Ok, effected by block size for first time, time to fix

[jubalix]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

[freedomno1]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

Ya it's a pain sent a standard txt didn't look at Mempool woke up from my undead inactive grave to check what is up besides the Bitcoin price and saw that we are finally at the point where its noticeable it did make me think of buying some Bitcoin miners though giant heat hazards they are ^^.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay
If you want an ETA just match it with your satoshi/per byte rate until enough nodes go to Segwit or Ultimate were hampered or someone forces a fork.

[bones261]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.

[freedomno1]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.

The best way to go about it is the soft fork but consensus is too high a threshold of 95%, we are split between the original 1MB group, Lighting, and Segwit I run Core so it's on Segwit's list but the longer we are in this state of transaction hell the more it forces people to start to really consider what the community should do and make a decision.
Either way if something seems to happen in the next few months we will be fine although there is the risk the community will coordinate the fork.

[kiklo]

Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system.

Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system.
Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. 

A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented.
Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation.

Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies.

BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.  


 

[jubalix]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.

btc did a hard fork back in 2013, with no warning....so it should be ok with plenty of warning

[freedomno1]

I want to see a BIP that disincentive's miners and transaction fees and see a fork that puts in a node incentive along with a larger block size similar to Dash's but we can only deal with the options available.
Either way I'd rather see the damn thing settled one way or another over nothing we have had more than enough warnings that we need to do something so as long as something is done even a hard fork option is palatable at some point.

[bones261]

So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was

This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.

Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?

I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.

The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.

btc did a hard fork back in 2013, with no warning....so it should be ok with plenty of warning

Well, maybe Bitcoin Unlimited can wrest control away from the Core team. I don't see the coup as being successful, but time will tell.

[franky1]

btc did a hard fork back in 2013, with no warning....so it should be ok with plenty of warning

yep sipa caused that. he doesnt want anything to do with another one. it would hurt his C.V (employment resume) when he wants to eventually moves on with his life if he was somehow linked to another event of orphan drama caused by his code.

puts in a node incentive

1. with a block holding only an average 2500tx.. guess what.. with 6000 nodes each block will end up wasting (~0.2mb in outputs only)blockspace just to pay 6000 nodes.
2. with FIBRE ring-fensed around the pools only blockstreams FIBRE nodes will get the pay out(if there was one). so dont expect all nodes to get paid. and dont expect it to 'help scalability.
3. paying nodes will just end up with one player doing a sybil attack with 10000 nodes (imagine a node pool) so that he gets 10000 chunks of the node incentive pie.
4. stop crying about node ability to run. dont be passed scripts of gigabytes by midnight. think rationally. by nodes saying they can only cope with 2mb-8mb a pool will see the overall consensus and not go to the extremes.. the pools will stay in node tolerance zone. otherwise what happens is that nodes orphan that pools attempt. making pools waste time for nothing. so pools already know not to push boundaries unless nodes allow it.
5. emphasising point 4. NODES control what is allowed. imagin it as nodes are the managers. pools are just the secretary and devs are just the employees

[freedomno1]

puts in a node incentive

1. with a block holding only an average 2500tx.. guess what.. with 6000 nodes each block will end up wasting blockspace just to pay nodes.
2. with FIBRE ring-fensed around the pools only blockstreams FIBRE nodes will get the pay out(if there was one). so dont expect all nodes to get paid. and dont expect it to 'help scalability.
3. paying nodes will just end up with one player doing a sybil attack with 10000 nodes (imagine a node pool) so that he gets 10000 chunks of the node incentive pie.
4. stop crying about node ability to run. dont be passed scripts of gigabytes by midnight. think rationally. by nodes saying they can only cope with 2mb-8mb a pool will see the overall consensus and not go to the extremes the pools will stay in node tolerance zone. otherwise what happens is that nodes orphan that pools attempt.
5. emphasising point 4. NODES control what is allowed. nodes are the managers. pools are just the secretary and devs are just the employees

1. That is a fair point we are seeing declining nodes that said we still have a good amount I pointed out a system similar to Dash for a reason there would need to be a parking fee and increased block-size in the fork. The more nodes there are on the network the less rewards there are on a per node basis and it does add to the blockchain but the point is there are rewards for the operation of the node and not being pro-bono with 100% of the profits on the miners side.
2. I'll need to research that point but speed, location, uptime are all fair factors towards determining the chance of being rewarded for operating a node.
3. Dash's masternodes aren't launched or paid based on peer-given reputation scores. They are paid if they have collateral, exist, and do their jobs. Period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE The non-collateral nodes do not have sufficient control in the operation.
https://www.dash.org/news/why-dash-is-the-most-sybil-attack-resistant-cryptocurrency-by-far/
(To long to post it all, it addresses your point)
4. Nodes deserve compensation for the electricity, bandwidth and other costs to operate just as much as miners do, they are the backbone, the miners have transaction fees and block rewards a split is already seen in other alt-coins so this concept is not revolutionary and in practice as is runs without issue.
5. https://www.dash.org/masternodes2/ Sums it up. Nodes are managers and should get paid for their work, Pools are secretary's receive a portion of the miner profits, and devs are employees they receive a salary from the foundation etc.

It removes free riding on nodes.

Bitcoin node incentives can be addressed with a parking cost to operate the node and by receiving an incentive as a part of the block rewards, at present the node works for free, adjustments can be made to protect for sybil. If someone wanted to create paid nodes they would need to park a sufficient amount of Bitcoins in order to acquire those parts of the incentive pie in a sense forcing a proof of stake mechanism in the proof of work although they can freely release the coins at anytime.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/afterthought-sybil-attacks-are-not-possible-in-cryptocurrency-no-because-no-reputation-ratings.9683/
https://www.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/masternodes-roi_2016.png

[Idrisu]

Many people are making this same complain this days. Miners and blockchain should rectified this problem before thing get out of hand. I was thinking before that the Daley is curse by the current price increases and volumes but no body is doing anything about it. If bitcoin price get to $2,000 what will happen?

[Xester]

Many people are making this same complain this days. Miners and blockchain should rectified this problem before thing get out of hand. I was thinking before that the Daley is curse by the current price increases and volumes but no body is doing anything about it. If bitcoin price get to $2,000 what will happen?

These kind of problems is already a year old and until now there is no solution. Segwit is pressuring the miners that they should adopt segwit so the lightning network could solve the problems that are happening on the bitcoin mining. But segwit will just cause another problem later on, the only solution is to just increase the blocksize and continue mining without resorting to Segwit and Lightning network.

[Amph]

Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system.

Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system.
Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. 

A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented.
Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation.

Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies.

BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.  


 

it's wrong to think that core have any influence here, the miners decide in the end and the miner don't want unlimited for various reaosn

with unlimited the block reward would be so high that you can fill it with more spam than today, that is already a problem, for me the only solution is a dynamic block that actually work and adjust the size based on the demand on the TX per second

[kiklo]

it's wrong to think that core have any influence here, the miners decide in the end and the miner don't want unlimited for various reason

with unlimited the block reward would be so high that you can fill it with more spam than today, that is already a problem, for me the only solution is a dynamic block that actually work and adjust the size based on the demand on the TX per second

The Miners did already agreed to an 8MB blocksize increase, if whoever does the BTC coding released a hard fork of a fixed size 2 or 4 or 6 or 8MB without segwit included, odds are the miners would adopt it almost overnight.

And if not, the blame could be pointed at the miners , if they refused such a release.
No one can blame the miners for refusing segwit, Core is trying to steal their transaction fees with it.
 
 

[hv_]

Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system.

Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system.
Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. 

A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented.
Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation.

Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies.

BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.  


 

it's wrong to think that core have any influence here, the miners decide in the end and the miner don't want unlimited for various reaosn

with unlimited the block reward would be so high that you can fill it with more spam than today, that is already a problem, for me the only solution is a dynamic block that actually work and adjust the size based on the demand on the TX per second

If the 'spam' argument would hold, why we ve not seen those attacks the years ago? The 1MB was not really attacket.  And artificial spamming costs money and might lead to a drop in btc price. Not a good incentive for team players.

[jubalix]

8mb seems good why does core not release this in the mean time

I dont see how segwit will not have some type of dao bug in it,,, its just the complexity of it.

8mb now would clean out the mem pool, raise fees for miners and be a nice compromise and set a precedent for the future, the we can just all go to 16 mb then 32 etc etc

[Lauda]

8mb seems good why does core not release this in the mean time

Node count decrease, skyrocketing orphan rates, huge potential for DOS attack due to quadratic signature hashing. What could possibly go wrong?

I dont see how segwit will not have some type of dao bug in it,,, its just the complexity of it.

Bullshit. The people who complain about Segwit complexity are those that can't even understand a simple Hello World program.

8mb now would clean out the mem pool, raise fees for miners and be a nice compromise and set a precedent for the future, the we can just all go to 16 mb then 32 etc etc

It would drastically lower fees. Heck, it could even make miners lose out on >95% of fees. Why would anyone pay anything with so much empty space per block?

[kiklo]

8mb seems good why does core not release this in the mean time

Node count decrease, skyrocketing orphan rates, huge potential for DOS attack due to quadratic signature hashing. What could possibly go wrong?

8mb now would clean out the mem pool, raise fees for miners and be a nice compromise and set a precedent for the future, the we can just all go to 16 mb then 32 etc etc

It would drastically lower fees. Heck, it could even make miners lose out on >95% of fees. Why would anyone pay anything with so much empty space per block?

Maybe BTC should quit being cheap and find a way to pay people running Full Nodes.
I mean how long do you think they are going to keep supporting everyone else for free, when no one else does anything for free.

BTC unlimited would only increase as needed, but you argue against it.  


 

[Lauda]

Maybe BTC should quit being cheap and find a way to pay people running Full Nodes.

Nobody in their right mind needs 3+ Exahashes of security for coffee transactions. Bitcoin can not and should not compete with centralized services. Any altcoin with transaction volume similar to Bitcoin would find itself in a similar position. Hint: 99% of altcoin transactions are by their own bagholders.

I mean how long do you think they are going to keep supporting everyone else for free, when no one else does anything for free.

There are benefits of running a node, and that's why a fair number of reasonable people are running them.

BTC unlimited would only increase as needed, but you argue against it.  

No. That's not how BU works, you should look into it again. BU essentially gives a lot more power to miners which is a very bad idea. There are better proposals that slowly raise the cap (e.g. sipa ~17% yearly growth; achow101's modification of luke-jr's BIP).

[kiklo]

Maybe BTC should quit being cheap and find a way to pay people running Full Nodes.

Nobody in their right mind needs 3+ Exahashes of security for coffee transactions. Bitcoin can not and should not compete with centralized services. Any altcoin with transaction volume similar to Bitcoin would find itself in a similar position. Hint: 99% of altcoin transactions are by their own bagholders.

I mean how long do you think they are going to keep supporting everyone else for free, when no one else does anything for free.

There are benefits of running a node, and that's why a fair number of reasonable people are running them.

BTC unlimited would only increase as needed, but you argue against it.  

No. That's not how BU works, you should look into it again. BU essentially gives a lot more power to miners which is a very bad idea. There are better proposals that slowly raise the cap (e.g. sipa ~17% yearly growth; achow101's modification of luke-jr's BIP).

Ok, You all heard Lauda, Quit being a full node for BTC,
BTC does not want or need you, so don't waste your money on running a BTC full node.

Hmm,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Unlimited

With Bitcoin Unlimited, miners are independently able to configure the size of the blocks they will validate.[7] Maximum Generation Size, also referred to as MG is a new option which by default is set to one megabyte.[6] This allows the user to select the size of blocks they produce. Excessive Block Size, or EB, allows nodes to choose the size of the block they accept. By default this is set at 16 megabytes.[6] The third new option allows a user to select the Excessive Acceptance Depth, or AD. This implements a consensus strategy by retroactively accepting larger blocks if a majority of other miners have done so.[6]

They could set it at 1.5mb and then increase as needed, no muss no fuss. Miners could change their max default to 2MB and update if needed, because as you say they don't want alot of empty space. However that still does not stop some miners that only include 1 transactions in their block , they are wasting a boatload of space and that is happening right now.
Seems like BTC core wants to hamstring the miners to try and keep them under their thumb, that has failed.