I fully support this proposal and hope we can move forward with a real BIP and an actual implementation based on it.


In this proposal, it would take years of continuous spamming to achieve a dangerous block size. Not only mempool spamming (like now), the transactions would have to be actually included in the blocks, so it would be a very costly operation.

You can do the math: the increase of the base block size would be a maximum of 250 kB per year (that is the important number regarding to the quadratic hashing problem), while the total block size only could change 1 MB/year.

What I like regarding the last proposal (5% per period) is the non-exponential approach to block size increases. So if the block size becomes bigger it still is equally difficult to "spam the blocksize to the moon".

Well, i think the flexibility goes both ways -- blocks can get smaller again if the space isn't being used.  That's the beauty of flexible blocks.

If someone wants to use the blockchain, and pay for it (spend millions), whether or not the transactions were useful to anyone else is kind of irrelevant.  One man's spam is another man's legit use.  But if they pay the fees and the miners agree to it, I think its ok and we shouldn't be trying to constrict the blocksizes because of it.  Better to get a little bit of bloat and make the spammers pay for all that volume than to constantly punish everyone else with high fees and restricted capacity.

I like the idea of adaptive blocksizes. 

I also favor the idea that capacity should always outpace demand, so I think the increases have to be substantially greater than this.  I think Ethereum does it in a smart way.  If I am correct, it is something like 20% more than a moving average of actual capacity used.  This ensures blocks keep getting bigger as needed. 

With a normal financial attorney, shouldn't be that complicated. The firm would receive and convert the bitcoin, and make the purchase on your behalf with fiat. Once the btc becomes fiat, this would look like any other home purchase on paper. Bitcoin is money; all the lawyer is doing is functioning as an exchange. And you will pay dearly for this service

Be your own bank! Unless these funds are illegally gained, it would be much cheaper to just sell bitcoin and buy the house with cash.

which means it wont get 95%.


In Lauda's self-created reality, yes, it will definitely happen.

Just think that in (almost) less than 3 years from now $BTC blocks will pay only 6 BTC to miners. Halving is near fellas, accumulate. #bitcoinhalving

http://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/

BTC has never dropped this low. There has also never been an alt rally anywhere near this magnitude and by extension we've yet to see the subsequent bubble pop which may be louder than Krakatoa, but who knows? There may be plenty of legs left.

What people regularly forget is that all this stuff is still being made up as it goes along. Anything could still happen and nothing should be resting on its laurels because there's no shortage of pesky thingies nibbling at them.

if you ignore the reddit propaganda scripts you will learn that things like BU, classic, XT, nbitcoin, BTCD and all the others do NOT want to dominate and OWN/control bitcoin.

they way a diverse and decentralised PEER network of many brands on THE SAME CHAIN/network.
all they ask is that the blocks are not stiffled at 1mb

yt the blockstream protagonists want to stifle the block to make people move their assets into the
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):LN
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):sidechain
blockstream:ELEMENTS(patented):segwit keys

simple solution

a true community uniting manatory activation of a 1 merkle 4mb block. where by native(legacy) key asset holders get more space AND segwit key opt-in users can disarm themselves to then be allowed to use voluntary services like sidechains/LN.

everyone becomes happy and the network remains peer, with only the services tiered.

however the blockstream soft agenda is a TIER network where people need to move funds to segwit keypairs to be top of the tier.

please look passed the reddit scripts, look passed the brand drama and look at things from the position of a diverse decentralised peer network. all will become clearer to you

Well, so when are we to expect the Bitcoin price to go down finally?

I don't know about Litecoin, but personally, I'm waiting for Bitcoin correction. Obviously, only to buy back what I sold at recent highs. So, according to your logic, we should necessarily see Bitcoin price if not crash, then at least decline massively (due to people dropping bitcoins like hot potatoes and going full throttle into Litecoin). But this is nowhere to be seen, it looks more like Bitcoin is consolidating right now to jump at new highs in the nearest future. I guess you should try to coherently explain this conundrum or paradox

I'd say NO.

There were only 11,940 litecoin transactions in the last 24 hours. See this chart:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactions.html

Litecoin hasn't even reached the 20,000 transactions they managed in 2014, let alone take some of the overflow from bitcoin.

Its very good to be optimistic about a project. I equally believe in LTC the same way you also believe in it but the issue I always have is that all the ALTs just wanted to overcome bitcoin and that is their motive and driving force. Overcoming is not even the issue but the process of overcoming is what they dont want to go through which is definitely rough. Bitcoin has undergo all this process in other to be what it is today and we are all proud of it. So, if LTC is ready to go for it no problem but be ready and brace up for the down times.

Things seem to develop like I said before: ViaBTC is considering supporting Segwit (at least they've polled about that at Twitter). They still don't admit it but already cite the "Flippening" danger and I can imagine their resistance could soon develop into grudging support. This last tweet ("for now" they don't change their view) looks like they could be reconsidering it and it resembles a bit the F2Pool statements in the months before they supported Segwit.

An event which could the moderate pools reconsiderating their position could be Bitcoin going below of 50% of the total cryptocurrency market cap or Ethereum passing a critical mark like $100 or 33% of Bitcoin's market cap.

@BillyBobZorton: That's possible, but I consider it unlikely. The Big Blocker movement isn't a 2017 nor a Bitmain invention, it has been now about 2 years around (remember XT, Classic ...). There are supporters like Gavin Andresen and some respected members of the German and Spanish forums - I don't really believe they have bad intentions. If they really are all paid by Jihan, then he would have been a social engineering genius.

So I consider the big blockers' opinion and "cause" a legitimate one - but that must not mean I support it. I think the centralization danger is higher with big blocks than with Segwit and second-layer solutions.

I have more worries respect to the extreme polarization of the community. This polarization could lead to the scenario I have outlined above to fail. That would mean: There would be a class of miners and pools that rather would allow a "Flippening" than to support Segwit. That's why in my opinion we - the Segwit supporters - therefore should try to convince the moderate fraction of the Big Blockers side to adopt Segwit and don't ignore their opinions, e.g. with a compromise solution like I said above.

Roger Ver, for example, has stated in late 2016 that he would support Segwit if it gets majority support. Now that Segwit blocks are nearing the 50% mark, we should remind him - kindly! - of this promise. But if "Core maximalists" accuse him constantly to have bad intentions then he's not likely to fulfill his promise.