You don't need to do anything like that. Just save all your unconfirmed transactions in separate files, and if they get deleted after 2 weeks, re-broadcast them. (Not sure, but I think Electrum will store them in your app data by default if that ever happens, but do the process yourself to be sure)

What happens if one of the channel partners need to sign a transaction? It could be anything. A regular payment made by them, routing a transaction, issuing a penalty transaction. The multi-sig other end must be present at all times, and it doesn't make much sense. I neither find anything in lightning's documentations.

Wait until we all delete unconfirmed transactions more than 2 weeks old. It'll be fun, I swear.  

Yeah, lightning won't work on multi-sig. The point of a multi-sig wallet is the security gained from not having all required private keys in one device. But, lightning requires you to sign commitment transactions (which use inputs from the locked funds) and be online at all times (e.g., for signing a potential penalty transaction). I'm struggling to imagine how it'd work in a multi-sig wallet, especially if we consider the fact that locked funds are locked to multi-sig in the first place!

There is also this explanation: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/97123/134811.

Let me do a summary:

- Nearly a third of the users votes against, while another third votes in favor (at least in this topic).
- Of those voting in favor, there is complete lack of consensus regarding which block size policy fits better.
- From the history, we have observed similar quarrel on that particular topic, and every single attempt of raising the block size limit has resulted in a crypto-failure. And all these attempts made in a time where Bitcoin was valuated at a small fraction of what it is now.

Hasn't anyone noticed why bigger blocks haven't been adopted yet? To me, it is crystal clear that the risk of splitting the network and breaking backwards compatibility is not worth it. People are willing to pay extra for retaining this invaluable property.

Seriously, my question remains unanswered: why haven't you moved to BSV? Or more reasonably, to BCH? Nobody answers this. These particular coins aren't alts in the traditional sense, they were Bitcoin until someone realized they are capable of enforcing their own policy, forming a network in respect to their perspective. How different is your proposal comparably to Roger Ver's?

For increase to 10 MB, I'll right as well vote in favor, and maybe a little higher than that. I have clarified before that I'm not strictly against anything beyond 4 MB, I'm just not of the opinion that it's going to solve the problem; it's only delaying it.

It's simple. When a miner mines a block, they are the first to have verified that block; it happens during mining to check for the validity of the transactions. When they broadcast their block, the rest of the miners must firstly verify it before mining on top. The bigger the block size, the more time it takes to verify the block, and hence, the more the time the lucky miner gains to continuing mining alone.

And it's not just verification, it's propagation as well. If you we had 1 GB of blocks, as in BSV, you could perhaps imagine this better. During the time that gigabyte is traveling across the network and is in the process of verification, the lucky miner gains invaluable time advantage.

What's the ideal block size according to you?

You persist in presenting this as the ultimate argument, despite my repeated assertions that the storage requirement is not our foremost concern.

I mean, yeah, if you dedicate a modern PC to running a full node, it will take a couple of days to reach the tip, but as per my experience goes, people don't use resource-intensive machines solely for that purpose. If you use a Raspberry Pi 4, it'll take a week to finish the first 500 GB.

100 MB x 144 x 365 = 5,256,000 MB ~= 5.2TB per year. The 500 GB per year correspond to previously mentioned 10 MB block size.

Edit: You've corrected yourself. But, as I have said many times, it's not just the storage requirement (you can find HDD externals pretty inexpensive, even though 5.2 TB per year is quite too much). It's the verification process which takes most of the time, not the downloading. It already takes too much time, I can't fathom how much it'll take if we are to verify 100 MB.

Peer-to-peer cash. Not trusting third parties. Do these remind you anything? I'm pretty sure you'll have to trust some data center after the 100 MB proposal is accepted, unless you're willing to pay ~500 GB of space each year. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to upgrade to some better CPU in a couple of years, unless you're really patient with the initial block download.

What happens, happens temporarily. I do so pay in VISA sometimes. The question remains unanswered: if big blocks are superior as you say, how come everybody does not move to BSV (e.g.)? You know, not just because Bitcoin network is currently congested and it'd be temporarily cheaper to transact there, but move there because it's more reasonable in general. If you don't consider my arguments regarding the block size limit valid, then please answer why that hasn't happened yet.

You'll have to walk me through on this calculation.

You must have misinterpreted me again. Spammers don't care what other people are paying in fees. They only care if their spamming can pass as much cheaply as possible. If block size is 100 MB, then, besides the expectation that it'll always be full, you should expect that it'll be mostly consisted of data junk like Ordinals.

If everyone doesn't give a damn about that, how come everyone stays on 4 MB block size network and doesn't move to BSV? You will probably never be forced to pay anything beyond 1 sat/vb there.

Edit:

Umm.. It's going to be a lot worse. Until the block is propagated from one pool to the other, the pool might have solved another block.

No, you misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that even with 10 MB, you will still sooner or later run out of block space, and fee market will arise. The difference is that you will have traded a percentage of the expenses of the user for the risk to split the network in half, and that there will be greater incentive to use it as a cloud storage.

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

Can you point me to who does that? You know, who actually installs a Dogecoin full node and lets it sync. Because, you know. Cryptocurrency is about eliminating the third party, and last time I used Dogecoin, it was more like peer-to-CEX-to-peer cash.

It is laughable to pretend that the same levels of security and decentralization exist in BSV, Solana, etc. If other coins "manage to do the impossible", how come they are still shitcoins? Has it ever crossed your mind that there is much less activity in both Dogecoin and Litecoin? Have you considered the fact that these are pretty much prone to the same problem? It's just that only 1% of the userbase uses them to transact.

And for once more, the problem isn't the storage requirement for running a full node. It's part of the problem. The greatest problem is the time that it'll take to verify the entire chain, there will be great concern in breaking backwards compatibility, you make spamming costing less, and in the end, you don't solve the problem. You're just delaying it.

And how do you measure that? Even if we were to follow that route, and have a block size limit that corresponds to the "legitimate usage", how do we begin? In my opinion, the adoption has grown a lot since the last time the Bitcoin community had had this debate.

When Ethereum supported Proof-of-Work, it had so called "uncle blocks" (the respective stale blocks in Bitcoin), but that came with additional economic complexity (I wouldn't suggest comparing Bitcoin with Ethereum as they are different in almost everything). As for Dogecoin, lol. If you believe anyone takes this seriously, then I don't know what to say.

Which, as we speak, are really high. Most recent block - 817080 - was mined with 193 sat/vb median fee (!), gathering a total of 2.1 BTC (!!!) from transaction fees alone.

Their reasoning goes as following: whether we rise the block size or not, there will still be scalability problem. Even if the block size limit was 1 GB, the spam attack would cost nearly zero, and there would probably still exist a fee market (much less intensive than now of course). People would really take advantage of the 144 gigabytes of space every day. You can verify that on BSV blockchain, where they have saved whole movies. Needless to say that with 1 GB of block space, one mining pool can take advantage of the time it takes to verify the block and kill off the competition.

This is an indication that we need more than just one layer.

There is this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Page_Visibility_API.

I just thought of it this way: When a YouTube video plays in a focused tab, once it ends it stays there and waits for you to make another request. When the same happens but the page is not focused, it automatically plays the next video.

I don't get that. If there isn't a lot of liquidity, then there is less competition waiting to be exploited. In Bisq for instance, there aren't investors. People just create buy and sell orders. What's wrong with that?

Neither in favor, nor against.

Bigger blocks pros:
- Less congestion.

Bigger blocks cons:
- More time required for verification (right as well as storage requirement).
- Mining becomes less competitive.

I agree, though, that even lightning is getting expensive to work with 4 MB block size limit (and there isn't a lot of demand for lightning yet).

I agree, but it has to made more officially. Currently, there are two groups of people, those that want to completely invalidate Ordinals, and those that treat them as regular transactions. Maybe there's another group of people who don't want to censor Ordinals, but simply disincentivize their usage (i.e., making certain taproot tx non-standard). At the moment, I only observe a sort of intense disagreement, but nobody seems to really care much to propose change.

Κάνε ό,τι θες. Βαρέθηκα να ασχολούμαι μαζί σου.

Πολύ τίμιο πάντως να βγάζεις στη φόρα τα προσωπικά μας μηνύματα χωρίς και τη δική μου άδεια. Δεν έχω λόγια.

Περιττό να πω πως δεν επιβεβαιώνω όλα όσα λέει ότι έχω πει. Είχε πει και κάπου αλλού ότι έβγαζα 1500 EUR το μήνα, που ήταν ψέμα. Ναι, έχω μιλήσει μαζί του γιατί με πέτυχε σε μια περίοδο της ζωής μου που ήμουν ψυχολογικά ευάλωτος, και έχουμε ανταλλάξει πολλές κουβέντες δυστυχώς. Τώρα πια είμαι καλά, αλλά τα μηνύματα δε σβήνονται. Στην αρχή όταν ανταλλάξαμε τις πρώτες κουβέντες πίστευα πως έχω να κάνω με κάποιον ψαγμένο, αλλά στην πορεία έπαιρνα κάποια σημάδια που με έκαναν να σχηματίσω κακή γνώμη (δεν πρόκειται να αποκαλύψω τίποτα από τα μηνύματα).

Τώρα τον βλέπω που φεύγει με παρόμοιο τρόπο όπως και τότε από το γειτονικό φόρουμ, αλλά αυτή τη φορά καταλαβαίνω το γιατί σε αντίθεση με τότε. Δεν το χωράνε τα διαδικτυακά μέρη που δεν παίρνει την απαραίτητη προσοχή κι επιβεβαίωση.

Το logout τίποτα δε μου λέει. Είμαι σίγουρος πως θα συνεχίσεις να παρακολουθείς το φόρουμ, και ιδιαίτερα το συγκεκριμένο sub-board.

I guess we can test it and see, but I'd stay away from using any emulator with real money.

Depends on the potential security holes of the emulator.

There's waydroid which can run on Linux, is open-source and released under the GPLv3 license. I'm sure there are more, but even if "fully reviewed and totally secure", I'd not use a Bitcoin mobile app in an environment that wasn't written to run on, because there might be security implications with the app itself.

The safest approach is to use different wallet software for each cryptocurrency. The security will be better, because no developer cares to be as cautious as each expert team for each crypto accordingly.

I don't care what they say. I don't trust someone who calls their work like that. 

Technical stuff and the history. For the former, I recommend you to read Mastering Bitcoin and learnmeabitcoin.com. For any questions, use this place and stackexchange. For the latter... I think you're in the best place. 

In my opinion, ADA and ETH are shitcoins. Bitcoin is the best in terms of risk and capital appreciation. If you've bought cryptocurrencies with the assumption to get rich, then you're in the wrong place. Nonetheless, Bitcoin still gives pretty good ROI.

I'd advice myself to not get involved into trading to begin with. Retail trading is just waste of time and money.

The second thing I'd advice myself would be to... Keep learning more about the crypto space. Maybe don't create a dozen of topics asking basic questions which could be answered with a google search, but yeah, with everything considered, there isn't one thing I regret about learning.

(Ok, maybe I convinced myself to buy a little more  )

Or, you know: don't trust third parties with bitcoin when there are decentralized, more secure alternatives like Bisq.

Do not use these exchanges in the first place. You don't have to worry about them being target for attacks then. Switch to DEX. And security is just one of the many advantages you will gain. Then, there is lack of KYC, better privacy, nobody can censor you and the like.