Sentences with phrase «block size limit increase hard»

After Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic, this was the third alternative protocol implementation designed to trigger a block size limit increase hard fork.

a block size limit increase hard fork as part of the deal for activation.

Segments of the Bitcoin community, and in particular some major miners, opposed the upgrade or wanted a block size limit increase hard fork as part of the deal for activation.

However, some proponents of a block size limit increase hard fork (and opponents of SegWit) also launched Bitcoin Cash in response.

In an interview with Bitcoin Magazine published last week, ViaBTC CEO Haipo Yang explained he will reject the proposed soft fork in favor of a block size limit increase hard fork.

Last year, Slush Pool was the first pool to also offer their hashers a chance to indicate preference on a potential block size limit increase hard fork.

The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the meeting agreed to work on a block size limit increase hard fork to be proposed to the Bitcoin Core development team and the wider Bitcoin community.

Not exact matches

that covered this issue briefly, the hard fork rules established by Bitcoin XT was an increase in the block size from the limit (still in effect) of 1 MB to 8 MB.

According to another Howtotoken article that covered this issue briefly, the hard fork rules established by Bitcoin XT was an increase in the block size from the limit (still in effect) of 1 MB to 8 MB.

The SegWit2x, an increase of Bitcoin's block size limit to 2 MB (that isn't backward compatible and can only be applied as a hard fork)

Bloq economist Paul Sztorc publicly shared a solution to this issue all the way back in 2015 when the main proposal for a hard - forking increase to the block size limit was found in the Bitcoin XT software client from developers Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen.

In the current environment, developers expect that an increase to the block size limit via a hard fork is unlikely to be merged into Bitcoin Core.

Support for Bitcoin Classic, which intends to deploy a block size limit increase to 2 megabytes via a hard fork, currently sits around 5 percent of the network hashrate, and representatives from the vast majority of Bitcoin miners and mining pools have no intention of breaking the previous agreement to run only Bitcoin Core software for the foreseeable future.

Segwit2x is a hybrid of the solutions proposed above: It implements SegWit followed six months later by a hard fork increase in the block size limit from 1 to 2 MB.

Bitmain in particular has explicitly stated their refusal to implement SegWit if it's not combined with a hard fork increase of the block size limit, and its pools — which include the BTC.com mining pool — have enough signaling power to block SegWit's activation.

And if the original block size limit is increased through a hard fork at some point in the future, this risk multiplyer will probably remain.

Bitmain co-CEO Jihan Wu, in particular, indicated he would only be willing to activate SegWit if the Bitcoin Core development team also implemented a hard fork to increase the block size limit in their codebase.

Bloq economist Paul Sztorc publicly shared a solution to this issue all the way back in 2015 when the main proposal for a hard - forking increase to the block size limit was found in the Bitcoin XT software client from developers Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen.

Rather than a Segregated Witness soft fork, the recently launched alternative Bitcoin implementation Bitcoin Classic plans to increase Bitcoin's block size limit to 2 megabytes through a hard fork, meaning all full nodes on the network need to upgrade synchronously.

Some proponents of a block size limit increase, however, prefer a hard fork to increase the block size limit instead.

Bitmain (and subsidiary AntPool) demand a hard fork block size limit increase in return for SegWit activation.

It also suggests that a hard fork to further increase the block size limit could be needed in the future, though it does not specify a specific point in time.

Former Bitcoin Core lead developer Gavin Andresen and Bitcoinj lead developer Mike Hearn, in particular, believed that Bitcoin's 1 megabyte block size limit should be increased with a hard fork, an incompatible protocol change that would require almost the entire Bitcoin ecosystem to upgrade.

Another software client to increase Bitcoin's block size limit per hard fork, Bitcoin Unlimited gained traction among Bitcoin's mining community.

Rather than a Segregated Witness soft fork, Bitcoin Classic prefers to deploy a «cleaner» hard fork in order to increase the block size limit to 2 megabytes.

Dorier does believe the block size limit will need to be increased through a hard fork a bit further down the road.

Where Bitcoin XT, Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited all attempt to increase Bitcoin's block size limit with a hard fork, and Bitcoin Core developers prefer a Segregated Witness soft fork (SegWit), Purse CEO Andrew Lee announced a third approach: extension blocks.

This hard fork aims at increase the block size limit allowing for more and faster transactions to take place on the network.

In the interview, Pair noted that BitPay understands the concerns around implementing a hard - forking increase to the block size limit, but he also added that SegWit2x is the best option for scaling available right now.

Two attempts to increase Bitcoin's block size limit via hard forks — Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic — have failed to gain much support in terms of network hashrate, but early bitcoin advocate and angel investor Roger Ver is not giving up on the cause.

Bitcoin Classic is an implementation of an alternative Bitcoin protocol that would cause a hard fork with a 75 percent activation threshold in order to increase the block size limit from 1 megabyte to 2 megabytes.

This change in the block size limit would require a hard fork, and it is enabled 28 days after 750 of the last 1,000 blocks have been found by miners who support the increase.

Rather than a Segregated Witness soft fork, Bitcoin Classic prefers to deploy a «cleaner» hard fork in order to increase the block - size limit to 2 megabytes.

There is currently a large portion of the community that would like to see a hard fork take place in order to increase the block size limit.

While Bhardwaj claims increasing the block size limit via a hard fork is not a complex alteration in terms of code changes, the controversial aspect of such a change is that it requires a hard fork (and thus all users moving over to a new network), which can be difficult to coordinate — unless the proposed change is itself uncontroversial.

Bitcoin Magazine recently reached out to Ver to get more details on his plan to increase the block size limit by way of a hard fork.

When asked about an activation threshold for a hard fork, Ver seemed to distance himself from the idea of increasing the block size limit without a large amount of support signaled by miners on the network.

Haipo, you've made it clear you want a hard fork to increase the block size limit.

I think a hard fork to increase the block size limit is the only way for Bitcoin to develop moving forward, and the only way to preserve the bitcoin mining business model.

This indicates they don't want a hard fork at all, and don't want to increase the block size limit either.

At the «Bitcoin Roundtable» in Hong Kong last February, Bitmain and AntPool representatives signed a letter supporting Segregated Witness, in return for a hard fork proposal to increase the block size limit from the Bitcoin Core developers present at the meeting.

Bitcoin Classic was a hard fork project that offered an alternative vision of the scaling problem, opposing to the implementation of the Lightning Network solution instead of supporting the block size limit increase.

Furthermore, some developers — often (but not always) those in favor of increasing the block size limit through a hard fork — prefer to deploy Segregated Witness as hard fork as well.

This hard fork would double Bitcoin's «base block size limit» to two megabytes, which combined with the block size limit increase brought by Segregated Witness should make for a total maximum of eight megabytes of block space.

This is not to say that a hard - forking increase to Bitcoin's block size limit can not be made; it just needs to be balanced with the tradeoffs made when it comes to the cost of operating a full node.

Increasing the block - size limit (the «old - fashioned way») can be done only through a hard fork.

An increase in the block size limit via a hard fork would also create an increase in the supply of block space, and thus lower the cost of on - chain transactions overall, but it's unclear how large blocks can become while retaining a sufficient level of decentralization and censorship resistance.

Finding a direct connection between network congestion and price is not a straightforward task, so it's not entirely clear whether miners are profiting directly from the lack of Segregated Witness (SegWit) activation or a hard - forking increase in the block size limit.

The same line of thinking applies to a possible hard - forking increase to the block size limit by way of Bitcoin Unlimited or the newly promoted ideas behind BitcoinEC, although it's less clear if these these particular proposals have the support of the Bitcoin economy.

Sentiments on SegWit2x and other proposals to hard fork an increase of the «base block size limit» are gauged as well.