wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[arcanaaerobics]

At least now we have less than 5.000 unconfirmed transactions, this week show to you all an alert even so it's more fast than others transfer methods even with a big chaos.

3.000 now

[Lauda]

At least now we have less than 5.000 unconfirmed transactions, this week show to you all an alert even so it's more fast than others transfer methods even with a big chaos.

3.000 now

False. Stop thinking that there is some kind of singular entity (i.e. "the Mempool"). In other words, stop thinking that one service contains all of the unconfirmed transactions of the network in their mempool. This website (e.g.) shows over 15 000 in their mempool (my node is between 15 and 20k right now).
That said, it surely has cleared up nicely now.

[Killerpotleaf]

It's not about targeting dial-up users, it's about targeting the majority of users. Who do not even have 10 Mbit/s. C'mon, you can do better than this.

target the majority of users to run a full bitcoin node and at the same time ask them to TX on LN.
bitcoin will be the settlement layer used by elites, which is ran by 1000's of average joe nodes

[countryfree]

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

So this crisis is over, but I have no doubt there will another one not far from now.

[Carlton Banks]

Yes, Segwit will effectively allow larger blocks, but that's not its main purpose, and the increase is marginal.

The most recent transaction type data shows that we would have a probable block size of 2.1 MB (up from previous 1.7 MB calculation). So 2.1x is what we call marginal today?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial

Regular Bitcoin transactions will only be able to make use of 0.7 - 0.8 MB of the increase, because the 3 MB in the increase is for signatures only. Lightning will add enough extra signature MB's to use what standard transactions can't.

but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

When you say "leading BTC developers", you're referring to Gavin Andresen & Mike Hearn? I think you mean "former BTC developers"

[Xester]

jbreher, why then are you promoting an alternate Bitcoin project that today's technology can't deal with? Why are you pushing in a direction that literally could never deal with mainstream adoption before it arrives? You can't have it both ways.

This is the problem that bitcoin is now encountering. Instead of moving forward it is moving backward. I just noticed that every time the price of bitcoin increases the transactions will take a long time to confirm. So I say that there is a connection between mining and the increase in bitcoins price. The moment the price of of bitcoin inflates the miners cannot cope up with the transactions traffic.

[Lauda]

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

Well, you can't call something that is 2-2.1x marginal though, regardless of what was proposed. If I created a proposal with 100 MB blocks, I could just call BU modest then? Besides, there is no way that 8 MB blocks would be accepted today in terms of safety and resource usage.

So this crisis is over, but I have no doubt there will another one not far from now.

A lot of people don't seem to understand that it's not possible to largely scale Bitcoin (in its current form) on-chain while preserving decentralization. Regardless of what block size limit you put on there, those are just patches to a gun wound.

The moment the price of of bitcoin inflates the miners cannot cope up with the transactions traffic.

Those events are not related at all. "Miners can't cope" is also misleading. The consensus rules dictate the maximum amount of data/transactions that can be transferred, not the miners.

[deisik]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?

Well, I have missed that part. Last time I read about it, it was 1.7 to 1.8 MB, which is still substantial, but still modest considering that some 18 months ago, there was a proposal from leading BTC developers to raise the block size to 8 MB.

Well, you can't call something that is 2-2.1x marginal though, regardless of what was proposed

It is marginal in the sense it will be consumed in less than no time

[deisik]

It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:

I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down

So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?

[Carlton Banks]

It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:

I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down

So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?

Like alot of these posts, it's cleverly framed.


It contains carefully selected elements of truth, in order to appear like a reasonable person making a reasonable assessment. Someone could easily get it this wrong.

The truth is that although some pools have come out against it, they're not a very high proportion of the current hashrate (~ 5%, which is the same 5% not needed to achieve 95% in 1 difficulty period for activating the fork). And the pools that haven't begun to signal support also have not explicitly ruled it out either, they simply haven't expressed anything so far.

[deisik]

It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:

I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down

So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?

Like alot of these posts, it's cleverly framed.

It contains carefully selected elements of truth, in order to appear like a reasonable person making a reasonable assessment. Someone could easily get it this wrong.

The truth is that although some pools have come out against it, they're not a very high proportion of the current hashrate (~ 5%, which is the same 5% not needed to achieve 95% in 1 difficulty period for activating the fork). And the pools that haven't begun to signal support also have not explicitly ruled it out either, they simply haven't expressed anything so far.

So, as I got it, there is still a non-zero possibility of SegWit being rejected by some miners, right? If a certain percentage of them does just that (i.e. reject SegWit), does it mean that SegWit won't be applied and all efforts put into developing it will be lost in vain? I don't quite understand why things are done this way in Bitcoin. If they are really done so, of course...

By which time SegWit should be activated?

[Carlton Banks]

So, as I got it, there is still a non-zero possibility of SegWit being rejected by some miners, right? If a certain percentage of them does just that (i.e. reject SegWit), does it mean that SegWit won't be applied and all efforts put into developing it will be lost in vain? I don't quite understand why things are done this way in Bitcoin. If they are really done so, of course...

There is a risk that some miners will reject it, yes. But the window of opportunity is a rolling 2016 block frame, similar to how moving averages in line graphs operate. That means if Segwit signalling was teetering around at 92-93% of the previous 2016 blocks, even a bit of random good luck on the part of the pools who are signalling Segwit could tip it over the finishing line. That does of course, work in reverse also, bad luck for Segwit supporting pools could cause a dip in the acceptance signalling rate. I'm optimistic, although it could easily be a little more nail-biting than previous soft-forks.

By which time SegWit should be activated?

It's difficult to predict. Extrapolating the current trend is a little meaningless IMO, but you can see it here, FWIW

[jbreher]

there is no way that 8 MB blocks would be accepted today in terms of safety and resource usage.

Interesting. So the 4MB that Core 0.13.1 can create is known to be absolutely safe, while 8MB is out of the question.

So where is the research supporting this published?

[PokemonFun]

Now I have got my payment really fast I think that we need more miners to get faster transactions because too much transactions is happening right now maybe prize for miners will go up and then more and more miners wil go to work even more and invest more and then fees wil be little higher and we will get faster our payments.

[jbreher]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?

Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...

Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?

Either I am writing unclearly, or ...

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

[jbreher]

I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down

So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?

Well, we do not yet know whether or not The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will reach the 95% adoption rate necessary for activation.

There is a school of thought that non-activation of SegWit will indeed lead to an implosion of value due to a strangulation of utility. And this might further serve to protect the vested interests of those who invested in Blockstream. This may be why a rather extremely hogh adoption rate for activation was chosen - to ensure it did not ever get activated. This is a notion that requires accepting several connections that are not yet supported by evidence. However, it has not been disproven either, and some evidence does indeed point in that direction.

OTOH, GMax has recently made noises about the possibility of switching it on at 51%, so...

[thejaytiesto]

Let's just hope we can reach 95% eventually. I always thought it was too high, but now that it's set that way, I don't see how we can change it without creating a lot of controversy. Let's just wait and an the bitcoin unlimited/bitcoin.com morons will eventually run out of money to keep bribing miners into that shit and we will see 100%

[deisik]

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?

Either I am writing unclearly, or ...

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

You don't get it, absolutely

You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time, you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about even if SegWit activation is still undecided?

[Carlton Banks]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

lololololololol

Yeah j, exactly what I said, verbatim. As we can all see, lol


You can tell these people know they've lost when all they have is this kind of facile nonsense. If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.

[jbreher]

Either I am writing unclearly, or ...

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

You don't get it, absolutely

You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we will actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about?
[/quote]

You don't get it, absolutely.

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about.

But of course, you know this already, and merely are pestering.