Kvě 04

$500k Miner Fees Could See One Transaction Trigger Big Blocks

· May 4, 2017 · 5:00 pm

A $500,000 initiative to incentivize miners to upgrade Bitcoin’s block size has received substantial support on social media.


273 Bitcoins To Break The 1MB Mold

The so-called ‘Save the chain’ transaction, attached to which is 273.99971476 BTC in fees, is only mineable once nodes upgrade to include transactions over 1 megabyte in size.

Included are 99,940 zero-value anyone-can-spend outputs.

“This allows anyone, with zero trust required, to create a descendant transaction to add to the incentive for miners to increase the maximum block size limit,” Reddit user /u/SaveTheChain explained in introductory comments.

They continued:

This transaction is considered “non-standard” by most full node software. Therefore, miners need to customize their node software to mine this transaction. Additionally, nodes will not broadcast this transaction or any of its descendant transactions… For now, descendant transactions will need to be published by other means (such as a comment here).

A Counterpoint To Scaling Wars?

The latest user-generated cause to force a decision in the Bitcoin scaling debate comes as the cycle of infighting and insult-trading among well-known industry figures continues unabated.

This week saw former Bitcoin Core developer turned Bitcoin Unlimited proponent Gavin Andresen call Blockstream’s Greg Maxwell and Samson Mow “toxic trolls.”

Blockstream came in for further criticism from big block supporter Rick Falkvinge, the Swedish Pirate Party founder claiming the company’s support of SegWit was due to an interest in filing patents associated with the technology.

Maxwell and Blockstream founder Adam Back both subsequently denied Falkvinge’s accusations.

As Bitcoin continues to hit new record highs and commentators highlight strong underlying metrics such as investment, it appears the ongoing stalemate is affecting sentiment less and less.

Peter Rizun

SavetheChain’s most popular supporter meanwhile came in the form of Ledger Journal editor Peter Rizun, who described it as “awesome work” and wrote:

Now we need someone to make a website where people can submit children transactions with high miner fees, and the website can track the growing pot available to the miner (or miners) who includes them. It would be good publicity for the big-block cause.

Current statistics show a slight lead in miner support for Bitcoin Unlimited over Bitcoin Core, the two solutions receiving 38.3% and 35.9% respectively.

What do you think about SaveTheChain’s transaction offer? Let us know in the comments below!


Images courtesy of Twitter, AdobeStock

Show comments

Share
Úno 25

Chinese Mining Pool Lets Miners Weigh In on Bitcoin Core Vs. Bitcoin Classic Support

Source: bitcoin

Bitcoinist_Block Size Debate

The Bitcoin block size drama continues, as it has taken yet another interesting turn. Even though F2pool is considering removing their consensus support, the mining pool has also opened up their platform to feedback from individual miners regarding the 2MB block size increase. It is only due diligence to ask the opinion of the people who protect and secure the Bitcoin network every day.

Also read: BitLox: ‘Indestructible’ Hardware Bitcoin Wallet

F2Pool Asks The Miners What They Think

Despite the Bitcoin block size debate going on for quite some time now, hardly anyone has ever considered asking the miners what they think. Nearly all of the focus has been on the developers – from both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Classic – as well as the mining pool owners complaining how larger blocks will make their business a lot harder to manage.

All of that is fine and dandy, and those discussions need to take place at some point. But at the same time, a lot of people have lost track of which parties made to the Bitcoin network into what it is today, and those individuals are the miners. Without people mining Bitcoin, the network would become vulnerable, and no transactions would be processed. In fact, the entire ecosystem would grind to a halt.

F2Pool is the very first – and so far only – mining pool to ask the opinion of their miners as to how they feel about the 2MB block size increase. While some people may argue the miners will not be directly affected by a block size increase, the future of Bitcoin and its development is of the utmost importance to them as well.

Bitcoin community members and developers have commended F2Pool for taking this action while trying to push political agendas at the same time. It seems rather difficult to have a debate on the Bitcoin ecosystem without referring to either Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Classic software solutions these days.

Furthermore, it didn’t take long until people started spewing allegations as to how F2Pool is running Bitcoin Core and does not even offer Bitcoin Classic support right now. This is – allegedly – a clear hint as to how they see the future of Bitcoin and its development, which would directly influence the miners’ decision.

Roundtable Agreement Is Useless

While nearly all of the Bitcoin mining pools came to some consensus on the block size debate during a recent Roundtable meeting, it looks like things are starting to unravel fast. Not only is F2Pool threatening to remove their consensus support unless Blockstream and Adan Back come clean, but community members are questioning the legitimacy and usefulness of this agreement.

In the end, a roundtable agreement behind closed doors by a select few individuals holds no validity in the Bitcoin world. Majority consensus cannot be reached by enforcing a particular solution upon the people who make up this community. This story is far from over, and in the end, the community will have the final word, not the “chosen few” who think they can make every decision in this space.

What are your thoughts on F2Pool asking miners’ opinions? Will other pools follow by example? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Twitter

Images courtesy of Shutterstock

The post Chinese Mining Pool Lets Miners Weigh In on Bitcoin Core Vs. Bitcoin Classic Support appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Chinese Mining Pool Lets Miners Weigh In on Bitcoin Core Vs. Bitcoin Classic Support

Share
Led 18

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

Source: bitcoin

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

The Bitcoin block size debate has taken another interesting plot twist in the past few hours. F2Pool, one of the largest Chinese Bitcoin mining pools in the world, has announced they support the hard fork for an increased 2MB block size. While the post on BitcoinTalk is a weird translation from Chinese to English, it looks like F2Pool might be attempting to push people to accept the Bitcoin hard fork. Not a great move in the Bitcoin mining industry if this were to be the case.

Also read: Bitcoin A Perfect Tool To Offer Hacked TalkTalk Users A Form of Compensation

F2Pool Statement is Quite Worrying To Say The Last

Certain aspects of a statement can tend to get lost in translation, and Bitcoin community members can only hope this is the case regarding the post made by F2Pool on BitcoinTalk. The way things read right now, the Chinese mining pool is looking to accept the Bitcoin hard fork to up the block size to 2MB, and enforce that decision on the rest of the mining community as well.

It is not the first time F2Pool is causing a fair bit of controversy when it comes to the Bitcoin block size debate. One Reddit user pointed out how one of their representatives posted another statement about how zero-confirmations should be made as secure as possible, as the company does not believe in a fee market. Additionally, support for FSS-RBF will be dropped after upgrading to Bitcoin Core 0.12, a process that will take place over the next few weeks.

Needless to say, these statements are a reason for great concern in the Bitcoin community. With the block rewards not lasting forever, removing any transaction fees from the equation would provide less incentive for miners to support the network. While there are some people involved in Bitcoin mining for short-term profit, an ecosystem without transaction fees is not feasible in the long run.

There is no denying the ongoing Bitcoin block size debate will need to come to an end sooner rather than later. The issue has been plaguing the Bitcoin ecosystem for many months now, and there is still no solution in sight. A lot of community members seem to be for increasing the block size to 2MB, and a solution should come to fruition very soon.

Bitcoin Classic seems to hold all of the answers and solutions people have been looking for, including an increase to 2MB Bitcoin blocks. Furthermore, both Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik are onboard with this solution, giving Bitcoin Classic a more legitimate image. There is no need for any Bitcoin mining pool to force a hostile direction at this time, and F2Pool faces some serious questions that need answers.

Hard Fork For 2MB Seems Odd

With so many people in the Bitcoin ecosystem agreeing on increasing the block size to 2MB, forcing a hard fork right now seems like a dubious move. If F2Pool is planning to force the issue by employing a hard fork soon, another hard fork will need to follow for future block size increases. In the end, this creates a vicious loop of hard forks that could end up hurting the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anything.

By the look of things, the Bitcoin Core roadmap now includes a block size increase to 2MB as well, which would render part of the hard fork idea moot. However, there is still the issue of transaction fees versus no transaction fees to address in the near future. Anyone with half a brain can see why these minor fees are needed to keep the ecosystem going. The recent RC1 for a new Bitcoin Core version will change the way wallet fees are calculated, which opens up interesting opportunities.

What are your thoughts on this statement by F2Pool? Will they try to force a decision on the rest of the Bitcoin community? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Bitcointalk

Images courtesy of Bitcoin Belgie, Shutterstock

The post F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

F2Pool Statement Indicates Plan To Hard Fork 2MB Bitcoin Block Size

Share
Pro 30

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Source: bitcoin

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

As much as most people would like to think otherwise, the Bitcoin block size debate is far from over. Various new proposals have been suggested in the past, and another interesting concept was posted on Reddit earlier today. According to this user, a small block size increase should be done first, followed by the integration of Segregated Witness. Addressing the key issue as soon as possible should be the top priority for all Bitcoin developers.

Also read: Moe Levin on TNABC Miami 2016, Patrick Byrne Speaking This Year

Two Separate Block Size Solutions Combined Into One

Based on the findings of the Reddit in question, Segregated Witness should not be the first and foremost solution to settling the Bitcoin block size debate. The reason for this is simple: Segregated Witness would split block data into two streams, which will both be stored on the user’s hard disk. As a result, Bitcoin Nodes will still be dealing with an increased block size, making this less of a favorable solution for some users.

Even though the user strongly feels Segregated Witness has its merits, Bitcoin developers have been showing a level of hypocrisy when talking about this solution. When everything’s said and done, bandwidth and disk space requirements will still increase for all parties involved, albeit in slightly smaller sizes compared to other previous proposals. By addressing this solution as a “soft fork”, Bitcoin developers hope to sway the mind of community members into making this the preferred solution.

In addition, it looks like Segregated Witness is more about fixing the transaction malleability system than having to do with the Bitcoin block size debate. While it is important to address transaction malleability sooner rather than later, a solution has to be found to solve the block size debate at the same time, without resorting to the semantic game.

There is no reason a small block size increase can’t be done – it takes a minor alteration to the existing code – and implement Segregated Witness afterward. Keeping in mind how a small block size increase has nearly identical disk footprint requirements compared to segwit, and can be implemented in a much shorter time frame, this approach seems to have a certain merit.

Segregated Witness Needs To Be Tested And Vetted

Even though Segregated Witness is a valid solution, testing and vetting the code base will take weeks, if not months, to complete. Increasing the Bitcoin block size itself is a more pressing matter, as this issue has been kicked around for far too long already. Increasing the block size soonish, and implementing segwit after the vetting process seems to be a smart approach.

Based on the Reddit feedback so far, a lot of Bitcoin community members see the benefits of this two-pronged approach. After all, decisions like these rely on reaching consensus among the bitcoin community. Whether or not the Bitcoin developers will keep this proposal in mind, remains to be seen, though.

What are your thoughts on this block size proposal? Are you in favor of doing things in two different phases? Let us know in the comments below!

Source: Reddit

Images courtesy of Shutterstock, Peak Usability

The post Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal appeared first on Bitcoinist.net.

Solving The Bitcoin Block Size Debate With A Two-Pronged Proposal

Share