Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 4. (Read 8663 times)

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??

In recent months the Bitcoin development community has faced difficult discussions of how to safely improve the scalability and decentralized nature of the Bitcoin network. To aid the technical consensus building process we are organizing a pair of workshops to collect technical criteria, present proposals and evaluate technical materials and data with academic discipline and analysis that fully considers the complex tradeoffs between decentralization, utility, security and operational realities. This may be considered as similar in intent and process to the NIST-SHA3 design process where performance and security were in a tradeoff for a security critical application.

Since Bitcoin is a P2P currency with many stakeholders, it is important to collect requirements as broadly as possible, and through the process enhance everyone’s understanding of the technical properties of Bitcoin to help foster an inclusive, transparent, and informed process.

core developers says that will increase the blocksize to 2mb asap. I think is not necessary to go bigger atm.

the fear mongering nonsense i just talked about. A sensible, really minor adjustment, that only comes into play if 75% approve is now destroying bitcoin.. Think about it: When in your democracy have been 75% been for something?? This limit is very high. I hope they succeed.

the new developers as you say is core developers. Gavin and hearn choose to fork and destroy bitcoin with their action. is very simple

One should really support XT because:

• The 1MB was introduces as a quick fix for a problem at that time, It is Nothing like the "Original idea of bitcoin" it was and is a hardcoded arbitrarily number, which everyone knew at that time would have to be changed at some point
• Is it so hard to see that the new develpers just are against XT is for: a) private profit interest b)loss of power and status. This is not for the good of bitcoin
• If a developing country as china (respectively their miners) are O.K. with 8MB blocks everyone else shouldn't have a problem with it. What's all this nonsense about BTC would become a thing of big corporations and so on for a Blocksize of 8 MB?? How large is a video that you watch? This is absolutely no problem for homeusers to use that
• In fact if you are against an increase you are totally promoting big corps to step in. If transactions over the bitcoinnetwork become slow due to artificially low blocksizes, people will "learn" that it is much more hasslefree to send money via Coinbase, bitpay and other services, that use internally an SQL database and work just like an ordinary bank. So you will end up having a super centralized de facto Network of Coinbase etc. which then do 90%+ of the transactions and the original bitcoinnetwork is then just the "clearing network" for those big corps which send from while to while an transaction to another big corp to settle debt between them. /li] NOT increasing blocksizes is just artificially creating a problem so that big corps can step it to solve it.
  The same holds true for all the other solutions: there is a strong private profit interest in not increasing the blocksize. If this solutions are at some point in time so much better and actully ready for prime, then the bitcoinnetwork will accept them - why shouldn't it? But in the meantime there is nothing that speaks against increasing from 1MB to 8, no harm is done. Except you somehow fear for you future profits and want to establish the silly rule that this arbitrary number is not allowed to change
• Bitcoin XT does in no way bad its just "activated" if and only if 75% accept it. No damage done here.
  

You don't have to like Gavin or Hearn, but nothing sensible speaks against 8MB. Its just fear mongering non sense for the sake of private profit. Vote right.

if Hearn hadn't previously undermined his credibility by advocating whitelisting, perhaps this debate would be over and Everyone would be on Gavin's side with XT.

even though larger blocks would give faster confirmation, it would encourage transaction flooding! giving increase limit of blockchain would not ever encourage the sustainability, if someone had a spare time to do some of the test like stress test, most of the full node users would be in trouble on synchronising them. IIRC this would lead to the complaints from most of the full node users with the problem of the stress test, transaction flooding and/or so on.

the more full node users, meaning the higher security it would be; of course vice versa, the more independent miners in the network, the more security that would be. that's why i could not legitimately support for you, we should split some of the miners into a smaller pool, reason is simple: prevent people from centralising the power easily. if we decided to increase the block size limit, especially no limit one, bitcoin would not be a sustainable currency, due to the hardware usage, and electric problem; even though if the merchants could afford those blockchains, it doesn't help the network, simply, less full node users, higher ability of 51% attacks based on controlling full node users and miners. for the mining matter, even more wastage of electricity would be, unless we had a environmental friendly power generator for the miners, otherwise, most of the miners would be ended up with so-called failure.

all in all, if the bitcoin XT occurred in bitcoin XT, bitcoin would not be able to sustain to at least 2140.

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

and better this

Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message.  If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority!

Core can be upgraded, it is possible. But people need to understand that every block change MUST be done via forking. There will be old fork with 1MB and new upgraded bigger fork existing simultaneously.

Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.

Nonsense. Jeff Garzik, Pieter Wuille and Adam have each proposed several alternatives to increase the block size. It's not like Gavin and Mike are the only ones who are willing to increase the block size. The problem is how they try and push their proposal in a way that's very bad for the Bitcoin ecosystem.