Keeping 1MB forever seems like a hunger marketing scheme

[johnyj]

"More and more business are using the hunger marketing strategy as it is simple to operate.

The business brings products to market with an attractive price to lure potential customers then restricts the supply, resulting in an imaginary shortage that can raise prices and therefore generate higher profits.

“Branding” is a factor that runs through the whole hunger marketing operation and the strategy must rely on a strong brand appeal. The ultimate effect of hunger marketing is not just to raise prices, but also to create higher added value for the brand, in order to establish a high-value brand image.
 
The best example of a “hunger marketing” strategy in action is probably Apple.

When they launched new versions of iphones and ipads, the devices offered innovation, great design and the latest technology to a trendy, fashion-conscious audience.

Apple “was not able” to provide enough supply for the market which made customers want their latest devices even more"

"The activity of competitors in the market can affect the impact of your campaign.

As such, it is important to monitor your competitors’ marketing strategies in order to ensure that you can distance your brand from the competition.

Hunger marketing works only when potential buyers cannot easily find substitutes. "

http://www.artema.co.uk/hunger-marketing/

[1714580065]

1714580065

[1714580065]

1714580065

[1714580065]

1714580065

[Blind Legs Parker]

What do you mean, here? What's the connection between companies purposely not providing enough products for everyone, thus creating demand and price raises, and the blocksize being limited to 1Mb? There's no added scarcity for bitcoin with 1Mb blocks.

It might be me, and I'm sorry if it's the case, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

[Rizky Aditya]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

[Blind Legs Parker]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

It's not that simple. There are other alternatives. Maybe you'll want to have a look at BlockStream and the sidechains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM

[johnyj]

What do you mean, here? What's the connection between companies purposely not providing enough products for everyone, thus creating demand and price raises, and the blocksize being limited to 1Mb? There's no added scarcity for bitcoin with 1Mb blocks.

It might be me, and I'm sorry if it's the case, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

If you consider doing transaction on blockchain is a payment service provided by the bitcoin network, then limiting the block size at 1MB is equal to artificially limit the supply of transaction service, thus raise the price of transaction fee. So what people will do when the transaction capacity is scarce? They will bid up the price, and the miners become the beneficiary

[Blind Legs Parker]

And new users will stop arriving because transaction fees are too high, then greedy users only waiting for a price increase will leave, then miners will get less money because of transactions getting scarce, then they'll raise transaction fees again, then more people will leave and transactions will get even more scarce, etc etc. Miners will benefit for a time but after a while bitcoin will just die. That's why it's such an important issue and that's why so many people are trying to come up with solutions to it.

In the case of Apple for example, scarcity made you want to buy a high-class product because of its artificial scarcity.
Here it will be the opposite: you don't want to pay more to see your transaction being transmitted just as it used to be for lower fees in the past, do you? Well, no one does. People will leave if fees increase.
Well I mean I'm not completely against higher fees, because anyway, right now they're ridiculously low, and anyway in the future, when block rewards will be counted in satoshis, fees will have to increase at least a little. But here we're talking about the dissuasive kind of high fees.

[Bitcoinpro]

do u want fries with that

[bob123]

Lets see how this works out in the future.

[calkob]

i dont think there is any argument against block size increase, its just how and when.

[Lauda]

It does not. This is false because we won't be at 1 MB forever. Just after SegWit we will be above an effective block size of 1 MB. What people do not seem to realize that Blockstream stands to profit the most from an high price of Bitcoin, not much from sidechains or LN. Restricting the block size to 1 MB forever would not make sense from their perspective either. Even if we wanted to increase the block size, it would be a very irrational move to rush the hard fork. We could schedule one now for 2017, although someone needs to make a proposal.

i dont think there is any argument against block size increase, its just how and when.

Don't think on your own next time.

2MB hard fork

• Clients that do not upgrade are completely cut off
• Services that do not upgrade stop functioning
• Interacting between new and old clients impossible

[Karartma1]

We could schedule one now for 2017, although someone needs to make a proposal.

I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered: WHO is SOMEONE that can make a proposal? From what I'm reading in these very many threads the only one who can make such a proposal is Satoshi himself and we all know this won't happen, I'm afraid.

Every proposal made gets polarized and radicalized as soon as it reaches the public.

[franky1]

What do you mean, here? What's the connection between companies purposely not providing enough products for everyone, thus creating demand and price raises, and the blocksize being limited to 1Mb? There's no added scarcity for bitcoin with 1Mb blocks.

It might be me, and I'm sorry if it's the case, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.

imagine everyone wants 2mb..
but having 2mb simply means people dont have to pay a transaction fee as there would be enough room for everyones transactions and no need for a priority payment.. because 2mb space debunks the myth that there is not enough room for everyone to transact

so not doing 2mb keeps the fee's relevant..at 4cents a tx
next by saying if you use our segwit program, you will get a discount on the fee's. 1cent a tx

this is then incentivising people to try out a new product under the well known brand, which eventually allows the non-segwit transactions fee's to increase because the mindset is that only segwit will be cheaper at 1cent. and then next year when they release LN, fee's will be decimals of cents to customers..

all while nonsegwit/non LN standard(onchain) transactions spiral to high fee's that normal people wont want to use.
making the blockchain just a settlement platform for exchanges and retailers to use their closed LN channels on to settle, and making people forced into using segwit/LN

i personally wouldnt mind bitcoins blockchain being a behind the scenes settlement ledger to allow users to make many many many times more transactions within by-products like LN... but by not being upfront and saying "look the only way to change is to get users off the blockchain individually and to only use the blockchain for batch settlements to allow for expansion of usability" but instead they are playing mind games and arguments and drama

[nihilnegativum]

The analogy here would be more accurate with bitcoin's synthetic scarcity, there are only 21mil to be mined (just to produce the the effect scarcity has on value). I don't see a problem with that, its a game-theory mechanism to use when building systems, the problem is how well the system works, and thats the issue with 1mb...

[gentlemand]

Every proposal made gets polarized and radicalized as soon as it reaches the public.

I think that's the primary problem now. Trenches have been dug and I wonder whether anyone's willing to poke their heads over the top and actually consider alternative proposals objectively. I'm not so sure.

[Windpower]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

It's not that simple. There are other alternatives. Maybe you'll want to have a look at BlockStream and the sidechains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM

Yeah I know that it is not easy to just change the block limit but Satoshi really needs to do something about it.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Every proposal made gets polarized and radicalized as soon as it reaches the public.

I think that's the primary problem now. Trenches have been dug and I wonder whether anyone's willing to poke their heads over the top and actually consider alternative proposals objectively. I'm not so sure.

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

[Carlton Banks]

Every proposal made gets polarized and radicalized as soon as it reaches the public.

I think that's the primary problem now. Trenches have been dug and I wonder whether anyone's willing to poke their heads over the top and actually consider alternative proposals objectively. I'm not so sure.

Doesn't matter much when majority opinion from users is behind Core and SegWit; there is no Core trench. The ToominCoin camp have batoned down their hatches, but there's only about 3 people in there.

[gentlemand]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

[Carlton Banks]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

[Bitcoinpro]

the Bitcoins are so damn cheap this is hardly a hunger system

so many people keeping fictional coins on exchanges

you can scoup up the real thing for a bargin

[gentlemand]

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

Me? I don't feel technically well informed enough to cast thundering judgments on things.

Overall I think the multiple hard fork proposals are plopped out without a great deal of consideration for reality or possible consequences.

At the same time it feels a little like the censors and 1mb psychos still believe they're living in 2010/11 and wish to wallow there forever. They often seem blind to the fact that real people are now using it with real purpose. They'll be just as willing to abandon it if it ossifies.

I strongly dislike the fee market proposals at this stage. That should be many, many years further down the line. I don't think there's much consideration of how all this looks from the outside and folks often seem to act like Bitcoin has already won and the world should be honoured to use it. Well, they're not. They don't give a shit and it's still little more than a blip.

At this stage I feel development should be focused on accessibility. To me that means 8GB blocks are a terrible idea as is paying 0.1 btc to send 0.001. If it can't deliver that because lines have been drawn in the sand and people refuse to take fresh ideas on board because they come from the 'wrong' place or its usefulness is stunted because it's pandering to Chinese miners or some other vested interest then there'll be alternatives that can deliver it eventually. Nothing is 'too big to fail' and Bitcoin is a million miles away from being too big. 

[foxbitcoin]

i dont think there is any argument against block size increase, its just how and when.

Yes, it is common sense now. But the core team is just too conservative to adopt new changes. So many ppl are giving out new  proposols to address the issue. If core team still kept like this, they would lose the support of majority.

[Lauda]

I think this is the fundamental question that needs to be answered: WHO is SOMEONE that can make a proposal? From what I'm reading in these very many threads the only one who can make such a proposal is Satoshi himself and we all know this won't happen, I'm afraid.

Every proposal made gets polarized and radicalized as soon as it reaches the public.

This is wrong. Anyone can create a proposal (BIP) as we have seen due to the unusual amount of BIPs on a single issue (in this case, the block size). By 2017 improvements to the infrastructure will be deployed.

[Cs87kxy]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

if we (bitcoin user) want to compete against major credit card circuit...
but probably as a commodities (likewise minus exchange but high value) you don't need to make too many txs.

if 10k satoshi worth 10 $ (minimum tax fee) you prefer make minus movement because you spend too much!
and for what else you need bigger block if you can spread a low number of txs?!? 

[YarkoL]

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

Me? I don't feel technically well informed enough to cast thundering judgments on things.

Overall I think the multiple hard fork proposals are plopped out without a great deal of consideration for reality or possible consequences.

At the same time it feels a little like the censors and 1mb psychos still believe they're living in 2010/11 and wish to wallow there forever. They often seem blind to the fact that real people are now using it with real purpose. They'll be just as willing to abandon it if it ossifies.

I strongly dislike the fee market proposals at this stage. That should be many, many years further down the line. I don't think there's much consideration of how all this looks from the outside and folks often seem to act like Bitcoin has already won and the world should be honoured to use it. Well, they're not. They don't give a shit and it's still little more than a blip.

At this stage I feel development should be focused on accessibility. To me that means 8GB blocks are a terrible idea as is paying 0.1 btc to send 0.001. If it can't deliver that because lines have been drawn in the sand and people refuse to take fresh ideas on board because they come from the 'wrong' place or its usefulness is stunted because it's pandering to Chinese miners or some other vested interest then there'll be alternatives that can deliver it eventually. Nothing is 'too big to fail' and Bitcoin is a million miles away from being too big. 

Quoted for the exhilarating breeze of commonsense that it injects
into the debate. Currently there is too much hot air under the hats
in both camps and everyone tends to to become fixated on some minuscule
aspect, becoming blind to the entire picture.

[johnyj]

And new users will stop arriving because transaction fees are too high, then greedy users only waiting for a price increase will leave, then miners will get less money because of transactions getting scarce, then they'll raise transaction fees again, then more people will leave and transactions will get even more scarce, etc etc. Miners will benefit for a time but after a while bitcoin will just die. That's why it's such an important issue and that's why so many people are trying to come up with solutions to it.

In the case of Apple for example, scarcity made you want to buy a high-class product because of its artificial scarcity.
Here it will be the opposite: you don't want to pay more to see your transaction being transmitted just as it used to be for lower fees in the past, do you? Well, no one does. People will leave if fees increase.
Well I mean I'm not completely against higher fees, because anyway, right now they're ridiculously low, and anyway in the future, when block rewards will be counted in satoshis, fees will have to increase at least a little. But here we're talking about the dissuasive kind of high fees.

The thinking behind hunger marketing is just because the product is unique and there is no competitor, so a reduced supply will not hurt demand but increase it. It is more psychological: when you are hungry, even a piece of bread tastes better

It's the same here, it is the special properties of bitcoin transaction (confidential, non-reversible, direct settlement) made people want to transact in bitcoin blockchain, since there is no other way to do it with fiat money. Of course for micro transactions, they can also use fiat money to do transaction, and many mobile payment solutions are already cheaper than bitcoin today. So 1MB forever won't make it worse, people do not come to bitcoin to do cheap transactions, and I think they accept the fact that high quality financial service will have higher transaction fee

[Bitcoinpro]

I think OP is confusing it with the way banks pay him to make posts

[johnyj]

The analogy here would be more accurate with bitcoin's synthetic scarcity, there are only 21mil to be mined (just to produce the the effect scarcity has on value). I don't see a problem with that, its a game-theory mechanism to use when building systems, the problem is how well the system works, and thats the issue with 1mb...

It's similar for the transaction service, like only 2000 transactions per 10 minutes can be processed. Bitcoin on-chain transactions have several unique properties like confidential, direct settlement and non-reversible. You can never achieve the same thing with any other payment system today, except some other alt-coins. But alt-coins have much less mature infrastructure and much higher risk

If you only care about the transaction cost, you would rather use fiat money instead, many latest mobile payment solutions cost nothing to do transactions

[johnyj]

I think OP is confusing it with the way banks pay him to make posts

Today banks charge you when you put money in a bank (negative interest), but still it does not stop you from using banking service

[SuperCoinGuy]

What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?

[BillyBobZorton]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere without sidechains and lightning network. Raising the block size is useless and only kills bitcoin node decentralization. I wish people understood what they are talking about before clicking "post".

[johnyj]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

That's true. Because it is money, and especially a lot of money have been invested in infrastructure, any change will receive enormous amount of resistance if it is not necessary

And to debate if a change is necessary does not make any sense either, because most of the participants here are paranoid libertarian type, they trust nobody unless they see it with their own eyes and understand it with their own brain

[johnyj]

What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?

Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service?

[Amph]

What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?

Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service?

surely, yes, and it is why for now i'm with deutesche bank, because they have zero fee on everything

and anyway bitcoin has fee, too, yes they are negligeable but they are not zero, and in the future they may be a problem...so i'm not sure what is the argument here

[johnyj]

What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?

Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service?

surely, yes, and it is why for now i'm with deutesche bank, because they have zero fee on everything

and anyway bitcoin has fee, too, yes they are negligeable but they are not zero, and in the future they may be a problem...so i'm not sure what is the argument here

All the banks in my country charges a monthly and yearly fee so you don't have a choice here. Some large banks might provide zero fee because they can print money to deal with those cost, but bitcoin obviously can not create money out of thin air. I think fee wise bitcoin will never be able to compete with fiat money

[Amph]

What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?

Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service?

surely, yes, and it is why for now i'm with deutesche bank, because they have zero fee on everything

and anyway bitcoin has fee, too, yes they are negligeable but they are not zero, and in the future they may be a problem...so i'm not sure what is the argument here

All the banks in my country charges a monthly and yearly fee so you don't have a choice here. Some large banks might provide zero fee because they can print money to deal with those cost, but bitcoin obviously can not create money out of thin air. I think fee wise bitcoin will never be able to compete with fiat money

where do you live? if there is a branch of deutesche bank there, you can open an account with them and use their card which come with an iban

besides this, i think miners showed their interest to increase the limit(at least to 2mb, other to 4mb), the issue here is that there are many hard fork proposed, and none seems really interested in a hard fork, unless there is a huge flaw like it was in 2013

[MicroGuy]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

Keeping the blocksize at 1MB fuels the need for Blockstream's technology. Core's severe business conflicts could become Bitcoin's undoing.

[Karartma1]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

You see? that's what I'm talking about  What if I don't have a clear view right now? I do not want to take sides. I think this is just me but that's a big issue, and that radicalize too much our discussion.

[Carlton Banks]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

You see? that's what I'm talking about  What if I don't have a clear view right now? I do not want to take sides. I think this is just me but that's a big issue, and that radicalize too much our discussion.

"Position" includes the middle, as well as the sides. And the Fringes. As well as the rest of the map.

So can we put you in the same category as gentlemand: no position, except to set yourself up in the exalted, rational middle-ground? People should listen to you, because you have no opinion one way or the other? I wonder how quickly people like you will coalesce around another governance coup.... y'know, just to break the deadlock, I mean let's all be reasonable and just compromise!

But there is no requirement to compromise for the sake of a sustained campaign of trolls; the opposite is true. Don't get labelled as one of those trolls, it's not working out for them so far.

[Karartma1]

Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.

Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway.

Where do you position yourself in the debate?

You see? that's what I'm talking about  What if I don't have a clear view right now? I do not want to take sides. I think this is just me but that's a big issue, and that radicalize too much our discussion.

"Position" includes the middle, as well as the sides. And the Fringes. As well as the rest of the map.

So can we put you in the same category as gentlemand: no position, except to set yourself up in the exalted, rational middle-ground? People should listen to you, because you have no opinion one way or the other? I wonder how quickly people like you will coalesce around another governance coup.... y'know, just to break the deadlock, I mean let's all be reasonable and just compromise!

But there is no requirement to compromise for the sake of a sustained campaign of trolls; the opposite is true. Don't get labelled as one of those trolls, it's not working out for them so far.

I don't want to be seen as a wise man because I am not one. I'm only struggling because I think BTC is a big thing and I'm bit down seeing a lot words spent on nothing.
If you really want an answer mine would be to keep things as they are before the next halving: my ideal view is that BTC development would be considered as the Linux Kernel one. There's a need of someone who is willing to take leadership (for the good or the bad) here.
BTC works, we know it by now. We know some of the glitches that it has but my genuine question is: what is driving further development, money or interest for one of the greatest tools after the internet?
I see money having a big part in it and I don't like that. The risk of losing BTC tech for money is so damn high.

Happy now? 

[MyBTT]

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

It's not that simple. There are other alternatives. Maybe you'll want to have a look at BlockStream and the sidechains.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pyVvq-vrrM

I guess some people just think that you can alter Bitcoin just with the click of your fingers.

[Lauda]

I guess some people just think that you can alter Bitcoin just with the click of your fingers.

In addition to that, people without the proper background or knowledge are trying to make conclusions on which way is the best to scale Bitcoin. It is pretty obvious that it does not scale efficiently via the Block Size.

We really need to raise the block limit or Bitcoin is never going to go anywhere. People just don't realise.

You just don't realize that we do not (right now).