Are you paying attention to yourself? If we have a limit of 500K TPD, then that means there are really less than a million actual bitcoiners out there after six fucking years.
Bitcoin got mainstream attention around 2013. So the first 4 years were a bunch of nerds.
All of the promise of smartcontracts, colored coins for equities and derivitives trading, title transfers, timestamps, banking the unbanked, it's all bullshit. You think those small xactions are garbage/dust, but you have no idea what they mean to the people involved.
It's not bullshit. They can be served by the Bitcoin technology, perhaps in other blockchains. It's not necessary to have everything in just one blockchain. From what I've read I never got the impression that Satoshi was envisioning putting all kind of crap into the blockchain.
I believe that the current market price reflects the discounted potential future value of bitcoin's use as the internet of money, not just some settlement system for digital gold.
Since the scaling debate got larger with the XT fork drama, and especially after XT got no traction, price has gone up significantly. Most people (obviously not you) trust the the core devs will do the things that are right for the future of bitcoin. If there is a problem, they'll fix it or find a solution. They work their ass off to maintain it, evolve it, make it faster and allow it to scale better. It is illogical to even propose that they want to purposefully bury it and cripple it, so that years worth of work will go down the drain. If they have a disagreement, and if the matter isn't pressing (and in this case IT ISN'T, since 1MB blocks get full with junk), they can sort it out through dialogue and consensus.
That's a huge difference in potential and I don't think the market has priced that in yet. I think most speculators believe this issue will be resolved before it becomes a major problem
That's the consensus, yes. Even the core devs have coins or vested interest in BTC. Why would they want their "child" to go down or be problematic? So far they are doing a pretty good job of maintaining order and introducing improvements, while also not breaking consensus. That's not as easy as it sounds.
We've been over and over this. There's no reason why the blockchain has to be small. Not when broadband is ubiquitous. Not when 1TB hard drives cost less than a carton of smokes. My XTnode cost me $118 bucks. The cost is trivial, and even if it becomes less trivial, nodes will still be run because those of us with an incentive to keep the network operating smoothly will do so. Someday a bitcoin node may be the size of a google datacenter. So what? Google seems to be doing pretty well. They don't seem to care that most searches aren't for anything important.
You don't seem to understand certain things, like why aren't blocks filling up now when fees are either zero or near zero. The risk of orphaned blocks is real. it happens all the time. It's because miners can chose how big to make their blocks now by deciding which transactions to include. Miners, smart miners, most miners don't care about what percentage of their compensation comes from block reward and which part comes from fees. They only care about ROI, like any sane businessman. If they can make more money from bigger blocks, they'll do it. If they can make more money from smaller blocks, they'll do that.
You want to keeps blocks small to make stress tests less likely. Why? Stress tests are a good thing. They are important for determining the safety and security of the network. And as for spam attacks, what's more likely to crash a network, one with the capacity to handle the attack or one that can't?
I'm not even talking to you. You seem to be hopeless. Only a crash will convince you of your error. I just hope some of the others reading this will see what's really going on and what's really at stake.
Bitcoin had an issue early on that a spam attack could threaten the network because the bitcoin price was almost nothing and dust back then really was dust. It's not anymore. There's a huge difference between a $0.000002 transaction and a $0.02 xaction, so this is no longer the case and the 1MB cap is no longer necessary. There is a natural limit to blocksize called the risk of orphan rate. Larger blocks take longer to propagate through the network and so have a higher risk of being orphaned. This is what keeps miners from including any and every transaction unless there is a lot of extra room in the block.
We get spam email because email is free. If email cost a penny, we would get a lot less spam, but the cost of email would still be negligible. "dust" transactions are actually ANTI-spam in some cases. In other cases they are timestamps or title transfers of property worth much more than the nominal value of the coins sent.
A half million transaction/day isn't enough for bitcoin to be anything more than a hobby network. Nobody can build a business model around Bitcoin now without knowing what the future capacity will be. People need to plan.
Poll
