0
11

[–] Uma_Thurman 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

I've been developing software professionally for over 20 years. These kinds of debates have raged since the first program was written.

The crux of it is, what is more important - the usefulness of the software or it's purity? By purity, I mean don't do anything that isn't a perfect long-term solution.

Yeah, bigger blocks are a short-term solution. But it's a realistic stop-gap that buys more time while we wait for the perfect solution. If, and when, a better solution is available, I'm all for it. But it doesn't exist. And those that advocate waiting for it and letting bitcoin fees rise in the meantime are unrealistic and ultimately doomed to face real-world consequences.

0
10

[–] DanielTaylor 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

I'm in favor of bigger blocks because I don't want fees to raise. High fees would only push transactions off-chain towards centralized payment processors.

0
7

[–] Grundy 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm inclined to agree, especially since it seems that the limit was intended by bitcoin's designer to be temporary from the beginning.

For those too lazy to read the article, incidentally, the fork is the one that is allowing bigger blocks and is called Bitcoin XT. The version that kept the block size limit seems to now be referred to as Bitcoin Core.

0
3

[–] e0steven 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

As someone totally new'ish to Bitcoin, but a pretty experienced dev this happens all the time. Echo'ing another comment in this thread alluded to the same. I think the 'worst' bit about this whole thing is if XT fails it puts Bitcoin core in the hands of only a few devs that apparently don't give two shits about users.

0
2

[–] purr 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is an interesting article and now it's leading me to read a bunch of other material on this issue. Thanks for the post.

0
1

[–] MonitoredCitizen 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

As a software developer with some experience in implementing cryptographic protocols, I know that you don't make even the slightest change to a system that is based on cryptography without a considerable amount of peer review and agreement on those changes. I have my head around neither the details nor the ramifications of the changes to the blocksize that an apparently small group of bitcoin movers and shakers appear to be pushing with some urgency, and between seeing every public discussion that I've run across about it being about drama and political infighting rather than technical details and the fact that numerous instances of bitcoin escrow and banking systems have resulted in people absconding with millions of dollars makes me back away slowly from the entire thing. I won't be risking any money on bitcoin until this stuff settles out. It has also occurred to me that that is precisely the reaction that some group is striving to induce.

0
0

[–] alexbuzzbee 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Moving to XT. If XT dies, I'll move to Litecoin or Dogecoin.