Bitcoin Forum

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-network-capacity-reaching-critical-state-mike-hearn/

Ugh, I grow tiresome of the debate regarding the blocksize. To me it is clear it needs to be increased but other solutions are needed as well. You can't tell people not to "spam" the blockchain with micro-transactions because they will do it anyways. The "spam" txs will fill the current block pushing "real" transactions to wait for the next block. Increase the blocksize should solve this. My current blocks folder is 37.2 GB, and it will keep growing. Maybe some sort of abridged chain or pruning will come into play? The last 6 blocks were all under 500kb so just because if they increase it to 5 or 10MB doesn't mean we will all start having 5 or 10MB block sizes. Anyways, I'm all for kicking the can down the road for now, better than another story for the media on why bitcoin died again.

From one hand there are a few solutions to increase throughput of bitcoin, from other hand if protocol will not changed on time nothing catastrophic will be occur. We just will get situation when tx_fee have more important role.

What does he mean:  Bitcoin capacity will run out this year?

I don't get it.

In short, the problem being described is that we are reaching the 1 MB cap on the size of a block. When that happens, some transactions may never make it into a block because of space limitations. It may or may not actually be a problem, but Mike Hearn considers it a problem and he states that the only solution that can be implemented before the limit is reached is to raise the limit.

The original article is clearer than the CCN summary. You can read it here: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e

The free market provides a solution. When the block size fills up, people will pay higher transaction fees to get their transactions through. Free riders paying zero or low transaction fees won't get their transactions processed.

The block size can only be increased if the big miners agree, and it's not in their interest to increase it.

I think it is in their interest. The value of bitcoin is hobbled by the small number of people who can use it, and network capacity is a major bottleneck. To boost the price of bitcoin there will need to be a large increase in the number of people holding bitcoin, and a corresponding increase in the number of transactions. That means an increase in the block size.

If it hits 0.1 BTC to send one satoshi then the only people left will be miners. The free market will go somewhere they're not going to be raped. BTC is purely optional and sometimes a prime pain up the arse. It wouldn't take all that much for people to abandon it before it gets going.

What will happens when Bitcoin capacity runs out ???

Bitcoin will die, or transactions will take days to confirm ???

What does it means?

Bitcoin will not die, but it will change.

When the limit is reached, a transaction will have to pay a fee in order to be confirmed by the block chain, and the amount paid will determine how quickly the transaction will be confirmed (if ever). The amount that has to be paid could rise very high if Bitcoin goes mainstream.

As a result, most transactions will move off-chain, but they will still backed by the block chain.

Kudos, a big +1 here gentlemand.

It is clearly in miners best interest to increase maximum block size…but it is not in their best interest to produce larger blocks with the slow block propagation speed on the Bitcoin network as it stands today. I don't know who the idiot was that suggested as max block size --> infinity, tx fees --> 0. That simplistic view is complicated enough to make people think they are understanding some deep truth and react religiously as opposed to thoughtfully.

Peter Todd had a great and very simple write up on the calculus of tx inclusion On the dev list about 1.5 years ago or so. Max block size is not the problem at the moment…the very high BTC25 block reward is the reason miners won't make large blocks. Block size will grow as block reward goes down and/or block propagation speed goes up.

So are we giving up on that whole Bitcoin replacing fiat thingy? lol

Does the dev team even know how to contact the mining majority in China to ask them if they will support the change?

What does it mean? I cannot understand clearly.

In my view, we need to find a new Satoshi to lead us out of the darkness. These tiny patches are miniscule when compared to the real challenges facing bitcoin.

Let's face it, go ahead and admit it, bitcoin is centralized. Now let's find, and crown, a really awesome king to light the way.

summary: we are doomed. end.

What happens if you dont pay the required fee an your transaction is never processed? you lose the money?

Right now it takes longer for miners to process your transaction. I hope it never gets to the point where your coins get lost in limbo because the network is overloaded.

In other words, you need someone to tell you what to do. You can't bear to be responsible for your own actions.

The only one who would be remotely worthy would be the original. He/she/it has made their wishes known with deafening silence.

This bullshit is the equivalent of whooping and making loud noises to try to get a bunch of cattle to run through an open gate which is pretty much the universal way that leadership acts.  It is the equivalent of the 40 years of assertions that we are near or passed the 'tipping point' where some sort of climate catastrophe is inevitable (it was the coming ice-age back when I was a kid.)  This kind of crap can be ignored and ridiculed.

It is probably true that there will be some strain on Bitcoin as a free-to-use system where operator revenue is achieved by spying on users and exploiting them in various other ways.  To bad, so sad.  As far as I'm concerned this would be a healthy evolution (finally!) and about as far from some sort of a calamity as one can get.

I'll bet a dime to a doughnut that by investment magnitude a majority of hodlers were fully aware that Bitcoin would and could never be something which scales to replace all exchange currencies, or even a simple centralized system like VISA, and trying to make it so would destroy it.  In my case I considered the risk that this would even be attempted to be a limiting factor on how much I wanted to risk on the system.  I'll welcome the day when I am compelled to pay what the solution is worth for the capabilities it provides.  As it is I set my client to pay about $10.00 per transaction just because it is a fantastic deal and in my opinion the right thing to do.

From me to Hearndresen:  Go to hell.  I'm still betting that sidechains and/or similar actually workable scaling methods will win the footrace between you guys who want to make Bitcoin an inferior substitute to PayPal and those we who want it to be a net positive for humankind.

Quick! Everyone sell your coins!  ;)

Increasing the 1M limit does not mean every block has to be 1M or larger. Miner can continue to mine 500k blocks. What are the arguments against it?

You double spend your own transaction with a higher fee, or you pay a miner directly to include it.

No, just NO

Fine.  Then there is no need to raise the block limit at all.  'Problem' solved.  What's all the bitching about?

That may work for a while but not for ever. The situation becomes a fixed supply with an ever increasing demand so transaction fees will skyrocket. The free market will of course find a solution to this; namely use a non Bitcoin blockchain without this artificial limitation.

Edit: There are alternatives to Bitcoin right now that do not have this blocksize limitation baked in.

That can be automated.  Clients should observe the recent blockchain to see what the going rate is for confirmed transactions. They then adjust their transaction fee accordingly. If a transaction isn't getting confirmed, double-spend to cancel it, then resubmit with a higher transaction fee. Transaction fees then go up and down automatically. This requires no changes to the blockchain, and any client can implement it without affecting other clients.

MicroGuy is hilarious, I always read his posts in his voice after seeing him promoting that Goldcoin thing on youtube.
Sorry but no, Bitcoin is not centralized, and Bitcoin is and will be the king of crypto.

the funny part is that he is promoting a more centralized coin, than bitcoin, i smelling just hating from his words

Gavin isn't a ceo or anything he just helping bitcoin, also even mining is far away from being centralized