Flexcap is the solution

[LiteCoinGuy]

We need flexcap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-PxjIa4gBg&app=desktop


 

[hdbuck]

fuck you oliver.

[7788bitcoin]

We need flexcap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-PxjIa4gBg&app=desktop


 

Bitcoin doesn't need that. Maybe LiteCoin requires it....

[LiteCoinGuy]

We need flexcap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-PxjIa4gBg&app=desktop


 

Bitcoin doesn't need that. Maybe LiteCoin requires it....

i guess both of you dont have a clue - even Greg Maxwell and Adam Back talked about that.  

[Amph]

what if the wave of people(number of tansaction) is bigger than the door that you have, you can not establish way ahead how big you needs that door, that's the problem

and you can not go overkill with it

[Lauda]

The video should not even be linked here. You're comparing Verizon's network to Bitcoin's network (centralized vs. decentralized). It is much easier for them to scale upwards. Anyhow, you're talking about dynamic blocks right? Was not this suggested about half a year ago; why bring it up now?

[BitUsher]

Was not this suggested about half a year ago; why bring it up now?

Flex cap is in the scaling roadmap (and is a good idea)-
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

I suppose this thread was meant to inspire , without adding anything technical to the discussion.

[shorena]

Sure a dumb fat pipe is always a solution, it is not always possible though.

[pereira4]

The video should not even be linked here. You're comparing Verizon's network to Bitcoin's network (centralized vs. decentralized). It is much easier for them to scale upwards. Anyhow, you're talking about dynamic blocks right? Was not this suggested about half a year ago; why bring it up now?

Yeah, for some reason most people fail to realize that it's way easier to scale for the current payment processors because they are centralized, so what do uninformed people say? let's just make the blocksize huge or whatever other cheap workaround to compete against VISA.

How about we are patient and wait for LN. LN is our hope to scale globally while remaining decentralized, so show your support and stop looking for alternatives to that unless your alternative is better and doesn't centralize the blockchain.

[LiteCoinGuy]

The video should not even be linked here. You're comparing Verizon's network to Bitcoin's network (centralized vs. decentralized). It is much easier for them to scale upwards. Anyhow, you're talking about dynamic blocks right? Was not this suggested about half a year ago; why bring it up now?

iam not comparing Verizon's network to Bitcoin's network - the video is just an example. it doesnt matter who made it.


@BitUsher

finally a thoughtful reply 

[VeritasSapere]

I thought the video was a good analogy for Bitcoin, we should just increase the size of the door. An arbitrary limit on transaction throughput is not somehow intrinsically better for Bitcoin regardless of the real technological limitations. Congestion is neither good for the network or Bitcoin as a whole.

https://bitcoinclassic.com/
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/

[LiteCoinGuy]

ähm, no. iam thinking more about a flexible door here 

[VeritasSapere]

ähm, no. iam thinking more about a flexible door here  

Flexible door would work as well, I just do not want to see that congestion, that is my main concern, bump up to two megabytes would at least avoid that from happening for now, since it is so simple most of us should be able to agree with such a change.

[Lauda]

Flexible door would work as well, I just do not want to see that congestion, that is my main concern, bump up to two megabytes would at least avoid that from happening for now, since it is so simple most of us should be able to agree with such a change.

You avoid nothing. As soon as some 'bad entity' wants to cause congestion, they can. It won't cost the much more than it does at 2 MB at all. You need to stop worrying about this; that's why the fees are here and the priority of transactions.

ähm, no. iam thinking more about a flexible door here 

It seems easier to implement than it actually is.

[VeritasSapere]

Flexible door would work as well, I just do not want to see that congestion, that is my main concern, bump up to two megabytes would at least avoid that from happening for now, since it is so simple most of us should be able to agree with such a change.

You avoid nothing. As soon as some 'bad entity' wants to cause congestion, they can. It won't cost the much more than it does at 2 MB at all. You need to stop worrying about this; that's why the fees are here and the priority of transactions.

It would cost twice as much to spam attack the network at a two megabyte blocksize limit at the current fees, and so forth, the greater the blocksize limit the greater the cost is of attacking the network.

[Lauda]

It would cost twice as much to spam attack the network at a two megabyte blocksize limit at the current fees, and so forth, the greater the blocksize limit the greater the cost is of attacking the network.

That does not matter as the current cost is negligible. This is why fees exist and are there to push though transactions of higher priority. You can't use '2 MB block size limit avoids congestion' as an argument since the possibility of spam is present.
Technically you can use unicorns as an argument (my bad). This however does not mean that your argument makes sense (in this case it doesn't). This is off-topic though and I won't continue posting about it.

[VeritasSapere]

It would cost twice as much to spam attack the network at a two megabyte blocksize limit at the current fees, and so forth, the greater the blocksize limit the greater the cost is of attacking the network.

That does not matter as the current cost is negligible. This is why fees exist and are there to push though transactions of higher priority. You can't use '2 MB block size limit avoids congestion' as an argument since the possibility of spam is present.

I certainly can use that argument, and not everyone thinks that increasing the transaction cost by restricting the networks throughput is a good idea, I think it is better to keep the cost low in order to help continue to drive adoption.