Bitcoin Core, please do make it 4 real Mega Byte blocks.

in bitcoin •  7 years ago  (edited)

And make it so in october 2017.

Let all clones go into oblivion, with one simple fork.

Make SegWit a real big hit.

This is call out to the Bitcoin Core developers to learn from what has happened lately. To prevent yet another clone from disturbing the field. If this were to be a poker game, I'd say this is higher than a straigh flush, this is a five of a kind chance! Dear developers, you now have SegWit, cheers, and without knowing it maybe, you have the wildcard in your hand. But you have to play it fast now, because november is closing in and many are fed up with yet another clone threatening the winning race. It can be done, the best of all Bitcoin worlds, in one Core! And the satellites still can stream the Bitcoin blockchain down fast enough, or can it not? If not, rent better satellites then!

If there is a plan to do it 2 MB in november, as a clone, again, then just make it 4 MB in october. The Chinese clone version of ViaBTC and Bitmain showed that they can really disturb the Bitcoin field. The Cash split is going to slowly fade out, at least that is what I see in the numbers and figures. But that was quite some heavy investment attack going on there. Luckily the cryptocurrency market did keep its head clear as it saw the clone for what it was: holding virtual value. But a lot of Altcoin owners did sell and bought into the bluf. Still, that is buying all the hype and getting caught in the FOMO {Fear Of Missing Out}. A lot of crypto fans have been there. Do not even get me started about all those fake ICOs that are advertising right now...

Yet, now is the time for Bitcoin Core to make this one brilliant move. As Cash is slowly fading out, losing more and more miners, again, dropping in value, getting lower 24 hour trade volumes, it sings the song of a dying swan. Do not tell me I have not been open about why BCH is a dying clone, that did not succeed in its investment attack on Bitcoin {BTC}. But I also am convinced that it is now the time to make a drastic and bold move. In chess it would be called Check-Mate, in poker it would be holding the joker as a wildcard and having four aces with that. It is plain and simple. The joker, wildcard, is SegWit activated, now the other four Aces are 4 Mega Byte blocks.

It is a lot of lines in code?

Well, no, it is in a file called main.h in the Slothcoin code for instance as:
/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */ static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Now, where you see MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000; It should be changed to: 4194304. So it becomes:

/** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */ static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 4194304;

There are a few other lines that will need to be changed, like the version number of this Bitcoin Core hardfork. Yes, this then will be a true hardfork. Just to be done with the attack of the clones. Why, well, normal Bitcoin, the real BTC deal, with have 4MB blocks available. So, the transactions on hold will be gone in no time. It can not kick in at once, to it will need a certain block to activate. But, miners knowing that there will be bigger blocks will be really happy to support the real deal. And the cryptocurrency market will reward this using the joker wildcard as a brilliant move. And when you thought 5000 was a ceiling that would hold for a while...? But, only if this gets done the right way, get this five-of-a-kind in hand. Make this the check mate move Bitcoin Core!

Wind out off the sails.

There is a strategy in sailing where a boat moves into a position where the competitors lose wind. In the case of countering the investment attacks by the Bitcoin blockchain clones this would mean just making 4 MB blocks real. SegWit then would take that to 8 MB and even possible to 16 MB. By optimizing transactions and with sidechains things will really start to take off. It is the best of all possible Bitcoin worlds and it can be done in Core. It is 5 to midnight though and there is this opportunity, to knock all this clone shait out off the field with one big blow. It is a dirty job, but it has to be done. The turds are clogging up the drains, there is really no other way for me to state this any different any more.

Let the Bitcoin realm become one again, let it be one strong Core, with SegWit and with 4 MB blocks. It can be done, now let's do this! Dang, investment attackers out off the field, be gone attack of the clones, BTC through the 10K ceiling! Play the joker, five of a kind, move the queen to check-mate position, sail to wind down position.

Ooh for goodness sakes, stop funnying about and get that 4 MB Max blocksize done!

Have a great one!


Come on now CORE, it is just a few lines of code!

screenshot 'slothcoin main.h code' cc-by-sa @oaldamster

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

I am pretty sure if you post that on r/bitcoin you will get banned. I mean they are even asking if they shouldn't reduce the block size now.

This makes me wonder what do they actually want with bitcoin! Security? Mass adoption? Scalability? It's just messed up now.

Well, I'll just stick to this platform for now.

It, is a thought that I guess has to do with SegWit and sidechains. As part of the load will move from the mainchain to the sidechains. But to me that is a strange assumption.

With #SegWit and #sidechains Bitcoin will become more increasingly used, that means the #mainchain too. Much traffic between the sidechains and the mainchain, and also a lot of transactions that are basicly on the mainchain.

It sounds like some belief in degression for Bitcoin, yet I am convinced there will be a need for bigger blocks in the mainchain. It will be about moving that one forward too. As large amounts of value will still be moved about in a growing amount of transactions on the mainchain.

Smaller blocks for me that would be a very strange developement...

I would love a world where people decide what they are going to use, but it is foolish to assume they will understand what it means and decide to use sidechain or the main chain.

Personally, I still have the naive view that we should stick to chain (hence bigger blocks) than what the whole space is promoting right now, a sort of decentralized centralization if I may call it that way.

For me an and solution could be good. Some things will best work on a mainstream, with blocksize of 4 MB. While I see a sidechain function for things like tips, that just would not function well on a mainchain.

We'll see what the future brings, hope it will be good

Is this post a joke or what? :-)

Anyway, the small-blockers are very much against a "contentious hard fork" (... or so they say. Nevermind that the contentious BIP148 would have been a total disaster if it wasn't "rescued" by SegWit2X, nevermind that sticking to the 1MB block size may to be the most contentious move in November).

Why is the 2X-hardfork contentious? Only one reason ... the small-blockers define it as such.

The obvious solution would be for Core to implement the 2MB-blocks size limit.

I feel like core capitalised too much on BIP 148 without doing much on it then start to fud the 2X part. I could not see a better trade-off than putting segwit + bigger blocks and let the ecosystem decide.

This is getting really tiresome.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

For several years, the small-blockers have been blocking any prospect of increasing the block size limit by saying over and over again: "we can't have a contentious hard fork, because it could cause a harmful chain split" (nevermind that such a hard fork easily would be non-contentious if the small-blockers would have just stopped calling it contentious). "Scaling Bitcoin"-conferences were held by the small-blockers, but any solutions involving a block size increase was off the table. Eventually, SegWit was introduced as the miracle fix that would allow 4 MB blocks through a harmless soft-fork!

Outside the small-block circle, the enthusiasm for SegWit was low, and miners were inclined to rather go for a simple block size limit increase through Bitcoin Unlimited. Then came the Hong Kong roundtable agreement, a compromise where the miners essentially said: "ok, we'll give you segwit if you will promise to increase the block size". Shortly after the agreement was signed, the small-blockers basically responded with: "those well-meaning dipshits that signed it is in no position to decide for Bitcoin Core".

The small-blockers went on chirping "we can't have a contentious hard fork, because it could cause a harmful chain split". When a mere 25% of the miners were signalling for segwit, they went: "some few evil miners are vetoing the SegWit upgrade, depriving us from our long-waited upgrade and causing high fees" - and eventually "Let's force SegWit through - come on, let's support BIP-148, the only safe network upgrade!". That's just insane, BIP-148 would have been a total and utter disaster with a 100% probability of creating a bad chain split if it wouldn't have been for the SegWit2X initiative.

SegWit was hailed as the only safe, fast and efficient way of raising the capacity. Over and over again it was reiterated that the SegWit proposal actually was involving a block size increase, and that almost all the ecosystem was ready for segwit and eagerly waiting for it - while opponents was saying that it would take very long time for segwit to de-facto cause any meaningful capacity increases.

With SegWit2X, miners basically said ... "You can still have your SegWit, but only if we get bigger blocks". Eventually, we got SegWit lock-in due to the SegWit2X initiative, and the small-blockers went all quiet for a while ... all until 1st of August: "Hooray for BIP-148! It activated without a hitch! We successfully managed to force the miners to adopt SegWit!". Quickly followed by: "Some evil bitches are trying to force through a contentious hard-fork, we need to stop this!".

SegWit was activated, apparently nobody except Peter Wuille was ready for it, a week after activation there still seems to exist no wallet that can easily generate segwit-addresses for the end-users. Some few SegWit-blocks have indeed been produced exceeding the old 1MB limit ... with some few bytes! Of course the small-blockers are now chirping: "Rome wasn't built in one day ... give SegWit some more time, and it will give the promised capacity boost"

Maybe Bitcoin should learn to hardfork (remember someone saying in a talk that it was just a software upgrade). I don't now why I am still going on reddit because there is no discussions anymore. Worst, Twitter is the best place to get insulted for no reason.

It is because of Bitcoin that we have this thing about blockchain governance. If not, we would have focused on other problem.

At this point I don't know what to expect at all.

It is getting tiresome indeed...

Well, I did want to have a laugh too. ;-)

That is such an unrealistic idea, well, at least I think so, that it will be a hardfork after a hardfork and so on. This is simply a practical solution and is also kicking out the threat of another clown, eurm, clone attack. Win-win as far as I see. Never heard of anything being a static solution ever.

For me it is that if a blocksize of 2MB is considered needed, then 4 MB would be a smart way of being ready for the longer term. In combination with SegWit, sidechains, crosschaining with Litecoin and so on, this would be a winning hand.

So, not even go for 2 as far as I am concerned, go for 4, right away, move forward.

Hey @oaldamster,
Exactly. This is the right call. We see it like you have written here.
It's really 5 min before midnight.
And it's the right job.
We hope they see it and they will make it.
@zeuss11 {and many many others}

Thank you @zeuss11 for your support! And I do indeed think that there are a lot within the Bitcoin realm that are okay with SegWit and also would like to see block size increase.

And when I see the name of Adam Back, the inventor of HashCash, back in 1997(!), connected to Bitcoin Core, then I think there will be a surprise ahead...

Bitcoin is community-driven project, can't stop crazy people from forking off...
Building moon base isn't easy, next stop Mars!

You are right about the forking off part I think. And I do like your analogy!

Next stop, Mars! :-)

Engage!!

Couldn't resist with make it so as your starting sentence. Big blocks are good. I think this would be a fine thing. You called it right in bcc from the start!

Hahaha, it had to be done mate! This post was screaming it all the way when I was thinking about it. It is an enterprise where we need some kind of JLP standing up within the Core realm calling out to lay in that course.

It is the final frontier. These are the voyages of the blockchain Bitcoin, to boldy go where no Core has gone before.

Warp speed ahead Mr. Boom! ;-)

We definittely need JLP's cool head and ability to steer us out of danger!

Warp speed @oaldamster!! :O)

Engage! =D

Upvoted and RESTEEMED :]

Thank you!

You are going to be disappointed.

If you read r/bitcoin you can see that they don't even want to go 2mg in November, they're fighting to stay as they are. Of course that will provoke yet another contentious fork, but the players are now so locked into their positions they can't see the damage they are doing.

Now I will stay away from there myself. Would only get frustrated if I read that.

It all seems so unrealistic to me. If the chance is there to raise the blocksize. Then I would really consider it at 4MB.

Now those who are in their own part of the realm apparantly do not get they are just asking for yet another clone attack this way...?

You're a superstar!

Hey @oaldamster,
Exactly. This is the right call. We see it like you have written here.
It's really 5 min before midnight.
And it's the right job.
We hope they see it and they will make it.
@zeuss11 {and many many others}

We'll see how it will move on. Another clone seems not like a good idea to me. Time will tell.

ok

I like your post @oaldamster ...Blessings

Thank you @andrewramdas, bless you too.

Great post

Thank you.

Awesome !!!
I read it thoroughly,I got drenched into it,
Its really a GREAT POST.....enjoyed it.
Every time i see your posts i get delighted,they are just awesome,keep it up :) good luck and
dont forget to upvote back