Blocksize needs to be increased now.

[CIYAM]

I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.

Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.

Do you understand how a B+Tree works?

(I guess not)

but does that stop you from using RDBMS engines? (of course not as everything you search upon uses them).

You don't need to understand the tech and no-one is blaming you for not - but don't try and ask for the tech to be explained to you unless you want to bother to learn how to understand it.

I would love to have a "time machine" but such a thing is not possible - so you might want a crypto-currency that cannot be implemented as well - just accept that it is not possible and try and be happy with what we have.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come

This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project).

Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.

ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.

I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.

Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.

Nah, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was the other fool's rant I was aiming at.

[bob123]

Since its scaling linear i think we still have some time.. but still.. it should be raised pretty soon

[Poloniex Matthew]

2015 called.  It wants you to give back its clever strategy to sell XT using fear/panic about Bitcoin's impending D000M.

If you "Bitcoin is going to choke S000N" types were serious, XT would change to a different/modified PoW at the same time it attempts (via contentious hard fork) to impose blocks >1MB on the (demonstrably unwilling) rest of the system.

Why not just do an extra round of SHA256?  Existing ASICs could do that with firmware/driver tweak.

The reason you don't do that is you want to hijack Bitcoin and destroy its interesting property of being diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

The sooner you fork off and stop trying to attach GavinCoin to Satoshi's coattails, the better.

[Jet Cash]

Do you understand how a B+Tree works?

(I guess not)

but does that stop you from using RDBMS engines? (of course not as everything you search upon uses them).

You don't need to understand the tech and no-one is blaming you for not - but don't try and ask for the tech to be explained to you unless you want to bother to learn how to understand it.

I would love to have a "time machine" but such a thing is not possible - so you might want a crypto-currency that cannot be implemented as well - just accept that it is not possible and try and be happy with what we have.

Well I did write several binary search routines in my day as a mainframe assembler programmer. My post wasn't a request for information, but to point out that block size doubling is a simple concept on the face of it, but the ramifications are fairly difficult to understand. In a situation where most people don't seem to understand the difference between Bitcoin and the blockchain, there is a danger that many people won't delve past the title.

[Monnt]

Using the simple idea of demand (in this case, of speed of transaction), the TX fees will go up. Especially with the upcoming halving, this will make up for some of the lowered profitability in the future. Maybe not all, but some. Miners will definitely want to keep it that way.

[Yanidas]

Since its scaling linear i think we still have some time.. but still.. it should be raised pretty soon

Some calculation indicates the block will be full in 9 months. But I think we should raise the limit in 3-5 months.

[Cryptology]

Blockchain.info is posting > 36 MB of unconfirmed transactions right now.

[Yanidas]

Blockchain.info is posting > 36 MB of unconfirmed transactions right now.

I am quite worried about the situation. Is there some kinds of stress test going on?

We need the block rise sooner rather than later.

[funkenstein]

I am not worried in any sense.  Nice to see business as usual.  Perhaps we will start to see some progress in evolution of bitcoin soon. 

[RealBitcoin]

It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.

[hv_]

It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.

It is a very nice stress Test and shows the limit of the actual tech is very close.

How would you chose your CPU for a risk sensitive machine? Sure at some level where you normally use only a small fraction and for a standard stress tests it should still work fine ....

[BitcoinjunkieZ]

core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready.  The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.

That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)

How is it possible that segwit is being tested if it is "fantasyware?"

Oh I see, you are defining anything not yet in production as "fantasyware."

How typically dishonest of you.

When _Classic launches 2MB blocks, the "fantasyware" now being tested will come in handy, as _Classic is immediately softforked with 2MB+8MB segwit blocks (which will create a support/logistical nightmare for anyone brave enough to be among the first defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority.

Sorry, took me a minute to cut through your #CORERAGE to find the half arsed point you were half way making.

I'm assuming your distress is from coming out of your local PC World and not having found a shrink wrapped, shiny boxed copy of Bitcoin Classic? Oh dear, I am sorry. But you see in grown up OS world, things work a little differently. I could explain that to you, but we both know that would be a waste of time.

So, instead, please accept this picture of a kitten. Ive dressed it up a bit, coz I know what you like....

U think this is funny dude? 

[AlexGR]

It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.

It is a very nice stress Test and shows the limit of the actual tech is very close.

What it shows is that any system that has a low cost to be abused, can get abused.

Near-zero cost txs = near-zero cost abuse.

If the fees were higher, the cost of attacking the system would have been higher and the risk of attacks much lower.

[hv_]

It has halved since yesterday, and I hope the attacker runs out of funds soon.

It is a very nice stress Test and shows the limit of the actual tech is very close.

What it shows is that any system that has a low cost to be abused, can get abused.

Near-zero cost txs = near-zero cost abuse.

If the fees were higher, the cost of attacking the system would have been higher and the risk of attacks much lower.

I'd rather say the system is so close to it's Limit that makes it attractive for attackers.
Just for the social freedom you claim there should be always a way (some Space) for near zero cost txs .

[hv_]

Just found... No Space left for the poor or any safety...

[tonytumble]

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQoTEOO2.gif&t=562&c=qkq8igmgx20Yqw

Just found... No Space left for the poor or any safety...

they should have integrated BIP 101 months ago. Missing this will have bad results on the project BTC. But it will anyway succeed.. I hope the responsible "guys" get banned one day from this project. There was always conflict of interests.. They work for companies which don't want BTC block size to be increased. Sad but true...

[RussianRaibow]

I can't believe it hasn't been raised to at least 2MB yet.  I thought all the miners and everyone was okay with 8MB, and we haven't even reached 2MB.  This last week with all the stuck/slow transactions was ridiculous.  I don't even want to recommend bitcoin to anyone because of it.

[Indianacoin]

Just found... No Space left for the poor or any safety...

This is a very insightful graph!
And it is done solely based upon the current situation of transactions vs blockchain limit.

If that is the case then I can highly presume that, Bitcoin might decline its glory when it either reaches to the PayPal level transaction processing or the Visa level transaction processing.

But one thing for sure is shown wrongly on the graph is that failure will not be from 2016. Although this is based on probability but this is for sure it wont.

[Watercooler]

Very nice and informal graph, hopefully an agreement is reached soon to increase the blocksize limit. It's
not good for the health of the Bitcoin that everybody keeps fighting over it and nothing is being done at
the ever increasing confirmation times when normal fees are being used.