...

[pedrog]

"We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit."

We don't need fees to go up, cheap transactions is one of the major points of using bitcoin.

This is an argument for increasing the block size.

Tradeoff with accessibility issue ... would you rather let everyone pay 5 cent for a tx or would you rather exclude half the planet from using it?

And who is mining for free? Raising max txs ahead of demand will weaken the network in the future aswell as exclude billions of users and push centralisation.

Arguing for a contentious hardfork, hostile takeover of btc by Gavin/Mike and all that is really a lost cause...

Then we need to increase transactions on-chain to generate more fee revenue, not the other way around, off-chain transactions are the centralized ones, unless you have a real proposal for decentralized off-chain transactions...

If users choose XT, XT it is!

And because of bitcoin network nature changes need to be planed way ahead.

YOU don't CREATE transactions. They occure or they don't. Bloating the chain won't make more txs magically appear - well, maybe spam and dust-junk increases. But when you want a bloated chain full of junk, why would you want to tarnish bitcoin for that?  

Increased spam and junk is not genuine growth.

I meant with user adoption, in the future, eventually there will be much more transactions on the network, they should occur on chain, at least for people who prefer that way, people should not be forced to use some centralized service because it becomes too expensive to transact on-chain.

[1714035565]

1714035565

[1714035565]

1714035565

[1714035565]

1714035565

[balu2]

I meant with user adoption, in the future, eventually there will be much more transactions on the network, they should occur on chain, at least for people who prefer that way, people should not be forced to use some centralized service because it becomes too expensive to transact on-chain.

Well, RIGHT NOW it's FREE to send coins around and blocks aren't even half full so i have NO IDEA WTF you're even on about.
The future is the future. How do you know for certain these txs will occure? How can you be so sure about it? Do you have magical abilities to know this? What happens in the future in case your predictions of it are wrong? Please elaborate on that scenario.

[pedrog]

I meant with user adoption, in the future, eventually there will be much more transactions on the network, they should occur on chain, at least for people who prefer that way, people should not be forced to use some centralized service because it becomes too expensive to transact on-chain.

Well, RIGHT NOW it's FREE to send coins around and blocks aren't even half full so i have NO IDEA WTF you're even on about.
The future is the future. How do you know for certain these txs will occure? How can you be so sure about it? Do you have magical abilities to know this? What happens in the future in case your predictions of it are wrong? Please elaborate on that scenario.

https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I have no reason to believe bitcoin has achieved its maximum user base, I'm betting on it, otherwise I would be putting my money in something else...

[dreamspark]

Accepting and producing bigger blocks will lead to more centralization than using off chain transactions. The rate at which the chain can grow and be spam bloated with larger blocks is a serious issue and almost nobody will run their own node.

Lets not forget there are only around 6000 full nodes as it is right now.

However, Satoshi did foresee a future where the chain was so large that people would only use 'client only mode' (spv wallets).

[johnyj]

Stress testing at least proved one thing: Even the blocks are all full, majority of users will not be affected. Blocksize should only be changed when there is a REAL problem, not by fear and imagination

Human are all adaptive, when banks closed during weekends, they don't change bank, but wait for it to open on Monday, and reduce their transaction frequency

[pedrog]

Stress testing at least proved one thing: Even the blocks are all full, majority of users will not be affected. Blocksize should only be changed when there is a REAL problem, not by fear and imagination

Human are all adaptive, when banks closed during weekends, they don't change bank, but wait for it to open on Monday, and reduce their transaction frequency

That's all fine when you control all the software being changed, bitcoin network is a bit different and changes have to be planed way ahead, not when there's a problem, for everyone to upgrade, or at least a majority, it takes probably a year.

[BombaUcigasa]

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions = more fees!

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullsh

That means on average, it also means that at some times during the day, blocks are constantly full and the queue gets long, exactly when people need it the most. If you want the blocks to be full, then you can lengthen the queue to weeks (just like regular banks). You don't want to build a highway that needs to be 100% filled with stationary cars before you decide to put more lanes in it.

3) Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions.

False! Free transactions have a pre-allocated spot in each block. They will still be allowed under normal settings, even with high fees.

4) Once almost all the junk is forced off chain the rise in fees will be very gradual, and it will take a long time for the fees to become an issue for people. In any case the blockchain will function perfectly fine regardless of transaction data volume, fees will simply rise.

False! If the blocks are full, fees grow exponentially to obscene levels, such as "I just paid 1 BTC fee to send my other BTC to an exchange to dump this shit, because everyone else paid 1 BTC fee!".

6) We need to maintain a group of scientists which reach a consensus, not just centralize Bitcoin under a couple of developers.

Too many chefs, not enough cooks. They each think that their idea is the best and other ideas are shit. What if they never reach consensus? This shit is being discussed for over 2 years, the actual block usage increased steadily, and now needs to magically be capped at some random number, with no plan to plan for an increase (yes, there is no plan for a plan, they just push the decision for later).

It also amazes me that NOBODY is capable of understanding the social, economical, technological, networking and computational aspects of this change, as a whole and everyone conveniently ignores some aspects to push his propaganda, such as this example list of false reasons to not prepare for an increase in the block size.

[forlackofabettername]

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions = more fees!

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullsh

That means on average, it also means that at some times during the day, blocks are constantly full and the queue gets long, exactly when people need it the most. If you want the blocks to be full, then you can lengthen the queue to weeks (just like regular banks). You don't want to build a highway that needs to be 100% filled with stationary cars before you decide to put more lanes in it.

3) Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions.

False! Free transactions have a pre-allocated spot in each block. They will still be allowed under normal settings, even with high fees.

4) Once almost all the junk is forced off chain the rise in fees will be very gradual, and it will take a long time for the fees to become an issue for people. In any case the blockchain will function perfectly fine regardless of transaction data volume, fees will simply rise.

False! If the blocks are full, fees grow exponentially to obscene levels, such as "I just paid 1 BTC fee to send my other BTC to an exchange to dump this shit, because everyone else paid 1 BTC fee!".

6) We need to maintain a group of scientists which reach a consensus, not just centralize Bitcoin under a couple of developers.

Too many chefs, not enough cooks. They each think that their idea is the best and other ideas are shit. What if they never reach consensus? This shit is being discussed for over 2 years, the actual block usage increased steadily, and now needs to magically be capped at some random number, with no plan to plan for an increase (yes, there is no plan for a plan, they just push the decision for later).

It also amazes me that NOBODY is capable of understanding the social, economical, technological, networking and computational aspects of this change, as a whole and everyone conveniently ignores some aspects to push his propaganda, such as this example list of false reasons to not prepare for an increase in the block size.

1) bigger blocks don't create transactions in and of itself. Larger blockchain probably prevents further adoption or at least slows it. Most txs you'll get will be spam which goes away the very second you charge fees. (lol)

about 2) complete bogus. Fees rise and huge backlogs won't happen even with smaller blocks because fees will drive junk txs off chain. So you got a huge whole in your argumentation there. The doom and gloom backlog-story is a lie. Won't happen. No evidence that supports this idea.

4) No, idiotic idea of exponential fee rise. Do you think btc is the only way to do txs in this universe? No it isn't. Fees will be found in supply/demand  freemarket-fashion (this mechanism never fails and no other mechanism is more efficient, free market, ya know bro? Instead of central planning, got it?)  and txs will cost exactly what people are willing to pay to use bitcoin instead of a substitute. So exponentially rising fees sounds like something right out of Hearns' ass. Again: no evidence to support this idea, niet, nada, poof, zero

all made up crap ...

use da brain, folks, use it!

[forlackofabettername]

Stress testing at least proved one thing: Even the blocks are all full, majority of users will not be affected. Blocksize should only be changed when there is a REAL problem, not by fear and imagination

Human are all adaptive, when banks closed during weekends, they don't change bank, but wait for it to open on Monday, and reduce their transaction frequency

+1

when blocks were full i had instant confirmation at all time with standard fee included of course. I had no delay during all the spamming cuz i way paying appropriate fee to get into blocks before all the broke asses that couldn't afford 3 cent tx fee and were crying about it on the forum.  


The possibility of tx volume dropping like a rock due to scenario a, b, c or  d is almost never discussed in this forum. What you gonna do if txs drop off? Core could deal easily with a sharp drop in txs and could recover later. XT on the other hand could get into trouble if txs were to drop sharply.

[valiz]

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions = more fees!

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions with very low or no fees = less fees!

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullsh

That means on average, it also means that at some times during the day, blocks are constantly full and the queue gets long, exactly when people need it the most. If you want the blocks to be full, then you can lengthen the queue to weeks (just like regular banks). You don't want to build a highway that needs to be 100% filled with stationary cars before you decide to put more lanes in it.

If you pay a decent fee, you won't have issues even when blocks are constantly full. Only dust and spam transactions are hindered. You want to quickly build more lanes on the highway even if there is a significant risk that the bridge over the big river collapses under the weight.

3) Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions.

False! Free transactions have a pre-allocated spot in each block. They will still be allowed under normal settings, even with high fees.

False! That's because the miners are happy with their current incentives, but that will change. Anyway, many stupid dust transactions actually pay a very small fee, and they will only make room for legitimate transactions after fees rise a bit.

4) Once almost all the junk is forced off chain the rise in fees will be very gradual, and it will take a long time for the fees to become an issue for people. In any case the blockchain will function perfectly fine regardless of transaction data volume, fees will simply rise.

False! If the blocks are full, fees grow exponentially to obscene levels, such as "I just paid 1 BTC fee to send my other BTC to an exchange to dump this shit, because everyone else paid 1 BTC fee!".

False! A fee market will form and noone will be stupid enough to pay 1 BTC fee. This market will reach a price equilibrium at slightly higher fees than now (an equilibrium for which at least the stupid dust transactions are infeasible). And for the long term, I don't think people would want to run full nodes that will verify and store the transactions for all the guys paying for cofee directly with bitcoin.

6) We need to maintain a group of scientists which reach a consensus, not just centralize Bitcoin under a couple of developers.

Too many chefs, not enough cooks. They each think that their idea is the best and other ideas are shit. What if they never reach consensus? This shit is being discussed for over 2 years, the actual block usage increased steadily, and now needs to magically be capped at some random number, with no plan to plan for an increase (yes, there is no plan for a plan, they just push the decision for later).

It also amazes me that NOBODY is capable of understanding the social, economical, technological, networking and computational aspects of this change, as a whole and everyone conveniently ignores some aspects to push his propaganda, such as this example list of false reasons to not prepare for an increase in the block size.

That list contains completely true reasons that many people, including me, agree with. I don't care if they never reach consensus. We need consensus to perform this kind of hard forks, I see everything else as an attack on the network.

The way I see things, the gullible masses (mainly pissed-off reddit people) lead by Gavin and Mike are preparing for a massive attack on the bitcoin network. Save it by destroying it!

[valiz]

1) bigger blocks don't create transactions in and of itself. Larger blockchain probably prevents further adoption or at least slows it. Most txs you'll get will be spam which goes away the very second you charge fees. (lol)

about 2) complete bogus. Fees rise and huge backlogs won't happen even with smaller blocks because fees will drive junk txs off chain. So you got a huge whole in your argumentation there. The doom and gloom backlog-story is a lie. Won't happen. No evidence that supports this idea.

4) No, idiotic idea of exponential fee rise. Do you think btc is the only way to do txs in this universe? No it isn't. Fees will be found in supply/demand  freemarket-fashion (this mechanism never fails and no other mechanism is more efficient, free market, ya know bro? Instead of central planning, got it?)  and txs will cost exactly what people are willing to pay to use bitcoin instead of a substitute. So exponentially rising fees sounds like something right out of Hearns' ass. Again: no evidence to support this idea, niet, nada, poof, zero

all made up crap ...

use da brain, folks, use it!

I completely agree with you.

[forlackofabettername]

The joke in all this is: we would actually now be good for a bull market if Gavincoin-camp wouldn't create massive FUD for the coin.

Some of these people say scalability (it's actual pseudo scalbility) would bring in new money. But hey, folks, if you would just leave it alone and not threaten to break it price would probably be higher already. These people seem not to understand that they are spooking the investors at the periphery massively and drive away the money with their Gavincoin-circus.

[lottery248]

i mean, even though it would happen, i still would not let the blockchain to increase the size which is unneeded. that would harm newbies to use the full node wallet. doubling the block size limit would ever encourage the spammers to spam in the blockchain network if the active users did not increase. that's shit-awful with those junk transactions.
we need a sustainable currency to help bitcoin mingle with the world , just like a currency joining to the IMF.

Honestly, I think Joe and Jill Average running full nodes is a pipe dream, whatever we do with the block size:

-If you increase the block size indefinitely, the storage and bandwidth requirements will become high enough to deter casual users.

-If you don't increase the block size but increase fees instead, the fees will become high enough to push casual users off the blockchain, to use payment processors etc. instead. This leaves them with no reason to run a full node even if they technically could.

-either way, I don't see many apart from a hard core of enthusiasts wanting to run a node.

reasonably, what about the people with the XT node? leave them away, and let them die for the insufficient storage?
within 20 years, not even 30 years would be full of blockchain data, and people would have no choice but either buy more hard disk, or stop using the XT node and start using the third party wallet. with or without XT, result would be exactly the same. instead, we should have the flexible block size, to prevent the network spammer. apparently, the blockchain, even stress test would not affect the full node users a lot, however, as the block size increase, the more burden of XT node users would be. no matter how fast the technology would be, the growth of technology is never reaching how fast that block grow. when the day, the block size went to the maximum, meaning 8 gb per block, unless we got the solution for the ultimately large size of hard disk, which is affordable and sustainable enough, otherwise, i am sure people would leave their XT node wallet.

[BombaUcigasa]

1) bigger blocks don't create transactions in and of itself. Larger blockchain probably prevents further adoption or at least slows it.

Do you see how you contradict yourself? There will be no larger blocks, then you say there will be larger blocks. This is why your argument is invalid, it's self-contradicting.

Fees rise and huge backlogs won't happen even with smaller blocks because fees will drive junk txs off chain. So you got a huge whole in your argumentation there. The doom and gloom backlog-story is a lie. Won't happen. No evidence that supports this idea.

The lie is your comment. It just happened this month. A backlog of 2 days for people that paid small transactions. I was affected by this because payments to me were delayed. There is no doom and gloom, it's just a fact, it can be proven ANYTIME, but you seem to be either blind or have a short memory term.

No, idiotic idea of exponential fee rise. Do you think btc is the only way to do txs in this universe?

Again, contradiction. Fees will not rise, because when they do people will use something else? Are you really oblivious?

[BombaUcigasa]

noone will be stupid enough to pay 1 BTC fee.

Why not?!

[JackH]

Agath that's the most biased post in bitcointalk history. You throw a red herring for each point I made.

I really don't understand why there is a dedicated group of people on Bitcointalk who aggressively promote Bitcoin XT all day. It's like a broken record, I can post the most solid data ever and they would disagree. In the past I've let it go, but I will no longer be silent because whether you guys like it or not you're hurting Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT is nothing but trouble and unnecessary.

I don't want 2 egotistical developers in charge of my Bitcoins. I know its not gonna happen, but if it did I might abandon Bitcoin since it wouldnt be safe anymore. That's why the price is going down, investors and Bitcoiners dont want to hold a cryptocurrency that can be contorted by a couple of outsiders who are attacking the core team.

In fact I am angry at this point. The ignorance is unbelievable. You see the fucking chart showing its below 0.4 mb and pretend it doesnt exist. You saw the stress test prove that Bitcoin functions fine even with extremely anomalous spikes of traffic, magnitudes faster than real life, but you dont acknowledge it. I'm trying to be nice but I have a strong urge to tell all of you to shut the fuck up and stop damaging Bitcoin's integrity.

THIS! Cant be said better than this. The spam test showed us even blocks of 100MB is doing nothing to stop real transactions with a bit of fee to be included in blocks. Doing a hard-fork, and allowing ourselves to have 2 people running the show of Bitcoin is madness.

[valiz]

noone will be stupid enough to pay 1 BTC fee.

Why not?!

Ok, almost nobody. If they would send 1000 BTC then maybe. What I mean is that if someone asks you 500$ for a cofee, you probably won't buy it, but some will. There is a demand for bitcoin transactions and a supply limited by the block size. Right now there is more supply than demand, and you want to keep it this way disregarding the risks. Even if it means a hard fork without consensus and using software controlled by 2 guys with dubious intentions. This is not about the block size anymore, it's about the controversial hard fork. I want the block size to increase, but with a proposal like sipa's with the block size increase following technological growth.

[Kazimir]

I strongly disagree with TO.

1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself.[/qoute]
Disagree. If mining is profitable, more people will start mining. If mining is less profitable, less people will be mining, but there will always be enough miners who are happy to earn some money.

It's a mistake to think miners should make at least x BTC of profit. If it's not enough for some, it will be enough for plenty others.

Besides, why this obsession for the the amount of fees per block, considering it's insignificant compared to the 25 BTC per block they earn anyway.

We need transaction fees to go up,

No we don't!
One attractive property of Bitcoin is the ability to send money around the world, at very low transaction rates. Killing this advantage would be bad for Bitcoin growth.

and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.

Why wouldn't 2MB or 4MB blocks, i.e. more transactions and thus more fees, be just as good as higher fees?

2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.

If Bitcoin continues to grow, we'll get near the limit sooner than you may expect. Not being able to handle peak volume sucks. Being vulnerable to tx spam sucks. Even if we're not actually using >1mb blocks yet, better be prepared for the future than wait until it gets close and we have to rush a solution.

3) Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions.

Problem is: who's gonna decide what transactions are junk?

4) Once almost all the junk is forced off chain the rise in fees will be very gradual, and it will take a long time for the fees to become an issue for people. In any case the blockchain will function perfectly fine regardless of transaction data volume, fees will simply rise.

Again, why insisting on higher fees, rather than more fees.

5) Hard fork of Bitcoin is dangerous and can result in mass confusion, double spends, and loss of Bitcoins. It will damage the value of Bitcoin at least temporarily.

Just a hard fork? Not necessarily, remember we've had them before.

However actually splitting Bitcoin in what is essentially two blockchains, one Core, one XT, which would sort of run simultaneously, would be VERY bad indeed.

6) We need to maintain a group of scientists which reach a consensus, not just centralize Bitcoin under a couple of developers.

This has nothing to do with whether it's good or bad or (un)necessary to increase the block size limit.

[BombaUcigasa]

Agath that's the most biased post in bitcointalk history. You throw a red herring for each point I made.

I really don't understand why there is a dedicated group of people on Bitcointalk who aggressively promote Bitcoin XT all day. It's like a broken record, I can post the most solid data ever and they would disagree. In the past I've let it go, but I will no longer be silent because whether you guys like it or not you're hurting Bitcoin. Bitcoin XT is nothing but trouble and unnecessary.

I don't want 2 egotistical developers in charge of my Bitcoins. I know its not gonna happen, but if it did I might abandon Bitcoin since it wouldnt be safe anymore. That's why the price is going down, investors and Bitcoiners dont want to hold a cryptocurrency that can be contorted by a couple of outsiders who are attacking the core team.

In fact I am angry at this point. The ignorance is unbelievable. You see the fucking chart showing its below 0.4 mb and pretend it doesnt exist. You saw the stress test prove that Bitcoin functions fine even with extremely anomalous spikes of traffic, magnitudes faster than real life, but you dont acknowledge it. I'm trying to be nice but I have a strong urge to tell all of you to shut the fuck up and stop damaging Bitcoin's integrity.

THIS! Cant be said better than this. The spam test showed us even blocks of 100MB is doing nothing to stop real transactions with a bit of fee to be included in blocks. Doing a hard-fork, and allowing ourselves to have 2 people running the show of Bitcoin is madness.

You have been propagandized to believe that a block increase is possible using only XT. There are 4 alternative proposals. Don't demonize a progressive improvement in the functionality of Bitcoin because of two clowns and the mob fighting them.

[BombaUcigasa]

noone will be stupid enough to pay 1 BTC fee.

Why not?!

Ok, almost nobody. If they would send 1000 BTC then maybe. What I mean is that if someone asks you 500$ for a cofee, you probably won't buy it, but some will. There is a demand for bitcoin transactions and a supply limited by the block size. Right now there is more supply than demand, and you want to keep it this way disregarding the risks. Even if it means a hard fork without consensus and using software controlled by 2 guys with dubious intentions. This is not about the block size anymore, it's about the controversial hard fork. I want the block size to increase, but with a proposal like sipa's with the block size increase following technological growth.

When Bitcoin is dumped to 50 cents, someone will pay 1 btc to save what remains of his btc value. See above comment about brainwashing in regards to the "2 guys".