Bitcoin Forum

You know I've been here for 3-4 years now, and I have seen Bitcoin rollercoaster from 700$ down to 100$ and now back up to 2000$. A very interesting rollercoaster indeed.

I was a Bitcoin purist, thinking that Bitcoin has to be what it was coded for, this meant no hardforks. Yet I have realized that this is a very closed-minded position, and very dogmatic.

It seems like everybody here is dogmatic about this, you think you are very smart and you know things better, it's just pure arrogance. And when anybody has a dissenting view, they get marginalized or maybe even banned.

I had an ignore list of 50+ people who were shouting very hardly that Bitcoin's current path is unsustainable. And instead of hearing their opinions, I just ignored them, because that is how an intelligent open minded person behaves.

From my point of view they looked like trolls, just like some pesky mosquitos trying to annoy people. This is how arrogant I was in my belief in the small blocksize.

But now seeing that the transaction fees are 30$, I have utterly changed my mind, and I really hate myself for used to believe otherwise.

It looks like guys like franky1 were right, the 1 MB blocksize is really a piece of shit limit. The fees are now higher than for international bank transfers.

Can you believe this bullshit? A bank transfer that goes through 1 million regulatory loops, and it's inefficiently processed in 4 days costs less than a decentralized P2P payment system? It's utterly disgusting. In fact if the blocksize is not raised, maybe it will take 4 days to confirm/settle BTC transactions too.

And even the idiots who said that the nodes would be burdened if the block size were increased are just pure idiots. How is that possible if the price is 2000$ and they can earn huge revenues from mining or whatever other ventures they do.

I used to ridicule 2MB blocks, but now I believe maybe a 8MB block is not even a big deal. If you can earn 100$/month net income, what the hell does it costs you to buy a 1 Terrabyte harddisk for 40$? It would just be 35 GB monthly, your 1 TB harddisk would last you 2.38 years. Out of the 2356$ you would make in that time, that would only cost you 40$.

It's ridiculous how cheap storage is, and it's even more ridiculous that the transaction fee for 1 fucking transaction is now almost higher than 2.38 years of storage cost with a 8MB block!

Lol bro bitcoin died about 100 or 200 times I am not sure for that but it is still alive and everything wil be fixed just to save bitcoin because we need him because it is really much better than fiat and so much popular.

agreed overall but a bank transfer is no more than a few entries on a ledger they swap around. a bitcoin transaction spreads through thousands of computers across the globe. decentralization costs, but right now it costs too much.

That is a shitty meme.

I know about this website: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoinobituaries/

And it's a shitty meme, just because a few dumb journalists have called Bitcoin dead and were wrong, that doesn't mean that we don't have a serious problem in Bitcoin that needs to be fixed.


Bitcoin will not die because some journalist tells it to die, but it will definitely die, if transaction fees will stay 40-50$.

Who the fuck can afford 50$ for 1 transaction? Can the Africans, Philipines, or Indians afford it (who make up most of BTC users) ? I doubt it, when the daily wage in those places is like 5$.


It should not have to. DASH and others are doing fine.

I want Bitcoin to be fixed too.

Bitcoin will survive if it ever gets upgraded and soft forks for faster speeds  ;D

Oh really?

http://segwit.co/


It was 25% about half a year ago. Now it's 30%.

With this pace Segwit will never be activated. Not that it should, I think a bigger block is better.

But either way it wont, and the fees will keep rising.


I'll see your attitude when the TX fees will be 200$.

wait.. will you be saying that when LN starts pushing people into multisig permissioned hubs/hops... which is the only 'gesture' benefit left that segwit is suppose to solve. remember core want bitcoin to not be a payment network but just a once a month settlement auditor(bank statement)

i'll wait to see how an operational lightning network actually works in day to day practice before passing judgement. it's up to them to convince me it's all gravy. if it ain't then i'll shop elsewhere.

I used to make fun of ETH and ETC. But it looks like even after the DAO and the ETC split disasters, ETH is much more reasonable than BTC now.

It has a similar market cap that BTC had 1 year ago, so ETH is only 1 year behind in progress, and if BTC doesn't pull together itself,  ETH might surpass BTC.

Same with DASH. People criticize DASH because of the masternode centralization. Well then what you call the Lightnight Network HUB transactions?

We need an agreement that activates segwit via soft fork right now, then a blocksize increase not long after.

ETH has no fundamentals. ETC is superior in literally every way (except ability to function as an editable database).

look even deeper at the Tier network being created.. top of the pyramid.. bitcoins DNS seeds, oh look majority blockstream maintained.. next down the list FIBRE network. ... then there is the core upstream filter nodes..
then the cludge of filtered downstream, no witness, non sanctioned, prunned, lite nodes.. then the next layer LN

then look when they start tweaking the DNS to not include certain versions(segwit activation) in the dns listing.. it all becomes super centralised.

>They make an agreement with 83% of the hashing power willing to follow through, with multiple high-profile companies preparing to roll it out in September
>Guys it's literally destroyed right now

At this point it's not even worth commenting on half these things because the answers or events that have happened recently are just being glossed over. I don't even know if half the community engages with the other half and figures out what things are happening anymore.

Bitcoin will be fixing itself soon. You're going to see the block limit go up. Don't worry.

Thats was really possible a too much pump in the price of the bitcoin can make it also dump in the market in the coming year no doubt after a month of the pumping the bitcoin will be dump again so better to wait for the bitcoin to dump to buy bitcoin again.

Ok, let's hope what you say is true. I've been waiting for this for 2 years now, back then I didn't know exactly what was needed, but I knew that something was wrong with Bitcoin the moment the network clogs started to appear.

I remember about 1 year ago, I had a TX that took 3 days to confirm, with normal fees. That was my wake-up call. But now the situation is just ridiculous. I don't even use Bitcoin anymore until this is fixed.

yeah bro totally destroyed, almost worthless now LOLOLOLOL  :D

This is digital gold, insurance policy against fiat collapse, how much does it cost to transfer insurance policy betweeen buyer and seller?

use LTC or DOGE for pay and play  ;)

You mean _YOUR_ storage cost, or that of millions of users who would have to store the "supersize me" blockchain, too?

*shaking head over stupidity of OP*

The funny thing is that gold transfer costs are cheaper than BTC transaction costs.

So transfering gold from 1 place to the other could cost less than transfering digital information via BTC blockchain.

Bitcoin is not an insurance policy against fiat collapse, since if you want widespread use of it, people will not put up with big fees.

Too much at stake. The Bitcoin power brokers will do something when there income and wealth begins to deteriorate.

Yes they will just sell all their coins and watch the suckers suffer. It's just easier to ripoff people with 100$ transaction fees until it works, and then when the castle of card collapses they just sell their coins.

It's definitely easier to just sell your Bitcoin and move on to another currency, and do the same thing there, than to just fix things in Bitcoin.

I'm not sure that bitcoin will die, even more so if you look at the current state. Many people need bitcoin, even bitcoin developers can get rich because of this, so they may keep fixing those mistakes. I do not think that will happen.

Sending, say, $500 worth of gold, pseudonymously? And insured against theft? How? Any certified mail, packages etc. are logged in NSA databases with sender and recipient, for all eternity. To insure against theft, you will have to declare the content too.

And how do you send that internationally? To each and every country?

This is a really stupid comparison.

Having said that, I do believe that 1MB is not enough but I also believe that fees for onchain transactions must not be too cheap...transaction bytes on BTC blockchains are valuable.  ;)

1) Your knowledge is absurdly flawed.
2) This whole thread is nonsense. You have tried to FUD Bitcoin before.
3) This technology is very inefficient. This problem is not inherent to Bitcoin, but every blockchain. Look at Monero transaction fees, look at ETH transaction fees, Dash, LTC. Look at their transaction volume and scale it up and you shall see.
4) Does this mean that Bitcoin is doomed? No. This is a free market. If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will.
5) Continuing from point three, increasing the block size in attempts to accommodate the whole world will result in massive centralization of Bitcoin. Segwit + small block size increase -> layer 2. That's how you scale.

Outright lie and a fine example of your lack of education.

They are not.

Storage isn't the primary constraint. You're an idiot.

pretty much agree with Lauda here  :)

The OP is spot on and so has most of the replies, there IS a very obvious issue atm. The stupid one is the one who thinks its a coin is "digital gold". Our non tangible made up reward for doing math that can vanish and buy nothing in a time of true crisis if someone in gov so wishes....ya you're not the stupid one the OP is LOL

BTC will NEVER be a sanctioned means of currency by any leading country ever because quite simply, they don't control it. The tech is the real beauty here and the coin a way to play with money for a time.

No that is not how you send gold. You move gold by having your custodian doing it for you, from vault to vault. That should cost about 10$.

Yes fully insured, and onymously. Gold can't be anonymous. And you don't need to deliver gold to your house. Unless you want to store gold bars below your pillow, which is not a good idea from a perspective of burglary risk.

There are already several gold networks where you can do this, and the gold is all yours, you can deliver it to your house even, but usually it's not a good idea.

So if you can do that already with Gold, it's ridiculous to pay such high fees for Bitcoin. Bitcoin should not even have TX fees.

Yes it is now.

Interest on holding btc and so not making transactions often the fees are no biggy.


Depends From where to where you are going to travel.



It will help against banks falling.

It's a pretty good debate if you start out with ad hominem attacks. Nice reasoning skills.

    ●  First of all who said that Bitcoin should have a monopoly. People could store their wealth in multiple private currencies, that could be more scaleable, decentralized and voluntary. Everyone can just create his own cryptocurrency.

    ●  Secondly, why do you even need transaction fees when the miners already get BLOCK REWARDS. There should not be a TX fee until all coins are mined out.

    ●  Thirdly, network and processing power speeds are also following Moore's law. They will all get cheaper, so why would you want to make Bitcoin more expensive to use?

Hahaha you live in an echochamber.

Yeah like your average Philipines guy will pay 100$ per TX, when his salary is 152$


Your Philipines guy makes 5.522$/day (before taxes)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/wages

Your Indian guy guy makes 4.20$/day (before taxes)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/india/wages


https://cryptortrust.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/bitcoin-use-mapAsia.jpeg
https://cryptortrust.com/news/news/

Good luck making 3rd worlders pay 100$ /transaction. Oh and did I mention that 80% of Bitcoin users are from 3rld world. Good luck dooming bitcoin by alienating 80% of Bitcoin users, and making them join Dash.  :D :D :D

This isn't ad hominem. Another display of your lack of education. This is an insult, it has nothing to do with your argument and is therefore not a fallacy.

1) Private currency != decentralized.
2) More currencies does not imply scalability. They are all equally limited with their scalability problem.
3) Own cryptocurrency == centralized, mutable, and not censorship resistant.

Nonsense. Fees are required long before the reward approaches zero or you will end up with near-zero security.

"Network power" has nothing to do with Moore's law. You are talking about Nielsen's law. Neither of which are actual laws, but are predictions. Neither of which substantially help with the main problems. Your knowledge is the equivalent of a trained monkey.

This kind of statement resembles religious fanatics who haven't even completed secondary school trying to argue quantum decoherence versus the leading quantum physics experts.

No.

Are you mentally incapacitated? I explicitly said: "If people want to pay $100 per TX, they will. ".

wait a minute!
didn't you say goodbyte to bitcoin and go away like 3 months ago because you said bitcoin is over?! and then you said I have to leave the bitcoin community after many years, yadda yadda!

oh wait here is the topic: Goodbye Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1795830.0) ;D

* just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in

Bitcoin price has increased along with major inflow of investment as well increased users compared to the past. Not only bitcoin everything grows in the similar way, for the same we cannot say that bitcoin is under destruction or getting destroyed.

it can (and hopefully will) have a much higher price and stable future once a scaling solution is implemented.   if not, expect it to keep bleeding marketshare (even with higher prices)

Okay okay, so hide your bad arguments inside a haystack full of insults and character attacks.


Can you explain this, because it doesn't make sense to me. How the hell will Bitcoin centralize if you add more people to it? That is the dictionary definition of decentralization.

More users = more decentralized.

You must be living in an upside world.


This is exactly what I was getting at.

So above you said that you can't add more people to Bitcoin, and here you say that you can't have more users creating their own altcoins.

So basically you are saying that only we (a few million users) can use cryptocurrencies, and the rest of the world should stick to fiat? Because that is what I am understanding from your point.

It's total nonsense.


If you have more people running more nodes in Bitcoin, then it doesnt become centralized.

Similarily if you have more people creating their own coins (which is more nodes in general for their own coins), is more decentralization.

Not only it's competition inside the altcoin space (may the best one win), but it's also more decentralized as everyone can work on his own project and doesnt have to rely on a centralized developer team to make the code for them.

Isn't that wonderful?

Or is your idea to basically just have a centralized development team with a centralized mining system, with diminishing node count? Well that is Bitcoin currently.

In a Free Market profit goes up while operating costs go down.

But apperently Lauda doesn't know how a free market works:



In his version of a free market, profit goes down while transaction fees go up. Totally reversed world  :D

Don't waste your time w Lauda.  he/she's the biggest troll on this forum.   A shameless blockstream butt licker.

im laughing at lauda's "free market"

does lauda understand the math of average tx fee... vs reactive tx fee..

the average tx fee mechanism does not drop the fee down to 0 when there is no demand.

imagine for 10 blocks people pay 0.0001.. then a spammer puts in a load of tx's that cause that SINGLE block to be 0.001
now before even caring about what the demand is.. lets say block 12 demand was 0.. the average is already at 0.00019 not 0.00010 or less
so even with no demand peoples estimate tx fee average is suggesting people pay 0.00019 or more!!.. even without caring about demand

if anyone is over 8 years old and has more than a 3 second attention span can easily use excel to do some basic maths and realise the price
does not naturally drop in low demand anymore..

0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000
0.00010000  
0.00010000  
0.00100000
0.00019000
0.00019900
0.00020890
0.00021979
0.00023177
0.00024495
0.00025944
0.00027538
0.00029292
0.00031222

I understand what you say, but it's just the risk, currently, segwit is being considered as the best way to solve every bitcoin problem. But, as far as I know, they will choose 2mb segwit, not 8mb. Do not worry about it, bitcoin developers will find the most logical way to develop bitcoin.

I agree that increasing transaction fees and higher confirmation time would be a critical issue in the future and we must find a practical solution for it for to sustain in the long term and that would be important from the growth perspective. People would prefer bitcoin as far as it is better than traditional fiat transfer infrastructure in terms of cost, time and usability and we still have some time to find a concrete solution.

Well this is interesting 30$ transaction fees? I don't follow, if I buy from coinbase, it doesn't cost 30+ what I"m purchasing, why? Also does ether take care of these problems?

I fully agree with the silly dogmatism that reigns in bitcoin land.   I have to say I came late to bitcoin ; in mid 2014.  I had heard of it before, but I thought it was something like the failed e-cash system I was very close to about 10 years earlier.  Back then I was enthusiastic, I saw it fail, and I realized that "freedom money" was not going to be possible.  I didn't immediately grasp the decentralized aspect of bitcoin.  I was mesmerized.  THIS was finally "freedom money" !

In the mean time, I saw it evolve from a system where one could, indeed, transact value in a "permissionless" way, into a speculative gambler's feast.  In the beginning, I thought it was great it was taking up value.  Then it started to annoy me that people seemed to focus on speculation more than on usage.  After all, "freedom money" is not to speculate or to get rich with because you happen NOT to be a person occupied doing valuable things, but because you happen to gamble some money at the right time in the beginning and just sit on your ass, right ?  That's exactly the sort of financial game that is making our banking system sick, so this should NOT be the essence of "freedom money", right ?  So when was the speculative bubble of bitcoin going to crash, finally, and start following "Fisher's formula" which is the true value of a currency used to buy stuff with ? After the 2013 crash, I thought that bitcoin was going to "de-bubble" and that people had been burned enough not to start over.  Bitcoin's price was happily going down, and my idea was that it was going to arrive at a few tens of $, its "Fisher price" rough estimation.

But no, speculation took of again, with the "halving", etc....  I didn't understand it.  Where was this sick speculation coming from ?   So I set out finding out why.  I now realize that it was made that way. "gold bug economics" but with huge initial seigniorage, can be nothing else but speculation.  The more I studied the game-theoretical aspects of bitcoin, the more I realized: this thing is broken beyond repair as a currency.  About everything in it is set up for it to fail as a normal day-to-day currency.   However, bitcoin is not dead, and will not die.  But it is something else.  It is not gold either.  Gold has had the bulk of its seigniorage hundreds or thousands of years ago.  Gold, economically speaking, "existed for ever".  It had its "price rise" so long ago, that no economic effect is felt today.  You can *reasonably" speculate on gold, like you can speculate on anything, but you won't do factors of 1000.    So what is bitcoin then ?  It is simply a huge greater-fool system.  No more and no less.  And what's driving it ?   A delusional story, of "the new money for the 21st century", what it is exactly designed not to become.  It is brilliantly designed as one of the better greater-fool traps in history.  

This is one of the greatest dogma's in bitcoin, that it should sustain "all payments of the world" one day.  It is not going to, but if you point out that its economic design is everything but that, and is nothing else but one of the biggest pyramid games in history, you hit a dogma.  I'm sorry that it is that.  I would have preferred "freedom money".  But it isn't.  Its price in the market is not set by the demand for bitcoin in order to buy stuff with.  Its price in the market is set by the demand of speculators that want to leave it to greater fools, making a benefit on it.  That's the definition of a pyramid game. If you mainly want an asset for the sole reason of selling it for a higher price to someone else later, and if this demand is what sets its price, and there's no "sound fundamental" backing it up, then this IS a pyramid game.

The other dogma is a cryptographic idiocy, namely that bitcoin's decentralization is depending on how many copies of the sole ledger are around, which brings us to the block size.  A payment system in which the ledger has to be integrally copied by all/most users, is a system of which the burden *per user* increases linearly with the size of the network.  Such a thing always crumbles under its own weight.    The more users the network has, the higher the burden *per user*.  This is crazy. It means that the total burden of a network goes QUADRATICALLY with the network size.  No reasonable system does so.

But on top of that, it is cryptographically not necessary.  If there's one block chain cryptographically available (no other one is actively being made), then *a few independent copies* are sufficient.  Not every user needs such an integral copy.  It doesn't help him in anything.  There is cryptographically no way to "fake" block chains, because the PoW can be checked by just the header list, and in any case there's no possibility to fake it without delivering the PoW, so without genuine mining. The only thing that must be decentralized as a check, is the *header list*.  You cannot fake it.  Once you have the header list, there's no way in which one can sell you "fake blocks", because their "signature", their Merkle tree hash, is in the (verified) header list.
So whether these blocks are 1 MB, 10 MB, or 50 GB each, doesn't really matter, they cannot be faked if the header list is right.  Nobody can sell you a fake block.  You don't need them all.  You only need those of the transactions you are concerned with, to verify that you obtained a transaction, or that you sent a transaction. (*)

If there are, say, 20 full nodes in the world, serving these data, that's largely sufficient, because no-one can fake the data, and there is no other data "in competition" available.  Satoshi already explained that, his logic is correct, but is conveniently ignored.

In *such* a case, a block chain system is NOT having a burden that goes quadratically with its users, but essentially linear/logarithmic, and COULD hence perfectly sustain growth without the slightest problem.  A few full nodes being the "world servers" of the single block chain is good enough, because that chain cannot be faked.  You cannot receive "erroneous data" from such a server, because you can check it against the header list that you DO maintain.

So all this "block size debate" is based upon a totally erroneous/bogus argument, namely the "need for this data to be copied a number of times, proportional to the number of users", which kills its growth.  It is another dogma, but this time, invented afterwards.

So, if bitcoin didn't have an economic design that induces pure speculation, it could have become a freedom currency, but its speculative behaviour transforms it in one of the better pyramid games of history ; and if that silly dogma of "everyone needs a full copy" wasn't maintained, it could technically sustain network growth without a problem.

Bitcoin has OTHER fundamental errors in its design, like using PoW for coin creation AND consensus, which industrializes and centralizes the decision-making process in bitcoin.

This is why I think bitcoin was a good idea, but is so badly designed, that essentially it KILLED the notion of freedom money it was supposed to become.

(*) edit:  it is important to realize that even if there are only 20 nodes out there, you don't need to TRUST them.  They cannot give you a fake block.  The only blocks that you can get from them, are true blocks, because these are the only ones that comply with their Merkle hash to the header list you received.  This is somewhat similar to the fact that you don't have to trust your e-mail server when you receive a cryptographically signed message.  If the signature verifies, then your e-mail server gave you the right copy of that message, he cannot give you a false one.  If you *know* that your e-mail server received exactly one such message (if you KNOW that you want block 480721), then the only thing that e-mail server can do, is to send you the right message, or refuse to send you a message.  This is why one node would in fact be sufficient, apart from the fact that that one node could decide to deny you access.  This is why some copies around are needed.  But cryptographically, from the moment you know that you can get a copy of a specific block, you do not need to trust the entity that gives you that block.  They cannot fake it.

You don't even need a full block, but just the "Merkle path" to the transaction that you need.  It cannot be faked either.

He's referencing a future where there may be $30 fees because the fees for the blockchain keep increasing, making Bitcoin a really elite-esque crypto and out of the average man's hands. And buying from an exchange is not a transaction fee ffs. This isn't hard to understand.
Ethereum takes care of them in one way and trades them for another problem.
I see your activity and I hope this is satire because this should be something you understand.

Try moving coins from a used address with a long history (I get that you should not reuse an address, but most of the time it's just not feasible).

Fees can get as high as 50$ in peak hours. Just for a new transaction from a new address ,you already pay 5$ fees.

God forbid you try to create a transaction with multiple inputs and outputs, I can't even imagine how much fee you would pay for that.



Yes Bitcoin doesnt need a million nodes, a couple thousand nodes are probably well enough for all humanity.

There are less clearinghouse banks in the world, so why do you need so many nodes.


It should be setup as the DASH system, with multiple tiered node systems, each doing a different layer of verification.

Node pruning does this, which is great. But we also need block increase as well.

All bitcoin holders are hopeful of the upcoming UASF meeting that will decide the consensus towards increasing the blocksize as well as what will be the standard code for miners to use. With this we are hopeful that the miners fee will decrease since the blocksize will be increased to 2mb. Everything will be clear after August and hoping that the consensus as well as the segwit activation will open the way for a lower fee and fast transactions.

I never pay more than a few $ in transaction fees don't see how you can get it to 30$, but regardless its still high and needs to be reduced if its to scale up.

You don't even need "thousand nodes".  As I pointed out, even one node is sufficient, as long as that node doesn't deny you access, because a node doesn't need to be trusted: it cannot serve fake data.  Given that mining pools need a node, which is also the source from which all other nodes can only copy (or refuse to copy and stop), in fact, the nodes of miner pools are sufficient for bitcoin's security.

You don't need many e-mail servers serving you the same e-mail with a signature for the security of the signed message.  If I send you a signed e-mail with my secret key of which you know the public key, and you KNOW that I sent you a message, then you only need one single e-mail server to get my message from.  No matter how much the single owner of that server can tamper with everything on it, you don't have to trust him: if you can download an e-mail with my signature, you know it is the right e-mail, it is not forged, and there is no other one.

This is why the whole debate of "my god, if ever we increase the block size, Joe will not be willing to buy a 3TB disk for his full node in his basement and bitcoin is centralized" is totally, totally ridiculous.  It is so ridiculous, and propagated by such knowledgeable people, that this is covering up an agenda.  First of all, because Joe will mostly be able to afford such a disk as you pointed out ; but second, because whether Joe is having his node in his basement or not, doesn't change zilch to the security or power model of bitcoin.

If you do technology based upon false assumptions or starting points, you will end up making a system that doesn't work well.   If people keep insisting on the false relationship between bitcoin's decentralization and the number of Joe's that have small computers running nodes in their basement, one is going to make decisions that are ill-fated.

Of course, the goldbugonomics of bitcoin reduces the block reward, and hence the financing of the (silly) cryptographic security of the ledger as time goes by, so somehow, transactions need to become scarce and expensive to take over from debasement.  This can be a good argument to introduce scarcity of transactions (killing the "fluid currency" concept if it wasn't yet dead by goldbugonomics).  My idea is that this argument is also used to force users off the block chain onto the LN.  Not for real, of course, because that will most probably never work for real, unless operated by "banking hubs", killing the last bit of "freedom money" that remained.

If bitcoin however, evolves towards what goldbugonomics drives it, namely, a speculative asset in a greater-fool pyramid game, then most probably, bitcoin doesn't need a very high transaction capacity (apart from the last day, when the final crash comes, but people cannot transact fast enough to sell their coins).  But 1 MB is too small.

BTW, I'm not against hard forks.  I think hard forking is natural, and in as much as two prongs emerge, that's good too.
Hard forks are great in that they don't need any "majority consensus" which is, by definition, impossible to obtain in a truly decentralized system.

Anybody can propose a hard fork, and if people take it on, then a new coin is born.  That's good.

I would not call the drop of the price as death. Bitcoin has it's ups and downs and this is normally to us already. Now we are really close to 3000$ price, but a new drop will not be a surprise to me. My strategy is HODL, I am waiting for 5000$.

OP is mostly spreading FUD about bitcoin and the current situation, otherwise i doubt that anybody is left in bitcoin community that is unaware of the problems that bitcoin is currently facing with the big backlong and rising fees.

and no ether is not capable of taking care of these problems, it has even worse scaling issue than bitcoin has. the transactions fees of ether has already grown 10 times and it doesn't even have enough users to send transactions. and it will only get worse. and this is also true about majority of altcoins. they all seem good now because nobody uses them and their networks are empty of users but when they get a little bit more usage they all face the real problems.

Due to both mining and node centralization.

It is not.

I am not hiding anything, and neither are my arguments bad. You're an uneducated baboon. At least you aren't directly shilling for the BU trash.

See, you claim my arguments are bad but you don't even know what decentralization is. Does the high user count of Visa == more decentralized? ::) The number of users is completely irrelevent, we are talking about mining and node centralization which are already a problem to some degree today.

No. Right now, without realizing it, you're acting exactly equal to the anti-vaccination people.

Private currencies are useless.

No. I have told you how Bitcoin is supposed to scale, at least in the medium-term whilst something better is found.

There is nothing that implies more users will be running more nodes.

No. Centralized, private blockchains, are not part of any form of decentralization.

There is no such thing.

Wrong. Development is decentralized, the node count has been steadily growing and the mining, albeit still centralized, is much less centralized that it was in the past.

That statement is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with reality. Classic FUD.

A new drop should not be a surprise, but an opportunity to buy as many coins at a cheap price in order to earn more money later.

You shouldn't confuse the "size of the block chain" with "the scaling issue in bitcoin".   The scaling issue in bitcoin finds its origin in a belief that the size of the block chain should be relatively small, not in a genuine technical problem that a big block chain causes.  Bitcoin has a scaling problem because one wants to keep the block chain small, because there's a dogma that it should be small.    What is causing a problem in bitcoin right now is not the size of the block chain, but the LIMIT that one has set on that size (because, one believes that one would run into problems if one didn't, but for the moment, the remedy seems far worse than the imagined illness that never showed up).

Other crypto currencies don't adhere to that belief, and hence are not going to face a "similar" scaling problem.  If the belief in the potential problems of large block chains is justified, these crypto currencies will maybe run into these problems.  But if that belief is not justified and I fully think it isn't, then bitcoin is just hurting itself over a dogma with a problem it has created out of thin air, which other crypto currencies will simply not face.

So, yes, other crypto currencies make larger block sizes for a given number of transactions (Monero for instance, with its ring signatures).   But as it is absolutely not indicated that big block chains are a problem, as they don't have put, in the name of that belief, a hard limit on its size, they won't face the scaling issue of bitcoin.

This is exactly what i see coming as well and its in the making behind closed doors and meetings for invited ones and no minutes and action points published after.

Bit I still believe in the disruptive forces  sourcing this special community here, that is exactly split already i.o. To conquer,. Hard task but not hopeless!

Go on , keep it up.

Is it true? i dont think so Because given the increasingly rapid development of bitcoin and peoples increasingly need it.

No.  DASH's principal critique comes not from the existence of master nodes, but rather from the scammy start of it, which lets one estimate that the original devs may just as well possess half of them, if they didn't spend their coins on girls and coke.

Right now, the transaction fee is not much compared to the benefits that comes with using a decentralized currency. The current scenario is inevitable, it is always expected to happen, guess the mass adoption made it happen earlier. It will get worse, but it looks like the market does not give a shit about scaling issues and that's a good sign, but how long the market would be able to stand it's ground when bitcoin users start to realize that the transaction fee is somewhat getting proportional to the transaction amount?

Microtransactions are literally dead, paying a fee of $5 to $10 for a $100 transaction is understandable and manageable, but paying up to $30 for a $100 transaction would make some BTC users jump to alternatives.

Increasing the block size is just a temporary solution, with the way bitcoin is getting adopted it would get impossible to relay all the transactions on the main blockchain, no matter what the block size is. And an increase in block size has the potential to take away the decentralized nature of bitcoin.

Lightening network, offchain transactions, miner fees. As far as BTC market is booming, users would not bother much about these terms. They would pay the fee even it is 1/3rd of the transaction, yeah a scenario like this would definitely negatively affect users in tier-3 countries. Hope at least some temporary solution is found for the scaling issue before it turns into a crisis and users start whining about another bubble burst.

I totally agree with OP. With the way things are going, its chances of success are on a par with a coin-flip, somewhat leaning towards less than 50%. It is obvious most people who transact often are becoming fed up with this, which would apparently lead to an ever growing number of businesses drifting away from bitcoin and integrating ethereum or other altcoin.

Some bitcoin focused businesses now are following in the footsteps of many other, such as Coinbase, which never accepted any other digital currency until they added ethereum last year following an ever increasing congested bitcoin network.

Also, according to an article "Brave browser, a project much lauded in bitcoin, appears to be taking the same action, as are other businesses which seem to have no choice due to thin profit margins now eaten by a network that scientific studies have called inefficient."

Yet, bitcoin price cares less, but, as utility degrades, many have started asking about the tipping point and if it is reached, it is either the market gives bitcoin a second chance after attitudes are set that the network is slow, congested, expensive and lacking much utility or make other alternative decisions.

really? i dont think so, because many peoples use bitcoin and we all still need BTC.

These are all false rumors of competitors or those who do not know how to use bitcoin. Bitcoin is constantly growing and there is no reason to worry.

OP is wrong. Bitcoin is not getting destroyed by high fees.

I agree. I live in the Philippines and don't have a single btc, mostly bits I manage to save up and hold. I only have my stash in an exchange and when I tried donating $1 to someone, I found the fee was almost $1 as well. Well, there goes microtransactions. Maybe this will actually benefit alts as more people use them for remittance and just use bitcoin for investment and trading.

Bitcoin is constantly growing in price and in the future only good news. I do not understand who can say that it is being destroyed.

So is it better if we use the same address or should we use a new one every time? will miners include re-used addresses more than new ones?
I don't know where did you guys paid $30 or $50 for transactions but last time I paid $1.8 for a transaction with 196 bytes I think.
Miners want to have a larger block limit so they can get more fees mining each block and if only miners were the ones running nodes then they could change anything at any time and they activate that change easily with their own nodes voting "yes".
Individuals around the world running full nodes allows a true decentralized network to function because all of their interests are not aligned in a way miners are.
So if the majority of nodes are in the hands of many stranger to each other worldwide it will make it hard for miners to take the control of the code, after all it's the code that matters.

Just asked do you have some powers? Like magic balls? Hahaha you're wishing that definitely would make true. Go and get back in being a baby and cried if your saying that BITCOIN would getting destroyed hehehe. Bitcoin have now strong walls that can't break even your magic balls

Yup! And I think op was wrong Bitcoin was continue to growing and growing yeah transaction fee was so high but its not the reason that why bitcoin will destroy or dead. I also read some news way back in February that the Chinese government would penalize any bank transacting with bitcoin exchanges after 15th April started to break around mid-morning China time on Thursday 27th March. This time, it was reported as fact by a number of news services.
And in fact today bitcoin price was so high.  So just keep calm no need to worries relax and continue to collect bitcoin.

thats a 1 in 1 out tx. using a compressed address.

now try it where you have lots of inputs (getting paid from different sources) and a couple outputs.(putting it all into one destination and getting some change back)

it soon adds up.

just needs 20 inputs 2 outputs and already that makes $30~ in fee.

so stop taking the most leanest best case scenario. and think realistically at the average case scenario of faucet users or even faucets/merchants themselves that get lots of payments then having to move them

This again.
It's about the bandwidth, not the storage.

I think that people who say bitcoin will be destroyed are those who can not accept technological progress. Most of them still use conventional currency. And they are very frightened of the increased bitcoin power.

Correct. However, saying that "fees" are $30 is nonsensical and a sign of deep misunderstanding of Bitcoin. Fees are to be expressed in satoshi/byte (or per kByte) and should be represented with:
1) Median transaction fee.
2) Average transaction fee.

Actually it is a lot of things. A few pointers (they interact with each other at different levels; some are less important/constrictive than others):
1) Quadratic validation time.
2) Bandwidth.
3) Storage.
4) Orphan rates.
5) Propagation delay.

Yes, they just do not understand how it works and lose the opportunity to earn money. Perhaps eventually they will start studying bitcoin and change their mind.

In 4 years life with bitcoin it is not the first time that I read such fatalism about bitcoin. I don't agree with this point of view and I am sure that will be found a light at the end of the tunnel as is made always when is talked about such pearl like bitcoin.

People are just using bitcoins for earning money and as an investment which defiles the original purpose it was made for to be a safe peer to peer transaction cryptocurrency.
And yes it is stupid to tell that the transaction amount is 30$-40$ which 'Could' not will harm bitcoin as a whole.
 

According to my point of view, the bitcoin can continue to exist or not depends on the person.bitcoin can soon be destroyed by those who couldn't acquire these scientific advances, engineering. I think bitcoin will still exist long in the future because of the value it attracts so many investors.

if you use the word nonsensical one more time, then someone better buy you a dictionary for next christmas

if you read the context. you will see the OP said
"but paying up to $30 for a $100 transaction would make some BTC users jump to alternatives."

the context was not that fee's are on average $30 now.. nor median now. it was that IF fees continue to rise people will jump ship
i added context (using the byte per tx formulae) to show it doesnt take much to formulate a tx that cost ~$30 in fee.

lauda i understand you cant read more than a paragraph. but things only become nonsense to you. if you fail to read then content of posts to make sense of the overal picture



if you cared to check out things..
we are no longer in 2009
we are not stuck with the min specs of Raspberry pi1
we are not stuck with the average internet of 512kbit/s - 3g mobile
we are not stuck with the v0.1 inefficient code.

we are in 2017
we are at the min specs of Raspberry pi3
we are at the average internet of 5mb/s  - 4g, .. approaching the fibre/5g era
we are at the v0.12+ efficient code. - EG libsecp256k1 5x efficient

plus other efficiencies all add up that 8mb is deemed min spec safe.. yep even Core admit and accept as such that 8mb is deemed as 'safe' but they still double cautiously prefer 4mb.

as for quadratics.
keep a tx below 4k txsigops and quadratics is not an issue lauda should ever have to cry about ever again.. nor should anyone else.

Its somehow funny, how blockstream supporters can be catched since their logic is so twisted.

On the one hand the wanna let the the system run on the cheapest hardware to save the dezentralization

On the other hand they accept high fees, now soon higher than the needed hardware to run things..

Awkward brains if existent at all...

 :o ::)