Will the price raise auto-solve the block size problem

[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