Bitcoin Forum

Core have been derelict in their duties by showing little foresight around the looming full block situation, and now risk a massive backlash of supporters turning to classic. (as the only option to keep bitcoin "working")

The full block situation
================

Blocks are 70% full, on average.
This implies 30% "usable" blockspace still available for use/continued expansion. Not so.

Empty blocks do, and will continue to be produced no matter how full the mempool.
70% full "average" blocks size is very nearly 100% full "achievable" block size.
(anyone got any figures on what % empty blocks will likely be produced even when the mempool is full?)

Bitcoin use has been increasing, but now (in a week or two?) Bitcoin use can increase no more.


Full block problems
============

Forget spam attacks in this debate. (historically) If you pay standard fees you will be unaffected by low fee paying spam attacks.
Spam is not an issue here.

If blocks are full due to increased use, and nobody stops using Bitcoin, we will have gridlock. The mempool will grow and grow.
Up to now, blocks have not been full all the time, so miners could clear the mempool in quieter times.
(and looks like ALL miners are doing their best to fill blocks to just under 1mb ATM.)

There will simply be no opportunity for miners to clear the mempool when blocks are full if people don't stop using bitcoin.
If panic tx'ing ever set in, gridlock could easily turn to total overwhelm of network. (it will quickly turn into that anyway)


TX fees
=====
tx fees can only slow the mempool growth by stopping people using bitcoin.
If tx fees are not high enough to stop people from using bitcoin, then the mempool backlog will expand.

Fees should be set by efficiency. Efficient miners should profit, unefficient miners shouldn't. That is sustainable.
(A full fees market should not be needed yet as miners are subsidised by the block reward)

A fees market should not be set by ransom and blackmail. No room in blocks means unless you outbid a "forever" growing mempool you will not get in.
A fees market cannot fairly operate when blocks are at capacity.


Looking ahead
==========

When the above starts happening, in a week or two, It will very quickly become chaos.
Segwit will not be ready.

Core will be forced to introduce a panic fix.
Or panic will lead to a rapid classic fork.
Or both.


BTW
====

I don't support classic or core.
I support bitcoin.
I never did or will support classic.

I thought core could handle this situation, but I was wrong
Core are about to be shown as incompetent.
(unless driving away users really is part of their plan, even before LN exist.)
.
Desperate times will lead to desperate measures.
I don't want classic, but there will become no other choice for rapid consensus.

Core bring this situation on themselves.
With a little foresight Core could have given us 2mb couldn't they? To tide us over.

I fear it is too late to avert this situation now.
(it is certainly 11th hour, and no indication of a core rethink. Is there a contingency plan?)

the problem solves itself...

TX that are >72hours old get dropped out of minners mem-pools ( so no the mem-pool will not grow indefinitely )
what will happen is a % of peoples TX will get dropped out of the mempool
fees will rise to the point where poeple no longer want to Transact using bitcoin

problem solved.

Should I take the next 2 weeks off well the fud gets worked out of our system?
Hate these threads poking around today bashing core, really do not want to go through what we did with XT. Issues are fine but it always comes off like pump dump manipulation seeing a blitz on core.

We shouldn't have to pay fees to send Bitcoins, part of the whole idea of Bitcoin is avoiding fees like those placed on FIAT bank accounts. Either way, something is building in Bitcoin as a whole, and things are going to get very interesting very fast in the near future...  ::)

Core is guilty of having 0 communications with the community.
they are simply unwilling to hear our concerns
they simply dismiss stakeholder wish for swift resolution of blocks becoming full, as short sighted greed. when they themselves are blinded by greed, blockstream.
they simply do not understand what the big fuss is about because of the above reasoning i gave.
there suport will hold indefinitely because the first poeple to GTFO will be those who disagree with their idea. ex mike hearn
so now, everything hangs in the balance as we await the second layer to solve all these problems.

There are a number of things that Bitcoin users can do to help in the short term. Try to keep transaction sizes low for example. Faucets, sig sponsors and gambling sites could increase their minimum payment levels to try to reduce long chain transactions. I'm sure you can think of many other things. All of these are in our interests, as they will help to keep fees lower.

I think communication was lacking some time ago, but they have made major improvements there. Join the new announcements mailing list: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/03/15/announcement-list/ Talk to devs on IRC, Slack or the dev mailing list, or through bitcoincore.org. Several devs are active on Twitter and Reddit and receptive to discussion of the issues.

Regarding your concerns, they released a roadmap regarding capacity increases 3 months ago: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ And they are making strides with it. 8)

Yeah, kind of solves itself..

But the mempool could still grow to capacity I think.
If more get added than dropped.
(and dropped tx's may just get rebroadcast with higher fees)

So, if fees become large enough to really make people (who were happy to pay todays fee) stop tx'ing, so stop using bitcoin,
So driving users away and putting adoption on "hold".
I would say that to be a lack of foresight by Core, to not see the pending situation. (or the possibility of that situation)

Wouldn't it have made sense to have a simple block increase ready for "emergency's"?
(while they work thoroughly on their other, more likely to time slip, projects)

Core could be standing by (prepared, tested and ready) to raise the block limit to, 1,25, or 1.5, or 2mb. Whatever they like. Just in case?
Nearly full blocks don't bother me, it's nice to see bitcoin getting used.
(blocks aren't full yet. just nearly full  :))

Wouldn't that have been be a better way for core to have solved this issue?

I think no fees WAS the dream, but the spam attacks put stop to that.

I quite happy paying a fee personally, within reason.
One day bitcoin will rely entirely on tx fees, but not yet!


Bit of a pain though.
Attackers wont see it like that?

I dunno about derelict. I'm sure they believe they're doing their best. They've done a crappy job of conveying that sometimes and the tactics on all sides have been offensive.

The roadmap shows any capacity increase will be through segwit.
What if segwit gets delayed?
Is there a back up plan?

Dunno. I find it a teensy weensy bit fucked up that no one appears to be blinking about something that consists of hundreds of lines of fresh code that's arriving in a few weeks. Doubling the blocksize? SAVE US.

Not sure I found the best description. Sounds a bit snooty!
I'm sure the do believe they do their best, but, as a serious team planning bitcoin's future. What about todays users?
(in a couple of weeks, if my theory pans out)

And your right, as usual, all sides are as bad.
Which is why I don't advocate classic either.




Completely fucked up.

What's the rush? Gavin and Hearn said bitcoin was going to die if block size didn't increase 6 months-1 year ago. Those were blatant fear mongering lies, and the network is robust and working fine.

Any capacity increase from Segwit is just a temporary measure. I would hope that the signature discount is lowered in the future. The real scaling solutions come post-Segwit. Space-saving Schorr signatures, IBLTs, weak blocks and other relay/bandwidth/validation improvements will make a block size increase safer. And LN will incentivize throughput to move offchain, trustlessly with on-chain settlement. All on the roadmap, all in progress.

Not die, but warning the Bitcoin adoption can slow down instead, which is starting to happening imo, and can only get worse if there even happen situation to not be enought onchain space for new users (then Bitcoin adoption basically stops).



If you mean fee discounts for Segwit transactions then it is myth as well, miners are the ones who decides about fee policy, and nothing prevent them charge for the same work (and orphan risk) the same fee (based on the size of transaction, including signature). I mean while Core software can include such fee discounts for Segwit transactions, miners are free to modify the fee policy to their liking.

Evidence? This is the doomsday scenario, but there are no signs that it's happening. In any case, adoption is a tertiary concern compared to keeping the system decentralized.

Altcoins saw hype cycles in 2014 as well, when bitcoin was in a long term, painful downtrend. Not evidence of anything. The price of bitcoin is up 77% YoY. If anything, that is indication that demand is only increasing.


There is nothing to stop them from doing so without Segwit..... there is no guarantee that you can have free transactions, no matter what. 8)

The network is working great, I agree. At the moment.
But it will not, at some time. (if bitcoin is growing)
Unless a solution is implemented first.


As core's solution starts with segwit, I guess that makes segwit implementation time relevant here.

Do you know when segwit is scheduled to happen? (is there much chance of a delay)
Is there a back up plan if segwit is delayed?

I created a similar topic a few weeks ago. You can't deny that BTC has problems. The block size issue which limits growth should have been fixed last year. I guess many miners are resisting the change till the next halving. When that happen, several miners will suddenly find their mining unprofitable, so change shall be easier.

Bitcoin is working fine today. as expected.
Last 20 blocks, 16 full, 1 empty, 3 not full.

Expected comfirmation times - fast
Fee paying mempool backlog - very low

Bitcoin is working well today. Blocks are only nearly full.
A couple of comments I've seen elsewhere, not directly aimed at this thread, but missing some understanding?


Indeed. But there will always be empty blocks! Even when the mempool is full.






But we will need something very soon, when all blocks ARE full, to allow the present adoption rate to continued.
(unless we all slow down/stop using bitcoin and wait for segwit?)


Core should have had the ability to increase block size "slightly" in their plan, tried and tested, in case it were "suddenly" needed. (and it will be needed)
And a slight increase (0.1mb) would make a direct and noticable difference to a full block situation. (10% more capacity/growth)
(when blocks are all full, and beyond, bitcoin will be totally different from when blocks are nearly full)
Core should have had the foersight to see this situation coming. (or even the possibility of this situation, which hasn't happened yet...)

When all blocks are full, and beyond, Core support will evaporate.
Core themselves are (will be) pushing loyalists to Classic, as the only option for swift consensus to resolve tx gridlock.

Will Bitcoin wait for Core?
In a crisis, achievable consensus will be so much more obvious.

Why would you do this? This percentage isn't even based on some 'extensive' research but rather a quick analysis. If you want more accurate numbers, then you would have to do some digging yourself and find your definition of 'non-spam transactions'.

Why would something extremely bad happen within the next 14 days?

A 2 MB block size limit without added limitations is potentially unsafe.

Lauda,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.  :-[
I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread.
I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average")
I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue?

My time frame is a bit sketchy, 2 weeks, that is guesswork. But surely soon, before segwit anyway, if bitcoin adoption is growing.
How "extremely bad" it gets depend on personal and communal thresholds/viewpoint/outcome. I never said those words.
But a fork to Classic becomes far more likely if things do get "extremely bad".
My point, Core will force a fork to Classic, as the only option to quick consensus, before things get "extremely bad".

Of course 2mb without limitations is unsafe. But those limitations could be applied. Core could have solved this.
Anyway, Core need not have planned to double the block size to 2mb. I am not calling for 2mb here.
I am saying Core could have had small block size increase/s "planned and tested" for release "if needed", as a safety net. (foresight) While they work on segwit.
Then a sudden fork to classic is less likely.

Segwit is not a done deal yet. Do core have a planned safety net option "if needed" before segwit is resolved?  ???

Congestion building today.
Last 20 blocks full.
Last 40 blocks, 38 full, 1 empty, 1 not full.

Expected comf time - delayed.
Fee paying mempool - building.

Paying extra fees today will help your tx comf time.

Last 50 blocks, 49 full (900+), 1 empty.

1 empty block in 50 is far better (less empty) than I expected to see. (with enough tx's waiting in the mempool to fill every block)
Has that been a lucky run? (has there been some other change?)

!00% average full blocks is never going to be achieved,
but at this low rate of empty blocks, 90+% average full blocks is achievable.


Edit 1 hour later.
5 blocks in 9 min. 4 of those in 5 min. All 900+ (full)
Where are the empty blocks gone?
These were prime candidates?

Centrally planned fee market ushered in during Bitcoin's infancy...

Challenge Completed!

Over 73% of total supply has already been mined. Halving is approaching--and block subsidy will really drop in the next several years. We are well past infancy and need to plan for adulthood. Promises of perpetually free and ultra cheap transactions without scaling solutions are not adequate to address the need for proof of work security as subsidy drops.

No kidding, only idiots would have the idea that miners would decide the size of their blocks.

A dictat issued from the Wizard Treehouse is much better suited to deciding production levels and pricing...

Bitcoin doesn't have any competition, especially not from companies founded and products designed and sold (2 weeks) by the Wizards themselves.

should I have added "and the mempool is still full of standard fee paying tx's"



In this situation, isn't the tx price set by bitcoin user desperation?
And nothing to do with a fair and sustainable tx fee?

What mechanism would you suggest to establish a "fair" fee, rather than one that contemplates the costs to validate and relay transactions? If there is no competition for transaction relay, there is no contemplation of the costs required to maintain the system. "Sustainable" is the operative word from your post that we should focus on IMO.

I'd need to think about how to explain all that!

Do you agree/see how

"In this situation, isn't the tx price set by bitcoin user desperation?
And nothing to do with a fair and sustainable tx fee?"

Can I start there?

Optimal transaction fees (https://bitco.in/forum/threads/optimal-transaction-fees.1023/)
miners have a real cost to including TX in the form of orphen risk.

what are you referring to there? blocklimit?

How many multi-billion dollar commodities have you built from your Wizard Treehouse? Less than one?

Blocks are always full. When they're not a million bytes, they're less because a miner chose to limit the capacity further, but to whatever capacity they were allowed they're full. There are spam generators that generate a constant flood of minimal fee-rate transactions constantly 24/7... a node with all anti-spam defeated and no mempool limit quickly ends up with hundreds of megabytes of transactions.

This isn't a problem, it's how the system works... and it is unavoidable in a decentralized system ---  imagine instead that there were no limits at all (not in the consensus rules, not by miner collusion)-- that would be the necessary criteria for blocks to not be "full" and in that world a single kid with a while loop could throw hundreds of gigabytes of data into blocks and rapidly DOS the whole system into the ground.

When you get fed hype around "full" blocks, you're being fed a fake emergency narrative.

miners would make a 1GB block and risk a 100% chance of getting orphaned? for wat? 0.01BTC in fees?

That addresses why a miner may or may not include transactions in a block (cost/benefit in profitability analysis). Not the basis for the fee-cost metric for the bitcoin network. Here is an informative post from Mark Friedenbach on that subject, including what I think are superior proposals to address the very low costs to DOS attack the network (inherent in bitcoin's design): https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-November/011662.html


I'm referring to the nature of optimal fees as "fee-per-kilobyte" i.e. determined on the basis of size and therefore, cost to validate and relay. A miner has no incentive to incur costs to validate and relay no-fee transactions.

Why 100%? You're making the fallacious assumption that all miners are mining for mining's sake.

maybe i'm exaggerating a little, but a 1GB block will take way too long to propagate and another miner will find a sibling before the massive 1GB block propagates.
even if the attacker has enough hashing power to make his own blocks, he wouldn't be able to rapidly DOS the whole system into the ground, because these 1GB blocks would get orphaned by siblings.

just stfu or fork off already man, 1MB is here for a long time.

Don't worry guys. Gavin says we don't need to plan for attacks on the bitcoin network. People are too rational to attack bitcoin. :P

i need a fork to go off on to...

Ok, blocks are always "potentially" full - of non/low fee paying tx's.
But not always full of standard fee paying tx's. Miners don't usually exclude tx's paying standard fees. Not by default.
Miners do "choose" to not include spam.


Minimal fee, not standard fee, not no fee. That is why they are spam.
Spam is seen as 2nd rate by miners in preference to standard (higher) rate payers. (core wallet?)
A higher min fee would resolve what you describe?


Only if miners accept free or infinatly cheep fees to include that spam.
Or someone has infinate money.


When you get fed hype around anything it not good.

Do you think blocks/mempool will be full of standard fee paying tx's before segwit is/isn't adopted.
If it is the case, is that a problem?
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?

If we’re talking about Bitcoin… the multi-billion dollar commodity was invented/built by someone else. Dude left abruptly, key's under the mat. 

Wizard Treehouse has adopted the task of centrally planning the economics of said (extant) commodity… keeping the potential market cap, capacity, and associated user base to a manageable size.

So, your question becomes… How many currently successful endeavors have I discovered, aggregated some power to myself via an IRC social club, power which I subsequently used to improve the possibility of profitability for my other, more privately held, endeavor? All while running a fear campaign, buttressed by a censorship machine running on all major communication outlets, that convinces an adequate portion of the sheep that my benevolent power and control is all for their own benefit?

I don’t have a treehouse.

A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.

In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.

Ok, why don't Core just say that?

Nope, he gave the key to the treehouse wizards before he left. And the multi-billion part happened after he left also. Bit of a crappy metaphor

Bit off topic guy's.  :)

I await your "off-topic"ing lawsuit :D

multi-billion part happened with classical scaling in mind.

To continue in the vein of nit picking, he gave the keys to Gavin, not Wizard's Treehouse.

Then Gavin became a CIA agent... and the rest is history.  :)

ROFL Adam, that's exactly what was on your mind when you, the typical everyday investor, bought BTC back in '11, '12, '13 and 2014. Come on, lie to me. We all know what it looks like when you talk shit (lips move, fingers type etc)

They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).

Lawsuit is in the post.
I look forward to a speedy settlement. thankyou in advance  ;D

(now i'm also guilty as charged. Let's just wipe the slate  ???)

I dont argue against "the closer to capacity we are the better". I agree.
The danger is when we pass that point and become "over capacity"

More to the point of this thread,
Core will have no ability to get back to the ideal situation - "close to capacity".

you've made me look back at my post history

it appears i use to be a small blocker!


lol
well maybe i thought 1MB wasn't crippling bitcoin to 3TPS... fuck i was probably not even aware of the exact limit.

wtv as a " typical everyday investor " i'll tell you this, if the LN is as shitty ( not user friendly / impractical ) as i think it will be and the blocklimit creates 1$+ fees, while banks dev there own blockchains, i'm out.

Adam, it's cool that you can admit your previous opinions on the scaling issue. But this really should be a wake-up call: you're shooting from the hip. I do that too, and maybe that's fairly obvious sometimes, but the reason why it works when I do it, is that I'm fairly good at it. You can be good in debates: when you know what you're talking about.

Oh but wait,

"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
 https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-mine-segwit

It seems with core, miners get more tx fees. At 1mb AND 4 mb segwit?  ???

The Segwit discount is a compromise to give users increased (cheap) capacity in the mid term. Personally, I'd prefer a lower discount and therefore a lower maximum capacity, but it is what it is. Since the increased throughput is segregated outside of the block, node operators who don't want to update don't need to suffer the increased bandwidth costs.

There is no need for apologies. The reason that I've pointed this out because it was both unexpected and incorrect (i.e. my number is not accurate enough for such a thread).

How exactly is adding more artificial limitations to the system helpful? If I wanted to create a TX of size X, I would not be able to do so (as in Classic's BIP).

Segwit is close. IIRC there was talk of an emergency HF if things went the wrong way (not sure where I've read this though).

"Developing an active fee market has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size"
"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
"The Segwit discount is a compromise to give users increased (cheap) capacity in the mid term"

I'm not seeing how these all gel together.

Ok no probs. Your figure were accurate enough as a starting point. The end point is what I was trying to find.
ie. What average % full will blocks be when the system is at capacity. (it wont be !00% average)

By adding that 1 limitation, thousands more tx's could be handled.
The tx of size x you talk of is highly unlikely to occur through normal use.
A tx of size x could be split into smaller tx's.
No miner would choose to include such a tx anyway, except in an attack.

I would like to hear more about this emergency HF if things go the "wrong way".
Is that the fork to Classic I have mentioned here?

As exstasie asked,
I think this relates to the "if things go the wrong way" situation.
Could you explain how things may go the wrong way?

 
Expect delayed tx's today.
Mempool backlog is building, higher fees will help speed your tx.

So do Core have a "safety net" plan?
I've not seen it.

1 week till tx gridlock?

The network has seen many stress tests and dust attacks in recent times. Performed well, as expected. What makes you think this time is different?

The predicted growth of bitc0in, nearly full blocks,

It will happen naturally at some point in the future, on this trajectory.
I think that time has almost come.

Trouble is, it is not a problem that will come and go.
Once blocks are full, they are full.

This time fee paying users will be effected.
Stress tests and dust are low fee?

High fees can only help by driving away users.
(or persuade them not to tx)

There was never any implicit guarantee of cheap transactions. Satoshi wanted to keep transactions cheap for as long as possible to bootstrap adoption, but we are seven years out and almost 75% coins mined.

All that is required is some patience. Great progress is being made on real scaling solutions like Lightning Network, which won't require most transactions to be committed to the blockchain. Accordingly, fees should be considerably lower as transactions can be relayed through nodes but do not need to be relayed to all nodes nor published in a block.

What evidence is there that users are being driven away? Price is up 77% YoY. If users are leaving, others are swooping in to buy from their weak hands. Try to remember that bitcoin is not merely some payment channel, but a unique store of value. Many people (including myself) do not believe that the existence of cheap on-chain transactions matters very much.

I believe we should pay for the privilege to use the blockchain--pay for the security of proof of work. FYI the real cost of a confirmed transaction is $1 - $6, not a few cents, so fees are still extremely subsidized by inflation. This is not possible forever, and the upcoming reward halving should be a stark reminder of that. Micro-payments solutions are being developed so we don't necessarily have to pay for that privilege, in order to use bitcoin.

Partly what this comes down to: do you believe all information should be stored in the blockchain, forever? I certainly don't. Satoshi didn't, which is why payment channels were in the original software he released. There is nothing that says every transaction between contracting parties must be committed to the blockchain; there are reasons to commit transactions to the blockchain, but it is not what defines bitcoin. I believe what defines bitcoin is this, from the introduction of the whitepaper, and is very much in line with Satoshi's inclusion of payment channels in the software:


Committing to blockchain not required.

Even if we exclude empty blocks (of which there are quite a few), the number would not reach 100% on average indeed.

You can't know what use cases such a transaction could have.

F2Pool already did and it was no attack.

I can't tell you more.

Not really, no. I'm sure that if you ask the "forkers" you are going to get plenty of answers to that question. ::)

Well, we can't let Core take all the responsibility....I mean, we are all part of the community.  We all have a say; we just aren't excercizing it.  There are the users, the minors, and the developers....we all have a responsibility.  If Core isn't working in our best interests, then we need to find a way to let them know.  Right?  That's our duty too!

I've got no problem with that view point here,
but the specific point of this thread is the "full block period" between now and (lets say) segwit,
and Core's lack of planning around that potentially fraught period.

If blocks are full before segwit adoption, is bitcoin use really supposed to go on hold,
(even if my time scale is wrong) what if segwit is delayed for any reason, extending that time period.
If the situation does get gridlocked, how long will people endure in support of Core, How many will turn to classic.
A sudden hard fork maybe, mainly in panic maybe.

If the situation does get gridlocked, do Core have a plan to alleviate that situation, or just wait for segwit,
and allow fees to temporarily drive away the desire to tx.
Drive away users.

I think in that situation, Core themselves are pushing people to Classic.

Core could have avoided this (possible) outcome with some planning.
If Core do have a plan, at this last hour stage, I'd like to know now, in advance. (i've only heard rumours so far)

Yeah, sounds ok.

But have you ever mentioned increasing the block size to core (supporters)
Even a tiny bit, to tide us over. 1.1mb maybe. (too late now to start planning that for next week)

The community will have it's say.
One way may be a swift hard fork to Classic in the heat of gridlock?

Or, a migration of money from uᴉoɔʇᴉq into something else like Athereum which I think is something that's causing some concern....If that's how we're gonna be heard, then that's what we're gonna have to do.

EDIT:  That's not the way I spelled E T H E R E U M.....April fools thing I guess.

1. correct
2. Oh, tell me.
3. Wasn't to harmfull then.
4. Oh, shame.
5. You mentioned a possible (presumably core) hard fork as a solution if things went the "wrong way". That's why I asked you

My point is that "full blocks" are a fabricated "problem." You keep suggesting it's is a problem, but it's not. The only people it's a problem for are those that expect free and extremely cheap transactions. There was never any implicit promise in the whitepaper or the codebase that transactions would be free or extremely cheap forever.

I think Core has improved communication with the community greatly in the past months. If anything, people seem to be less affected now by these "omg blocks full sky is falling" claims. As it should be. Gavin said the apocalypse was coming a year ago, and guess what? Nothing happened, and even still, fees are consistently well below 10 cents per tx.

Core's roadmap was established months ago. There is no "last hour plan" because full blocks are not a problem, and the network is functioning perfectly fine.

2) Just because you and I can't think of one, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.
3) It isn't a problem at 1 MB block size limit (it is at 2 MB).
4) You could always ask some developer about it.
5) I don't know as it could be a lot of things (e.g. something that 'breaks' Bitcoin in a certain way).

It's been 2 weeks, will you allow me a couple more?

I explained previously why I think a "fee market" is not compatible with "full" blocks. (i mean full, not nearly full)
Spare capacity is needed to deal with busy times in a consistent fee market, or it becomes a "hostage market".

And why plan to build up fees now, only to collapse fees with the "extra" capacity of segwit in a few months.
That is boom and bust.
Also Core want miners to allow segwit cheap fees?

Blocks are nearly full now, but not really full. Big difference.
On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be really full before segwit. (as that's months away, if ever)
Or bitcoin adoption is kind of failing/slowing/deterred anyway?
Can that really be orderly or wanted by users.

I'm not prepared to be held hostage in the near future, unable to move my coins in the next general panic/rush.
Unable to move my coins in any predictable time frame.

All I see happening while we wait for segwit are delays, high fees, inability to move funds with any predictability,
panic/loss of faith.
Followed by HF to Classic as the only viable option for quick consensus.
(didn't satoshi foresee this kind of rapid consensus under pressure.?)

Core don't have a (publicised) plan B to avert such a situation.
Core will be handing it to Classic.
Maybe it will all be fine for Core.
Core supporters could stop using bitcoin for the next few months, that would help.

Obviously not going to be a popular opinion.
But Core could have had a plan B ready and publicised.

So, we "need" more capacity, and you have a problem with Segwit providing it? Personally I'd prefer that there were no Segwit discount. As a user, I want fees to rise. But Core is doing what Classic supporters have long asked -- finding compromise due to the demand for cheaper fees.


Full blocks are not a problem. Bitcoin works, and will work, as intended. Any evidence for the bolded? The fact that BTCUSD price is UP 82% year over year suggests that adoption is not failing.


What = being held hostage? Being forced to pay 5 cents for a transaction? 10 cents? What exactly entitles you to virtually free transactions, anyway?


I don't see any of that. If anything, these supposed "horror stories" of stuck transactions are only becoming less prevalent. Fee estimation is no longer some abstract concept, and people are not as clueless as they used to be. You are repeating the same FUD that Gavin and Hearn repeated a year ago, yet none of it has come to fruition. I think you should stop repeating this fear mongering.


Quick consensus? Good luck. I sure as hell won't be installing Classic. I highly doubt BTCC, Bitfury and Kano will either.


What situation? XT and Classic have been trying to force a hard fork for nearly a year. Bitcoin has functioned perfectly well during that entire time, and fees are still incredibly cheap. There is no crisis currently, nor is there one on the horizon. And these "OMG STUCK TRANSACTIONS" FUD is only getting less effective.


They don't need a "Plan B" because there are no viable alternatives to Core, nor is there any crisis. If Segwit can't achieve consensus, status quo prevails.

Here is the current cost per transaction graph for those who are curious:

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

An INSANE $7 per transaction and all of it is getting paid for through inflation. Why I don't invest in Bitcoin, illustrated. Great to hold for incredibly brief periods of time but these fees will almost certainly bury investors over the long haul. They are forking money HAND OVER FIST to miners who are forking money HAND OVER FIST to utilities.

The people getting rich off of BTC are electricity providers...

But if we had 100 times the tx ability and adoption, in time, tx's would be 7cents.
That is why there is a good block subsidy in the earlier years, decreasing with adoption.
Inflation allows other still early adopters, and secures the network.

Utilities are just part of miners overheads. Electric companies also have overheads, and so on.

Yes. If you would rather rush a solution than properly test it for invalid reasons (greed?), then you've come to the wrong place. Changes like these have to go through extensive testing.

The added capacity of Segwit is a bonus, the main idea behind it is solving transaction malleability.

A lot of those transactions are spam, you will get a different percentage depending on who you ask and what criteria they've used.

Bitcoin is not experiencing any issues at the time, nor should the users be. If you are experiencing issues with transactions (e.g. delays) then it is usually your own fault.

Well it has been 2 weeks since the OP started this thread and we are still here, alive and kicking. The Core team are a bit cautious, but I guess it is the best approach to this

whole situation with the Block size increase. You cannot gamble with a Billion dollar experiment and other people's wealth, if you have to listen to people's opinions on the matter

and they not even developers. The Core team know what they doing and they taking small steps toward a bigger goal.  ;)

Exactly. One can never be too careful when making such decisions. I've been always telling others that, especially when it comes to scaling, Bitcoin has to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios (e.g. Classic has introduced limitations due to the worst case scenario that could otherwise cause chaos).

About 22 hours ago 0.12.1rc2 has been tagged, that is: BIP9, BIP68, BIP112 and BIP113. Even though some of them got distracted by the debate, the development seems to be going well.

It's possible that this has helped in one way; by demonstrating to us the least desirable outcomes, Andresen/Hearn/Garzik etc have kept the issue of short term scaling strategies to the fore. And because the technologies now in the pipeline tackle the scaling issue so effectively, we're set to gain a huge amount of additional strength in the overall system. Economic activity will follow.

I do have a bit of a problem with segwit, but that is not the issue here. It's the period from now untill segwit, (or not) that is relevant here.


I am saying adoption is growing, not falling. (yet) Or there would not be a problem.
So, if blocks become full, (due to continued adoption) high fees will be needed to drive away users.
If high fees do not drive away users, and adoption continues, still everyone cannot fit into blocks, causing delayed and unpredictable tx's.
Delays will then drive away users.
Either fees or delays will drive away users. If the average tx rate goes over 1mb per 10 min, (due to continued adoption) something has got to give.


I do not want free tx's, I want standard(ish) fees I can plan for, as I have said earlier.
In a panic or busy time, if a rush is on, if the mempool grows rapidly, you will need to spend far more than 10 cents to have any hope of moving coins.
But worse, more likely your coins will be stuck in the mempool for days as panic goes on and your fee is over bid.
That is when you will be hostaged.


Time is bringing that day closer.
Were Gavin and Hearn a year too early. Should they have waited untill it was a problem?
I guess they were looking ahead to now, (and the next month or two) trying to plan. (foresight?)


That is in the balance. If tx's do gridlock, panic, HF.
Maybe not, but Core will be pushing people that way for sure.
What other option is there?
Wait for segwit. (which could be delayed, slow to adopt, etc.)
If a perma backlog occurs, Core are planless. Powerless.


A full block backlog situation.
There is no crisis currently I agree.
But it is coming "at some point". For certain if adoption is continuing, or as a possibly due to a panic.
(i also suspect it could happen very quickly and permanently)
The question is will segwit arrive in time, (before gridlock) to avert panic/frustration.
(BTW, an increasing hash rate is finding "quicker" blocks at the moment, giving the effect of a larger block size - more tx's per second. that wont always be so. diff adjustment in 4 days may change that)


I think they do need a plan B. I think they should have foreseen this possibility.
Even if it was only a "possible" outcome.
It is certainly going to happen in time. segwit is now under pressure to deliver, even more.
A plan could have been in place. Simple.

Where did I say I want to rush anything? I said it is too late now to "plan"
If Core did have a plan in place for this situation, there would be no need to rush anything (segwit maybe, hf to classic maybe) and no need to worry about gridlock.


Fine, doesn't address my question.


As you say, spam is hard to define.
Standard fee payers have never had much to fear from spam.


I agree,
But as I said, "On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be.."

That's the impression that one gets after mentioning those 'two weeks'.

You can't really know if they have a plan or not, unless they explicitly state so.

The fees aren't really 'built up'.

Real transactions are hard to define as well.

My bad. Do you have evidence that supports this 'trajectory'?

Only that blocks weren't very full a while ago, then more recently they got fuller, now they are nearly full.
I'm guessing next stop is full.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

Blocks 'full'  --> Txs Fees high -->  Mass Adoption down -->  Discussion high -->  BTC Market Price  down --> .... ? (will lost users come back?)

all that correlates...

Core is still the best team, but markets will (do already) decide in the end.


I only buy into the 21 Mio, the decentralization and mass adoption.

If only one fails - I'd go.

That is a bad metric for measuring the 'fullness' of the blocks. You're looking at transaction per block which tend to vary due to the average size of each transaction. As previously said, in order to argue whether blocks are indeed almost full you will have to define what real world transactions or what spam is and make an analysis based on that. Otherwise, one could easily manipulate you into thinking what one wants.

How high do 'TX fees' have to be in order for 'mass adoption' to go down? Everyone keeps saying this, yet nobody gives exact numbers. Should we panic if the average fee is 15 cents?  ::)

You're asking the right (complex) question. There exists some good quant / financial engineers out there just doing correlation matrices all the day (e.g. for FX pairs or other assets )  - and first start point is the market price paired against fiat AND other alts...

Would be nice to see that done by some institution- good for a master thesis.

I was clearly wrong on my 2-4 weeks.
we are right on the edge now, I think.

As bitcoin stagnates in the name of Core purity, others rise.

Untested segwit promised to be rushed in soon maybe.

Perhaps the understatement of the century! :D

~~

http://puu.sh/oZqp8/85322cf01f.png

~~

At altcoin developer with that amount of foresight would be belly up in a matter of days.

You need to be upper class now (not classic) to be part in such a block (=club) , sorry....

Core is doing a fantastic job by not giving up to the cries of armchair coders about how the system will collapse if we don't raise the blocksize when they say so. Meanwhile they have come up with great stuff like SegWit and more.

OP "There will simply be no opportunity for miners to clear the mempool when blocks are full if people don't stop using bitcoin.
If panic tx'ing ever set in, gridlock could easily turn to total overwhelm of network. (it will quickly turn into that anyway)
When the above starts happening, in a week or two, It will very quickly become chaos."

Ok, I was weeks out, but here comes that Chaos.
I don't think many realise how quickly this will now escalate.

I still wonder, do Core have a Bail out plan? (just in case i'm right)

Best case, segwit will not have any effect on block space for at least (many?) months. (please enlighten me Greg)
No Core block increase for at least a year. (ditto)

We are about to experience Cores dynamic fee market.
I reckon not many people are going to like this.
Core will lose trust.

The chaos wont destroy Bitcoin. (it will only be temporary)
I may destroy Core.

Out of the chaos will come sudden consensus.

Over 40mb mempool,
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions


"I don't think many realise how quickly this will now escalate."

Get out of this one Greg.

Sudden block size patch?
Fiddle with the difficulty?
Fork to Classic?

fuck core and fuck their roadmap.  they should have increased the block size a year ago.

Looks rather like the soft minded small forkers do not dare any further actions and feel responsible for some price rebouncings driven by  Chinese gamblers who will soon take all over , the coding as well ...

Lol, let's not go there jonald. You know how ineffective you are, we all do. You're a brave shill returning to this forum. Leave, before we all make you feel like leaving. You know the drill.

i'll leave when i want to and not a second earlier, faggot.

Your welcome.

Does Carltons Closed minded, blind faith remind you of the neucoin days?

yep, just like I said, we can influence those poor little feelings of yours, and did so rather effectively in the past ;D



Because you're just another low-rent shill with zero talent for the job. And you know it. That's why you left after you failed to subvert Bitcoin the last time.

"Block's should not be too full to stop people using bitcoin with good user experience"

Week's left? Day's?
I hope the code is ready .

I'm ready.

This is how you lose every piece of credibility that you could ever have. Do you play some online games? This reminds me of those 'communities'.

Hey, did you not know that it is better to complain about Core constantly instead of doing anything beneficial in the meantime? ::)

You should talk to Luke Jr. & co. This has nothing to do with Core.

It's time to fork to bigger blocks.

The DAO has just clarified my concerns with segwit. (they didn't really need clarifying, it's common sense)
Segwit is being released to a pre-planned schedule. to a deadline of congestion, high fees, growing adoption, aggravated miners.
Segwit needs more time. Lots more time.

Core won't entertain the idea of bigger blocks.
If the miners HF to bigger blocks, with an agreed (between themselves) 75% hash power, would it succeed?

Yes I think it would. (and of course the miners are aware of this)
Seems to me, users want more block space, miners want more users.

Would there be 2 chains, 2 bitcoin?
Only for a very short time.
That is how Bitcoin is designed, and intended.

The loosing (hash power) chain, in this instance Core 1 MB, will spiral down to junk status (or completely cease)
The loosing chain will be many times slower, or almost stopped, rendered unusable, it's value will fall to fractions.
Everyone will know it is the losing chain.
What will users do, use the losing, slow/stopped chain or the smooth, fast, valuable winning chain?
It is obvious.

There is no chance of the miners not being able to make this work.

*yawn*

You're in Imaginationland, as ever. The coup failed, and your retarded plan had a headstart. You really think you can revive the corpse of your garbage takeover plans with a spurious correlation with the latest alt-coin pump&dump?

As usual, you seem to underestimate the intelligence of the people you're trying to hoodwink, and overestimate your own credibility (which you somehow believe to be a substitute for factual information).

People that are actually invested in Bitcoin have a real incentive to check the alacrity of any claims that affect their investment for themselves. No self-respecting investor would do anything but, so do be quiet. It's not like you haven't already been told.

Per definition BU must be THE bitcoin, correct?

1MB, SW, ... are altcoins then.

What? Is that supposed to mean something?

Sure. Get your brainbot on.

You appear to be trying to tell me that my description is tacitly advocating for BU as the one true Bitcoin implementation. You're delusional, on both counts. How on earth you could eke that interpretation out of what I said, I have no idea. Please don't explain, I suspect it involves enough mind bending mental gymnastics to induce the kind of laughter that could kill.

If you go back to the roots, the block size limitation can be concidered just beeing a temporary hack and was generated as a fork so 1mb is an altcoin, right?

Close but no cigar, bud. Bitcoin is immutable. Its blocksize is 1MB, if you give in to a socialist mob... they will stop at nothing until they make your pre-ipo company worthless... serious shizz brah. Soft fork is love.

Hard fork is hate, becuase it uses fource.

Heavy.

No.
These is no correlation between DAO and Segwit.

No. Nobody is pushing Segwit anywhere until people independently review it.

That would be a horrible decision to make. Possibly even worse than the one that ETH is making right now. Might as well rename that altcoin to MinerCoin.

Someone finally gets it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1517883.msg15278600#msg15278600


Lauda,

Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.
Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)

Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?

From the roadmap,
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk
and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals
(such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will
be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and
understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the
risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches
ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the
basic software engineering from being the limiting factor.

So core can't lose. Patches at the ready.

No. Anyone spreading the false information that a block size limit increase improves scalability or is a solution of any sort does not know what they're talking about.

Yes and yes.

Who's the "Bitcoin coding sage"?

High fees = High security, Low fees = low security, its that simple.

If the block rewards + fees are < the potential reward of carrying out a 51% attack then the network will fail. If the Block rewards and fees are not enough of an incentive to "play by the rules" the network fails.
If the mining community collapses but the network still holds value the network fails.

I like the idea that if the mining community collapses leaving the network vulnerable we could switch out the hashing function used to confirm transactions.
However this could lead to a monopoly of new ASICs. (First mover advantage)

The only way to insure high fees and the security of the network is to have limited block space.

Freedom is not free and nether is bitcoin.


ELI5: If you want to protect $50 dollars you can securely store it in a $200 safe. If you want to store 10 million dollars you will need a more secure safe. The same is true for Bitcoin. But as our net value goes up our security (fees+block rewards) is going down. This is a serious issue.  

+1

Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.

Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.


The one you said finally gets it.

Having more knowledge does not imply being more intelligent, but sure, I'll take that.

That does not even make sense.

He's not a "Bitcoin sage".

---

I don't see the point of these posts. You aren't making arguments of any kind. Read the post above yours.

It really isn't that simple.


Not true. The recent backlog included recommended fee payers being over bid by new fee payers paying new (higher) recommended fees.
That group suffered at least a few hours delay after paying appropriate fees.

You don't have that knowledge.

I know. It is like advanced mathematics.

Yet you have to but in? I read the post already.

Of course I do, but that is not even relevant.

Correction: Wasting time with useless nonsense.

---

Now to direct back to the thread: "Core have been derelict in their duties". This is a false statement especially if you consider the Classic 0.12.1 implementation, or should I say anti-implementation? The developers just removed the warnings of the features that it does not have. It was discussed before and now Maxwell has made another post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg15288364#msg15288364) about it. How many (non-destructive features) has Classic developed in comparison to Core?