You Mad Bro?

[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.