Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too (Read 8632 times)

BU in and of itself doesn't "set" anything.  The users running BU select their preferred size.  Right now, the "altcoin pumper's" pool is set to 1mb blocks, because that's what consensus currently mandates.  If we all moved to BU today, the blocksize would continue to be 1mb if that's what the majority of people set in their configuration.  Technically, the option is there to set 16mb if that's what you wanted, but the network would simply ignore that while everyone else is producing 1mb blocks.  I highly doubt there would be enough people setting it to 16mb to achieve a fork when there's enough difficulty finding support for 2mb at the moment.  

Of course it is relevant, but it should either be renamed to something in the lines of: "Why I don't support bigger blocks right now and neither should you".

---

There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks.

If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool, which just found a block using the BU client:  https://news.bitcoin.com/historic-day-bitcoin-pool-mining/

This deserves a bump.

Still relevant.

Just look at his responses.  He's trolling and apparently doesnt even have the cranial capacity to come back with anything beyond schoolyard insults.  I left those behind in third grade and learned to walk properly upright with not dragging my knuckles on the ground, unlike this wonderful specimen.  Another one to the ignore list. 

actually it does.  are YOU the one misinformed? or just trolling?

It aint happening bitches, so you better pack up your frustrated little ass and migrate to some altcoin where you can reddit fork it all the way you want and gangbang it with all the mainstream bullshit you want.


Cunts.

Put your magnitude right back your ass.

And then Fork off.

Any change if this magnitude requires a fork.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347

As stated by Satoshi himself in the above thread, any change to the block size will render the client incompatible with the others.  That will require a fork of the code to a new version with the changes, triggered to "on" by a specific set of criteria.  

Although Im not on board with XT's proposed changes, they are correct in the way they need to roll it out, it needs to be forked. If Core comes to a consensus about the block size increase, whenever it happens it will be the same thing.

EDIT:  Also on the "informed" mantra - I also suggest anyone who doesn't think a block size increase is needed, go read the thread I posted above, and others related.  If the original original core group saw that this would be needed way back in 2010, there should be little argument against it now.   One of the core visions was to someday be able to replace a processor like Visa.  There's many threads out there with the actual math behind the number of Tps it would take to do so, and 1MB is simply not enough to handle that.  It was a temporary measure to stop spam.  Guess what?  Those spam attacks we've had (and supposedly will have again soon) are exactly what's capable of hurting us now.

There's also plenty of reading to do on Satoshi's original visions which address his ideas of centralization as Bitcoin grows.  Staying true to the original vision actually supports the idea of consolidation of nodes as Bitcoin grows, along with introduction of what we now have as SPV wallets for those that can't run it. 

damit that double mind fuck gavin and hearn pulled in (and out) on some brainz here leaves me speechless.

like mike and gavin there is not even a beginning of data, its all about the bitching about blockstream..
cuz obviously they were not smart enough to come up with on the first place.

no homo in here pls

no it doesnt. uninformed little twat.

im vooting for 8mb.. my reason is
if people smart like gavin trust it why i must think again

A change of the block-size limit requires a hard fork, meaning all users need to make the switch in order to not be left behind on the old blockchain. This is no easy feat on a decentralized network, especially if different participants of that network vary in their preferences. Furthermore, since the number of transactions on the Bitcoin network is optimistically expected to keep rising, while the cost of bandwidth and hardware is optimistically expected to keep falling, it is broadly assumed that the block size should grow over time.

Or C) Absolutely at the bottom of the IQ pool and scream nonsense about things that they cant even understand.


Such as " Oh no, Mike and Gavin will take over bitcoin. "


Their IQ is so low ,they cant grasp a simple concept: Fork blockchain require economic majority or consensus, Fork wallet client does not require shit and anyone can do it.

Because its a false, arbitrary claim.

"Compromising" decentralization can mean whatever you want it to mean.

The fact of the matter is, the blockchain is growing every day and
full nodes are going to get more expensive to run over time, regardless
of whether the limit is raised.  (What's so magical about "1mb"?)

But if you raise it, at least you prevent (at least for a while) bandwidth problems and backlogs.
 
People who are against bigger blocks are mostly A) Blockstream guys
who took $21M in venture capital to build sidechains... or B) people
who are too biased against Mike Hearn to see the situation clearly
and are freaking out.

 

this whole XT BS is starting to smell like a gov operation so bad!

The current consensus has the 1 MB max block size implemented. Whether you like it or not, this is Bitcoin and if you want to change the consensus rules you need to perform a hard fork. In order to avoid wrecking chaos, you need to have consensus to do it.

Not adoption. Scaling bitcoin forcibly. More transactions -> more bandwith needed between nodes -> more difficult to run nodes -> fewer nodes -> more centralization.

I am supporting the block size increase described in sipa's BIP https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6. Forcing BIP101 with XT is reckless and it's actually an attempt to grab control of development.

You can use some payment oriented altcoin if you can't afford to pay a 0.001 BTC fee.

Read this...

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

in case you can't click


Priorities of Bitcoin

Bitcoin, as a vision conceived by Satoshi Nakamoto is a decentralized cash payment system.  For such a system to work, you need a decentralized solution to the Byzantine General’s problem, which is something that I have detailed in the past and is succinctly defined here.  The reason Bitcoin is such a brilliant invention, was that it solved the consensus problem in a decentralized way.  The solution isn’t a perfect one, in fact, it cannot be formally shown to hold in all cases, (which is a source of consternation for many folks like Vitalik Buterin and likely drove him to develop Ethereum in response to the desire to have a formally provably secure solution), but it is shown in practice to work, in most real world situations so far.  For this solution to work, Bitcoin holds the following priorities in descending order of importance:  Consensus, decentralization, store of value, and payment system.  It would seem that the goals of the Bitcoin project have since diverged, under the leadership of Gavin, to focus more on the payment system use case for Bitcoin, at the expense of consensus and decentralization.  I would argue that sacrificing consensus, threatens all the other aspects of Bitcoin, not the least of which is its use as a stable store of value.  In fact, I believe such a consensus breach is an existential risk to Bitcoin itself.

*lol* So if bitcoiners don't want the way you want then they should create their own coin. Sounds like it's your coin. Instead, why don't you create your own coin and make it special. So that only high amount transfers are done and the fee is high. Surely sounds like an attractive altcoin. But you want that for bitcoin.

Ok, i did not get the point about how adoption could compromise decenralization. Maybe explain that to me.

So when you come with the banks... i guess the one that don't want the blocksize remove or raise are the one that want to squeeze everything out of bitcoin. Let's raise the fees so that miners earn more. The market will decide.

See, at the end the market will decide. And a coin that is expensive will die. So i will live with bein named a bank when the opposite of that is to send bitcoin dying.