You Mad Bro?

[adamstgBit]

Deal with it

[1715665975]

1715665975

[1715665975]

1715665975

[1715665975]

1715665975

[1715665975]

1715665975

[Slark]

And the moral of the story is?
We should develop advanced AI and put it in charge of bitcoin development? Because we as Humans could never achieve total bias and emotion less judgement.

[adamstgBit]

And the moral of the story is?
We should develop advanced AI and put it in charge of bitcoin development? Because we as Humans could never achieve total bias less judgement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ozaFbqg00

[thejaytiesto]

And the moral of the story is?
We should develop advanced AI and put it in charge of bitcoin development? Because we as Humans could never achieve total bias and emotion less judgement.

Core is showing results, developing improvements and done actual measurements, Classic is showing appeal to emotion and false promises, they are not being scientific and conservative enough, they haven't proved to do anything useful for Bitcoin.

Being an unbiased robot is impossible but Core acts more like this than Classic and it's easy to see by anyone that has been paying attention.

[Jet Cash]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

[pedrog]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

That's because you don't use bitcoin.

Here's your argument:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://chain.btc.com/en/block

[monsanto]

I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

Double the coins yo 

[adamstgBit]

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj

[adamstgBit]

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

[Lauda]

The is yet another useless propaganda post that does not help. The position of Core is very viable and the wanted increase in transaction capacity is coming with Segwit.

[Jet Cash]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

That's because you don't use bitcoin.

Here's your argument:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://chain.btc.com/en/block

This is the latest block recorded in your link
399,189    AntPool
   1    208    25 + 0.00000000 BTC    3 minutes ago    0000000000000000066105de87b895cc3d0631838da51af0fa33edee1b61600e

That's 208 bytes in size. How will doubling the blocksize help when miners are submitting these.

[Lauda]

This is the latest block recorded in your link
399,189    AntPool
   1    208    25 + 0.00000000 BTC    3 minutes ago    0000000000000000066105de87b895cc3d0631838da51af0fa33edee1b61600e

That's 208 bytes in size. How will doubling the blocksize help when miners are submitting these.

It won't. If anything it will make things worse as more miners will want to use this advantage and submit smaller blocks.

[Kprawn]

unyielding 1MB position? ... Where are you getting that from...? Last time I checked they suggest many possible solutions for these problems. I

think their roadmap is clear enough and would scale block size as needed and when it is needed. The debate is healthy for this experiment and forced

scalability and scare tactics should be left to the reserve banks and politicians.   ... No need to get mad!

[adamstgBit]

unyielding 1MB position? ... Where are you getting that from...? Last time I checked they suggest many possible solutions for these problems. I

think their roadmap is clear enough and would scale block size as needed and when it is needed. The debate is healthy for this experiment and forced

scalability and scare tactics should be left to the reserve banks and politicians.   ... No need to get mad!

you've been lied to 

[pedrog]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

That's because you don't use bitcoin.

Here's your argument:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://chain.btc.com/en/block

This is the latest block recorded in your link
399,189    AntPool
   1    208    25 + 0.00000000 BTC    3 minutes ago    0000000000000000066105de87b895cc3d0631838da51af0fa33edee1b61600e

That's 208 bytes in size. How will doubling the blocksize help when miners are submitting these.

Dude, c'mon, learn a bit more...

That's actually an argument for bigger blocks, if one block comes empty the thousands of transactions in mempool stay in there a bit longer, and next block can only include 1MB, it's like a snowball, if transaction volume doesn't go down network becomes shit.

Bear in mind, 10 years of 2MB blocks = 1TB.

Anyway, damage is already done, block size increase should have happened like 3 months ago, more two months of bad user experience aren't going to do much more damage.

[blunderer]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but

Lurk moar.

The is yet another useless propaganda post that does not help. The position of Core is very viable and the wanted increase in transaction capacity is coming with Segwit.

The is yet another useless propaganda post that does not help. The position of Classic is very viable and the wanted increase in transaction capacity is coming with 2MB max_blocksize increase.

If ~A is as compelling as A, A is not compelling (teh tilde test).

[franky1]

blockstreams lame rebuttles not to do 2mb

1. 2mb is too much data
debunk: segwits real world data can be 1.5mb-4mb

2. the processing time of handling more transactions is too much for average computers
debunk: 1mb works on a raspberry Pi, so 2mb can work even on a 2005 basic laptop as that is twice the capacity in every way imaginable.. further more we are not in 2005 we are in 2016 so average technology is even better than that

3. segwit offers a better scaling solution
debunk: for about a couple of months until other roadmap feature re-bloat up the data of transactions that segwit first saved.

4. if we implement 2mb the malleability issues will cause further problems.
debunk: if you include the 2mb buffer in the April release (when malleability is supposedly fixed) there wont be an issue

5. but blocks will be 2mb full constantly
debunk: no, miners wont risk losing reward by pushing twice the data out straight away, they will dip their toe in the water in small increments. just like 2013 when there was a 1mb buffer but miners were only making 0.5mb blocks. slowly incrementing as they found a comfortable pace to add more transactions, over years, not days.

6. but there is just no need for scaling.
debunk. well average blocks can only hold 2500tx.. and there is a mempool of over 7,000 growing, just sitting there as they are not getting added to blocks. so there is a backlog that needs to be sorted. its not like the 1mb buffer is sufficient because there are only 0.5mb sat in the mempool. theres many blocks at 0.99mb(at top capacity) and a mempool of 10mb backlog. the only reason blocks are made below capacity is not due to lack of transactions to process. but greed of some miners making empty blocks

7. but if there is no backlog, then people dont need to pay fee's as there is room for everyone
debunk: the block reward is sufficient payment for miners for a couple decades because of the deflationary fiat valuation of bitcoins keeps the valuation high enough.. so fees should have no part of the coding /logistics debate for a long time.

8. gavinsta, toomin, hearne, R3, blah blah blah.
debunk: the 2mb buffer can be incorporated into any client.. yep that includes Core, and the other dozen, so dont twist it into politics. as the code can be used by anyone. if your against the idea just because of who owns a particular client. then put the code into another client not owned by them

[Cconvert2G36]

This is the latest block recorded in your link
399,189    AntPool
   1    208    25 + 0.00000000 BTC    3 minutes ago    0000000000000000066105de87b895cc3d0631838da51af0fa33edee1b61600e

That's 208 bytes in size. How will doubling the blocksize help when miners are submitting these.

It won't. If anything it will make things worse as more miners will want to use this advantage and submit smaller blocks.

Either Lauda doesn't understand... or is barefaced lying to misleading you. Immediately after a block is found, miners will work on an empty block based on the header of the last block while they verify it. After it is verified, they will know all the transactions it contains and can begin working on a block that is full of transactions. Blocks solved in a minute or less after the previous will often always be like this.

The creator of Bitcoin offered a solution to "regularly at the limit" blocks, all bedecked in elegant simplicity:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Almost seems a no brainer while scenes like this have become commonplace:

[Amph]

basically the only real argument against the 2mb thing vs segwit, is the hard fork aspect

it seems that last time we had one, people needed many month or years to sync with the other, they remained stuck with the older version....

[franky1]

basically the only real argument against the 2mb thing vs segwit, is the hard fork aspect

it seems that last time we had one, people needed many month or years to sync with the other, they remained stuck with the older version....

even that is a non argument.
as the 2mb buffer only gets implemented if atleast a majority is reached.

but segwits softfork messes with blockchain data, which means some of the current fullnodes wont be fully verifying nodes anymore, and with no witness mode aswell, makes even more nodes no longer holding all the data to allow other nodes to leach off of. so it will affect more users who will need to upgrade, which is the same needing to upgrade for the 2mb..
though its a "softfork", by not upgrading your becoming a limp client... so its not a shiny and glossy pretty picture as blockstream make out

if core simple as the 2mb buffer in their April release then there wont be issues there is no 2mb or segwit.. but 2mb+segwit.. (2 birds one stone, no debate)

[Lauda]

Either Lauda doesn't understand... or is barefaced lying to misleading you. Immediately after a block is found, miners will work on an empty block based on the header of the last block while they verify it. After it is verified, they will know all the transactions it contains and can begin working on a block that is full of transactions. Blocks solved in a minute or less after the previous will often always be like this.

I didn't check if it was that kind of block. My initial thoughts were a standard empty or limited block. However it is nice to know that you'd insult one for making a mistake.

The is yet another useless propaganda post that does not help. The position of Classic is very viable and the wanted increase in transaction capacity is coming with 2MB max_blocksize increase.

If ~A is as compelling as A, A is not compelling (teh tilde test).

Nonsense, Segwit is much better. Classic is horrible, pretty much at an equal level as XT. I wonder who will quit the system after this fork fails.  

scalability and scare tactics should be left to the reserve banks and politicians.   ... No need to get mad!

Propaganda and shills have been deployed.

[David Rabahy]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

That's because you don't use bitcoin.

Here's your argument:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://chain.btc.com/en/block

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

[adamstgBit]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

That's because you don't use bitcoin.

Here's your argument:

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

https://chain.btc.com/en/block

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

it should be, but for some reasons some blocks come out empty

in anycase, everyblock could be full forever and the backlog won't get cleared

Core wants this backlog to go up an order of magnitude so they can test their high fees is good for bitcoin theory

[David Rabahy]

If Bitcoin fees climb high enough then other altcoins with lower fees will begin to see adoption.

[adamstgBit]

If Bitcoin fees climb high enough then other altcoins with lower fees will begin to see adoption.

its ok, in 2020 when lighting network is ready, everyone will come right back.

[Lauda]

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

I have no idea why you would complain about a backlog of 4000 transactions. We've seen much bigger backlogs in the past and everything was fine? However this is interesting:

Total Fees   64.31924776 BTC

[BillyBobZorton]

Anyone wanting to fire Core devs to put in charge a bunch of guys that haven't demonstrated anything of value beyond getting a small % of noobs supporting them for +1mb of block size increase is crazy.

[David Rabahy]

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

I have no idea why you would complain about a backlog of 4000 transactions. We've seen much bigger backlogs in the past and everything was fine? However this is interesting:

Total Fees   64.31924776 BTC

Hmm, how big of a backlog does warrant attention?  Perhaps we should focus on confirmation times?

[franky1]

Anyone wanting to fire Core devs to put in charge a bunch of guys that haven't demonstrated anything of value beyond getting a small % of noobs supporting them for +1mb of block size increase is crazy.

you know 2mb is not about the politics of gavin vs back.... anyone can put in the 2mb buffer.. INCLUDING core.. its not a special feature limited to only one person.

but for people like Back to avoid it and send out shills to make up excuses not to include it, is crazy

[BillyBobZorton]

blockstreams lame rebuttles not to do 2mb

1. 2mb is too much data
debunk: segwits real world data can be 1.5mb-4mb

2. the processing time of handling more transactions is too much for average computers
debunk: 1mb works on a raspberry Pi, so 2mb can work even on a 2005 basic laptop as that is twice the capacity in every way imaginable.. further more we are not in 2005 we are in 2016 so average technology is even better than that

3. segwit offers a better scaling solution
debunk: for about a couple of months until other roadmap feature re-bloat up the data of transactions that segwit first saved.

4. if we implement 2mb the malleability issues will cause further problems.
debunk: if you include the 2mb buffer in the April release (when malleability is supposedly fixed) there wont be an issue

5. but blocks will be 2mb full constantly
debunk: no, miners wont risk losing reward by pushing twice the data out straight away, they will dip their toe in the water in small increments. just like 2013 when there was a 1mb buffer but miners were only making 0.5mb blocks. slowly incrementing as they found a comfortable pace to add more transactions, over years, not days.

6. but there is just no need for scaling.
debunk. well average blocks can only hold 2500tx.. and there is a mempool of over 7,000 growing, just sitting there as they are not getting added to blocks. so there is a backlog that needs to be sorted. its not like the 1mb buffer is sufficient because there are only 0.5mb sat in the mempool. theres many blocks at 0.99mb(at top capacity) and a mempool of 10mb backlog. the only reason blocks are made below capacity is not due to lack of transactions to process. but greed of some miners making empty blocks

7. but if there is no backlog, then people dont need to pay fee's as there is room for everyone
debunk: the block reward is sufficient payment for miners for a couple decades because of the deflationary fiat valuation of bitcoins keeps the valuation high enough.. so fees should have no part of the coding /logistics debate for a long time.

8. gavinsta, toomin, hearne, R3, blah blah blah.
debunk: the 2mb buffer can be incorporated into any client.. yep that includes Core, and the other dozen, so dont twist it into politics. as the code can be used by anyone. if your against the idea just because of who owns a particular client. then put the code into another client not owned by them

All of those "debunks" have been already debunked, but I would like gmaxwell to post and address each of them, I can't be bothered with this shit anymore personally, I will just wait and see it become irrelevant like XT and the rest of hard fork attempts with coders that never did anything relevant for Bitcoin.

[adamstgBit]

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

I have no idea why you would complain about a backlog of 4000 transactions. We've seen much bigger backlogs in the past and everything was fine? However this is interesting:

Total Fees   64.31924776 BTC

just wait till the backlog is much bigger

imagine all the fees we will squeeze out of all the suckers sending bitcoins to stamps/bittrex ASAP

[Cconvert2G36]

Anyone wanting to fire Core devs to put in charge a bunch of guys that haven't demonstrated anything of value beyond getting a small % of noobs supporting them for +1mb of block size increase is crazy.

There is no firing in open source, only rage-quitting.

If Core would have listened to miners after Scaling HK in Dec... we wouldn't be having this little slap fight. Shame they didn't compromise earlier and spare us the drama.

[adamstgBit]

blockstreams lame rebuttles not to do 2mb

1. 2mb is too much data
debunk: segwits real world data can be 1.5mb-4mb

2. the processing time of handling more transactions is too much for average computers
debunk: 1mb works on a raspberry Pi, so 2mb can work even on a 2005 basic laptop as that is twice the capacity in every way imaginable.. further more we are not in 2005 we are in 2016 so average technology is even better than that

3. segwit offers a better scaling solution
debunk: for about a couple of months until other roadmap feature re-bloat up the data of transactions that segwit first saved.

4. if we implement 2mb the malleability issues will cause further problems.
debunk: if you include the 2mb buffer in the April release (when malleability is supposedly fixed) there wont be an issue

5. but blocks will be 2mb full constantly
debunk: no, miners wont risk losing reward by pushing twice the data out straight away, they will dip their toe in the water in small increments. just like 2013 when there was a 1mb buffer but miners were only making 0.5mb blocks. slowly incrementing as they found a comfortable pace to add more transactions, over years, not days.

6. but there is just no need for scaling.
debunk. well average blocks can only hold 2500tx.. and there is a mempool of over 7,000 growing, just sitting there as they are not getting added to blocks. so there is a backlog that needs to be sorted. its not like the 1mb buffer is sufficient because there are only 0.5mb sat in the mempool. theres many blocks at 0.99mb(at top capacity) and a mempool of 10mb backlog. the only reason blocks are made below capacity is not due to lack of transactions to process. but greed of some miners making empty blocks

7. but if there is no backlog, then people dont need to pay fee's as there is room for everyone
debunk: the block reward is sufficient payment for miners for a couple decades because of the deflationary fiat valuation of bitcoins keeps the valuation high enough.. so fees should have no part of the coding /logistics debate for a long time.

8. gavinsta, toomin, hearne, R3, blah blah blah.
debunk: the 2mb buffer can be incorporated into any client.. yep that includes Core, and the other dozen, so dont twist it into politics. as the code can be used by anyone. if your against the idea just because of who owns a particular client. then put the code into another client not owned by them

All of those "debunks" have been already debunked, but I would like gmaxwell to post and address each of them, I can't be bothered with this shit anymore personally, I will just wait and see it become irrelevant like XT and the rest of hard fork attempts with coders that never did anything relevant for Bitcoin.

it's too bad, i would like to see how you reason your way out of #2 or #6.

[pedrog]

With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?

I have no idea why you would complain about a backlog of 4000 transactions. We've seen much bigger backlogs in the past and everything was fine? However this is interesting:

Total Fees   64.31924776 BTC

User experience is not fine, you can see the amount of post in these forums by new users when this happens.

Bitcoin.org should be edited to "Fast peer-to-peer transactions sometimes" and "Low
processing fees sometimes".

[Lauda]

Hmm, how big of a backlog does warrant attention?

It really depends on multiple factors (e.g. how many of those are spam). I've seen it at around 10 000 and more and the network was not experiencing any issues. However, you'd need to ask someone who has been keeping track of this data for a while.

just wait till the backlog is much bigger

It was and now it really isn't. The backlog just keeps going up and down, nothing surprising there.

I can't be bothered with this shit anymore personally, I will just wait and see it become irrelevant like XT and the rest of hard fork attempts with coders that never did anything relevant for Bitcoin.

Exactly. Some of these posters are just really hopeless and time should not be wasted on them. Almost all of the developers behind the HF's so far have been barely contributing to Bitcoin Core in the recent times.

User experience is not fine, you can see the amount of post in these forums by new users when this happens.

No. You can't blame the product (i.e. Bitcoin) because the user does not know how to use it (i.e. include proper fees). I've never had any problems with this.

[pedrog]

No. You can't blame the product (i.e. Bitcoin) because the user does not know how to use it (i.e. include proper fees). I've never had any problems with this.

If everyone had an IT degree I'll be out of work.

You shouldn't and you can't expect everyone to spend hours learning how some particular system works, if it was like that Linux would be a fraction as big as it is and bitcoin would be restricted to a small highly skilled community.

Aren't hoping for mass adoption?

[Lauda]

If everyone had an IT degree I'll be out of work.

You shouldn't and you can't expect everyone to spend hours learning how some particular system works, if it was like that Linux would be a fraction as big as it is and bitcoin would be restricted to a small highly skilled community.

So you're telling me that one needs an IT degree to be able to include the proper fee? I never talked about understanding the system in detail which the majority does not need to know (and they don't). If you want it really simple, use Bitcoin Core and push the fee slider to the right and keep it there. It is as simple as that. The last time that I've used this setting for a transaction the fee was about ~10 cents.

[adamstgBit]

If everyone had an IT degree I'll be out of work.

You shouldn't and you can't expect everyone to spend hours learning how some particular system works, if it was like that Linux would be a fraction as big as it is and bitcoin would be restricted to a small highly skilled community.

So you're telling me that one needs an IT degree to be able to include the proper fee? I never talked about understanding the system in detail which the majority does not need to know (and they don't). If you want it really simple, use Bitcoin Core and push the fee slider to the right and keep it there. It is as simple as that. The last time that I've used this setting for a transaction the fee was about ~10 cents.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

there you go problem solved.  right!?

[adamstgBit]

Deal with it

[Albert Einstein]

That's double the amount of coins! Cool

[hdbuck]

lmao, the poll's results..





~not tonight dear...

[adamstgBit]

~50% are pissed

[Cuidler]

Hmm, how big of a backlog does warrant attention?  Perhaps we should focus on confirmation times?

So far backlogs are cleared when the number of new transactions drops under 3/s, but we are on the edge of Bitcoin useability. If Bitcoin continues getting new users thus increased transactions per second, it will become very hard and inconvient to use Bitcoin - unconfirmed transactions become common problem and average times to get 1st confirmation will increase.

I wonder whether Bitcoin Core developers just want move users out of Bitcoin to other alts, or they have no clue of basic economy principes. Either way, it does not look good for Bitcoin in short term, unless people wake up whats going on here.

[pedrog]

If everyone had an IT degree I'll be out of work.

You shouldn't and you can't expect everyone to spend hours learning how some particular system works, if it was like that Linux would be a fraction as big as it is and bitcoin would be restricted to a small highly skilled community.

So you're telling me that one needs an IT degree to be able to include the proper fee? I never talked about understanding the system in detail which the majority does not need to know (and they don't). If you want it really simple, use Bitcoin Core and push the fee slider to the right and keep it there. It is as simple as that. The last time that I've used this setting for a transaction the fee was about ~10 cents.

There's no such thing as proper fee, even if everyone paid 1 bitcoin as fee there's simple not enough room, a good percentage of transactions will take hours or days to confirm, plus no more growth, we are at maximum capacity and two more months of stagnation, there's your road map!

[justspare]

Deal with it

Very true. A lot of people don't understand this though. They think you can just change Bitcoin with a click of a button.

[Lauda]

There's no such thing as proper fee, even if everyone paid 1 bitcoin as fee there's simple not enough room, a good percentage of transactions will take hours or days to confirm, plus no more growth,

Yes there is. If you include a fee that is smaller than the recommended fee then you risk the transaction not being included in the first blocks. You can't blame Bitcoin for this. Usually when people complain about transactions that take a unusually long time, it is because of an low fee (or worse: no fee at all).

we are at maximum capacity and two more months of stagnation, there's your road map!

Wrong. We are definitely not at maximum capacity. Take a look at the last 30 blocks. If I have counted this correctly (up to block 399230), there have been only 16 blocks that could be considered full (900kb+). There is still adequate room to deploy solutions. Classic is a joke. Gavin insists on a very foolish and short grace period. Even Garzik is suggesting a 3 to 6 month grace period. You can't deploy a HF with proper rules as quickly as you can deploy Segwit (if it arrives in April).

[btcxyzzz]

Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.

god help you

[pedrog]

There's no such thing as proper fee, even if everyone paid 1 bitcoin as fee there's simple not enough room, a good percentage of transactions will take hours or days to confirm, plus no more growth,

Yes there is. If you include a fee that is smaller than the recommended fee then you risk the transaction not being included in the first blocks. You can't blame Bitcoin for this. Usually when people complain about transactions that take a unusually long time, it is because of an low fee (or worse: no fee at all).

Dude, this is not rocket science, if you have 10 spots and the cost is 1 to fill a spot and you have 100 people paying 1 there's still only 10 spots available, if 50 people pay 2 to get a spot still 10 spots available, if 30 pay 3, still 10 spots, it means there's always 90 people waiting, it doesn't matter how big the fee is.

we are at maximum capacity and two more months of stagnation, there's your road map!

Wrong. We are definitely not at maximum capacity. Take a look at the last 30 blocks. If I have counted this correctly (up to block 399230), there have been only 16 blocks that could be considered full (900kb+). There is still adequate room to deploy solutions. Classic is a joke. Gavin insists on a very foolish and short grace period. Even Garzik is suggesting a 3 to 6 month grace period. You can't deploy a HF with proper rules as quickly as you can deploy Segwit (if it arrives in April).

And if bitcoin never scales it will be always like that, because people will stop using it because the system is not reliable.

Like I said, damage is already done, block size increase should have happened months ago, people wanted to show who's in charge by pushing their way no matter the cost, it's done, they're the bosses now, good for them.

BTW, transaction fees are actually lower now, the struggle is for fast confirmations because there's no space in blocks.

https://chain.btc.com/en/stats/fee

[blunderer]

There's no such thing as proper fee, even if everyone paid 1 bitcoin as fee there's simple not enough room, a good percentage of transactions will take hours or days to confirm, plus no more growth,

Yes there is. If you include a fee that is smaller than the recommended fee then you risk the transaction not being included in the first blocks. You can't blame Bitcoin for this. Usually when people complain about transactions that take a unusually long time, it is because of an low fee (or worse: no fee at all).

Dude, this is not rocket science, if you have 10 spots and the cost is 1 to fill a spot and you have 100 people paying 1 there's still only 10 spots available, if 50 people pay 2 to get a spot still 10 spots available, if 30 pay 3, still 10 spots, it means there's always 90 people waiting, it doesn't matter how big the fee is.

I think he would argue that all but the top 10 "blind auction winners" are poors, thus spam, thus don't deserve to be included in the block.
If you want to make sure that your tx is included, make your fee astronomically high, which would probably, albeit not certainly, guarantee that your tx will be included in the next block.
Not like boring fiat money, more like gambling.

[Cuidler]

we are at maximum capacity and two more months of stagnation, there's your road map!

Wrong. We are definitely not at maximum capacity. Take a look at the last 30 blocks. If I have counted this correctly (up to block 399230), there have been only 16 blocks that could be considered full (900kb+). There is still adequate room to deploy solutions. Classic is a joke. Gavin insists on a very foolish and short grace period. Even Garzik is suggesting a 3 to 6 month grace period. You can't deploy a HF with proper rules as quickly as you can deploy Segwit (if it arrives in April).

Miners are free to set small size of blocks, so if someone preffer small blocks you cant do anything with this. What matters is at peak times transaction backlog of not spam transactions goes up. Fortunatelly at off peak times transaction backlog tend to clear slowly so far, but if Bitcoin adoption continues it wont be this way for long and the people experience with Bitcoin transactions can only get worse.
The problem is miners cannot make block bigger even if they preffer with these benefits: 1) collect more fees 2) make people experience with Bitcoin much better with faster 1st confirmations

Without any Core plan when and how to increase blocksize limit, it is pretty shame to argue with "You can't deploy a HF with proper rules as quickly as you can deploy Segwit". Because it seems Core doesnt see the problem what happens when more people try to use Bitcoin than is even possible to serve - thats why there is no HF plan and no panic about the transaction backlogs - so my question is: just stupidity or plan to hurt Bitcoin?
 

BTW who is on the OP picture, because to me it looks like one of the controversial Core dev PT, but I might be wrong

[danielW]

How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,

many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.

[Cuidler]

How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,

many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.

Central committee decided no needed bigger blocksize limit  .

This is another FED or new decentralized currency where free market decides its future and not a centralized organization

[adamstgBit]

How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,

many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.

They said it themselves segwits capacity increase is a side effect, the segwit SOFT-FORK is so complex they couldn't anticipate this side effect until someone spent weeks implementing it. 

the point here isnt so much 1MB limit, its the idea that Core has no intention, infact intent NOT to scale the main chain.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,

many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.

They said it themselves segwits capacity increase is a side effect, the segwit SOFT-FORK is so complex they couldn't anticipate this side effect until someone spent weeks implementing it.  

the point here isnt so much 1MB limit, its the idea that Core has no intention, infact intent NOT to scale the main chain.

From lurking I've learned SegWit is a transaction malleability fix. And Core is planning to hard fork to 2MB, probably within 6 months or a year.

But I'm pissed at a certain Core dev who called me a spy, so I voted yes.

[adamstgBit]

I'll call my grandmother.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I don't know if BitUsher is a Core dev, but it sounds like it here.

New compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but make signature merkle tree 1MB and remove incentives (unfortunately we lose some benefits here like Reducing UTXO growth but its a compromise)
Plan for a 2MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

I can be reasonable and cut down the HF window from normal 1year and offer a combined proposal.

[Blind Legs Parker]

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 
Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really 

[adamstgBit]

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0  
Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really  

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

[Blind Legs Parker]

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0  
Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really  

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

On the other hand there have proposed SegWit. They have a very valid counter-argument about the blocksize increase, that is the loss of decentralization.
Of course they appear to be unyielding if the core of the question is for you about how much we should increase the block size, because obviously they don't want to increase it. But increasing the blocksize or not has never been the real question. The real question has always been about finding ways to improve bitcoin by allowing new investors to join in without giving up on the qualities that bitcoin has at the moment (such as low fees and decentralization). The debate started because fees were getting higher (which is not good) and some people (Gavin's clan) said "ok that's easy, let's just increase the blocksize" and others (Core's clan) said "hell no, this solution is gonna kill decentralization".
We're looking for "a way to keep fees at a minimum", not for "a way to increase the blocksize". The rest is about how much you care about decentralization. I care. If you don't, of course you'll find the blocksize increase a very easy solution.
However if you care it has never been an easy question to answer. That's why there's debate.

As of now Core has done a pretty good job working on SegWit since it keeps the fees at a minimum while a the same time preserving decentralization.

[adamstgBit]

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0  
Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really  

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

On the other hand there have proposed SegWit. They have a very valid counter-argument about the blocksize increase, that is the loss of decentralization.
Of course they appear to be unyielding if the core of the question is for you about how much we should increase the block size, because obviously they don't want to increase it. But increasing the blocksize or not has never been the real question. The real question has always been about finding ways to improve bitcoin by allowing new investors to join in without giving up on the qualities that bitcoin has at the moment (such as low fees and decentralization). The debate started because fees were getting higher (which is not good) and some people (Gavin's clan) said "ok that's easy, let's just increase the blocksize" and others (Core's clan) said "hell no, this solution is gonna kill decentralization".
We're looking for "a way to keep fees at a minimum", not for "a way to increase the blocksize".

As of now Core has done a pretty good job working on SegWit since it keeps the fees at a minimum while a the same time preserving decentralization.

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

[adamstgBit]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

[adamstgBit]

for the record i was on the small blockers side for about 12 hours at one point.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

It's an old meme, but it checks out.

[Blind Legs Parker]

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

[adamstgBit]

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

we could have GB blocks i can still point my cpu mining power at a pool.  and yes we want these pools to be as big as possible, no pools do not centralized bitcoin, at any point in time poeple can switch pool or create a new one, if they don't like how a pool operates.

no miner will be adversely affected by a block size increase.

your best argument would be to focus on full node count, but i'm ready for that one too.

[adamstgBit]

Hey Core!



lol good night bitcoin.

[Blind Legs Parker]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

[Cconvert2G36]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

They're not having lunch, they're presenting slides:

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13911132#msg13911132

Full nodes are a right, not a rasb pi privilege.

[orpington]

"pissed off" lol!

Panties all in a bunch.

[Rescue Squad]

'All your nodes are belong to us' 

[Lauda]

Dude, this is not rocket science, if you have 10 spots and the cost is 1 to fill a spot and you have 100 people paying 1 there's still only 10 spots available, if 50 people pay 2 to get a spot still 10 spots available, if 30 pay 3, still 10 spots, it means there's always 90 people waiting, it doesn't matter how big the fee is.

Nonsense. Then you obviously have a flawed understanding of how the system works. The fee system helps determine the priority of the transaction. If you are a cheap average Joe who does not include the recommended fee then waiting is on you. Regardless of how many spots there are in the block, Lauda's transactions will always end up confirming in the first block. This is because my included fee tends to be much higher than what others include.

And if bitcoin never scales it will be always like that, because people will stop using it because the system is not reliable.
Like I said, damage is already done, block size increase should have happened months ago, people wanted to show who's in charge by pushing their way no matter the cost, it's done, they're the bosses now, good for them.

1) No damage has been done.
2) The system is working as intended.
3) The increase in capacity is coming with Segwit.
Any other nonsense that needs correcting?

please someone say somthing about full node count.

Sybil attack. 

[BeetcoinScummer]

I hate the non-vested economic majority. Fuck them dead.

[franky1]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

real and proper full nodes?

well current rules are based on 0.11.2 and anything older then that is not a full node, but a relay node. seeing as they cannot verify information they have not got the rules for as some features have changed.

so imagine it this way

core has 2499 up to date full nodes
then if we look at the other nodes that have the 0.11.2 latest rules PLUS the desire for 2mb...
2mb imps have over 1000 (classic+bu+xt)(30%+)

now.. when the core fanboys upgrade to segwit. not all of those 2500 regular updaters will stick to being full archival mode versions.. we could see as many as 500+ prefer to be the pruned no witness nodes. thus diluting down the amounts of real uptodate nodes with the latest rules that fully validate the blockchain.

basically only 2000 nodes fully validating segwit transactions/blocks

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

No. You can't blame the product (i.e. Bitcoin) because the user does not know how to use it (i.e. include proper fees). I've never had any problems with this.

Me neither. I don't understand what the issue is. Coinbase pays the fee for the user and it is very fast, bitcoin-core has a slider you can adjust that tells you the approximate wait time based upon the current setting.

I guess a lot of newbies must be using inferior services and wallets. That needs to change.

[Jet Cash]

now.. when the core fanboys upgrade to segwit. not all of those 2500 regular updaters will stick to being full archival mode versions.. we could see as many as 500+ prefer to be the pruned no witness nodes. thus diluting down the amounts of real uptodate nodes with the latest rules that fully validate the blockchain.

basically only 2000 nodes fully validating segwit transactions/blocks

Or you could see a number of users saying - hey this new faster core with pruning looks better than a 3rd party wallet. I'm going to start using it.

[RealBitcoin]

Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.

Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.

[adamstgBit]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

if poeple believe node count is dangerously low, they will sign up to a free AWS account and fire up a node.
so, node count is and always be at least as high as what poeple think is acceptable.

[adamstgBit]

Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.

Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.

fees will not rise substantially, thats not the issue, the issue is the line up will grow substantially .


believing fees will rise is like saying if i only produce 1 pizza a day i can sell it for 10,000$ because 1000 poeple want 1 pizza / day

believe or not your not the only pizzeria in town.

already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH )

[imran$$]

yah i m  mad ! mad about doing thngs perfectly and mad about earning wht typ of mad are u ?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I think people often see credit card as instant when it is not. Only the authorization is instant. The transaction itself doesn't happen sometimes for days.

With Bitcoin, you can look at a transaction with 0 confirmations as an auth. Once out on the system and relayed around, double spending it is very difficult if you are not a miner, so unless it is a high value - you don't really need to worry about whether it confirms within 1 or 17 hours.

It's still faster than credit card and unlike credit card, it can't be undone days later (aside from a 51% attack)

[Lauda]

already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH )

You mean the pump and dump scheme? The "Bitcoin 2.0 marketing fraud"? Anyone reasonable would stay away from such (aside from profiting to get more Bitcoins of course).

I guess a lot of newbies must be using inferior services and wallets. That needs to change.

Either:
1) People are using inferior services and wallets.
2) People don't know how to use Bitcoin (fee wise).
In either case, you can't blame Bitcoin if your transactions take longer to confirm.

Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.
Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.

System is collapsing? Run around and panic? 

[adamstgBit]

already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH )

You mean the pump and dump scheme? The "Bitcoin 2.0 marketing fraud"? Anyone reasonable would stay away from such (aside from profiting to get more Bitcoins of course).

most promising alt of all time
Bitcoin 2.0 marketing fraud


if i only produce 1 pizza a day i can sell it for 10,000$ because 1000 poeple want 1 pizza / day
if i only produce 1 MB of block space every 10 mins fees will rise, and the backlog will go away.


what's the dif?

[Jet Cash]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

[adamstgBit]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

why not?

[Jet Cash]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

why not?

Well I guess you could start a dating service, and encourage people to share the double pizza.

[adamstgBit]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

why not?

Well I guess you could start a dating service, and encourage people to share the double pizza.

omfg that sounds like LN  


why not cap the number of pizza you produce so you can really jack up the price! $_$

[adamstgBit]

IT'S OVER

WE HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS !!!!!!!!!!!

https://twitter.com/cnLedger

this is coming from some meeting in China regarding trying to reach consensus.

[adamstgBit]

[btcltccoins]

why he is mad? if he used bitcoin with sense then its impossible he became mad.

[michnelli6]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

The best thing in this scenario is that you increase the pizza price and so 500 customers will go away automatically seeing the price increase. And when you sell them to 500 people, you will get the profit of 1000 people buying pizza, because you have increase the price and profits per pizza. Hopes this helps.

[RussianRaibow]

The most frustrating thing about the whole debate is the censorship.  At least let people talk about it.

[bargainbin]

If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.

Not quite. In Adam's analogy, 1 pizza = 1 tx. By doubling the blocksize limit, you're not making bigger pizzas (tx sizes don't change).
What's happening is loosely this:
Right now, a pizza delivery guy leaves the pizza shop roughly every 9 minutes. Today, his car can fit 500 delivery orders; after the block size increase, 1000.

P.S. re. "spam transactions":
The pizza shop get all sorts of orders called in -- some people just order a Coke, because too lazy to hit the bodega themselves. Smallblockers will have you think that the best way to deal with this is by keeping the Isetta delivery car, so no more than 500 orders will need to be delivered every 9 minutes.

This is stupid: just like the pizza shop, the miners can (and do) reject any order they don't feel like dealing with. They may choose to deliver Cokes to build up clientele, or charge $20 to deliver a Coke to your door.
Keeping a small delivery car simply means your pizza business can't grow

[18xk5oT2rLrAc24SL96XT14BX]

https://i.imgur.com/aooH76M.jpeg
Deal with it
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_iN1vEWwAEW_GU.jpg

We should develop advanced AI and put it in charge of bitcoin development? Because we as Humans could never achieve total bias and emotion less judgement.