Fellow Miners, Some of you receive emails and phone calls from developers. I am not big enough to get that treatment. So I am sorry if I am not an expert in the arguments against BIP 101. My reasons to favor BIP 101 are GROWTH, FEES, LIGHTNING NETWORK, NO FEAR, and NO MORE FIGHTING. GROWTH I expected bitcoin to grow a lot faster than the growth in BIP 101 anyway. FEES Higher fees/kb do not make up for restricted block size! When there is no room for a tx, another tx would have to pay double. That will not happen. It is better to have room to mine the extra tx. LIGHTNING NETWORK Lightning Network sends fees to non-miners. But I am happy to handle the business. Lightning Network does not actually require the bitcoin blockchain! It can easily switch to using another coin and one that does not use SHA256. Nobody uses Lightning Network. Lightning Network does not exist. NO FEAR I will not make a block that is too big for you to process (it would be bad for me). I am not afraid that you will attack me by making blocks that are too big for me to process. When have bitcoin miners ever attacked each other like this? It would be very pessimistic for me to think that you will attack me tomorrow when you have never done it before, and the attack would hurt you anyway. NO MORE FIGHTING BIP 101 is the only BIP that tries to end block size fights for 20 years. Maybe it will not succeed in that. But it is the only BIP that tries.
BIP 101 has activated on the testnet. Need your help to test large blocks.
We have activated BIP 101 on the testnet. The hashpower there after activation is now less than the non-BIP 101 hashpower. This makes for an interesting test. If you would like to help gather data, please run the BIP 101 client of your choice with -testnet and keep the debug.log file to share for data analysis later. The more nodes the better! Transaction spam is welcome and encouraged :)
For those of you worried about a schism and losing talented devs, or those that want bigger blocks but not the nuclear option, Core Dev Jeff Garzik's BIP 100 is the solution.
BIP 100: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf I've been involved in Bitcoin since 2011 as both a significant early investor and now founder of a well-known Bitcoin company. Because of the politics and emotion behind this debate, unfortunately I must hide behind anonymity to protect my business and relationships, but the behavior I've witnessed over the past several months (and last 24hrs) has compelled me to speak out. Over the last several weeks, I have witnessed a level of vitriol and personal attacks that has surpassed anything I have seen before in our community and I am deeply concerned. I keep getting this sinking feeling that this is not what I signed up for, and after speaking to several core devs know this debate has taken a dramatic toll on their personal and intellectual health- several developers I've talked with feel depressed, unappreciated, and uncertain if the personal costs are worth continuing with the Bitcoin experiment. Non-technical Bitcoin users feel ignored, unimportant, powerless, and the blatant personal bias in which this forum has been moderated over the past few days is despicable/misguided and has now incited them to anger. We've taken an emotional topic, and escalated it like an adolescent child. Regardless of which way this debate is settled, this outcome is objectively BAD and we are reaching a point where there is no going back. Generally speaking I have remained neutral in this debate, because I know all the (very talented) coredevs and believe each side passionately believes they have Bitcoin's best interest at heart. I can respect that. Even if you lean in one direction or the other, we ALL must understand that each side has valid points and concerns. Part of the challenge is there are a lot of unknowns, and a wide variety of elements/variables in any solutions, so while different groups may agree on specific aspects they disagree on others and somehow get pushed into these polarized camps (i.e. I want bigger blocks but don't want a contentious hard-fork, or I think bitcoin as a settlement network is the only sustainable future but we need more time to develop off-chain solutions... etc). If we're going to come to consensus we need to simplify the debate by finding what we can agree on, and starting there. The contentious elements of this debate can then be resolved in isolation without forcing the largely agnostic middle ground into the extremes. This is where Jeff Garzik's BIP 100 comes in. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf It is a conservative but temporary solution that helps us clarify elements of the debate and involve all stakeholders as we move towards a permanent resolution. It is simple to implement and does not require us to build out infrastructure that isn't already deployed. It will tell us how the network will react to even minor changes to the blocksize, and it will buy us more time to build off-chain solutions if it becomes clear blocksize increases doom us to centralization. Most importantly, is keeps our community together and demonstrates that we can work together even when we adamantly disagree. I don't want to fork Bitcoin to XT and lose the development team that's gotten us where we are today. I don't want a system where a majority, lead by charismatic and talented leaders, can force contentious changes on the minority. I don't want a Bitcoin where a minority can completely ignore the concerns of the majority and hold their future hostage. I want a Bitcoin that works for everyday users. I want a Bitcoin that can demonstrate change and evolution without disenfranchising its most ardent users and supporters. Most importantly I want the Bitcoin that brought all of us here in the first place. For the sake of Bitcoin, reason, and compassion, we all need to come together and find what we can agree on. TL;DR Please support BIP100 and keep Bitcoin and this community the same place we've come to know and love. This community is big enough for all of us. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Gavin hinting at something to come: "Be a little patient... there is stuff happening I've promised not to talk about yet. You aren't the only one unhappy about the priorities of the Bitcoin Core project"
[September 01, 2015] Block Size and Hard Fork Dialog
This thread is open for discussion on block size and hard forks. New submissions regarding block size and hard forks are not permitted at this time, so unless you have very substantial news to share, post your questions and comments here. Please read the following guidelines before proceeding:
There's a new subreddit guideline in the sidebar. It reads:
Promotion of client software which attempts to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus is not permitted.
Themes regarding hard forks in general, such as what happens when they occur, how to ensure the fork is successful, and how the bitcoin network can react to hard forks which are potentially hostile, are open for discussion.
Avoid personal attacks and emotionally charged arguments.
No meta discussion.
Stay on topic.
There's been a lot of great discussion so far. Let's avoid falling back into voting cliques. They harm the discussion and will have no impact on the outcome of this debate.
Don't downvote an otherwise acceptable post because you don't personally like it. Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons.
Amanda from The Daily Decrypt here. I'm looking to do a video special on what's going on with BIP 101, BitcoinXT/Bitcoin Unlimited, and potential hard forks. Answers to my questions here would help tremendously. Thanks for your time.
1 - Does Bitcoin Unlimited support BIP 101 natively, or can it be made to do so? 2 - If a Bitcoin Unlimited node sets their max accepted block size to 8MB or above, does that mean they are automatically "supporting" BIP 101? 3 - It looks like XT+BU nodes currently make up almost 13% of the network. Does anything like a fork happen at a certain threshold? If so, what is that percentage? 4 - What does a fork look like, in short? 5 - The block size has been just one contentious issue in Bitcoin. There are certainly more to come. Do you foresee that competing reference clients will be how problems are again solved in the future, a.k.a. vote by node? 6 - Which mining pools have made the switch to either XT or BU already? 7 - What decides what the "main chain" is in Bitcoin -- "hashing power" or node majority? Please explain. Thanks so much! -Amanda @TheDailyDecrypt
The frontpage of r/btc that I just loaded used 1.04mb of bandwidth.
No wonder the Chinese miners have been so quiet in this debate. Their bandwidth restrictions must barely allow them to download a single page of reddit once every 10 minutes. Also, it would seem that if Luke Jr spent less time here he would have enough bandwidth for his full node.
Reading r/bitcoin almost makes me sick to my stomach
A couple months ago there was debate there, and it was clearly obvious that the majority of people wanted something that could easily scale. Almost everyone realized how insanely small moving to 8MB would be for most modern networks. You read there now and it's just a bunch of small block circle jerking, and people in my opinion destroying the future of bitcoin. Like the title says, I almost feel physically sick to my stomach reading it. I had so much faith that bitcoin was going to be something special, and I probably spent too much time reading and watching videos on the subject. Every pay check I was buying more bitcoin, because I had faith that when the time came they would raise the limits especially when our computers and networks are at least an order of magnitude better than needed right now. When I read the most popular places for people to discuss Bitcoin issues now, it's nothing but people trying to block progress. I used to put most of my fairly substantial investments in crypto-currency into Bitcoin, but for the last month I've been so unsure about the direction of Bitcoin that I can no longer do it. I'm already looking at what's going to replace Bitcoin, and putting most of my money there. I'll continue to hold my Bitcoins because it still has by far the largest market share and network effect, but I've lost faith in the people that are making decisions for Bitcoin right now. I really wish Gavin didn't give up his position.
It has taken me a long time, but I finally committed ALL of my resources to BIP 101 - bitcoin xt
I run two full nodes and a small miner. I switched on full node to xt when all of this started, but now I'm fed up. I switched my miner back to slush's pool today and I updated my other node to bitcoinxt. Sometimes it just feels refreshing to do the right thing. If you want to move your miners to slush's pool and show your support for 8mb blocks (aka: bitcoinxt, BIP 101), set up an account at http://mining.bitcoin.cz and use these mining addresses: stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - General stratum+tcp://us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - USA stratum+tcp://eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3301 - Europe Slush is re-enabling BIPB101:https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/slush-pool-to-re-enable-bip-bitcoin-mining-1448902761 If you want to set up bitcoixt, it's pretty easy to just remove bitcoind and run the binary linked here: https://bitcoinxt.software/ You can find more information about bitcoinxt blocks here: http://xtnodes.com/
A 75% supermajority was chosen so that one large mining pool does not have effective veto power over a blocksize increase. The version number scheme is designed to be compatible with Pieter's Wuille's proposed "Version bits" BIP, and to not interfere with any other consensus rule changes in the process of being rolled out. Objections to this proposal. Raising the 1MB block size has been ... Actively supported by Several mining pools, it’s been the proposal receiving the most support so far, especially since the decline of BIP101’s bitcoin XT. Core’s solution SegWit is set to activate through the fork in the August 1st and could be implemented even in the event that a small minority of the network doesn’t show support for it (i.e. soft fork). Some of the large Bitcoin mining pools have already implemented support for larger Bitcoin blocks, but there is still no consensus among all players in the Bitcoin ecosystem about the matter. We too believe that Bitcoin needs to start using larger blocks in the future in order to be able to scale up with the increased usage, but as to how this should be implement is a different story however. Slush Pool, the Czech mining pool has introduced BIP 101 mining for miners, enabling them to vote for introduction of BItcoin XT. Read more Most of the focus during the BIP 101 debate has been on Bitcoin mining pools and the miners themselves. However, we should not forget that Bitcoin payment processors will also be affected by whatever decision is final in the end. BitPay seems to be in favor of implementing BIP 101, and wants to see it become a part of the Bitcoin Core client in the future. One of the main concerns is whether ...
الربح من البيتكوين 2018 التعدين واعادة الاستثمار هل مازال مربح
Donate Bitcoin: 3NqhJSAikoFiYmZm3ACGzdw9Lr86ZiLT7K Support the Show: https://www.patreon.com/madbitcoins Listen to WCN Audio Podcasts: https://itunes.apple.c... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... petit délire de Guides. Uncensor the World: Michael W. Dean & Derrick Slopey Talk BipCoin, Dot-Bip, More - YMB Podcast E152 - Duration: 48:37. World Crypto Network 230 views hashflare.io شرح redeem code hashflare.io redeem code bitcoin mining x11 dash mining cloud mining شراء بيتكوين بالبايبال شراء بيتكوين بواسطة باى بال �