Looking for apologizes from those that wanted to change Bitcoin blocksize...

[Masha Sha]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

[helloeverybody]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

Just because the price is rising at the moment before the having doesnt mean that we dont need an increase in blocksize. If blocksize was increased months ago then maybe we would be in the thousands right now instead of 100s.

[justspare]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

Just because the price is rising at the moment before the having doesnt mean that we dont need an increase in blocksize. If blocksize was increased months ago then maybe we would be in the thousands right now instead of 100s.

Yeah that is very true. I will definitely not be apologising unless I know that the price wouldn't be even higher with a higher block limit.

[Masha Sha]

What you are missing in your analysis gentlemen is the role of the fees! The block size is a scarce resource making the payment of the fees able to support the cost of the network.

[electronicash]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

okay I'm sorry. that's it. accept it or not. because I'm just here to earn more bitcoin. believe it or not. they can troll just about any coin just to get those users to dump theirs.
its no good to hold grudge eh

[NUFCrichard]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

I still think that with the current sized blocks, Bitcoin is massively limited by it's number of transactions per second.
I don't think the price rise really has anything to do with Bitcoin as a viable currency though, it is more like as a digital gold.

As a digital gold, I think the current blocksize is fine, for a currency it is not.

[odolvlobo]

What you are missing in your analysis gentlemen is the role of the fees! The block size is a scarce resource making the payment of the fees able to support the cost of the network.

The subsidy is much more than the fees and it will be sufficient to pay for the security of the network for decades. The fees currently provide no benefit other than reducing spam. Though the role of fees might be an important reason to restrict the size of a block in the future, it is irrelevant now.

[Masha Sha]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

I still think that with the current sized blocks, Bitcoin is massively limited by it's number of transactions per second.
I don't think the price rise really has anything to do with Bitcoin as a viable currency though, it is more like as a digital gold.

As a digital gold, I think the current blocksize is fine, for a currency it is not.

Remember that the transactions are instantaneous! It's to put them in a block and assure their irreversiblity that takes more time and a fee.

Who said that it's not possible to put more tx in a 1mb block? Having those sidechains for small transactions doesn't lessen the values of Bitcoin. The first step is 10mb block then 100mb and finally 1gb block... There is no limit because then the 1 sat low limit is not real and smaller and smaller tx are done... Do you see the problem? Do you think it weaken Bitcoin or make it more resilient?

What you are missing in your analysis gentlemen is the role of the fees! The block size is a scarce resource making the payment of the fees able to support the cost of the network.

The subsidy is much more than the fees and it will be sufficient to pay for the security of the network for decades. The fees currently provide no benefit other than reducing spam. Though the role of fees might be an important reason to restrict the size of a block in the future, it is irrelevant now.

do you know that the ROI of a miner is in months... Do you know how many blocks they are per months? Do you realize that fees are going to double in percentage from the block reward in a few days? And you tell miners that they should disregard fees from their calculations? Mining has become very competitive and fees are very important...

[freshman777]

Transactions are in backlog as predicted, stifling further growth.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

[7788bitcoin]

I think there is no apology required. Everyone has their say and the network decides. Blocksize issue is overshadowed by the recent increase in price- however, it doesn't mean it is not relevant anymore! This is a serious issue and need to be solve before bitcoin becomes really useful to mainstream.

[Masha Sha]

I think there is no apology required. Everyone has their say and the network decides. Blocksize issue is overshadowed by the recent increase in price- however, it doesn't mean it is not relevant anymore! This is a serious issue and need to be solve before bitcoin becomes really useful to mainstream.

Multichains mobile wallet solve this easily as long as the reference price is in Bitcoin and the spread ultra tight on exchange... And it adds privacy. Never forget that the critical element is value transfer (side chains can do it) and value storage (only Bitcoin is resilient enough).

The end users in a currency scenario doesn't care if it's Bitcoin or whatever other chain is used as long as the value is transferred.

[pbleak]

I was never involved in this debate, but since when do people have to say sorry on forums  Just accept that here is debate, it happens, and we have moved on. Enjoy the rise.

[franky1]

What you are missing in your analysis gentlemen is the role of the fees! The block size is a scarce resource making the payment of the fees able to support the cost of the network.

the role of the fee's is not to support the cost of the network for a few decades...

the price increase of the bitcoin takes care of that for now.

put it another way. if the fee's were 100x what they are now. miners wouldnt need to mess with the exchange rate on chinese exchanges and instead the price of bitcoin would be lower, but the amount of satoshis users pay to just use bitcoin would have to increase even further than the 100x to offset the drop in the price caused by the 100x. there there is making bitcoin into a high "tax" payment system that no one will want to use.

the best thing to help cover miners costs is an increased bitcoin price, not the the satoshi fee..

we do not need to be increasing the fee. instead we need to increase capacity to allow the total acccumilation of low fees to become more when combined.. NOT individually.


EG
dont charge 2500 people 0.0001 today(0.25($160)). and realise it may cost them 2500 people 0.00012 tomorrow(0.3($190)).. instead make is so you can have 3000 people paying 0.0001(0.3($190))
then over then next decade or so we can have tens of thousands of users to give a total of the $$thousands to cover costs
then you add the fact that bitcoins valuation is going up so the number of satoshi's needed for the fee can go down while still keeping ontrack for a total accumulation reward big enough to pay miners.

pushing for a fee market today is shooting yourself in the foot tomorrow. miners DO NOT NEED the fee's today. they do not need it next year. the block reward is sufficient and the bitcoin valuation increase offsets halving losses..
the fee only becomes important/essential when the reward is way way below 1btc a block and when there is enough capacity that tens of thousands of users paying a small amount each, combine to exceed that 1btc reward in a over a decade.

we should not be pushing just a couple thousand people to be trying to exceed 12.5-25btc today

[Masha Sha]

I like your idea franky. It's true that if the fees is lowered by 10x by a 10x bigger block and 10x more transactions the fee income for miners remain constant. However the storage and data transmission costs increase by 10x too.

So as 10x more is relatively small in a digital universe let's go to 1Gb block (1000x more than current) you know the tps of visa, MasterCard, American Express+various pos system from national countries combined? How to store the blockchain and keep it decentralized? You see the problem with Bitcoin supremacism?

[franky1]

I like your idea franky. It's true that if the fees is lowered by 10x by a 10x bigger block and 10x more transactions the fee income for miners remain constant. However the storage and data transmission costs increase by 10x too.

the storage and data transmission costs do not increase.

EG say you bought a 2TB hard drive for $100..
the blockchain size right now is not even filling that hard drive by 5%..
meaning you do not need to buy a new hard drive right away simply because the capacity has increased. it would take years to fill a 2TB hard drive.

secondly mining pools manage the blockchain.. mining ASICs do not see the blockchain. they are just handed a handfull of bytes to process.. so its not like the price/fee/capacity affects ASICS.

worse case a mining pool in a few years has to but another hard drive.. and at $100 its not a issue for a pool raking in thousands an hour

So as 10x more is relatively small in a digital universe let's go to 1Gb block (1000x more than current) you know the tps of visa, MasterCard, American Express+various pos system from national countries combined? How to store the blockchain and keep it decentralized? You see the problem with Bitcoin supremacism?

the Visa numbers are exaggerated. and also pushing for 1gb blocks now is also a stupid idea.. it should be a slow growth progression. not a jump from being a toddler to being a giant over night.. again: slow and steady growth

put it this way.. in the year 2000 a 3gb hard drive was $200... 16 years later a 3,000gb(3TB) is $200...(bitcoin yearly bloat is 2% of hard drive MAX)
imagine the capacity you can buy in the next 16 years, for just $200

put it this way.. in the year 2000 a 56k internet was average 16 years later 5,600k(5.6m) internet is average... imagine the bandwidth in the next 16 years (remember some people can already get 100mb internet now, even if its not popular in the next few years it will be. and then in 16 years it would be higher again)

why oh why do those who dont want increased capacity only think supersmall or giant.. without thinking of logical natural growth in between
its like a toddler saying "when i grow up i want to own a billionaire business"
my reply is. "while stil a child, start a lemonade stand. put that profit/pocketmoney into something else, when your at highschool start a business.. then when your an adult use the profits to expand the business, then you actually have a chance of getting what you want"

[mki8]

I like your idea franky. It's true that if the fees is lowered by 10x by a 10x bigger block and 10x more transactions the fee income for miners remain constant. However the storage and data transmission costs increase by 10x too.

the storage and data transmission costs do not increase.

EG say you bought a 2TB hard drive for $100..
the blockchain size right now is not even filling that hard drive by 5%..
meaning you do not need to buy a new hard drive right away simply because the capacity has increased. it would take years to fill a 2TB hard drive.

secondly mining pools manage the blockchain.. mining ASICs do not see the blockchain. they are just handed a handfull of bytes to process.. so its not like the price/fee/capacity affects ASICS.

worse case a mining pool in a few years has to but another hard drive.. and at $100 its not a issue for a pool raking in thousands an hour

So as 10x more is relatively small in a digital universe let's go to 1Gb block (1000x more than current) you know the tps of visa, MasterCard, American Express+various pos system from national countries combined? How to store the blockchain and keep it decentralized? You see the problem with Bitcoin supremacism?

the Visa numbers are exaggerated. and also pushing for 1gb blocks now is also a stupid idea.. it should be a slow growth progression. not a jump from being a toddler to being a giant over night.. again: slow and steady growth

put it this way.. in the year 2000 a 3gb hard drive was $200... 16 years later a 3,000gb(3TB) is $200...(bitcoin yearly bloat is 2% of hard drive MAX)
imagine the capacity you can buy in the next 16 years, for just $200

put it this way.. in the year 2000 a 56k internet was average 16 years later 5,600k(5.6m) internet is average... imagine the bandwidth in the next 16 years (remember some people can already get 100mb internet now, even if its not popular in the next few years it will be. and then in 16 years it would be higher again)

why oh why do those who dont want increased capacity only think supersmall or giant.. without thinking of logical natural growth in between
its like a toddler saying "when i grow up i want to own a billionaire business"
my reply is. "while stil a child, start a lemonade stand. put that profit/pocketmoney into something else, when your at highschool start a business.. then when your an adult use the profits to expand the business, then you actually have a chance of getting what you want"

agreed, i have wondered why so many are impatient and want it all now when really bitcoin is not ready for everything now, as bitcoin is still a baby really and needs time to grow
people moaning their 0.01 btc transaction isnt confirmed instantly is a joke really
i use btc for international transfers, and 10 minutes is really nothing to wait (compared to 3-5 biz days)
and i do not see these delays people mention
but someone did explain to me that low value transactions that have recently moved will take longer to confirm
than say 5 BTC transaction where the 5 BTC have been sat idle prior to being sent.

but with computers and internet speeds being constantly improved
surely network will be ready by the time btc is
as right now BTC is not adopted by the masses so micro payments are not a priority as of right now
although it will help mass adoption if payments were confirmed quickly just for user peace of mind
but then again even businesses do not need to wait for confirmations (as much as the average cautious btc user does)
as the MAJORITY of the public are honest and will not attempt scamming a company for a cup of coffee
and business (well good ones) always account for fraud in their business model
as fraud with fiat is rampant
and before any starts ranting about double spending
it really does not apply for small businesses
as who would go to the effort for a scam worth a pittance
and majority of users once btc is adopted by the masses wont have a clue how to double spend anyway

transactions are instant, only confirmations take time,
and for any small business it would not even be a worry really
and any big business taking decent sums, well then they can wait 10 minutes as amount will justify the wait

[countryfree]

An apology? Why? The problem is still there. The network can handle 10,000 transactions each hour, but who should be impressed?
If BTC wants to be the world's currency, it will need bigger blocks sooner or later, and sooner will be better.

[jbreher]

Please all of you that lobbied and spread doom about the blocksize were are you now? So after having spread your malice and your attempt at destabilizing Bitcoin you are hiding now like wounded wild beasts... Shame on you... Or at least regain your lost dignity and come apologize...

There is no cause for apology. So I ain't apologizing for shit. Newbie.

[jbreher]

Remember that the transactions are instantaneous!

Absolutely false. Newbie. They used to be instantaneous, because the backlog never exceeded the system capability, and one would be assured that any transaction would eventually be included in a block. Now, with the backlog sometimes exceeding what may be cleared, there is no guarantee any particular transaction will be included in a block until it has been.

[alani123]

There's immersive buying pressure from Chinese exchanges, it'd be safe to assume that the recent rally originates from there.  Perhaps some miners are trying to keep their equipment profitable for the upcoming halving. Don't correlate the price with the blocksize.