You Mad Bro?

[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