For those who want to increase the block size limit.

[ElectricMucus]

Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth

Those of us who are into bitcoin because we seek a sustainable lifestyle will not stand for it. Just because you want to get rich quick we won't abolish our goal.
You might win this battle but the war is just beginning....
Respect existence expect resistance.

[Sukrim]

I would understand this statement/conclusion, if the max. block size was something like 100MB or 1GB.

It might just be the case that the "steady state economy" that can survive on max. 1 MB blocks (~4-5 times larger than the current one) is too small.

[ElectricMucus]

I would understand this statement/conclusion, if the max. block size was something like 100MB or 1GB.

It might just be the case that the "steady state economy" that can survive on max. 1 MB blocks (~4-5 times larger than the current one) is too small.

Not if you subtract unnecessary micro-transactions and start spending your coins.

[Sukrim]

What makes a transaction a "micro transaction" also depends on your long term expectations of BTC prices.

[ElectricMucus]

What makes a transaction a "micro transaction" also depends on your long term expectations of BTC prices.

No it just depends on your expectations for a speculative bubble fueled by a deflationary spiral which ends in economic stagnation.

[ArticMine]

What is the point of a sustainable lifestyle if only 0.0001% of the population can participate in it? If it cannot scale to a significant proportion of the world's population then by this fact alone it is not sustainable.

[ElectricMucus]

What is the point of a sustainable lifestyle if only 0.0001% of the population can participate in it? If it cannot scale to a significant proportion of the world's population then by this fact alone it is not sustainable.

You can surely show me how you arrived at this number don't you?

[Sukrim]

What is the point of a sustainable lifestyle if only 0.0001% of the population can participate in it? If it cannot scale to a significant proportion of the world's population then by this fact alone it is not sustainable.

You can surely show me how you arrived at this number don't you?

I did ~1 transaction every 2 days in Bitcoin, there are soon 8 billion people on this planet. Bitcoin can not handle 4 billion transactions per day. Not by far. If I would use Bitcoin in my daily life (from buying my milk until tipping a waiter) I guess I'd do ~1 dozen or more transactions per day. Even with lots of big payment aggregators this might be not enough to sustain. Also the larger a payment aggregator becomes, the easier it is for them to do fractional reserve.

Please prove to me that 100% of MtGox' funds are covered by BTC and USD! Now prove to me that all transactions on the blockchain are 100 covered. See the difference?

Also please stop the freaking deflationary spiral talk already, there are alternative chains with inflation and/or demurrage out there that you are free to join instead of bitching about BTC.

[twolifeinexile]

What is the point of a sustainable lifestyle if only 0.0001% of the population can participate in it? If it cannot scale to a significant proportion of the world's population then by this fact alone it is not sustainable.

You can surely show me how you arrived at this number don't you?

I did ~1 transaction every 2 days in Bitcoin, there are soon 8 billion people on this planet. Bitcoin can not handle 4 billion transactions per day. Not by far. If I would use Bitcoin in my daily life (from buying my milk until tipping a waiter) I guess I'd do ~1 dozen or more transactions per day. Even with lots of big payment aggregators this might be not enough to sustain. Also the larger a payment aggregator becomes, the easier it is for them to do fractional reserve.

Don't assume people would transact the same way as it did when using bitcoin, they may do billions of transactions for some unexpected reasons/change in techonology/change in behavior. For example, in stock market, transaction volumes become way higher than people need to change hand stock ownership, those arbitragers, market markers, wash salers make many many transactions back and forth.

[ElectricMucus]

I am still waiting for the calculation.

[meanig]

Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

[ElectricMucus]

Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

Gladly.
If the block size is increased every time it comes close to the limit there won't be ever a real transaction market since it would mean practically unlimited supply. It's a classical bait and switch game.
Eventually the initial block reward gonna go away almost completely. So miners will only depend on transaction fees but this is only the case of a steady state economy.
With an increasing block reward there will be a practically unlimited amount of supply of transactions. Unlimited supply == no market so the income miners have to sustain themselves with what consists of whatever is left by the block reward at that time.

[Sukrim]

I am still waiting for the calculation.

Currently there's a maximum of ~7 transactions per second.

If 0.0001% of the total population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population --> ~7 billion, 0.0001% of that are 7000 persons) use Bitcoin, they can do max. 604800 transactions alltogether --> 86.4 transactions per person per day.

ArcticMine might be off by ~2 orders of magnitude (0.01% --> 700k users --> 0.864 transactions per day max.) but still even with "only" less than a million active users, they have to wait more than a day to be able to do 2(!) transactions!


About transaction markets:
I gave the example elsewhere as well, TOTAL transaction fees will not be different with small and unlimited block sizes (miners need to pay for their electricity etc.).
Let's say 2 BTC/block are required in fees for a miner.
There's a cost (blocks take time to transmit to other miners and the longer it takes the more you risk an orphan block) associated with block size, so if a miner can choose between 200000000 transactions with 1 satoshi fee and 2 transactions with 1 BTC fee, he's better off with the 2 transactions than the 200000000. The equlibrium might be higher with unlimited block sizes than with some limits, but rest assured that miners will find ways to determine how to force fees and make sure they are paid.

[Piper67]

I am still waiting for the calculation.

Then you haven't been reading. Or your all caps bold writing got in the way of it.

[Littleshop]

Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth

Those of us who are into bitcoin because we seek a sustainable lifestyle will not stand for it. Just because you want to get rich quick we won't abolish our goal.
You might win this battle but the war is just beginning....
Respect existence expect resistance.

Another yawn.......

You do not seem to know what you are talking about and just want to rant.  

Increasing the block size limit is like upgrading to a faster internet connection.  It allows you to surf faster BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE you to do so.  The only problem would be increasing to such a large size that a reasonable computer can not process it anymore.  

You seem to be equating increasing the block size with increasing the reward size or some other nonsense.  Having more bitcoin transactions MAKES BITCOIN STRONGER.  Limiting the blocksize will force more transactions off the blockchain and encourage centralization.  

The only issue seems to be balance.  We can not allow the blocksize to be so cumbersome that it restricts it to special purpose computers.  That is not being proposed by anyone.  The devs have a reasonable proposal and it is actually bringing the rules BACK to where Satoshi had originally envisioned them.  

[Littleshop]

Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth

Please explain how you come to this conclusion?

Gladly.
If the block size is increased every time it comes close to the limit there won't be ever a real transaction market since it would mean practically unlimited supply. It's a classical bait and switch game.
Eventually the initial block reward gonna go away almost completely. So miners will only depend on transaction fees but this is only the case of a steady state economy.
With an increasing block reward there will be a practically unlimited amount of supply of transactions. Unlimited supply == no market so the income miners have to sustain themselves with what consists of whatever is left by the block reward at that time.

I am a miner.  All miners have to do is join a pool that conforms to their pricing strategy.  If most of the miners want to offer transactions for free, they will be free.  If we as miners elect to require a reasonable fee, then people who want fast transactions will pay that fee or wait until the next block (or more).  Making the market larger does not greatly impact the price of transactions because it is the percentage of miners offering free transactions could cause the problem you are worring about. 

[ElectricMucus]

So let me do this calculation again.

According to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability#Network the average block size is 0.5kB.
One block every 10 minutes makes 6 per hour and 144 per day.
With a block size limit of 1MB that makes 147,456kB of space every day.
Since the average transaction is 0.5kB that makes 294,912 transactions per day.

If one user makes on average 2 transactions per day that's again 147,456 users
With 8,000,000,000 people on the world this makes 0.001843% of the world population, not much but as large as a small city.

Remember: Bitcoin is a proof of concept and an experiment not a plan to take over the world.
And once this experiment has succeeded we can decide if we need it, like satoshi said.

[Littleshop]

Remember: Bitcoin is a proof of concept and an experiment not a plan to take over the world.

Wrong. 

[ElectricMucus]

Littleshop, I've never said I would not make peace or accept a compromise. And I already said the solution gavin envisioned is acceptable in the other thread.

The problem is people want to increase the blocksize without paying premium for the increase, and from where I stand from that is economic war.

[ElectricMucus]

Remember: Bitcoin is a proof of concept and an experiment not a plan to take over the world.

Wrong.  

I guess we agree to disagree then

Wouldn't it be better to wait with our plans till the original objective is successful? I gladly discuss world domination plans with you once we have hit the hard limit consistently and have a balance between initial block reward and fees in terms of mining income.