BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!

[franky1]

I agree. Negligent.
Last 6 blocks
...

Either full or empty.
100% (average) full is not achievable.

Near 100% is achievable. This just shows us that the blocks are not full. The correct thing to say would be something in the lines of: "Some blocks are full." or "The average block size is nearing 1 MB.". Miners need to be called out on these empty blocks; they need to stop.

Oh, wow. Where you been hiding? That is about 10 different threads...(but mainly 1 topic...) Core v Classic. Prepare to be bombarded.

Classic is just XT 2.0 apparently, not much better. However, you need to understand that some people don't like to waste their time in such discussions.

(Then your supposed to take sides, then turn off brain, then dig trenches, then insult everyone with any slight difference of opinion or free thought)

Please no; we already have too many people doing this.

lauda's defense to not inccrease the blocksize is to keep contention alive by not letting core increase the maxblocksize for 16 months.. purely on the bases that it should be deemed as a strike against miners who are lucky enough to solve a block before they validated the competitors previous solution..

basically hold miners to ransom by not increasing the size until they stop making "empty blocks".
to me that is just the most lame excuse he has came up with yet. trying to infer that REAL blocks are not nearly full just because the empty blocks are pulling down the average..

seriously.. thats like saying the red signal on traffic lights doesnt need to change to green.. ever.. because if you include people walking as 'traffic' then the road is always on the move so there must not be a traffic problem by leaving the lights on red.
(cars are real blocks of data, walkers are empty blocks)

you can try to criminalize the sidewalk as much as you like.. but even on highways you will still get hitchhikers walking passed.. so how about looking just at the traffic jam and stop using averages that include pointless blocks

[Jet Cash]

One way to reduce traffic congestion is to speed up the traffic. Making cars larger so they can carry more people, means they take up more space, and may not increase the occupancy rate anyway.

[franky1]

One way to reduce traffic congestion is to speed up the traffic. Making cars larger so they can carry more people, means they take up more space, and may not increase the occupancy rate anyway.

segwit proposes to turn cars into motocycles to fit more road users onto the road.. right.. as a better analogy..
 the problem is that blockstream then turns the motorcycle into a trike by adding the flags and other opcodes for LN and sidechains. and then adds a 10foot trailer to the trike in the form of confidential payment codes.

meaning that by the time blockstream have rebloated a transaction the eventual maxblocksize wont really help because it would be used to cushion the impact of blockstreams bloated transactions.

simply put
1mb traditional tx's average 2000 transaction capacity(for 1mb data store)
1mb+segwit proposes 3800.(for 1.8mb data store)

2mb traditional proposes 4000 transactions.(for 2mb data store)
but by the time blockstream are ready

2mb+segwit+CPC does not offer 7600 transactions for 4.6mb
but instead 7600 transactions for 5.7mb

yet 4mb traditional transactions proposes 8000 transactions for 4mb..

so it made me laugh, when using lauda's own magical numbers of segwit offering 180% capacity increase and payment codes adding 250bytes per tx. to actaully see that the corporation he defends is actually causing more bloat then just staying with the traditional transactions and just increasing capacity properly.

segwit is not a cure for capacity. it is just a temporal measure.. even the blockstreamers try not to claim it to be a cure, but call it a positive side effect. yet lauda wants to PR spin it as the cure for cancer

and lastly i am still laughing because Lauda thinks bitcoin-core is programmed in java. there there ticked the box to say that lauda has not personal knowledge of bitcoin and is just a mouthpiece for someone else spoonfeeding him.

if he atleast used the actual numbers he splurts out.. he to would realise the truth..

[ATguy]

For (many) months people have been saying blocks are full, will soon be full, or things will collapse soon. BTC continues working normally ever since.

This is just self regulation cycle,

more people using Bitcoin -> fees go up -> some people stop using Bitcoin -> fees go down

This can go on forever. While it is plan for some, others know this is not how to make Bitcoin successfull longterm and no rational business would make such terrible PR like "we have monopol so wont change anything, you can go elsewhere to some suckers if you dont want to pay us premium for ever being able to use our most popular coin". I dont know how long people can tolerate such rude policy though.

You can even decrease block size limit to any value (like 50 KB) and Bitcoin gonna work for some people.

[Lauda]

This is just self regulation cycle,

more people using Bitcoin -> fees go up -> some people stop using Bitcoin -> fees go down

Exactly. It is the same as with mining and thus these doomsday scenarios are just bad attempts at manipulation.

This can go on forever. While it is plan for some, others know this is not how to make Bitcoin successfull longterm and no rational business would make such terrible PR like "we have monopol so wont change anything, you can go elsewhere to some suckers if you dont want to pay us premium for ever being able to use our most popular coin". I dont know how long people can tolerate such rude policy though.

This policy is not currently in "effect". Segwit will provide more transaction capacity after which we might see a block size increase in addition to the Lightning Network. We should be fine for a while after these events.

One way to reduce traffic congestion is to speed up the traffic.

Suggest it via the mailing list instead of talking about it everywhere. The are reasons for which this has not been done.

when the block size will be changed?

Maybe in 2017.

[nagatraju]

Nothing can happen to Bitcoin or it's block-size.  Bitcoin itself has ability to adjust these fluctuations in block sizes.

[sachung]

I generally don't have a specific opinion in this debate between block increasing fans and the opposite, but just to say Blocks are full is an exaggeration, If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

[franky1]

Exactly. It is the same as with mining and thus these doomsday scenarios are just bad attempts at manipulation.

yes devote blockstreamer your doomsday scenario's are just bad attempts at manipulating people away from real bitcoin transactions.

[FuegoTropicalArrrrrrriiii]

I generally don't have a specific opinion in this debate between block increasing fans and the opposite, but just to say Blocks are full is an exaggeration, If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies. 

One good example is how fucking finally Blockchain.info decided to add dynamic fees to their withdraws.  Considering just how many services use their API (for better or worse), I'd say this is an important optimization.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin itself has ability to adjust these fluctuations in block sizes.

This statement does not make sense as Bitcoin does not have this 'ability'.

If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

That's the way that the system was meant to be used. What happens is that people include fees that are not adequate and then they complain about it. Usually it is not a problem with the network but the user.

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies. 

It is worth nothing that a nice percentage of transactions could be labeled as spam of sorts (even today). There was some statement about it in the recent roundtable but I can't remember exactly what it was.

[adamstgBit]

If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

That's the way that the system was meant to be used. What happens is that people include fees that are not adequate and then they complain about it. Usually it is not a problem with the network but the user.

an adequate fee one day is inadequate the next.
also anyone running an older wallet client, that client's default fee is probably wrong.
thats the source of confusion.

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies. 

It is worth nothing that a nice percentage of transactions could be labeled as spam of sorts (even today). There was some statement about it in the recent roundtable but I can't remember exactly what it was.

these "spam" tx produced fees, not exactly a bad thing for miners.

[Lauda]

an adequate fee one day is inadequate the next.

Not necessarily. An adequate fee of day 1 might be a higher than recommended fee of day two.

also anyone running an older wallet client, that client's default fee is probably wrong.
thats the source of confusion.

Therefore the source of the problem are the users who aren't willing to either update their clients or use Bitcoin properly (fee wise).

these "spam" tx produced fees, not exactly a bad thing for miners.

Zero-fee spam is pretty much useless these days. However, as there are some users transacting (or trying to transact) in the 1-10 satoshi/byte range, spamming in that one will have a impact on the network.

[adamstgBit]

when the block size will be changed?

Maybe in 2017.

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

[vendetahome]

when the block size will be changed?

Maybe in 2017.

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

uhmm i dont see a single thing why just an ordinary bitcoin user would be against a block increase because it would cost less fees to send through transactions

blocks are full for a while already and hopefully devs will do something to solve this problem asap, it should have been done a while ago

[Lauda]

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

Obviously for. If a HF is going to happen, then the developers should use that opportunity to 'clean up' and possibly implement some things from the hard fork wish list.

uhmm i dont see a single thing why just an ordinary bitcoin user would be against a block increase because it would cost less fees to send through transactions

There's a difference between what users want, what is achievable and what kind of side-effects it is going to cause.

blocks are full for a while already and hopefully devs will do something to solve this problem asap, it should have been done a while ago

They aren't.

[SebastianJu]

just wait till reward halfs and hash rate starts going down.
we are in for some serious delays

Hopefully miners will not switch off their mining hardware in the first 2 days or so. And they do it over 2 weeks. Then the network would have the chance to adjust the difficulty downwards and blocks would appear again in a more normal timeframe.

[Bitcoinpro]

wot do we do now?

with all this bickering like 1st graders how will anything get done?? i propose bigger blocks becoz u can add things like video, music, gifs etc to the blockchain and it makes it more fun...

the segwitted will not accomodate 7 billion people stop mucking around and fix this before i lose my investment

fud account

[SebastianJu]

maokoto


Nope, bitcoin is not working like normal anymore. I think you did not check the newbie subforums and similar places and saw all the complaints about bitcoin transactions that suddenly don't work anymore like before.

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago. For no other reason than bitcoin not being able to meet the capacity requirements anymore. Bitcoiner do not suddenly decide to pay higher fees. It was enforced.

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold. And try to ask yourself how you want to convince someone on the street why he should not simply use paypal instead. He does not need anonymity, he sends legal money anyway. And very few of them need to send money over borders.

[Lauda]

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.

False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't.

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.

Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always.

[SebastianJu]

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.

False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.

Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always.

I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me.