5 ms·

The Bitcoin community is rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible. This increase is being implem

by pash 11y ago

The Bitcoin community is rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible. This increase is being implemented in a new client, Bitcoin Classic [0], which is a fork of Bitcoin Core that changes only the single line of code that sets the blocksize limit. Bitcoin Classic was created by Jonathan Toomim, an American miner and developer who went to China to talk directly with Chinese miners and to test the effect of bigger blocks on mining operations behind the Great Firewall. Gavin Andresen, Bitcoin Core's former lead developer, and Jeff Garzik, another prominent Core developer, as well as many others, are collaborating with Toomim on further changes that Bitcoin Classic may implement later. The big difference between Bitcoin Classic and Mike Hearn's failed Bitcoin XT is the concerted effort by the people behind Classic to garner the explicit support of miners (and other important members of the Bitcoin ecosystem) for a blocksize increase. At my last check yesterday, mining-pool operators representing 72% of global hashing power had explicitly expressed their support for Bitcoin Classic's blocksize increase, as had the operators of many popular exchanges, web wallets, and payment providers. (There is a growing compendium of prominent supporters on Bitcoin Classic's website; the complete list is on the project's Github page [1].) That means that Bitcoin Classic is very likely to break Core's monopoly on the protocol soon. The blocksize increase, and the fork of the blockchain that it will create, is tentatively scheduled to take place after March 1. Get ready. (By the way, the best sources for information and discussion about the Bitcoin world are now the /r/btc sub-Reddit and the discussion forums at bitcoin.com and bitco.in; the community's former hubs, /r/Bitcoin and bitcointalk.org, are both controlled by the same operator/moderator, and he has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes to the protocol that are not supported by Core's intransigent cabal of developers.) 0. https://www.bitcoinclassic.com https://www.bitcoinclassic.com 1. https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3 https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/website/issues/3

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- MCRed 11y ago
  If they are wise, that is literally what they will do. It won't undo the fork, though, the fork is really in the blockchain (as he's using the term fork) rather than in the source code. For some period of time there will be two versions of bitcoin running on the machines that mine, and it will take some time for them to switch over-- but since Classic is doing the switch with major support now, the transition should be smooth. Bitcoin the protocol can and is run by a wide variety of software... the blockchain is a consensus agreement of that software. Basically its an agreement on protocol based on the rules in the software. For most of its history, that software has been based on Bitcoin Core. That may change in the future to Bitcoin Classic, or both may be running at the same time with different variances, but supporting effectively the same protocol. Nobody wants %50 of the network to be running software incompatible with the other %50.
roymurdock 11y ago
So you believe that whoever was upset with the blocksize/management changes that would have been introduced in XT has been placated by this more inclusive effort? And that this actor will not attempt to sabotage the rollout of Classic as they did with XT?
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  They absolutely will. At this point though the first alternative implementations helped people calibrate to the dishonesty of the group of people who has worked so hard to censor and alienate everyone who might compromise the need for their company, blockstream. Most people really gave them way too much credit and took them at their word, but it's been dug into the ground at this point that they are going to try to lie, censor, and outright sabotage any attempt to adapt bitcoin since they think creating problems gives them an opportunity to solve them.
someguydave 11y ago
> That means that Bitcoin Classic is very likely to break Core's monopoly on the protocol soon. As far as I'm concerned, neither side 'has a monopoly' on the protocol because they haven't documented the protocol with a proper specification. Forking Bitcoin today to 'solve' contingent future problems seems like the height of folly.
Lazare 11y ago
The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political setup. Many people were absolutely unwilling to even talk about XT (or as you mention, allow others to talk about XT) because "OMG it's not Core!". That argument will be a lot less viable if everyone's moved to Classic.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- EthanHeilman 11y ago
  >The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. XT was much more aggressive. Not only would it have initially increased the blocksize to 8MB, but then it fixed a schedule of doubling the blocksize every 2 years[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT#Determining_the_new_block_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT#Determining_the_new...
- Anonobread 11y ago
  > In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good This presumes the blocksize limit is being fixed, which is an incorrect assumption. Originally, the proponents of Classic wanted to boost block size limits to 20MB effective January 2016 [1], and used bombastic and divisive language, inventing their own crisis even, to get people to take them seriously. Interestingly, those same people are now contending for just 2MB, which is only 0.4MB higher than that proposed by Core. Performance test data shows 32MB is the absolute maximum block size you can handle on a modern desktop PC today [2]. And by this I mean you could validate no more than one block per 10 minutes, hence realistically you actually couldn't run a full node on a desktop at 32MB. You'd need a clustered full node just to keep up, which is unprecedented in Bitcoin. To make matters worse, 32MB blocks gets Bitcoin to 300 tps which is less than 1% of VISA's current capacity. [1]: http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessaril... [2]: https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bitcoin/ https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bit...
zekevermillion 11y ago
It seems misleading to call something "bitcoin classic" that would implement a hard fork. The bitcoin implementation by the "real" bitcoin foundation (ie, asciilifeform's group) at least can claim that it is an implementation of the actual bitcoin protocol: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ http://thebitcoin.foundation/
- pmorici 11y ago
  The original Bitcoin didn't include any block limit and Bitcoin's inventor wasn't worried about block size being too large[0]. The current 1MB limit was itself a hard fork of the original as a temporary spam protection measure while the network was in it's infancy. So the name really isn't misleading. A lot of people are ignorant of the history of the block size limit though. [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg099...
  - killerstorm 11y ago
    It was a soft fork.
orionblastar 11y ago
The different versions of Bitcoin programs, I am confused, will it be possible to send Bitcoins to each address using the different programs or will each program have different Bitcoin addresses and blockchains so they are incompatible? If I had Electum which uses the Bitcoin Core could I send Bitcoin to someone using Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin XT? If not then this causes a lot of problems and confusion.
kanzure 11y ago
> rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible I have a small nitpick to offer. Any hard-forking change is one for a new network and a new chain, by the very definition of hard-fork. The original Bitcoin blockchain and network will still exist, no matter how many times some of its users employ a hard-fork. A hard-fork cannot "turn off" Bitcoin for everyone else. This is no different than the way that an altcoin, like Litecoin, cannot "turn off" Bitcoin merely by the deployment and launch of Litecoin. Since their proposal is a backwards-incompatible change (hard-fork), it should be obvious that it does not increase the capacity of the current system, but rather a new system. I find myself wondering how anyone can think it is increasing the capacity of the previous network, given the definition of an (intentional!) hard-fork? Maybe if we all just wish hard enough, IPv4 will spontaneously transform into IPv6..... Bitcoin will continue to function even in the presence of yet-another hard-fork. Anyone is welcome to do as they please, including whatever hard-forks they might want to participate in, just as anyone is welcome to use Bitcoin or how they are welcome to abandon Bitcoin if they find that they don't like its offering. However, anyone who wants to participate in a hard-fork should do so in a safe and responsible way, such as by using a new name for the new system, using a new address identifier to avoid cross-chain contamination accidents, etc. What is Bitcoin Core's role in all of this? https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement Soft-forks and hard-forks? https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-forks https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-fo... bip99 has some more details: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawi... Bitcoin Core published a capacity increases roadmap: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-... ... and a FAQ about their capacity increases roadmap: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq... > and [theymos] has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes That's not really true, just search "site:reddit.com/r/bitcoin" for XT or classic or whatever. His lynch mob is waving the banner of censorship but meanwhile actual content shows up on the subreddit. Theymos even acknowledges this, but for some reason refuses to use moderation to eliminate the false allegations of censorship in his subreddit.
- 11y ago

by pash 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

MCRed 11y ago
If they are wise, that is literally what they will do. It won't undo the fork, though, the fork is really in the blockchain (as he's using the term fork) rather than in the source code. For some period of time there will be two versions of bitcoin running on the machines that mine, and it will take some time for them to switch over-- but since Classic is doing the switch with major support now, the transition should be smooth. Bitcoin the protocol can and is run by a wide variety of software... the blockchain is a consensus agreement of that software. Basically its an agreement on protocol based on the rules in the software. For most of its history, that software has been based on Bitcoin Core. That may change in the future to Bitcoin Classic, or both may be running at the same time with different variances, but supporting effectively the same protocol. Nobody wants %50 of the network to be running software incompatible with the other %50.

roymurdock 11y ago

So you believe that whoever was upset with the blocksize/management changes that would have been introduced in XT has been placated by this more inclusive effort? And that this actor will not attempt to sabotage the rollout of Classic as they did with XT?

CyberDildonics 11y ago
They absolutely will. At this point though the first alternative implementations helped people calibrate to the dishonesty of the group of people who has worked so hard to censor and alienate everyone who might compromise the need for their company, blockstream. Most people really gave them way too much credit and took them at their word, but it's been dug into the ground at this point that they are going to try to lie, censor, and outright sabotage any attempt to adapt bitcoin since they think creating problems gives them an opportunity to solve them.

someguydave 11y ago

> That means that Bitcoin Classic is very likely to break Core's monopoly on the protocol soon. As far as I'm concerned, neither side 'has a monopoly' on the protocol because they haven't documented the protocol with a proper specification. Forking Bitcoin today to 'solve' contingent future problems seems like the height of folly.

Lazare 11y ago

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political setup. Many people were absolutely unwilling to even talk about XT (or as you mention, allow others to talk about XT) because "OMG it's not Core!". That argument will be a lot less viable if everyone's moved to Classic.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
EthanHeilman 11y ago
>The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. XT was much more aggressive. Not only would it have initially increased the blocksize to 8MB, but then it fixed a schedule of doubling the blocksize every 2 years[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT#Determining_the_new_block_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_XT#Determining_the_new...
Anonobread 11y ago
> In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good This presumes the blocksize limit is being fixed, which is an incorrect assumption. Originally, the proponents of Classic wanted to boost block size limits to 20MB effective January 2016 [1], and used bombastic and divisive language, inventing their own crisis even, to get people to take them seriously. Interestingly, those same people are now contending for just 2MB, which is only 0.4MB higher than that proposed by Core. Performance test data shows 32MB is the absolute maximum block size you can handle on a modern desktop PC today [2]. And by this I mean you could validate no more than one block per 10 minutes, hence realistically you actually couldn't run a full node on a desktop at 32MB. You'd need a clustered full node just to keep up, which is unprecedented in Bitcoin. To make matters worse, 32MB blocks gets Bitcoin to 300 tps which is less than 1% of VISA's current capacity. [1]: http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessaril... [2]: https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bitcoin/ https://blog.conformal.com/btcsim-simulating-the-rise-of-bit...

zekevermillion 11y ago

It seems misleading to call something "bitcoin classic" that would implement a hard fork. The bitcoin implementation by the "real" bitcoin foundation (ie, asciilifeform's group) at least can claim that it is an implementation of the actual bitcoin protocol: http://thebitcoin.foundation/ http://thebitcoin.foundation/

pmorici 11y ago
The original Bitcoin didn't include any block limit and Bitcoin's inventor wasn't worried about block size being too large[0]. The current 1MB limit was itself a hard fork of the original as a temporary spam protection measure while the network was in it's infancy. So the name really isn't misleading. A lot of people are ignorant of the history of the block size limit though. [0] http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.html http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg099...
- killerstorm 11y ago
  It was a soft fork.

orionblastar 11y ago

The different versions of Bitcoin programs, I am confused, will it be possible to send Bitcoins to each address using the different programs or will each program have different Bitcoin addresses and blockchains so they are incompatible? If I had Electum which uses the Bitcoin Core could I send Bitcoin to someone using Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin XT? If not then this causes a lot of problems and confusion.

kanzure 11y ago

> rapidly coalescing around an effort to increase the maximum allowed blocksize to 2MB as soon as possible I have a small nitpick to offer. Any hard-forking change is one for a new network and a new chain, by the very definition of hard-fork. The original Bitcoin blockchain and network will still exist, no matter how many times some of its users employ a hard-fork. A hard-fork cannot "turn off" Bitcoin for everyone else. This is no different than the way that an altcoin, like Litecoin, cannot "turn off" Bitcoin merely by the deployment and launch of Litecoin. Since their proposal is a backwards-incompatible change (hard-fork), it should be obvious that it does not increase the capacity of the current system, but rather a new system. I find myself wondering how anyone can think it is increasing the capacity of the previous network, given the definition of an (intentional!) hard-fork? Maybe if we all just wish hard enough, IPv4 will spontaneously transform into IPv6..... Bitcoin will continue to function even in the presence of yet-another hard-fork. Anyone is welcome to do as they please, including whatever hard-forks they might want to participate in, just as anyone is welcome to use Bitcoin or how they are welcome to abandon Bitcoin if they find that they don't like its offering. However, anyone who wants to participate in a hard-fork should do so in a safe and responsible way, such as by using a new name for the new system, using a new address identifier to avoid cross-chain contamination accidents, etc. What is Bitcoin Core's role in all of this? https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/2016-01-07-statement Soft-forks and hard-forks? https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-forks https://petertodd.org/2016/soft-forks-are-safer-than-hard-fo... bip99 has some more details: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawiki https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0099.mediawi... Bitcoin Core published a capacity increases roadmap: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-... ... and a FAQ about their capacity increases roadmap: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq... > and [theymos] has strongly censored and perverted all discussion of changes That's not really true, just search "site:reddit.com/r/bitcoin" for XT or classic or whatever. His lynch mob is waving the banner of censorship but meanwhile actual content shows up on the subreddit. Theymos even acknowledges this, but for some reason refuses to use moderation to eliminate the false allegations of censorship in his subreddit.

11y ago