Thank you!

Exactly what I would do, raise the block limit to kill doge, eth, Solana, trx and every other major altcoin.



Change is "hard", by itself, there is a reason why many major projects today still rely on Fortran libraries, a language that is nearly 70 years old (probably older than 99% of forum members), you can still get a decent high-paying job knowing Fortran, there is also a reason why many of these multi-billion projects still use old un-optimized code that works, change is certainly hard and the outcome could be terrible if one thing goes south, heck, there is a known difficulty bug that doesn't take into account the duration it takes to solve the first block of every epoch, it has been there since the first client Satoshi wrote, and nobody bothered fixing it, because it ends in a hard-fork.

If you ask the average IT manager how they feel when they touch one tiny group policy you will understand that change is indeed hard, so ya, let's not make it seem like it's a matter of dev cores performing a double-click and wala! block size is now 100MB with nothing broken along the way.

With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.

But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic  ), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase,  Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?

It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.

Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?

Could satoshi imagine that instead of revolutionizing and developing cryptocurrency world, we would upload and sell dumb ape images on Bitcoin blockchain?

You have to keep in mind that sometimes when a few blocks are mined in a row, i.e. one block mined right now, second block mined 2 minutes later, the third block mined 4 minutes later and so on, instead of one block in a ten minutes, fees suddenly fall. When a new block hasn't been mined for 40 minutes or 50 minutes, many people make transactions with higher fees or use RBF feature with the hope of getting it confirmed because not everyone watches mempool.space every time. Delayed blocks cause sudden rise in transaction fees and then fresh mined block quickly lowers the fees. You have to keep in mind all of these for more accurate picture.

Convince people by words? Well, ordinals or pools or mining team can convince developers more by giving them a bribe.

Not sure if this was meant to be an argument or a joke, please elaborate.


How did you conclude that i forget what block size is? I literally mentioned that in my previous post , but ya anyway, blocks have been capped at 4MB long before taproot, you could construct a block that large without taproot, it would just have to be a weird combination of transactions, but ya again, not sure what is the point of bringing this up.




Mining pools enforce the code, they have more power than core devs, pools can use other client versions or even the same core version modified to thier wants and they would sustain it, core devs can't do shit without majority pool support.

But as i said in my last post, it is easier and more natural for core devs to propose the change and not the opposite, and ya its possible that some devs are biased due to some personal benefits

But there is a 5 pages context to that part you quoted, not sure why would you qoute a tiny portion of a huge context, but ya, anyway.

 
Yes, using 1980s standards it is pretty big.


I never said I wanted big blocks, I said if I MUST take the action i would only raise blocksize big enough to kill alts not to compete with visa, but then again this argument of " if you want big blocks go to BCH or BSV" is pretty naive, honestly.

I assume, most of you saying this would be repeating the same stuff if the larger block blockchain was longer and kept btc ticker on all exchanges, you would be asking the small blockers to go use BCH if they wanted small blocks.

The way I see it is that most people don't even care about blocksize, they just want that version of bitcoin that exchanges call btc and is worth 40k, be it 4MB or 40MB makes no difference to the majority.

I wonder what would be the excuse when btc blocks are raised some point in the future, are you going to still say it is bad solution and ditch bitcoin or you will accept it?

 
Really? Then why segwit? Why did blocks go from 1MB to 4MB if bigger blocks are a bad solution?

When someone suggests migrating to another protocol, you promptly dismiss the idea, recognizing that no other network can rival the consensus at that scale. That is the best selling point, and probably why you're here in the first place no matter how you perceive "utility". But, in my opinion, the mature choice is to do migrate. That is a feature of decentralized systems, not a bug. If you don't make usage of it, you deceive yourself. You have the opportunity to join a network that aligns with your perspectives but instead choose to complain about being told what to do.

You can't have both harmony and everyone happy. You either accept the compromises of a harmony, or you find yourself unsuitable to this network under these conditions, and leave.

So short break, back to what this topic was about:



And with this if your plan on saving a few satoshi was to send a 20sat/b fee and then accelerate it with Viabtc
- Viabtc is getting overcrowded by both and legit users and bots
- Viabtc is losing the hashwar right now, less blocks on average per day and they start pausing free tx if they haven't hit a block in 6 hours
(they had 11% over 3 months but only 9% over the last 7 days)
- Nodes are dropping even 20sat/b fees so you might want to connect to larger nodes before you broadcast it

And, on top of all:
- it's Saturday so weekend time
- it's two days before the new year so like almost everything is closed

Based on what's happening now, if the ordi fomo doesn't end miraculously starting with the 8th of January we're going to see some really nasty shit!

It sounds fair. If you don't want to wait in the line, you don't push everyone, or tell the doorman to ignore the people in front of you. You just choose to go in a place that is less crowded.

Then you have completely misinterpreted me. I'm pinpointing exactly that; Bitcoin, as a network, is not owned by anyone. If you look closely, it functions as a tool that caters to individual preferences. But, if you zoom out, it becomes apparent that this accomplishment would be impossible without a collective effort.

You do possess the right to advocate for change. What you lack is the authority to impose your changes on others. If you are unable to effect change in Bitcoin, the responsibility lies with you for not being persuasive enough.

People who moved to Bitcoin Cash did it. They realized the nature of Bitcoin is being permissionless, forked off the network, raised the middle finger and made Bitcoin Cash. Yet, you (plural) are here, complaining why Bitcoin does not have big blocks.

I don't understand why people equate the influence of an "average person" with a Core developer.

First things first, an average person does not code. Demanding change, and doing change differentiate on the action part. And allow me to argue that doing change is exponentially more impactful than demanding it as if you're a customer in a store; you're not. This is free software. People are freely writing software, oriented towards their beliefs. Most of Bitcoin Core developers have clearly a liking on second layer solutions. Some others did not share the same vision, and migrated to working on other protocols. They are not obligated to align with our choices; rather, we are tasked with evaluating whether we find the conditions of a network agreeable and choosing to align with them.

Secondly, whom would you trust more? A random stranger on the Internet who wants to tell developers what to do, or an actual developer who has been working on Bitcoin since its inception? I'll take the latter, thanks. I obviously trust the actions taken by someone who has devoted their entire life on studying and writing software, and who is closer to the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anyone else.

If we stick to this notion of "you dislike how things currently operate, you go else where" this means there is nothing more to discuss on bitcoin, we use it as is, and wait for everyone to be a millionaire.


But people talking about big blocks are not trying to impose anything, they know neither you nor them can change the rules, they are just having a conversation, you should stick to debating the pros and cons or ignore them, telling them to move else where is the textbook definition of " this is my blockchain, you are not allowed to oppose shit".

Those are discussing an ongoing "issue" in Bitcoin , telling them to go use BSV as if you think they don't know that already is pretty funny, again you here is plural (English sucks where everyone is referred by "you" )



How do you know? What if I point to a person who is a better coder than the average core dev and still wants bigger blocks? Did you not say it is a free world and every voice counts? Why is it suddenly Luke's voice is more important than stompy?


I would trust stompix over Luke every day of the week, because despite the former not being a part of the core team, he does not propose censorship and writes a bunch of b.s on thier pool page, or tell people it is not okay to store arbitrary data on the blockchain when he himself stores his catholic prayers on the blockchain.

Also, I am not saying their impact are equal, of course not, but they should both be treated equally, people will accept everything core throws at them, but when someone else says anything it is always "go away, use xyz coin, your opinion js stupid unless core devs propose it"

Now let me ask you a question, if theymos  started a thread suggesting "bigger blocks", would you or anyone else tell him to "go use BSV"?  

What if it was Greg Maxwell?

Do you honestly think 4MB blocks is enough and that we should not go above them?


I disagree, just because many people blindly worship core devs does not mean core devs are bad, i think for the most part they are genuine people who want whats best for bitcoin, and then among them will be people are somewhat biased due to whatever personal reasons they have.

But again, blocks have not increased in size isn't the sole responsibility for core team, as i said again, if a few large pools and exchanges wanted to increase it, core will have to follow, it just seems like the majority of the powerful entities have no issue with how bitcoin currently is, and I agree with them, i do not see the need for a change now given how I view and treat bitcoin.

If everyone else opt-in for larger blocks and core rejects (which they can't anyway) then we can blame them, until then, everyone seems happy about it except a few dozen folks.

Would you consider it censorship to make it impossible to carry out a transaction where the fee is higher than the overall sum (which would mechanically prevent BRC20 inscriptions) ?