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/

[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