i agree. i guess my source of urgency is more acute having watched them continuously slip in soft fork changes to the protocol which facilitates their business model more so in the last few months. take CLTV for instance. i don't know alot about it but i know that the LN folk consider it important for them.That's a huge concern it's in my view worse than most think.
Blockchain Core developers feel that changing Bitcoin is fair game so long as you don't change the rules that make valid transactions and valid blocks.
Going so far as offering miners added revenue if they run their modified version of Bitcoin. They call it a harmless soft fork needed for sidechains with merged mining, but in reality it's a change to the software that runs Bitcoin and it's an attack on the incentive system that protects Bitcoin.
It offers miners an incentive to move transaction out of the blockchain and onto other chains.
Soft forks are fine when you look at how Mike runs Lighthouse on the Bitcoin protocol, but when you need it included in the speck (reference client to run) it's border line abuse. In reality Blockstream Core developers want to implement code without network conscious. At least that's what's advertised with it only requires a soft fork.
I'm OK with that so long as we are free to choose.
This is just what I've been arguing for, fork the core with the single change for BIP101 (or unlimited). Makes it clear and removes the "don't go to Hearn's private client" arguments. It creates a single decision for people and removes everything else. Personally I like the name Satoshi's Promise, but that probably only appeals to a smaller set of people who care about Satoshi's white paper. Bitcoin Unlimited does seem to make the functionality for people very clear from a marketing perspective and seems to be something most people could rally behind.While Bitcoin Unlimited, is the ultimate solution, I think that pursuing it now, as described with no limit, is a strategic error.
Firstly, BIP101 is a very good real-world approximation of Bitcoin Unlimited, it assumes a quite aggressive annual growth rate in global bandwidth. When the initial 8MB block limit is activated does anyone think that a miner being prevented from creating an 11MB block, in a busy period within the next 2 years, is a major drawback to the functioning of Bitcoin?
Secondly, a classic tactic for a minority to maintain the status quo is divide and rule. The division of big block supporters into multiple camps is one thing preventing the required woolly "consensus" for change. That has been a problem with the 100 different solutions already proposed for the 1MB, there are supporters for every one of them who reject different solutions, leaving the status quo with less pressure to change. The HK conference is likely to coalesce towards a solution but it will be weaker than BIP101, let alone no limit.
Perhaps the best way forward is a rebranding exercise. Implement BIP 101 in a version of Core and call it Bitcoin Unlimited.
I thought about this as well, it directly undermines XT. Is it really worth doing? The more you fragment your user base, the more likely you are to fail to secure majority. If it's done after January, then whatever, go for it. We can't even get people to agree to BIP101 so this has approximately 0% chance of happening anyway.While Bitcoin Unlimited, is the ultimate solution, I think that pursuing it now, as described with no limit, is a strategic error.
Firstly, BIP101 is a very good real-world approximation of Bitcoin Unlimited, it assumes a quite aggressive annual growth rate in global bandwidth. When the initial 8MB block limit is activated does anyone think that a miner being prevented from creating an 11MB block, in a busy period within the next 2 years, is a major drawback to the functioning of Bitcoin?
Secondly, a classic tactic for a minority to maintain the status quo is divide and rule. The division of big block supporters into multiple camps is one thing preventing the required woolly "consensus" for change. That has been a problem with the 100 different solutions already proposed for the 1MB, there are supporters for every one of them who reject different solutions, leaving the status quo with less pressure to change. The HK conference is likely to coalesce towards a solution but it will be weaker than BIP101, let alone no limit.
Perhaps the best way forward is a rebranding exercise. Implement BIP 101 in a version of Core and call it Bitcoin Unlimited.
This already exists, it's the clients tagged as "BigBlocks" or something like that. It's core with BIP101 integrated.This is just what I've been arguing for, fork the core with the single change for BIP101 (or unlimited). Makes it clear and removes the "don't go to Hearn's private client" arguments. It creates a single decision for people and removes everything else. Personally I like the name Satoshi's Promise, but that probably only appeals to a smaller set of people who care about Satoshi's white paper. Bitcoin Unlimited does seem to make the functionality for people very clear from a marketing perspective and seems to be something most people could rally behind.
The "Bitcoin Unlimited" I'm imagining helps with cohesion for the "bigger block cause" without requiring that people abandon their preferred solution (BIP100, BIP101, etc.)...a classic tactic for a minority to maintain the status quo is divide and rule. The division of big block supporters into multiple camps is one thing preventing the required woolly "consensus" for change. That has been a problem with the 100 different solutions already proposed for the 1MB, there are supporters for every one of them who reject different solutions, leaving the status quo with less pressure to change.
Did not know that, thanks for sharing.This already exists, it's the clients tagged as "BigBlocks" or something like that. It's core with BIP101 integrated.
So essentially a client that votes for every block increase BIP. That is the best idea yet.Bitcoin Unlimited is designed to reduce the friction for bigger blocks; it will show support for all proposals that intend to lift the block size limit. It will flag support for BIP101 and it will vote in BIP100. If another BIP shows promise, it will vote for that too. In other words, it will be largely agnostic to the method used to achieve larger blocks because it will be compatible with all methods.
Right, it would create blocks with the BIP101 version and the BIP100 size vote tag (and vote for a very large block too). If a new BIP gained traction that required another mechanism to be included, then it would be included too if possible.So essentially a client that votes for every block increase BIP. That is the best idea yet.
From a mining perspective I'm assuming it would create blocks with the BIP101 version and the BIP100 size vote tag, any other mechanisms that need to be included?
this is the Gold thread afterallGold:
I took that as a possible olive branch? maybe I'm wrong?Trolls are on notice
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ommzh/trolls_are_on_notice/
It's weird how their new definition of trolling is mostly about using logical fallacies. "Straw men," "ad hominem," "stonewalling" and "sidetracking" will get you banned?? Haven't the small-blockers been stonewalling and sidetracking since the middle of the summer? Come on now, the entire small block position is one big logical fallacyTrolls are on notice
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ommzh/trolls_are_on_notice/
It almost seems as if Thermos won't be happy until /r/bitcoin only has 5 users left all signing party slogans in perfect harmony with one another. BTW, I've noticed that the # users here now has been constantly decreasing over the past month. Only 500 right now, it used to be at 800-900 during the same time period.
I think it's just the latest move in the downward spiral created by the in-for-an-inch-in-for-mile dynamic of Theymos's original opinion-molding program.I took that as a possible olive branch? maybe I'm wrong?