Bitcoin Forum

wot do we do now?

with all this bickering like 1st graders how will anything get done?? i propose bigger blocks becoz u can add things like video, music, gifs etc to the blockchain and it makes it more fun...

the segwitted will not accomodate 7 billion people stop mucking around and fix this before i lose my investment

Things are being done. Read Core and Classic roadmap in case you're wondering what's being done. We already have two proposals going. You are in the right of supporting bigger blocks, but adding videos and gifs is just ridiculous. Each thing in its place, and the blockchain is no place for funny videos, you can check YouTube for that. If you lose your investment, that's your issue, not anyone else's. I also find it odd that someone worried with its investment wants to bloat the blockchain further with things that do not contribute to Bitcoin in any way...

You are more likely to lose your investment if the blocksize is increased now, and people switch to the Jurrasic Calssic - remember what happened to the dinosaurs when they became too big.

these developers are useless and most likely bribed by lobbyists tha capacity needs to be increased instead we have preteen coders proving their testosterone it makes me want to poomyself

If you are so scared why don't you sell Bitcoin?

yeah blocks are full but the important thing is that the number of unconfirmed transactions are not high. it has been less than 2-3 thousands (and this morning surprisingly it was 800) and that is normal.

Unless there is another group of attackers spamming, this is going to be the same way, and i don't see any urge to change things.

good idea at least gold can't be mucked around with by a bunch of preteens this will not work you canth trust anyone to make this work without governance otherwise pepil will jump ship to another alt and when that alt gets preteened they will jump to another alt and alther alt and alther alt it hurts just thinking about the mess and will cause instability its time... its time for me to get out now i dont feel comfortable with my holdings leaden by a bunch of preteens that take 2 years to solve a problem because of the testosterone proving grounds

Anyone know how long are transactions taking just now? I withdrew bitcoin from an exchange a few hours ago and still no sign of it at all.

I did transactions from some exchange to my Core wallet recently, and minutes after confirming my withdraw, it appeared on my wallet as unconfirmed, so I had to do is wait. After a while, I had a couple of confirmations and the BTC was added to my final amount.

I don't know what the hell you guys are doing to have so many problems. Just pay a decent fee and wait for it, it's not like you are going to lose the money.

The exchange set the fee not me, i had no control over that !  >:(

Anyway, seemed to take longer than usual but its in my wallet now happy to report.

These threads would have more impact if there weren't any empty blocks.

Nothing can be done and nothing will be done, people in charge do what they want regardless what needs to be done.

Best you can do is change currency, litecoin has a pretty stable value.

They aren't. If they were, the average block size would be closer to 1 MB and not around 700kb.

Why would I, as an node operator (as an example) want to store your 'shit' for free? No thanks; this is a very bad argument.

The people that you're promoting are worse by all aspects (starting with knowledge and skills).

Segwit is fine as the first step. A bigger block size can come at a later time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0oDDIy0P2s

i've experienced an unusual delay for a small amount that i received, and i don't believe in the "we are under ddos bullshit" again, so yes some blocks are definitely full

There is no ddos attack.

Many are full. That ok.
But very soon, if growth continues as we hope, then blocks will be proper full, then over full. Then you may start getting more serious delays.
(higher fees may not even get your tx confirmed then, if everyone starts paying higher fees, there simply will not be room)

Lauda says blocks are only 70% full. But empty blocks will sometimes be mined no matter how large the block size.
(that reduces "average" block capacity in effect, which is what Lauda refers to)
So we will never get very near to "100% full blocks", even when the mempool is at max capacity and beyond.

Expect delayed tx times from now on.

Who cares, we will have segwit soon and it should give us enough time to keep scaling. I did transactions today and this week some other too and I have never had problems with it. Just pay the recomended fee.

it is full for a while already and everyone knows that but this problem soon should be solved with the rise of the block size

lets hope the fees wont get much higher before that as it would surely make some people to stop using bitcoin for a while and it wouldnt be good for the price of bitcoin

Segwit soon? good luck with that.
That is a different thread.

You will not have had problems with tx times yet. (if you paid the proper fee as you said)
But, as I said, from now on you will.

And how are we able to solve this problem?
Or do we have no power as members of the bitcoin industry?

I know there are some smart guys that are discussing these topics, but who actually decides what is going to happen with bitcoin?
And the people that make decision, do they decide the best possible option, or only the best outcome for theirselfs?

Rise in block size soon? good luck with that.
That is a different thread.

To make people stop using bitcoin, fees will start rising any time now.
As I said, there will not be room for everyone in the block no matter what fee you pay.

Listen like i just said on another post, there is to much invested in bitcoin to fail, and to many cleaver minds working on it for it not to be resolved, now is the time for us all to double down and get bitcoin back on track..... im away to buy some more...  8)

Oh, wow. Where you been hiding?
That is about 10 different threads...

(but mainly 1 topic...) Core v Classic. Prepare to be bombarded.
(Then your supposed to take sides, then turn off brain, then dig trenches, then insult everyone with any slight difference of opinion or free thought)

it was with higher fee in fact and every sub transactions was with high fee also, so it must have been caused by a full block

also waiting fro the block to be 100% full before moving our asses is what i call negligence

I agree. Negligent.

Last 6 blocks

974
0
965
974
974
0

Either full or empty.
100% (average) full is not achievable.

yes it is not achievable but those near full blocks mean that some of the transactions might not get confirmed if they are with lower fees

we surely have to do something in order to lift the size of the block as the fees might increase significantly if the blocks will keep on going full

I think it is pretty clear that this thread never was meant serious. The suggestion of adding nonsense on the blockchain was pretty clear. As well as a newbie account with this stupid language.

This or it's a kid.

---

rizzlarolla



Convenient that the blocks can't get full 100% in average, I guess. :)

Though in fact blocks are full pretty often at certain times of the day. It doesn't help you that you get told that sometimes in the night there are blocks that are not full. Bitcoin is supposed to be fast. But it's losing it's advantages against established payment forms pretty fast.

Speed? Goes away. Low fees? Go away in the same speed.

Near 100% is achievable. This just shows us that the blocks are not full. The correct thing to say would be something in the lines of: "Some blocks are full." or "The average block size is nearing 1 MB.". Miners need to be called out on these empty blocks; they need to stop.

Classic is just XT 2.0 apparently, not much better. However, you need to understand that some people don't like to waste their time in such discussions.


Please no; we already have too many people doing this.

Telling people to switch to completely dead coin is kind of... bad. Monero or Ethereum, safest bets in crypto-space right now.

That's why I said litecoin, it's old, it's boring, it's quite stable, I don't think people should invest in the the fad of the month, Monero or Ethereum, specially now the price is highly inflated.

Now last 6 blocks produced in 20 miniutes. (3x quicker than expected, producing 4mb in 20 min, 2x expected mb)
That helps keep blocks not full.

The hash rate wont always be spiking. Miner wont always get so lucky.
When miners get unlucky, 6 blocks can just as easily take 3 hours. (3x slower than expected, producing 6mb in 3 h, 3x less expected mb)

just wait till reward halfs and hash rate starts going down.
we are in for some serious delays

For (many) months people have been saying blocks are full, will soon be full, or things will collapse soon. BTC continues working normally ever since.

https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000044cc1a682a5f947fd8489a8337765ab226c6f878f641d79

the avg TX fee pre TX on this block is 8cents

I'm not sure the hash rate will go down.
But maybe. Core are standing by to meddle with the difficulty if that happens, to save us from tx gridlock.

(but tx gridlock is predictably coming much sooner than that anyway)

when you use offline wallets then you can't control your transaction fee. same situation happening with me.. but when we use bitcoin core I think bitcoin core give this facility to set a transiction fee by ourselves..

Is the OP a troll or he is really that dumb, please enlighten me.

It seems like he is just kidding, but its hard to tell on the internet.

What are you going on about? Developers are far from being preteens and they are doing a fine job at protecting your investment. The restricted block size is there for a reason, and bumping it up to allow for videos and funny pics, would be preteen behavior. Keep the block size at manageable sizes and you will protect it from spam attacks and you will also make it easier for people to store that data. If block sizes were increased to allow for videos and funny pics, much less people would be able to run full nodes, and this function will have to be handled by centralized data centers. < This will harm decentralization >

Do your homework and research next time, and post something that makes sense. ^hmmmm^

when the block size will be changed?

lauda's defense to not inccrease the blocksize is to keep contention alive by not letting core increase the maxblocksize for 16 months.. purely on the bases that it should be deemed as a strike against miners who are lucky enough to solve a block before they validated the competitors previous solution..

basically hold miners to ransom by not increasing the size until they stop making "empty blocks".
to me that is just the most lame excuse he has came up with yet. trying to infer that REAL blocks are not nearly full just because the empty blocks are pulling down the average..

seriously.. thats like saying the red signal on traffic lights doesnt need to change to green.. ever.. because if you include people walking as 'traffic' then the road is always on the move so there must not be a traffic problem by leaving the lights on red.
(cars are real blocks of data, walkers are empty blocks)

you can try to criminalize the sidewalk as much as you like.. but even on highways you will still get hitchhikers walking passed.. so how about looking just at the traffic jam and stop using averages that include pointless blocks

One way to reduce traffic congestion is to speed up the traffic. Making cars larger so they can carry more people, means they take up more space, and may not increase the occupancy rate anyway.

segwit proposes to turn cars into motocycles to fit more road users onto the road.. right.. as a better analogy..
 the problem is that blockstream then turns the motorcycle into a trike by adding the flags and other opcodes for LN and sidechains. and then adds a 10foot trailer to the trike in the form of confidential payment codes.

meaning that by the time blockstream have rebloated a transaction the eventual maxblocksize wont really help because it would be used to cushion the impact of blockstreams bloated transactions.

simply put
1mb traditional tx's average 2000 transaction capacity(for 1mb data store)
1mb+segwit proposes 3800.(for 1.8mb data store)

2mb traditional proposes 4000 transactions.(for 2mb data store)
but by the time blockstream are ready

2mb+segwit+CPC does not offer 7600 transactions for 4.6mb
but instead 7600 transactions for 5.7mb

yet 4mb traditional transactions proposes 8000 transactions for 4mb..

so it made me laugh, when using lauda's own magical numbers of segwit offering 180% capacity increase and payment codes adding 250bytes per tx. to actaully see that the corporation he defends is actually causing more bloat then just staying with the traditional transactions and just increasing capacity properly.

segwit is not a cure for capacity. it is just a temporal measure.. even the blockstreamers try not to claim it to be a cure, but call it a positive side effect. yet lauda wants to PR spin it as the cure for cancer

and lastly i am still laughing because Lauda thinks bitcoin-core is programmed in java. there there ticked the box to say that lauda has not personal knowledge of bitcoin and is just a mouthpiece for someone else spoonfeeding him.

if he atleast used the actual numbers he splurts out.. he to would realise the truth..

This is just self regulation cycle,

more people using Bitcoin -> fees go up -> some people stop using Bitcoin -> fees go down

This can go on forever. While it is plan for some, others know this is not how to make Bitcoin successfull longterm and no rational business would make such terrible PR like "we have monopol so wont change anything, you can go elsewhere to some suckers if you dont want to pay us premium for ever being able to use our most popular coin". I dont know how long people can tolerate such rude policy though.

You can even decrease block size limit to any value (like 50 KB) and Bitcoin gonna work for some people.

Exactly. It is the same as with mining and thus these doomsday scenarios are just bad attempts at manipulation.

This policy is not currently in "effect". Segwit will provide more transaction capacity after which we might see a block size increase in addition to the Lightning Network. We should be fine for a while after these events.

Suggest it via the mailing list instead of talking about it everywhere. The are reasons for which this has not been done.

Maybe in 2017.

Nothing can happen to Bitcoin or it's block-size.  Bitcoin itself has ability to adjust these fluctuations in block sizes.

I generally don't have a specific opinion in this debate between block increasing fans and the opposite, but just to say Blocks are full is an exaggeration, If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

yes devote blockstreamer your doomsday scenario's are just bad attempts at manipulating people away from real bitcoin transactions.

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies. 

One good example is how fucking finally Blockchain.info decided to add dynamic fees to their withdraws.  Considering just how many services use their API (for better or worse), I'd say this is an important optimization.

This statement does not make sense as Bitcoin does not have this 'ability'.

That's the way that the system was meant to be used. What happens is that people include fees that are not adequate and then they complain about it. Usually it is not a problem with the network but the user.

It is worth nothing that a nice percentage of transactions could be labeled as spam of sorts (even today). There was some statement about it in the recent roundtable but I can't remember exactly what it was.

an adequate fee one day is inadequate the next.
also anyone running an older wallet client, that client's default fee is probably wrong.
thats the source of confusion.


these "spam" tx produced fees, not exactly a bad thing for miners.

Not necessarily. An adequate fee of day 1 might be a higher than recommended fee of day two.

Therefore the source of the problem are the users who aren't willing to either update their clients or use Bitcoin properly (fee wise).

Zero-fee spam is pretty much useless these days. However, as there are some users transacting (or trying to transact) in the 1-10 satoshi/byte range, spamming in that one will have a impact on the network.

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

uhmm i dont see a single thing why just an ordinary bitcoin user would be against a block increase because it would cost less fees to send through transactions

blocks are full for a while already and hopefully devs will do something to solve this problem asap, it should have been done a while ago

Obviously for. If a HF is going to happen, then the developers should use that opportunity to 'clean up' and possibly implement some things from the hard fork wish list.

There's a difference between what users want, what is achievable and what kind of side-effects it is going to cause.

They aren't.

Hopefully miners will not switch off their mining hardware in the first 2 days or so. And they do it over 2 weeks. Then the network would have the chance to adjust the difficulty downwards and blocks would appear again in a more normal timeframe.

fud account

maokoto


Nope, bitcoin is not working like normal anymore. I think you did not check the newbie subforums and similar places and saw all the complaints about bitcoin transactions that suddenly don't work anymore like before.

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago. For no other reason than bitcoin not being able to meet the capacity requirements anymore. Bitcoiner do not suddenly decide to pay higher fees. It was enforced.

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold. And try to ask yourself how you want to convince someone on the street why he should not simply use paypal instead. He does not need anonymity, he sends legal money anyway. And very few of them need to send money over borders.

False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't.

Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always. ::)

I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.


I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me. :)

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system! :D

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

yo numbskull

more capacity = more people without a price war..
keeping capacity = price war and less people

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists. you have been drinking too much of the blockstream kool-aid and now you want bitcoin to be a fiat coin..
please detox yourself and think for yourself for once

Haha, stop drinking marxist coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

Wow, i`m getting confused with all these definitions, so lets get them straight  :D


First of all bitcoin is individualist, this is 100% certain. Now because of this, it can't be socialist, because that is the exact opposite of it.


Then, bitcoin is not free, or not entirely free, it has a low cost, which could be rounded down to near 0, but it's never free.

For nodes you pay electricity, for mining the same, basically everything you do on the internet you pay bills for, so it cant be free.

However we can make sure that it will be cheap as hell, but it cant be free, that is just a fact of life.

I am reading all comments and they seem to be very interesting and informative since Blocks are getting full and every one needs a chance to add his/her stuff there to share with others. But unfortunately if the blocks will become bigger in size then no use as well since dinosaurs are example by some friends that we can think what happened to them when they got bigger...nothing but just a sad ending. So think about it and then decide what to do in this regard.

if your talking about mining. then to be part of it you need to be in a pool. you cant solo min any more. so its not individual. people work together and share the profits.
if you are talking about nodes. they do not have independant chains. they share data with each other.

if you are talking about the code. there use to be several implementations all suggesting features and sharing idea's..

but now blockstream wants domination. and to force low capacity to increase a fee war.. thus bitcoin went from social communism and is becoming corporate capitalist.


even in a social communist regime nothing is free. but people agree and barter with each other for the greater good.. capitalist is the opposite where people become selfish and want control and power to use and abuse others for personal gain.
eg mining farms as oppose to pools
eg dictatorship codebase and trying to destroy any opposition

agreed with that. but bitcoin is becoming less "we" and more "them", where blockstream and fanboys want to dictate how many users can happily use it. how many should be able to use bitcoins mainchain and how many should F-off to sidechains and less secure offchains. while dictating that fees should jump astronomically to prevent more users wanting to use the main chain.

the real funny thing is that blockstreamers said that 2mb onchain would b megabloat that no one will want.

yet a 1mb+segwit+confidential payment codes only allows 3800 transactions for 2.85mb
but 2mb traditional transactions=4000tx for just 2mb..

so of blockstream think 2.85mb is safe for their roadmap. then 2.85mb of traditional transactions would allow 5700 transactions a block.

can you atleast see the logic
blockstreams roadmap = 2.85mb for 3800 tx potential
logical natural buffer = 2.85mb for 5700 tx potential..

or more safely 2mb for 4000tx potential

by the way if you want to knitpick the numbers. i actually used the numbers that blockstreamers spout out about. so becareful as you may offend your own friends

No one has yet demonstrated the demand for such capacity. The majority of Bitcoin transactions are spam. (less then 10 cents)  Prove to us that you can provide spam protection and low fees and maintain security and reliability and I'll support larger blocks. But you can't because you can't predict the future demand.

if a spammer was to make 3800 transactions at lets say 10cents. thats a cost of $380..
thats not really a deterrant for spammers.

how about 5700 sticking to normal traditional transactions with a maxblocksize buffer of blockstreams 2.85mb acceptable bloat.. and fees were 10 cents.

guess what.. thats $570..

which proves that doing normal transactions and increasing the real blocklimits means both more capacity per mb and more cost combined to fill the block, meaning slightly better deterrent.

even if we kept the fee's at 4cent.. blockstream 2.85mb =$152 bloat cost... and natural safe 2mb blocks= $160 or natural 2.85mb blocks=$228

u can increase the fee to whatever you want. but natural normal transactions with a maxblocksize increase is always going to allow more capacity and more combined cost to spam. than blockstreams roadmap

so lets say it another way..
lets say we want it to cost a spammer $1000 to abuse a block..(knowing its more about the total cost for a spammer to abuse a block, while also ensuring users dont pay much individually)
blockstreams roadmap = forcing the users fee to 26cents per tx
natural transactions same bloat = users pay 17.5cents

so blockstreams road map in any way you view it wont give capacity bu will force prices alot higher. while doing the natural capacity growth allows more capacity which in itself would end up costing a spammer more.. but without the physical data storage being any worse then blockstreams idea's

I wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step.


Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly.


Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification.

This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite.

Be it like it be. Your vision is surely not mine so I think it won't make sense to discuss on that point.

Until hardware and connection costs fall to near zero I will not support any system that allows free transactions to add more cost however small to those hosting full nodes.
Freedom is not free and nether is Bitcoin. I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.  Technological advancements in storage has faltered, Moores Law as been broken, full node count has been on the decline for years. It is just to expensive to heap these additional costs onto full node operators. Increasing block size could cause a drastic drop in full nodes leading to stability, reliability and security issues.

You might be right on this and in fact it would be no wonder. What serious company would now put work in something like bitcoin? It is way too unstable to put money onto that topic. Not confirming transactions? Great, means these companies accepting bitcoin would have to put a lot of suppot on that topic. And the payment would be unreliable.

Besides that the constant fight about the direction of bitcoin. I know if I would own a big business I would hold back funds and see how bitcoin develops now. If it recovers then I might invest. But at the moment it does not look like a worthy thing to gain.

like it or not its happening, segwit will double bandwidth requirements.
but the requirements are exaggerated
you can simply limit the number of peers you connect to and you'll be fine.
and i believe other less talked about improvements will go a long way to make node lower requirements.
thin blocks is really cool.
and the iguana project seems to have somehow pulled off an unbelievable improvement in syncing time ( full sycn  in a matter of hours )

I believe the slow TX times and more to the point, the perception that bitcoin isn't functioning very well, has and will continue to affect growth.

nevertheless, we know there are projects out there that, if turned on, would max out bitcoin's capacity, somehow i think there's not a bad chance the 2MB "effective block size" will quickly fill up regardless of growth.  

well the thing is to allow for a 2mb+segwit buffer increase. knowing that the user numbers are exaggurated and no way will 900million people (blockstreams visa scenario) be jumping in over night nor in the next couple years. also knowing it wont be instant hard drive bloat over night, but more so slower growth like the 2013-2016 slow growth from 500k-950k

so even with 2mb+segwit which offers between
2mb of traditional transactions for UPTO a potential future of 4000 tx.
5.7mb of segwit+CPC for upto a potential future of 7600 tx
(remember im talking about 2mb+segwit combined rather than 1mb+ segwit or 2mb as separate choices)

yes thats right by having both, means lots of capacity and freedom to choose which type of transactions you want. rather than being pulled in any one direction.
again, we are not going to see an instant jump to between 2mb - 5.7mb. it would be slow.. but atleast we wont be hitting our heads against a wall demanding more limits for a while. and stop this endless oliver twist game "please sir can i have some more", which some blockstreamers want by only doing a 1.1mb maxblocksize and increasing by just 0.1 every couple years.

it needs to be extra BUFFER.. and then let the miners slowly increase in smaller amounts underneath the hard cap.. again just like 2013-2016

I believe if we want Bitcoin to function reliably after the next reward drop we need to micro manage the hard cap to keep capacity slightly lower then demand to drive transaction fees higher, otherwise the empty space will most likely just get filled up with spam and the fees could then become insufficient to cover the networks operational and security needs.

what's stopping poeple from avoiding high fees by using an altcoin or second layer solutions?
high fee discourage usage which hurt total fees
you might succeed in having 5$ fees for a while as everyone transacts OUT of bitcoin at whatever cost?

High fees discourage usage true however I believe we should work with the network and user base we have and not the one we hope to one day obtain.

If all block rewards were removed today each transaction would I believe cost around 27 dollars to maintain our current level of security. Now even if we were to grow our user base by 10 fold it would not be enough to maintain our current level of security after block rewards are removed. A compromise is in order, hardware and connection costs need to come down or our security level must drop or our user base needs to grow by 100 fold. Again a compromise is needed.
In 15 weeks the incentive to not attack the network will be cut in half. We should be prudent and assume our user base will shrink and node count will shrink. If people want to use alt coins or side chains that's their choice it won't matter if Bitcoins network receives less in total fees when the fees would otherwise have been insufficient anyways.

If my options are a large network with high resource demands and insufficient funds to cover security needs and a small network with high fees but secure and stable I'll take the high fees.

You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.  

You would trade long term security and stability for a slightly larger user base? Why?  And I never said I wanted a 5 dollar transaction fee; 10 cents to 50 cents might be enough.

But I don't see that on any roadmap?
I don't mind paying a fee, but I would like to know that I will still be able to afford it next week as this week.

As you say, if we knew block space was available to bring on line in a way that could be micro managed, in parallel with demand,
albeit lagging, then I could understand how your theory could work.
That would be predictable and planned and I presume effectively set a constant(ish) standard fee for all.

But without the hard cap being "micro managed", and knowing it is (able to be) micro managed can/will that happen?
We are left with no clear plan.

I see it differently,


I should have added to that,
"A fees market cannot fairly operate when blocks are at capacity...   unless users know more capacity is available for easily managed and planned/structured deployment."

Then we may agree?

we dont need 100 fold growth in the next 15 weeks....
we need more like 30% price increase and double the fees on blocks in the next 15 weeks.
in that case the reward halving will be mitigated with higher BTC prices, and slightly more BTC fees on each block.

if segwit was ready 6 months ago i'd feel more comfortable...

there a balance between driving fees high and driving a high number of low fee TX

bacily if we look at block space as a good miners produce, the pricing of that good is the TX fee.
how do we find the best price?
somthing like this.

http://cs.wellesley.edu/~jlaughli/pages/images/goodOrService.png

i believe we dont need to artificially limit supply miners have a real cost to including TX in blocks in the form of orphan risks

then demand can be roughly calculated with like avg number of TX bytes to include every 10mins

then miners can calculate the optimal price for a TX fee

then they can simple choose to not sell block space for much less than this optimal price.

The price of Bitcoin is irrelevant in this context to its level of security.

You are technically paying for the security of such a large network. Everything else doesn't even come close to Bitcoin.

The point is that it was expected. Anyone with a lot of money could artificially raise the limit right now.

Basically you're opting for "let's rush growth because that matters the most" and I'm opting for "let's be conservative and add TX space when it is safe to do so". If you really think about it, Bitcoin does not need to grow. Bitcoin works and will work fine at a 1 MB block size limit. The fee will never be absurdly high due to the self regulating cycle. Besides, once you have LN deployed you have a theoretically infinite limit.

There won't be any vision if you rush into untested waters with untested forks. Additionally, if you let 1 controversial fork succeed it is most likely that it won't be the last one.

i dont think so... miners cost is USD denominated, increasing their USD revenue means they will be willing to pay more USD to mine the coins.

i believe we dont need to artificially limit supply ( block space )  miners have a real cost to including TX in blocks in the form of orphan risks
then demand can be roughly calculated with like avg number of TX bytes to include every 10mins
then miners can calculate the optimal price for a TX fee
then they can simple choose to not sell block space for much less than this optimal price.

Block rewards + transaction fees = security,  It dose not matter if a bitcoin is worth a billion dollars or 1 cent.  Its completely irrelevant.

if bitcoin is worth 1cent then miner will not want to spend more then 25cents to mine a block.

your point?

Whats your point?  :-*

lol

my point is if you measure security as cost to attack the network then ya BTC price is very relevant to security

lol *whoosh* right over your head.

I know your a smart guy and I see you in these block size debate threads all the time. I know you know that I know that you know the answer to this. So why do you do this?
I'll let someone else baby feed you or you could go and look at the countless other threads covering this shit. But I have a feeling your just trying to get a higher post count for your ad campaign.

right over everyone's head...

are you referring to the security derived from the public/private key encryption?

thats of little use if all it cost is a few million to alter history.

but i guess your right to some extent.

the whole premise behind bitcoin's security model is that at any given time its not worth attacking it its always better to aid the network and get the rewards.

but its hard to argue that the cost of attacking is completely irrelevant to its security.

please someone baby feed me the answer to why 1cent BTC offer the same level of security as a 500$BTC

if cost of attacking is 500$ or 5000000$ this has no bearing on the level of security?

this is a nutty though if you ask me.

That cycle being people come to bitcoin, people leave bitcoin?
If bitcoin works fine at 1mb, why do you want segwit?

Ridiculous comment from staff?

if you want bitcoin to grow past the 1MB limit, your a greedy MOFO!

adamstgBit



Don't forget that the amount of hashrate can drop due to miners leaving the game. And miners becoming more efficient. Which raises reward for miners that still stay in the game. If miners drop out because the reward is too low then the remaining miners will earn a bit more than before.

So even when the fee reward now might be $27 only per block, it only matters for the future when we stay with this max amount of transactions to be included into each block. Adoption was THE key to raise fees over time and to lower the effects of block halving for miners.

In fact the only hindering thing in this is the capped amount of transactions.

By the way, your logic regarding the safety of the network connected to the bitcoin price is true on one side. Miners will drop out. Though attacking is not worth anything anymore then too. Why attack when the reward does not matter? It would only be a problem when it is pretty sure that the bitcoin price will rise again.

---

Lauda



Right, paying for security. But the plan was that the block halving will be supplied by more and more transactions happening so that fees slowly become a considerable size. With 1mb blocks it is absolutely not possible over the longer timeframe.

Besides, I would prefer halving and way more of the miners. It is not that we users don't pay enough. It is that the market is way way too oversaturated with miners. Which means mining is way too rewarding so that too many miners are in the game.

I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.


Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.

In fact the thing that was awaited by those being here since years was that bitcoin transactions rise and rise. Fees are growing because of more transactions and fees become a size that pays miners.


Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar. :D


Well, I have to laugh when I read these two sentences. You realize how you speak here? Fear. It doesn't matter that it was no problem in the past but in the future it surely must be a problem because... tree.

And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.

Well, I wonder when fear took over in the bitcoin world.

fuck ya!

http://www.epspark.com/images/800/fight-the-power.jpg

Fucking socialists with their mental illness ideology, they just want to steal bitcoins from us, thats all they want.

You can have them all soon, once nobody will join & buy.

Majority does not want to steal ( if not forced to) rather wants to share wealth more equally. So you only need to think of not all can afford high fees.

The security of the mainchain is not needed? Great, you will enjoy transacting on the secondary layer then.

It isn't. I was talking about raising the 'fee limit', i.e. recommended fee artificially. It should be possible if a person clogs up the network with a lot of transactions in the higher fee range. The fee that we are paying right now is the result of the market/people.

Wrong; it's obvious that you don't have any relevant skills. If you make a single mistake while scaling Bitcoin, you risk severely damaging it. The real question is why are people unaware of this.

Of course you are in control. ::) I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived  ???

---

---

It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills.

If not forced to....?

What kind of moral stand is that? People should not steal, period.


There is no sharing of wealth, only if it's voluntary, otherwise it's theft.


If somebody wants to give out his coins thats fine, but dont force everybody to do so.

Please.
Why should anyone be that stupid to add a "function" to be able to add videos or music into the blockchain?
This would make Bitcoin kinda worthless. I wouldn't trust a currency which allows me to play funny videos/music on the blockchain.
I'd rather switch to an altcoin.

JUst pay higher fees. If you dont like it, you dont have to use bitcoin. No one is forcing anyone to use it.

Just use alt or wester union. So we can close BTC soon.

Well, what should I say about the level of communication on here. Fighting paroles claiming to be the majority, insults, naming... very grown up. Though I guess that level of communication can be found on both sides. Some simply doesn't know how to discuss.

---

Lauda



Again you try to twist words. The security of the mainchain IS needed of course. What not is needed is 100 times the security that would be need to secure the network. Luckily this will solve over time. But for now mining is so rewarding that the bitcoin network is an environmental nightmare. And surely that should not be supported with higher fees so that the markets at work are disturbed to hold more miners than normal in the mining game.


No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage. Imagine some country would decide that from now on we have enough daily bank transactions because... whatever. Fees would rise but that is an artificial market shortage. Transaction supply was limited.

An the actual fees already are higher in average than some time ago. Why? We had full blocks from spamming and now based on times of the day. People complaining about non confirming transactions usually get told to raise the fees. And yes, they do. I did so too. But they did not do so because the transactions are limited because of some natural reason, no the market was hold down from developing further because the allowed transactions were artificially held down.


Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too. Though you believe that it is true because those others, you believe having these skills, say so. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.


Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too. At least miners promised to switch to an chimera approach. Starting to spv mine but while mining start to confirm the transactions in that block. That GREATLY reduces the chance of an accidental fork.


:D You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen. I guess his skills must be doubted because he acted against the first law of the bitcoin core religion "You shalt not have another blockchain besides the core blockchain." He still has the second most commits on core. Even after all that time.

haha good idea! if OP does not find a way to figure his problem out, it's better to sell his bitcoins in case to avoid losing his investment or sell a half of his bitcoin.

Nope.

Isn't. There is adequate transaction capacity in the blocks right now.

I need not show anything. You don't understand how algorithms work nor why the worst-case scenario is important. Nothing more needs to be said.

The fact that you are putting 'coders' into the same basket as engineers makes you look very uneducated. Please refrain from doing so.

"SPV Mining is a bad idea." - Gavin. Now it is being implemented  (https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/152)in Classic. ;)

He used to be good, as in past tense.

He doesn't.

another post about block,if you said block are full,then why dont you not sell your bitcoin?why dont you put some data or statistic about that?show us,dont just and shitty talk.

Sorry Lauda but it doesn't work to discuss on that level. I come up with arguments and you answer with nothing more than "No, I'm right". No need to go into details since... you are right by default.

Good luck with that attitude.

No. It just shows that you lack adequate knowledge (e.g. importance and difference of best && average && worst case running time in algorithms) to actually make a case with "arguments". Instead of wasting everyone's time with misinformation, it is best to give up (as you just did). Your "arguments" are not based on evidence but rather beliefs (e.g. Gavin being the lead contributor in the past implies that he is a excellent developer today); appeal to authority.

There are "people" that tend to complain about the (yet) nonexistent problems of there not being enough space in the blocks. In the majority of the cases, this is the result of their flawed use of the fee system.

Is it me or is the blocksize debate starting to come to a close thanks to SegWit + LN release coming closer and closer.

we will have segwit soon and it should give us enough time to keep scaling. I did transactions today and this week some other too and I have never had problems with it. Just pay the recomended fee.

You were lucky that you sent at a time without overload though there are times at a day when it does not work except you pay fees that more and more look like paypal fees.

I welcome segwit but it surely can't bring the huge effect as fast as needed. Well, maybe it will surprise.

Bullshit. The fees are not unusually high, and nowhere near the maximum that we've experienced. They're currently at: 40 satoshis/byte [1]. For a TX of 226 bytes that is 4 cents. Quite like paypal, indeed. ::)

It will be fine.

---

---

[1] - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

I often enough had to send with 0.20$, which is less than half of the minimum paypal fee and clearly it goes in this direction.

I'm really not sure about the effect of segwit since the effects that are hoped on are mostly calculated with a way higher amount of multisig transactions, as far as I remind correctly. I'm really not sure that we can build on this. Of course even when it not brings nearly to 50$, every 10% is a nice thing. Only the big question is if it really will help avoiding full blocks.

And segwit... as far as I learned about it... I don't see a usecase for me and I doubt many other users have. If one has as much coins to block it in some payment channel then ok, possible LN user. But most users have the amount for one payment, that's it. So the LN effect won't be high too. Besides that... LN is not really a loved thing.

Don't blame the Bitcoin network for creating large transactions. This is why fees are measured in satoshi/byte. There is no fixed fee.

[1] If you aren't sure, then stop spreading misinformation? [2] Wrong. While I can't find the exact link from the mailing list, we are looking at ~190-200% in realistic usage.

Whatever exactly 'build on this' is supposed to mean, the answer is yes to both sentences.

You start complaining about 'not seeing use-cases for Segwit' and then continue talking about LN users? That does not make sense. A Segwit use-case is LN.

Do you keep coins in your wallet? If you do, then your argument has no merit.

Sure there is no fixed fee. Though there are times you need to pay more than at other times. And the days of transactions going through instantly with minimum fee are over. So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.

So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too. ::)

Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time. And the best effect it would have on multisig transactions. Which is not something that is spread as far as was assumed in this claim for the future.

Right, I chose the wrong word. I meant I don't really see a lot of usecases for LN, not for segwit.

Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.

It isn't. As finding the right data on this is a bit hard, you can take a look at total fees per day (https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=). They balance out.

Not sure whether trolling, stupid or both. I never said that I'm not sure, I said that I can't find the exact link to the exact calculations (hence why "~" was used).

If people want more TX capacity, they will adopt it quickly, otherwise they are indirectly stating that they don't want additional capacity. Simple as that.

Who said that you would only be able to send/receive between yourself and the exchange? Are you sure that you know how LN is supposed to work (in theory)? Because from what I see, you don't.

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming. ::)

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation. And if the only force to force people to use it will be the limited blocksize then you can be very sure that people will find another way to avoid that extortion. Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit.

There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it:
So my memory served me well ("~190-200%").

You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period.

Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC).

I already know that you miss a good bunch of comprehension styles. Otherwise you would have been able to understand that I wrote that this only shows the total fees paid regardless of how many kb the block contained.

And yes, the fees are in bitcoin. And the bitcoin price has a connection regarding how much people would want to freely give away as a fee. For example fees were given freely by many when they thought they are rich in 2013. Your comparision simply contains too many variables to judge from that what transactions can go through. Since you know very well that at those times you could send with a minimum fee. It does not matter if some rich person wanted to donate to miners. What matters is what fee is needed. And now we need higher fees. And this requisit is rising.

I already know you will try to negate it and I hope it's not again from missing comprehension of what I wrote. Maybe read it twice.


Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case.

Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that.

I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.


What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.

Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.


Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.

It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.

There's nothing that helps you build a case. The fees are low enough. Tell me what you want exactly? 1 cent transactions, a fraction of a cent? Free transactions?

Tl;dr: You were wrong again.

Which is not achievable with any kind of block size. Regardless of how much decentralization you want to sacrifice, and regardless of how ridiculously high you set the block size limit it will never be enough.

LN benefits:

• Trustless
• Cheap
• Near-instant transactions

You will be able to use the LN the same way that you are using Bitcoin now (the TX's are just faster), assuming that there is adoption.

Stop. Erase everything that you've ever read about LN from your brain and start from scratch. Who was talking about "exchanges" as money transmitters? It was an example, "exchange" as in entity. Secondary example: "Newbie" has payment channel to "Newbie2". Noob wants to pay for his Coffee at the Coffee Shop. "Newbie2" has a payment channel with the Coffee Shop. So: Newbie -> Newbie2 -> Coffee shop. The "LN building banks is a risk for Bitcoin" is also pure bullshit.

Bullshit.

---

---

Update: It isn't like Ripple. Ripple is centralized, and LN isn't (or won't be).

I don't say that I want 0.00001 bitcoin fees again. I only said that we now are forced to pay more when we want to hope to get included in a reasonable time. And this get's worth constantly. You can't negate that trend.

Of course one can set a reasonable blocksize, nobody said we need to set it very high. Besides that... it would only be harmfull when the new limit is full instantly too. Otherwise the block size in practice would grow slowly.

Besides that it would be interesting how much data would be needed to save the details of LN. Bandwith and harddisc. The data needed for using it and the nodes it will use. I wonder if any or how much bandwith and harddisc can be saved with it. At the end individual transaction would not be needed to be known to everyone I guess.

It's new to me, the usage you describe is in some form similar to ripple. And no I don't say it's the same. It sounds more interesting then. If this is the plan that it might be good to take a look at the problems ripple had. I think some problem was receiving coins that were stolen. The new owner was innocent but he already lost the equivalent value.

Anyway... let's see how LN turns out. Only practice will show.

Never fear guise. There are solutions working today to handle the tx's that won't fit in 1MB blocks... this keeps our rasb pi full economic nodes on dialup safe n sound.

https://i.imgur.com/drVht96.png

this is messed up :9

What are the solutions besides not handling them and pushing them to the next block?

On dialup?  :o I didn't think such internet connection still is in use. :D

Checking the last blocks we can see that all of them are almost full ~1,000 kB, i think in the near future it's to upgrade to 2MB per block
https://i.imgur.com/kQN13P1.jpg

Sometimes you get blocks that are 750kB or nearly zero. Though that is only the choice of the miner that mined that block. It does not mean that not enough transactions are available too.

I wonder if some people claiming that blocks are not full calculate these as full blocks or not. But even if not... it doesn't matter when blocks are not full at times of the day nearly no one in the world uses bitcoin.