Bitcoin Forum

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

Ya it's a pain sent a standard txt didn't look at Mempool woke up from my undead inactive grave to check what is up besides the Bitcoin price and saw that we are finally at the point where its noticeable it did make me think of buying some Bitcoin miners though giant heat hazards they are ^^.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay
If you want an ETA just match it with your satoshi/per byte rate until enough nodes go to Segwit or Ultimate were hampered or someone forces a fork.

The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.

The best way to go about it is the soft fork but consensus is too high a threshold of 95%, we are split between the original 1MB group, Lighting, and Segwit I run Core so it's on Segwit's list but the longer we are in this state of transaction hell the more it forces people to start to really consider what the community should do and make a decision.
Either way if something seems to happen in the next few months we will be fine although there is the risk the community will coordinate the fork.

Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system.

Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system.
Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. 

A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented.
Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation.

Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies.

BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.  :P


 8)

btc did a hard fork back in 2013, with no warning....so it should be ok with plenty of warning

I want to see a BIP that disincentive's miners and transaction fees and see a fork that puts in a node incentive along with a larger block size similar to Dash's but we can only deal with the options available.
Either way I'd rather see the damn thing settled one way or another over nothing we have had more than enough warnings that we need to do something so as long as something is done even a hard fork option is palatable at some point.

Well, maybe Bitcoin Unlimited can wrest control away from the Core team. I don't see the coup as being successful, but time will tell.

yep sipa caused that. he doesnt want anything to do with another one. it would hurt his C.V (employment resume) when he wants to eventually moves on with his life if he was somehow linked to another event of orphan drama caused by his code.


1. with a block holding only an average 2500tx.. guess what.. with 6000 nodes each block will end up wasting (~0.2mb in outputs only)blockspace just to pay 6000 nodes.
2. with FIBRE ring-fensed around the pools only blockstreams FIBRE nodes will get the pay out(if there was one). so dont expect all nodes to get paid. and dont expect it to 'help scalability.
3. paying nodes will just end up with one player doing a sybil attack with 10000 nodes (imagine a node pool) so that he gets 10000 chunks of the node incentive pie.
4. stop crying about node ability to run. dont be passed scripts of gigabytes by midnight. think rationally. by nodes saying they can only cope with 2mb-8mb a pool will see the overall consensus and not go to the extremes.. the pools will stay in node tolerance zone. otherwise what happens is that nodes orphan that pools attempt. making pools waste time for nothing. so pools already know not to push boundaries unless nodes allow it.
5. emphasising point 4. NODES control what is allowed. imagin it as nodes are the managers. pools are just the secretary and devs are just the employees

1. That is a fair point we are seeing declining nodes that said we still have a good amount I pointed out a system similar to Dash for a reason there would need to be a parking fee and increased block-size in the fork. The more nodes there are on the network the less rewards there are on a per node basis and it does add to the blockchain but the point is there are rewards for the operation of the node and not being pro-bono with 100% of the profits on the miners side.
2. I'll need to research that point but speed, location, uptime are all fair factors towards determining the chance of being rewarded for operating a node.
3. Dash's masternodes aren't launched or paid based on peer-given reputation scores. They are paid if they have collateral, exist, and do their jobs. Period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE The non-collateral nodes do not have sufficient control in the operation.
https://www.dash.org/news/why-dash-is-the-most-sybil-attack-resistant-cryptocurrency-by-far/
(To long to post it all, it addresses your point)
4. Nodes deserve compensation for the electricity, bandwidth and other costs to operate just as much as miners do, they are the backbone, the miners have transaction fees and block rewards a split is already seen in other alt-coins so this concept is not revolutionary and in practice as is runs without issue.
5. https://www.dash.org/masternodes2/ Sums it up. Nodes are managers and should get paid for their work, Pools are secretary's receive a portion of the miner profits, and devs are employees they receive a salary from the foundation etc.

It removes free riding on nodes.

Bitcoin node incentives can be addressed with a parking cost to operate the node and by receiving an incentive as a part of the block rewards, at present the node works for free, adjustments can be made to protect for sybil. If someone wanted to create paid nodes they would need to park a sufficient amount of Bitcoins in order to acquire those parts of the incentive pie in a sense forcing a proof of stake mechanism in the proof of work although they can freely release the coins at anytime.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/afterthought-sybil-attacks-are-not-possible-in-cryptocurrency-no-because-no-reputation-ratings.9683/
https://www.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/masternodes-roi_2016.png

Many people are making this same complain this days. Miners and blockchain should rectified this problem before thing get out of hand. I was thinking before that the Daley is curse by the current price increases and volumes but no body is doing anything about it. If bitcoin price get to $2,000 what will happen?

These kind of problems is already a year old and until now there is no solution. Segwit is pressuring the miners that they should adopt segwit so the lightning network could solve the problems that are happening on the bitcoin mining. But segwit will just cause another problem later on, the only solution is to just increase the blocksize and continue mining without resorting to Segwit and Lightning network.

it's wrong to think that core have any influence here, the miners decide in the end and the miner don't want unlimited for various reaosn

with unlimited the block reward would be so high that you can fill it with more spam than today, that is already a problem, for me the only solution is a dynamic block that actually work and adjust the size based on the demand on the TX per second

The Miners did already agreed to an 8MB blocksize increase, if whoever does the BTC coding released a hard fork of a fixed size 2 or 4 or 6 or 8MB without segwit included, odds are the miners would adopt it almost overnight.

And if not, the blame could be pointed at the miners , if they refused such a release.
No one can blame the miners for refusing segwit, Core is trying to steal their transaction fees with it.
 
 8)

If the 'spam' argument would hold, why we ve not seen those attacks the years ago? The 1MB was not really attacket.  And artificial spamming costs money and might lead to a drop in btc price. Not a good incentive for team players.

8mb seems good why does core not release this in the mean time

I dont see how segwit will not have some type of dao bug in it,,, its just the complexity of it.

8mb now would clean out the mem pool, raise fees for miners and be a nice compromise and set a precedent for the future, the we can just all go to 16 mb then 32 etc etc

Node count decrease, skyrocketing orphan rates, huge potential for DOS attack due to quadratic signature hashing. What could possibly go wrong? ::)

Bullshit. The people who complain about Segwit complexity are those that can't even understand a simple Hello World program.

It would drastically lower fees. Heck, it could even make miners lose out on >95% of fees. Why would anyone pay anything with so much empty space per block?

Maybe BTC should quit being cheap and find a way to pay people running Full Nodes.
I mean how long do you think they are going to keep supporting everyone else for free, when no one else does anything for free.

BTC unlimited would only increase as needed, but you argue against it.  :P


 8)

Nobody in their right mind needs 3+ Exahashes of security for coffee transactions. Bitcoin can not and should not compete with centralized services. Any altcoin with transaction volume similar to Bitcoin would find itself in a similar position. Hint: 99% of altcoin transactions are by their own bagholders.

There are benefits of running a node, and that's why a fair number of reasonable people are running them.

No. That's not how BU works, you should look into it again. BU essentially gives a lot more power to miners which is a very bad idea. There are better proposals that slowly raise the cap (e.g. sipa ~17% yearly growth; achow101's modification of luke-jr's BIP).

Ok, You all heard Lauda, Quit being a full node for BTC,
BTC does not want or need you, so don't waste your money on running a BTC full node.

Hmm,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Unlimited

They could set it at 1.5mb and then increase as needed, no muss no fuss. Miners could change their max default to 2MB and update if needed, because as you say they don't want alot of empty space. However that still does not stop some miners that only include 1 transactions in their block , they are wasting a boatload of space and that is happening right now.
Seems like BTC core wants to hamstring the miners to try and keep them under their thumb, that has failed.  :D

 8)

Say that again my brother, this issue needs fixing soonest and the miners don't seem to care that much and the call for an increase in block size is laudable but the concentration seems to be on segwit/BU and I don't know what's going to happen next meanwhile a lot of us have invested heavily hoping to make some dividends-that's my dilemma.

You're just realizing this now that it's a problem?

It should have been obvious a long time ago this would happen, especially
when you had Gavin talking about it.

How did you come from "benefits of running a node to", "quit being a full node for BTC" ???

No, that's not how it works. The miners can mine whatever they want, but you with your node settings choose to not process anything above XX (user configurable) up to a certain depth.

Miners don't seem to care about scaling otherwise Segwit would be adopted. If someone was truly concerned with the users (e.g. as a fair deal of BU supporters claim), they'd drop their political stance in the short term to solve the congestion. It seems that they aren't.

How come everyone else has to change, just because you don't like the way the system performs?

Apparently people don't care since the price keeps going up, which means bitcoin is valued as digital gold over digital currency.

If you want bitcoin to scale, blame the miners to not activate segwit.

Only segwit and LN can give you the fast, instant, cheap performance you want. Onchain scaling will never deliver that, it will remain a better gold without LN and segwit, so before complaining about "BSU" again, think.

that was a potential disaster that every single user was massively incentivised to carry out. there's no comparison between that and the current situation but maybe it'll take disaster to force something.

A good question has been raised.

Indeed. Whoever is dissatisfied with the current situation, they should contact their local/known miners/pools and ask them to support Segwit.

LN is still a concept for the future. Segwit is ready today, it just needs activation.

Those who still argue each other will lead us to nowhere and stuck with this situation for years (already).
Miners can see this problem, but can't you see how glad they are? To get such amount of 'huge' fees for so many unconfirmed transaction? It is a gold mine for them, that's why they seems like enjoy this BSU and don't want to support SegWit.

There are enough people who are fed up with the bureaucracy and would rather just do something to resolve the issue, there are also personal preferences on the solution but if none of them cut it we could see sister chains like Ethereum/Ethereum Classic.

Bitcoin Forks based on the schism would compete, the miners would split onto the various blockchains and the one with the most hashing power becomes the recognized main chain, while the losing ones either fade to zero or coexist like ETC and ETH do.

A cynical but valid way to look at this rally is that the community and big money is positioning for a Fork outcome.

Owning coins that will be worth something on both sides of the chain and selling the chain you think will lose on the exchanges is a real profit outcome. There may be a devaluation initially but Ethereum shows a precedent that the combined value of two split coins can exceed the original value. The question is if merchants will accept the fork version, the original one or both.  

Meanwhile the miners just pile up coins in the end they don't care what happens they own both forks regardless of the decision to the point of the split. So we can't rely on miners to solve it, even if they see the problem why would they rush scenario A is beautiful high value transaction fees to their machines. Scenario B they get coins on the winning fork and the losing fork to the point of the split.

Some value is lost but they are hedged if fork + original = 1 and there is still a chance of fork+original chain being greater than 1 in the mid to long term when the competing chains co-exist.

The people who suffer are the community transacting and paying the fees, the miners just mine new Bitcoins it doesn't matter how they are distributed a mint is just a mint that is where the rub lies.

I point to nodes that have to retain a balance to get paid as a possible solution as they are incentive to well operate and fork with the solution so 8mb nodes would still run and relay they are receiving rewards for existing and perhaps even add some additional functions since it's a hard fork scenario.

This scenario works on presumptions but they are reasonable, first it presumes that node operators would rather be compensated than not and that nodes not online now because their is no incentive would join if there was one ensuring reliability. Two they would increase the block-size and as long as they are compensated would continue to do so without issue a result that will make the userbase that wants low cost transactions and Bitcoin sending adopt the new fork while those who are debating the blockstream, segwit etc would continue doing so on the original chain.

The miners may not like it due to a change in block reward and transaction fees decreasing but some hashing power relative to the user-base would move if the value to the new tokens retain a significant fraction of its value. It kicks the issue down the road regarding block rewards/fixed supply but it resolves the immediate transaction cost issue.

Of course there are many options and it's the community that will decide or fork the one with the most consensus if a soft-fork is not chosen.


A fun area to look at is leaks in the system, consider the scenario where Bitcoin does nothing and transactions stay slow for a long time to come.

The next best coin will absorb the leakages in this case speedy transactions and increase in value proportionately becoming the transaction de franca coin, also known as the coin used primarily for quick exchanges.

If this happens then transaction volume on Bitcoin will drop and perhaps the usage and future growth forcing a resolution through decreased usage.
https://coinmarketcap.com/
Bitcoins is still 85% of the market cap but it is possible that the market cap increases while the percentage of the total decreases and an alt is used as the main transaction coin even if the issue is resolved if it stays an issue long enough users will still prefer using #2 to 1 in the long run, making it an opportunity for alts.

This situation is an opportunity for #2 to build a bigger user base due to the problems at #1.

were not the 1mb blocks largely empty at one point what happened then?

What about 4 MB,

See with the current demand, I think 2~4 mb are going to be filled and the spam minimised, It seems to balance out hat the more transaction you can put in, its going to cost more to put lots of spam in.