushing the cap high enough to jeopardise decentralisation.
Nodes currently have no power in Bitcoin except relaying.
I don't even know where to begin with that. It's just all kinds of wrong. Nodes form a vital part of the consensus mechanism, giving the average user a voice. Miners alone should not be in a position to call the shots.
Lets not derail the thread with this but we can talk about it another thread if you want. maybe i'll learn something.
I do not want to give full control to a piece of code
Not to argue semantics, but technically, you already have. You just happen to agree with the code. The seemingly impossible task would be finding code allowing a flexible cap that enough users would find acceptable, whilst simultaneously acknowledging node resources and not pushing the cap high enough to jeopardise decentralisation.
Nodes currently have no power in Bitcoin except relaying.
I don't even know where to begin with that. It's just all kinds of wrong. Nodes form a vital part of the consensus mechanism, giving the average user a voice. Miners alone should not be in a position to call the shots.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Nodes should be an option as we have the freedom to vote on various subjects, right? Now it's like OP wants you to choose from his offered options while there is more to choose, but the option is being kept away.
Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.
Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.
Nodes are easily faked. Satoshi never envisioned non-mining full nodes.
Nodes currently have no power in Bitcoin except relaying.
I do not want to give full control to a piece of code and neither a bunch of miners with "profits" as their main objective. The developers should
hold the steering wheel, but the car must still be able to drive on it's own. The developers is the safe guards when things goes wrong and some
times things does go wrong. The problem is "who" are these developers and how much power should they have
hold the steering wheel, but the car must still be able to drive on it's own. The developers is the safe guards when things goes wrong and some
times things does go wrong. The problem is "who" are these developers and how much power should they have
This is a difficult question, I think ideally the developers should be in position to decide on the blocksize but it is possible for them to be pushing for another selfish agenda. I think what is dragging this blocksize debate is that the miners don't understand how this is going to benefit them going forward knowing fully well the LN is going to cut their transaction fee
Nodes have spoken:
Market also has spoken as it goes higher when segwit gets higher.
Core devs got the best talent in the field.
Activate segwit or you are wasting people's time (and money).
Market also has spoken as it goes higher when segwit gets higher.
Core devs got the best talent in the field.
Activate segwit or you are wasting people's time (and money).
The premise is flawed, no one group should be able to drown out the others. There should be an equilibrium between all parties involved. Developers are wasting their time without nodes, miners and other users. Miners are wasting their time and money if there are no users to bring utility to the coin. Users rely on the security provided by the miners. There's no coin at all without developers. All parties are important and need to move forward together. Although I'd still like to see an algorithmic element involved, provided everyone can agree on what form it should take.
The problem with voting "Developers" is that miners can (and do) develop their own code.
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.
Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.
Also, it is easy to say that
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.
Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.
Also, it is easy to say that
if miners could develop their own code why they didn't until now and forked with greater hash their own chain? they know that merchants would not be in agreement
and miners don't have many choice when come to algorithm, they are forced to choose sha256 or all their asic will be useless
whaddya think?
Why did you change your avatar? We liked that dude with a fyooked look.
I voted for autocode. I think it would solve the problems we're having right now. But i am against a hardfork too. Bitcoin Corp. should solve the problem by itself. BU's creator is not capable of leading this tech.
when first created bitcoin certainly has had its own calculations. I think the current blocksize is the determination that was created at first bitcoin created.
The technology should change according to the time. The evolution of currency was not easy to anyone. But it was necessary through the time. Similarly I feel that the current block size will not be holding off for more years so it needs to be widen. Developers or an algorithm would be a better option to do that.
when first created bitcoin certainly has had its own calculations. I think the current blocksize is the determination that was created at first bitcoin created.
Developers are the one who can control of block size, but they can't do what they want if majority miners and community don't approve since it will cause blockchain split, damage bitcoin reputation and other risks.
So, it's not about who should be in control blocksize but about who can control blocksize and i think miners/community are the one who can control blocksize.
Code based algorithm is interesting option, but i think it's hard to gain community/miners approval since it's difficult/complicated topic and those who can't read the source code can caught in FUD.
Nodes can be manipulated by buy/rent lots of cheap server, simply create fake nodes (Reference 1) or use other way that i don't know.
It could work if total nodes was as high as in May 2013 (Reference 2) even though it's not the best option.
So, it's not about who should be in control blocksize but about who can control blocksize and i think miners/community are the one who can control blocksize.
Code based algorithm is interesting option, but i think it's hard to gain community/miners approval since it's difficult/complicated topic and those who can't read the source code can caught in FUD.
Nodes should be an option as we have the freedom to vote on various subjects, right? Now it's like OP wants you to choose from his offered options while there is more to choose, but the option is being kept away.
Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.
Reality turns out that at this point miners do have the majority of the power. In that regard it would make sense to vote for miners, but I stand behind the nodes option that isn't available.
Nodes can be manipulated by buy/rent lots of cheap server, simply create fake nodes (Reference 1) or use other way that i don't know.
It could work if total nodes was as high as in May 2013 (Reference 2) even though it's not the best option.
The problem with voting "Developers" is that miners can (and do) develop their own code.
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.
Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.
Also, it is easy to say that
The problem with voting "Code based algorithm" is that miners get to choose the algorithm.
Adding the choice "Nodes" would make the poll more interesting.
Also, it is easy to say that
Come on guys - we all know that it's Soros and the Rothschilds who control everything to do with money. 
I think creators should be allowed to control bitcoin more than anyone, because thanks to them, bitcoin is created, bitcoin is like their child, and they have the right to raise and manage it. However, standing on the stance of society, we are all not allowed to control bitcoin, because at present it is the common property of all. It exists for the benefit of the community, it is allowed to exist independently and not dependent on anyone, the developer is only the one who gives the most benefit to the bitcoin.
Your dumb ass poll ignores reality. Nobody can control the block size after the coin has launched and gained significant vested interests. How many years will it take before you finally realize the fact highlighted in yellow below.
The only choice in your poll that makes sense is your 3rd option, if you mean hardcoded into the protocol on launch of the coin.
Its too late to change Bitcoin. You can never do it. Read the yellow below and weep.
Lol. So true.
The only choice in your poll that makes sense is your 3rd option, if you mean hardcoded into the protocol on launch of the coin.
Its too late to change Bitcoin. You can never do it. Read the yellow below and weep.
Re: It doesnt matter how good of a programer you are, if you get the economics wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN9M4XxPJA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jN9M4XxPJA
Lol. So true.
@dinofelis, I cited our upthread discussion in the Litecoin community. I also explained there that as a PoW coin matures it becomes much more intractable to gain consensus for significant protocol changes. Bitcoin being the dominant reserve could finance the change to the protocol of a lesser chain, if the quorum whales of Bitcoin who have any vested interest have a consensus to do such an attack. So I guess that is a clarification of my upthread claim that only the dominant PoW could be immutable. The lesser PoW chains are less immutable but the immutability game theory is still somewhat favorable.
The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.
The generative essence is that politics is a clusterfuck of inaction when it requires agreement on a single action. The only way politics functions is via debt and giving everyone everything at the same time, with no actual consensus. This was Satoshi's clever insight on how to attain immutability.
AI !
Jump to: