the 1MB limit will centralize bitcoin

[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.

[1714247009]

1714247009

[1714247009]

1714247009

[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