Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[VeritasSapere]

The Bitcoin user base could grow by a factor of ten if you cut out all the spam and micro transactions by limiting block size causing fees to grow to around 1 dollar in value per transaction. I do not think this would affect adoption in the slightest

Because there is such a thing that we call competition, why would anyone pay one dollar per transaction for everyday transactions? When much cheaper alternatives exist. Furthermore under greater levels of adoption it would cost much more then just one dollar, since you would have to try to outbid large financial institutions for blockspace, which would obviously lead to a terrible user experience which would furthermore make Bitcoin completely impractical for use as a form of money. I do not think that this would happen in the first place however since people would simply just move away from Bitcoin towards better alternatives. Not to mention that one dollar per transaction would also be far to much for most people in the third world.

Second point, and this is important, what you define as spam another person might consider a important transaction. Or a important use case for some business, which would get priced out of Bitcoin if we allowed this to happen. They would simply move to other alternative cryptocurrencies. This is already happening, look at the altcoin market today, it is booming, while Bitcoin remains stagnant. Bitcoin will continue to lose ground until we increase the blocksize, increasing Bitcoins utility is key to giving Bitcoin more value and therefore more security and so forth, a virtues cycle.

[AlexGR]

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

[pawel7777]

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

I think they're massively ripping you off in US. I don't recall ever paying any fee for domestic transfer and currently most of them are done on the same day (Faster Payments) between different banks. I'm talking about UK.

[Fatman3001]

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

I think they're massively ripping you off in US. I don't recall ever paying any fee for domestic transfer and currently most of them are done on the same day (Faster Payments) between different banks. I'm talking about UK.

Same here. Even SEPA is cheaper.

[VeritasSapere]

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

This is a completely different use case compared to currency. I use Bitcoin to buy my diners often. It would no longer be practical to do that if transactions cost more then one dollar, let alone fifteen dollars. I like to think that I understand the small blockist philosophy well. The idea that many small blockist maintain is that Bitcoin should become a settlement network and that it should cease to be a currency. I think that Bitcoin can do both and that these different functions actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. Bitcoin the currency gives the network more value through utility. More value equals more security which therefore leads to it being a better settlement network. I do question how relevant settlement networks will even be in the future when everybody can just transact directly, trustlessly and cheaply.

Bitcoin will not become a global reserve currency, or a global settlement network without mass adoption by the people first. Since otherwise the powers that be have no incentive to adopt Bitcoin, they could use something like ripple instead for the use case that you mention, which would be more to their advantage. I can only see the very large financial institutions and the financial status quo adopting Bitcoin if they are "forced" to do so in order to stay relevant. This can only happen through mass adoption by the people, not increasing the blocksize eliminates this possibility and sets Bitcoin on a path which I believe is destined to fail. Alternative cryptocurrencies will simply displace Bitcoin if it does not stay competitive and relevant.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

Sucks to be a yank. I can transfer up to 3000euro in 24 hours for free via sepa.  STG/EUR transfers (up to £10,000 for £1.50 (forex charges excl.)

Are you really suggesting that because you are getting screwed by paying $20 for transfers, that this should somehow be the model to be aimed for by bitcoin? Suicide.

[AlexGR]

Sucks to be a yank. I can transfer up to 3000euro in 24 hours for free via sepa.  STG/EUR transfers (up to £10,000 for £1.50 (forex charges excl.)

See all these limits, hours, charges, fees mentioned even for much better services than the US?

Still 100 light years behind what BTC offers right now, with 4-5cents in fees for first block inclusion and avg 10 minutes time, for practically no limit in terms of value transacted.

And that, with a 100mb queue/backlog in the mempool and "blocks are full" bullshit.

[Carlton Banks]

I do not consider moving transactions off chain to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all, it is the very opposite of that.

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

The only way to scale Bitcoin directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize.

No that's the best way to end up turning the full nodes into a datacenter-only situation. That kind of can kicking approach is relentlessly refuted, why would you keep repeating it again and again as if it somehow represented the truth?

People can use lighting if they want to or not, that is their choice and that is fine. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize, especially as technology increases for the purpose of incentivizing people to move more of their transactions off chain is wrong. Give people the free choice, if they prefer to use the lighting network over Bitcoin then that is fine and we will not need to increase the blocksize again.

Given the free choice, people will design the most bonkers Bitcoin you can imagine. I'm happy to see Core do it for now; because they're objectively sticking to the cypher-punk credos better than the so-called competition. Maybe an alternative implementation that actually blows the Core teams cypher-punk credentials out of the water could emerge, but until then, it's Core for cypher-punks.

Today however, the blocks are filling up and many people do not want a fee market. It is wrong for Core to attempt to unilaterally decide to change the economic policy of Bitcoin in this way. Lighting network is not complete and neither is SegWit,

People want secure bitcoins. "Nothing in this life comes truly for free", as they say, and the only way to pay for that is with fees. Bitcoin basics is at the wiki site.

we can simply increase the blocksize to two megabytes. This will not destroy Bitcoin, as some people claim. This will allow Bitcoin to continue to grow, which is good for both decentralization and global financial freedom.

You know as well as I that both the SegWit fork and a blocksize fork take several month to co-ordinate, and that's just when there actually is a genuine consensus to change. Un-coordinated? Well, both XT and Classic have a current projected fork date of roughly the end of all eternity, so it's not looking so good for that approach.

[Fatman3001]

Sucks to be a yank. I can transfer up to 3000euro in 24 hours for free via sepa.  STG/EUR transfers (up to £10,000 for £1.50 (forex charges excl.)

See all these limits, hours, charges, fees mentioned even for much better services than the US?

Still 100 light years behind what BTC offers right now, with 4-5cents in fees for first block inclusion and avg 10 minutes time, for practically no limit in terms of value transacted.

And that, with a 100mb queue/backlog in the mempool and "blocks are full" bullshit.

That's nice for a bumper sticker, but in reality you can't transfer large amounts of real world money without losing a lot of it through slippage, currency fluctuations and, of course, bank transfers.

Let the Bitcoin ecosystem iron out those kinks before we bleed the users dry.

[gmaxwell]

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

[worhiper_-_]

Well this just in, "bitcoin classic" is the work of literall crooks

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343462

[Fatman3001]

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

Can you imagine if a spoon was a fork?

What a pain it would be to eat soup!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

Thankfully contract law doesn't go along the lines of "I don't care how you do anything, just as long as the end result is X"

And that is for a reason.

[VeritasSapere]

People can use lighting if they want to or not, that is their choice and that is fine. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize, especially as technology increases for the purpose of incentivizing people to move more of their transactions off chain is wrong. Give people the free choice, if they prefer to use the lighting network over Bitcoin then that is fine and we will not need to increase the blocksize again.

Given the free choice, people will design the most bonkers Bitcoin you can imagine. I'm happy to see Core do it for now; because they're objectively sticking to the cypher-punk credos better than the so-called competition. Maybe an alternative implementation that actually blows the Core teams cypher-punk credentials out of the water could emerge, but until then, it's Core for cypher-punks.

You are admitting here that you do not believe in the collective wisdom of peoples free choice. And that you are happy that Core is attempting to act contrary to this will. I am sorry that you do not understand yet that Bitcoin is governed by the people, but that is the case. I think this is a good thing, you have made it quite clear here that you do not.

Today however, the blocks are filling up and many people do not want a fee market. It is wrong for Core to attempt to unilaterally decide to change the economic policy of Bitcoin in this way. Lighting network is not complete and neither is SegWit,

People want secure bitcoins. "Nothing in this life comes truly for free", as they say, and the only way to pay for that is with fees. Bitcoin basics is at the wiki site.

People can decide for themselves what kind of a Bitcoin they want. Pointing towards a censored wiki site controlled by theymos certainly does reinforce this position of yours.

You say that you support the cypherpunk cause, however the cypherpunks believed and stood for freedom. You are not promoting freedom but its opposite, you are attempting to justify the control of something that is meant to be free.

we can simply increase the blocksize to two megabytes. This will not destroy Bitcoin, as some people claim. This will allow Bitcoin to continue to grow, which is good for both decentralization and global financial freedom.

You know as well as I that both the SegWit fork and a blocksize fork take several month to co-ordinate, and that's just when there actually is a genuine consensus to change. Un-coordinated? Well, both XT and Classic have a current projected fork date of roughly the end of all eternity, so it's not looking so good for that approach.

The people could fork the network tomorrow if they wanted to, or in a few weeks, the majority of Chinese mining pools even stated recently that they will modify the code themselves if it came to it, furthermore Bitcoin Unlimited is live now, and anyone can freely choose to run Bitcoin Unlimited, which will make your node compatible with any blocksize limit proposal supported by the majority of the hashing power.

I think Sgbett responded to this propaganda strategy of yours well:

These people post in such a way to suggest they think they *know* the future, when in fact that is impossible, because the future is uncertain. A statement in which someone claims to know the future is by definition a lie.

Posting that statement repeatedly is exactly what you described when you said "repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth"

You could accuse me of the same thing "Keep at it; not long now" could allude to me thinking that one particular outcome is foregone conclusion, but it could also just be that I think that a resolution either way could be coming soon. The crowd will decide what they decide.

Classic - its not even been released yet. So here you cannot possibly say it has been rejected by the community, but you have. The "In reality" makes it really hard for you to argue that you weren't presenting this as fact.

[iCEBREAKER]

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

What a delicious analogy!   

Every coffee purchase must be recorded in the Federal Register with Public Notice; every speeding ticket appeal must be immediately heard before the Supreme Court.

Every opinion must be given prime-time coverage or else ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS.

ToominLand sounds like an absurd, shitty place to actually live.  Basically California 2.0.   

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

What a delicious analogy!  

Every coffee purchase must be recorded in the Federal Register with Public Notice; every speeding ticket appeal must be immediately heard before the Supreme Court.

Every opinion must be given prime-time coverage or else ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS.

ToominLand sounds like an absurd, shitty place to actually live.  Basically California 2.0.  

I'm sure Greg loves having an actual fascist on board. Really gives meat to the analogy. Delicious.

[jonald_fyookball]

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

Can you imagine if a spoon was a fork?

What a pain it would be to eat soup!

I think you are starting to crack under the pressure gmax.
I'm surprised you're even posting in a #REKT thread lol.

"Block maximalists"?  NO, we just want 2 freaking MB
so we can feel like we're not being stonewalled and
made to wait with no clear time table...and
we don't want to wait until blocks are so full that the
network is grinding to a halt.

Is that so unreasonable?  Or was I right that
its just not your in business interests to
support that?

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin Unlimited is live now, and anyone can freely choose to run Bitcoin Unlimited

I sense a great disturbance in the Farce, as if a 100 billion sentient beings laughed out loud, all at once!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

Can you imagine if a spoon was a fork?

What a pain it would be to eat soup!

I think you are starting to crack under the pressure gmax.
I'm surprised you're even posting in a #REKT thread lol.

"Block maximalists"?  NO, we just want 2 freaking MB
so we can feel like we're not being stonewalled and
made to wait with no clear time table...and
we don't want to wait until blocks are so full that the
network is grinding to a halt.

Is that so unreasonable?  Or was I right that
its just not your in business interests to
support that?

Lookit! This isn't a democracy. You can't just question things. You want to ask about Satoshi? It's silly. Don't! Want to discuss technical details you aren't possibly qualified to understand? Get over to Reddit with the rest of the teeming unbanked. Either accept the changes being made to the Holy Ledger or find yourself a nice altcoin somewhere!

s/

[johnyj]

I found this analogy to be simple:

Your 1GB hard drive is almost full, you have 2 options:

1. Buy a 2GB hard drive to replace the old hard drive
2. Buy another 1GB hard drive, and a RAID controller and set up a Raid 0 array, so that the Raid software will move 40% of the data from your old hard drive to new drive , so it becomes not full again. Then you have total 2GB of space in your new array, which functionality wise equal to a 2GB hard drive

I think any normal people will just go for the first option, only geeks and technical interested guy will try the second approach, and eventually many of them will give up on the second setup because it is just too complex to implement and maintain, and a Raid 0 will have higher risk of failure, it does not worth the effort