Bitcoin Forum

https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/dear-bitcoin-im-sorry-fees-will-rise-b002b1449054

Looks like Blockstream, leaders of BitcoinCore coin (BTC) are warning of an impending fee disaster that could cripple their chain.

Whatever you do, hold onto your BitcoinCash. Things are about to get a little crazy.

Edit: Bitcoin Cash promises cheaper and cheaper fees: https://zander.github.io/posts/bcc-fees/

Unfortunately they dont care. So I guess this is not news. I read a paper written by one of their developers, it clearly states that high fees are here to stay. Will look for that paper and post here.

well it is sad to admit but if that happens, bitcoin dies. simple.
people won't continue using bitcoin if the fees continuously go up. and you know fees go up because there are more transaction than there is block size which means some tx won't confirm.
people will simply switch to an altcoin or build a bitcoin from zero block and with 0 MB blockchain size.

and don't get excited the 8 MB block is even worse. the centralization that brings is 100 times worse.

Hold on to what? People have already dumped their BCC.

Is this your attempt to pump it, so you can sell your stash, OP? The only reason BCC stopped at 0.05BTC was that people felt it's going to get pumped again to at least 0.1 and it was. I believe it's going to get even higher, maybe 0.15, but that's it. It's not worth more.

That's why building second layer is so important, onchain cannot scale, people are deluded if they think just increasing blocksize helps scaling, it only helps digging a bigger hole and making bitcoin centralized, centralized as in requiring $20k computers to run full nodes and rewarding big miners.

Having read the news, I must say I am saddened by if it eventually comes to play because it would all the controvery about August 1 that was expected to solve among other issues concerning fee reduction will be a total waste of time and we will be back to where we started from. I am sure the discussion will still get heated in the coming days but hopefully we get something to rely upon because the way they are going, they might be nobody left in bitcoin.

I agree, we need a seconed layer solution, wich must be open source!

I think the lightning network has code parts which are closed source, so that´s no option. We need a seconed layer open source solution. Or something else (a yet undiscovered technology), but increasing blocksize is redicoulous, don´t use BCC it will crash!

Bitcoin will never die. People that cannot afford on-chain fees will get kicked out of the network, because decentralization is expensive, but you got sold the lie of it being cheap.

If you cannot afford onchain transaction, wait for LN, which is better than any other shitcoin or the banking system of course.

The fees will go up a lot because of Roger Ver spam, because we are still far from real mainstream usage.

Meanwhile Bitcoin Cash like: https://zander.github.io/posts/bcc-fees/

 8)

Hold your Bitcoin Cash. Selling could be the worst mistake of your life.

Nobody is using Bitcoin Cash other than people making transactions to dump it for BCC. Nobody but some idiots would want to have Bitcoin nodes centralized inside china. Nobody wants a coin that is mined by "ViaBTC + "other"" (BitmainCoin).

Accept defeat already. Bitcoin Crash was DOA. It may have artificial pumps here and there like ETC: doesn't matter.

Ya no one uses it after one week, wow its dead LOL

You sound like someone who dumped your BCH early and now realize you goofed up like tons of others.

Bitcoin Cash IS the real Bitcoin now and will only get bigger and stronger as the weeks go by.

You are just spreading FUD and shilling for your shitcoin, instead of trying to present some technical argument. I can only feel sorry for newbies who get influenced to buy shitcoins by posts like this.

Now, in reality what that article was saying is that there are hardware limitations that don't let Bitcoin's network to process as much transactions as PayPal or Visa. Big blocks increase capacity at expense of decentralization and security, and this is why no one really wants them. There are countless shitcoins that have bigger and/or faster blocks, time has proven that this does not work, and no one really wants it.

The article is written by a liar. Bitcoin Cash will scale on chain to greater than Visa as stated by Satoshi.

The guy is right, Bitcoin Cash fees will stay the same, because nobody will use Bitcoin Cash, no demand -> no fees.

Would like to see some stress tests on that network to see how it behaves.

Segwit does just about nothing for scaling and BitcoinCash already has 8mb blocks with plans to keep scaling on chain. Bitcoin Cash will also receive L2 before BitcoinSegwit. Sounds like you didn't think your post through.

i am laughing...
ok so imagine 100,000 PEOPLE use bitcoin.. knowing the stats of actually average usage (5 tx per month)
that works out as
500,000 a month = <18,000 tx/day (btc utility stats)

 or even taking debit card utility of ~1tx a day per person, works out as
2.8m a month = 100,000 tx a day (debit utility stats)

which if you actually do som maths..

144blocks a day of ~2500 tx/block = 360,000 tx a day.

meaning
if based on comparing to debit card utility. bitcoin can at just 1mb base block.. be capable of 360,000 people.
or because bitcoin cant be used for all daily needs(not mainstream in every rtailer world wide right now). if based on bitcoin real utility needs average as capable of handling
2million people

in short

knowing bitcoin cant be used to buy just anything. the 1mb baseblock allows 2million people to do needed bitcoin tx a day. or based on a utopia of buying things you can buy with debit card. 1mb can handle 360,000 people.


so a 2mb block can handle double
then in time that can double again..

but that requires blockstream stop controlling the bip proposals and leading the devs down poorly laid out roadmaps.. and actually let the base block grow NATURALLY over time.

Rusty is too cabin fever/stuck in his blockstream motivations that he and his colleagues will scream any dooms day they can to sell their offchain commercial services.

so much so they have even removed fee priority, and added things to be the cause of a fee rise even when demand is low.


struggling with 140gb?
lol

as for mining centralisation.. ASICS DO NOT CONTAIN A HARD DRIVE..
asics will function if there was a 1mb block or a 32mb block.. asics do not see the whole block data!!

Did you forget to take your meds? If he dumped BCash when it was 0.25 he could have made a ton of money, now BCash is 0.10 and struggling to keep there. A coin that is worth 10 times less than BTC and is not accepted anywhere and basically nobody cares about it but some Roger Ver fanboys is not the real Bitcoin, sorry to break your bubble.

Everyone that hasn't sold out yet is just waiting for the next pump to liquidate their BCash. It's over.

Looks like you are trying to promote China coin. The threat of getting a huge fees is usually marked in FAQ sections of most cryptocurrency websites.
I would prefer any other coin that is not centralized and safe (spoiler: not bcc). People force this fork only because they got it for free.

The really bad news is this here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

Blockstream really wants to isolate and keep core power centralized, rather to compromise and allow multiple client implementation.

Will all follow by blindly upgade to 0.15 ?

No. Core is forking to an altcoin. They try to pretend it's not though.

If you count just all the sheep installing whatever comes from core the network split might be huge.

Core is not able to collude with NYA (Hongkong,..) , they rather want to go the EGO and hard trip.

No, you're really not understanding what that's doing. There would be serious partitioning and disconnects with bans with multiple incompatible clients out there leading to a complete mess of a network.

I fully understand what Matt & BS are about. They WANT to split from btc1 - and so make btc1 and the 2x to be an alt..

yep a direct unilateral split.
the real funny part is this all makes more sense from a dictionary point of view if you swap the words

ban :-> suspend
disconnect:->ban

because a ban is more official/permanent. where as a suspend is temporary

which currently is confusing for some because cores current 'ban' is temporary(minutes/hours). where as their proposed 'disconnect' is more permanent(1 year, possibly more)

meaning core dont want to temporarily avoid their opposition. they want to permanently avoid communicating with their opposition.
again this is another attempt of core controlling the network and again avoid bitcoins built in consensus/orphaning mechanism from allowing users to decide when/if the network should move to 2mb baseblock. by forcing the core fanboys to not even have a free choice.

it would be so much easier for core to just add the 2mb base block code into their implementation and just allow the network to evolve. instead of forcing their stifled, 1mb base block, Neanderthal mindset onto their fanboys

being conservative is not about forward looking innovation. is about devolving, and preserving things. which will actually end up chocking the network

it seems people prefer to trust devs more than reading code, reading a dictionary and reading between the lines.. core are becoming more ridiculous with every passing year.

in short.
core: stop wasting time and lots of lines of code to avoid evolving the network by splitting the community. and instead just add the lines of code that add 2mb base blocks and unite the community!!!
USE BITCOINS NETWORK CONSENSUS MECHANISM.. STOP AVOIDING IT!! stop working around consensus

It's just how it's supposed to be. You can't accept protocol-changing nodes trying to change consensus rules. Satoshi warned us about that:

satoshi as one man said it was hard for him to monitor, peer review and bug fix multiple versions.

however if you actually check history. in satoshi's day there were atleast 12 different codebases.
most notably, while satoshi was working on his codebase on a different platform, gavin was working on a codebase on github. and that same githb codebase of gavins evolved to be what is now core..

meaning core were and are not using satoshi's codebase..

secondly satoshi knew at that very point by saying those words that if he continued with that mindset he would become the leader/ruler/decider of bitcoin if there was only one codebase. which actually was his wakeup call to pull back and allow the community to diversify and keep bitcoin open with no controller.

bitcoin has a mechanism that prevents an implementation just taking over, its called consensus.. meaning the majority of people running a certain rule win.. changes only occur when a certain ruleset is used by the majority.

core try bypassing this by slipping in changes under the fense. which is where people get confused and afraid to actually use consensus and instead think consensus is bad. thus basically handing control over to one party because they think that is what satoshi wanted.

to me its all just twisting the facts to make it sound like satoshi was advocating dominant control of bitcoin by the BScartel simple from bscartels fanboys thinking satoshi wanted just one implementation. when the actual context is that one man cannot monitor and maintain more than one implementation at a time without going nuts.

bitcoins consensus/orphaning mechanism is there for a reason.. avoiding it and trying to slip code in without using it while also REKTing anything else that wants to actually use all of bitcoins features.. is the opposite of bitcoins ethos

While you may end up being right that bitcoin cash may not make it long term, don't you think 8 days in, is WAY too early to say.  Most coins take way way longer from inception to even being available on any major exchange.  Everyone is acting like Bitcoin Cash has been around for like 5 years and it is dying...it's barely been over a week...

It seems that Bitcoin cash is beginning to support the artificial. But why this is done is not clear. Perhaps this is another manipulation, with the help of which he wants to warm his hands very well. I would advise everyone to be more careful.

OP Tittle fiercely attacks BitCoincore team
has link to medium space link
has empty emphasizing space between sentences
has by the looks, prophetic warnings of crazy fee disasters
has bad coin hack edit:promise of good news hodl 'forever'

.

imagine i would say nay, BTC has been grand and come so far and there is zero content or anything personal but an external link in your OP, therefore Sir you have earned the same tittle you try to sell, Ignore it is for you

cheers

Uh hang on, did you expect core to support the 2x fork? Absolutely none of the core developers have ever officially supported it.

This is why I'm far more concerned about the 2x part of segwit2x and not the segwit activation thanks to BIP91 making it compatible. Nothing will make core compatible with the 2x component so it's now a standoff between core and the bulk of the miners. We'll see if the miners follow through with 2x or if a significant number now drop off their NYA support.

Everyone is free to make their own Bitcoin client. Bitcoin Knots has existed for a long time for example. As long as it doesn't change the network rules, it's ok  (XT, Classic, segwit2x, Unlimited, Cash... changes the rules). You can hardfork into an altcoin Bitcoin Cash style, just don't pretend it's Bitcoin.

everyone is free to make their own bitcoin client

but who says only core get to choose the rules!!

what it should be is that anyone can make a client.. and the rules only change when the community follow a majority client of a certain rule.
this does not mean that client then suddenly becomes the god code forever and always after that no matter what.

in the future core devs may move onto different projects and new better devs turn up using different clients.. this does not mean we should still remain with core for brand sake even if their pool of devs have diluted down to script kiddies and spell checkers

if a different client offers better code and better long term view of keeping bitcoins longevity going. people should be free to follow it.

trying to make core the only rule decider .. or more realistically the rule change preventer.. then bitcoins ethos has been destroyed and you might aswell call core the IMF..

if you think core should be lord and master forever and always even if gmax, wuille and others moved away and only coded for hyperledger.. then  you have missed logic, technical innovation and diversity principles..

please look passed your brown nose of brand "core".. and think about bitcoin..

---

its simple anyone can make a client that fits the current rules but can also include (future activating) features that may offer something better in the future.. let people use it. if it fails to function it fails.. diversity of different brands and codebases holding current ruleset will keep the network alive..
if the future feature fails to gain consensus.. then it fails to gain consensus.. diversity of different brands and codebases holding current ruleset will keep the network alive with the current ruleset

if the future feature gains consensus.. then it gains consensus.. the diversity then has to adapt to the new ruleset to remain a diverse part of the network by the time the feature activation period occurs.. meaning all the brands are then on the same equal level playing ground.

what should not happen is one small group become gods.. as that is not diverse, that is not decentralised and that is certainly not the bitcoin ethos.

stop being afraid of bitcoins mechanism.. stop avoiding using bitcoins consensus mechanism and stop screaming doomsdays of the consensus mechanism purely due to brand dictatorship desire.

So do you guys think we are headed for another hard fork again with segwit2x.  Theoretically this could result in a third form of bitcoin right?  While it was pretty cool getting airdropped what is the equivalent of free money, I don't really like the idea of three different bitcoins. The entry barrier for newbies just becomes that much more confusing.

AFAIK the 2x was bespoke many times (Hongkong,...) , it was / is part of the core road map, it is good for the new harmony - some core guys worked on HF (a bit).

I really do not see the issue to do it in November or with some compromise early next year.

I do not see the benefit to risk the new harmony.

I do not see tech is really that bad and nobody can mathematically prove that centralization is the real issue.  

I still hope groups speak and help each other and toxic elements go away.

I hope individuals put themselves behind Bitcoin.

Can only be good for Bitcoin in the long run.

If you are a Core opponent then it would be nice to shut up and let them make mistake after mistake that would lead them to their own demise. I genuinely dont like the fork but the fact that its now there, I ended up holding both to protect myself from all this stupidity from Bitcoiners who are acting like children.

Go ahead Core and Cash. Try to kill each other.