Quote from: hdbuck on January 30, 2015, 08:47:27 PM

I dont know if someone actually made a similar poll since search engine is down so here we go..

Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.

Interesting read about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919629.0 (locked Cry

)

Feel free to discuss it further.

Not sure how I would vote in this poll at the moment, because it's unclear to me how it would impact microtransactions and microgiving. See, for example, this: https://abisprotocol.github.io/ABIS/ It's a concept I am developing which would rely upon microtransactions that would run peer to peer from wallets, so that people can specify tiny amounts to be aggregated and sent to persons or organizations of their choice to be sent at certain thresholds (when transactions are at or above a certain size), but with all of this controlled completely by the user and from the user's wallet settings, in a way that redefines the transaction and emphasizes giving rather than consumption as what we do when we transact (ABIS is "Ants, Bees, Information, Systems" ~ there is the idea embedded within very similar to the natural behavior of bees or ants). Some discussions have led to the possibility of a OpenBazaar plugin for ABIS down the road, for example.

I guess my concern about Gavin's approach is that it may make it harder for people who are looking to engage in microtransactions or microgiving (something in bitcoin which seems to actually be experiencing a surge - and with good reason). I wouldn't want this kind of hard fork development in bitcoin to drive people away due to fee issues. I remember the sudden, almost overnight decision that was made by developers some long while ago related to dust, which was intended to counter ddos problems, but because of the way it was done, put businesses and users who were accustomed to primarily engaging in micro- or tiny transactions, immediately in a seriously problematic position. (In case you are wondering what I am talking about, look up pullreq #2577 ~ Treat dust outputs as non-standard, un-hardcode TX_FEE constants #2577 (sort of a toxic pull request) - and a later issue I created, Option to Contribute - Indicate in Bitcoin Core [Incentivizing Giving, Adding Smart Property Element] #4079 - in which I had hoped to use "tiny transactions" to help bitcoin developers receive small amounts from the larger bitcoin community to support their work.)

The way users were treated then led me to seriously re-evaluate what in the world I was doing the bitcoin space and how I could help people create a better future by redefining transactions completely, thus this idea which you see at https://abisprotocol.github.io/ABIS/

I think that ideas such as the Kimoto Gravity Well, if they would help people reduce the amount of difficulty it would take to participate in mining, for example, and then use their ordinary laptops and towers to participate in such endeavors, could be useful in bitcoin. I'm concerned about the impact of the hard fork as proposed on raising transaction fees and excluding or marginalizing many of the already and poor and marginalized people in the world, who perhaps now are in a position (through cell phone use) to begin to realize some of the benefits of bitcoin use and thus not have to bear the burden of traditional financial institution use for international transfers or "remesas familiares" for example when those in the States are sending money to those in Central or South America (just as one example). I am seriously concerned about the effect Gavin's proposal may have on many marginalized people and I don't think he has analyzed the social and economic effects of it on worldwide populations. His proposal has been more of a overview of what may happen from a coder's perspective, without the necessary full social and economic analysis I think is at this point necessary given the growth and size of the network. I read the links to Gavin's posts on his idea, but just not enough analysis there. Maybe a fuller social and economic analysis (by someone other than him - he could specify someone who would analyze his ideas so that there would be someone other than him doing this) would reveal that changes to the proposal would be helpful, or would be more inclusive of the poor or of those who are trying to envision or engage in microtransaction (economies at which necessarily the value of goods and services is at very low levels and the fees are at low levels, or amounts are being given routinely either as part of certain transactions or as part of any transaction and the tiny amounts being given are individually less than the fee amount, but cumulatively greater than a fee amount, and can be bundled and sent). Of course, the more that developers place pressure on poor and marginalized by structuring bitcoin so that the fee is going to be more expensive for users who want to use bitcoin for simple, small (tiny) and / or compassionate purposes, the less that people will want to use bitcoin except for purposes related to venture capital, and the more it will be tied to the banks, thus divorcing it from one of its original purposes: to liberate people from harmful institutions.

So I can't vote on the poll yet, but if I were to vote today I'd have to vote no. I will hold off voting on this poll though pending further analysis which I really think is necessary. I don't think there's any information though that is sufficient to make a determination to support a hard fork at this time for the reasons that I elaborated on in the prior paragraph. I suspect however that Gavin's proposal is not going to be supported or many changes would have to be made, but more than that: given the spread of bitcoin, major developer proposals now need at least social and economic analyses to be done by persons (econ. analysts) that are not the developers. The developers are good coders, but they are inclined towards their own proposals. They are not impartial.

Note / Disclosure:

I am running for Individual Director seat for the Bitcoin Foundation.
CryptoCoinsNews: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/colin-gallagher-bitcoin-foundation-elections/