Average block size was 0.951 MB

[Lauda]

And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?

Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite.

It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.

I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.

[tertius993]

And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?

Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite.

In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:

Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.

If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.

It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.

I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.

Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it.  For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?

Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.

OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".

By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.

[Lauda]

In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:

Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.

If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.

It isn't. I've simply stated that a capacity boost will come with Segwit (which is correct).

Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it.  For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?

Not understanding how to use it? As far as the user is concerned nothing changes. You just have to update your wallet. Besides, when it comes to a hard fork everyone has to upgrade or else they will be left behind (adoption argument makes no sense as far as Segwit is concerned).

OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.

Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased.

[tertius993]

OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.

Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased.

No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.

[Grinder]

The blocks are supposed to be full. That's what forces users to outbid enough other users to have their transactions included, which in turn is what is supposed to incentivice the miners to mine and protect the network. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee. I can understand why users want the fees to continue to be neglible but Bitcoin won't survive if they do.

[Lauda]

No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.

It is as close at it gets. It will be merged when it is ready. Anyhow, complaining won't get anyone anywhere. I've seen quite a few people demanding stuff yet they've never contributed anything.

The blocks are supposed to be full. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee.

I doubt that many 0-fee transactions would be included at this point even if the average block size was lower. This is due to some factors, and one being the huge amount of spam transactions in the 1-10 satoshis/byte range.

[Grinder]

I doubt that many 0-fee transactions would be included at this point even if the average block size was lower. This is due to some factors, and one being the huge amount of spam transactions in the 1-10 satoshis/byte range.

If the blocks are filled because of spam transactions then they would still be full.

[Lauda]

If the blocks are filled because of spam transactions then they would still be full.

I disagree. Take a look here:


Yet the miners are producing partially full blocks. It comes down to their own settings, some might not want to include very cheap/free transactions.

[Grinder]

Yet the miners are producing partially full blocks. It comes down to their own settings, some might not want to include very cheap/free transactions.

Of course, but those are even more artificial limitations than the block size. It works as long as most of the reward comes from the block reward and not fees, but eventually the fees will be the majority of the reward that pays the miners. At that point they won't be able to set such limits because they will be undercut by other miners. 0 fee blocks can still be excluded but not the ones that pay the minimum fee.

[tertius993]

No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.

It is as close at it gets. It will be merged when it is ready. Anyhow, complaining won't get anyone anywhere. I've seen quite a few people demanding stuff yet they've never contributed anything.

What utter rubbish, not being ready is hardly "as close as it gets" - when it actually is in live and being used how would you describe that, "even closer than as close as it gets"?

I do not think I have complained or demanded anything, I am trying to understand where things stand and what is likely to happen.

Indeed I don't consider myself on either side of this debate particularly, rather I am an interested observer, and what I observe is a considerable lack of clarity.

[tertius993]

In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:

Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.

If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.

It isn't. I've simply stated that a capacity boost will come with Segwit (which is correct).

I think this is semantics - in the context of this thread, the inference is clear that you were referencing Segwit as providing "The" capacity increase.

Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it.  For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?

Not understanding how to use it? As far as the user is concerned nothing changes. You just have to update your wallet. Besides, when it comes to a hard fork everyone has to upgrade or else they will be left behind (adoption argument makes no sense as far as Segwit is concerned).

Segregated witness is a soft fork - what relevance does a hard fork have to this discussion?

Even if "nothing changes" for the user if that is not widely understood (i.e. not understanding how to use it), then it will, in my opinion hinder adoption.  Not everyone will take time to understand the implications, their current wallet will continue to work, so why upgrade?

I notice you did not address any of my other points, and I am confident that the adoption argument is completely relevant for this and indeed any other upgrade; but especially since the benefits we are discussing are dependent upon widespread adoption.

OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.

Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased.

I answered this already.

[BellaBitBit]

The blocks are supposed to be full. That's what forces users to outbid enough other users to have their transactions included, which in turn is what is supposed to incentivice the miners to mine and protect the network. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee. I can understand why users want the fees to continue to be neglible but Bitcoin won't survive if they do.

I did not know this.  It makes sense.  I don't mind paying a fee, it is minuscule and the benefits of btc outweigh the small fees. Lets keep btc moving.

[FabioDelcatto]

That was the average block size was id almost 1gb and for now it has rised to twice so now it is almost 2g and that is not good for the miners you know.

[Lauda]

What utter rubbish, not being ready is hardly "as close as it gets" - when it actually is in live and being used how would you describe that, "even closer than as close as it gets"?

No. Technically it isn't even "live" after being merged, it has to go through the activation and grace period. Anyhow, RC1 should be released soon.

I think this is semantics - in the context of this thread, the inference is clear that you were referencing Segwit as providing "The" capacity increase.

Again, the main idea behind Segwit is fixing transaction malleability. If you want to improperly understand a statement, I can't stop you.

Segregated witness is a soft fork - what relevance does a hard fork have to this discussion?

Because a certain group of people tried to promote a controversial HF (which is useless) as the alternative.

I notice you did not address any of my other points, and I am confident that the adoption argument is completely relevant for this and indeed any other upgrade; but especially since the benefits we are discussing are dependent upon widespread adoption.

The argument does only hold no merit in the case where one was comparing it to the block size limit increase. It does not seem like you do and as such feel free to ignore it. This might be a 'decent' argument for deploying Segwit as a HF.

I answered this already.

Then don't quote it twice and make double posts.

That was the average block size was id almost 1gb and for now it has rised to twice so now it is almost 2g and that is not good for the miners you know.

Bullshit. That doesn't make sense.

[macartem]

most people already aware that block almost full

[countryfree]

most people already aware that block almost full

No! The average bitcoiner certainly knows that blocks are 95% full, and we wonder with much apprehension what will happen next, when blocks are 99% full (100% cannot be achieved) but Core developers, it seems, are less informed. They haven't implemented a solution yet, so it's getting likely that BTC will... Stop growing. I don't know how many people use BTC today, but there won't be a single new user in a year from now. If a new user wants to join the BTC party, an old user will need to leave the party. If one user wants to make more transactions, another user will need to reduce his number of transactions. Sorry, no vacancy.

[Cuidler]

No! The average bitcoiner certainly knows that blocks are 95% full, and we wonder with much apprehension what will happen next, when blocks are 99% full (100% cannot be achieved) but Core developers, it seems, are less informed. They haven't implemented a solution yet, so it's getting likely that BTC will... Stop growing. I don't know how many people use BTC today, but there won't be a single new user in a year from now. If a new user wants to join the BTC party, an old user will need to leave the party. If one user wants to make more transactions, another user will need to reduce his number of transactions. Sorry, no vacancy.

I dont think full blocks is a problem, what worries me more is increasing fees. When transaction cost was around 10 cents I did not cared much, but I sometimes see recommended fee about 120 satoshi / byte which mean cost of transaction about half of 1 USD already.

With these and possible future higher fees it doesnt make much sence to using Bitcoin as a pay option, it is becoming too expensive for me. So hopefully the planned scaling keeps the fees lower, preferably up to 25 cents, so Bitcoin still has some utility. If it become uneconomical to pay with Bitcoin because of very high fees, then Im not sure what to do with Bitcoin - speculating and just selling at exchanges is against what I believe what Bitcoin should be used for - and I have no use for transfering huge sums around the globe myselves where the few dollar fees dont matter so much.

[etparle]

No! The average bitcoiner certainly knows that blocks are 95% full, and we wonder with much apprehension what will happen next, when blocks are 99% full (100% cannot be achieved) but Core developers, it seems, are less informed. They haven't implemented a solution yet, so it's getting likely that BTC will... Stop growing. I don't know how many people use BTC today, but there won't be a single new user in a year from now. If a new user wants to join the BTC party, an old user will need to leave the party. If one user wants to make more transactions, another user will need to reduce his number of transactions. Sorry, no vacancy.

I dont think full blocks is a problem, what worries me more is increasing fees. When transaction cost was around 10 cents I did not cared much, but I sometimes see recommended fee about 120 satoshi / byte which mean cost of transaction about half of 1 USD already.

With these and possible future higher fees it doesnt make much sence to using Bitcoin as a pay option, it is becoming too expensive for me. So hopefully the planned scaling keeps the fees lower, preferably up to 25 cents, so Bitcoin still has some utility. If it become uneconomical to pay with Bitcoin because of very high fees, then Im not sure what to do with Bitcoin - speculating and just selling at exchanges is against what I believe what Bitcoin should be used for - and I have no use for transfering huge sums around the globe myselves where the few dollar fees dont matter so much.

Fees are still lower then banks but they're definitely not suited for microtransaction operations which sorta sucks

[franky1]

first the bait.

Also, Segwit is implemented.

then the switch

The code has just not been merged.

Implementation == working code.

No. Technically it isn't even "live" after being merged, it has to go through the activation and grace period. Anyhow, RC1 should be released soon.

It will be merged when it is ready.

lauda might aswell be saying that bitcoin already has unlimited coins. because there is code in existance on a different network playing with different blockdata that has unlimited coins.
lauda might aswell be saying that bitcoin has 2 minute average blocks and a 42mill coin cap. because there is code in existance on a different network playing with different blockdata that has 2 minute average blocks and a 42m coin cap

i think everyone who is asking when will segwit be implemented, are talking about BITCOIN, not some silly sandbox testnet called segnet. not some other altcoin. but actually bitcoin. and in a form that real bitcoin users can download and use with the real bitcoin blockchain.
lauda. stop baiting and switching your comments to cause confusion. you know exactly what people were asking so stop with the crappy replies that are meaningless and misdirecting. be honest!! and give real answers

[Cuidler]

I dont think full blocks is a problem, what worries me more is increasing fees. When transaction cost was around 10 cents I did not cared much, but I sometimes see recommended fee about 120 satoshi / byte which mean cost of transaction about half of 1 USD already.

With these and possible future higher fees it doesnt make much sence to using Bitcoin as a pay option, it is becoming too expensive for me. So hopefully the planned scaling keeps the fees lower, preferably up to 25 cents, so Bitcoin still has some utility. If it become uneconomical to pay with Bitcoin because of very high fees, then Im not sure what to do with Bitcoin - speculating and just selling at exchanges is against what I believe what Bitcoin should be used for - and I have no use for transfering huge sums around the globe myselves where the few dollar fees dont matter so much.

Fees are still lower then banks but they're definitely not suited for microtransaction operations which sorta sucks

Im not sure what you mean microtransaction operations, but many items are priced between 5 and 20 USD, and it becoming uneconomical to use Bitcoin to pay for such items. If even the fees go higher in future, I dont see much utility to use Bitcoin for purchasing goods online - too costly option. So we might be back where Bitcoin started, no online shop accepting Bitcoin anymore - pretty big step back.