Core have been derelict in their duties.

[rizzlarolla]

 
Expect delayed tx's today.
Mempool backlog is building, higher fees will help speed your tx.

So do Core have a "safety net" plan?
I've not seen it.

1 week till tx gridlock?

[exstasie]

Expect delayed tx's today.
Mempool backlog is building, higher fees will help speed your tx.

So do Core have a "safety net" plan?
I've not seen it.

1 week till tx gridlock?

The network has seen many stress tests and dust attacks in recent times. Performed well, as expected. What makes you think this time is different?

[rizzlarolla]

Expect delayed tx's today.
Mempool backlog is building, higher fees will help speed your tx.

So do Core have a "safety net" plan?
I've not seen it.

1 week till tx gridlock?

The network has seen many stress tests and dust attacks in recent times. Performed well, as expected. What makes you think this time is different?

The predicted growth of bitc0in, nearly full blocks,

It will happen naturally at some point in the future, on this trajectory.
I think that time has almost come.

Trouble is, it is not a problem that will come and go.
Once blocks are full, they are full.

This time fee paying users will be effected.
Stress tests and dust are low fee?

High fees can only help by driving away users.
(or persuade them not to tx)

[exstasie]

Trouble is, it is not a problem that will come and go.
Once blocks are full, they are full.

This time fee paying users will be effected.
Stress tests and dust are low fee?

High fees can only help by driving away users.
(or persuade them not to tx)

There was never any implicit guarantee of cheap transactions. Satoshi wanted to keep transactions cheap for as long as possible to bootstrap adoption, but we are seven years out and almost 75% coins mined.

All that is required is some patience. Great progress is being made on real scaling solutions like Lightning Network, which won't require most transactions to be committed to the blockchain. Accordingly, fees should be considerably lower as transactions can be relayed through nodes but do not need to be relayed to all nodes nor published in a block.

What evidence is there that users are being driven away? Price is up 77% YoY. If users are leaving, others are swooping in to buy from their weak hands. Try to remember that bitcoin is not merely some payment channel, but a unique store of value. Many people (including myself) do not believe that the existence of cheap on-chain transactions matters very much.

I believe we should pay for the privilege to use the blockchain--pay for the security of proof of work. FYI the real cost of a confirmed transaction is $1 - $6, not a few cents, so fees are still extremely subsidized by inflation. This is not possible forever, and the upcoming reward halving should be a stark reminder of that. Micro-payments solutions are being developed so we don't necessarily have to pay for that privilege, in order to use bitcoin.

Partly what this comes down to: do you believe all information should be stored in the blockchain, forever? I certainly don't. Satoshi didn't, which is why payment channels were in the original software he released. There is nothing that says every transaction between contracting parties must be committed to the blockchain; there are reasons to commit transactions to the blockchain, but it is not what defines bitcoin. I believe what defines bitcoin is this, from the introduction of the whitepaper, and is very much in line with Satoshi's inclusion of payment channels in the software:

an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

Committing to blockchain not required.

[Lauda]

Ok no probs. Your figure were accurate enough as a starting point. The end point is what I was trying to find.
ie. What average % full will blocks be when the system is at capacity. (it wont be !00% average)

Even if we exclude empty blocks (of which there are quite a few), the number would not reach 100% on average indeed.

The tx of size x you talk of is highly unlikely to occur through normal use.

You can't know what use cases such a transaction could have.

No miner would choose to include such a tx anyway, except in an attack.

F2Pool already did and it was no attack.

I would like to hear more about this emergency HF if things go the "wrong way".

I can't tell you more.

Could you explain how things may go the wrong way?

Not really, no. I'm sure that if you ask the "forkers" you are going to get plenty of answers to that question.

[cjmoles]

Well, we can't let Core take all the responsibility....I mean, we are all part of the community.  We all have a say; we just aren't excercizing it.  There are the users, the minors, and the developers....we all have a responsibility.  If Core isn't working in our best interests, then we need to find a way to let them know.  Right?  That's our duty too!

[rizzlarolla]

There was never any implicit guarantee of cheap transactions. Satoshi wanted to keep transactions cheap for as long as possible to bootstrap adoption, but we are seven years out and almost 75% coins mined.

All that is required is some patience. Great progress is being made on real scaling solutions like Lightning Network, which won't require most transactions to be committed to the blockchain. Accordingly, fees should be considerably lower as transactions can be relayed through nodes but do not need to be relayed to all nodes nor published in a block.

What evidence is there that users are being driven away? Price is up 77% YoY. If users are leaving, others are swooping in to buy from their weak hands. Try to remember that uᴉoɔʇᴉq is not merely some payment channel, but a unique store of value. Many people (including myself) do not believe that the existence of cheap on-chain transactions matters very much.

I believe we should pay for the privilege to use the blockchain--pay for the security of proof of work. FYI the real cost of a confirmed transaction is $1 - $6, not a few cents, so fees are still extremely subsidized by inflation. This is not possible forever, and the upcoming reward halving should be a stark reminder of that. Micro-payments solutions are being developed so we don't necessarily have to pay for that privilege, in order to use uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

Partly what this comes down to: do you believe all information should be stored in the blockchain, forever? I certainly don't. Satoshi didn't, which is why payment channels were in the original software he released. There is nothing that says every transaction between contracting parties must be committed to the blockchain; there are reasons to commit transactions to the blockchain, but it is not what defines uᴉoɔʇᴉq. I believe what defines uᴉoɔʇᴉq is this, from the introduction of the whitepaper, and is very much in line with Satoshi's inclusion of payment channels in the software:

an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

Committing to blockchain not required.

I've got no problem with that view point here,
but the specific point of this thread is the "full block period" between now and (lets say) segwit,
and Core's lack of planning around that potentially fraught period.

If blocks are full before segwit adoption, is bitcoin use really supposed to go on hold,
(even if my time scale is wrong) what if segwit is delayed for any reason, extending that time period.
If the situation does get gridlocked, how long will people endure in support of Core, How many will turn to classic.
A sudden hard fork maybe, mainly in panic maybe.

If the situation does get gridlocked, do Core have a plan to alleviate that situation, or just wait for segwit,
and allow fees to temporarily drive away the desire to tx.
Drive away users.

I think in that situation, Core themselves are pushing people to Classic.

Core could have avoided this (possible) outcome with some planning.
If Core do have a plan, at this last hour stage, I'd like to know now, in advance. (i've only heard rumours so far)

[rizzlarolla]

Well, we can't let Core take all the responsibility....I mean, we are all part of the community.  We all have a say; we just aren't excercizing it.  There are the users, the minors, and the developers....we all have a responsibility.  If Core isn't working in our best interests, then we need to find a way to let them know.  Right?  That's our duty too!

Yeah, sounds ok.

But have you ever mentioned increasing the block size to core (supporters)
Even a tiny bit, to tide us over. 1.1mb maybe. (too late now to start planning that for next week)

The community will have it's say.
One way may be a swift hard fork to Classic in the heat of gridlock?

[cjmoles]

Well, we can't let Core take all the responsibility....I mean, we are all part of the community.  We all have a say; we just aren't excercizing it.  There are the users, the minors, and the developers....we all have a responsibility.  If Core isn't working in our best interests, then we need to find a way to let them know.  Right?  That's our duty too!

Yeah, sounds ok.

But have you ever mentioned increasing the block size to core (supporters)
Even a tiny bit, to tide us over. 1.1mb maybe. (too late now to start planning that for next week)

The community will have it's say.
One way may be a swift hard fork to Classic in the heat of gridlock?

Or, a migration of money from uᴉoɔʇᴉq into something else like Athereum which I think is something that's causing some concern....If that's how we're gonna be heard, then that's what we're gonna have to do.

EDIT:  That's not the way I spelled E T H E R E U M.....April fools thing I guess.

[rizzlarolla]

Ok no probs. Your figure were accurate enough as a starting point. The end point is what I was trying to find.
ie. What average % full will blocks be when the system is at capacity. (it wont be !00% average)

Even if we exclude empty blocks (of which there are quite a few), the number would not reach 100% on average indeed.

The tx of size x you talk of is highly unlikely to occur through normal use.

You can't know what use cases such a transaction could have.

No miner would choose to include such a tx anyway, except in an attack.

F2Pool already did and it was no attack.

I would like to hear more about this emergency HF if things go the "wrong way".

I can't tell you more.

Could you explain how things may go the wrong way?

Not really, no. I'm sure that if you ask the "forkers" you are going to get plenty of answers to that question.

1. correct
2. Oh, tell me.
3. Wasn't to harmfull then.
4. Oh, shame.
5. You mentioned a possible (presumably core) hard fork as a solution if things went the "wrong way". That's why I asked you

[exstasie]

There was never any implicit guarantee of cheap transactions. Satoshi wanted to keep transactions cheap for as long as possible to bootstrap adoption, but we are seven years out and almost 75% coins mined.

All that is required is some patience. Great progress is being made on real scaling solutions like Lightning Network, which won't require most transactions to be committed to the blockchain. Accordingly, fees should be considerably lower as transactions can be relayed through nodes but do not need to be relayed to all nodes nor published in a block.

What evidence is there that users are being driven away? Price is up 77% YoY. If users are leaving, others are swooping in to buy from their weak hands. Try to remember that uᴉoɔʇᴉq is not merely some payment channel, but a unique store of value. Many people (including myself) do not believe that the existence of cheap on-chain transactions matters very much.

I believe we should pay for the privilege to use the blockchain--pay for the security of proof of work. FYI the real cost of a confirmed transaction is $1 - $6, not a few cents, so fees are still extremely subsidized by inflation. This is not possible forever, and the upcoming reward halving should be a stark reminder of that. Micro-payments solutions are being developed so we don't necessarily have to pay for that privilege, in order to use uᴉoɔʇᴉq.

Partly what this comes down to: do you believe all information should be stored in the blockchain, forever? I certainly don't. Satoshi didn't, which is why payment channels were in the original software he released. There is nothing that says every transaction between contracting parties must be committed to the blockchain; there are reasons to commit transactions to the blockchain, but it is not what defines uᴉoɔʇᴉq. I believe what defines uᴉoɔʇᴉq is this, from the introduction of the whitepaper, and is very much in line with Satoshi's inclusion of payment channels in the software:

an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

Committing to blockchain not required.

I've got no problem with that view point here,
but the specific point of this thread is the "full block period" between now and (lets say) segwit,
and Core's lack of planning around that potentially fraught period.

If blocks are full before segwit adoption, is uᴉoɔʇᴉq use really supposed to go on hold,
(even if my time scale is wrong) what if segwit is delayed for any reason, extending that time period.
If the situation does get gridlocked, how long will people endure in support of Core, How many will turn to classic.
A sudden hard fork maybe, mainly in panic maybe.

If the situation does get gridlocked, do Core have a plan to alleviate that situation, or just wait for segwit,
and allow fees to temporarily drive away the desire to tx.
Drive away users.

I think in that situation, Core themselves are pushing people to Classic.

Core could have avoided this (possible) outcome with some planning.
If Core do have a plan, at this last hour stage, I'd like to know now, in advance. (i've only heard rumours so far)

My point is that "full blocks" are a fabricated "problem." You keep suggesting it's is a problem, but it's not. The only people it's a problem for are those that expect free and extremely cheap transactions. There was never any implicit promise in the whitepaper or the codebase that transactions would be free or extremely cheap forever.

I think Core has improved communication with the community greatly in the past months. If anything, people seem to be less affected now by these "omg blocks full sky is falling" claims. As it should be. Gavin said the apocalypse was coming a year ago, and guess what? Nothing happened, and even still, fees are consistently well below 10 cents per tx.

Core's roadmap was established months ago. There is no "last hour plan" because full blocks are not a problem, and the network is functioning perfectly fine.

[Lauda]

2. Oh, tell me.
3. Wasn't to harmfull then.
4. Oh, shame.
5. You mentioned a possible (presumably core) hard fork as a solution if things went the "wrong way". That's why I asked you

2) Just because you and I can't think of one, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.
3) It isn't a problem at 1 MB block size limit (it is at 2 MB).
4) You could always ask some developer about it.
5) I don't know as it could be a lot of things (e.g. something that 'breaks' Bitcoin in a certain way).

[rizzlarolla]

It's been 2 weeks, will you allow me a couple more?

I explained previously why I think a "fee market" is not compatible with "full" blocks. (i mean full, not nearly full)
Spare capacity is needed to deal with busy times in a consistent fee market, or it becomes a "hostage market".

And why plan to build up fees now, only to collapse fees with the "extra" capacity of segwit in a few months.
That is boom and bust.
Also Core want miners to allow segwit cheap fees?

Blocks are nearly full now, but not really full. Big difference.
On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be really full before segwit. (as that's months away, if ever)
Or bitcoin adoption is kind of failing/slowing/deterred anyway?
Can that really be orderly or wanted by users.

I'm not prepared to be held hostage in the near future, unable to move my coins in the next general panic/rush.
Unable to move my coins in any predictable time frame.

All I see happening while we wait for segwit are delays, high fees, inability to move funds with any predictability,
panic/loss of faith.
Followed by HF to Classic as the only viable option for quick consensus.
(didn't satoshi foresee this kind of rapid consensus under pressure.?)

Core don't have a (publicised) plan B to avert such a situation.
Core will be handing it to Classic.
Maybe it will all be fine for Core.
Core supporters could stop using bitcoin for the next few months, that would help.

Obviously not going to be a popular opinion.
But Core could have had a plan B ready and publicised.

[exstasie]

It's been 2 weeks, will you allow me a couple more?

I explained previously why I think a "fee market" is not compatible with "full" blocks. (i mean full, not nearly full)
Spare capacity is needed to deal with busy times in a consistent fee market, or it becomes a "hostage market".

And why plan to build up fees now, only to collapse fees with the "extra" capacity of segwit in a few months.
That is boom and bust.
Also Core want miners to allow segwit cheap fees?

So, we "need" more capacity, and you have a problem with Segwit providing it? Personally I'd prefer that there were no Segwit discount. As a user, I want fees to rise. But Core is doing what Classic supporters have long asked -- finding compromise due to the demand for cheaper fees.

Blocks are nearly full now, but not really full. Big difference.
On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be really full before segwit. (as that's months away, if ever)
Or bitcoin adoption is kind of failing/slowing/deterred anyway?
Can that really be orderly or wanted by users.

Full blocks are not a problem. Bitcoin works, and will work, as intended. Any evidence for the bolded? The fact that BTCUSD price is UP 82% year over year suggests that adoption is not failing.

I'm not prepared to be held hostage in the near future, unable to move my coins in the next general panic/rush.
Unable to move my coins in any predictable time frame.

What = being held hostage? Being forced to pay 5 cents for a transaction? 10 cents? What exactly entitles you to virtually free transactions, anyway?

All I see happening while we wait for segwit are delays, high fees, inability to move funds with any predictability,
panic/loss of faith.

I don't see any of that. If anything, these supposed "horror stories" of stuck transactions are only becoming less prevalent. Fee estimation is no longer some abstract concept, and people are not as clueless as they used to be. You are repeating the same FUD that Gavin and Hearn repeated a year ago, yet none of it has come to fruition. I think you should stop repeating this fear mongering.

Followed by HF to Classic as the only viable option for quick consensus.
(didn't satoshi foresee this kind of rapid consensus under pressure.?)

Quick consensus? Good luck. I sure as hell won't be installing Classic. I highly doubt BTCC, Bitfury and Kano will either.

Core don't have a (publicised) plan B to avert such a situation.
Core will be handing it to Classic.
Maybe it will all be fine for Core.
Core supporters could stop using bitcoin for the next few months, that would help.

What situation? XT and Classic have been trying to force a hard fork for nearly a year. Bitcoin has functioned perfectly well during that entire time, and fees are still incredibly cheap. There is no crisis currently, nor is there one on the horizon. And these "OMG STUCK TRANSACTIONS" FUD is only getting less effective.

Obviously not going to be a popular opinion.
But Core could have had a plan B ready and publicised.

They don't need a "Plan B" because there are no viable alternatives to Core, nor is there any crisis. If Segwit can't achieve consensus, status quo prevails.

[fenican]

Here is the current cost per transaction graph for those who are curious:

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

An INSANE $7 per transaction and all of it is getting paid for through inflation. Why I don't invest in Bitcoin, illustrated. Great to hold for incredibly brief periods of time but these fees will almost certainly bury investors over the long haul. They are forking money HAND OVER FIST to miners who are forking money HAND OVER FIST to utilities.

The people getting rich off of BTC are electricity providers...

[rizzlarolla]

Here is the current cost per transaction graph for those who are curious:

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

An INSANE $7 per transaction and all of it is getting paid for through inflation. Why I don't invest in Bitcoin, illustrated. Great to hold for incredibly brief periods of time but these fees will almost certainly bury investors over the long haul. They are forking money HAND OVER FIST to miners who are forking money HAND OVER FIST to utilities.

The people getting rich off of BTC are electricity providers...

But if we had 100 times the tx ability and adoption, in time, tx's would be 7cents.
That is why there is a good block subsidy in the earlier years, decreasing with adoption.
Inflation allows other still early adopters, and secures the network.

Utilities are just part of miners overheads. Electric companies also have overheads, and so on.

[Lauda]

It's been 2 weeks, will you allow me a couple more?

Yes. If you would rather rush a solution than properly test it for invalid reasons (greed?), then you've come to the wrong place. Changes like these have to go through extensive testing.

And why plan to build up fees now, only to collapse fees with the "extra" capacity of segwit in a few months.

The added capacity of Segwit is a bonus, the main idea behind it is solving transaction malleability.

Blocks are nearly full now, but not really full. Big difference.

A lot of those transactions are spam, you will get a different percentage depending on who you ask and what criteria they've used.

On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be really full before segwit. (as that's months away, if ever)
Or bitcoin adoption is kind of failing/slowing/deterred anyway?

Bitcoin is not experiencing any issues at the time, nor should the users be. If you are experiencing issues with transactions (e.g. delays) then it is usually your own fault.

[Kprawn]

Well it has been 2 weeks since the OP started this thread and we are still here, alive and kicking. The Core team are a bit cautious, but I guess it is the best approach to this

whole situation with the Block size increase. You cannot gamble with a Billion dollar experiment and other people's wealth, if you have to listen to people's opinions on the matter

and they not even developers. The Core team know what they doing and they taking small steps toward a bigger goal. 

[Lauda]

Well it has been 2 weeks since the OP started this thread and we are still here, alive and kicking. The Core team are a bit cautious, but I guess it is the best approach to this

Exactly. One can never be too careful when making such decisions. I've been always telling others that, especially when it comes to scaling, Bitcoin has to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios (e.g. Classic has introduced limitations due to the worst case scenario that could otherwise cause chaos).

The Core team know what they doing and they taking small steps toward a bigger goal.  

About 22 hours ago 0.12.1rc2 has been tagged, that is: BIP9, BIP68, BIP112 and BIP113. Even though some of them got distracted by the debate, the development seems to be going well.

[Carlton Banks]

Even though some of them got distracted by the debate, the development seems to be going well.

It's possible that this has helped in one way; by demonstrating to us the least desirable outcomes, Andresen/Hearn/Garzik etc have kept the issue of short term scaling strategies to the fore. And because the technologies now in the pipeline tackle the scaling issue so effectively, we're set to gain a huge amount of additional strength in the overall system. Economic activity will follow.