Simplistic fix for blocksize problem...

[franky1]

There is a stupid simple way to not destroy bitcoin's value and cause forks and still allow for wiggle room when it comes to blocksize:

For smaller faster transactions;  just use a frikken altcoin thats based around speed....

That is all.  Simple right?

I don't see why people can't wrap their heads around this simple concept..... and instead they would rather risk everything falling apart over a whole redesign of the currently stable system.

Input?

1. so when selling bitcoin, it causes a price movement. so it will affect the price
2. an altcoin is a form of a fork, because a fork is a new/different chain.. so swapping one coin for another is similar to having two chains with different code...
3. there is already 300+ coins.. and 3 that are getting popular. yet none of these have solved the blocksize problem

[brg444]

A fee market exists with no block cap.  Peter R explained why at the scalability conference.

Peter R's theory does not apply in practice so it is irrelevant to discuss it.

Moreover he readily admits it does not hold absent of block subsidy.

[maokoto]

It seems like a good idea for me. The mentioned altcoin could be forced to be tied to Bitcoin value, and could be a brand new altcoin that could only be "mined" by changing satoshis to make it appear.

In fact, it could be named "satoshi-Tx"  (satoshi for transfers LOL) and have the exact value of a satoshi, with his own chain.

But I guess that would be complicated to.

[thejaytiesto]

It seems like a good idea for me. The mentioned altcoin could be forced to be tied to Bitcoin value, and could be a brand new altcoin that could only be "mined" by changing satoshis to make it appear.

In fact, it could be named "satoshi-Tx"  (satoshi for transfers LOL) and have the exact value of a satoshi, with his own chain.

But I guess that would be complicated to.

There's no way to force a value in a economy without manipulating and regulating it. No one is going to be interested in be part of that. What we've learned from our currency existence in history as cryptocurrency has spawned only a couple years ago is the fact that no one wants to pay for anything else that isn't Bitcoin, so whatever happens, will happen under Bitcoin's wings.

[VeritasSapere]

It does not matter, the speed limitation is in the hardware and network, not coin specific. An alt-coin would still face the same problem that bitcoin has, you can only increase capacity by 100% by adding an altcoin, but at the same time alt-coin brings more inflation, so the end result is worse for all of the cryptocurrencies

Current network and hardware is only capable of handling 2MB (In fact some 1MB blocks already hit the bottleneck somewhere along the chain). If the common bandwidth raised to 1GB due to mass adoption of 4K TV, then it is possible to raise the block size further

Another problem is the mining motivation, when the next and the next next reward halving happens, the miners will get less and less incentive to run the mining operation, thus the fee must raise to compensate for that

I do not think that 2MB is the current limit of the hardware and bandwith, I can personally support much larger blocks from my home. The size of the blocks you can support depends on the bandwith of the connection you are using.

Instead of increasing the fee I think it would be better to allow more transactions to take place on the Bitcoin network. Since it would be better to have a higher volume of low fee transactions compared to having lower volume of high fee transactions. We should not attempt to compensate for mining profitability, mining is a self balancing system and incentive will increase and decrease over time, miners will adjust their operations as is required and we should not attempt to adjust the protocol for this reason.

To quote Satoshi Nakamoto: “I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.”

[VeritasSapere]

There is a stupid simple way to not destroy bitcoin's value and cause forks and still allow for wiggle room when it comes to blocksize:

For smaller faster transactions;  just use a frikken altcoin thats based around speed....

That is all.  Simple right?

I don't see why people can't wrap their heads around this simple concept..... and instead they would rather risk everything falling apart over a whole redesign of the currently stable system.

Input?

1. so when selling bitcoin, it causes a price movement. so it will affect the price
2. an altcoin is a form of a fork, because a fork is a new/different chain.. so swapping one coin for another is similar to having two chains with different code...
3. there is already 300+ coins.. and 3 that are getting popular. yet none of these have solved the blocksize problem

Some of these altcoins have solved the "blocksize problem" by either using incentivized full nodes or by just increasing the blocksize. Increasing the blocksize is a solution to the blocksize problem after all, the problems that Bitcoin faces are predominantly political in nature, which is in part why some of these altcoins do not have this issue and can handle much larger throughput then Bitcoin can today because of different innovative solutions that have already been implemented.

[Blawpaw]

The most simple approach that could bve able to solve the blocksize problem is the Sidechains proposal. other than that, either colored coins or the bitcoin lightning network proposal could be a good choice as well.

[VeritasSapere]

The most simple approach that could bve able to solve the blocksize problem is the Sidechains proposal. other than that, either colored coins or the bitcoin lightning network proposal could be a good choice as well.

I do not like side chains because I think it is to complex, Bitcoin should not be made unnecessarily more complex. Increasing the blocksize is the most simple solution. I do like the lighting network and similar payment channels however this should not be seen as a solution to scaling Bitcoin directly, we should increase the blocksize as much as we can according to the technical limitations that exist. This would be the best way to maximize decentralization as a whole while increasing the number of people that can benefit from the Bitcoin blockchain directly.

[tss]

lets face it guys.  bitcoin is not for everyone.  penny spammers need to move on to use something else.  we dont need their transactions on the network to increase the value of a btc whether in fiat or utility.  you cant have everything.  ie you cant move millions or billions of dollars safely with little or no fee and the next day buy a bubble gum from the grocery store vending machine.  its just not reasonable.

[VeritasSapere]

lets face it guys.  bitcoin is not for everyone.  penny spammers need to move on to use something else.  we dont need their transactions on the network to increase the value of a btc whether in fiat or utility.  you cant have everything.  ie you cant move millions or billions of dollars safely with little or no fee and the next day buy a bubble gum from the grocery store vending machine.  its just not reasonable.

You are creating a false dichotomy, it is not an either or choice. Bitcoin can do both things and we should not arbitrarily restrict the utility and use of Bitcoin.

[JaredKaragen]

It seems like a good idea for me. The mentioned altcoin could be forced to be tied to Bitcoin value, and could be a brand new altcoin that could only be "mined" by changing satoshis to make it appear.

In fact, it could be named "satoshi-Tx"  (satoshi for transfers LOL) and have the exact value of a satoshi, with his own chain.

But I guess that would be complicated to.

This seems somewhat reasonable...

Hell.. it doesn't exactly need to be tied to bitcoin...

But...  Bitcoin would be the base for large/non time sensitive transactions;  and an alt would be for the smaller quicker needs.  not rocket science, and it doesn't need to be elaborated ANY further than this concept.

This wouldnt change volatility; nor is it intended to.

This wouldnt fork BTC, nor is it intended to.

There are TONS of Altcoins out there to pick from....  We just need to figure out what works for what type of scenario.  (day to day groceries, small instant on-the-street-peer-to-peer transactions (flea market, food vendor, gambling sites, etc).

People act like waiting 10-60 min for a block to confirm a transaction is haneous... but honestly;  its fine. 

The block size, well;  We need to discourage people from making a million small transactions to fill up the blocks....   That would be the only way that BTC itself would need to change in order to be sure the altcoin takes over the smaller stuff.  Maybe something as simple as scaling network fees based upon transaction spacing.  Obviously something would need to be done about the exchanges.... or exchanges will have an inflated TX fee.  So this idea isn't as good as others...

I think a larger block size will over inflate the blockchain and cause some future problems....   I wont put my finger on it just yet;  but that's my opinion.....

And Im not claiming to be an expert;  but... if you can spoon feed people the concept that altcoins Vs. BTC will just be like the comparison between a dollar bill and a paycheck likewise....   they might understand.

[DarkHyudrA]

It seems like a good idea for me. The mentioned altcoin could be forced to be tied to Bitcoin value, and could be a brand new altcoin that could only be "mined" by changing satoshis to make it appear.

In fact, it could be named "satoshi-Tx"  (satoshi for transfers LOL) and have the exact value of a satoshi, with his own chain.

But I guess that would be complicated to.

This seems somewhat reasonable...

Hell.. it doesn't exactly need to be tied to bitcoin...

But...  Bitcoin would be the base for large/non time sensitive transactions;  and an alt would be for the smaller quicker needs.  not rocket science, and it doesn't need to be elaborated ANY further than this concept.

This wouldnt change volatility; nor is it intended to.

This wouldnt fork BTC, nor is it intended to.

There are TONS of Altcoins out there to pick from....  We just need to figure out what works for what type of scenario.  (day to day groceries, small instant on-the-street-peer-to-peer transactions (flea market, food vendor, gambling sites, etc).

People act like waiting 10-60 min for a block to confirm a transaction is haneous... but honestly;  its fine. 

The block size, well;  We need to discourage people from making a million small transactions to fill up the blocks....   That would be the only way that BTC itself would need to change in order to be sure the altcoin takes over the smaller stuff.  Maybe something as simple as scaling network fees based upon transaction spacing.  Obviously something would need to be done about the exchanges.... or exchanges will have an inflated TX fee.  So this idea isn't as good as others...

I think a larger block size will over inflate the blockchain and cause some future problems....   I wont put my finger on it just yet;  but that's my opinion.....

And Im not claiming to be an expert;  but... if you can spoon feed people the concept that altcoins Vs. BTC will just be like the comparison between a dollar bill and a paycheck likewise....   they might understand.

You don't need to wait a confirmation.
As today, double spends are really rare(doesn't mean extinct, but still rare), so accepting a payment by just seeing that the transaction was broadcasted is enough, specially to the difficulty in doing one, so you would wait a confirmation(a few confirmations) for only big transactions.
Using another coin just for the sake of not bloating the Bitcoin chain is pure bs.
You would need to rely on services and not to trust the software to exchange between BTC <-> Alt, and our wallets would need to read 2 blockchains, creating 2 networks.

Just, stop saying that this is a good idea people. If alts are good idea there won't be so many that don't worth a penny out there.
The only alts that I liked was NameCoin and Litecoin for trying something new, and SunnyKing creating PPC and Prime, he tried things completely different.