BTC.value = if(you_can_get_blocksize_together = 10K, dead);

[dinofelis]

Cryptocurrency is something like a dot com bubble where people are speculating on its future value.
Blockchain is this trendy thing where people want to implement it without considering if they really need it.
Don't be surprised to see many cryptocurrencies fail, and certainly many blockchain start ups will fail, just like the dot com bubble.
Without real world use, cryptocurrencies have no real value. People who believe a bunch of hard to compute 1's and 0's as a pure store of value are seriously misguided. But then just look at how many people are only interested in BTC as a get rich quick scheme. Considering BTC as a pure investment scheme it nothing short of a ponzi style pass the bag holder scheme.

As far as alts go, there is a lot of IOU trading occuring, but very little actual transactional use. Bag holders beware!
Ethereum is designed to be a distributed computer. Ether is the fuel for processing on this (once immutable) blockchain. Anyone who thinks it has value as a currency should try downloading the full blockchain. It is not efficient for that purpose.
Litecoin is a simple bitcoin clone with a few tweaked parameters and different proof of work algo. The creator has shown no innovation for this coin beyond a simple clone ever. No wonder it is dropping down the charts. If used heavily, it runs into the same problem as BTC.
Dash at least shows some technological innovation. However, its anonymity features are not very efficient (due to the number of UTXO's created). As a BTC fork, if used heavily, it runs into the same problem as BTC. At least it is showing to be adaptable change. It is not yet known how the masternodes would cope under real world stress.
Monero and other privacy centric coins at least have black market value!

Going back to BTC, at least is has some real world uses if it is not allowed to be strangled by artificially limited capacity. It might not be useful for buying a pack of rolling papers, but fiat can probably do that much more efficiently than any lightning network bank channel.

Hear, hear.  However, I don't distinguish *fundamentally* bitcoin and alt coins.  Bitcoin was here first, yes.  Bitcoin, being first, has the biggest network of users, the highest market cap and so on, yes.  But it also has the most primitive crypto technology, which is baked into it.  The big difference (we are witnessing it right now!) between a crypto currency and other technology, is that a crypto currency is a kind of smart contract laid down when its genesis block was published.  You normally can't change it.  Yes, you can change small details that do not affect economic aspects sometimes.  But you can't fundamentally change it.

As such, a crypto currency keeps the tech it has when it was put down (unless it regularly mutes, and has built-in regular hard forks).  When that tech starts to hinder its further development, I would think that it is normal that better tech takes over.  But in order for that to happen, the tech problems with the former first have to have REAL hindrance, not just potential future difficulties.  At that moment, the older coin will pay for its technological difficulties with the erosion of its first mover advantage.  To go to the next coin, who will maybe also run one day in problems.  To be taken over by a third one, and so on.

That doesn't mean that the first coin dies, but only that there is more "ecological competition", and that each coin will find its niche where it is useful.

[Carlton Banks]

The original Bitcoin code handled 32MB blocks.

When there were 2 people worldwide using Bitcoin, it could handle 32 MB blocks, but all the blocks were 1 kB or less at that stage. Because only 2 people were using it


When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit.


All of which you know, you lying scammy little shit

[dinofelis]

When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit.

And without realizing, froze this soft fork in forever, with important consequences on its later dynamics.
Or, if he realized, he meant bitcoin to be a reserve currency, and not a means of payment.  Which is not impossible.  With a decreasing block reward, fees must take over.  But in order for fees to take over, there must be something scarce about them, because mining was supposed to be a highly competitive market.  If block size is unlimited, there's no reason NOT to include a transaction with a minuscule fee: it is always better than nothing.  It is only when the *resources used* to do so, become more expensive than the fee itself, that the fee will be excluded, but this suffers from a "tragedy of the commons" problem: ALL miner's resources suffer from big blocks, while the miner taking in the (small) fee gets a (small) reward.  As such, with unlimited blocks, fees would remain very small, nothing would be pushing them up.

If you have a currency without "tail emission", and you need to spend "proof of work", there must be something paying for that, so you NEED BIG FEES.  The only way to obtain big fees is to make a transaction something scarce: finite, small blocks.

But if you make transactions scarce, you hamper fluidity of the currency.  It cannot be used any more for small payments.  It can only be used for big payments at small rates and high fees: a reserve currency.  Moreover, a finite amount of coins without "inflation" invites "hodling" and speculation, driving the coin price high.

So the phase of "generous block rewards and limited adoption" allowed for a phase of currency usage, getting a lot of people interested into it, telling people about buying their coffee with bitcoin and so on.  Once this (scammy ?) phase is over, bitcoin will have a very high price through speculation, early adopters will be very rich, and one doesn't need the coffee buyer any more, one needed only his "pump" to get the price where it is now. 

We now enter the transition of bitcoin into its final phase: very expensive reserve currency for unregulated big finance.

[Amph]

The original Bitcoin code handled 32MB blocks.

When there were 2 people worldwide using Bitcoin, it could handle 32 MB blocks, but all the blocks were 1 kB or less at that stage. Because only 2 people were using it


When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit.


All of which you know, you lying scammy little shit

i find it weird that satoshi didn't forecast the increase in usage and thus making the limit to 1MB since the beginning, also if he changed it later it mean that he hard forked bitcoin?

or maybe when you diminish it you don't need to hard fork(it would work as a opposite to ram increase in VMware for example you don't need to close the VM...), but i always thought that bitcoin was never hard forked

[dinofelis]

i find it weird that satoshi didn't forecast the increase in usage and thus making the limit to 1MB since the beginning, also if he changed it later it mean that he hard forked bitcoin?

or maybe when you diminish it you don't need to hard fork(it would work as a opposite to ram increase in VMware for example you don't need to close the VM...), but i always thought that bitcoin was never hard forked

Reducing the block size is a soft fork ; increasing it is a hard fork.

Soft fork = new blocks are still valid according to old protocol, but old protocol blocks are not necessarily valid under new.

Hard fork = new blocks aren't valid according to old protocol.  (there's still the choice whether old blocks are valid under new: backwards compatible hard fork, or unilateral hard fork, or not: full hard fork or bilateral hard fork).

Maybe Satoshi didn't realize the power of the immutability dynamics, and thought that one "simply had to agree over it".  Which is strange to think that, but as all this was new back then, and "a toy", he may have overlooked this.... or not at all and maybe he knew perfectly what he did, but didn't want to tell people yet that the goal was to make transactions scarce.  Or the "coffee buyer story" couldn't be told.

[eddie13]

The question in my mind is, how big of a dump is it going to take for something to be done about scailability?

Will it be worth the risk when BTC is $750? $300? $3?

Prospective continued growth is priced in, if Bitcoin can't grow anymore then it will be priced out soon, and I know that price is mostly what most of you care about..

Bitcoin isn't for the rich man store of value settlement layer, it is supposed to be the peoples liberty currency, for the common man that is sick of the fiat scam..

If the common man cannot use Bitcoin then you guys can have fun with your rich man store of value BS, me and many others that are into BTC for the ideals of libertarianism are going to be out..

Whatever happened to the "solution for the unbanked masses" Talk? Or permissionless transactions for the people who are down right sick of dealing with institutions?

We want freedom, we can't have it here? Well that's really really sad because I believed that this was something that could change the world for the better of humanity and now, "Oh no, this is too good for everybody to use, my precious HDD space and bandwidth, you can't all have it, joke's on you.."

So multi million dollar miners are built and just shove the small guy right out of being able to earn any BTC, but I guess they can't afford a frickin $50 hard drive and half ass internet now so it can't even really be used by people anymore..

I call BS, who is out there trying to run nodes on dialup and 10 year old computers? Nobody.. The network can definitely handle 2X or even 5X blocksizes and by time the chain gets massive either storage tech will be improved or pruning tech will become reality..

We need bigger blocks right now, now, immediately..
Add segwit to it now or later or even bigger blocks I don't care, but you better quit your arguing and do something about this right now or this revolution that showed such promise is DEAD, and soon..

Soft fork, hard fork, over easy medium rare fork, fork 3 times, DO IT!!

Fork 2 megs NOW to buy time before it's DEAD and then you can get back to your quibbling until the userbase doubles again..

This thing is having a stroke but you won't fix it because you're arguing about if it's the right time to give it a nose job at the same time or not..



Enough with the satoshi, he is gone, he did not envision much of what has happened up to now therefore rendering satoshi talk mute..
The founding fathers wanted uninfringable rights to bear arms but they didn't see nukes coming..

[dinofelis]

The question in my mind is, how big of a dump is it going to take for something to be done about scailability?

Will it be worth the risk when BTC is $750? $300? $3?

Prospective continued growth is priced in, if Bitcoin can't grow anymore then it will be priced out soon, and I know that price is mostly what most of you care about..

Bitcoin isn't for the rich man store of value settlement layer, it is supposed to be the peoples liberty currency, for the common man that is sick of the fiat scam..

No, that was the story to get it going.  It IS going to be the rich man store of value settlement layer ; which is why its PRICE will probably still be increasing a lot.  

If the common man cannot use Bitcoin then you guys can have fun with your rich man store of value BS, me and many others that are into BTC for the ideals of libertarianism are going to be out..

Me too.  But that's not what makes bitcoin's market cap today, so bitcoin won't care.  The libertarian stuff was for the kick off, the coffee buyers was to get it widely known and pump it.  Now, rich guys are keeping up the price amongst themselves.

Whatever happened to the "solution for the unbanked masses" Talk? Or permissionless transactions for the people who are down right sick of dealing with institutions?

Propaganda, or honest naivity (fell for it too).  Bitcoin's tech cannot handle it, or can handle it when there's a banking layer on top of it (like LN).   It would take 300 days if all Germans were to do one payment with bitcoin on chain today.  Even if you increase block size with a factor of 100 (!), all Germans could still do only one single transaction every 3 days.  They cannot buy their morning coffee with bitcoin with 100 MB blocks.  They can only do one single payment every 3 days.  The Germans only.  Don't talk about the Chinese.

Block-chain-I-have-to-know-all-transactions-in-the-world-ever systems are too precious concerning transactions for normal payments.  No competition with fiat possible.  So only niche applications are possible.  But the VERY strict condition on bitcoin makes that it can only sustain a VERY SMALL transaction rate.   But it has a high market cap, and is very secure.  So: reserve currency.  GOLD in VAULTS.

[Carlton Banks]

"Oh no, this is too good for everybody to use, my precious HDD space and bandwidth, you can't all have it, joke's on you.."

So multi million dollar miners are built and just shove the small guy right out of being able to earn any BTC, but I guess they can't afford a frickin $50 hard drive and half ass internet now so it can't even really be used by people anymore..

I call BS, who is out there trying to run nodes on dialup and 10 year old computers? Nobody.. The network can definitely handle 2X or even 5X blocksizes and by time the chain gets massive either storage tech will be improved or pruning tech will become reality..

If hard disk space and bandwidth were the only issues, you might have a point.

HD space and internet speeds are more serious issues than you're imagining anyway; your hard disk is big enough, your internet is fast enough, your wages can afford all those things, and your internet and phone companies can afford to upgrade their infrastructure, all in your region of the world.

But, guess what? You're not the only person that exists, in the only region of the world. Not everyone is experiencing the exceptionally good conditions, that you are fortunate enough to have. Other people aren't so fortunate.

We need bigger blocks right now, now, immediately..
Add segwit to it now or later or even bigger blocks I don't care, but you better quit your arguing and do something about this right now or this revolution that showed such promise is DEAD, and soon..

Soft fork, hard fork, over easy medium rare fork, fork 3 times, DO IT!!

Fork 2 megs NOW to buy time before it's DEAD and then you can get back to your quibbling until the userbase doubles again..

This thing is having a stroke but you won't fix it because you're arguing about if it's the right time to give it a nose job at the same time or not..

Not only is Bitcoin working perfectly well for those who know how to use it (clearly you're struggling to understand how to figure out the needed transaction fee), but BIG BLOCKS IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION.  

And

BIG BLOCKS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS SOLUTION

do I need to make that clearer?

[dinofelis]

So multi million dollar miners are built and just shove the small guy right out of being able to earn any BTC, but I guess they can't afford a frickin $50 hard drive and half ass internet now so it can't even really be used by people anymore..

I call BS, who is out there trying to run nodes on dialup and 10 year old computers? Nobody.. The network can definitely handle 2X or even 5X blocksizes and by time the chain gets massive either storage tech will be improved or pruning tech will become reality..

You are perfectly right that the "big blocks are going to centralize" is BS.  But the issue remains that block-chain-with-all-transactions-ever is not going to fly in the next coming decades.  But you're perfectly right that a 1MB limit is serving ANOTHER purpose: pumping the fee market, to keep the miners running with their crazy PoW security.  This is why bitcoin is designed as a GOLD VAULT, and not as a payment system.  The PoW security of bitcoin is mind-boggling.  No need to have that to secure $50 transactions.  Totally out of your mind to waste so much resources on so much PoW.  But to keep the rich man's gold secure, yes, that's better.  But that comes with a (large) price, and that can only be the case with high fees, and hence an artificial scarcity of transactions.

Too expensive HD, indeed, BS.

[eddie13]

The needed TX fee is 10k sat unless you want to be greedy with time and cut in line it seems to me, rising TX fees is just a race to cut to the front of the line, It doesn't matter if fees are 1 whole BTC per TX it's still not going to fit more TXs into the same block no matter how much you pay, I've never had a single TX drop out of the mempool and never confirm..
No need to be condescending Mr. Banks, I don't exactly have a private sever and fiber optic but my $50 a month internet is plenty along with my $200 used computer..
We can run the network for the poor people in Africa, we don't need their added decentralization, not like we have it anyway..

What I struggle with is everyone seeming to give up..

I'm not a coder but I have this crazy idea..

BTC keys are hex 256 compressed to fit a larger number into less bytes correct? And BTC is all about the security of big numbers correct?

Why couldn't you just make up a bunch more characters and go hex 2,056 or something and compress those big numbers even further to fit more into the same data package?

[Tigggger]

The original Bitcoin code handled 32MB blocks.

When there were 2 people worldwide using Bitcoin, it could handle 32 MB blocks, but all the blocks were 1 kB or less at that stage. Because only 2 people were using it


When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit.

Someone want to check my maths.

Currently, there are 457,468 blocks, if they had ALL been 32MB and full from the start that is 14,638,976MB, which is 14.6TB hardly an earth shattering size.

[dinofelis]

Someone want to check my maths.
Currently, there are 457,468 blocks, if they had ALL been 32MB and full from the start that is 14,638,976MB, which is 14.6TB hardly an earth shattering size.

Absolutely.  And only miners and big users and interested people need to have a full node holding that.  Because what matters, is the block chain that is made by miners, and they won't waste hash rate on faulty chains, so the chain you can get from them is of course the good chain.  No need to have proxy servers (sorry) nodes in every basement. 

[jubalix]

HD space and internet speeds are more serious issues than you're imagining anyway; your hard disk is big enough, your internet is fast enough, your wages can afford all those things, and your internet and phone companies can afford to upgrade their infrastructure, all in your region of the world.

But, guess what? You're not the only person that exists, in the only region of the world. Not everyone is experiencing the exceptionally good conditions, that you are fortunate enough to have. Other people aren't so fortunate.

Only the smallest fraction of people run nodes, 6000/6,000,000,000 so the analogy does not hold.

[Carlton Banks]

Since when does sending 32 MB blocks on any version of Bitcoin actually work in reality? Since when does downloading 14.6 TB of data sound enticing? Are you mad?


Since when has there been 6 billion Bitcoin users? Are you mad?

[Velkro]

If BTC cannot even now take steps to address the blocksize issue, when solutions abound, how then can any meaningful dev take place to improve the utility of BTC?

I was thinking like that before, but what blocksize issue? Network is working good, waiting time for confirmation is sometimes a little bit painful but conservative approach is key to bitcoin success. Look at Bitcoin XT, Ethereum or Bitcoin Unlimited, they have innovative and fast approach, and they ALL FAIL!!!

[Tigggger]

Since when does sending 32 MB blocks on any version of Bitcoin actually work in reality? Since when does downloading 14.6 TB of data sound enticing? Are you mad?


Since when has there been 6 billion Bitcoin users? Are you mad?

I didn't say it would work in reality, and I'm not claiming there are 6 billion users and I'm not advocating 32MB blocks, so no I am not mad.

I am just illustrating that the common argument that larger blocks = centralisation of nodes = bad is rubbish.

And even if it somehow did, how many people actually NEED the entire blockchain, and would the network still function if there were only 500 nodes, yes it would. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of ways that the blockchain can and will be stored in the future that don't require you to have it all anyway.

[Carlton Banks]

I am just illustrating that the common argument that larger blocks = centralisation of nodes = bad is rubbish.

No, you didn't succeed in that at all, you demonstrated the precise opposite.


Downloading 16 TB to get on the Bitcoin network is a vast centralisation risk, as hardly anyone would do it

[dinofelis]

Downloading 16 TB to get on the Bitcoin network is a vast centralisation risk, as hardly anyone would do it

Not at all.  As the block chain is just a "big digital signature that costs a lot of PoW to be made", there are no alternatives around, so whether 500 data centers hold a copy, or 50 000 home computers, doesn't matter really.  The miner network provides ONE SINGLE valid block chain and there is not another one around, it doesn't exist, nobody spent the PoW to make it.  So there are no fake block chains around.

Big users have of course all reasons to hold a copy.  16 TB costs about $500 in disk space.  Add a good $2000 workstation, and your node is up and running.  32 MB per 10 minutes needs a link of 56 KB/s.  Most people torrent faster when downloading movies.

This means that you can set up a few nodes in every town if you want to.  More than good enough.

Want to get a kick start ?  Buy, say for $1000,-, a preloaded copy of the block chain on some 3TB disks from someone having the chain already.

Selling storage with pre-loaded chain can be a small business.

The true, and only, centralisation risk is mining.  And that's already the case.  Because in a PoW system, those providing PoW decisions are the deciders.  Take the 10 biggest pools and you have bitcoin's oligarchy.

[AngryDwarf]

In financial trading systems, a trade is a trade no matter what the consideration (price * amount) is; it still costs the same in computing processing and network bandwidth to create such a trade. The financial system hasn't gone, "oh no, we must stick to a trade transaction rate limit!' As technology has improved they have been able to get more smaller high frequency trades through. In fact, the processing and network bandwidth costs of creating a trade has increased with enhanced functionality.

So bitcoin limiting itself is just slow suicide as competitor systems are improving.

[Carlton Banks]

32 MB per 10 minutes needs a link of 56 KB/s.  Most people torrent faster when downloading movies.

There are probably more people with 56 Kk/s connections than any other speed (and less, even more people have access to only 28 kB/s)

Your idea is to force people with 56 kB/s to use their ENTIRE INTERNET BANDWIDTH to download 32 MB blocks? Which get solved ON AVERAGE every 10 minutes, and in reality can (and often do) occur 2-3 seconds apart because of the variance around that average? 28 kBs be damned. Great plan

So bitcoin limiting itself is just slow suicide as competitor systems are improving.

Right, and none of those financial companies would dream of jeopardising their very valuable trading systems by pushing the network resources used right up to the limit, they would employ a provable margin of safety, and find a better way to improve their transaction rate. This is not difficult to understand