In a few months 12.5 BTC of subsidy will be cut. Can we have 330mb of extra block space to compensate with 1 cent fee txs? The answer is no. Even if price goes 10x, we still need 33mb blocks - which is also a no-go.

responding to adam's asserted agreement about segwit and 2mb blocksize limits "now".

My take, some are trying to create drama so it goes back under $400 knowing that it will pop back to at least $430 after the drama fades.

Seriously. That's what I think is going on, and it disgusts me.

agreed. this is acceptable.

the urgency is the fact that full blocks = higher fees = more post that say " why is my TX not confirming, i paid the fee Core0.9.1 said i should have " = less user adoption ( whos going to sink alot of money into a system thats giving them a hard time from the start??? ).

fine but a 1cent fee is just fine to limit spam. why would we need 10cent fees to prevent spam?

lets not make the store bigger because we'll get more clients? i'm not sure i follow...

the goal SHOULD BE to get enough tx pre block so that a 1cent fee will be enough to pay the miners ~8BTC ( yes i pulled this number out of my ass )


miners should set the min fee themselves.

miners will simply not include fees less than what they feel is necessary, and blocks could be allowed to be 1GB big on the protocol level, but miners will have a soft limit, because no miner would risk trying to broadcast a 1GB block, no amount of fee is worth risking getting orphaned. ( a fee market exists without a blocksize limit )


all in all we disagree about fees.
you want to centrally plan the fee market,( and the force the Stream of fee to LN ??) i don't.
thats pretty much it.


segwit +2MB agreement is OK by me. for now...

anyone else completely bored and tired of hearing about block size, blockstream, and scalability? fuck no, we are obsessed with this

i wish this thread moderator would simply announce a ban on the topics.  I will not censor shit the fuck all

For the record though, corruption is everywhere Bitcoin is no different, regardless of which side you are on. i'd rather stream blocks then block streams.

Segwit is 1.7MB blocks (separated into two data structures that combine to 1.7 and thus create a "virtual" 1MB - which isn't 1 but 1.7 to 3mb - depending the use scenario ) and will be online pretty soon.

What's there to be grumpy about? A 300 kilobytes difference? Why are you acting like the 1.7mb is not even an increase at all and only a "traditional" block increase is? If I save 1.7mb of txs in my disk, it doesn't matter if it is saved on one or two files. The only thing that matters is that they are 1.7mb and that tx/s capacity rises by 60%+.

You get immediate increase AND tx malleability fix AND future increase AND the assurance that political fork attempts will be buried on the spot to prevent market clusterfucks like those induced by Gavin and Hearn.

You want Back to completely control every single core dev or speak for them? That can't happen but the likelihood of an agreement (not for the immediate increase - that's pretty much a given, we are talking about the future increase) is very high to ensure the stability of the system and the economy.

I'd be more worried about those who, under the pretext of urgency try to create the conditions for a political takeover. What urgency anyway? "blocks are full"? And blocks can't be full if they are 2 or 4 if they get spammed for near zero cost? Of course they can. If a store hangs a sign that says "Free shit every day", it will be full every day by those coming to take these free shit off the shelves - same for service oriented businesses.

Bitcoin (as a protocol, whether it is about BTC, LTC, Dash implementations) creates, by necessity, an expensive network to operate which is highly inefficient as a tradeoff for its decentralized nature. Free shit policy is incompatible with it because near zero cost txs = near zero cost abuse. Even near zero cost sybil attack / near zero cost unmasking of mixing parties for mixing purposes.

When you read the latest classic roadmap where they say "oh we will FIX the full blocks", you are like W T F are they talking about? You have the store, hanging a "free shit everyday" sign and people are crowding it. What difference does it make if you make the store twice bigger and you give twice the stuff? It'll still be crowded.

The only realistic approach to fixing full blocks is to increase fees to something that is not free or practically free/near zero cost. Either in the protocol or if miners start discarding txs that don't pay very well.

if it was up to me, I'd probably make a proposal like

"we can go to 2MB total capacity (including segwit) if protocol-enforced fees are set to X
"we can go to 3MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Y (which is >X)
"we can go to 4MB total capacity (incuding segwit) if protocol fees are bumped to Z (which is >Y)

In addition to the above I'd issue a miners recommendation to avoid mining very low cost txs / this could also be done through a default setting. I'd issue a new recommendation if price, say, went 5-10x.

This can provide both expansion space and relative protection from near-zero-cost abuse, plus align with the future requirement where it is a necessity to have tx fee generation in order for the network to be sustainable. No fees = you are fucked, or you have "free-shit-for-everyone" populists promoting the idea that "we were better off in the subsidy era, and we must continue coin generation forevah instead of increasing tx fees, and, you know, fuck this 21mn coin limit, that's only for the few wealthy hoarders, and the small fish should not have to see btc as store of value but rather as economic freedom to transact cheaply, so yeah, screw the investors, viva la revolution and infinite coins for the lolz to have our cheap / near free bloat spam txs".

I like the part above that I highlighted... hahahahhahahaha..


That fucking wall thread is so un fucking calm at the moment.  

Damn Adam,

I'm surprised you let this thread turn into another cesspool of debate.

trust no one....

especially when there's money on the table.

The only good news you need is right here:



If there are people who genuinely believe that THIS guy (Adam Back) is some kind of evil corporate lying back-stabbing individual, who runs an evil blockstream company that wants the bad of bitcoin, then they seriously need to readjust their evil-detecting radar.

Adam, are you trolling us?

"Adam Back, Individual" got changed back into "Adam Back, President, Blockstream" in the Medium letter.

So no, I don't think Blockstream is going to veto the roundtable consensus. Not that they were going to veto it before. From what I understand, there just wasn't consensus among Blockstream employees to support the consensus.

It's not as bad as you are making it out to be.

I mean, really?

You are suggesting that it is not changing how you want it to, but really nothing is broken.. except some people whining that they want change faster than core is willing to accomplish it...

change is still happening, but the xt and classic supporters are just saying that they want change faster and more.. blah blah blah..   but it is not necessary...

So, why keep whining and whining and whining... it's not really helping, because there is already a list of plans that are in place that are continuing to be discussed but seemingly and apparently sufficiently adequate for the time being.

Yes, we are watching.