Bitcoin Technology

[mrcash02]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

[MadGamer]

Most of the issues that we currently have should be solvable with a fork but some of them require miners approval so It sometimes these solutions are hard to implement , SegWit could be an example for this.
The thing that I personally don't understand is why the development is slow compared to other coins while I'm sure the funding for the developers isn't an issue and they could get the financial support of the community If they wanted to.

[mrcash02]

Most of the issues that we currently have should be solvable with a fork but some of them require miners approval so It sometimes these solutions are hard to implement , SegWit could be an example for this.
The thing that I personally don't understand is why the development is slow compared to other coins while I'm sure the funding for the developers isn't an issue and they could get the financial support of the community If they wanted to.

A fork you say is to create a new currency? Like Bitcoin2?

If so, I don't think it a positive point, but reading a bit about it, looks this SegWit can make our experience with Bitcoin much better. Why is it difficult to implement, why is there resistence to implement?

[BigBoom3599]

Most of the issues that we currently have should be solvable with a fork but some of them require miners approval so It sometimes these solutions are hard to implement , SegWit could be an example for this.
The thing that I personally don't understand is why the development is slow compared to other coins while I'm sure the funding for the developers isn't an issue and they could get the financial support of the community If they wanted to.

A fork you say is to create a new currency? Like Bitcoin2?

If so, I don't think it a positive point, but reading a bit about it, looks this SegWit can make our experience with Bitcoin much better. Why is it difficult to implement, why is there resistence to implement?

A fork isn't bad, it's actually a good thing most of the time (if done clean). Forks are a way of upgrading the protocol (e.g. increasing the blocksize -> allowing more transactions), the danger in hard forks is when they aren't done cleanly. This would mean that not every miner agrees on the fork, if this happens the network will split and we'll get two separate bitcoins, on that agrees with the fork, and one that doesn't. This happened to Ethereum after the DAO drama, the largest part of the network agreed on a fork that would return funds to the investors, but a smaller part (now "Ethereum Classic") didn't think it was the right thing to do and thus didn't agree on the fork.
Currently bitcoin has two forks that some people want to implement but not everyone does: SegWit, and Bitcoin Unlimited. The latter one would allow the blocksize to be increased and for there to be more transactions. Because not everyone agrees on one of the two yet, they haven't activated yet, which means the network won't be forked until a large part of the community agrees on a fork.

[mrcash02]

A fork isn't bad, it's actually a good thing most of the time (if done clean). Forks are a way of upgrading the protocol (e.g. increasing the blocksize -> allowing more transactions), the danger in hard forks is when they aren't done cleanly. This would mean that not every miner agrees on the fork, if this happens the network will split and we'll get two separate bitcoins, on that agrees with the fork, and one that doesn't. This happened to Ethereum after the DAO drama, the largest part of the network agreed on a fork that would return funds to the investors, but a smaller part (now "Ethereum Classic") didn't think it was the right thing to do and thus didn't agree on the fork.
Currently bitcoin has two forks that some people want to implement but not everyone does: SegWit, and Bitcoin Unlimited. The latter one would allow the blocksize to be increased and for there to be more transactions. Because not everyone agrees on one of the two yet, they haven't activated yet, which means the network won't be forked until a large part of the community agrees on a fork.

Hmm. And which of them is more efficient? SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited?

I see the endorsement for BU increased these days, but looks it can make Bitcoin more centralized, making those holding higher amounts decide the future of Bitcoin, no?

[franky1]

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

[mrcash02]

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

And the spammers sorted out with this formula couldn't use Bitcoin? Banned of Blockchain?

The spammer sorted out would be the address, and this person can create another address and spam again a transaction and again with many other new addresses.

[franky1]

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

And the spammers sorted out with this formula couldn't use Bitcoin? Banned of Blockchain?

The spammer sorted out would be the address, and this person can create another address and spam again a transaction and again with many other new addresses.

what if there was a formulae that NEVER gave priority unless someones funds were aged atleast a day or they added a CLTV maturity period of a day.
also where the more bloated their transaction was or the more they wanted to bypass the 1day delay to respend sooner would cost them dearly

EG where those genuine/moral users that want to spend more then once a day can save some costs using the voluntary side services such as LN.
while leaving malicious intentional spammers who would refuse to use LN as it doesnt serve their malicious intent, left waiting or paying alot

[mrcash02]

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

And the spammers sorted out with this formula couldn't use Bitcoin? Banned of Blockchain?

The spammer sorted out would be the address, and this person can create another address and spam again a transaction and again with many other new addresses.

what if there was a formulae that NEVER gave priority unless someones funds were aged atleast a day or they added a CLTV maturity period of a day.
also where the more bloated their transaction was or the more they wanted to bypass the 1day delay to respend sooner would cost them dearly

EG where those genuine/moral users that want to spend more then once a day can save some costs using the voluntary side services such as LN.
while leaving malicious intentional spammers who would refuse to use LN as it doesnt serve their malicious intent, left waiting or paying alot

It could be a good idea.

It just would make too many eternal unconfirmed transation pending, I don't know if there is any problem with this for the system.

[franky1]

It could be a good idea.

It just would make too many eternal unconfirmed transation pending, I don't know if there is any problem with this for the system.

nope because they are dropped unless there is only a couple hours left.
also CLTV allows confirmation and then locks funds from being unspent after (like the block rewards 100 confirm maturity)

thus mempools wont fill up with tx's waiting a day.
people either pay up to get priority.
or
their come back later and rebroadcast when matured/aged
or
they use ln as a voluntary service.

[IamNotAnonymous]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes, it is possible.

[Raimonn]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes, i think it is possible to upgrade, the problem is how to upgrade, a soft fork (segwit) or a hard fork (B.U.). There is too much discussion between the two groups, and for now i think the only possibility to see consensus its a new third option.

[RoommateAgreement]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

blockchain technology is just a technology that you can use in any way you want. and that is why there are hundreds of altcoins created so far.
you can check them out, but don't get your hopes up. in many cases they fix something but mess up lots of other things. such as faster confirmation but lots of orphaned blocks which makes low confirmation numbers worthless.

[wavespump]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes, Segregated Witness is the technology you want to know, it only requires a soft fork to enlarge the block size to 2MB, the opposite technology is bitcoin unlimited, which requires a hard fork, it will devalue the bitcoin price. But SegWit is only supported by 20% miners, we will wait for 50% to get SegWit soft fork.

[n0ne]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes, Segregated Witness is the technology you want to know, it only requires a soft fork to enlarge the block size to 2MB, the opposite technology is bitcoin unlimited, which requires a hard fork, it will devalue the bitcoin price. But SegWit is only supported by 20% miners, we will wait for 50% to get SegWit soft fork.

Segwit is the technology that's to make bitcoin move forward towards growth. As most users mentioned fork is the better if the blocksize gets increased. Its not getting support from more miners just due to the mining difficulty they experience. Mining will be more profitable for large scale miners, where small mining farms won't get much profit. For this reason blocksize increase is not supported much, which is the cause for transaction and confirmation delay.

[Kakmakr]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes, Segregated Witness is the technology you want to know, it only requires a soft fork to enlarge the block size to 2MB, the opposite technology is bitcoin unlimited, which requires a hard fork, it will devalue the bitcoin price. But SegWit is only supported by 20% miners, we will wait for 50% to get SegWit soft fork.

Segwit is the technology that's to make bitcoin move forward towards growth. As most users mentioned fork is the better if the blocksize gets increased. Its not getting support from more miners just due to the mining difficulty they experience. Mining will be more profitable for large scale miners, where small mining farms won't get much profit. For this reason blocksize increase is not supported much, which is the cause for transaction and confirmation delay.

Hugh? What are you saying here? Segwit does increase the block size and it will increase growth. A hard fork is the worst option we could take. The difficulty has nothing to do with SegWit. Why would mining be more profitable for large scale miners, than small miners?

Miners actually supports bigger blocks and the reason for the confirmation delays is the spam attacks. ^hmmmmmm^

[Xester]

Is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology solving issues like the transactions taking too much time to finish without compromise the currency we have now or without creating a new version devaluing the currently one?

Yes it is possible to upgrade the blockchain technology but the problem is getting the consensus of the miners to agree on something or on a solution. But up to now there are many proposals being presented but the problem is that the community cannot gather enough consensus so there will be a solution to the limited blocksize.

[Slark]

A this point I refuse to see that bitcoin can be upgraded, not with the current standards and requirement of consensus of 95%.

There is too much hidden interests going on behind the scenes. It seems that every group has its own agenda and plans and tries to take over bitcoin.

So unless community will face imminent danger i.e. bitcoin network collapse, ultra high fees for every tx or persisting spam attack disrupting functionality of BTC, nothing will change.

[Amph]

segwit does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys
segwit does not solve intentional quadratics,  malicious users just wont use p2wpkh keys

LN does not solve intentional spam, malicious users just wont use LN hops or hubs.

the only way i can see that will sort out the fee war and the intentional real spam, without much drastic action is to introduce a new "priority formulae" that actually does a proper job of sorting out the spammers from the normal users

how can you identify who is a spammer and who is not, a spammers can also be someone that send normal transaction from time to time, to deceive his action and plus spam the network

also at this point the network is simply overloaded with non-spam transaction, it's not even about spammer for now, i means TX are not in queue because there are spammers...

[franky1]

how can you identify who is a spammer and who is not, a spammers can also be someone that send normal transaction from time to time, to deceive his action and plus spam the network

also at this point the network is simply overloaded with non-spam transaction, it's not even about spammer for now, i means TX are not in queue because there are spammers...

The question is, spammers  spammers

to save repeating myself from other topics

this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's

though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)