Will the price raise auto-solve the block size problem

[bitgolden]

I ask this question based on these...
1. Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact.
2. When price raise, the amount in a transaction would be less comparatively.
3. With less sized transactions (still same value or higher value as a regular user transacts), a block can pick more transactions.

I read a average transaction size is 500KB. Assume it has some 1Milllion satoshi or 0.01BTC, current value $2.413 .
If the price goes to 10 times, then to send same $2.413, we just need 0.1 million satoshi or 0.001BTC, by mathematically transaction size must reduce to 50KB or some what. (There are some part of size do not change regardless of number of satoshi)
Now a block approximately can pick 10 times more transactions.

So, we need price raise to solve block-size debate?

[ginvestor]

I hope so.

[Holliday]

1. No.
2. There is no block size problem.

[neonshium]

Perfect discovery.
This is the reason Satoshi left us with 1MB blocks. So, we do need any block size improvement right away. Time will solve.
When nodes can afford big blocks like HDD cost and bandwidth cost considerably go down, we can go for bigger blocks in steps.

[dothebeats]

1. Transaction fee isn't defined based on how much we transact, but rather the size of transaction itself.
2. There isn't one, not unless we see a massive adoption and increased transaction numbers in the whole network.
3. Yes.

[coinpr0n]

"Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact." No.

The size of a transaction is based on the number of inputs and outputs a transaction has, has nothing to do with the amount transacted.

[goregrind]

The amount and transaction size are not directly related, so no.

[NorrisK]

If you have a lot of small transactions in your wallet and you try to send a bigger one after that, it will be built up from all those small transactions. This is where the size of your blocks increases.

A price raise will not solve any future problems with the block limit.

[shorena]

I ask this question based on these...
1. Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact.

Thats not how bitcoin works. The size in bytes is based on the number of inputs you use and the number of outputs you create. Inputs have no limit in how much satoshi they can hold, outputs are only limited by the inputs you use. E.g. if you have 2 inputs of 10 BTC each, the sum of your outputs can not be larger than 20 BTC.

2. When price raise, the amount in a transaction would be less comparatively.

Fristly the amount of what? The amount of value would increase with an increasing price as long as you meassure value by BTC price. The price of 1 btc in any other currency has no influence whatsoever on how the network works.

3. With less sized transactions (still same value or higher value as a regular user transacts), a block can pick more transactions.

See above.

I read a average transaction size is 500KB.

Read again, I doubt that anyone ever wrote that. That would result in 2 transactions per 10 minutes (on average) as the current blocksize limit is 1MB.

Assume it has some 1Milllion satoshi or 0.01BTC, current value $2.413 .
If the price goes to 10 times, then to send same $2.413, we just need 0.1 million satoshi or 0.001BTC, by mathematically transaction size must reduce to 50KB or some what. (There are some part of size do not change regardless of number of satoshi)
Now a block approximately can pick 10 times more transactions.

So, we need price raise to solve block-size debate?

You should start fresh, I dont know where but somewhere you took a wrong turn when trying to understand bitcoin.

[coinplus]

I ask this question based on these...
1. Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact.
2. When price raise, the amount in a transaction would be less comparatively.
3. With less sized transactions (still same value or higher value as a regular user transacts), a block can pick more transactions.

I read a average transaction size is 500KB. Assume it has some 1Milllion satoshi or 0.01BTC, current value $2.413 .
If the price goes to 10 times, then to send same $2.413, we just need 0.1 million satoshi or 0.001BTC, by mathematically transaction size must reduce to 50KB or some what. (There are some part of size do not change regardless of number of satoshi)
Now a block approximately can pick 10 times more transactions.

So, we need price raise to solve block-size debate?

So, basically as mentioned by many people here, the size of a transaction is not depended on the amount in that transactions. So, price raise is not doing anything with transaction's size. Now, again we need to think for a solution to beat Visa network in processing more transactions per second.

[Mickeyb]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

[MicroGuy]

If the block size limit is left at 1MB, a fee market will emerge whereas users will bid/compete for transaction priority. The reason Satoshi left the limit at 1MB is because Gavin scared the hell out of him for reasons well known by most here before he could make that change.

If Satoshi were active in development now, there is no question he would simply increase the max block size to 8MB (static) to prevent this fee market from emerging. He would also most likely send Gavin an email and plead with him to cut back on his meds. BIP101 is not the product of a clear mind.

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

[Mickeyb]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

I know that it makes no sense. I am just saying what's the general sentiment in the community and in the press when I am reading about Bitcoin. I guess this is normal, after all two months we were buzzing only about the XT fork.

I am not saying that the whole community (Core, XT and block size increase) is guilty but I am saying that Mike and Gavin weren't alone in this, they had and still have people that support them and a community that supports them.

Edit: And let me just add that even though I don't think that the conservative side of the community is guilty for this image that we sent, we did add to it. When you have new people coming in the community to look at the rant that's going on, very often they don't know who's fault is it and who started. They just see a messy rant going on.

[knight22]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away. If there is no room for new massive influx of users then the price won't rise from usage.

Do you think the price will rise by pure magic?

[Carlton Banks]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

Except when precisely that happened in the past, for a period of several months.

2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away.

Who? XT? 

[franky1]

I ask this question based on these...
1. Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact.
2. When price raise, the amount in a transaction would be less comparatively.
3. With less sized transactions (still same value or higher value as a regular user transacts), a block can pick more transactions.

I read a average transaction size is 500KB. Assume it has some 1Milllion satoshi or 0.01BTC, current value $2.413 .
If the price goes to 10 times, then to send same $2.413, we just need 0.1 million satoshi or 0.001BTC, by mathematically transaction size must reduce to 50KB or some what. (There are some part of size do not change regardless of number of satoshi)
Now a block approximately can pick 10 times more transactions.

So, we need price raise to solve block-size debate?

no..
from a data point of view. a 1mb block size, is about 1mb of data, not value.
and from the point of view of a bitcoin
100000000 a 9 character amount is 9 bytes
from the point of view of 1Ksat
1000 a 4 character amount is 4 bytes.

so even on the most leanest coded tx the difference would be from 250bytes to be 245 bytes..

thats only.. at best 2% difference. thus not really gonna make any massive impact when people are playing with satoshi amounts.

in actual fact due to the code to send unspent funds back. playing with satoshi amounts instead of full amounts, will mean that more change need returning thus more transactions that have unspent amounts returned. thus (prediction/estimation) more then 2% extra code bloat

[The Young Turk]

No.
They're 2 different things. Yet, Price raise may cause delays on tx'es. Mass adoption means price raise and if the block size is not raised then delays will ocur.

[knight22]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

Except when precisely that happened in the past, for a period of several months.

It happened in the past because people speculated that bitcoin would literally take over the world and would make them insanely rich. A slight increase in usage made people going nuts. Now now one is expecting that to happen again with 1 mb blocks being artificially enforced and which was supposed to be only a temporary anti-spam measure. Speculators speculate on future usage which is now crippled and shows no signs of being changed.

2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away.

Who? XT?  

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business and doesn't gives reasons to use bitcoin for new users, it is just an attempt to scale the system. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

[Carlton Banks]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high. 

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

[knight22]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

[Carlton Banks]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

[knight22]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

[Carlton Banks]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

You decried a lack of "signs", not a working solution.

Setting the standard, then pretending as if you never did so, and of course, no-one can satisfy a requirement that they are being deceived about. Your arguments are just dishonest slitherings from start to finish, are they not?

[knight22]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

You decried a lack of "signs", not a working solution.

Setting the standard, then pretending as if you never did so, and of course, no-one can satisfy a requirement that they are being deceived about. Your arguments are just dishonest slitherings from start to finish, are they not?

I am only stating that there will be no bull market until the uncertainties surrounding the scalability will be cleared out. "Working" on a solution does not clear anything. Heck, people are working to heal cancer from decades thus nothing satisfactory has ever came out. 

There is no clear path, no deadlines, not even a slight sign of consensus of how bitcoin should scale. Am I being dishonest?

[ATguy]

If the block size limit is left at 1MB, a fee market will emerge whereas users will bid/compete for transaction

If you mean all will work as usual, then it is big misunderstanding. Basically because only x transactions can be included in the block, it cant serve growing userbase regardless how big transaction fees become. So it will follow like this:

1. When at userbase limit - competetion will make fees higher
2. With even increased userbase - people find out Bitcoin does not work - high fees + so long waiting times to include your transaction in the block (not all transactions can be included, some have to wait forever unless Bitcoin usage drops under userbase limit)
3. People switch to altcoins, and Bitcoin becomes only well functional (like today) when enought people stop using it (basically stopping DDOS Bitcoin)

[Mickeyb]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

I must come in a middle of your discussion guys and just say that I am happy that the consensus is getting reached by these workshops and not by some hasty solutions. This is a way to go especially as at the moment, 1MB is more than enough.

Of course, I just hope that solution will be brought if not during the Hong Kong workshop, then at least in the very near time after this workshop.

[GamNoob]

I ask this question based on these...
1. Size of the transaction is based on amount of satoshi we transact.
2. When price raise, the amount in a transaction would be less comparatively.
3. With less sized transactions (still same value or higher value as a regular user transacts), a block can pick more transactions.

I read a average transaction size is 500KB. Assume it has some 1Milllion satoshi or 0.01BTC, current value $2.413 .
If the price goes to 10 times, then to send same $2.413, we just need 0.1 million satoshi or 0.001BTC, by mathematically transaction size must reduce to 50KB or some what. (There are some part of size do not change regardless of number of satoshi)
Now a block approximately can pick 10 times more transactions.

So, we need price raise to solve block-size debate?

I hope so.

[brg444]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away. If there is no room for new massive influx of users then the price won't rise from usage.

Do you think the price will rise by pure magic?

1. Increasing transaction throughput != scaling. Moreover an enormous amount of capital worldwide lays dormant and is not concerned with velocity of the network. Bitcoin can scale to accomodate orders of magnitude more value as is, as long as demand for transaction remains marginal.

2. Most of the big projects you refer to are only interested in leeching onto Bitcoin as some sort of database which it isn't fit to be. They would provide little value to the monetary function of Bitcoin.

You whole logic as to what creates value for Bitcoin is utterly broken.

[brg444]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

Except when precisely that happened in the past, for a period of several months.

It happened in the past because people speculated that bitcoin would literally take over the world and would make them insanely rich. A slight increase in usage made people going nuts. Now now one is expecting that to happen again with 1 mb blocks being artificially enforced and which was supposed to be only a temporary anti-spam measure. Speculators speculate on future usage which is now crippled and shows no signs of being changed.

You understanding of what Bitcoin is actually used for and the nature of the surrounding speculation is so ridiculous and narrow minded it's no surprise you are so confused.

[brg444]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

XT doesn't scale, it merely increases the transaction throughput in a linear and limited manner.

Since we like to pretend to know every details about obscure projects supposedly waiting on bigger blocks then allow me to suggest that what XT proposes does not fit or even comes close to satisfying the throughput required to accommodate the likes of Fidelity's on the blockchain.

[brg444]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

Participants in the workshop (people apparently much smarter than you I should say) all recognize that Bitcoin scaling has absolutely nothing to do with the block size. Therefore any solution brought forward or proposed at the conference purposefully avoided addressing the block size concern as it serves nothing but as a distraction to the actual challenges at hand.   

[knight22]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

Participants in the workshop (people apparently much smarter than you I should say) all recognize that Bitcoin scaling has absolutely nothing to do with the block size. Therefore any solution brought forward or proposed at the conference purposefully avoided addressing the block size concern as it serves nothing but as a distraction to the actual challenges at hand.  

Increasing efficiencies =! scaling the TX on chain. You got the wrong definitions. No wonder why you are so confused.

[knight22]

Fidelity and NASDAQ as per example. XT is not a business. May I also reminds you these who need bigger blocks? http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Speculators are speculating accordingly and there will be no bull market until that is resolved. Uncertainties on potential growth are way too high.  

Are you still doing that thing where you pretend as if every single person who rejects BIP101 also wants 1MB 4EVA?

C'mon, give us another round of how XT got rubbed out of existence by censorship and yet simultaneously has the economic majority and was a massive success? Reality distortion specialist.

I am not pretending that but the reality is that there is currently no other functioning code that scales anything nor any signs that there will be in a near future.

Terrible argument. Not least because the Scaling Workshops are clearly more than a "sign" that the issue is being addressed by consensus, and not by a tiny minority of aggressive ideologues who won't take no for an answer.

Did the workshop came up with a working solution that I am not aware off? You can work on something forever. It is not a sign that a solution is near to happen.

I must come in a middle of your discussion guys and just say that I am happy that the consensus is getting reached by these workshops and not by some hasty solutions. This is a way to go especially as at the moment, 1MB is more than enough.

Of course, I just hope that solution will be brought if not during the Hong Kong workshop, then at least in the very near time after this workshop.

It depends of what you mean by more than enough. If you mean shit didn't start to hit the fan then you are right. If you mean it is enough for another massive bull market with new waves of investments then you are wrong.

[knight22]

I don't think there can be a price raise until this block size debate isn't solved. Why? Well we have made such a mess out of it and made such a huge problem out of it that any serious investors see it as a problem as well and they stay away just until it's solved.

So even if some users here claim that there is no real problem we have made it look like there is one!

All that makes little sense. Bitcoin has been valued higher than current levels when the transaction level was much lower. And the progenitors of the non-problem are Hearn and Andresen, not the people who argued they were exaggerating. That's blaming the subject of an assault for defending themselves, i.e. not observant of reality

It makes a lot of sense.

1. No one with half of a brain would invest in a technology that doesn't scale so the price won't rise from speculation.

2. Big projects that have the potential of bringing new massive influx of users are being pushed away. If there is no room for new massive influx of users then the price won't rise from usage.

Do you think the price will rise by pure magic?

1. Increasing transaction throughput != scaling. Moreover an enormous amount of capital worldwide lays dormant and is not concerned with velocity of the network. Bitcoin can scale to accomodate orders of magnitude more value as is, as long as demand for transaction remains marginal.

2. Most of the big projects you refer to are only interested in leeching onto Bitcoin as some sort of database which it isn't fit to be. They would provide little value to the monetary function of Bitcoin.

You whole logic as to what creates value for Bitcoin is utterly broken.

Do you believe your own BS?

[johnyj]

Definitely, because price raise is adrenaline  

Consider two different scenario:

1. bitcoin is able to handle millions of transactions per second but price keeps going down every year

2. bitcoin is only capable of 7 tps, but price doubles every year

In case 1 more and more people will leave bitcoin, and in case 2 more and more people will use bitcoin. If you get more and more people interested in using bitcoin, then any kind of solution to solve the scaling limitation will automatically come up, no matter how technically challenging it is

Believe it or not, for majoriy of people, what bitcoin matters is its ability to fight inflation or make some profit, not instantly buy coffee, which they already can do without bitcoin