Time to stand up to the XT shills here!

[toddtervy]

Ok. Then you just proved me a discussion is impossible. Now accept the fact that people are freely moving away and move along.

I see - you have given up - good - now go an "fork off'.

Not sure what this is, but good to see someone else speaking out against something.  Most replies will be by retards and/or people trying to get their sig. Ad quota...

[Zarathustra]

More than 4000 unconfirmed transactions, total size 3382.8271 (KB), latest blocks very near 1MB.

https://blockchain.info/en/unconfirmed-transactions

I wouldn't call this "barely any activity on the network."

Yep, mostly uneconomic spam not valuable enough for their sender to include a reasonable fee.

Wrong, most txs arn't spam:

https://blockchain.info/

[ArticMine]

...

Is that what Blockstream has decided bitcoin should be?

Because that's not the original plan...

...

Sad but true. Lets us turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer between banks by keeping the blocksize at 1 MB. We then sell it as de-centralization.

[brg444]

...

Is that what Blockstream has decided bitcoin should be?

Because that's not the original plan...

...

Sad but true. Lets us turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer between banks by keeping the blocksize at 1 MB. We then sell it as de-centralization.

Let's turn Bitcoin into Paypal by allowing freeloaders to spam the blockchain to oblivion until only datacenters can handle its load. We then sell it as "inclusion".

[jonald_fyookball]

Network is saturated today, the problem is right now!

Only by *spam* not by real transactions - and no doubt these spam attacks are actually by XT supporters who want to keep trying to say that it is so important that we need to change (and put Mike Hearn in charge) now.

No-one is using Bitcoin for everyday purchases even (I don't know anyone who does - including myself).

So you can go on and on about the bullshit txs representing "real txs" but that is simply not the case.

For a start - you would need to be "paid in BTC" to want to be spending it for everyday purchases - now apart from ad-siggers getting paid tiny amounts who is actually being paid in BTC now?

(answer - no-one - this is just another part of the XT misinformation)

Wrong.  My employees are paid in BTC.

[DooMAD]

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges.

Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely.

Still, you can see where I'm going with this.  We'll take the description from their own page:

Using sidechain technology, Liquid reduces ISL by allowing for rapid transfers between accounts held by the varied participants in a separate, high-volume and low-fee cryptographic system that preserves many of the security benefits of the Bitcoin network. This, in addition to increasing the security of funds normally subject to explicit counterparty risk, fosters conditions that increase market liquidity and reduce capital requirements for on-blockchain business models.

So yeah, you're right in that it helps increase liquidity, but at the same time, it's allowing exchanges to move large volumes of funds around while minimising contact with the main chain.  Your vision of the future is that traditional financial institutions and big business will settle on the main chain and pay big fees to miners, but if they see exchanges doing it off-chain and still maintaining a high level of security whilst paying less in the process, why wouldn't other industries follow suit in a similar manner? 

Would be somewhat ironic if most big businesses jumped on sidechains and you had to start begging people to put their cups of coffee on the blockchain just so the miners get a bit of income.   

So I have to ask, now that we've opened the potential Pandora's box of sidechains, can it be easily closed again if this turns out to be the wrong course of action?

[brg444]

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges.

Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely.

Still, you can see where I'm going with this.  We'll take the description from their own page:

Using sidechain technology, Liquid reduces ISL by allowing for rapid transfers between accounts held by the varied participants in a separate, high-volume and low-fee cryptographic system that preserves many of the security benefits of the Bitcoin network. This, in addition to increasing the security of funds normally subject to explicit counterparty risk, fosters conditions that increase market liquidity and reduce capital requirements for on-blockchain business models.

So yeah, you're right in that it helps increase liquidity, but at the same time, it's allowing exchanges to move large volumes of funds around while minimising contact with the main chain.  Your vision of the future is that traditional financial institutions and big business will settle on the main chain and pay big fees to miners, but if they see exchanges doing it off-chain and still maintaining a high level of security whilst paying less in the process, why wouldn't other industries follow suit in a similar manner?  

Would be somewhat ironic if most big businesses jumped on sidechains and you had to start begging people to put their cups of coffee on the blockchain just so the miners get a bit of income.  

So I have to ask, now that we've opened the potential Pandora's box of sidechains, can it be easily closed again if this turns out to be the wrong course of action?

Even the participants of Liquid eventually settle on the mainchain.

Bitcoin provides features that can not be replicated on sidechains: uninterdictable, censorship-resistant transactions with irrevocable finality of payment.

No matter what superficial features are developed on top using sidechains there will be demand for the ultimate settlement layer.

Also don't forget that ultimately the goal is to have miners merge mine the largest sidechains. It also wouldn't be surprising to see to see some of them pivot a part of their business into providing Lightning network nodes.

[ATguy]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

[hdbuck]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin..

else of course you are free to fork off.

[ATguy]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin..

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

[hdbuck]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin..

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s.

Just saying the obvious...

where is this mass adoption?! i still cant see it

maybe they already gone off to ripple or something? ^^

[Lauda]

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB.

[Zarathustra]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin..

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid.

[hdbuck]

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

also considering that such a paradigm would result into a massive centralization.

so yea basicaly, if you still cant wrap your head around such concept you better fork off nao.

[Zarathustra]

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB.

Yes. They'll find a consensus with Luke Jr. at 0,7 MB.

[jonald_fyookball]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

[brg444]

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin..

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid.

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

[Cconvert2G36]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. 

[hdbuck]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.  

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

[Cconvert2G36]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.  

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

That's all well and good. No amount of blocksize scaling will ever fit the world's daily transactions on the main chain.

I would like to see reasonable increases to the max blocksize in order to compensate and incentivize miners (security) in the face of decreasing block reward. When Lightning, sidechains, and all the other options offered actually exist and function, then they will influence future decisions. 

(btw "appeal to authority" accusation is hilarious coming from you)