Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 6. (Read 8663 times)
Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.
What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org"....
LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot.
LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot.
I don't think theymos is against the raising of max block size limit. He only gave out an order that bitcoin xt is an altcoin once it forked.
I doubt that he believes that the majority of users will go with bitcoin xt, that's simply not imagineable.
So far i understood it all the time so that theymos supports a bigger block size. Or am i wrong?
Why is Bitcoin forking?
Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.
That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.
...
A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
In Satoshis words i trust
Satoshi’s plan brought us all together. It changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of us across the globe. Some of us quit our jobs, others devoted their spare time to the project, still others founded companies and even moved across the world. It’s the idea of ordinary people paying each other via a block chain that created and united this global community.
That’s the vision I signed up for. That’s the vision Gavin Andresen signed up for. That’s the vision so many developers and startup founders and evangelists and users around the world signed up for.
...
A long time ago, Satoshi put in place a temporary kludge: he limited the size of each block to one megabyte. He did this in order to keep the block chain small in the early days, until what we now call SPV wallets were built (‘client only mode’). As seen in the quote above, it was never meant to be permanent and he talked about phasing it out when the time came. In the end it wasn’t needed — I wrote the first SPV implementation in 2011 and with my esteemed colleague Andreas Schildbach, together we built the first and still most popular Android wallet. Since then SPV wallets have been made for every platform. So Satoshi’s reason for the temporary limit has been resolved a long time ago.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
In Satoshis words i trust
Thank's LiteCoinGuy, that link was worth reading.
I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well.
that is the problem. i would stay with Core too but not with artificial 1 MB blocks
first block mined with XT
https://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000000000174419fa2ba5003e123dbd97c6982aff1863f016b04789d
12.5 % XT Nodes
In a perfect world we could have infinitesimally small transactions being transacted in-chain but I dont think this is viable long term, so LN may be a solid solution for this. maybe in the future we can have everything on the chain but not anytime soon.
I would actually prefer a compromise over XT. But right now it is a choice between Core and XT, so i choose XT. I suspect that Core will stay at one megabyte forever, since the core developers can not reach an agreement. I also think that XT should be the last hard fork as well.
I don't think anyone actually believes that blocks should stay 1mb forever, most devs just disagree on the right way to accomplish the block size increase. A hard fork is not a trivial thing, especially now that the Bitcoin market cap is over $3 billion, and most want a solution that will last the life of Bitcoin so that a hard fork never has to happen again. It's a difficult situation with valid arguments on both sides.
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:
Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
BIP 100:
Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
I am aware of BIP102. It's the least radical proposal. I thought it would unite various factions and bitcoin could then move forward. I am still waiting for signs that Core is implementing BIP102. I think communications among the devs has broken down and there is too much hostility to come to any middle ground. Average users like us have no sway over the Core devs' direction, XT gives us a chance to voice out.
Those not sure what BIP100/102 proposes, here is a summary:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/big-block-support-observer-1153957
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
Take a look at this chart pal: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
The chart show day averages. Hitting the limit one or twice a day doesn't pull the day average up. When the chart shows a peak, it means blocks are hitting the limit very frequently in a day. Raising the limit is a preemptive move, planning ahead before it gets really bad.
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.
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.
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.
I do not actually think that Bitcoin will get mass adoption if this limit is put in place. Since one of the advantages of Bitcoin is that we do not need third parties, “forcing” people to use third parties for Bitcoin will take away some of its advantage. I do realize that eventually most transactions will have to be performed off chain, however I think that it is more important to increase adoption first and keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective, increased adoption would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.
I do agree with you however that insulting a persons intelligence is not a good argument lol.
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.
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.
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.
Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.
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.
Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.
Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
So it's a offchain solution? What's the difference it just proves that everything doesn't have to be on the blockchain.
There is no need to bloat the chain.
over 10 % XT Nodes within 3 days.
This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity.
To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.
However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.
We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.
However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.
We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
That's a relief. Was starting to think I was the only one who saw it that way and was almost beginning to question if there were any sane people left here on the forum. I couldn't agree more. There are still far too many people here that, for reasons I can't even begin to comprehend, mistakenly believe Bitcoin should behave more like a closed-source project, where a single team of developers make all the decisions and the userbase has no freedom to choose. And worse still, some people think a fork proposal is an attack on the system. They've got it completely backwards. Not being able to fork would be an attack on the system.
Thank you for restoring my faith that there are still some people left who understand this correctly.
This is an important test of the Bitcoin consensus itself that is unprecedented in history. How we deal with reaching consensus for controversial and contested changes will set precedent and is as important as the block size debate itself. This is a trial that we must go through in order to grow and survive as a truly decentralized entity.
To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.
However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.
We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. If you ask me I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.
However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because pools are a lot like representative democracy the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.
We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
Satoshi designed an original and interesting system, but it would be outrageous to claim that he has perfect vision into how the system might scale in the future.
Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.
*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.
I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that?
What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT?
Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin.
And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?
I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.
Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners.
Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network.
There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network.
Changetip is a sidechain? Is this some intelligence displyed by the antiXT-er s? When you dont even know technicality you should stick to polictic ie. Mike is an evil person, and core devs are good guys
Edit: to clarify for noobs, there is subtle difference between sidechain and offchain
Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.
*lol* That's one of the funniest statements you gave in this thread. Sure, we only want to transfer money, let's use paypal or western union maybe. I think you don't get it. Bitcoin is the currency and i don't think that the majority of bitcoins want bitcoin to be split into a bitcoin high amount transfer system and some altcoin bum amount transfer system.
I don't think you understand what I'm getting at. Of course it's in the users best interest to use Bitcoin over fiat. But how many users know that?
What you want is mass adoption right? Do you think everyone is aware of the dangers of FIAT?
Fact is most users don't care and "they just want to transfer money" they don't know the difference between FIAT and Bitcoin.
And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?
I think the greed is speaking out of you clearly. Just increase the fee... it doesn't matter what effect that has on bitcoin adoption. Guess it would be great for the lightning network owners... higher fee means more customers and that means more earnings for the ligthning network owners.
Well, i'm glad we aren't all lightning network owners.
Higher fees doesn't automatically mean higher profits for lightning network.
There are other side chains. Change tip being one example. And as I have said before there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from creating a alternative to the lightning network.
*lol* You speak like you never used fiat. Yes, you can use fiat without fees. And yes, bitcoin started to replace a good chunk of it.
Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly.
Naming legitimate transactions spam is ridiculous. But i think i won't get emotional. Your interests shine through pretty clearly.
Fiat without fees? Ever heard of inflation?
People can't agree because almost everyone around here is closed minded. At first I was willing to accept Gavins proposal, however that did not turn out to be the best choice of action and thus I began changing my stance towards this matter. I'm willing to compensate to a 2 MB increase as Jeff proposed and I openly welcome other solutions (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). However, people on the other side of the argument do not seem to want to compensate to anything. It's their way or no way at all.
You can't say that people on the other side are not able to negotiated with. If you think a 2MB block is a solution of some kind then this might sound to others like nonsense. And you don't need to take compromises when you think the compromise is bad. You woud fight for what you want instead.
I think that is a valid thing to do. Not accepting things that are unacceptable. That has nothing to do with being a blockhead. Of course each party can throw this word to the other party but it won't solve anything. At the end the network decides. And hopefully the networks majority is filled from those that want to have bitcoin a longterm project. Not making it an expensive thing on the same level like things we already had before only to promote some altcoins...
Jump to: