Bitcoin Forum

BitCoin price is going to fall if there is not a Unanimity Answer to the problem.,

The problem is the 1MB limit for each block...
The problem was caused by inflating artificially the Network difficulty..

For example: Today the BTC Network has 500x more power than all the Top500 super computers combined...
BUT... there is a delay, a waiting line of confirmed transactions caused by the 1MB block size limit...

In one corner some people say that 70% of miners in the world should unite and make a limitless block chain.
In the other corner, other propose a more efficient block, like .mp3 or .flac to .wav

But IF there is Not a Unanimously decision, BitCoin will Split, in Two different coins, one side claiming the other is the fake... and price will plumb.

All efforts Will Be Lost...

The ONLY ANSWER is increasing the real difficulty, from 1MB block to 2MB, until there is no delay or waiting lines.
And increase again when delay in confirmations happens again.

Think about it...
It's the the ONLY ANSWER.

Please share...
Vote with a Reply if you Agree.
BTC price/a$$/future is on the line. LOL. Jajajajajajaja

not 100% clear on your plan but the core team has refused to increase block size for years.
They only want to scale according to their own roadmap, no matter how good your plan is.
They are decidedly against on chain scaling by design.  That's why BU became necessary.

Well, OP plan seems to be BU since it offers flexible block size adjusted with the need.

Increasing the size of the block would be a one way ddos attack to the blockchain network that's why core devs refuse it.
It would flood the blockchain network with terabytes of data and that's very very bad news for Bitcoin. Segwit is our only salvation

if you think the 1MB is the reason for the price fall then you are very wrong my friend.

traders don't care about 1MB they don't care about paying higher fees either and 1MB has been here for a long time and situation was like this for some time and price was rising.

the only reason for this recent fall is manipulation and FUD. nothing else.

and your proposal seems to be simple but it is hard to do. going up to 2 MB, .... is not easy thing to do every day that there is a spam attack that fills that space right up.

there wasn't a proposal for a 2MB increase from core in 2017 alongside with the segwit implementation, i remember this roadmap for core, are they changed their mind?

i remember that they said in the case segwit would not be activated in 1 year, they were going to increase the block to at least 2mb

I think so too, bitcoin price movement is not based on a block size, but because of total volume transactions and big bitcoin news.
Block size only affects status of pending transactions in some time, this is where bitcoin group divided into two sides: BU and segwit.
If the size is added to more than 1 mb would cover transactions pending/flooding problems for a while.

I'm against only increasing block efficiency, SegWit, here is my argument:

There is always a compromise when making something too efficient...

For example .mp3 has lower quality... "too efficient."
.flac has "same quality", but... it has a limit, the same limit as .rar at maximum setting.

Is SegWit lossless? If Yes, it has a limit, is that limit enough? Don't think so. Like internet speed vs. file size.
If SegWit is Not lossless... security is doomed.

Let's talk about electronics, and how they solved that problem.
different methods increase efficiency, but compromise...

Class-A amplifiers waste 50% of the energy in heat... and heat & power consumption becomes a limit in maximum possible output power, usually considered best sounding amplifiers because the amplifier is always ready, to deliver all the power, so there is no distortions.

Class-AB amplifiers, "the most common type in the 70's, 80's & 90's" they increase efficiency, wasting less heat/energy, but introduces crossover distortion at point 0 if not well designed, more complex to design, more expensive but allows more power, usually less than 2000w RMS are Class-AB.

Class-H amplifiers adds Voltage shifts like an automatic gearbox of a car, usually has 2-gears, maximum 3, increasing efficiency beyond Class-AB but also increase price, complexity, more size & weight, but allows to have even more power, usually all amplifiers beyond 2000watts are Class-H.

PWM Class-D amplifiers, very efficient, much more than Class-H, but sacrifice sound quality, they limit sound quality, like .mp3 but allows to be very light weight, very power efficient, very heat efficient, the result is massive power in a very small size, but the sound quality suffers.

The answer to that problem, was making an Envelope Follower Power Supply, much more complex, much more expensive.
Like Yamaha EEEengine Technology or some LabGruppen amplifiers.
With this technology the power amplifier power supply voltage changes, like Class-H but much more complex, it follows exactly the input load of the signal. Basically it's 2 amplifiers in one.
Becoming as efficient as Class-D, with the sound quality of Class-H, if well designed.

http://download.yamaha.com/api/asset/file?language=ja&site=countrysite-master.prod.exp.yamaha.com&asset_id=53052

Increasing Block Size to unlimited could be considered as Class-A.
Increasing & Decreasing Block Size, Following the need of the network, could be like EEEengine.
Increasing Block efficiency more data with same size, would be Class-D or .mp3

If there is not a unanimous decision, BitCoin will split, and price will split also. LOL. Jajajajaja
Please Share...
Comment if you agree.

Exchanges have already cleared that they will list bitcoin unlimited as an alt so practically bitcoin unlimited will be altcoin with bigger block  ;D

Bitcoin Unlimited has a Big problem, the reason why 1MB limit was created...
To avoid Big fish to eat all the small fish in the sea.

Small miners will be basically kicked out of the business... and your smile will vanish. LOL. Jajajajajaja
Unless you have >200x Antminers s9 around. LOL. Jajajajaja
The smallest miner investment would be $300.000usd. + $50.000usd electric bill each month, minimum.

If humans eat all the fish in the sea, there will be no more fish... "humans are the big fish."
Humans must put a limit on fishing...
Unlimited fishing will eventually lead to the end of the world.

http://www.sknvibes.com/toons/images/Big%20Fish%20Eat%20Little%20Fish.jpg

there'll be a cost at some point where everyone cares about higher fees. some have already reached what they feel is acceptable, others may have a long way to go but they'll hit it eventually.

Another problem is the 21Million BTC limit...

BTC idea was to be everybody's digital currency.
But 21M limit is Elite only.

8 decimal places limit is another problem,
8 decimals would be enough, if there was no 21M Limit.
There is a conflict.

Great idea, but was not implemented properly...

Why 21? People live ~100 years...
21 does not make sense.

What could happen if there is Unlimited BTC ?

that was another mistake.... real gold is still being digged from the ground 1000 years later..., scrapped from old computers and cell phones...

The 21 BTC limit is wrong, it should be 21 years...
That would motivate to invest harder.

The limit should not be in quantity, should be in time...
We don't know how much gold is left on earth... we can guess, speculate, if gold price is falling, means the reserves are much more.

The New 0.14 has ASSUMED VALID BLOCKS!!! WTF!!!?

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.14.0

i had a lot of problems/errors downloading the complete block chain a few months ago when 0.12 & 0.13 were introduced, tested different USB Wi-Fi adapters, and they all had errors...
for some unknown reason... could never download the complete valid block chain.
tested the SSD, the HDD, the Memory, the CPU, everything was ok, tested different operating systems, Windows, Linux, 32-Bit, 64-Bit...

they only way to download the blockchain was using Ethernet 100Mbps + CAT 6 cable,
i did tested USB to Ethernet Adapter + USB2.0 Hub with USB extension cable and worked Flawless.
the error had something to do with Wi-Fi & the Router.

ASSUMMED VALID BLOCKS + PRUNING = TROUBLE.

Fewer people having complete blockchains... = less secure & harder to download.

it´s like Opening the doors to Fraud & Errors...
incomplete blockchain was Ok with Android Phones for obvious reasons, but DESKTOPS.? NO F!"#$%& WAY...

I WON´T INSTALL 0.14,
developers do what they want, No poll, no democracy... "i´m smarter, i do what i want, don´t need feedback, ShhhUp!!."
 
People that have a lot of coins should think TWICE about this.


it´s like someone changing the rules of the game, in the middle of the game.
0.14 has many advantages, but just 1 Hidden Trap in Decision Making, kills everything.

http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/backyard-block-party-massive-outdoor-wooden-block-game-1.jpghttp://lemonthistle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/yardgames-15041942.jpg

has no one played this game?
https://youtu.be/DWc8dUl7Xfo

There will be not be a fork in my opinion, and the price if it falls will be bought up really quick.  i believe that everyone still has the best interest of bitcoin at heart.

The ultimate solution is to have one transaction per block. This gives you scalability and instant confirmation. Blocks are packed into records in the blockchain, so it isn't as far fetched as it sounds. One day computer and network speeds will allow this. Why should we move further away from this ideal by increasing blocksizes at regular intervals, and thus slowing down the system.

Exelent idea, Fee could be directly inversly proportional to the Transactions per Block....
More Fee, less transactions per Block,
Less Fee more Transactions per Block.

+ Elastic Block Size when Network detects delays like an automatic road traffic light that sense a public transport vehicle and change the lights automatically...
giving faster speed.

like a train wagons that automatically adapt to the size of it´s cargo...
and an engine that adapts the power to have a constant velocity/speed independent of the load.

in electronics it´s called constant current and constant voltaje.

But block size and difficulty don't really have anything to do with each other. Additionally, if you changed targets to increase the difficulty, times between blocks would increase so that there'd be even more congestion.

Yep, that´s the problem...


please elaborate on that....
Reading https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
i don´t see any info...

i think you are trolling, but in case you don't know there is a valid reason for the 21, it's not a random number

in the way the reward was set, with an halving every 4 years, starting from 50 coins per block, it make sense to have as a result that number of bitcoin, the 21M figure is a derivate from the halving block time frame

i'm sure satoshi thought at first about the halving and then by doing the math(summing all the coins generated every years) he ended with 21M total coins, in fact it's actually a bit less than 21M and this prove the point, that the "21M" was just a result

You know what i think is you are saying it right ..increasing the difficulty can surely sort out this problem..but there are other solutions tooo for this problem.Like the use of segwit. It' been seen that during the transaction of btc signature is the one which occupies the largest amount of space (about 65%)..So what segwit does is it creates a extended block..containing only the signatures of the respective transactions..Like this The problem of 1MB Block Can also be solved.

But doesnt segwit also increase the transaction throughput? If it doubles the size of the transaction count, why not use that as a solution for now and then increase the block size later? Safety and security is more important than a good upgrade.

I already wrote this a few times, in dispersed order, but, bitcoin's design has serious problems if one thinks it is going to be a "currency on the internet".  This doesn't mean that bitcoin is doomed to die.  Not at all. But it will evolve towards what it is designed to be, and not towards what the designers claimed (and maybe honestly thought - we'll never know) they designed.

Bitcoin has the following properties:

PoW 10 minute lottery with diminishing block rewards and with transaction fees

PoW is a cryptographic scheme that has only as much security as the waste in resources that goes with it (an attacker is on equal footing as an honest miner, and the only disincentive to attack is the wasted amount of resources).

As such, PoW needs to waste more value than the value it protects in order to be secure.  A transaction worth 1000 bitcoin must be protected by more than 1000 bitcoin of waste in order to be protected, otherwise, there's an incentive to reverse it.  

In order to diminish income fluctuations and uncertainty, with a reward lottery, people will pool their PoW into an oligarchy of at most a few tens of mining pools, having the full power over everything (protocol, permissions to use, ....).   These pools will respect transaction history to preserve their investments, but will adapt the protocol to maximise their extraction of value from the users.

As after a while all of PoW needs to be financed by fees, transactions have to be scarce enough so that they become expensive, and finance PoW.  In a competitive environment, the only thing that can make pools adhere to making transactions scarce and expensive, is a restrictive block size limit and no other way to transact.  

As such, by miracle, bitcoin contains such a limit, and removing it would make the fee market crumble, making PoW feable, and removing the cryptographic security of transactions.  The 1 MB limit on bitcoin is - by miracle - what can save it, by making transactions so scarce that they become very expensive.

For the moment, this doesn't seem to matter, because there is still a comfortable block reward. After a few more halvings, however, this will not be the case any more.  Fees per block will need to rise to 10-20 BTC in order for PoW to protect transactions of the order of 1000-10000 BTC, otherwise it becomes interesting to invest in 51% PoW attacks and reverse these transactions.

As such, bitcoin is designed to be an expensive reserve currency of which transactions are rare and very expensive, secured by a cartel of miners that need to waste several percent of the market cap per year, but dedicated to keeping the system run correctly.  For that, they need a hard, low, limit on transactions per second.

I feel that even in the news of us splitting into two coins with BTU coming closer and closer to achieving the majority they need, the buyers and sellers are already starting to react on what's going to happen to bitcoin in their eyes. So, they feel that if this does happen the price is going to take a shit so the people are trying to get out now in order to make some money and not lose anymore or just wait until all of this is over.

I personally highly doubt Ver would be initiating a hard-fork at 51 percent due to the sheer fact that it wouldn't be enough in order to hold if some of the miners on his side give out so once he gets around the number 65-70 percent that when I'd really start getting scared and think about the REAL possibility of a hard-fork.

Going to hope that the scaling solution will be picked soon so that Bitcoin can get past this rough time, it's getting wildly annoying having this all occur and not letting Bitcoin further itself.

If ever this fork happens, it means that I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of the system.  Miners NEED a hard block limit imposed upon them in order to be able to raise fees.  That hard limit is a god-given present that wasn't (most probably) intended to be there.  If the hard limit is gone, they know that they will compete each other to death and kill the fee market.  If they have the opportunity to raise the block size, they will, killing the fee market.  That silly 1 MB limit is what saves their day.  They would be utterly stupid to take it away.

All I know is that artificially increasing difficulty, is wrong...
I would have continued mining with HD6970's a few more years.
I felt jumping from 50 to 25 coins was unfair... & too fast.
Instead i decided to support Folding@Home...

If BTC were designed different, with a 100, 200 or 1000 coins start, maybe I would have continued mining.

Halving coins probably was designed thinking about Moor's law...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

But Real Gold mines do not follow Moor's Law, or do they?

I have installed BU, and the Unlimited menu looks nice...

Also raising fees don't think is fair, and the confirmation waiting lines...
Too much problems.

From a business point of view the waiting lines is a bottleneck, and increasing fees makes BTC dissapointing.

Selling burgers on the street, tickets to a small concert, or just a money exchange house..
BTC becomes dissapointing.

Spend unconfirmed was a strange attempt to solve the waiting lines, but got problem even worse.

Yes, segwit does do that -- but its a fairly modest increase that is coming pretty late...so we may still get congestion... and on core's terms instead of letting the market decide...  And it may not even activate.   ...And it greatly increases the complexity of the code. ...And it only helps to the degree to which wallets use it, which is only partial for now.

Like I said - THEIR roadmap.  They are giving a tiny bit of on chain scaling, maybe, eventually... while they work on LN.   

I know its their roadmap but isnt it safer and more secure than what the Bitcoin Unlimited people doing? There are talks of the centralization of mining under Bitcoin Unlimited, doesnt that concern you?

1) bitcoin mining IS ALREADY centralized.  5 pools have more than 51%.  10 pools have more than 75%.

2) LN centralizes even faster than PoW.  Only big bank hubs can run the LN profitably.

Great stuff. Yes. It just shows there is no IDEAL in our real world projection. We ve always to agree on compromises to get along 'best'.

So there is no ideal bs limit, decentralisation, security, adoption, feature list, road map,.....

But

 If you let the market find out by max freedom, we have a good chance to get closest by anti fragility.

Ok so BTC mining is already semi-centralized. But wont Bitcoin Unlimited centralized it further? Another concern is security. How secure is the hard fork to BU? Splitting the blockchain should he avoided for all our sakes.

Splitting is one issue, and it will be unavoidable...
People is sick of waiting...
Waiting will kill BTC.

Centralization is another problem...
If you see all miners agree on something SELL, SELL, SELL!
Like stock market...
They can change the chain and take over all coins...
Like real life...
Or create more coins from nowhere, by introducing a fake or altered blockchain, and because they are mayority, the real chain will be eliminated by the system as fake.

Im in favor of creating more coins...
Centralization of minimg could be good...
Like real goverments they create more more by inflation...

Forcing people to increase fees is another problem.

The bitcoin developers so far, are doomed... Because they don't have enough hash power to support their roadmap.

As the miners will never fork, that question's answer doesn't really matter, but my answer would be: no.  The 10 miners that have 75% majority hash rate will perfectly be able between themselves to use blocks of larger size.  By the time that the dreaded network effects affect THEM and force some of them out of business, the block sizes would be so big in any case that no normal user can download them.

Price is falling....

Just search in google.com

1 btc usd

If the google currency converter does not appear. You must change google.com page settings configuration to English.

segwit effectively increases the blocksize, which BU is blocking (eventhough they deny it) so how could you say that?

This won't happen but it would solve the riddle at least:
Perhaps every individual user of bitcoin should contribute to the mining, running of nodes, and confirming of transactions. I would be lost, but I bet it would zip into shape nicely if you simply couldn't use bitcoin without contributing to the public ledger.  Each his own,  individually.  ;)

This won't happen but it would solve the riddle at least:
Perhaps every individual user of bitcoin should contribute to the mining, running of nodes, and confirming of transactions. I would be lost, but I bet it would zip into shape nicely if you simply couldn't use bitcoin without contributing to the public ledger.  Each his own,  individually.  ;)

I am pretty optimistic in this.

I believe there will be a hard fork into bitcoin for china, and bitcoin for ex-china.
I believe both will go up in price.
Bitcoin china will be pumped up high by over 1 billion population adopting it.
Bitcoin ex-china can proceed with segwit and ln and more corporations adopting it and will be pumped up along the way.
Bitcoin will be 42 mil in supply.

if bitcoin transaction is very high and unconfirmation transaction is big
i think still need incraese block size, because with incraese block size can fast time confirmation transaction

But don't you see how BU will crash the price making both BUcoin holders and BTC holders poorer?

Majority of nodes and majority of relevant people all want segwit and rejected BU, but some people are delusional about the acceptance of BU because a couple miners are signaling for it.

The end result is people will end up in LTC because it will have segwit and LN sooner than BTC (if BTC ever gets it, in that case it may stagnate at best or crash at worst due HF)

Probably the author was pro segwit and places and enormous effort to post this kind of topic to convince everyone that segwit is the answer to the problems on bitcoin. He wants to convince us that the only way for bitcoin to be better is to increase the blocksize to 2 mb but even though we increase it to 2 mb we will still have problems on scaling. Though there are already ways to help segwit scale but the problem lies on the miner fees since it is rumored that miner fees will increase again.

I like the optimistic view, and now after some time has passed, do you still have this same stance?  I am curious to see your current viewpoint.