BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!

[Lauda]

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.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system!

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.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

[franky1]

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.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system!

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.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

yo numbskull

more capacity = more people without a price war..
keeping capacity = price war and less people

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists. you have been drinking too much of the blockstream kool-aid and now you want bitcoin to be a fiat coin..
please detox yourself and think for yourself for once

[RealBitcoin]

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking marxist coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

[franky1]

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

[RealBitcoin]

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

Wow, i`m getting confused with all these definitions, so lets get them straight 


First of all bitcoin is individualist, this is 100% certain. Now because of this, it can't be socialist, because that is the exact opposite of it.


Then, bitcoin is not free, or not entirely free, it has a low cost, which could be rounded down to near 0, but it's never free.

For nodes you pay electricity, for mining the same, basically everything you do on the internet you pay bills for, so it cant be free.

However we can make sure that it will be cheap as hell, but it cant be free, that is just a fact of life.

[ekoice]

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

I am reading all comments and they seem to be very interesting and informative since Blocks are getting full and every one needs a chance to add his/her stuff there to share with others. But unfortunately if the blocks will become bigger in size then no use as well since dinosaurs are example by some friends that we can think what happened to them when they got bigger...nothing but just a sad ending. So think about it and then decide what to do in this regard.

[franky1]

Wow, i`m getting confused with all these definitions, so lets get them straight  


First of all bitcoin is individualist, this is 100% certain. Now because of this, it can't be socialist, because that is the exact opposite of it.

if your talking about mining. then to be part of it you need to be in a pool. you cant solo min any more. so its not individual. people work together and share the profits.
if you are talking about nodes. they do not have independant chains. they share data with each other.

if you are talking about the code. there use to be several implementations all suggesting features and sharing idea's..

but now blockstream wants domination. and to force low capacity to increase a fee war.. thus bitcoin went from social communism and is becoming corporate capitalist.

Then, bitcoin is not free, or not entirely free, it has a low cost, which could be rounded down to near 0, but it's never free.

even in a social communist regime nothing is free. but people agree and barter with each other for the greater good.. capitalist is the opposite where people become selfish and want control and power to use and abuse others for personal gain.
eg mining farms as oppose to pools
eg dictatorship codebase and trying to destroy any opposition

For nodes you pay electricity, for mining the same, basically everything you do on the internet you pay bills for, so it cant be free.
however we can make sure that it will be cheap as hell, but it cant be free, that is just a fact of life.

agreed with that. but bitcoin is becoming less "we" and more "them", where blockstream and fanboys want to dictate how many users can happily use it. how many should be able to use bitcoins mainchain and how many should F-off to sidechains and less secure offchains. while dictating that fees should jump astronomically to prevent more users wanting to use the main chain.

the real funny thing is that blockstreamers said that 2mb onchain would b megabloat that no one will want.

yet a 1mb+segwit+confidential payment codes only allows 3800 transactions for 2.85mb
but 2mb traditional transactions=4000tx for just 2mb..

so of blockstream think 2.85mb is safe for their roadmap. then 2.85mb of traditional transactions would allow 5700 transactions a block.

can you atleast see the logic
blockstreams roadmap = 2.85mb for 3800 tx potential
logical natural buffer = 2.85mb for 5700 tx potential..

or more safely 2mb for 4000tx potential

by the way if you want to knitpick the numbers. i actually used the numbers that blockstreamers spout out about. so becareful as you may offend your own friends

[Quantus]

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.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system!

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.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

yo numbskull

more capacity = more people without a price war..
keeping capacity = price war and less people

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists. you have been drinking too much of the blockstream kool-aid and now you want bitcoin to be a fiat coin..
please detox yourself and think for yourself for once

No one has yet demonstrated the demand for such capacity. The majority of Bitcoin transactions are spam. (less then 10 cents)  Prove to us that you can provide spam protection and low fees and maintain security and reliability and I'll support larger blocks. But you can't because you can't predict the future demand.

[franky1]

No one has yet demonstrated the demand for such capacity. The majority of Bitcoin transactions are spam. (less then 10 cents)  Prove to us that you can provide spam protection and low fees and maintain security and reliability and I'll support larger blocks. But you can't because you can't predict the future demand.

if a spammer was to make 3800 transactions at lets say 10cents. thats a cost of $380..
thats not really a deterrant for spammers.

how about 5700 sticking to normal traditional transactions with a maxblocksize buffer of blockstreams 2.85mb acceptable bloat.. and fees were 10 cents.

guess what.. thats $570..

which proves that doing normal transactions and increasing the real blocklimits means both more capacity per mb and more cost combined to fill the block, meaning slightly better deterrent.

even if we kept the fee's at 4cent.. blockstream 2.85mb =$152 bloat cost... and natural safe 2mb blocks= $160 or natural 2.85mb blocks=$228

u can increase the fee to whatever you want. but natural normal transactions with a maxblocksize increase is always going to allow more capacity and more combined cost to spam. than blockstreams roadmap

so lets say it another way..
lets say we want it to cost a spammer $1000 to abuse a block..(knowing its more about the total cost for a spammer to abuse a block, while also ensuring users dont pay much individually)
blockstreams roadmap = forcing the users fee to 26cents per tx
natural transactions same bloat = users pay 17.5cents

so blockstreams road map in any way you view it wont give capacity bu will force prices alot higher. while doing the natural capacity growth allows more capacity which in itself would end up costing a spammer more.. but without the physical data storage being any worse then blockstreams idea's

[SebastianJu]

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.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

I wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step.

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system!

Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly.

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.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification.

This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite.

Be it like it be. Your vision is surely not mine so I think it won't make sense to discuss on that point.

[Quantus]

Until hardware and connection costs fall to near zero I will not support any system that allows free transactions to add more cost however small to those hosting full nodes.
Freedom is not free and nether is Bitcoin. I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.  Technological advancements in storage has faltered, Moores Law as been broken, full node count has been on the decline for years. It is just to expensive to heap these additional costs onto full node operators. Increasing block size could cause a drastic drop in full nodes leading to stability, reliability and security issues.

[SebastianJu]

I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.

You might be right on this and in fact it would be no wonder. What serious company would now put work in something like bitcoin? It is way too unstable to put money onto that topic. Not confirming transactions? Great, means these companies accepting bitcoin would have to put a lot of suppot on that topic. And the payment would be unreliable.

Besides that the constant fight about the direction of bitcoin. I know if I would own a big business I would hold back funds and see how bitcoin develops now. If it recovers then I might invest. But at the moment it does not look like a worthy thing to gain.

[adamstgBit]

Until hardware and connection costs fall to near zero I will not support any system that allows free transactions to add more cost however small to those hosting full nodes.
Freedom is not free and nether is Bitcoin. I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.  Technological advancements in storage has faltered, Moores Law as been broken, full node count has been on the decline for years. It is just to expensive to heap these additional costs onto full node operators. Increasing block size could cause a drastic drop in full nodes leading to stability, reliability and security issues.

like it or not its happening, segwit will double bandwidth requirements.
but the requirements are exaggerated
you can simply limit the number of peers you connect to and you'll be fine.
and i believe other less talked about improvements will go a long way to make node lower requirements.
thin blocks is really cool.
and the iguana project seems to have somehow pulled off an unbelievable improvement in syncing time ( full sycn  in a matter of hours )

I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.

I believe the slow TX times and more to the point, the perception that bitcoin isn't functioning very well, has and will continue to affect growth.

nevertheless, we know there are projects out there that, if turned on, would max out bitcoin's capacity, somehow i think there's not a bad chance the 2MB "effective block size" will quickly fill up regardless of growth.  

[franky1]

I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.

You might be right on this and in fact it would be no wonder. What serious company would now put work in something like bitcoin? It is way too unstable to put money onto that topic. Not confirming transactions? Great, means these companies accepting bitcoin would have to put a lot of suppot on that topic. And the payment would be unreliable.

Besides that the constant fight about the direction of bitcoin. I know if I would own a big business I would hold back funds and see how bitcoin develops now. If it recovers then I might invest. But at the moment it does not look like a worthy thing to gain.

well the thing is to allow for a 2mb+segwit buffer increase. knowing that the user numbers are exaggurated and no way will 900million people (blockstreams visa scenario) be jumping in over night nor in the next couple years. also knowing it wont be instant hard drive bloat over night, but more so slower growth like the 2013-2016 slow growth from 500k-950k

so even with 2mb+segwit which offers between
2mb of traditional transactions for UPTO a potential future of 4000 tx.
5.7mb of segwit+CPC for upto a potential future of 7600 tx
(remember im talking about 2mb+segwit combined rather than 1mb+ segwit or 2mb as separate choices)

yes thats right by having both, means lots of capacity and freedom to choose which type of transactions you want. rather than being pulled in any one direction.
again, we are not going to see an instant jump to between 2mb - 5.7mb. it would be slow.. but atleast we wont be hitting our heads against a wall demanding more limits for a while. and stop this endless oliver twist game "please sir can i have some more", which some blockstreamers want by only doing a 1.1mb maxblocksize and increasing by just 0.1 every couple years.

it needs to be extra BUFFER.. and then let the miners slowly increase in smaller amounts underneath the hard cap.. again just like 2013-2016

[Quantus]

I believe if we want Bitcoin to function reliably after the next reward drop we need to micro manage the hard cap to keep capacity slightly lower then demand to drive transaction fees higher, otherwise the empty space will most likely just get filled up with spam and the fees could then become insufficient to cover the networks operational and security needs.

[adamstgBit]

I believe if we want Bitcoin to function reliably after the next reward drop we need to micro manage the hard cap to keep capacity slightly lower then demand to drive transaction fees higher, otherwise the empty space will most likely just get filled up with spam and the fees could then become insufficient to cover the networks operational and security needs.

what's stopping poeple from avoiding high fees by using an altcoin or second layer solutions?
high fee discourage usage which hurt total fees
you might succeed in having 5$ fees for a while as everyone transacts OUT of bitcoin at whatever cost?

[Quantus]

High fees discourage usage true however I believe we should work with the network and user base we have and not the one we hope to one day obtain.

If all block rewards were removed today each transaction would I believe cost around 27 dollars to maintain our current level of security. Now even if we were to grow our user base by 10 fold it would not be enough to maintain our current level of security after block rewards are removed. A compromise is in order, hardware and connection costs need to come down or our security level must drop or our user base needs to grow by 100 fold. Again a compromise is needed.
In 15 weeks the incentive to not attack the network will be cut in half. We should be prudent and assume our user base will shrink and node count will shrink. If people want to use alt coins or side chains that's their choice it won't matter if Bitcoins network receives less in total fees when the fees would otherwise have been insufficient anyways.

If my options are a large network with high resource demands and insufficient funds to cover security needs and a small network with high fees but secure and stable I'll take the high fees.

You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.  

You would trade long term security and stability for a slightly larger user base? Why?  And I never said I wanted a 5 dollar transaction fee; 10 cents to 50 cents might be enough.

[rizzlarolla]

I believe if we want Bitcoin to function reliably after the next reward drop we need to micro manage the hard cap to keep capacity slightly lower then demand to drive transaction fees higher, otherwise the empty space will most likely just get filled up with spam and the fees could then become insufficient to cover the networks operational and security needs.

But I don't see that on any roadmap?
I don't mind paying a fee, but I would like to know that I will still be able to afford it next week as this week.

As you say, if we knew block space was available to bring on line in a way that could be micro managed, in parallel with demand,
albeit lagging, then I could understand how your theory could work.
That would be predictable and planned and I presume effectively set a constant(ish) standard fee for all.

But without the hard cap being "micro managed", and knowing it is (able to be) micro managed can/will that happen?
We are left with no clear plan.

I see it differently,

me

A fees market should not be set by ransom and blackmail. No room in blocks means unless you outbid a "forever" growing mempool you will not get in.
A fees market cannot fairly operate when blocks are at capacity.

I should have added to that,
"A fees market cannot fairly operate when blocks are at capacity...   unless users know more capacity is available for easily managed and planned/structured deployment."

Then we may agree?

[adamstgBit]

You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.  

we dont need 100 fold growth in the next 15 weeks....
we need more like 30% price increase and double the fees on blocks in the next 15 weeks.
in that case the reward halving will be mitigated with higher BTC prices, and slightly more BTC fees on each block.

if segwit was ready 6 months ago i'd feel more comfortable...

there a balance between driving fees high and driving a high number of low fee TX

bacily if we look at block space as a good miners produce, the pricing of that good is the TX fee.
how do we find the best price?
somthing like this.



i believe we dont need to artificially limit supply miners have a real cost to including TX in blocks in the form of orphan risks

then demand can be roughly calculated with like avg number of TX bytes to include every 10mins

then miners can calculate the optimal price for a TX fee

then they can simple choose to not sell block space for much less than this optimal price.

[Quantus]

You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.  

we dont need 100 fold growth in the next 15 weeks....
we need more like 30% price increase and double the fees on blocks in the next 15 weeks.
in that case the reward halving will be mitigated with higher BTC prices, and slightly more BTC fees on each block.

if segwit was ready 6 months ago i'd feel more comfortable...

there a balance between driving fees high and driving a high number of low fee TX

bacily if we look at block space as a good miners produce, the pricing of that good is the TX fee.
how do we find the best price?
somthing like this.

The price of Bitcoin is irrelevant in this context to its level of security.