Average block size was 0.951 MB

[Lauda]

No! The average bitcoiner certainly knows that blocks are 95% full, and we wonder with much apprehension what will happen next, when blocks are 99% full (100% cannot be achieved) but Core developers, it seems, are less informed. They haven't implemented a solution yet, so it's getting likely that BTC will... Stop growing. I don't know how many people use BTC today, but there won't be a single new user in a year from now. If a new user wants to join the BTC party, an old user will need to leave the party. If one user wants to make more transactions, another user will need to reduce his number of transactions. Sorry, no vacancy.

Nonsense. Stop posting FUD. This is not how adoption works. Just because at times there seems to be a lack of space (regardless of the cause), that does not mean that the current limit can not support more users. There will always be a time where existing users create less TX's, at which there is room for other people to transact (more). You can't know where the adoption is at either. One user could easily be making thousands of TX's a day just to use up the space within the blocks. Transaction volume does not necessarily have to imply increased user adoption.

Fees are still lower then banks but they're definitely not suited for microtransaction operations which sorta sucks

It was never well suited for microtransactions.

Im not sure what you mean microtransaction operations, but many items are priced between 5 and 20 USD, and it becoming uneconomical to use Bitcoin to pay for such items. If even the fees go higher in future, I dont see much utility to use Bitcoin for purchasing goods online - too costly option. So we might be back where Bitcoin started, no online shop accepting Bitcoin anymore - pretty big step back.

So paying 10 cents means that it is "uneconomical"?

[countryfree]

I dont think full blocks is a problem, what worries me more is increasing fees. When transaction cost was around 10 cents I did not cared much, but I sometimes see recommended fee about 120 satoshi / byte which mean cost of transaction about half of 1 USD already.

With these and possible future higher fees it doesnt make much sence to using Bitcoin as a pay option, it is becoming too expensive for me. So hopefully the planned scaling keeps the fees lower, preferably up to 25 cents, so Bitcoin still has some utility. If it become uneconomical to pay with Bitcoin because of very high fees, then Im not sure what to do with Bitcoin - speculating and just selling at exchanges is against what I believe what Bitcoin should be used for - and I have no use for transfering huge sums around the globe myselves where the few dollar fees dont matter so much.

Fees are still lower then banks but they're definitely not suited for microtransaction operations which sorta sucks

Im not sure what you mean microtransaction operations, but many items are priced between 5 and 20 USD, and it becoming uneconomical to use Bitcoin to pay for such items. If even the fees go higher in future, I dont see much utility to use Bitcoin for purchasing goods online - too costly option. So we might be back where Bitcoin started, no online shop accepting Bitcoin anymore - pretty big step back.

In Europe, we have SEPA. To Americans who don't know what it is, it enables most people with a good bank account to make free bank transfers to 44 different countries. I'm enjoying this system so much, I'm making more bank transfers than BTC transactions. Nothing beats free! The only superiority with BTC is speed. 20 minutes versus 24/48 hours. If BTC's fees rise, BTC will suffer.

No! The average bitcoiner certainly knows that blocks are 95% full, and we wonder with much apprehension what will happen next, when blocks are 99% full (100% cannot be achieved) but Core developers, it seems, are less informed. They haven't implemented a solution yet, so it's getting likely that BTC will... Stop growing. I don't know how many people use BTC today, but there won't be a single new user in a year from now. If a new user wants to join the BTC party, an old user will need to leave the party. If one user wants to make more transactions, another user will need to reduce his number of transactions. Sorry, no vacancy.

Nonsense. Stop posting FUD. This is not how adoption works. Just because at times there seems to be a lack of space (regardless of the cause), that does not mean that the current limit can not support more users. There will always be a time where existing users create less TX's, at which there is room for other people to transact (more). You can't know where the adoption is at either. One user could easily be making thousands of TX's a day just to use up the space within the blocks. Transaction volume does not necessarily have to imply increased user adoption.

Don't you want more users? I wish millions would use BTC daily, if only the network could handle them. I only have a few BTC, but the amount I have has been steadily growing, and my monthly average number of transactions has been increasing too. I believe that's the case for most users, and that's also the goal. Don't we all want BTC to be used more and more often by more and more people? Unfortunately, a fixed block size limits all kind of growth.

[Lauda]

Don't you want more users? I wish millions would use BTC daily, if only the network could handle them. I only have a few BTC, but the amount I have has been steadily growing, and my monthly average number of transactions has been increasing too. I believe that's the case for most users, and that's also the goal. Don't we all want BTC to be used more and more often by more and more people?

If it turns Bitcoin into a centralized (or even semi-centralized) platform, the answer is no. If the network is able to handle it, then the potential 'capacity increase' and the users are welcome.

Unfortunately, a fixed block size limits all kind of growth.

No. A fixed block size limit prevents the system from destroying itself because it is not able to handle big block size limits. As an example, Segwit aims to scale down validation time to make it linear (currently quadratic). Once the proper infrastructure is in place, then an appropriate increase of the block size limit is not a bad idea (even though hard forks carry risks).

[franky1]

no point talking to lauda. he hates bitcoin
he has on many occassions hated services that allows real world retailers to use bitcoin. if lauda had his way he would want bitpay, coinbase and other merchant tools to burn in hell. he has been very audible with hating payment gateways.

its getting obvious lauda is too entranched in the blockstream band camp of moving everyone away from bitcoin.. he is just showing the the bait (segwit) before the switch(sidechains).
funny thing is that segwit will need to "bribe" people with a fee discount.. which in-of itsself is actually going to incentivise the spammers to be the first ones to move across and use it. rather than regular folk.(say goodbye to short term capacity growth thanks to the bribe)

what he is also not telling you is that segwit involves having to move funds into new types of addresses. which will pee alot of people off.. because some people will have to change everything they do, otherwise they are limited to who they can send funds to and who can send them funds..
segwit is not just a soft fork that is backward compatible.. that is an oversell.. of something that is becoming less and less SOFT as we get closer to seeing what it actually does

he thinks segwit is the solution.. yet once the 1.8x capacity (sideeffect) has happened.. segwit cannot grow any more.. then its back to the discussion of blocksize increase OR offchain.. and guess what he is full steam going to over promise and under factualize.. yep you guessed it.. "off-chain". instead of protecting bitcoins onchain usefulness.

he proclaims he wants bitcoin to be better then visa.. and what is his perfect solution.. LN.. something that "authorizes" payments near instantly. but the settling would be FAR FAR FAR FAR worse than visa.
and what is also not really talked about is people funds are locked into a multisig. meaning that the user cant just move his funds around without agreement from another person. if you cannot see that as steps towards corporate control then you are missing the big picture.

lauda has no coding knowledge never once have i seen him talk about LN in terms of multisig. he has only read the glossy images hand picked and presented to him in a narrative that makes him think pushing people offchain is a good thing. he has no clue.

lets not side track the 2018-2020 one way street.. lets instead just talk about the short term "drama"
segwit  = 1.8x scaling (cant go further)
2mb HF = 2x scaling(possibly more with flexcap alllowing higher numbers without endless downloads)

segwit = if fullnodes want to remain fullnodes they need to upgrade
2mb HF = if fullnodes want to remain fullnodes they need to upgrade

segwit = if upgrade but enable pruned no witness mode, it dilutes the full distribution node count (could end up with 50% dilution+)
2mb HF = if dont upgrade it dilutes the full distribution node count (but it wont activate unless there is >90%, meaning only 10% max dilution)

segwit=once active, there is no "doubling segwit".. 1.8x is the max
2mb HF = once active you can always double it.. infact it can be made easy to achieve with flexicap/bu/user settings menu, without need to download upgrades each time.

as for the laughter of segwit beaing leaner, less bloating and not going to affect bandwidth limits of nodes..
segnet
https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000000ddf050de21b895ff687102211806ef2322143c1bea2638490e696f6e56
350 transactions totalling 1 input-one output............ you would think it would be a low 0.088mb block (at a 250byte average).. nope 2.8MB!!
https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000056a6d930e62f81108f43b490931c9722a324a71b7e959fd03fb6be0580
655 transactions totalling one input-one output............ you would think it would be a low 0.164mb block (at a 250byte average).. nope 2.7MB!!

so all of the chest bumping over the last year that segwit slims down bloat.. and how the network cannot handle 2mb of real data.. have now evaportated

the only debate left lauda can fight is the requirement that everyone needs to upgrade.
and as i said, a HF wont come into action unless a majority upgraded.. and those running full nodes are usually those with more then just a passing interest in economics, so they want to remain full nodes, so will ofcourse have an interest in remaining full nodes and upgrade should the time come.

so lauda has run out of any rational, logical excuses..

[Quickseller]

Just because at times there seems to be a lack of space (regardless of the cause), that does not mean that the current limit can not support more users. There will always be a time where existing users create less TX's, at which there is room for other people to transact (more).

I really don't think that a good plan for adoption is for existing Bitcoin users to use Bitcoin less to make room for new users. Generally speaking, the most effective way to increase adoption is to show others how great Bitcoin is/works. If existing users are having to use Bitcoin less then it will be difficult to show others how it works!

There is also the issue of peak usage, as transaction volume will ebb and flow naturally throughout the day, so if blocks tend to be (nearly) full on average, then performance during peak usage times will be degraded. Just because traffic is flowing at the speed limit at 2 PM on a Saturday on a highway, does not mean that the highway has sufficient capacity to handle the amount of traffic it has to handle at 4:30 PM during the week!

[countryfree]

There is also the issue of peak usage, as transaction volume will ebb and flow naturally throughout the day, so if blocks tend to be (nearly) full on average, then performance during peak usage times will be degraded. Just because traffic is flowing at the speed limit at 2 PM on a Saturday on a highway, does not mean that the highway has sufficient capacity to handle the amount of traffic it has to handle at 4:30 PM during the week!

Comparison is valid, though the spread between minimum and maximum traffic is smaller with BTC. Or it's getting close to the 405 in Los Angeles which suffers from very heavy traffic at least 8 hours each day. It would be difficult to add highway lanes in the city, but it's very doable to increase block size in BTC.

[Lauda]

I really don't think that a good plan for adoption is for existing Bitcoin users to use Bitcoin less to make room for new users. Generally speaking, the most effective way to increase adoption is to show others how great Bitcoin is/works. If existing users are having to use Bitcoin less then it will be difficult to show others how it works!

Did I say that this was a "good plan for adoption"? I most certainly did not. However, I'd rather not sacrifice decentralization for user adoption. If we start doing that, eventually we would start pushing those boundaries more and more and that would definitely be a bad thing.

There is also the issue of peak usage, as transaction volume will ebb and flow naturally throughout the day, so if blocks tend to be (nearly) full on average, then performance during peak usage times will be degraded. Just because traffic is flowing at the speed limit at 2 PM on a Saturday on a highway, does not mean that the highway has sufficient capacity to handle the amount of traffic it has to handle at 4:30 PM during the week!

There's are issues for a lot of things, yet there are only a few people trying to improve these things. Most are just complaining here and there. There are limits which could be considered 'safe' for Bitcoin and those need to have priority.

It would be difficult to add highway lanes in the city, but it's very doable to increase block size in BTC.

Doable does not imply being easy. I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deploy a successful hard fork.

[AliceGored]

It would be difficult to add highway lanes in the city, but it's very doable to increase block size in BTC.

Doable does not imply being easy. I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deploy a successful hard fork.

Not many of us were around back then... but the founder of the project actually gave us very clear direction on how we should do it!

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

As segwit will not be activated by miners until the HF code for 2017 activation is included in a Core binary release...  And the tireless work towards a bug free overhaul like segwit was probably not done just for fun... Core should probably be working to meet the HK consensus criteria if they ever want to see it implemented. Exciting times. 

[rizzlarolla]

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

...I'd rather not sacrifice decentralization for user adoption.

...Most are just complaining here and there.

...I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deploy a successful hard fork.

That satoshi. Silly boy.
Staff here wins hands down.

[countryfree]

It would be difficult to add highway lanes in the city, but it's very doable to increase block size in BTC.

Doable does not imply being easy. I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deploy a successful hard fork.

Not many of us were around back then... but the founder of the project actually gave us very clear direction on how we should do it!

Exactly. The 1MB isn't graved in stone. This is no constitutional right that shall never change. Satoshi Nakamoto had seen that block size could become a bottleneck at some point.

[Cuidler]

So paying 10 cents means that it is "uneconomical"?

10 cents - not anymore, more like half a dollar instead

I don't think you realize how difficult it is to deploy a successful hard fork.

The one unexpected hard fork Bitcoin had took half a day before miners reversed to previous Bitcoin version.

So I dont see any difficulty in planned hard fork to non controversional changes where miners agree like the small bump to 2 MB - obviously small group who preffer to keep altcoins to be used more will complain loudly as it is in conflict of their interest for Bitcoin to allow to be used by more users, but what matters are miners only - afterall they secure Bitcoin network spending electricity.

[Lauda]

That satoshi. Silly boy.

Classic appeal to authority and no logic behind the thinking pattern. Nothing of value here, move on.

The one unexpected hard fork Bitcoin had took half a day before miners reversed to previous Bitcoin version.

What are we talking about here, 2013? That was ages ago. The situation is very much different today.

So I dont see any difficulty in planned hard fork to non controversional changes where miners agree like the small bump to 2 MB - obviously small group who preffer to keep altcoins strong will complain loudly as it is in conflict of their interest for Bitcoin to allow to be used by more users, but what matters are miners only - afterall they secure Bitcoin network spending electricity.

So let's ignore the fact that a 2MB block size limit is unsafe (due to O(n^2) validation time), and needs additional limitations (as added by Gavin in his very own BIP for Classic) and spread pointless FUD. Nicely done. I'd be a perfect example of a person who does not support shitcoins but does not agree to this "non difficult change".

[Cuidler]

The one unexpected hard fork Bitcoin had took half a day before miners reversed to previous Bitcoin version.

What are we talking about here, 2013? That was ages ago. The situation is very much different today.

Every day is quite different one, nothing to argue. But where is basically miner consensus, you going to see similar outcome, today the same as happened in the past.

So I dont see any difficulty in planned hard fork to non controversional changes where miners agree like the small bump to 2 MB - obviously small group who preffer to keep altcoins strong will complain loudly as it is in conflict of their interest for Bitcoin to allow to be used by more users, but what matters are miners only - afterall they secure Bitcoin network spending electricity.

So let's ignore the fact that a 2MB block size limit is unsafe (due to O(n^2) validation time), and needs additional limitations (as added by Gavin in his very own BIP for Classic) and spread pointless FUD. Nicely done. I'd be a perfect example of a person who does not support shitcoins but does not agree to this "non difficult change".

Your right, after BIP 109 limitations (or simply limiting maximum size of one transaction to 1 MB) 2 MB block size limit is as safe as today 1 MB block size limit (O(n^2) wise).

I like you dont support altcoins, and sorry I put all loudly complainers about the upcomming hard fork to one bag of altcoin lovers - my fault. So hopefully Bitcoin Core comes up with hardfork proposal so you, me and other miners can vote with their hashpower, the only provable fair method known to modify (or not) Bitcoin soft and hard rules.

Exactly. The 1MB isn't graved in stone. This is no constitutional right that shall never change. Satoshi Nakamoto had seen that block size could become a bottleneck at some point.

Obviously block size isn't graved in stone. We would still have the original 32MB instead !

[Lauda]

Every day is quite different one, nothing to argue. But where is basically miner consensus, you going to see similar outcome, today the same as happened in the past.

The ecosystem was much smaller 3 year ago. Additionally, that was a specific case that required emergency upgrades. A normal HF deployment is not an 'emergency'. Additionally, you completely leave out nodes and merchants out of that equation.

Your right, after BIP 109 limitations (or simply limiting maximum size of one transaction to 1 MB) 2 MB block size limit is as safe as today 1 MB block size limit (O(n^2) wise).

So you're telling me that Gavin is limiting my usage of Bitcoin? In other words, he forbids me from making 1.01 MB transactions now? This sounds very censorship resistant.

I like you dont support altcoins, and sorry I put all loudly complainers about the upcomming hard fork to one bag of altcoin lovers - my fault. So hopefully Bitcoin Core comes up with hardfork proposal so you, me and other miners can vote with their hashpower, the only provable fair method known to modify (or not) Bitcoin soft and hard rules.

There are people that support some altcoins, e.g. iCEBREAKER (IIRC), but I don't think this even makes up a decent amount of people who are against controversial HF's or HF's and thus they should not be generalized.

Obviously block size isn't graved in stone. We would still have the original 32MB instead !

Which would have broken the system in the meantime.

[countryfree]

We can probably argue forever about the block size, but let's not forget the fact: blocks are 95% full. That means BTC's usage cannot grow more than 5% from what it is now. Unless the block size is increased.