Thanks to people who support 1-2 MB blocks - great idea u fools...

[brg444]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

You are right: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Though you see the constant trend right? And you know how easily and without high costs it is possible to fill these blocks up to 1MB? Now imagine what happens in the case of a fast adoption of bitcoin. Like amazon accepting bitcoins directly. Bitcoin blocks would be full instantly and bitcoin would practically die in the same time. Since all the new users would have a terrible user experience. Bitcoin would not confirm most transactions and nobody needs a currency that even lost such a crucial advantage. Why should anyone use an unreliable currency like that?

There are a lot of holes in your logic.

The most obvious one being that Amazon accepting Bitcoin would have little effect on the adoption of Bitcoin. If you still hold true to these beliefs it seems there are lot of things you need to learn before addressing the block size issue.

[1714637934]

1714637934

[1714637934]

1714637934

[1714637934]

1714637934

[1714637934]

1714637934

[1714637934]

1714637934

[brg444]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

you're really not very smart if you think we have several years before we hit the limit.

The adoption rate of any technology, including bitcoin, is exponential.

So we don't have nearly as much time as you think.

So what do you suggest? Surely not a linear increase in block size? Or should we make it exponential as well?

I suggest dropping that limit completely. Fighting spam with minimum fees and such. There simply is no need for crippling bitcoin that way. There was no problem with full blocks until the spamming started. And the spamming would not have been started with unlimited blocks. Way too expensive and spam would be useless.

Do you understand the consequences an unbounded block size would have?

Such a decision would inevitably lead to a sudden and surely exponential increase in the cost of running a full node.

Do you want Bitcoin to be run in datacenters?

[pereira4]

Unfortunately a compromise needs to be meet between wanting to go all on-chain and wanting to stay decentralized.

If you want to have all on chain decentralization of nodes is lost. This is the least wanted possibility. Therefore, we must do all things possible to not end up like that.

I want Bitcoin to scale to global level payments, and it seems something like LN is the most realistic possibility.

[SebastianJu]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

You are right: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Though you see the constant trend right? And you know how easily and without high costs it is possible to fill these blocks up to 1MB? Now imagine what happens in the case of a fast adoption of bitcoin. Like amazon accepting bitcoins directly. Bitcoin blocks would be full instantly and bitcoin would practically die in the same time. Since all the new users would have a terrible user experience. Bitcoin would not confirm most transactions and nobody needs a currency that even lost such a crucial advantage. Why should anyone use an unreliable currency like that?

There are a lot of holes in your logic.

The most obvious one being that Amazon accepting Bitcoin would have little effect on the adoption of Bitcoin. If you still hold true to these beliefs it seems there are lot of things you need to learn before addressing the block size issue.

Unfortunately your answer doesn't contain anything valid as an argument that i could go against. Only a personal attack that i need to learn to understand the block size issue. Surely not constuctive.

But i will explain it more in detail. Let's assume amazon decides to accept bitcoin. Maybe they even advertise it as a cheap way to earn money without risk for them. Then let's assume that the amount of transactions jumps up 200% from now. I'm pretty sure you can imagine what that would mean at the end. It would mean that a lot of new bitcoin users would come and use bitcoin but their experience would be horrible. Since by design 33% of all transactions would never be filled. (Assuming we are at 50% filled blocks now in average.)

So now explain me why that would not be a problem for bitcoin please.

[SebastianJu]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

you're really not very smart if you think we have several years before we hit the limit.

The adoption rate of any technology, including bitcoin, is exponential.

So we don't have nearly as much time as you think.

So what do you suggest? Surely not a linear increase in block size? Or should we make it exponential as well?

I suggest dropping that limit completely. Fighting spam with minimum fees and such. There simply is no need for crippling bitcoin that way. There was no problem with full blocks until the spamming started. And the spamming would not have been started with unlimited blocks. Way too expensive and spam would be useless.

Do you understand the consequences an unbounded block size would have?

Such a decision would inevitably lead to a sudden and surely exponential increase in the cost of running a full node.

Do you want Bitcoin to be run in datacenters?

Well well, again the story of the suddenly appearing spamtransactions hundred fold of the actual amount of transactions.

Where should these transactions come from suddenly? They never happened since satoshie proposed the 1MB block size limit. They only happen now when it is financially somehow rewarding to spam the network. Be it for raising the fees for miners, and getting some or all of your investment back, or to promote the need or nonneed of a block size increase.

I think there are more clever ways to deal with spam. I mean why should someone spam 20 MB blocks? It would be stupid and useless because the next block would be 20MB and that's it. The network will work like it ever did. And the spammer only lost money.

All this fearmongering...

And centralization? There are already ways to be a node without having to store the full blockchain. As well as mining became centralized to the point that the might miners have over bitcoin should be not acceptable for a decentralized currency. But it happens and is not avoidable.

I always wonder how someone can stay around and claim that we need 1MB blocks, knowing, that it will kill bitcoin with unconfirming transactions and high fees, and is trying to cramp the protocol in a cage that is way too small for it already. That is so backwardsighted, it's unbelieveable. Well, except one assumes other monetary interests behind.

[SebastianJu]

Unfortunately a compromise needs to be meet between wanting to go all on-chain and wanting to stay decentralized.

If you want to have all on chain decentralization of nodes is lost. This is the least wanted possibility. Therefore, we must do all things possible to not end up like that.

I want Bitcoin to scale to global level payments, and it seems something like LN is the most realistic possibility.

So? Do you think Satoshi was stupid when he believed in bitcoin being a worldwide currency of way more transactions? Did i somewhere miss the point where he wrote that at one point we need to cripple bitcoin down and use a crutch like lightning network only to let it work somehow?

You realize that satoshi wanted so many transactions to happen that it could replace the blocksize reward? Bitcoin alone. No crutch like LN.

Man, i don't get this so obvious side interests showing up. It's like an advertising company spreading fear of centralization, spam attacks and whatever. Well, i must admit it is somewhat successfull since it seems some people believe it.

[brg444]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

You are right: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size

Though you see the constant trend right? And you know how easily and without high costs it is possible to fill these blocks up to 1MB? Now imagine what happens in the case of a fast adoption of bitcoin. Like amazon accepting bitcoins directly. Bitcoin blocks would be full instantly and bitcoin would practically die in the same time. Since all the new users would have a terrible user experience. Bitcoin would not confirm most transactions and nobody needs a currency that even lost such a crucial advantage. Why should anyone use an unreliable currency like that?

There are a lot of holes in your logic.

The most obvious one being that Amazon accepting Bitcoin would have little effect on the adoption of Bitcoin. If you still hold true to these beliefs it seems there are lot of things you need to learn before addressing the block size issue.

Unfortunately your answer doesn't contain anything valid as an argument that i could go against. Only a personal attack that i need to learn to understand the block size issue. Surely not constuctive.

But i will explain it more in detail. Let's assume amazon decides to accept bitcoin. Maybe they even advertise it as a cheap way to earn money without risk for them. Then let's assume that the amount of transactions jumps up 200% from now. I'm pretty sure you can imagine what that would mean at the end. It would mean that a lot of new bitcoin users would come and use bitcoin but their experience would be horrible. Since by design 33% of all transactions would never be filled. (Assuming we are at 50% filled blocks now in average.)

So now explain me why that would not be a problem for bitcoin please.

Simple, a fee market would take hold whereas those interested the most in getting their transaction through will pay the necessary fee.

Those that can't bother paying extra fee just to give a online shopping transaction higher priority will be left contemplating better, more efficient alternatives and realize that the "Bitcoin payment network" is not all it was cracked up to be.

The fact is that a large majority of Bitcoin users are not interested in using their holdings for casual internet shopping. There are numerous valid reasons behind this and one should be wise to realize that Bitcoin is not an interesting option for consumer spendings. In that regard credit cards are largely more efficient and secure for the mainstream population.  It is counter-intuitive to presume that people are going to rush to Bitcoin if somehow Amazon would begin to accept it. What incentive is there for them? Why go through all the hassle of purchasing Bitcoin just to.... make purchases. Fiat works well in that regard and while some here would like to pretend otherwise, regular joes are perfectly comfortable with their current situation.

Of course Amazon already acknowledges this which is why they feel no urgency adding Bitcoin as a payment option.

[brg444]

Most blocks are just half full after all this time. We have a few years until we have to raise the limit. No need to rush in to it

you're really not very smart if you think we have several years before we hit the limit.

The adoption rate of any technology, including bitcoin, is exponential.

So we don't have nearly as much time as you think.

So what do you suggest? Surely not a linear increase in block size? Or should we make it exponential as well?

I suggest dropping that limit completely. Fighting spam with minimum fees and such. There simply is no need for crippling bitcoin that way. There was no problem with full blocks until the spamming started. And the spamming would not have been started with unlimited blocks. Way too expensive and spam would be useless.

Do you understand the consequences an unbounded block size would have?

Such a decision would inevitably lead to a sudden and surely exponential increase in the cost of running a full node.

Do you want Bitcoin to be run in datacenters?

Well well, again the story of the suddenly appearing spamtransactions hundred fold of the actual amount of transactions.

Where should these transactions come from suddenly? They never happened since satoshie proposed the 1MB block size limit. They only happen now when it is financially somehow rewarding to spam the network. Be it for raising the fees for miners, and getting some or all of your investment back, or to promote the need or nonneed of a block size increase.

I think there are more clever ways to deal with spam. I mean why should someone spam 20 MB blocks? It would be stupid and useless because the next block would be 20MB and that's it. The network will work like it ever did. And the spammer only lost money.

All this fearmongering...

And centralization? There are already ways to be a node without having to store the full blockchain. As well as mining became centralized to the point that the might miners have over bitcoin should be not acceptable for a decentralized currency. But it happens and is not avoidable.

I always wonder how someone can stay around and claim that we need 1MB blocks, knowing, that it will kill bitcoin with unconfirming transactions and high fees, and is trying to cramp the protocol in a cage that is way too small for it already. That is so backwardsighted, it's unbelieveable. Well, except one assumes other monetary interests behind.

In no way are the previous spam attacks financially rewarding for whoever is responsible for them. That's pure nonsense.

I'm afraid you simply lack imagination   The bloat I'm referring to is not necessarily your typical spam attacks. Anyone interested in using the blockchain as some sort of database or for de minimis transactions of little monetary value has had to deal with the cap as a deterrent. The transactions never happened precisely because of the 1MB block size limit.

If we choose to remove this limit then we leave the blockchain open to all kind of abuse from people leeching its resources without consideration for the people shouldering the load : the nodes. Please don't be naive: if you build it, they will come. Ever heard of supply creates its own demand? Surely you've read about the "Fidelity problem" and how they are supposedly planning to leverage Bitcoin's blockchain for their project? If such reports are true then we can safely presume other projects have similar interest. How much bloat do you believe it would be reasonable for the network to support these projects?

If Fidelity requires 20mb blocks to satisfy its use case would you be comfortable accomodating them with these resources?

In short: assuming the demand for transaction is infinite and that Bitcoin adoption tends to grow exponentially do you accept that under an unbounded block size the resources required to participate in the network as a peer (run a full node) will follow this exponential growth?

All this fearmongering...

I always wonder how someone can stay around and claim that we need 1MB blocks, knowing, that it will kill bitcoin with unconfirming transactions and high fees, and is trying to cramp the protocol in a cage that is way too small for it already.

 

[jeffthebaker]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

[anthonycamp]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

im not soo into BTC but small block sizes are very unsuefull for future

[brg444]

Unfortunately a compromise needs to be meet between wanting to go all on-chain and wanting to stay decentralized.

If you want to have all on chain decentralization of nodes is lost. This is the least wanted possibility. Therefore, we must do all things possible to not end up like that.

I want Bitcoin to scale to global level payments, and it seems something like LN is the most realistic possibility.

So? Do you think Satoshi was stupid when he believed in bitcoin being a worldwide currency of way more transactions? Did i somewhere miss the point where he wrote that at one point we need to cripple bitcoin down and use a crutch like lightning network only to let it work somehow?

You realize that satoshi wanted so many transactions to happen that it could replace the blocksize reward? Bitcoin alone. No crutch like LN.

Man, i don't get this so obvious side interests showing up. It's like an advertising company spreading fear of centralization, spam attacks and whatever. Well, i must admit it is somewhat successfull since it seems some people believe it.

LN is not a crutch, rather it is one of the only option by which Bitcoin can support ubiquitous worldwide transaction volume. Unless you are intent on having Bitcoin run by corporation and government sponsored datacenters.

[brg444]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and
centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that
our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people
on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.
Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own?
Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin.

I'm not sure where you life so that "our" hardware is not capable of using bigger blocks. In practically all countries i know it would be no problem at all.

Might depend on where you live.

There's the rub. Some countries have miners with the advantage of bigger blocks and some have miners with the advantage of smaller blocks. If you get away from the hardware issue and focus on the end user, then more tps and larger blocks becomes evident.

Not really. What you describe would be some stoneage country. Every computer nowadays can deal with it. And we surely don't need to make sure that bitcoin nodes can run on a C64, don't you think? One can go too far easily...

It takes more than computing power to support larger block sizes. Some countries can't handle the bandwidth of those large blocks to propagate them.

You don't even have to look into other countries: 50% of rural americans wouldn't have the connection to handle 8mb blocks, that's roughly 30 million people in the United States alone.

In countries like Russia (not Moscow of course) and all those ex soviet countries (ukraine, belarus and so on) internet is still very limited in big parts of the population. Venezuela and all those south American countries are also stuck with really poor internet connections. We need to be able to see nodes coming from those places too.

[jeffthebaker]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

[brg444]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

[jeffthebaker]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin!

[brg444]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin!

You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed.

The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy.

You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101....

[jeffthebaker]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin!

You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed.

The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy.

You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101....

Gold holds its value through millenia of usage and stability, along with the nature of the mineral. Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes.

However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world.

[brg444]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin!

You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed.

The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy.

You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101....

Gold holds its value through millenia of usage and stability, along with the nature of the mineral. Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes.

However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world.

That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently?

Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases.

[jeffthebaker]

I don't know how anyone who sees a relevant future for Bitcoin could argue for maintaining these small blocksizes. What would happen if Bitcoin transactions rose to a volume of just 1% of PayPal's volume? 10%? The result would be absolutely disastrous. Bitcoin adoption, moon, whatever bullshit you believe in, fundamentally cannot happen with the current blocksizes.

Bitcoin's success is not dependent on the transaction throughput of its blockchain.

The value of every transaction is more important than the number of transactions.

As it stands Bitcoin can accomodate a market cap orders of magnitude above where it currently sits. That is because most Bitcoin users understand the value of holding the asset long term and the diminishing returns involved with careless spending before its value appreciates to its full potential.

Okay, so what you are saying is that Bitcoin can still hold great value if it is perceived at a great value. One of the "Bitcoin can replace gold" type of guys.

How exactly do you propose Bitcoin appreciates to a hugely valuable number? Sure, the specifications of Bitcoin are attractive to speculators, but at the end of the day, the market cap grows by circulation, not hodling. Thinking your Bitcoins are worth a certain amount doesn't effect the value, going out and using your Bitcoin does.

Unfortunately, with the current blocksizes, it is impossible for Bitcoin to see enough consumer usage to appreciate to anything significant in the grand scheme of things.

Unless you address and correct this fundamentally wrong understanding of economics there's not much I can do to help you see the light..

Hint: the holders are the ones giving Bitcoin value.

You are absolutely right. Consumer spending and business has 0 affect on the price of Bitcoin. All the value comes from the perception of the holders who don't use their Bitcoin!

You are painting this in a rather sarcastic way but this is mostly true indeed.

The value of Bitcoin resides in the people trusting their capital and wealth to it. It certainly has nothing to do with its transactional usage which quite frankly is marginal at this stage. If Bitcoin was valued for its circulation in the economy its price would be closer to 0$. By your logic gold's market cap should collapse since not much of it actually circulates in the economy.

You can try to debate this for as many posts as you'd like this is frankly economics 101....

Gold holds its value through millenia of usage and stability, along with the nature of the mineral. Sure, if you want Bitcoin to be a gold, I suppose you don't need larger blocksizes.

However, it's silly to think Bitcoin is superior to gold. No one sane would ignore gold as a tool of investment/safety for Bitcoin. It does, however, have many specifications that allow for Bitcoin to flourish as a useful currency, and I don't see why anyone would try to prohibit Bitcoin from taking on roles that could potentially change the world.

That's a nice bunch of empty words right there. To be honest I don't care how you wanna twist it, gold holds value because of trust. Trust to store wealth, trust to serve as a capital refuge in times of economic crisis. That's pretty much how it works for any form of money. The same is true for Bitcoin. Do I want Bitcoin to replace gold? Hell yes! Why wouldn't I ? Have you looked at gold's market cap recently?

Personally I think it's silly to believe Bitcoin is NOT superior to gold. It seems obvious to me it is in every facet. This is in fact what Bitcoin excels at: store of value, not currency. Fortunately Bitcoin being digital it allows us to create layers on top of its settlement system that will be used and perform exceptionally better than its blockchain for transactional use cases.

Why isn't Bitcoin superior to gold? Let me give you a list.

It is extremely volatile. Your savings can fluctuate crazy percentages at any given day, which is not a good thing.
It's young. Gold has been a viable investment for thousands of years, Bitcoin has been around for 6 years.
Absolutely no protection whatsoever. If you lose your coins you are shit out of luck.
No set position in governments worldwide. People know the laws regarding gold, but Bitcoin is still relatively undecided.


Sure, if Bitcoin replaced gold, prices would sky rocket. But the possibility that Bitcoin makes obsolete is 0.