Why We Must Increase the Block Size and Why I Support Bitcoin Unlimited

Okay let’s start :

“ It is my belief that the decision of which software to run is the responsibility of the mining pools and that waiting for the miners or the bitcoin developers to decide the course of action for the network is incorrect. “ — Hum, I would say that it’s more the 3 of them + the users.

“ I also intentionally disabled Bitcoin Unlimited’s default signalling for BIP109 because we do not believe that BIP109 is the correct solution towards changing the block size. “ — At least we agree on something.

“ From the moment ViaBTC mined our first Bitcoin Unlimited block there has been an overwhelmingly large reaction from within the bitcoin community: most have been supportive; “ — If you consider that /r/btc represent the whole Bitcoin community yes it’s pretty supportive obv.

“ Very simply put: if the block size is not increased then bitcoin’s growth will have halted at the level of adoption it is at today and bitcoin may as well be considered a failed experiment. “ — There is more thing than just the blocksize you could change.

“ If mining ceases to be a profitable enterprise, and it will if we do not allow conditions which enable more on-chain transactions to occur, the network will lose the enormous amount of computing power that keeps it secure from attackers. “ — Why will it ceases to be a profitable enterprise ? If the price stay the same, if you are profitable today, you will be tomorrow. And if you are not, leave Bitcoin mining, others will take your place don’t worry.

“ The activation of SegWit on the network does not mean that all users of bitcoin will immediately be able to take advantage of its benefits since it will require at least a year for the “effective block size” to increase to 1.7MB. “ — A lot of wallet work on implementation of SW or they have it ready so nop.

“ First of all, the actual use cases for Lightning Network are fairly limited. Ask yourself why people use bitcoin: is it because they want fast confirmation times; or, is it because they want to use a decentralized money that is not controlled by any one organization? “ — Ok why do you complain about the blocksize and fees if you use it only because it’s not controlled by any organization.

“ To hard-code on the protocol level whether blocks should be large or small is fruitless and will lead to even more conflicts down the road. “ — Yeah a second point on which we agree on :champagne:

“ Bitcoin Unlimited’s decision to hand over a block size limit setting to the miners guarantees that block size will follow what the bitcoin network is capable of handling safely. “ — Miners have enough power. We should not give them more power. But you are a miner, so not surprising that you want more power.

“ The greatest danger of a hard fork, it is said, is that it will produce a scenario in which there are two blockchains and thus two different versions of bitcoin. […] “ — It’s one of the danger but it’s not the only one.

“ If the consensus threshold is set too high then reaching consensus will be unattainable, as a single determined mining pool could veto a change for the entire network. “ — That’s some nice quality trolling. Because it’s exactly what you are planning to do with SW. So you don’t want to set the consensus threshold to be set too high because you don’t want your plans to be destroy by someone that act like you. Smart ass.

“ This will give the community ample time to upgrade their node software in preparation. “ — Oh yeah one month is enough yep. Small exemple : The 0.13 version of Bitcoin Core was released the 28 August. And only 30% of the nodes upgrade to it. More than 40% of the nodes still run old version of Bitcoin Core. ( I let you count how many days are between the 28 August and today, and you will see that 1 month is not enough )

I think that’s it for now.