Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 3.

bitcoinmasterlord

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1006

Quote from: Lauda on August 15, 2015, 07:22:10 AM

Quote from: bitcoinmasterlord on August 15, 2015, 06:58:18 AM

Quote from: Alley on August 10, 2015, 06:12:48 PM

Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix?

FUD.

How about you read BIP100 and BIP102 before spreading wrong information around here. People tend to take it seriously without doing their own research. Essentially the core developers are also planing to increase the limit however their approach is different and not related to XT.
As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you.

BIP 100:

Quote

Protocol changes proposed:
Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.

Nice of you to delete my answer and replace it with "FUD.". I really had to check if i wrote this. Roll Eyes

And what do you say? I never said that all developers want no blocksize rise. I consider the 2MB solution nonsense since it will bring nothing than a short timeout until the next fork has to be done.

And for what reason? Right, to hold the fees high.

Sorry but that is no solution to me. Telling me that this opinion is fud is so... stupid.

Though maybe you mixed me with someone other. I for one know that developers are divided and yes, you don't need to support XT to support a blocksize raise. Though i want real solutions. Not something that will bitcoin make less useable only to see that the users go to some altcoin that is developed by some of the core devs. Roll Eyes

Maybe you should start to know what others think before assuming you know it and attacking them because of your wrong assumptions.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 11:35:10 AM

yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind?

If the network does agree that larger blocks are the way forward, there's nothing to stop the Core team from releasing a Core client supporting larger blocks and continuing to develop. It doesn't "give all the power to one person" because anyone can create their own client. Likewise, if the network doesn't agree to larger blocks, it doesn't "give all the power" to the core developers either. Developers are not an authority. They can certainly give advice with their technical experience, but they can't force changes on a network that doesn't agree. The network would continue to function if there were 500 different developers with 500 different Bitcoin clients as long as those clients can all follow the same blockchain.

Developers do not have power. Those securing the network make the decisions.

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

I will NEVER join XT! I would rather run core with 10% of the hashing power and I'll wait for more confirmations!

BNO

full member

Activity: 157

Merit: 100

Quote

75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks.

This shows this "super-consensus" oriented thinking which will the gravestone of bitcoin.
In a real existing democracy there is nothing like 95% approval rate. This are childish fantasies from people who don't have experience about how democracies work. No democracy in the world has approval rates over 90%. This kind of rates you only get in a stalineque dictarship like the beloved Führer of North Korea has.

Think about it this way: making the barrier high for changes means you are not evolving fast, you just the same all the time.
You think amazon of 1998 would have become amazon of today if 95% of the developers would have had to agree on every little change - i can hardly imagine that..

In my opinion 75% is much to high either you should change it to 51%. Many decision - important decision - are made in democracies around the world every day and the usually don't have approval rates of even 75%, let alone 95% (which is purely theoretical).

The thing is this: if the simple majority of hashing power is malcious bitcoin is screwed anyway, what good is it then to insist that a protocoll change needs more than that?

And for me the biggest threat for bitcoin is not that it changes - it has to change to evolve - it is that it's not changing fast enough...

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: CounterEntropy on August 21, 2015, 11:26:06 AM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 10:36:04 AM

75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment)

This is a highly incorrect and misleading statement. There are many proposals that are supporting bigger blocks, but not the XT way.

i. BIP 100 by Jeff Garzik

ii. BIP 103 by Peter Wuille

iii. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536 (probably the best one)

I would request you to update OP with these info as well. XT's fundamental document BIP 101 has not taken into account the market pressure. According to the following graph, there is still time left for saturation.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

i support BIP 101 - which is nearly the same as XT. but there is no consensus about BIP 101 at the moment, so i support XT.

time is running out in 2016:

omahapoker

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: forevernoob on August 18, 2015, 01:55:30 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on August 18, 2015, 11:57:02 AM

Since off chain transactions are more centralized then using the bitcoin blockchain directly, like Coinbase for example. It would be better if everyone could take advantage from the transparency and security that the Bitcoin blockchain provides instead of being “forced” to use third parties.

No one is being forced to use alternative parties. You can use the blockchain but if blocks are full it will come with a fee.
I'm perfectly fine with that because that's how the system is supposed to work.
Haven't you people heard of the expression "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"?

We can't have "free" transactions. That doesn't work.
There would be no incentive to mine and secure the blockchain.

Quote from: meono on August 18, 2015, 11:59:56 AM

Go use paypal if you dont know the difference.

I'm not shocked by your knowledge of bitcoin in general at all. I've seen most bitcoinXT bashers are at the same level of intelligence.

Don't you have any better argument than that?
I'm not shocked, pal.

Go use PayPal because I have heard they don't have any fees. Wink

At the momet i tend to think your username really matches you.

So you think no one is forced to use paypal... let's bitcoin becoming a new mastercard. Fees have to be paid after all. You know all the the hungry employees of mastercard have to get a filled stomach. Only... bitcoin does not have employees, it has computers. And when these computers need to become more cost effective and more cheap then this is the step to do. Not wanting to have everything like it is and making bitcoin broken on the way because... we want to earn the same even with block halving.

I don't even know what you want from bitcoin. It sounds like you completely not get what bitcoins advantages are.

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

yeah and for that crap argument is better to give all the power for developing bitcoin to one person. One man to rule a p2p system.. Wake up! Are you blind?

omahapoker

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 10:39:04 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 02:59:26 PM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 10:59:40 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 10:48:17 AM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 09:55:41 AM

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month?
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

The reason why the big-blockians are calling for an increase in early 2016 is that at the current pace, the network will get saturated in mid-2016, and "traffic jams" will become a recurrent "feature". They claim (and I fully agree) that such state will be disastrous for bitcoin. Thus, that proposal is the same thing as denying the increase: it will result in saturation and traffic jams by mid-2016.

The Blockstream devs openly want that to happen because they believe that a "fee market" is necessary and will somehow make bitcoin better, and that the traffic must be prevented from growing. Delaying the increase until 2017 will lead to that.

Before all it will lead to people using the blockstream lightning network. Which translates to income to those owning it. Well played Sir, i would say. Make bitcoin unuseable and provide the alternative.

Korruption... Roll Eyes

omahapoker

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 02:59:26 PM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 10:59:40 AM

Quote from: forevernoob on August 16, 2015, 10:48:17 AM

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 16, 2015, 09:55:41 AM

that is somehow true but when you only have two choices 1 MB or 8 MB and you have to choose (because time is running out), i would take 8MB (so XT sry).

i would like to have 8 MB with core but that is not possible.

Please explain what you mean by "time is running out"?

we already hit that 1 MB limit in a small stresstest. you need time to distribute the new software. it takes months before enough people have updated their software.

when we see an influx of millions of new people, you cant begin with this rollout. you have to be prepared because otherwise transactions will stuck (cost alot!). this is the reason of the XT release.

i would like to see another solution too but 3-4 devs are against all blocksize-changes.

So you want to fork just because we reached the limit one or two times last month?
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

I guess because of this image:

You see... even when we let it run with 1MB block, at the end of 2016 we will met the dead end of the 1MB block size. Blocks will be full, bitcoin will become an expensive transaction system or useless because risky when you have to fear your transaction doesn't go through.

CounterEntropy

full member

Activity: 214

Merit: 278

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 21, 2015, 10:36:04 AM

75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment)

This is a highly incorrect and misleading statement. There are many proposals that are supporting bigger blocks, but not the XT way.

i. BIP 100 by Jeff Garzik

ii. BIP 103 by Peter Wuille

iii. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536 (probably the best one)

I would request you to update OP with these info as well. XT's fundamental document BIP 101 has not taken into account the market pressure. According to the following graph, there is still time left for saturation.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: BitUsher on August 21, 2015, 10:45:06 AM

Quote from: BNO on August 21, 2015, 09:58:41 AM

Quote

give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this??

Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true.
The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity.

AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided.

If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die....

Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected...

75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks.
Your post appears to suggest that their has been a scalability stalemate for 3 years. In reality there have been great improvements and optimizations in the codebase over the years specifically to address scalability all of which have been done together through consensus as a team. XT marks a point where philosophical and technical differences between 2 of the developers diverged from most of the other developers contributing and working as a team far enough where they created their own repository to bypass working through the normal consensus procedures in core.

The one good thing about XT is that is forcing all the other core devs to focus on coming up with more sophisticated and better solutions to compete with XT.

yes i think that is true. hopefully they will make a decision in the nexts months. some competition could be good at this point.

omahapoker

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1000

Quote from: fryarminer on August 14, 2015, 09:19:01 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on August 14, 2015, 09:13:03 AM

Quote from: fryarminer on August 14, 2015, 09:07:54 AM

First of all, if miners can chose not to include transactions now, what will stop them from not including spam transactions in bigger blocks?

Second, what will stop them from not including transactions that do not have sufficient fees?

Third, could you imagine how well Visa would be used if you were told you could only swipe your card three or four times a day and not in the same hour?

People who are screaming to not raise the block size cap now, will be the first to complain when their transactions don't fit on blocks anymore and they have to take a number and wait.

Where does it say miners can now drop transactions with XT? as far as I know miners don't have any say on this, it's all in the protocol and the consensus algorithm, not some miner's will to say this transaction goes through and this doesn't that would indeed suck.

Ok maybe I'm wrong. But I was of the understanding that miners have always had the choice to not include transactions in blocks.

This incidentally keeps the freedom of bitcoin free. Nobody is putting restrictions one way or another.

You are right with your understanding. That is why some miners chose to create 1 Transaction blocks. And this block only is the 25 Bitcoin reward for finding the block. They don't want to include other transactions because they want their block small. By doing so they get a small advantage in propagation. Saying that, even when they might have found the block a short time after another miner, they could still outperfom that block and orphan him.

So yes, miners have the full power over which transactions they want to include. You only can hope that another miner includes you when you did not get included because a miner doesn't want your transaction to be included.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: BNO on August 21, 2015, 09:58:41 AM

Quote

give one good reason and why we must give such power to only one person?? What is this?? We all think that bitcoin is a decentralized system and not a system with a central ruler. Why we must change this??

Then underlying assumption that now gavin and hearn are becoming "the rulers of bitcoin" is not true.
The Bitcoin core team consists of EVERYBODY INCLUDING Gavin and so on. The have been discussing for 3 Years now without coming to a solution!! All they do is make an workable suggestion and put it to vote. If 75% agree than this solution is accepted, till the next solution comes. This solution can not be forever simply because 8MB will not be enough for eternity.

AFTER the vote in my world should this should happen: ALL Programmers from core the ones for it and against it come back together (after a couple of beers maybe) continue to work TOGETHER - democracy has decided.

If this is not happening the problem is NOT that Andresen made a suggestion which came to vote, but the ability of the programmers to work in a team. It is a big threat for bitcoin if the core programmers discuss for 3 years and don't come to a solution - it shows that this super consensus oriented culture is not able to adapt to real world conditions. Remember in Evolution its: adapt or die....

Andresen is just showing a way out of this stalemate and with setting the barrier to 75% he shows that he is O.K. with the fact that his suggestion might be rejected...

75% is a very low threshold. 95% is the normal threshold for non-controversial soft forks.
Your post appears to suggest that their has been a scalability stalemate for 3 years. In reality there have been great improvements and optimizations in the codebase over the years specifically to address scalability all of which have been done together through consensus as a team. XT marks a point where philosophical and technical differences between 2 of the developers diverged from most of the other developers contributing and working as a team far enough where they created their own repository to bypass working through the normal consensus procedures in core.

The one good thing about XT is that is forcing all the other core devs to focus on coming up with more sophisticated and better solutions to compete with XT.

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

nice move to suicide.. Tongue

. They are lunatics or they have gain so much money that they dont care.. I dont know why they cant see the storm coming..

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

one of the largest pools:

75-80% of the hashpower worldwide is for bigger blocks = XT (because there is no other solution at the moment)

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

i think bitcoin need not a fork, not an increase of block but a vote decentralized system based in blockchain for all the users who want to take part and based in blockchain.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: chek2fire on August 21, 2015, 10:04:06 AM

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

Yeah, we should stop being open-source so that no one can alter the code. That way, a central group of developers make all the decisions and have to agree at all times. All users then either have to run that pre-approved code, or not take part at all. That would be much better than the system we have now where people can make a choice. Roll Eyes

Then we can introduce trusted payment channels, too, so there's no need to facilitate more transactions on the blockchain! Roll Eyes

Oh wait, there's already a closed-source project with payment channels. Why don't you go use that? Sounds like you'd enjoy it much more than Bitcoin.

mudiko

sr. member

Activity: 321

Merit: 250

i think we dont need bigger blocks for now.why should we make it bigger earlier which can occur some problem

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

this action is not anarchy is not even democracy is clear facism

chek2fire

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1142

Ιntergalactic Conciliator

and with the first problem we run to a central power or we create a central ruler to take control of bitcoin?

Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 3. (Read 8655 times)