How merchant will behave when there is hard fork & they are not sure who win?

[acoindr]

* It's counter-intuitive, but giving the customer more payment options reduces sales.  It makes your sales process more complex, requires the customer to make more decisions, and thus reduces overall conversion rate.

We look at the data on everything, so I do know this to be true (at least for the services we've tested).  Our tests have been conducted using various payment options such as Paypal, Bitcoin, and net-30 terms.  Of course every business is different, so I can't say for certain that our results would be externally valid for every business out there.  Different target markets might behave differently.  (We have seen a similar effect in other areas of choice, for example if a product comes in multiple colors, there can be a statistically significant conversion rate increase by actually eliminating some of those choices.)

Regardless of whether these results would apply to all business types, it remains a reason that we will not be supporting more than one crypto-currency, and the one that we do support must have sufficiently large usage to justify providing the option.

Well, I think the wording would be more accurate if it said:

* It's counter-intuitive, but [displaying] more payment options reduces sales [in tests we've done using our methods].

[1714651025]

1714651025

[1714651025]

1714651025

[BradZimdack]

Well, I think the wording would be more accurate if it said:

* It's counter-intuitive, but [displaying] more payment options reduces sales [in tests we've done using our methods].

Agreed.  My original wording implied knowledge of broad external validity that I do not have statistical proof of.

Still, to return to the thread's topic, a Bitcoin civil war would be a very, very bad thing for my firm's position on Bitcoin.  As it is, this block size stuff is making us really nervous.  I hope the brilliant minds at work on a solution can figure this out (preferably sooner than later).

[Sukrim]

There were hard forks in the past already and Bitcoin will get over this one (if there even is going to be one, but it's likely at least...) as well.

[twolifeinexile]

There were hard forks in the past already and Bitcoin will get over this one (if there even is going to be one, but it's likely at least...) as well.

Isn't it that last time is due to a bug, this time it is about protocol. They are two different things I believe.

[markm]

Hmm, the one I remember was about enabling multiple-signature transactions, which judging by the apparent lack of the ability to do such transacti apparent lack of clents that secure you wallet by requring two signatures to spend from any of its addresses (the idea being you have one signing key on one device, one on another, to accomplish two-factor auth), seems like it was not afterall anywhere near as urgent as it was made out to be.

This block size thing is a slam-dunk, the only question really is how many of our hard-hoarded bitcoins are we going to have to blow on shiny new hardware to stay a full node or is the jump in size going to be too vast for any reasonable such expenditure to be "worth the candle". (Maybe just saying good-bye to bitcoin, leaving those hard earned coins to grow on their own in a cold wallet until one's retirement years, is a better play than playing at being involved in some way in the bitcoin space? Or maybe even cashing it out given the inability to ever actually verify its operation?)

So I am mostly concerned that the bigger is better, bigger is more exclusive, bigger decreases the number of competitors type of enthusiasm for sheer size for the sake of sheer size is going to slam dunk the max size way up into the only the Googles of the world can play scale, which it seems likely right now it is the plan to actually do. (Since no limit and infinite max size are basically equivalent. "Junk expands to fill all available space" or "junk multiplies to cover all available surfaces" is kind of a classic old saw, isn't it? Not sure it even comes from the housework field, which I think is where I first came across it.)

-MarkM-

[johnyj]

Limit those transaction heavy apps like satoshi-dice

[misterbigg]

Limit those transaction heavy apps like satoshi-dice

The current one megabyte limit will cause SatoshiDice transactions to peter out once we start hitting that limit. Fees will go up too.

[cypherdoc]

i agree with the points made by Technomage and BradZim.

too many options confuses the marketplace.  everything possible should be done to maintain Bitcoin's leadership role while satisfying small as well as large players. 

i for one, will always want to keep a full node running; heck i have 4 running now.  decentralization needs to be maintained while continuing to make mining profitable.

i'm not concerned at all.  the fact that all these discussions are taking place now, well before the problem has hit, gives me great faith that a viable solution will evolve.  this is open source at work.  the fact that some players are becoming nervous and pausing is good too. 

great accomplishments don't come easy and if everyone could see them coming there wouldn't be a marketplace of disagreement and tension.

[mobile4ever]

It's a change that has to be done if we want to give Bitcoin any chance of scaling up to a larger amount of transactions, so it will most likely be done in some way. What the exact change and implementation is, and when it will be done, is obviously still unknown and it will take a while to figure that out.

Big ideas bring big results. I believe that thinking in "dual mode" limits us. That is, to remain thinking like "black/white", "hot/cold", "up/down" severely limits what man can achieve. There are ideas created that are designed to make sharing bitcoin with your neighbor a "natural thing".

If even a rough concensus can't be reached, then Bitcoin as it is now is completely doomed. So doomed in fact, that all day to day payments would be done with other cryptocurrencies (superior cryptocurrencies, as I see it) or through completely centralized services. It would also make Bitcoin look extremely bad from a media standpoint.

It takes a 15 to 18 percent adoption of bitcoin for it to "take off" (become worldwide consensus). We are currently in the "early adopter" phase. Huge growth is coming, no doubt, but how will it take place? Facilitating that is important RIGHT NOW. People have heard of that "fiscal cliff" and the dollar is fixing to go to wherever dead currencies go when they die.

Centralized services handling a larger amount of payments has another drawback that hasn't been discussed much, it's the fact that using a fractional reserve would become much easier. As long as the blockchain itself is the dominant transaction platform, widespread use of fractional reserve is impossible.

For me, this is crux of the problem. Centralization is what has happened with currencies ever since gold stopped becoming the world's money, right? That has got to stop and can never be allowed to happen with bitcoin or bitcoin markets.

[twolifeinexile]

So far only BradZimdack presented some thoughts from a merchant's perspective, we can have opinions, ideologies but what ultimately merchents think about bitcoin would drive its adoption. So it would be great if there are more thoughts on the mechant side is considered.

[markm]

When selling stuff on the web in an automated way, as in not by just telling the visitor to get in contact with me but hving automation accept payment and, usually, deliver the goods (as, usually, they are virtual goods) all my wonderful programming and sysadmin and website making skills do not lead me to process the payment myself. Quite the opposite, I paste in an Adult Patrol or Adult Age or whatever "get money from the visitor for me before letting him in to see my content" form, or a Paypal onetime or subscription payment form, that kind of stuff.

So right now, if I wanted to accept bitcoins, I would be looking for a "get bitcoins for me" Ripple system form to paste in, so that I won't even have to care what the heck currency the visitor actually has, I will get my bitcoins.

-MarkM-

[cypherdoc]

i guess i'm a merchant for my newsletter.

i would hate to have to deal in more than one cryptocurrency.  i don't have the time quite frankly nor the desire.

[mobile4ever]

So right now, if I wanted to accept bitcoins, I would be looking for a "get bitcoins for me" Ripple system form to paste in, so that I won't even have to care what the heck currency the visitor actually has, I will get my bitcoins.

-MarkM-

Doesnt coinbase do that as well? Heck, we can even order pizza:

https://twitter.com/PizzaForCoins

with bitcoin.

[Maged]

The firm I work for, which has made substantial investment into Bitcoin, has already thought quite a bit about this.  This is what we're doing and thinking:

* While this block size issue remains such a big uncertainty, we have drastically slowed our pace of investment and we've shelved some start-ups that were already in progress.  We're not stopping or backing out, but we're proceeding much slower and more cautiously until a clearer resolution to this problem appears.

* If we approach the 1MB limit and a solution does not appear forthcoming, we'll cease all new investment.

* If we pass the 1MB limit without a solution, seeing even the slightest hint that Bitcoin's competitive advantages over the conventional banking and payment systems are being eroded due to an inability to scale, we'll dump all our bitcoin assets and holdings.

* If a controversial solution is proposed, with fierce arguments on multiple sides, we will follow Gavin's fork, even if it's not ideal, on all our sites that accept BTC.

* If the fork hits, and there's even the slightest uncertainty as to which will survive, we will immediately dump all our bitcoin assets and holdings.  We will remove Bitcoin from all of our sites that accept multiple payment methods -- at least while we wait to see how things play out.

* If one fork kills off the other, we'll adopt that one and go back to business as usual.

* If both forks survive, with both being widely accepted (for example if Mt.Gox begins accepting Bitcoin-A and Bitcoin-B), we'll accept neither, dump everything, and write off blockchain based currencies and too risky and too unstable.

What we really hope to see is a nice, smooth transition to a system that scales, which very large majority of the network, including major service providers, agree to.

Thanks for your post. I hope that this is a warning to the community that uncertainty over this issue is already having a negative impact on Bitcoin.

Exactly. In fact, BradZimdack's thoughts are exactly same thoughts that I had a few days ago, except my thoughts were on an individual level. So, let me be clear: what set me into panic mode was not the discussions about how the limit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning. I can understand not liking Gavin's plan of just allowing the blocksize to be unlimited and having the market sort things out (I don't, either), but I'm sorry, it takes a special kind of stupid to say that no hard forks can happen ever because you "subscribed to the constants" instead of the spirit of Bitcoin like the rest of us did.

If you are arguing for staying at 1 MB/block because that is the constant you would choose today if you pretend that we could reset the constant to whatever we wanted to (whether that be another constant or an algorithm), that's fine. It's a valid choice. I'd be interested to know why you prefer specifically that number over the other options. But to argue that we should keep the limit there because all change is evil is both irrational and stupid. Whatever we decide to do, it's not going to be something that we rush into. Also, you'll notice that in these discussions not a single supporter for this change has even proposed changing the important constants like the total final money supply, so the slippery-slope argument does not apply. Stop trying to kill Bitcoin.

[solex]

Exactly. In fact, BradZimdack's thoughts are exactly same thoughts that I had a few days ago, except my thoughts were on an individual level. So, let me be clear: what set me into panic mode was not the discussions about how the limit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning. I can understand not liking Gavin's plan of just allowing the blocksize to be unlimited and having the market sort things out (I don't, either), but I'm sorry, it takes a special kind of stupid to say that no hard forks can happen ever because you "subscribed to the constants" instead of the spirit of Bitcoin like the rest of us did.

If you are arguing for staying at 1 MB/block because that is the constant you would choose today if you pretend that we could reset the constant to whatever we wanted to (whether that be another constant or an algorithm), that's fine. It's a valid choice. I'd be interested to know why you prefer specifically that number over the other options. But to argue that we should keep the limit there because all change is evil is both irrational and stupid. Whatever we decide to do, it's not going to be something that we rush into. Also, you'll notice that in these discussions not a single supporter for this change has even proposed changing the important constants like the total final money supply, so the slippery-slope argument does not apply.

+1 I fully agree.

Also, we should turn the max block size problem into an opportunity. As many posters have already said: it is an opportunity to replace it with an algorithm which provides an incentive for users to add fees to their transactions, maintaining an element of block-space scarcity enhancing miner revenue.

[Maged]

Exactly. In fact, BradZimdack's thoughts are exactly same thoughts that I had a few days ago, except my thoughts were on an individual level. So, let me be clear: what set me into panic mode was not the discussions about how the limit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning. I can understand not liking Gavin's plan of just allowing the blocksize to be unlimited and having the market sort things out (I don't, either), but I'm sorry, it takes a special kind of stupid to say that no hard forks can happen ever because you "subscribed to the constants" instead of the spirit of Bitcoin like the rest of us did.

If you are arguing for staying at 1 MB/block because that is the constant you would choose today if you pretend that we could reset the constant to whatever we wanted to (whether that be another constant or an algorithm), that's fine. It's a valid choice. I'd be interested to know why you prefer specifically that number over the other options. But to argue that we should keep the limit there because all change is evil is both irrational and stupid. Whatever we decide to do, it's not going to be something that we rush into. Also, you'll notice that in these discussions not a single supporter for this change has even proposed changing the important constants like the total final money supply, so the slippery-slope argument does not apply.

+1 I fully agree.

Also, we should turn the max block size problem into an opportunity. As many posters have already said: it is an opportunity to replace it with an algorithm which provides an incentive for users to add fees to their transactions, maintaining an element of block-space scarcity enhancing miner revenue.

Yup, and there's a pretty good start on how to do that already.

Now, just to illustrate what the people who are against this hard fork are like, consider the BIP 16/17 debate (assuming you were around to see that shit-storm). These people are like the people who said that we shouldn't have either. Even Luke-jr was stunned to hear that. Sure, that's not the best example since we still don't use it much today (but that's mainly because a UI and payment protocol don't exist), but you can see the point I'm trying to make.

[tvbcof]

...mit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning. ...

Do you have anything by way of actual evidence of this?  Not that I do or don't believe it, but it is easy and common on this forum for people to pull shit like this right out of their ass.

Why did the limit get set as it is knowing that it was going to be a nightmare if/when it ever was to be changed (if you have any real clue?)

---

BTW, as far as I am concerned, Brad and his company can go fuck themselves.

[justusranvier]

So, let me be clear: what set me into panic mode was not the discussions about how the limit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning.

Even worse, we have prominent devs playing fast and loose with the truth, claiming that raising the limit was never the plan when they posted in the same threads in which it is made clear that it was the plan.

[tvbcof]

So, let me be clear: what set me into panic mode was not the discussions about how the limit would be raised, but the discussions about whether it would be raised at all with opposition from a significant amount of people. That turned the idea of raising the limit into a complete non-starter since it requires a hard fork, despite the fact that changing the maximum block size has been the plan since the very beginning.

Even worse, we have prominent devs playing fast and loose with the truth, claiming that raising the limit was never the plan when they posted in the same threads in which it is made clear that it was the plan.

Jeff's input on this topic and his actions and statements on other topics is giving me a lot of hope for Bitcoin.

A while ago I was scanning some older conversations which occurred after Satoshi exited.  Seemed like certain of the main devs (Gavin and Mike I think) were sort of scratching their heads and shrugging at Satoshi's fixation on retaining a light weight system.  Clearly there have been differences which probably go back to day one.

I find it neither surprising nor unhealthy that the various primary developers have different ideas about what is important.  Like I said in the conversations about the Bitcoin Foundation, it is important to me as a community member to have visibility into the workings of the 'core team' such that I can take actions which are appropriate for me as situations arise.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

No hard fork will be introduced unless it's clear who will win. It's extremely unlikely that we'd come to a point where anything close enough to an exact split would happen. As long as there's even a 60-40 majority, once the fork happens most people would abandon the smaller fork, though it might live on as a tiny alt-coin (even if that alt-coin is technically the original protocol).

The holdouts would call the losing fork the "true Bitcoin" and have some other name for the majority fork, and the rest of the world would carry on as if nothing, after a few hickups and probably a medium-term price crash while people learned to stop thinking in terms of "Bitcoin" but instead in terms of "the de facto standard currency protocol of the internet."