But now (or Soon) is not the right time. We need studies, simulations, and (most importantly) actual empirical feedback from persistent full blocks to best determine how and when to proceed with altering the 1mb parameter.
Wrong. We already know it will be a clusterfuck.
I venture my opinion from 30 years experience in IT, when it appears that you have zilch and should just speak to what you know about (Monero? Hashfast?)
I really think there is a fast and simple constraint on UTXO bloat which can be done
You fixed the UXTO bloat? That great! Now show us the code so Wlad can test/pull it.
Oh wait, does your constraint require a hard fork? If it does, good luck getting it past the neo-royalist reactionaries of #bitcoin-assets (aka MP personality cult).
So you are an old fart like cypher. Big effing deal. In 10 years, I'll have 30 years of experience in IT. Drink an Ensure and change your Depends grandpa, because I'm not going to turn down my dubstep nor get off your lawn.
Nobody cares how many floppies you formatted or copies of Windows you installed in the 80s. You are new here, Mr. 2013 Registration Date.
You're not just calling me wrong, you're also second-guessing gmax, pwuille, petertodd, and jgarzik (among others):
Quote
Gavin is the only committer to Bitcoin core who supports this particular proposal at this time. The rest of us have significant concerns about the impact on the security and the decentralization of the network; and potentially some process concerns.
You may not have heard these concerns because as you may note that this isn't a proposal tendered to bitcoin-development; it's being taken directly to the general public; which isn't necessarily inappropriate as it has significant consequences for everyone who uses and holds Bitcoin and what form the future of Bitcoin will take. Unfortunately, these tradeoffs haven't yet been well communicated.
-nullc [gmaxwell]
You may not have heard these concerns because as you may note that this isn't a proposal tendered to bitcoin-development; it's being taken directly to the general public; which isn't necessarily inappropriate as it has significant consequences for everyone who uses and holds Bitcoin and what form the future of Bitcoin will take. Unfortunately, these tradeoffs haven't yet been well communicated.
-nullc [gmaxwell]
I would ask how your "30 years in IT" stack (sorry for IT pun) up against their pedigrees/resumes, but I don't want to embarrass you any more than necessary.
Waiting for >1 block to get a confirmation is not a "clusterfuck" unless you are (mis/mal)construing and (mis/mal)applying Bitcoin to be some kind of real-time POS system.
Bigger systems run slower; slow water runs deep. That's why ACH and other "wire" transfers take days or weeks to settle.
We Knights of Satoshi will not comply with your histrionic 'faster please' demands to fix Bitcoin until it breaks.
This "clusterfuck" is entirely self-imposed by Gavin. It is a manufactured crisis. We will resist all efforts, whether internal or external, destroy Bitcoin in order to save it from some imaginary doom, no matter the source or how loud the deafening clamor of the peanut gallery.
We will not give in to your politics of fear and parade of hobgoblins.
We will not be stampeded into premature hard forks because the pointy-haired boss and his mob of Redditard sycophants demands Action Now.
Gavin's absurd call for <10 minute blocks indicates he has been (internally and/or externally) compromised. You would do well to abandon that ship (and its fanboys) before it sinks...