I have not read through the full tread but is there a summary of the core developer's positions on this matter?
This is a troll thread. I doubt any core devs participated in any of these 130+ pages. There have been other threads that resolved this long ago. The cool thing is that they continue to improve the solutions beyond expectations. This thread will only end when MP stops paying his shills.MP is not paying me.
Why so eager to denigrate this thread? Why so hasty to claim victory and declare the issue "resolved?"
As if on cue, Gavin suddenly participates, making you wrong once again.
I spent last week talking to some of the largest Bitcoin businesses (much bigger than Paymium/Bitcoin-Central or anything anybody in #bitcoin-assets is involved with), and they all want the maximum block size to increase.
The poll in this thread says people support it by a three-to-one margin.
It is going to happen sooner or later. I want it to happen sooner because Very Bad Things will happen if we get to 100% full 1MB blocks:
The poll in this thread says people support it by a three-to-one margin.
It is going to happen sooner or later. I want it to happen sooner because Very Bad Things will happen if we get to 100% full 1MB blocks:
"Very Bad Things?" How nice that our lead dev doesn't believe in BTC's antifragility and subscribes to the 'fix the endangered delicate flower until it breaks' paradigm.
Thanks for confirming my suspicion BloatCoin is being driven by short-sighted VC avarice, which fervently desires Bitcoin usage at every Starbucks, McDonalds, and gas station in order to fulfill its retail POS fetish.
There is no "three-to-one" margin. You don't get to claim agnostic/DGAF as votes to affirm your silly fork, which actually only enjoys 60% support against the negative/status quo default presumption.
In fairness to our code-monkey overlords, most of them are on the right side of this issue:
Quote
sipa → i'm generally in favor of a larger blocksize, but only under the condition that there is a proposal that has extremely wide consensus
wumpus → I'm still not convinced we require a larger blocksize yet
Luke-Jr → wumpus: we definitely don't yet - but it's probably something to be thinking about
gavinandresen → wumpus: how full do blocks need to be before you think we need a hardfork?
wumpus → gavinandresen: all of them full, and a backlog of serious (not spammy) transactions
gmaxwell → gavinandresen: First stop pretending that there actually is consensus or that this is easy and safe. We couldn't even manage to get BIP34 right without two somewhat ugly unexpected effects (we burned the most significant bit of the block version number; and the switchover criteria we implemented wasn't actually the criteria described in the BIP)
wumpus → I'm still not convinced we require a larger blocksize yet
Luke-Jr → wumpus: we definitely don't yet - but it's probably something to be thinking about
gavinandresen → wumpus: how full do blocks need to be before you think we need a hardfork?
wumpus → gavinandresen: all of them full, and a backlog of serious (not spammy) transactions
gmaxwell → gavinandresen: First stop pretending that there actually is consensus or that this is easy and safe. We couldn't even manage to get BIP34 right without two somewhat ugly unexpected effects (we burned the most significant bit of the block version number; and the switchover criteria we implemented wasn't actually the criteria described in the BIP)
Source.
gmaxwell is absolutely correct. You are pretending a consensus exists and in denial of the fact there will be known and unknown trade-offs/risks. You don't get 20MB++ blocks for free. There must be a cost, although no benefit is guaranteed.