Core have been derelict in their duties.

[rizzlarolla]

Core have been derelict in their duties by showing little foresight around the looming full block situation, and now risk a massive backlash of supporters turning to classic. (as the only option to keep bitcoin "working")

The full block situation
================

Blocks are 70% full, on average.
This implies 30% "usable" blockspace still available for use/continued expansion. Not so.

Empty blocks do, and will continue to be produced no matter how full the mempool.
70% full "average" blocks size is very nearly 100% full "achievable" block size.
(anyone got any figures on what % empty blocks will likely be produced even when the mempool is full?)

Bitcoin use has been increasing, but now (in a week or two?) Bitcoin use can increase no more.


Full block problems
============

Forget spam attacks in this debate. (historically) If you pay standard fees you will be unaffected by low fee paying spam attacks.
Spam is not an issue here.

If blocks are full due to increased use, and nobody stops using Bitcoin, we will have gridlock. The mempool will grow and grow.
Up to now, blocks have not been full all the time, so miners could clear the mempool in quieter times.
(and looks like ALL miners are doing their best to fill blocks to just under 1mb ATM.)

There will simply be no opportunity for miners to clear the mempool when blocks are full if people don't stop using bitcoin.
If panic tx'ing ever set in, gridlock could easily turn to total overwhelm of network. (it will quickly turn into that anyway)


TX fees
=====
tx fees can only slow the mempool growth by stopping people using bitcoin.
If tx fees are not high enough to stop people from using bitcoin, then the mempool backlog will expand.

Fees should be set by efficiency. Efficient miners should profit, unefficient miners shouldn't. That is sustainable.
(A full fees market should not be needed yet as miners are subsidised by the block reward)

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.


Looking ahead
==========

When the above starts happening, in a week or two, It will very quickly become chaos.
Segwit will not be ready.

Core will be forced to introduce a panic fix.
Or panic will lead to a rapid classic fork.
Or both.


BTW
====

I don't support classic or core.
I support bitcoin.
I never did or will support classic.

I thought core could handle this situation, but I was wrong
Core are about to be shown as incompetent.
(unless driving away users really is part of their plan, even before LN exist.)
.
Desperate times will lead to desperate measures.
I don't want classic, but there will become no other choice for rapid consensus.

Core bring this situation on themselves.
With a little foresight Core could have given us 2mb couldn't they? To tide us over.

I fear it is too late to avert this situation now.
(it is certainly 11th hour, and no indication of a core rethink. Is there a contingency plan?)

[1715084273]

1715084273

[1715084273]

1715084273

[1715084273]

1715084273

[adamstgBit]

the problem solves itself...

TX that are >72hours old get dropped out of minners mem-pools ( so no the mem-pool will not grow indefinitely )
what will happen is a % of peoples TX will get dropped out of the mempool
fees will rise to the point where poeple no longer want to Transact using bitcoin

problem solved.

[Zeke2345]

Should I take the next 2 weeks off well the fud gets worked out of our system?
Hate these threads poking around today bashing core, really do not want to go through what we did with XT. Issues are fine but it always comes off like pump dump manipulation seeing a blitz on core.

[63854]

We shouldn't have to pay fees to send Bitcoins, part of the whole idea of Bitcoin is avoiding fees like those placed on FIAT bank accounts. Either way, something is building in Bitcoin as a whole, and things are going to get very interesting very fast in the near future... 

[adamstgBit]

Core is guilty of having 0 communications with the community.
they are simply unwilling to hear our concerns
they simply dismiss stakeholder wish for swift resolution of blocks becoming full, as short sighted greed. when they themselves are blinded by greed, blockstream.
they simply do not understand what the big fuss is about because of the above reasoning i gave.
there suport will hold indefinitely because the first poeple to GTFO will be those who disagree with their idea. ex mike hearn
so now, everything hangs in the balance as we await the second layer to solve all these problems.

[Jet Cash]

There are a number of things that Bitcoin users can do to help in the short term. Try to keep transaction sizes low for example. Faucets, sig sponsors and gambling sites could increase their minimum payment levels to try to reduce long chain transactions. I'm sure you can think of many other things. All of these are in our interests, as they will help to keep fees lower.

[exstasie]

Core is guilty of having 0 communications with the community.
they are simply unwilling to hear our concerns

I think communication was lacking some time ago, but they have made major improvements there. Join the new announcements mailing list: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/03/15/announcement-list/ Talk to devs on IRC, Slack or the dev mailing list, or through bitcoincore.org. Several devs are active on Twitter and Reddit and receptive to discussion of the issues.

Regarding your concerns, they released a roadmap regarding capacity increases 3 months ago: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ And they are making strides with it.

[rizzlarolla]

the problem solves itself...

TX that are >72hours old get dropped out of minners mem-pools ( so no the mem-pool will not grow indefinitely )
what will happen is a % of peoples TX will get dropped out of the mempool
fees will rise to the point where poeple no longer want to Transact using bitcoin

problem solved.

Yeah, kind of solves itself..

But the mempool could still grow to capacity I think.
If more get added than dropped.
(and dropped tx's may just get rebroadcast with higher fees)

So, if fees become large enough to really make people (who were happy to pay todays fee) stop tx'ing, so stop using bitcoin,
So driving users away and putting adoption on "hold".
I would say that to be a lack of foresight by Core, to not see the pending situation. (or the possibility of that situation)

Wouldn't it have made sense to have a simple block increase ready for "emergency's"?
(while they work thoroughly on their other, more likely to time slip, projects)

Core could be standing by (prepared, tested and ready) to raise the block limit to, 1,25, or 1.5, or 2mb. Whatever they like. Just in case?
Nearly full blocks don't bother me, it's nice to see bitcoin getting used.
(blocks aren't full yet. just nearly full  )

Wouldn't that have been be a better way for core to have solved this issue?

[rizzlarolla]

We shouldn't have to pay fees to send Bitcoins, part of the whole idea of Bitcoin is avoiding fees like those placed on FIAT bank accounts. Either way, something is building in Bitcoin as a whole, and things are going to get very interesting very fast in the near future... 

I think no fees WAS the dream, but the spam attacks put stop to that.

I quite happy paying a fee personally, within reason.
One day bitcoin will rely entirely on tx fees, but not yet!

There are a number of things that Bitcoin users can do to help in the short term. Try to keep transaction sizes low for example. Faucets, sig sponsors and gambling sites could increase their minimum payment levels to try to reduce long chain transactions. I'm sure you can think of many other things. All of these are in our interests, as they will help to keep fees lower.

Bit of a pain though.
Attackers wont see it like that?

[gentlemand]

I dunno about derelict. I'm sure they believe they're doing their best. They've done a crappy job of conveying that sometimes and the tactics on all sides have been offensive.

[rizzlarolla]

I think communication was lacking some time ago, but they have made major improvements there. Join the new announcements mailing list: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/03/15/announcement-list/ Talk to devs on IRC, Slack or the dev mailing list, or through bitcoincore.org. Several devs are active on Twitter and Reddit and receptive to discussion of the issues.

Regarding your concerns, they released a roadmap regarding capacity increases 3 months ago: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ And they are making strides with it.

The roadmap shows any capacity increase will be through segwit.
What if segwit gets delayed?
Is there a back up plan?

[gentlemand]

The roadmap shows any capacity increase will be through segwit.
What if segwit gets delayed?
Is there a back up plan?

Dunno. I find it a teensy weensy bit fucked up that no one appears to be blinking about something that consists of hundreds of lines of fresh code that's arriving in a few weeks. Doubling the blocksize? SAVE US.

[rizzlarolla]

I dunno about derelict. I'm sure they believe they're doing their best. They've done a crappy job of conveying that sometimes and the tactics on all sides have been offensive.

Not sure I found the best description. Sounds a bit snooty!
I'm sure the do believe they do their best, but, as a serious team planning bitcoin's future. What about todays users?
(in a couple of weeks, if my theory pans out)

And your right, as usual, all sides are as bad.
Which is why I don't advocate classic either.

The roadmap shows any capacity increase will be through segwit.
What if segwit gets delayed?
Is there a back up plan?

Dunno. I find it a teensy weensy bit fucked up that no one appears to be blinking about something that consists of hundreds of lines of fresh code that's arriving in a few weeks. Doubling the blocksize? SAVE US.

Completely fucked up.

[exstasie]

I think communication was lacking some time ago, but they have made major improvements there. Join the new announcements mailing list: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/03/15/announcement-list/ Talk to devs on IRC, Slack or the dev mailing list, or through bitcoincore.org. Several devs are active on Twitter and Reddit and receptive to discussion of the issues.

Regarding your concerns, they released a roadmap regarding capacity increases 3 months ago: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/21/capacity-increase/ And they are making strides with it.

The roadmap shows any capacity increase will be through segwit.
What if segwit gets delayed?
Is there a back up plan?

What's the rush? Gavin and Hearn said bitcoin was going to die if block size didn't increase 6 months-1 year ago. Those were blatant fear mongering lies, and the network is robust and working fine.

Any capacity increase from Segwit is just a temporary measure. I would hope that the signature discount is lowered in the future. The real scaling solutions come post-Segwit. Space-saving Schorr signatures, IBLTs, weak blocks and other relay/bandwidth/validation improvements will make a block size increase safer. And LN will incentivize throughput to move offchain, trustlessly with on-chain settlement. All on the roadmap, all in progress.

[ATguy]

What's the rush? Gavin and Hearn said bitcoin was going to die if block size didn't increase 6 months-1 year ago. Those were blatant fear mongering lies, and the network is robust and working fine.

Not die, but warning the Bitcoin adoption can slow down instead, which is starting to happening imo, and can only get worse if there even happen situation to not be enought onchain space for new users (then Bitcoin adoption basically stops).

Any capacity increase from Segwit is just a temporary measure. I would hope that the signature discount is lowered in the future.

If you mean fee discounts for Segwit transactions then it is myth as well, miners are the ones who decides about fee policy, and nothing prevent them charge for the same work (and orphan risk) the same fee (based on the size of transaction, including signature). I mean while Core software can include such fee discounts for Segwit transactions, miners are free to modify the fee policy to their liking.

[exstasie]

What's the rush? Gavin and Hearn said bitcoin was going to die if block size didn't increase 6 months-1 year ago. Those were blatant fear mongering lies, and the network is robust and working fine.

Not die, but warning the Bitcoin adoption can slow down instead, which is starting to happening imo, and can only get worse if there even happen situation to not be enought onchain space for new users (then Bitcoin adoption basically stops).

Evidence? This is the doomsday scenario, but there are no signs that it's happening. In any case, adoption is a tertiary concern compared to keeping the system decentralized.

Altcoins saw hype cycles in 2014 as well, when bitcoin was in a long term, painful downtrend. Not evidence of anything. The price of bitcoin is up 77% YoY. If anything, that is indication that demand is only increasing.

Any capacity increase from Segwit is just a temporary measure. I would hope that the signature discount is lowered in the future.

If you mean fee discounts for Segwit transactions then it is myth as well, miners are the ones who decides about fee policy, and nothing prevent them charge for the same work (and orphan risk) the same fee (based on the size of transaction, including signature). I mean while Core software can include such fee discounts for Segwit transactions, miners are free to modify the fee policy to their liking.

There is nothing to stop them from doing so without Segwit..... there is no guarantee that you can have free transactions, no matter what.

[rizzlarolla]

What's the rush? Gavin and Hearn said bitcoin was going to die if block size didn't increase 6 months-1 year ago. Those were blatant fear mongering lies, and the network is robust and working fine.

The network is working great, I agree. At the moment.
But it will not, at some time. (if bitcoin is growing)
Unless a solution is implemented first.


As core's solution starts with segwit, I guess that makes segwit implementation time relevant here.

Do you know when segwit is scheduled to happen? (is there much chance of a delay)
Is there a back up plan if segwit is delayed?

[countryfree]

I created a similar topic a few weeks ago. You can't deny that BTC has problems. The block size issue which limits growth should have been fixed last year. I guess many miners are resisting the change till the next halving. When that happen, several miners will suddenly find their mining unprofitable, so change shall be easier.

[rizzlarolla]

Bitcoin is working fine today. as expected.
Last 20 blocks, 16 full, 1 empty, 3 not full.

Expected comfirmation times - fast
Fee paying mempool backlog - very low

[rizzlarolla]

Bitcoin is working well today. Blocks are only nearly full.
A couple of comments I've seen elsewhere, not directly aimed at this thread, but missing some understanding?

"These threads would have more impact if there weren't any empty blocks."

Indeed. But there will always be empty blocks! Even when the mempool is full.

"We don't need an immediate blocksize increase. Half of the recent blocks generated are under 512k."

But we will need something very soon, when all blocks ARE full, to allow the present adoption rate to continued.
(unless we all slow down/stop using bitcoin and wait for segwit?)


Core should have had the ability to increase block size "slightly" in their plan, tried and tested, in case it were "suddenly" needed. (and it will be needed)
And a slight increase (0.1mb) would make a direct and noticable difference to a full block situation. (10% more capacity/growth)
(when blocks are all full, and beyond, bitcoin will be totally different from when blocks are nearly full)
Core should have had the foersight to see this situation coming. (or even the possibility of this situation, which hasn't happened yet...)

When all blocks are full, and beyond, Core support will evaporate.
Core themselves are (will be) pushing loyalists to Classic, as the only option for swift consensus to resolve tx gridlock.

Will Bitcoin wait for Core?
In a crisis, achievable consensus will be so much more obvious.