4 ms·

Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core devel

by pmorici 10y ago

Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core development by the small block crowd? It isn't even possible to get an accurate perception of Bitcoin Unlimited support from reading the traditional Bitcoin discussion forums like /r/bitcoin because there is ZERO tolerance for discussion of bigger blocks unless it in a negative context.

dpc59 10y ago
I'm pretty sure this was a sarcastic shitcomment. People who have a basic idea of how finance works understand that decentralized financial products lead to market making.
nadaviv 10y ago
SegWit is a block size increase. Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit.
- lawn 10y ago
  > Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit. Only in the censored outskirts. I recommend everyone to read John Blocke's articles: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-definitions-in-bitcoins-block-size-debate-f8ce550d0919#.i4vbed4ss https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin... https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resistance-stupid-59a95e5f9b51#.2b1678j4o https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resist...
  - nadaviv 10y ago
    - 105 businesses and projects from the Bitcoin space support SegWit and are working on implementing it in their products: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ - 54 bitcoin developers signed the "capacity increase roadmap" published by Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases - 45 companies and individuals signed in support of Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ - 85% of the nodes on the network are running Bitcoin Core: https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share All of that due to censorship in one subreddit, while there are multiple other forums that people talk in? I have to say, that's quite impressive.
    - pmorici 10y ago
      The censorship isn't just in /r/bitcoin it also happens on the dev mailing list, on the bitcoin.org website, and on the BitcoinTalk forum. BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and bitcoin.org are controlled by the same person.
    - jerguismi 10y ago
      Impressive numbers! Bad luck the only metric that happens to matters, miner vote, is still below 25% and seems to be going slightly down... http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
      - simulx 10y ago
        No, actually, it's not safe to vote for a fork until a large percentage of nodes are on board. Miners are doing their job and waiting for the community first. It took me 4 months to upgrade my nodes because I'm not really "in the business" like I used to be. Probably a lot of other people are just slow too.
xorcist 10y ago
That's a false premise. There is a block size increase when segwit activates. The debate is mostly if we should have a hard fork as well as (or even instead of) a soft fork. I think most developers are rightly scared of a hard fork, especially as we've seen what happened to Etherium lately. There was double spending as every node was not perfectly aligned with this. And then, contrary to expectations, the old chain survived. "Would you like to pay with Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin United?" That's not what anyone wants.
- pmorici 10y ago
  The ETH / ETC situation was only possible because ETH has a much smaller block time than Bitcoin and the difficulty re-target happens every block instead of every 2016 blocks. The upshot for Bitcoin is that any chain with a minority of hashing power will die off. Dev's are just FUDing to keep control and scare people.

by pmorici 10y ago

dpc59 10y ago

I'm pretty sure this was a sarcastic shitcomment. People who have a basic idea of how finance works understand that decentralized financial products lead to market making.

nadaviv 10y ago

SegWit is a block size increase. Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit.

lawn 10y ago
> Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit. Only in the censored outskirts. I recommend everyone to read John Blocke's articles: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-definitions-in-bitcoins-block-size-debate-f8ce550d0919#.i4vbed4ss https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin... https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resistance-stupid-59a95e5f9b51#.2b1678j4o https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resist...
- nadaviv 10y ago
  - 105 businesses and projects from the Bitcoin space support SegWit and are working on implementing it in their products: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ - 54 bitcoin developers signed the "capacity increase roadmap" published by Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases - 45 companies and individuals signed in support of Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ - 85% of the nodes on the network are running Bitcoin Core: https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share All of that due to censorship in one subreddit, while there are multiple other forums that people talk in? I have to say, that's quite impressive.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    The censorship isn't just in /r/bitcoin it also happens on the dev mailing list, on the bitcoin.org website, and on the BitcoinTalk forum. BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and bitcoin.org are controlled by the same person.
  - jerguismi 10y ago
    Impressive numbers! Bad luck the only metric that happens to matters, miner vote, is still below 25% and seems to be going slightly down... http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
    - simulx 10y ago
      No, actually, it's not safe to vote for a fork until a large percentage of nodes are on board. Miners are doing their job and waiting for the community first. It took me 4 months to upgrade my nodes because I'm not really "in the business" like I used to be. Probably a lot of other people are just slow too.

xorcist 10y ago

That's a false premise. There is a block size increase when segwit activates. The debate is mostly if we should have a hard fork as well as (or even instead of) a soft fork. I think most developers are rightly scared of a hard fork, especially as we've seen what happened to Etherium lately. There was double spending as every node was not perfectly aligned with this. And then, contrary to expectations, the old chain survived. "Would you like to pay with Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin United?" That's not what anyone wants.

pmorici 10y ago
The ETH / ETC situation was only possible because ETH has a much smaller block time than Bitcoin and the difficulty re-target happens every block instead of every 2016 blocks. The upshot for Bitcoin is that any chain with a minority of hashing power will die off. Dev's are just FUDing to keep control and scare people.