the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin

[adamstgBit]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some poeple say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

even worst, off chain solutions will likely involve a trusted 3rd party.

there you have it, my logic is irrefutable, the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!

 

[1714296947]

1714296947

[1714296947]

1714296947

[CIYAM]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making (am guessing it is a sarcastic point as your logic is apparently irrefutable).

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones but even with the current limit there are fewer and fewer people actually running full nodes so do you think if the block size limit were to be further reduced then that would change?

Or are you just saying that Bitcoin is becoming centralised?

[adamstgBit]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

[CIYAM]

the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

Hmm... well maybe you wouldn't run 24x7 but if you had a lot of BTC and did just the occasional tx you might still want to run a full node to help secure the network that is being used to hold your funds (and be more sure of your txs).

For sure if we are going to have enormous blocks to allow for everyone to buy a coffee using the blockchain directly then virtually no-one is going to run a full node (as you can't even run a full node on a smartphone which is what those buying coffees will be using - I don't see people bringing their laptop up to the counter to pay for their coffee).

So I think your logic is perhaps not so irrefutable.

[brg444]

Your logic is plain retarded, educate yourself:
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

I think so: anyone, anywhere, would be able to make sure that they had gotten paid, without trusting a third party, or doing any other work whatsoever. And this option would be available to every human on the planet, no matter how oppressed/disadvantaged (and the only way for a government to “cut off the head” of the network would be to kill every human being on the planet).

On the other hand, what if the CONOP were expensive, such that only one agent in the entire world could run a full node (say, the United State Government)? This agent would control the network completely: perfect centralization. If someone “cut off its head”, this network would disintegrate.

Cost of Node-Option

To “know you’ve been paid” (ie “P2P money”) you need to know that the software won’t lose your money. After all, the definition of “paid” implies that the money now belongs to you and is controlled by you exclusively. Whether you lose your BTC to theft, or you lose them because the entire network collapsed, “you” have been “unpaid” (and you instead “know that you’ve not be paid”).

On top of that, if “the network” (users, merchants, service providers, …) switches, you have no choice but to switch. If you refuse to switch, and stay on the minority network, your money will be useless and you will be “unpaid”!

So the cost of “knowing you’ve been paid” (the cost of “the option to run a full Bitcoin node”), necessarily now includes maintenance items, which YOU must pay if YOU are to KNOW you’ve been paid: [1] the cost of “validating” any new set of rules and [2] the cost of preventing other people from being deceived into accepting unproven rules.

Because you can only know you’ll be paid if the network uses rules that allow you to spend your future income.

THE LAST DISCONTINUITY
Given our conclusion, the easier it is to start up a new full node, the more decentralized Bitcoin will be. How can we make full nodes cheaper?

I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution.

[brg444]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

To verify you've been paid.

You might not use the Bitcoin blockchain to transact but you depend on it to validate that you actually own the money and not trust another person to do so.

Even if most of your financial transactions are done using Layer-2 the whole system depends on the decentralization of the protocol layer. By running an node you exercise your right to enforce the network rules so that no one is able to cheat.

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

[CIYAM]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

Seriously are you saying this is a problem for the spender or the vendor?

(hint - vendors already have to take into account credit card fraud and fake bank bills)

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

[CIYAM]

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

Too quick to reply - again so what?

Same problem with cash or credit cards.

If every Starbucks franchisee wants to run a full node then they can but of course that wouldn't make any financial sense would it?

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

Why do you bother sharing opinions about things you don't understand?

There is no such thing as a "sidechain node"

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

Why do you bother sharing opinions about things you don't understand?

There is no such thing as a "sidechain node"

sidechain secure themselves without nodes?

[adamstgBit]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

[CIYAM]

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

You as a vendor would have had to already agree to use a sidechain - you aren't "forced into it" by the buyer.

The sidechain is free to have a completely different approach (even a centralised one I would guess).

So in fact for Starbucks a suitable sidechain that is actually a centralised one (run by them) might actually make the most sense (least cost and least chance of fraud without impacting upon the main blockchain).

To some extent I think it can work much like a voucher or points system does (so you purchase Starbucks credits via Bitcoin that are spent using their sidechain).

[brg444]

but you've been forced to a sidechain, To verify you've been paid, you need to run the sidechain's full node now.  

If you're buying a cup of coffee - who cares?

the guy accepting your weird sidechain payment cares.

then he best be able to run a bitcoin node else he's shit out of luck and has to "ask-a-friend"

sidechain payments will be recorded on bitcoin's ledger?

well you got me there, not necessarily. but the primary interest of sidechains are not payments so this is really not a great example.

Lighning is the proper system to reference here and yes, all payments there can be referenced against a transaction in Bitcoin blockchain

[CIYAM]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

[adamstgBit]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

[GreydonIselmoe]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

Did someone say Starbucks "Credits"? I think having the large businesses using their own coin would be interesting.. would allow a developed sidechain coin like CRE to find a niche!

In terms of bitcoin becoming more centralized, that's just inevitable as large entities see different ways to exploit Bitcoin for profits. Not everyone cares about the future of the coin, many just care about their return on investment.

[CIYAM]

Seriously IMO the one mistake that Satoshi made was to compare Bitcoin to other centralised payment systems.

The biggest area that Bitcoin should have already made an impact in is remittance yet what impact has it made in that area so far (hint - virtually none)?

So instead of focusing on the low hanging fruit of remittance (an industry worth billions in profits every year) we are now relentlessly arguing about people buying their coffees with Bitcoin (which pretty much no-one is going to do anyway as hardly anyone even has enough BTC to buy a coffee).

[Brewins]

I agree, with 1MB block size , only transaction with higher fees will confirmed and a normal user can't pay big tx fes for their small transaction so it will make bitcoin a currency of big boys, but we always wanted bitcoin to be currency of everyone not of some rich guys who pay big tip for their transfer

[CIYAM]

I agree, with 1MB block size , only transaction with higher fees will confirmed and a normal user can't pay big tx fes for their small transaction so it will make bitcoin a currency of big boys, but we always wanted bitcoin to be currency of everyone not of some rich guys who pay big tip for their transfer

So - you expect to be able to use Bitcoin to pay for your coffee but no-one is actually even paying you in Bitcoin (or wait for it...).

How do you get your BTC for your coffees then (apart from having your rather obvious ad-sig)?

I get it now - the people who want to make such small payments are all ad-siggers (it figures).

I'd rather that the Bitcoin network wasn't tailored for people spending most of their time making pointless posts in order to earn coffees (but maybe others think that is how the world should work).

[adamstgBit]

I agree, with 1MB block size , only transaction with higher fees will confirmed and a normal user can't pay big tx fes for their small transaction so it will make bitcoin a currency of big boys, but we always wanted bitcoin to be currency of everyone not of some rich guys who pay big tip for their transfer

So - you expect to be able to use Bitcoin to pay for you coffee but no-one is actually even paying you in Bitcoin (or wait for it...).

How do you get your BTC for your coffees then (apart from having your rather obvious ad-sig)?

I get it now - the people who want to make such small payments are all ad-siggers (it figures).

I'd rather Bitcoin wasn't tailored for people spending most of their time making pointless posts in order to earn coffees (but maybe others think that is how the world should work).

there is no reason we cant have bitcoin handle small and large TX tho. this thread attempts to prove its beneficial for decentralization that both small and big payments are allowed on the blockchain.

[brg444]

This post would fit well here:

If you can't understand that a 1MB chain favors the entire network and not only "a small minority" you are either being intentionally dishonest or outright ignorant. Let me spell it out for you: a 1MB block size guarantees access to the most open, private and secure chain.

Open: every users has an ability to trivially run a node and store their wealth on that chain

Private: relying on SPV means relying on a third-party to relay your transactions, there are considerable privacy risks.

Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes (https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/)

Now your obvious complain is that not everyone will get to transact on this chain since it might be considerably pricier. If we're being honest, that's not a problem. A strong & decentralized protocol layer will work as a guarantee that third-parties involved in superficial layers are being kept honest provided that their actions can be checked against the one absolute truth layer. That's the role you should expect Bitcoin to play in the future:

CodeShark the blockchain is there to protect you in the event of an uncooperative counterparty

gmaxwell A more useful mental model for the system is that the network is a trustworthy AI Judge that makes sure you complied with the contracts specified in your contracts. Now, it's possible to transact by taking every contract to the judge, but this is inefficient.

CodeShark right, the blockchain is like a court

CodeShark you don't go to court over every contract you enter

CodeShark only the ones where there's a breach

[CIYAM]

there is no reason we cant have bitcoin handle small and large TX tho. this thread attempts to prove its beneficial for decentralization that both small and big payments are allowed on the blockchain.

There is a reason - it is the cost for processing txs.

It is simply cheaper to process txs in a centralised manner (always has been and always will be).

So unless you have worked out how to change the laws of physics I'm afraid your idea is just plain wrong.

Again - why does no-one seem to care that Bitcoin has failed to do anything in the remittance market (low hanging fruit) yet argue so much about stupid small txs?

If it can't replace SWIFT and WU then really it will never replace VISA (yet you only seem to care about competing with VISA and not care about the "big picture").

[adamstgBit]

So unless you have worked out how to change the laws of physics I'm afraid your idea is just plain wrong.

I have, or actually i found someone that has!

However, the Corallo Relay Network does support a sort of compression.  Rather than transmitting all the transactions in a solved blocks, since most the other miners know about them already, it just transmits indices that refer to each transaction (sort of like a map for how the TXs fit in the block).

I think a more appropriate term for this would be encoding - using codes to represent larger blocks of information that is already known by all parties. This is usually way more effective than blind data compression.

if minner could communicate 100MB blocks with 250KB of encoded data, this is what will allow bitcoin to scale don't you think.

my guess is they wouldn't even need to send the full 64byte TX IDs only a 4 byte hash of the TX ID should be enoght for other minner to identify the TX's included in the new blocks.

using this method a miner could communicate a block with 250000 TX's!!! ( >400TPS ) with only 1MB of data

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175669.msg12381557#msg12381557

[brg444]

I agree, with 1MB block size , only transaction with higher fees will confirmed and a normal user can't pay big tx fes for their small transaction so it will make bitcoin a currency of big boys, but we always wanted bitcoin to be currency of everyone not of some rich guys who pay big tip for their transfer

So - you expect to be able to use Bitcoin to pay for you coffee but no-one is actually even paying you in Bitcoin (or wait for it...).

How do you get your BTC for your coffees then (apart from having your rather obvious ad-sig)?

I get it now - the people who want to make such small payments are all ad-siggers (it figures).

I'd rather Bitcoin wasn't tailored for people spending most of their time making pointless posts in order to earn coffees (but maybe others think that is how the world should work).

there is no reason we cant have bitcoin handle small and large TX tho. this thread attempts to prove its beneficial for decentralization that both small and big payments are allowed on the blockchain.

Why won't you sit down, read this http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/ and figure it out already.

Please stop everyone's time.

[CIYAM]

I have, or actually i found someone that has!

You haven't - as they are talking about nodes that already received the txs (it is only about reducing the information needed to talk about what is in a block assuming a node already has seen the txs).

I am also of the opinion that you are just starting to waste people's time with stupid stuff (so if you won't listen to the other poster then perhaps you'll listen to me).

All the core devs agree that you can't do decentralised txs as quickly and that is due to some very fundamental reasons. So this is not going to get "fixed up" by some magic piece of code in the same way you can't just get rid of gravity.

[adamstgBit]

I have, or actually i found someone that has!

You haven't - as they are talking about nodes that already received the txs (it is only about reducing the information needed to talk about what is in a block assuming a node already has seen the txs).

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

[CIYAM]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones which are going to be the majority of computer users are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

[adamstgBit]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

[brg444]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

[CIYAM]

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

That actually depends upon your bandwidth (a point I was trying to make before about China which seemingly you missed).

Again even Satoshi did not think that home nodes would be needed so I don't know why you think they are (provided we have enough miners we should have enough decentralisation).

If you really want a network of just CPUs from home computers or the like then you don't want to use PoW (maybe you should look into PoS or PoC or the like).

Also please make sure you have read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem to understand why Bitcoin can never be as efficient as a centralised service.

Please think about the fact that Bitcoin has *failed* to gain any significant hold in the remittance market - as all logic and economics says it should have (and I do know major players in this area). If it can't succeed in that then I think hoping that it has any chance against the major payment systems is actually just fantasy.

[adamstgBit]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

[CIYAM]

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS

For a lot of people that would be 1/4 of their entire bandwidth.

So you think they should stop watching movies and do other things apart from let others buy coffees?

And 4K TPS is not even close to what VISA does currently (and as you want it to replace everything then you need to multiply that by everything else that is being used).

[Klestin]

Surely there's something between 1 MB and 8 GB that we can work towards, isn't there?  If Bitcoin is eventually used by 10% of the population, a 1MB block allows a particular person to make one transaction every 7 years.  If the concept of actually owning Bitcoin is to survive (and actually from time to time signing a transaction to make a transfer), then 1MB blocks are not enough to support any form of worldwide adoption.

Those of us advocating for an increase from 1 MB are not universally advocating for all the world's coffee purchases to be posted directly to the main blockchain.  

[brg444]

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

That actually depends upon your bandwidth (a point I was trying to make before about China which seemingly you missed).

Again even Satoshi did not think that home nodes would be needed so I don't know why you think they are (provided we have enough miners we should have enough decentralisation).

If you really want a network of just CPUs from home computers or the like then you don't want to use PoW (maybe you should look into PoS or PoC or the like).

Also please make sure you have read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem to understand why Bitcoin can never be as efficient as a centralised service.

Please think about the fact that Bitcoin has *failed* to gain any significant hold in the remittance market - as all logic and economics says it should have (and I do know major players in this area). If it can't succeed in that then I think hoping that it has any chance against the major payment systems is actually just fantasy.

That was a mistake.

[brg444]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!!

[adamstgBit]

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS

For a lot of people that would be 1/4 of their entire bandwidth.

So you think they should stop watching movies and do other things apart from let others buy coffees?

And 4K TPS is not even close to what VISA does currently (and as you want it to replace everything then you need to multiply that by everything else that is being used).

not everyone will use bitcoin for everything this like 100years in the future at best.

and VISA can accommodate more than 4K TPS but typically they process <4K TPS

[CIYAM]

That was a mistake.

I guess that depends upon how you think decentralisation should be handled.

What I find most frustrating is that everyone keeps ignoring the fact that Bitcoin has made no inroads into the remittance market and instead keeps on arguing about coffees (or whatever small txs).

Why don't you guys care about the fact that it has failed to defeat Western Union when that company is gouging people for fees in excess of 10%?

Seriously if it can't beat WU then it will never beat VISA.

[crazyearner]

I thought  bitcoin was about being fee free or very little. Put the price up people gonna be hating and stop using if it goes up a lot more. If a little bit then not so bad but if it gets to that put am sure many will just look at other methods of alt coins out their without the fees or very little like btc use to have and not worried about waiting now if sending with little fees takes too long to confirm.

[adamstgBit]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!!

you're not getting what i'm saying...

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

[CIYAM]

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

While it is streaming two HD movies at the same time?

You seem to think that people are going to donate all of their bandwidth (for no return) just to run Bitcoin. Why on earth would they do that?

There is *no reward* for running a Bitcoin node if you are not mining so I am pretty sure you are going to find no-one to run these 10K nodes you want.

And again I'll say (as none of you guys want to answer it) why hasn't Bitcoin already taken on the likes of Western Union and won?

[adamstgBit]

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

While it is streaming two HD movies at the same time?

You seem to think that people are going to donate all of their bandwidth (for no return) just to run Bitcoin. Why on earth would they do that?

There is *no reward* for running a Bitcoin node if you are not mining so I am pretty sure you are going to find no-one to run these 10K nodes you want.

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.


sometimes you say SPV clients was always part of the plan for end users, and sometimes you say end users need to all run full nodes which is it?

[CIYAM]

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.

And you think that they are running home-grade internet connections (and are not running full nodes)?

[brg444]

well sure, but it still allows for huge blocks to be handled by home users, they just have to be able to stream data at ~1MBPS to handle >4,000TPS

Why on earth would they?

Everyone on earth should be able to handle the same txs as VISA just so you can buy your coffee?

I think you forgot to ask everyone on earth if they want to (and most smartphones are going to literally start burning a hole in your pocket doing that).

most desktops can handle streaming 1MBPS with ease

i sure as hell am not asking everyone on earth to run a full bitcoin node.

i'm asking for ~10,000nodes.

THE TX HASH IS ONLY USED TO COMMUNICATE BLOCK INFORMATION BETWEEN MINERS.

ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE TRANSMITTED BY THE NODES (BANDWIDTH), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO PROCESS (GPU), ALL NODES STILL HAVE TO STORE (HD)

GODDAMNIT YOU ARE STUPID

YES I'M MAD  

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

It's not 1MB you retard, it's the full block. THERE IS NO COMPRESSION!!!

you're not getting what i'm saying...

you can expect a home computer to stream 600MB in 10mins easy, yes or no?

I'm done with you. 

[adamstgBit]

blockchain.info needs a full node

bitpay

every exchange.

etc.

And you think that they are running home-grade internet connections?

no i expect something about 10X better.

but i want to keep full node accessible to as many poeple as possible for as long as possible

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

[CIYAM]

sometimes you say SPV clients was always part of the plan for end users, and sometimes you say end users need to all run full nodes which is it?

I don't say end-users need to run full nodes but I have said that some might do so if that matters to them (in particular they might do that if they have a lot of BTC).

[CIYAM]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

[adamstgBit]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

i don't run a full node either.

is bitcoin centralized?

[adamstgBit]

i give up.

[CIYAM]

So it comes down to what you consider to be "centralised".

If that is that "everyone should run it" (the full version) then Bitcoin clearly fails that test.

Others believe that provided we have enough *players* (that perhaps come from different countries) then it can still be considered to be decentralised (and that is basically what Satoshi had pretty much stated).

[adamstgBit]

So it comes down to what you consider to be "centralised".

If that is that "everyone should run it" (the full version) then Bitcoin clearly fails that test.

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

[marky89]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

Actually, that's part of the issue that I have with this discussion. There is this tendency towards tunnel vision about what scaling means. The way people are approaching this is, "no matter what transactions comprise blocks at present, we unequivocally need to increase capacity (as much as possible) to include any/all transactions." That's an irresponsible approach, and why we saw the community rally around such a reckless implementation as BIP 101 / XT.

I am not interested in the bitcoin blockchain including any/all transactions. This should be a legitimate topic of discussion, not to be brushed aside. If we want to be technical, an altcoin like Devcoin could be used to make much, much smaller microtransactions than bitcoin. But it doesn't logically follow that we should alter the protocol to include divisibility past the satoshi unit or lower the dust threshold considerably lower than 546 satoshis simply to include these useless transactions. Clearly, there must be some discussion of what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization.

[CIYAM]

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

So then - even if we have two entities by your definition it would not be centralised.

Personally I'd think two is not enough but I don't have a ready formula to respond with apart from that I think it would be best to have at least two entities from every major country.

Another point that I'd like to make is there is no reason to only have one blockchain (and it will be possible to transfer funds between different blockchains in the future as I've already built tech to do that).

[adamstgBit]

my def of centralised is "fully controlled by 1 entity"

So then - even if we have two entities by your definition it would not be centralised.

not in bitcoin case, with 2 one always has more than 51% hashing power and therefore 1 of them could control the whole thing.

my views on what constitutes  "decentralized" are pretty minimal, of course the more the better, 10K plus is a worthy target.

[adamstgBit]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

no one is suggesting we shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain, just bitcoin tx should appear on the blockchain.

Actually, that's part of the issue that I have with this discussion. There is this tendency towards tunnel vision about what scaling means. The way people are approaching this is, "no matter what transactions comprise blocks at present, we unequivocally need to increase capacity (as much as possible) to include any/all transactions." That's an irresponsible approach, and why we saw the community rally around such a reckless implementation as BIP 101 / XT.

I am not interested in the bitcoin blockchain including any/all transactions. This should be a legitimate topic of discussion, not to be brushed aside. If we want to be technical, an altcoin like Devcoin could be used to make much, much smaller microtransactions than bitcoin. But it doesn't logically follow that we should alter the protocol to include divisibility past the satoshi unit or lower the dust threshold considerably lower than 546 satoshis simply to include these useless transactions. Clearly, there must be some discussion of what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization.

what does scaling mean to you? 7TPS with high fees, and with lighting network and or side-chains?

"what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization. "
as many as we can get, until there are so many that a typical home computer can handle the traffic and this starts to affect  decentralization in a big way. at which point we cap the blocksize and let fees run up, until a better faster internet is available to all. and again we let in as many TX as we can get, until there are so many that a typical home computer can't handle the traffic and this starts to affect decentralization in a big way.

that would be my answer.

we could limit ourselves so that bitcoin full nodes can run in an embedded device, but why would we? limiting ourselves to a typical home computer makes more sense.

thing is you could say bitcoin needs to consume no more then 10% of a typical home computers resources, and you'd still be able to push the TPS to 400. so i find it SILLY to think 1MB is the good limit.

[marky89]

"what transactions belong on the blockchain, to optimize efficiency and encourage decentralization. "
as many as we can get

And that, my friend, is the crux of the problem. Unfortunately I don't really have the technical expertise to do this analysis, but I would love to see some analysis of median value transacted vs. transaction size, generally, on the blockchain.... with the approach in mind that there ought to be a threshold under which we are content not (reliably) relaying transactions (i.e. most nodes refuse to relay them while under significant mempool load).

Ideally, those making uneconomical (default unspendable) transactions ought to be penalized, and considerably so, in order to prevent the cost of their transactions from being socialized. One approach is obviously to allow block size to grow limitlessly (virtually or literally). The question, then, is whether this is a) responsible, and b) necessary (are there alternatives?)

[uxgpf]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe The Great Firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in China)
My desktop (with a mobile CPU, so basically same as your average laptop) runs fully validating node just all right.
CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10 Mb/s. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb/s for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in few years that is 1 Gb/s. (For streaming multiple channels of 4k video and whatnot.) On this planet there's millions of homes with such internet connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

[brg444]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

[adamstgBit]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes, i dont care if you had a million nodes or 1000 nodes b4 this event, nodes would drop the same exact level ( i'm guessing there are about 50 crazies willing to run nodes given this sanario )

[brg444]

and simply want to say that if bitcoin grew 1000X over night, a typical home computer can STILL handle the fucking traffic  

You are simply wrong - this isn't going to happen and if it grew by that amount then most will stop running it.

I have already stopped running it because of where I live (and I would like to run a full node).

So if someone with advanced computing skills has "given up" then why on earth would you think that anyone with less skills would keep doing that (seeing their computer getting CPU and I/O bound).

I am not sure what sort of "super home computer" you are running but when I run Bitcoin on my laptop it basically stops working properly.

Maybe something is wrong with your laptop or maybe great firewall prevents you from syncing? (I presume you live in china)
Mine runs fully validating node just all right.
MY CPU Usage is at 6% and upload and download usage is mostly under 10kB/s, which is tiny fraction of my bandwidth.

I have even relatively slow connection by local standards 50/10Mb. Currently where I live you can get 100/100 Mb for roughly 19,90€/month and I wouldn't be surprised if in 5-10 years that is 1Gb/s. There's millions of people with such home connections and only few thousand need to run full nodes.

How did you come up with this number?

What if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes then I guess as it stands the rest of the network is in pretty bad shape heh?

if the US outlaw Bitcoin and prosecute anyone running nodes, i dont care if you had a million nodes or 1000 nodes b4 this event, nodes would drop the same exact level ( i'm guessing there are about 50 crazies willing to run nodes given this sanario )

 

you do realize other parts of the world can run nodes as well. the point was that "a few thousand" can be attacked if Bitcoin is big enough that it becomes a danger for nation states.

[adamstgBit]

you trolls are very demanding

  1000's of nodes != decentralized
  >1MB blocks is to much for a typical user to handle
  fees need to increase for miners to make enough to secure the network

all these statement are ivory tower thoughts, and you use this line of reasoning to make good discussions seem ridiculous

  how many nodes do we really need?
  what can a  typical user be expected to handle?
  what is the right balance between more centralization and high TPS?

[brg444]

Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes (https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/)

We have a 1MB limit right now. So why is almost nobody running a full node?

Maybe nobody wants to run a full node even thought it's possible. Theoretical decentralization doesn't help anyone.

Because it's cumbersome and not practical.

Maybe you skipped over "commoditization"?

Once it becomes trivial to run one then certainly more people will be willing to do so.

[uxgpf]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

[spazzdla]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

[brg444]

you trolls are very demanding

  1000's of nodes != decentralized
  >1MB blocks is to much for a typical user to handle
  fees need to increase for miners to make enough to secure the network

all these statement are ivory tower thoughts, and you use this line of reasoning to make good discussions seem ridiculous

  how many nodes do we really need?
  what can a  typical user be expected to handle?
  what is the right balance between more centralization and high TPS?

Do you understand what a p2p network is?

In Bitcoin if you don't run a node then you are not a peer. If you are not a peer then you need to trust one to use the system. Don't you think that kind of goes against the point of using Bitcoin?

In a perfect scenario everyone should have access to a node if they need so. I'm not suggesting they will need it for each and everyone of their transactions but if push comes to shove it is necessary that a user has the opportunity to manage his wealth trusting no one.

[adamstgBit]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

right users would go to some other coin for day to day TX's
day to day they would run the dogecoin full node, if any full node.
further centralizing bitcoin nodes.
the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!
 

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

[brg444]

Well Satoshi himself had stated that the vast majority of people would only run SPV nodes anyway so I'm not quite sure what point you are really making.

Obviously the bigger the block size limit the less likely that any home nodes will be full ones.

sure thing, but also,
the higher the fees the less likely a home user will run a full node.
why run a full node on a network you can't afford to transact on?

It won't be that expensive,
You would use the BTC network to store A LOT of value as you know it's security is out of this world.

You would use.. dogecoin or something as a spending currency.

right users would go to some other coin for day to day TX's
day to day they would run the dogecoin full node, if any full node.
further centralizing bitcoin nodes.
the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin!
 

Using another coin is a stupid idea.

People will use payment channels. In fact I am confident enough that in 5 to 10 years mostly every mainstream usage of Bitcoin will be done through payment channels.

[uxgpf]

Because it's cumbersome and not practical.

Maybe you skipped over "commoditization"?

Once it becomes trivial to run one then certainly more people will be willing to do so.

I think the main reason why more people aren't running nodes is because they have no incentive for it, not because they wouldn't have resources to do so.

Nodes are mainly run by parties who have much at stake or simply volunteers willing to help.

[knight22]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

 

Do you imagine these will remain accessible if you get your bloatchain?

[knight22]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

 

Do you imagine these will remain accessible if you get your bloatchain?

Yes because there is an incentive.

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right 

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  

third world countries can suck my big blocks.

LOL

no.  they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud.

[brg444]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  

third world countries can suck my big blocks.

LOL

no.  they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud.

 

But them Chinese boys got more than 50% of the network so THEY are going to orphan you poor occidentals 

[adamstgBit]

If the economy and number of users grows, then I would suppose there will also be more people in whose best interest is to keep the network running.

Having an interest is not enough. We need to guarantee the ability for the common man to do so.

The free market will solve your problem because there is an incentive.  https://bitseed.org

look at that brg444, look at it closely its cost 160$, and i bet you we can get this sexy piece of shit to handle 4K TPS ( might need a HD upgrade tho)

it might be challenging to get this very minimal computer to process 4KTPS
but it would serve as a good benchmark as to what we would limit the requirement for a full node to be.

To improve Decentralization, make full nodes cheaper.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

at 160$ the cost of the machine is negligible and in most cases 0 because the user already has a computer 5X more powerful.
the bandwidth it would use is the costly part.
unlimited bandwidth plan would be required.

Sure, not a problem if you live in Montreal. If you live in China, India or other third world countries then you're just screwed I guess, too bad for you right  

third world countries can suck my big blocks.

LOL

no.  they just need to get >1MBPS or just run there full node on the cloud.

 

But them Chinese boys got more than 50% of the network so THEY are going to orphan you poor occidentals 

fucking Chinese people! 

[solex]

yes i know, stop yelling, 1MBPS allows for streaming a max of ~4,000 TPS
processing and storage is just as easy.
if you can't store 1MB of data pre second your HD sucks balls
if you can't process 1MB of TX pre second your GPU sucks balls.
point is a 1000$ computer with a home connection can deal with 4,000 TPS

did you expect bitcoin full nodes to run on embedded devices?

Meanwhile, the devs at Dogecoin conduct a stress test processing 5MB per 10 minutes and come up with flying colors:

http://digiconomist.net/interview-ross-nicoll

• Lastly, do you think Dogecoin might experience its own block size debate?

I think there’s a risk of it, yes, but so far no-one seems to be leading an anti-increase group, so I’d not anticipate problems. We use 1MB blocks, but every minute instead of 10 minutes, giving us effectively 10 times the throughput of Bitcoin, which reduces pressure for a change to be made soon. The recent stress test of Dogecoin on the testnet up to around 500kB blocks (so 5MB equivalent for Bitcoin) went far better than expected, which is extremely encouraging about our ability to scale. I’m going to write up a proposal once Dogecoin Core 1.10 is out, and that will most likely involve moving to parity with the BIP 101 block size increments.

If Dogecoin can do it then why is Bitcoin #FUKT?

[marky89]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

[solex]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

Do you even read?
They didn't implement anything, they ran a stress test. The Dogecoin software is the same as Bitcoin with a few minor changes and a goofy name. Their test is a valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate.

[marky89]

Dogecoin did something? Let's immediately implement whatever Dogecoin did, into Bitcoin! Sorry, but I just can't put much faith in a Dogecoin implementation run on the test net. It's just not at all a reliable indicator.

Do you even read?
They didn't implement anything, they ran a stress test. The Dogecoin software is the same as Bitcoin with a few minor changes and a goofy name. Their test is a valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate.

Thanks for ignoring the spirit of what I said. The burden is on you to support the claim that this represents a "valid independent metric in the context of the 1MB debate." You cannot test "BIP 101 block size increments" on the test net, either, nor can we account for potential attacks that may exist outside of this very limited test.

[Quantus]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

[da2ce7]

Block-size "debate" summarized:

• Most Bitcoin tx are spam
• Blocks are getting full
• Must increase block-size or transactions will get more expensive!
• ? ? ? ?
• Profit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Quantus]

Block halfing day is coming '(45 weeks, 4 days, 17 hours, 20 minutes)'
Remember the network is secured by miners who earn money from block rewards and transaction fees.
In 46 weeks miners will lose 50% of there income. If we want a secure network we must pay for it with transaction fees.
Again 80% of the network traffic is 5 cents or lower. We need a fee based system; a free system can not support itself.


Bitcoin will never be free.  

[Quantus]

The system is self regulating. As the mem pool fills, transaction fees will rise 'by a few cents'.

People are already running custom node software that drops micro transactions from the memory pool. Spam attacks will no longer be an issue in the near future.

Those running full nodes can now adjust the size of the mempool and program their own rules for what transactions they propagate and what transaction they drop.

We need better ways to gauge 'necessary fees based on the mempool size' so people don't have to guess what fee to send when sending a payment.

But there will always be fees and those fees will rise from time to time based on network load.

[johnyj]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some people say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

[RGBKey]

This is a possible scenario, but it's something I don't see happening for a long time still.

[brg444]

what is happening here, people starting to make sense 

[adamstgBit]

what is happening here, people starting to make sense 

oh no iv been afk to long

[adamstgBit]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some people say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

[brg444]

see that?

Bitcoin working like a champ.

[RGBKey]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

[adamstgBit]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

[adamstgBit]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

sounds like they are spamming the network just fine, whats more would they like?

[brg444]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some people say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

1. What type of logic is that? Nodes will become commoditized and trivial to run. Running a full node coupled is still the most secure and private way to use Bitcoin. Some value these aspects a whole lot especially when dealing with millions of dollars.

2. But no privacy.

3. I suggest you go ahead and try sweeping one of these and see what happens.

[RGBKey]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

Exactly, just go to blockchain.info and watch the transactions. There's not even close to that many spam and micro transactions.

[adamstgBit]

1MB limit will lead to higher fees, at one point only very large TX made by large entities will happen on the main chain. some people say that's fine, bitcoin is gold not pocket money. fine, then tell me what is the incentive for home users to run a full node when they can't even use the network? there is none, so they wont, only the large entities actually using the blockchain will run full nodes.

There are many incentives for home users to run a full node, but of course not everyone

1. By running a full node you can make the sure the network is robust and secure, thus indirectly secure your investment (Suppose you treat bitcoin like gold as long term investment). Unlike gold, which is protected by the law of nature, bitcoin need its user's protection by running full nodes, and anyone who have serious amount of coins will definitely run a full node

2. By running a full node you have a direct insight of what is going on in the network, which is good for following the development in bitcoin

3. By running a full node you have much more control of the transactions (Look at the current coinwallet.eu coin give out scheme, if you don't have full node you can not even receive those 0.5 bitcoins in each private key )

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

1. What type of logic is that? Nodes will become commoditized and trivial to run. Running a full node coupled is still the most secure and private way to use Bitcoin. Some value these aspects a whole lot especially when dealing with millions of dollars.

2. But no privacy.

3. I suggest you go ahead and try sweeping one of these and see what happens.

1. look at the current BTc node count and explain it! people don't run full node unless they have to.

2. what? i can view blockchain.info in privacy...

3. I did! its throwing errors seems EVERYONE is trying to do the same thing and its overloading them. 

[adamstgBit]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

Exactly, just go to blockchain.info and watch the transactions. There's not even close to that many spam and micro transactions.

i'm there now and i'm seeing alot more low value TX going by... but then again bitcoin is under the most massive spam attack of all time. that might have something to do with it.

[brg444]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

sounds like they are spamming the network just fine, whats more would they like?

anyone experiencing any problem? all good here  Bitcoin eating that shit up like snacks. miners are happy.

[RGBKey]

If you try to send any tx with a normal fee (0.0001) right now you will likely experience very minimal disruption.

[adamstgBit]

1. i would suggests that if the user feel there is enough full node currently running he wont bother running 1 more... only if node count becomes dangerously low would a user do what you are suggesting. running a full node isn't exactly a lot of fun.

2. i have more insight going to blockchain.info.

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

They're spamming really small inputs to try to "stress test" the network by giving away the money. Hundreds of people are trying to spend them and it's filling up mempool, but it's not really working like they wanted it to.

sounds like they are spamming the network just fine, whats more would they like?

anyone experiencing any problem? all good here  Bitcoin eating that shit up like snacks. miners are happy.

ya that is nice to see  i bet a good % of the spam is what is stuck in the mempool

hopefully all miners are favoring normal looking tx's

[johnyj]

3. you don't need a full node to import a wallet. there giving away 0.5BTC in each key?  

Not exactly, I think you can pull off maximum 0.005 BTC in one transaction from those free coins, I have managed to do that as a test

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175321.msg12386783#msg12386783

[marky89]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

Actually, I would really love to see an analysis of median value transacted vs. average transaction size. I'm not sure that we have the data to do that. But if you have data that contradicts the claim, I'd really like to see it.

[adamstgBit]

60% of network traffic is spam.
20% of network traffic is micro transactions.

Make those sending less then 5 cents pay 1 cent and cut out all the transaction less then 1 cent and we won't have to worry about this issue for another 10 years.

most tx are >100$
most of the tx are not smap

your making shit up.

Actually, I would really love to see an analysis of median value transacted vs. average transaction size. I'm not sure that we have the data to do that. But if you have data that contradicts the claim, I'd really like to see it.

ya i'm just going by what i see on blockchain.info when i happen to go there.
often i see TX of >1000$ and rarely see <1$ TX
altho lately that's not true but we have a stress test going on....
a real analysis would be nice.

we have some limited data

https://blockchain.info/stats
int the last 163 blocks
164424 TX
61,598,830.48 USD

so avg TX value of 374$

[marky89]

so avg TX value of 374$

Unfortunately the average transaction value doesn't tell us anything about the distribution between transactions of significant output value vs. transactions with insignificant output value. And that's really the question here -- how much spam is there, and how can we force it off the chain?

[adamstgBit]

so avg TX value of 374$

Unfortunately the average transaction value doesn't tell us anything about the distribution between transactions of significant output value vs. transactions with insignificant output value. And that's really the question here -- how much spam is there, and how can we force it off the chain?

i think you'll find there is very little "spam" and the little spam you do fine, is there for a good reason colored coins moving poeple experimenting with "blockchain apps" etc. if you make TX carry a high fee you really limit what types of TX can happen on the blockchain. if you limit your def of "spam" as tiny TX with no purpose i think you'll find none. why waste money on spam when it does NOTHING.

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

[knight22]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

Why don't you? VISA sound much more secure than this silly fragile network that got spammed so easily and can be forked anytime don't you?

[marky89]

if you limit your def of "spam" as tiny TX with no purpose i think you'll find none. why waste money on spam when it does NOTHING.

I would love to see data to support that claim. I'm not saying it's false, outright, but I suspect it is. As far as incentives -- incentives don't work as laws, and we also cannot foresee all future incentives to spam. You could also simply ask Coinwallet why they are spamming. This is one example; surely there are others. Ever looked up common brainwallets? Dust galore.

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

Why don't you? VISA sound much more secure than this silly fragile network that got spammed so easily and can be forked anytime don't you?

Do you see me complaining? Did the spam "attack" cause any problem with the network? Seems to me it performed like a champ. In fact I'm perfectly fine with using VISA indeed, Bitcoin really sucks for retail transactions  +10 minutes confirmation time? I can't get jiggy with that!

Can be forked anytime? Yea we all saw how well that went with XT   Why do you sound so butthurt  

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

all cryptos have cryptonic value.
how much cryptonic value a crypto has is base on its usage
more usage more cryptonic value.


saying that bitcoin will always be the coin with the most cryptonic value even if you take away some of its uses, is a silly thought, and doesn't pan out in the long term.

[marky89]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

That may be true. Not so sure. Obviously "cheap" is very subjective. Personally, I'm not the type to use bitcoin to make day-to-day purchases. That's not useful to me. I'd rather use centralized services that bring bigger cash-back incentives (and are more widely accepted). For me, the emphasis is on security because it is primarily a store of value. "Cheap transactions" are largely irrelevant to that.

If something else (presumably some altcoin or other crypto implementation) were to overtake bitcoin, it wouldn't happen overnight; it would take years for such a protocol to be widely adopted. Plenty of time to jump on that train. And I'm perfectly open to that, too.

[knight22]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included.

bitcoin has the most for many reasons

start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens  


cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost;

so be carefull fucking with usage_cost
 

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included.

bitcoin has the most for many reasons

start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens  


cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost;

so be carefull fucking with usage_cost
 

Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken  

Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet?

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included.

bitcoin has the most for many reasons

start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens  


cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost;

so be carefull fucking with usage_cost
 

Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken 

Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet?

that like your opinion man
mirco TX is something bitcoin did better than anyone else
end users don't give a fuck about decentralization they care about costs/usefulness.

[knight22]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included.

bitcoin has the most for many reasons

start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens  


cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost;

so be carefull fucking with usage_cost
 

Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken  

Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet?

Money haven't been poured in because security neither but because it is programmable cash which means HUGE use case potential. Drive the cost of these use cases up and the applications will just migrate to another cheaper and secure system.

You should dig more into this subject which you seem totally unfamiliar ----> http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/market-dynamics.asp

[adamstgBit]

Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet?

its to early to see where this is all going, if i don't like where bitcoin goes i will move somewhere else, yes.

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

Some people don't understand what value proposition means. Security is just being one.

The primary value proposition is security by decentralization.

If you don't agree with that then my I suggest dogecoin? Very cheap. Much spending!

ALL crypto have security by decentralization. dogecoin included.

bitcoin has the most for many reasons

start taking away some of these reasons ( aka low fees ) and see what happens  


cryptonic value = decentralization * security * usage / usage_cost;

so be carefull fucking with usage_cost
 

Capital has not poured into Bitcoin because "low fees". You are mistaken  

Well anyway, Bitcoin vs. Dogecoin, may the best man win. Have you converted your BTCs yet?

that like your opinion man
mirco TX is something bitcoin did better than anyone else
end users don't give a fuck about decentralization they care about costs/usefulness.

Again: wealth all over the world is not restricted so much by usage cost as it is by political friction. Bitcoin removes the latter but makes no promises of staying cheap. That's not a problem because the rich (the ones who owns the resources in the economy) are not deterred by transactions cost.

Bitcoin is not an "app". The "end users" you are thinking of provide little value to an economy. This economy will not be built on the back of adoption by the mainstream herd but by rich people, as is the case with any economy worth talking about.

Stop with this obsession of Bitcoin only being a tool for the common man. Your focus is on the wrong things.

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

[mallard]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

Did someone say Starbucks "Credits"? I think having the large businesses using their own coin would be interesting.. would allow a developed sidechain coin like CRE to find a niche!

In terms of bitcoin becoming more centralized, that's just inevitable as large entities see different ways to exploit Bitcoin for profits. Not everyone cares about the future of the coin, many just care about their return on investment.

Ethereum lets people build their own tokens on the network.

[brg444]

That sounds very inconvenient for merchants and confusing for customers.

Bitcoin needs to be easier to use. As one of the Winklevoss twins said: people shouldn't have to deal with Bitcoin addresses.

Well actually it would be much simpler if you had an app that let you spend your Starbucks credits when you go to that store (with no need for a Bitcoin address to do so). As a payment system Bitcoin *sucks* as it is much easier to use virtually any other existing payment system (why people have got so enthused about Bitcoin as a payment system is actually beyond me).

If you find Bitcoin too hard to use then you use a fiat exchange to get your credits - so those that don't want to see a Bitcoin address don't need to and actually most likely don't want to use Bitcoin at all (all they want is a coffee).

Also trying to shove every single tx in the world into the blockchain is just plain stupid (and doesn't actually make things easier as it will just overload the network to the point you'd be waiting until your coffee got cold before the payment was accepted).

Did someone say Starbucks "Credits"? I think having the large businesses using their own coin would be interesting.. would allow a developed sidechain coin like CRE to find a niche!

In terms of bitcoin becoming more centralized, that's just inevitable as large entities see different ways to exploit Bitcoin for profits. Not everyone cares about the future of the coin, many just care about their return on investment.

Ethereum lets people build their own tokens on the network.

Could easily be done with sidechains as well.

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases.

this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s

multi sig
refund TX
bla bla bla sign here here here and here  ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone!
bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly
and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain.
this is insane.

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases.

this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s

multi sig
refund TX
bla bla bla sign here here here and here  ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone!
bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly
and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain.
this is insane.

Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progresses.

Don't worry, much more intelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient  

*Satoshi introduces Bitcoin*
*Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly*
*Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing*

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases.

this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s

multi sig
refund TX
bla bla bla sign here here here and here  ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone!
bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly
and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain.
this is insane.

Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progress.

Don't worry, much more intelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient 

*Satoshi introduces Bitcoin*
*Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly*
*Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing*

I hope so but i'm not optimistic

[brg444]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases.

this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s

multi sig
refund TX
bla bla bla sign here here here and here  ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone!
bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly
and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain.
this is insane.

Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progress.

Don't worry, much more intelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient 

*Satoshi introduces Bitcoin*
*Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly*
*Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing*

I hope so but i'm not optimistic

That's unlike you. Sounds to me like you're pushing an agenda. Who paid you ? 

[adamstgBit]

If bitcoin does not provide a cheap and secure ledger something else will ( simply because it's possible ) and it will prevail over bitcoin.

No, security needs to be paid for.

Why don't you use VISA and CAD? Sounds cheap and secure enough for you.

I do. because it is cheap and secure way to pay for shit.

let say bitcoin fee go up

and poeple start using LTC to do small payments

LTC value goes up, so more poeple mine it, so it becomes more secure, it might start to get more support, maybe a blockchain app needs to be able to do alot of cheep TX's it cant use bitcoin fees are to high, it uses LTC, after a while LTC has more usefullness, and then it take over bitcoins "cryptonic value" property  
thats right cryptonic value.

That's a lot of if  

Let's say Bitcoin fee go up

And people start using payment channels and other services for small payments. It already leverages Bitcoin's security and trustlessness. I gets more support hence more liquidity.

See I can also pull a completely fabricated scenario out of my ass but it really isn't productive

payment channels might work, but it has to be as easy and secure as bitcoin.

i'm very bearish as to payment channels being able to deliver.

i have a feeling its this massive complex story, i hear them talk about it, and they bring up possible scenarios about BOB losing all his money and then talk about mitigating that risk  and i can't help but think this is no a good solution  

For what reasons? (other than of course it would make all your attempts at bloating the blockchain look a bit stupid)

I can't help but think you insist on sharing opinions about things you obviously don't understand. This is not productive and you should stop.

i told you why i'm bearish, using payment channels sounds complex as fuck and there is talk of mitigating risk is some cases.

this is nuts... https://youtu.be/fBS_ieDwQ9k?t=26m49s

multi sig
refund TX
bla bla bla sign here here here and here  ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNND its gone!
bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use the payment channel properly
and at the end of the day it still makes a fucking TX on the blockchain.
this is insane.

Yes it does sound insane because you are an impressionable noob who is seemingly oblivious to the way technology progress.

Don't worry, much more intelligent people will make it trivial to use and abstract all that complexity for you. You just have to be patient 

*Satoshi introduces Bitcoin*
*Adam: that's insane, bob and alis need a masters degree in crypto to use Bitcoin properly*
*Satoshi: you're right, let's scrap the whole thing*

I hope so but i'm not optimistic

That's unlike you. Sounds to me like you're pushing an agenda. Who paid you ? 

the NSA, your fuck man bitcoin WILL have bigger blocks the illuminati will make sure of that.
i'm just one small part of there master plan to fork the shit out of bitcoin

[brg444]

it wont stop there
forking for big blocks this is just a test
they want me convincing all you diehard fans to let them double supply in the midst of the next bubble around this time next year.

You're laughing but that's what's awaiting anyone stupid enough to get on the XT train. That and "assurance contracts", "black/redlists", rich tax, etc, etc.

[PolarPoint]

I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you how successful bitcoin sidechains/payment channels will be, but I can imagine some future users will forego transactions on the mainchain for a cheap and fast sidechain solution. They would have to trust a 3rd party, and they would be willing to do that for a chargeback option. These channels can co-exist with the mainchain.

[adamstgBit]

I don't have a crystal ball. I can't tell you how successful bitcoin sidechains/payment channels will be, but I can imagine some future users will forego transactions on the mainchain for a cheap and fast sidechain solution. They would have to trust a 3rd party, and they would be willing to do that for a chargeback option. These channels can co-exist with the mainchain.

to really scale bitcoin to be usable by billions and keep it decentralized we are going to need to pull on EVERYTHING we can do. we need every solution implemented simultaneously.

bigger blocks
optimized block propagation
sidechains
payment channels
interconnected 3rd party wallets ( with proof of solvency )
Everything!