Blocks are full.

[Matias]

Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

Edit: Lightning network

[1713995771]

1713995771

[1713995771]

1713995771

[Lauda]

Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

What are you talking about? Not only is this not related to the thread, but it is also false.

[Matias]

Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

What are you talking about? Not only is this not related to the thread, but it is also false.

Oops  

Forgive my brain fart. I  meant Lightning network.

[Mastsetad]

Sidechains will  make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.

Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.

I would like to the freedom to transact on the main chain whenever I want. I do not want to pay very high fee to send bitcoin on the main chain.

[Matias]

^ I meant Lightning network.  It will be cheap.

It is impossible in the future to put all transactions in the blockchain.  And it is not necessary.

[CIYAM]

I would like to the freedom to transact on the main chain whenever I want. I do not want to pay very high fee to send bitcoin on the main chain.

And I would like the freedom to travel in time with a time machine - but oops - you can't do that - why don't you wake up and realise that you can't use Bitcoin for zero fees as well?

[SebastianJu]

there should be no "exactly as it should" dropped transactions.

a transaction that is left unconfirmed for x amount of time.. 1 hours or so max.. should be auto confirmed..

this is a FLAW. this will keep bitcoin from being accepted in ANY business type setting..

I see - well how about you provide the "fix" then genius and show us all how much smarter than Satoshi you are.

(am guessing you must have bought your account to be so ignorant about Bitcoin yet supposedly a Hero Member)

You've earned a "heroic facepalm" (I'll let someone else provide the image).

He will not have a solution but this is a serious problem. Who will use a transaction system where you have to guess if your transaction will go through or not? It would be unreliable. And this will only become worse the more transaction want to get into the blocks. Everyone will pay more and more to get included and so you never can be sure that you did not have a too low fee because others thought they would need to pay even more than you.

An unreliable currency is surely not good for adoption.

[SebastianJu]

I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

Which bitcoiner in their right mind would have though some years ago that there really would be bitcoiners in 2016 that would suggest using credit cards instead bitcoin. Well, that is too crazy to invent it at that time.

[CIYAM]

I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

If people want to keep on insisting that Bitcoin should do the impossible (and then whine when it doesn't) then that really isn't my fault is it.

[STAZZY]

Increasing the blocksize to 8MB per block should decrease this problem.

[SebastianJu]

Do you guys have a guess on the behavior of bitcoin price after the hard fork?

Depends on which bitcoins you mean. Might be that one bitcoin exists one one address on one chain but the same bitcoin lies on another address on the other chain. Then which bitcoin is the real one being worth $400?

I think to be sure i would have to see if i can only receive coins that are the same on both chains. Then it wouldn't matter to you when one chain loses and your coins are on this chain.

At the end it's not so easy to bet on which chain will win. That is why normally a threshold is implemented. Only when a big amount of nodes switch to the new behaviour then the fork happens. Which pretty much ensures that this new chain will win because it is unlikely that supporters drop the support then suddenly.

[SebastianJu]

I use credit cards to buy things online like 99.99% of the rest of the developed world (maybe you should do that to).

Which would be no fix for bitcoin but instead NOT USING bitcoin, like a couple of "solutions" discussed nowadays.

If people want to keep on insisting that Bitcoin should do the impossible (and then whine when it doesn't) then that really isn't my fault is it.

Don't fear that, no one will claim you are at fault then. You can always say "Told you so." Provable.

Well, when i think about it, satoshi must have had a brainfart when he really thought bitcoin will receive a worldwide adoption so far that the additional fees from the higher amount of fees will make up for the block halving over time.

I wonder if he really was that stupid. Implemented a temporary spam protection but still believed in an amount of worldwide transactions that should make it clear that he never thought of that setting as a permanent thing.

To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly. He is the brain behind and the things going on with blockstream look suspect to me. I mean it even contains the risk that instead going away from the banking system we will create a new banking system, shutting out normal users from bitcoin itself.

Well, this looks so very much against what satoshi wanted but i guess it's not seeable for a lot of people.

[CIYAM]

To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly.

Satoshi made quite a few mistakes so hero worshiping of him is not really an answer to anything.

[SebastianJu]

To be honest, i would trust satoshies jugdement here clearly.

Satoshi made quite a few mistakes so hero worshiping of him is not really an answer to anything.

I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

And it's no worshipping, more a kind of trust. And trust is everything with cryptocoins. For example to trust which chain wins.

[CIYAM]

I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

One bug would have resulted in the block reward coming back (at 50 BTC per block) when it should have been zero (so the supply was not actually 21M).

He didn't even predict GPU mining (that seemed to take him completely by surprise and he basically asked people not to do it).

(and there are plenty of other things)

[mavericklm]

tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

block: 396256
transactions: 1
relayed by AntPool
size of the block: 0.2kb!!!

[Amph]

Increasing the blocksize to 8MB per block should decrease this problem.

lol, it will certainly increase other problem, see the main concernt about capacity increase

i must admit that many of those problem are not real problem, they seems more a way to say that we don't want any capacity increase

but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...

[CIYAM]

but peopel tend to forget that bitcoin started with 32mb...

There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not).

[SebastianJu]

I'm not aware of such errors. Can you give some examples?

One bug would have resulted in the block reward coming back (at 50 BTC per block) when it should have been zero (so the supply was not actually 21M).

He didn't even predict GPU mining (that seemed to take him completely by surprise and he basically asked people not to do it).

(and there are plenty of other things)

*lol* The GPU-Mining is actually pretty funny. I really did not anticipate such thing from him. Well he probably was surprised by the worth bitcoin reached and had not thought through the following effects.

The thing with the block reward sound like a software bug that might happen when coding. Well, it would have been enough time until that effect would have been triggered.

[Lauda]

tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:

block: 396256
transactions: 1
relayed by AntPool
size of the block: 0.2kb!!!

The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault.

There have been no actual blocks created that are bigger than 1MB so it really doesn't matter what was coded back then (you are seemingly trying to imply that we used to have bigger blocks but the fact is that we did not).

This is correct. Such blocks are impossible right now. Also just ignore SebastianJu as he doesn't understand the second layer at all (and the connection to the first one) and refuses to do so. Discussing is pointless, it is better move on.