Bitcoin Forum

http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=650&p=2467

https://i.imgur.com/lIUfKYD.png

Exactly this.

Nice representation of what is likely to happen! :)

I for one will not be sending any funds to blockstream, as I don't want to be forced to put trust into another party when it is not at all necessary.

I have once hated altcoins because I saw them as competitors of bitcoin but I have learnt to appreciate them as an escape to what bitcoin could become.

The concept of finite bitcoins is one of the best features. Miners pumping out infinite bitcoins would just make it monopoly money.

Its too bad that the bitcoin community is so blind to see any of this.

They're promised by the "core" that their bitcoin price will go up.... and thats all they want to hear

Reality is.... bitcoin price rely only on bitcoin's utility.

What a bunch of dumbasses

Here we go again. A worthless wall of text, coming from someone who has actually read it to the end (waste of my time).TL;dr People will move from coin Y because of problem X to coin Z with problem X. Flawless logic indeed. BIP101 propaganda post backed up by nothing but the persons words (I require more to believe such stories).
I had no problem transacting at said time. I'd like to see evidence of this.

Still better option than XT.

What are you talking about?

---

---

Updated.

That does not mean others did not. Do you know how the fee was calculated? Not all txs are the same in priority.

We've see this same BS when the blockchain was "stress tested". Some idiots jumped in and said " my tx was fine"

Why? Since you are one of those who consider XT as an altcoin...

lol Love this.

Simple. I don't recall Dogecoin forcing "consensus" nor having a benevolent dictator.

Everybody is free to do whatever it wants with its altcoin no? While everybody is free to follow it...

Edit

As far as I'm concerned, Core is also forcing "consensus" with the status quo.

So you're confiming that you're a fool?

you know making claim like "support BIP101 if you want a benevolent dictator".....

Having users to pick which they want sounds more like concensus to me,....

Unless your definition of consensus is to have  a small group of ppl tell us where to go.

Fingers crossed that the December scaling conference yields some form of progress and we don't end up with full blocks on a regular basis.  For now I'll reserve judgement until we see what the outcome is.  I still have strong concerns over who will end up receiving the bulk of the transaction fees if enough traffic is driven off the main chain.  If a large proportion of the fees goes to somewhere other than the miners, then we're going to have significant problems down the line.  I'm pretty sure the concept is supposed to involve more fees being collected by miners over time as the block reward diminishes, but how does that occur if more people end up transacting through payment channels?  The operators of those channels will want to turn a profit and that invariably results in skimming off some of the transaction fees and the miners get less as a result.  It just sounds like a way of introducing middlemen who don't actually do anything but take a cut.

Uber fork. The fork happens, that's the reaction from full blocks.

Much happy.

When the block is full, people will worry about this and bitcoin price will fall. Then the problem will be resolved as soon as possible.

My vision for this is quite different from that. I think the water or liquid will dry up once the glass has reached capacity. The public will see this as a failure and stick too fiat or credit cards or PayPal. Both of these options alienate people from Crypto currencies. The developers should get their act together and sort out the mess they created with this.  >:(

well isn't this what sidechain will be also about? but in a better way than a scumbag altcoin? or you are saying that we don't need them because we have altcoin already?

When all the Bitcoin has been mined, 21,000,000 Bitcoin, that will pretty much be the end of Bitcoin. There will be no miners as they would earn barely anything, only the transaction fees. My prediction is that when it reaches that point, the price will be quite high. There might be some miners but not many; so some transactions will get processed.

expanding the block limits IS going to happen.. i just think most people dont want hearn and gavin to be the only 2 coders.. most peopl prefer it to be an open project anyone can join and code in..

so whether it stays as core or xt.. the actual picture would bemore like

2009-2016
1mb limit
https://image.freepik.com/free-photo/pour--bottle-of-red-wine--glass-of-white-wine--glass-of-wine_3337280.jpg

2016-20xx
X limit
http://sr.photos2.fotosearch.com/bthumb/CSP/CSP521/k5211840.jpg

how we get from a wine glass to a barrel is the conversation.. not that a barrel will never happen.

anyone trying to presume other coins would be tagged, sidechained, dual coin mined with bitcoin.. are just altcoin fanboys trying to drum up speculation that their worthless doges would become worth equal to bitcoin.
the reality is that if sidechains does happen where people can transfer value equally using one protocol but many coins/block of many chains.. then the whole rarity of bitcoin is gone. meaning sidechain coins will destroy bitcoins rarity..

and the only argument i can see for not just increasing bitcoins limit.. is about $120 for a 5tb hard drive to store 5 years of blocks at 20mb

Recently the block is full of  spamming transactions (http://www.cointape.com/). This situation have been for a while . I thought it was a test, actually not. If you don't include more than minimum tx fees, you have to wait long to get your tx confirmed. At the moment we have no implementation of large blocks yet, so we have to pay extra tx fees to miners.

what if i told you it was mining pools doing the spamming.. filling up blocks to force people to pay them more...

Many people don't like Sidechains because they tend to be centralized and bringing profits to their owners /makers. I tend to agree with this.

It's sad to see that politics have taken over even one such project as Bitcoin. I also see that the discussion is heating up a lot again about all of this block size increase. I hope this will be solved soon, once and for all because this is not bringing us a lot of good.

BitcoinClassic is pushing for 2MB block size and I hope Bitcoin Core will follow suite. The bigger block size is necessary for the bitcoin to grow.

At first people were saying it's good to include 0.0001 BTC with every transaction you send. Nowadays I see that the average transaction fee is rising and that people tend to add a fee higher than 0.0001 BTC because they want to see their transaction get confirmed. Pools are somewhat extorting the users in a soft way to get more fees. When will they get satisfied? When people pay 0.001 BTC?

In the end, the problem will sort itself out..

Once the blocks are full for a longer time, and the queues just keep on expanding, people will be forced to add higher and higher fees to get their blocks confirmed. In the end it won't be profitable to send small amounts of BTC using the blockchain, so the volume of microtransactions will drop, making the queues shorter and lowering the fees...
It'll always end in an equilibrium.

Like the OP said, the microtransactions will probably move to LTC, DOGE, DASH,... since their blocks won't be full, so their fees will be much lower.

That makes sense to a certain extend, but transactions in LTC, DOGE, DASH, and so on aren't accepted as widely as Bitcoin. I can't even name 1 service where you can spend these coins. I think the majority of the people will just stick with Bitcoin.

People here are very hyperbolic when it comes to the fees. It is not like they fees are going to increase tenfold over night just because blocks are full. It will take a while before more than half of the blocks mined are full. This is if we assume that nobody is doing anything in order to increase the capacity (which is obviously false).

This also does not mean, that it will be the end of Bitcoin. We saw what happened last year when some unknown group flooded the network with transactions and called it a stress test. Most people just paid a slightly higher fee and their transactions went through quicker.

If this situation happens naturally without someone trying to force it to prove a point, the developers will react and a proposal will be suggested to increase the block size. This will receive consensus from the nodes and the miners more quickly, because it will influence their operations directly.

There are no urgency now, because we hardly see full capacity without these fake stress tests.

Yeah pretty much that is what is going to happen. I really hope that 1st picture doesn't happen. That would be really bad.

You should really hope that the first picture does happen. I don't see the second one happening; the security behind other coins is not even remotely comparable to Bitcoin.


There is no urgency now and even if blocks were full this wouldn't harm Bitcoin in a way that people tend to say. They are being hyperbolic when it comes to the increase of the fees and possible damage to the network. They have no data to back up their assumptions, it is just speculation (usually). The people who were really affected by the stress test are people (mostly) who were did not include a fee at all or included a fee that was too small.