BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!

[owm123]

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

JUst pay higher fees. If you dont like it, you dont have to use bitcoin. No one is forcing anyone to use it.

[hv_]

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

JUst pay higher fees. If you dont like it, you dont have to use bitcoin. No one is forcing anyone to use it.

Just use alt or wester union. So we can close BTC soon.

[SebastianJu]

Well, what should I say about the level of communication on here. Fighting paroles claiming to be the majority, insults, naming... very grown up. Though I guess that level of communication can be found on both sides. Some simply doesn't know how to discuss.


Lauda

I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.

The security of the mainchain is not needed? Great, you will enjoy transacting on the secondary layer then.

Again you try to twist words. The security of the mainchain IS needed of course. What not is needed is 100 times the security that would be need to secure the network. Luckily this will solve over time. But for now mining is so rewarding that the bitcoin network is an environmental nightmare. And surely that should not be supported with higher fees so that the markets at work are disturbed to hold more miners than normal in the mining game.

Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.

It isn't. I was talking about raising the 'fee limit', i.e. recommended fee artificially. It should be possible if a person clogs up the network with a lot of transactions in the higher fee range. The fee that we are paying right now is the result of the market/people.

No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage. Imagine some country would decide that from now on we have enough daily bank transactions because... whatever. Fees would rise but that is an artificial market shortage. Transaction supply was limited.

An the actual fees already are higher in average than some time ago. Why? We had full blocks from spamming and now based on times of the day. People complaining about non confirming transactions usually get told to raise the fees. And yes, they do. I did so too. But they did not do so because the transactions are limited because of some natural reason, no the market was hold down from developing further because the allowed transactions were artificially held down.

Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar.

Wrong; it's obvious that you don't have any relevant skills. If you make a single mistake while scaling Bitcoin, you risk severely damaging it. The real question is why are people unaware of this.

Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too. Though you believe that it is true because those others, you believe having these skills, say so. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.

And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.

Of course you are in control. I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived  

Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too. At least miners promised to switch to an chimera approach. Starting to spv mine but while mining start to confirm the transactions in that block. That GREATLY reduces the chance of an accidental fork.

It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills.

You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen. I guess his skills must be doubted because he acted against the first law of the bitcoin core religion "You shalt not have another blockchain besides the core blockchain." He still has the second most commits on core. Even after all that time.

[Hirose UK]

If you are so scared why don't you sell Bitcoin?

haha good idea! if OP does not find a way to figure his problem out, it's better to sell his bitcoins in case to avoid losing his investment or sell a half of his bitcoin.

[Lauda]

Again you try to twist words.

Nope.

No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage.

Isn't. There is adequate transaction capacity in the blocks right now.

Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too.

I need not show anything. You don't understand how algorithms work nor why the worst-case scenario is important. Nothing more needs to be said.

Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.

The fact that you are putting 'coders' into the same basket as engineers makes you look very uneducated. Please refrain from doing so.

Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too.

"SPV Mining is a bad idea." - Gavin. Now it is being implemented in Classic.

You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen.

He used to be good, as in past tense.

He still has the second most commits on core.

He doesn't.

[RealPhotoshoper]

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

another post about block,if you said block are full,then why dont you not sell your bitcoin?why dont you put some data or statistic about that?show us,dont just and shitty talk.

[SebastianJu]

Sorry Lauda but it doesn't work to discuss on that level. I come up with arguments and you answer with nothing more than "No, I'm right". No need to go into details since... you are right by default.

Good luck with that attitude.

Again you try to twist words.

Nope.

No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage.

Isn't. There is adequate transaction capacity in the blocks right now.

Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too.

I need not show anything. You don't understand how algorithms work nor why the worst-case scenario is important. Nothing more needs to be said.

Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion.

The fact that you are putting 'coders' into the same basket as engineers makes you look very uneducated. Please refrain from doing so.

Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too.

"SPV Mining is a bad idea." - Gavin. Now it is being implemented in Classic.

You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen.

He used to be good, as in past tense.

He still has the second most commits on core.

He doesn't.

[Lauda]

Sorry Lauda but it doesn't work to discuss on that level. I come up with arguments and you answer with nothing more than "No, I'm right". No need to go into details since... you are right by default.

No. It just shows that you lack adequate knowledge (e.g. importance and difference of best && average && worst case running time in algorithms) to actually make a case with "arguments". Instead of wasting everyone's time with misinformation, it is best to give up (as you just did). Your "arguments" are not based on evidence but rather beliefs (e.g. Gavin being the lead contributor in the past implies that he is a excellent developer today); appeal to authority.

another post about block,if you said block are full,then why dont you not sell your bitcoin?why dont you put some data or statistic about that?show us,dont just and shitty talk.

There are "people" that tend to complain about the (yet) nonexistent problems of there not being enough space in the blocks. In the majority of the cases, this is the result of their flawed use of the fee system.

[FuegoTropicalArrrrrrriiii]

Is it me or is the blocksize debate starting to come to a close thanks to SegWit + LN release coming closer and closer.

[18xk5oT2rLrAc24SL96XT14BX]

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

we will have segwit soon and it should give us enough time to keep scaling. I did transactions today and this week some other too and I have never had problems with it. Just pay the recomended fee.

[SebastianJu]

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

we will have segwit soon and it should give us enough time to keep scaling. I did transactions today and this week some other too and I have never had problems with it. Just pay the recomended fee.

You were lucky that you sent at a time without overload though there are times at a day when it does not work except you pay fees that more and more look like paypal fees.

I welcome segwit but it surely can't bring the huge effect as fast as needed. Well, maybe it will surprise.

[Lauda]

You were lucky that you sent at a time without overload though there are times at a day when it does not work except you pay fees that more and more look like paypal fees.

Bullshit. The fees are not unusually high, and nowhere near the maximum that we've experienced. They're currently at: 40 satoshis/byte [1]. For a TX of 226 bytes that is 4 cents. Quite like paypal, indeed.

I welcome segwit but it surely can't bring the huge effect as fast as needed. Well, maybe it will surprise.

It will be fine.
[1] - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

[SebastianJu]

You were lucky that you sent at a time without overload though there are times at a day when it does not work except you pay fees that more and more look like paypal fees.

Bullshit. The fees are not unusually high, and nowhere near the maximum that we've experienced. They're currently at: 40 satoshis/byte [1]. For a TX of 226 bytes that is 4 cents. Quite like paypal, indeed.

I welcome segwit but it surely can't bring the huge effect as fast as needed. Well, maybe it will surprise.

It will be fine.
[1] - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

I often enough had to send with 0.20$, which is less than half of the minimum paypal fee and clearly it goes in this direction.

I'm really not sure about the effect of segwit since the effects that are hoped on are mostly calculated with a way higher amount of multisig transactions, as far as I remind correctly. I'm really not sure that we can build on this. Of course even when it not brings nearly to 50$, every 10% is a nice thing. Only the big question is if it really will help avoiding full blocks.

And segwit... as far as I learned about it... I don't see a usecase for me and I doubt many other users have. If one has as much coins to block it in some payment channel then ok, possible LN user. But most users have the amount for one payment, that's it. So the LN effect won't be high too. Besides that... LN is not really a loved thing.

[Lauda]

I often enough had to send with 0.20$, which is less than half of the minimum paypal fee and clearly it goes in this direction.

Don't blame the Bitcoin network for creating large transactions. This is why fees are measured in satoshi/byte. There is no fixed fee.

[1] I'm really not sure about the effect of segwit since the effects that are hoped on are [2]mostly calculated with a way higher amount of multisig transactions, as far as I remind correctly.

[1] If you aren't sure, then stop spreading misinformation? [2] Wrong. While I can't find the exact link from the mailing list, we are looking at ~190-200% in realistic usage.

I'm really not sure that we can build on this. Of course even when it not brings nearly to 50$, every 10% is a nice thing. Only the big question is if it really will help avoiding full blocks.

Whatever exactly 'build on this' is supposed to mean, the answer is yes to both sentences.

And segwit... as far as I learned about it... I don't see a usecase for me and I doubt many other users have.  If one has as much coins to block it in some payment channel then ok, possible LN user.

You start complaining about 'not seeing use-cases for Segwit' and then continue talking about LN users? That does not make sense. A Segwit use-case is LN.

But most users have the amount for one payment, that's it. So the LN effect won't be high too. Besides that... LN is not really a loved thing.

Do you keep coins in your wallet? If you do, then your argument has no merit.

[SebastianJu]

I often enough had to send with 0.20$, which is less than half of the minimum paypal fee and clearly it goes in this direction.

Don't blame the Bitcoin network for creating large transactions. This is why fees are measured in satoshi/byte. There is no fixed fee.

[1] I'm really not sure about the effect of segwit since the effects that are hoped on are [2]mostly calculated with a way higher amount of multisig transactions, as far as I remind correctly.

[1] If you aren't sure, then stop spreading misinformation? [2] Wrong. While I can't find the exact link from the mailing list, we are looking at ~190-200% in realistic usage.

I'm really not sure that we can build on this. Of course even when it not brings nearly to 50$, every 10% is a nice thing. Only the big question is if it really will help avoiding full blocks.

Whatever exactly 'build on this' is supposed to mean, the answer is yes to both sentences.

And segwit... as far as I learned about it... I don't see a usecase for me and I doubt many other users have.  If one has as much coins to block it in some payment channel then ok, possible LN user.

You start complaining about 'not seeing use-cases for Segwit' and then continue talking about LN users? That does not make sense. A Segwit use-case is LN.

But most users have the amount for one payment, that's it. So the LN effect won't be high too. Besides that... LN is not really a loved thing.

Do you keep coins in your wallet? If you do, then your argument has no merit.

Sure there is no fixed fee. Though there are times you need to pay more than at other times. And the days of transactions going through instantly with minimum fee are over. So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.

So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too.

Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time. And the best effect it would have on multisig transactions. Which is not something that is spread as far as was assumed in this claim for the future.

Right, I chose the wrong word. I meant I don't really see a lot of usecases for LN, not for segwit.

Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.

[Lauda]

So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.

It isn't. As finding the right data on this is a bit hard, you can take a look at total fees per day. They balance out.

So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too.

Not sure whether trolling, stupid or both. I never said that I'm not sure, I said that I can't find the exact link to the exact calculations (hence why "~" was used).

Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time.

If people want more TX capacity, they will adopt it quickly, otherwise they are indirectly stating that they don't want additional capacity. Simple as that.

Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.

Who said that you would only be able to send/receive between yourself and the exchange? Are you sure that you know how LN is supposed to work (in theory)? Because from what I see, you don't.

[SebastianJu]

So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.

It isn't. As finding the right data on this is a bit hard, you can take a look at total fees per day. They balance out.

So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too.

Not sure whether trolling, stupid or both. I never said that I'm not sure, I said that I can't find the exact link to the exact calculations (hence why "~" was used).

Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time.

If people want more TX capacity, they will adopt it quickly, otherwise they are indirectly stating that they don't want additional capacity. Simple as that.

Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.

Who said that you would only be able to send/receive between yourself and the exchange? Are you sure that you know how LN is supposed to work (in theory)? Because from what I see, you don't.

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming.

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation. And if the only force to force people to use it will be the limited blocksize then you can be very sure that people will find another way to avoid that extortion. Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

[Lauda]

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit.

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming.

There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it:

Additional post-segwit soft forked script improvements can improve the effective block size for p2pkh txns from 1.7MB to 1.9MB, and for 2/2 multisig from 2MB to 2.5MB/3MB.

So my memory served me well ("~190-200%").

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation.

You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period.

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC).

[SebastianJu]

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit.

I already know that you miss a good bunch of comprehension styles. Otherwise you would have been able to understand that I wrote that this only shows the total fees paid regardless of how many kb the block contained.

And yes, the fees are in bitcoin. And the bitcoin price has a connection regarding how much people would want to freely give away as a fee. For example fees were given freely by many when they thought they are rich in 2013. Your comparision simply contains too many variables to judge from that what transactions can go through. Since you know very well that at those times you could send with a minimum fee. It does not matter if some rich person wanted to donate to miners. What matters is what fee is needed. And now we need higher fees. And this requisit is rising.

I already know you will try to negate it and I hope it's not again from missing comprehension of what I wrote. Maybe read it twice.

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming.

There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it:

Additional post-segwit soft forked script improvements can improve the effective block size for p2pkh txns from 1.7MB to 1.9MB, and for 2/2 multisig from 2MB to 2.5MB/3MB.

So my memory served me well ("~190-200%").

Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case.

Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that.

I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation.

You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period.

What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.

Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC).

Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.

It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.

[Lauda]

-snip-

There's nothing that helps you build a case. The fees are low enough. Tell me what you want exactly? 1 cent transactions, a fraction of a cent? Free transactions?

Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case. Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that. I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.

Tl;dr: You were wrong again.

What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.

Which is not achievable with any kind of block size. Regardless of how much decentralization you want to sacrifice, and regardless of how ridiculously high you set the block size limit it will never be enough.

Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.

LN benefits:

• Trustless
• Cheap
• Near-instant transactions

You will be able to use the LN the same way that you are using Bitcoin now (the TX's are just faster), assuming that there is adoption.

Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.

Stop. Erase everything that you've ever read about LN from your brain and start from scratch. Who was talking about "exchanges" as money transmitters? It was an example, "exchange" as in entity. Secondary example: "Newbie" has payment channel to "Newbie2". Noob wants to pay for his Coffee at the Coffee Shop. "Newbie2" has a payment channel with the Coffee Shop. So: Newbie -> Newbie2 -> Coffee shop. The "LN building banks is a risk for Bitcoin" is also pure bullshit.

It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.

Bullshit.
Update: It isn't like Ripple. Ripple is centralized, and LN isn't (or won't be).