5 ms·

I have so many questions here: a. I was under the impression it was Satoshi who had put in the 1 MB size limit. This is the first attempt to increase the size.

I have so many questions here: a. I was under the impression it was Satoshi who had put in the 1 MB size limit. This is the first attempt to increase the size. But then the article says: "Until now, Bitcoin has been operating by simply increasing the block size whenever bitcoin needs to scale. This allows more transactions to process in a single block." These size increases were under which BIPs? b. "....to firing current bitcoin developers and taking over bitcoin development" My understanding is the decentralized nature of bitcoin and the consensus mechanism meant no one can actually be fired. The worst case scenario is that I am stopped from accessing the bitcoin-core code repo but I can still rally people to take up my changes and vote (consensus) on it. d. "Inspite of this, Segwit2x people kept pushing the hard fork on the community just to fulfill their agreement as they have the mining power support." Wasn't that the whole point of bitcoin? Miners are needed to do most of the heavy lifting which means they have a say in what direction bitcoin goes. Additionally, what is the mechanism to show the non-mining support for any of the changes? c. Any links which show there is support for the current chain?

funyug 9y ago
a. The limit has been changed quite a few times in the past. It has both been decreased and increased when required. I think they were soft limits which didnt require a hard fork. I dont have links right now. Will post them as soon as i find any. b. You are right but their is still a maintainer of the repo that merges the code in the repository and do releases. Core developers don't believe in capability of segwit2x developer i.e. just Jeff Garzik to handle this task. c. There are two pools slushpool and f2pool that are currently supporting the original chain. Other than this several twitter polls have been done and several meetup groups have posted articles on medium denouncing their support for segwit2x. I am not good with saving links but I am sure you will find several polls with a simple google search. d. Miners are not a part of bitcoin consensus mechanism. They are a way of safely executing the chosen decision. All issues must be raised before merging code in the bitcoin repo. By blocking the activation of segwit for over an year, miners lost the confidence from the community. Also around 40% of mining power is currently controlled by Bitmain and the rest is also dependent on them as they are the only mining hardware manufacturer.
- thisisit 9y ago
  I don't care for Segwit2x or any changes but without supporting evidence, most of it is conjecture. On the size what you said doesn't seem to be true: https://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-debate-and-why-does-it-matter/ https://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-deba... So, it was changed back in Satoshi's era(2010). It is miners who are not obliged to fill up till 1 MB. Yes, miners can be shady to not fill the blocks and collect fees. Frankly, it seems Bitcoin has an ever revolving door of civil wars and it is getting boring. Every time someone comes up with a different opinion, its civil war, political attack etc. There was so much noise during Bitcoin XT, then cash and now this. If people are so concerned about miner control and 100% sure of community support, create a fork and mine it. A fair debate is fine but this kind of in-fighting undermines bitcoin from being taken seriously - 7k in price or not.
  - funyug 9y ago
    Exactly everyone is free to fork and create their own chain but they dont take the brand value with them. Bitcoin XT, cash and segwit2x all have had the same supporters everytime. They just change the name of their movement.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  > Miners are not a part of bitcoin consensus mechanism. Miners ARE the bitcoin consensus mechanism. Saying anything different is ridiculous. The miners are signaling 2MB blocks in an overwhelming majority. https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks Blockstream and 'core' are scared that the miners will finally stop using their software and take control back of bitcoin, allowing them to expand it's throughput to what other chains already have. This will alleviate the ridiculous $3-$5 fees to make the smallest transaction. Before 'core' and blockstream decided to suffocate the throughput of bitcoin so that their company could profit off of side channels, fees were a few cents. > just Jeff Garzik to handle this task. This is not true at all. First, Jeff Garzik was one of the very early developers of bitcoin before the current crop ousted the original group who wouldn't go a long with their plan. They are the ones that took it from something no one knew about to a working system with millions of users. It isn't only Jeff Garzik working on this task and the 'task' is mostly raising a number from 1 MB to 2 MB. There isn't anything technically difficult about it. > I think they were soft limits which didnt require a hard fork. The 1 MB limit was put in place as temporary spam protection and satoshi was very clear about this. Bitcoin HAS hard forked before (and many other coins have hard forked multiple times as planned upgrades that have gone perfectly smoothly). If you are getting your information from /r/bitcoin you should know that it is HEAVILY censored. They ban anyone who has an opinion they don't like, they grey list comments they don't like, they change the sort order of threads that don't go their way, they keep their moderation logs closed and they have a long list of rules that are arbitrarily enforced as justifications for all their nonsense. Check out /r/btc or any other source of information, but not /r/bitcoin, that place is 100% toxic. Edit: Every post speaking out about /r/bitcoin usually gets rapid downvotes with no explanation while also getting slowly upvoted over time. This seems to be no exception.

funyug 9y ago

a. The limit has been changed quite a few times in the past. It has both been decreased and increased when required. I think they were soft limits which didnt require a hard fork. I dont have links right now. Will post them as soon as i find any. b. You are right but their is still a maintainer of the repo that merges the code in the repository and do releases. Core developers don't believe in capability of segwit2x developer i.e. just Jeff Garzik to handle this task. c. There are two pools slushpool and f2pool that are currently supporting the original chain. Other than this several twitter polls have been done and several meetup groups have posted articles on medium denouncing their support for segwit2x. I am not good with saving links but I am sure you will find several polls with a simple google search. d. Miners are not a part of bitcoin consensus mechanism. They are a way of safely executing the chosen decision. All issues must be raised before merging code in the bitcoin repo. By blocking the activation of segwit for over an year, miners lost the confidence from the community. Also around 40% of mining power is currently controlled by Bitmain and the rest is also dependent on them as they are the only mining hardware manufacturer.

thisisit 9y ago
I don't care for Segwit2x or any changes but without supporting evidence, most of it is conjecture. On the size what you said doesn't seem to be true: https://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-debate-and-why-does-it-matter/ https://www.coindesk.com/what-is-the-bitcoin-block-size-deba... So, it was changed back in Satoshi's era(2010). It is miners who are not obliged to fill up till 1 MB. Yes, miners can be shady to not fill the blocks and collect fees. Frankly, it seems Bitcoin has an ever revolving door of civil wars and it is getting boring. Every time someone comes up with a different opinion, its civil war, political attack etc. There was so much noise during Bitcoin XT, then cash and now this. If people are so concerned about miner control and 100% sure of community support, create a fork and mine it. A fair debate is fine but this kind of in-fighting undermines bitcoin from being taken seriously - 7k in price or not.
- funyug 9y ago
  Exactly everyone is free to fork and create their own chain but they dont take the brand value with them. Bitcoin XT, cash and segwit2x all have had the same supporters everytime. They just change the name of their movement.
CyberDildonics 9y ago
> Miners are not a part of bitcoin consensus mechanism. Miners ARE the bitcoin consensus mechanism. Saying anything different is ridiculous. The miners are signaling 2MB blocks in an overwhelming majority. https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks Blockstream and 'core' are scared that the miners will finally stop using their software and take control back of bitcoin, allowing them to expand it's throughput to what other chains already have. This will alleviate the ridiculous $3-$5 fees to make the smallest transaction. Before 'core' and blockstream decided to suffocate the throughput of bitcoin so that their company could profit off of side channels, fees were a few cents. > just Jeff Garzik to handle this task. This is not true at all. First, Jeff Garzik was one of the very early developers of bitcoin before the current crop ousted the original group who wouldn't go a long with their plan. They are the ones that took it from something no one knew about to a working system with millions of users. It isn't only Jeff Garzik working on this task and the 'task' is mostly raising a number from 1 MB to 2 MB. There isn't anything technically difficult about it. > I think they were soft limits which didnt require a hard fork. The 1 MB limit was put in place as temporary spam protection and satoshi was very clear about this. Bitcoin HAS hard forked before (and many other coins have hard forked multiple times as planned upgrades that have gone perfectly smoothly). If you are getting your information from /r/bitcoin you should know that it is HEAVILY censored. They ban anyone who has an opinion they don't like, they grey list comments they don't like, they change the sort order of threads that don't go their way, they keep their moderation logs closed and they have a long list of rules that are arbitrarily enforced as justifications for all their nonsense. Check out /r/btc or any other source of information, but not /r/bitcoin, that place is 100% toxic. Edit: Every post speaking out about /r/bitcoin usually gets rapid downvotes with no explanation while also getting slowly upvoted over time. This seems to be no exception.