5 ms·

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 r

by 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
  Thanks for the presenting the other side of the argument. I have been a part of the bitcoin community since 2013 so I am pretty aware of both sides of the debate. I am actually a supporter of bigger blocks. But i know that we cannot keep increasing the block size everytime we need. It is not about Jeff garzik not being competent enough, it is about the amount of work he will have to do. Current bitcoin developer group is huge and many developers review the same code, work on new stuff and much more. Segwit2x havent shown anyone else other than Jeff garzik who is going to work on Segwit2x codebase. Both r/bitcoin and r/btc are terrible. You wont ever get a proper discussion for bigger blocks on r/bitcoin and r/btc has basically turned into a place for bitcoin cash and is not anyway related to bitcoin now. They even celebrate everytime bitcoin price dumps.

by funyug 9y ago

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
Thanks for the presenting the other side of the argument. I have been a part of the bitcoin community since 2013 so I am pretty aware of both sides of the debate. I am actually a supporter of bigger blocks. But i know that we cannot keep increasing the block size everytime we need. It is not about Jeff garzik not being competent enough, it is about the amount of work he will have to do. Current bitcoin developer group is huge and many developers review the same code, work on new stuff and much more. Segwit2x havent shown anyone else other than Jeff garzik who is going to work on Segwit2x codebase. Both r/bitcoin and r/btc are terrible. You wont ever get a proper discussion for bigger blocks on r/bitcoin and r/btc has basically turned into a place for bitcoin cash and is not anyway related to bitcoin now. They even celebrate everytime bitcoin price dumps.