Bitcoin mining is not efficient & other problems

[jackg]

All of these would probably take years to implement. They are all "hard forks" that need to be done and can only be done with the majority of nodes running the new system.
There would also be multiple security threats that may rise with these hard forks if they are rushed or not fully tested (due to the pressure of the community).

nope.

the blocksize option is not that bad. right now my client has a 2mb rule and is working fine. there are several hundred nodes with blocksize rules of over 1mb actually running right now on the network..

in 2009-2014. there were thousands of nodes with 1mb rule even when the blocks were only 0.5mb.. i know shocking right.. mindblowing thought that users can actually have a higher buffer set than what pools are producing. and doing it years before pools think the network can cope with it..
yes, mega brain fart explosion moment that decimates most of all the doomsdays rhetorics.

the funny part is that the node count can have the rule inplace before mining pools even decide to vote. the code has been available for implementations that are not core since last year. and it would only take a couple days for core to tweak their code too.. but they refuse as they fear the community will adopt it.. so their mindset is if you dont give the community caviar they will never ask for it next time they are spoonfed.

ofcourse mining pools wont move to bigger blocksizes unless majority of nodes can cope with it. which is why core wont offer it.
as for cores segwit. this doesnt need node implementation meaning the code that has a functioning wallet (not released yet(yep even 0.13.2 doesnt allow segwit transaction creation on mainnet)) is not released and wont be released until after activation, which means after activation there will be mad panic to download and peer review the code independently.

kind of backwards.. but hey. thats core.

It would clear up a lot of issues if the block intervals were set to 1 minute/block (not really a good idea for obvious reasons - blocks could have just one transaction and block rewards would have to be changed which I'm not sure is possible).

1min?
those complaining about 10mins would complain about 1min

think about it, you are at a shop and someone swipes their touchless NFC debit card and is gone in 3 seconds. you are then there standing around. after 10 seconds you hear people tutting and whispering "why is he just standing there" by 30 seconds you see them looking at their watches and getting angry. by the 1minute mark your apologising for making them wait.

1minute and 10minutes wont help most situations people cry about..
onchain double spending needs to be fixed by not having invented things like the fee mechanism (causing possible reject by simply not paying adequate fee maliciously/intently) or making a second tx that diverts funds and then use RBF and CPFP to force your preferred tx through first. thus rejecting the other tx.

If we had wallets on exchanges such as coinbase or blockchain.info then when sending "internally" the transaction could be instant and done in house (I think coinbase already do this to a certain degree - although I could be wrong). Then all you'd have to do is keep a small amount there to put the coins in daily for these transactions.

but now you are talking about middlemen managed services.. this is what offchain LN is. imagine coinbase you you set up a multisig together where coinbase cant move the funds without your permission and you cant move funds between them. yep it allows for faster transactions than the ones requiring confirmations.. but now your no longer in a permissionless position but instead a banking position.
also although you can 'trust' the funds instantly.. the true settlement lock will be longer than the 10 minutes. but hey if settling is of no concern, then go for it.. but you might aswell be using fiat too..

Law inforcement is very good in a lot of countries. If you have good enough CCTV then the person doesn't have to wait at all. The shopkeeper merely logs all transactions of bitcoin daily on thir till (which they have to do for ta purposes anyway) and then they can spend their time when they are less busy to check if a transaction has gone through.
You could also set up online accounts with them where you deposit say 0.1BTC to a supermarket in the morning and then go to collect your groceries when you finish work (ensuring your transaction has been confirmed).
Or you preload a paper wallet with 0.1BTC and hand it to them, they then use their bar code scanner to start the transaction process (there is currently no way well known to reverse the process of a transaction once the correct inputs, amount and outputs are suggested (I dont think)).

Also, I didn't realise the ma block size can be changed by the user of each node/core client. But if you're going to double the limit, why have a limit at all? It's not likely to be over 1GB in size so set that as the maximum and then everyone gets fast transactions, although then the network has to be changed with the difficulty based on different size blocks (doesn't it)?

[MingLee]

Everyone knows that there is a problem with Bitcoin that needs to be fixed before there's mass adoption. What's one of the main problems? Miners. If you don't pay a fee or if your fee is too low they make you wait, sometimes for hours. Another thing is the block size. I believe that replacing miners with another system will make it so Bitcoin can actually function as an efficient system, instead of miners ignoring your transaction, it will go through quickly and painlessly.

Another thing is the block size and fixing Bitcoin. The average person needs to understand what's going on behind the scenes, people who are involved in alt coins are voting against fixing Bitcoin. In other words: keeping Bitcoin broken and UNFIXABLE, due to corrupt voting practices is considered a viable business practice.

What's going on behind the scenes? Bribes. People are paying well known people within the Bitcoin community to keep Bitcoin broken, they bribe them to say "There's no problems with Bitcoin! No need for an upgrade! ". What I think should be done is the community should vote in people to work on Bitcoin software design to fix Bitcoin or it will remain broken for many years.

The fee is $0.20 at most, a large, large majority of the time. Senders spend less, businesses receive more in value, everyone is happy. That's simple and it works well.

For replacing miners, bad idea. That's part of what backs Bitcoin and makes it better than fiat currencies; the computational power required. Systems that build on a quick network, like the lightning network, exist and are in development.

Seems like you're trying to fix something that doesn't need immediate fixing, or you're shilling. Development and changes come with time, when they make themselves necessary.

[franky1]

Also, I didn't realise the ma block size can be changed by the user of each node/core client. But if you're going to double the limit, why have a limit at all? It's not likely to be over 1GB in size so set that as the maximum and then everyone gets fast transactions, although then the network has to be changed with the difficulty based on different size blocks (doesn't it)?

it doesnt work like that.

imagine there are 5 people.
A says he can read one page of a book in a minute.
B says he can read 2 pages of a book in a minute.
C says he can read 16 pages of a book in a minute.
D says he can read 3 pages of a book in a minute.
E says he can read 5 pages of a book in a minute.

ok so. someone wants to ensure a fair system and although only person A is holding up the group a 20% risk of system error is risky. so only one page of a book is handed out in a minute to ensure everyone can handle whats been handed out.

later person A reveals he has lied to the group and can handle 2 pages a minute. so now 2 pages a minute can be handed out a minute because 100% of the group can handle it.

after a couple years person A learns to read a bit faster.. and 3 pages are handed out because the whole group can handle it..

so although the group can individually have their own preferences the person making the pages (blocks) only makes it at a rate the whole group as a whole can handle. which is usually help back by the ones with the lowest number..

core are holding it back.

just ask yourself what would happen if in 2013, core decided to have set the block limit at 0.5mb due to sipa's accidental bug when he swapped database types and cause a bit of orphan drama.

[franky1]

The fee is $0.20 at most, a large, large majority of the time. Senders spend less, businesses receive more in value, everyone is happy. That's simple and it works well.

For replacing miners, bad idea. That's part of what backs Bitcoin and makes it better than fiat currencies; the computational power required. Systems that build on a quick network, like the lightning network, exist and are in development.

Seems like you're trying to fix something that doesn't need immediate fixing, or you're shilling. Development and changes come with time, when they make themselves necessary.

thats an american mindset of "$0.20 is ok" you do know 20cents is like 4 hours of minimum wage labour in a few developing countries.
and you wonder why developing countries are not storming into bitcoin.

yea 20 cents is only 1minute 36 seconds of american minimum wage ($7.50) but try to put your mind into the mindset of the 'unbanked' countries that will actually see/want real benefit of bitcoin

bangladesh 9 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 2hours 13minutes
congo 20cents a hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 0 minutes
cuba 5 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 4 hours 0 minutes
Eritrea 15cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 20 minutes
Ethiopia 11cents an hour Min wage: 20cents=1 hour 50 minutes
Gambia 15cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hour 20 minutes
Georgia 5 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 4 hours 0 minutes
Guinea-Bissau 18 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 1hours 7minutes
Kyrgyzstan 9 cents an hour Min wage: 20cents= 2hours 13minutes

screw it ill stop at K of the alphabet of countries on low income, you can research the rest

if you think in the mindset of developing countries and then translate it back to american...

would you pay between $7.50(1hr) to $30(4hr) to use bitcoin.. emphasis thinking about it from the minimum wage prospective

[jackg]

Also, I didn't realise the ma block size can be changed by the user of each node/core client. But if you're going to double the limit, why have a limit at all? It's not likely to be over 1GB in size so set that as the maximum and then everyone gets fast transactions, although then the network has to be changed with the difficulty based on different size blocks (doesn't it)?

it doesnt work like that.

imagine there are 5 people.
A says he can read one page of a book in a minute.
B says he can read 2 pages of a book in a minute.
C says he can read 16 pages of a book in a minute.
D says he can read 3 pages of a book in a minute.
E says he can read 5 pages of a book in a minute.

ok so. someone wants to ensure a fair system and although only person A is holding up the group a 20% risk of system error is risky. so only one page of a book is handed out in a minute to ensure everyone can handle whats been handed out.

later person A reveals he has lied to the group and can handle 2 pages a minute. so now 2 pages a minute can be handed out a minute because 100% of the group can handle it.

after a couple years person A learns to read a bit faster.. and 3 pages are handed out because the whole group can handle it..

so although the group can individually have their own preferences the person making the pages (blocks) only makes it at a rate the whole group as a whole can handle. which is usually help back by the ones with the lowest number..

core are holding it back.

just ask yourself what would happen if in 2013, core decided to have set the block limit at 0.5mb due to sipa's accidental bug when he swapped database types and cause a bit of orphan drama.

I meant to get the core devs to change it to somethng like a Gigabyte instead and then no one will complain.
Change it to a gigabyte on everyone's (not just one) bitcoin core version.
There was a figure of 95% of devices having that core. (Also, changing the block size won't work very well, considering I was looking at the peers I was connected to and only two peers had 0.12.0+).

(for the 95% we'd need the cooperation of a very large number of pools to update their mining software within a few months for it to be quickly added).

[franky1]

Change it to a gigabyte on everyone's (not just one) bitcoin core version.

giagabytes.. dont be a loony.. stick to rational and reasonable numbers

the community are saying 8mb are safe.. but compromised to 2mb just to settle the argument december 2015. which the community thought they had settled when core announced segwit mid 2016 and dynamic blocks mid2017..(december2015 consensus roundtable and roadmap)

core have even mid 2016 said 4mb is safe. and cough/facepalm unofficially said they havnt agreed but will do a change to the base block size
but even now refuse to actually raise their base block above 1mb and have no signs of actually doing real base block dynamic sizes beginning at 2mb ...

so everyone is stuck at 1mb fixed base block

[jackg]

Change it to a gigabyte on everyone's (not just one) bitcoin core version.

giagabytes.. dont be a loony.. stick to rational and reasonable numbers

the community are saying 8mb are safe.. but compromised to 2mb just to settle the argument december 2015. which the community thought they had settled when core announced segwit mid 2016 and dynamic blocks mid2017..(december consensus roundtable and roadmap)

core have even mid 2016 said 4mb is safe. and cough/facepalm unofficially said they havnt agreed but will do a change to the base block size
but even now refuse to actually raise their base block above 1mb and have no signs of actually doing real base block dynamic sizes beginning at 2mb ...

so everyone is stuck at 1mb fixed base block

With a development teem doing that, no wonder people are giving up on using Bitcoin.
SegWit is merely to reduce transaction fees (apparently it doesn't actually reduce transaction size) so it will probably be useless. If the transaction fee goes down per kilobyte, more people will be paying more per kilobyte. So it may not fix very much (other than making transactions a little cheaper for those who don't want to pay large amounts for them).
I think if they put it up to 2mb that would be more useful. 10mb or 8mb would definitely be a good choice for the next few years (until them blocks become full aswell).