Even paid alarmist shills shouting "re: "Bugs/needs fix now!"...will buy Bitcoin

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

Sound about right? Thoughts?

Even those compensated to campaign against bitcoin on media, internet forums, conferences will be the ones that also buy bitcoin purely for survival.

For those compensated, they would be intelligent enough to see that such compensation paid by whomever to undermine bitcoin would shed light on the fact of how much funny fiat money there is and how expendible/unprecious it is. On the flip side, bitcoin is truly decentralized, immutable, scarce, and secured store of value and has been globally in use for many years. So much use already in all sorts of places including Sweden, Philippines, Russia, USA, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil.   

[1715165724]

1715165724

[1715165724]

1715165724

[1715165724]

1715165724

[Decoded]

Yes, because they are simply that, shills. Some users will not care about what they post or write, only caring if they get paid or not.

But the problems these people talk about may be true. The blocksize debate is a big issue, so are the ETFs, and they can affect us all.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

...The blocksize debate is a big issue...

Agree, maybe they should make blocksize smaller, maybe 750kb to strengthen Bitcoin's decentralization, reduce blockchain bloat and reduce capacity for transmission of spam.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin has a big problem right now with scaling...it doesn't mean we're giving up on it...

but a lot of people are buying other coins too.  Bitcoin maximalism is definitely fading.
I hope Bitcoin stays on top but i'm preparing for anything.

[OROBTC]

Bitcoin has a big problem right now with scaling...it doesn't mean we're giving up on it...

but a lot of people are buying other coins too.  Bitcoin maximalism is definitely fading.
I hope Bitcoin stays on top but i'm preparing for anything.

I am pretty much an alarmist shill (not paid anything though).

I really love the whole Bitcoin idea (and HODL a decent amount as well as spending some -- like on the VPN service I just signed on with), but am dismayed that the BPTB cannot or will not get together and arrive at a good solution, and do it now.  BTC has a great future if the Lead Developers and Miners get their acts together and resolve this.  Imagine, a smoothly running system run by adults, that would help bring in more BTC buyers and encourage merchants to accept BTC.  So get at it!

[Hydrogen]

I agree with issues of scaling/fees being exaggerated fearmongering designed to divert public support away from core to fork options.

If people hear something repeated often enough, they tend to believe its true, even if its not.

Bitcoin doesn't have a problem with scaling btw -- it simply was never designed to execute thousands of transactions per second like a credit card.

Increasing block size, won't change that or solve issues with unconfirmed transactions.

Block size really is a pointless debate.

[AngryDwarf]

...The blocksize debate is a big issue...

Agree, maybe they should make blocksize smaller, maybe 750kb to strengthen Bitcoin's decentralization, reduce blockchain bloat and reduce capacity for transmission of spam.

What kind of decentralisation are you after? Reducing on chain capacity centralises the user base by only allowing big actors to transact. How many full nodes does it require to keep the system decentralised and safe from corruption? Nodes that prune blocks, or assume valid blocks when doing an initial block download cannot be trusted to validate correctly. Miners, exchanges, bitcoin payment providers, block explorers, online wallet services, mixers, other bitcoin businesses - these are the ones that need to run fully validated nodes with a fully validated blockchain download. A few bitcoin enthusiasts with the resources will also run full nodes. This should be more than enough (if you have enough bitcoin businesses as well) to keep the system honest, especially when they located in different jurisdictions.
It is in the bitcoin white paper that the general user will use a simplified payment verification (SPV) wallet. Nobody needs to run a full node on a mobile phone!
A needless excess of full nodes will just bloat internet traffic and potentially increase network propagation time.

[Qartada]

...The blocksize debate is a big issue...

Agree, maybe they should make blocksize smaller, maybe 750kb to strengthen Bitcoin's decentralization, reduce blockchain bloat and reduce capacity for transmission of spam.

What kind of decentralisation are you after? Reducing on chain capacity centralises the user base by only allowing big actors to transact. How many full nodes does it require to keep the system decentralised and safe from corruption? Nodes that prune blocks, or assume valid blocks when doing an initial block download cannot be trusted to validate correctly. Miners, exchanges, bitcoin payment providers, block explorers, online wallet services, mixers, other bitcoin businesses - these are the ones that need to run fully validated nodes with a fully validated blockchain download. A few bitcoin enthusiasts with the resources will also run full nodes. This should be more than enough (if you have enough bitcoin businesses as well) to keep the system honest, especially when they located in different jurisdictions.
It is in the bitcoin white paper that the general user will use a simplified payment verification (SPV) wallet. Nobody needs to run a full node on a mobile phone!
A needless excess of full nodes will just bloat internet traffic and potentially increase network propagation time.

Okay, so large transaction fees are bad for user decentralisation in the short term, but they should be good for miner decentralisation in the long term.  Smaller block size -> higher transaction fees paid -> easier to mine with higher electricity costs -> mining is decentralised.  Since miners are the people who have the vote when we try to get these solutions through, it's important that "miners" aren't one single entity.

Also, if everyone is so hesitant for transaction fees to rise then mining centralisation will only get worse and worse.  At the next halving, mining would barely be profitable at all unless you can put in a huge investment and get renewable energy.  There needs to be an appropriate balance, and we're not far from that since the recommended fee/byte is currently 140 satoshi, amounting to just over 30k satoshi on average (around 40 cents).

[AngryDwarf]

Okay, so large transaction fees are bad for user decentralisation in the short term, but they should be good for miner decentralisation in the long term.  Smaller block size -> higher transaction fees paid -> easier to mine with higher electricity costs -> mining is decentralised.  Since miners are the people who have the vote when we try to get these solutions through, it's important that "miners" aren't one single entity.

Also, if everyone is so hesitant for transaction fees to rise then mining centralisation will only get worse and worse.  At the next halving, mining would barely be profitable at all unless you can put in a huge investment and get renewable energy.  There needs to be an appropriate balance, and we're not far from that since the recommended fee/byte is currently 140 satoshi, amounting to just over 30k satoshi on average (around 40 cents).

More users will create a higher demand for bitcoin. This increases the price of bitcoin. Also, as fiat inflation out paces that of bitcoin inflation, by ever increasing amounts, bitcoin becomes more valuable still. So lower fees are more valuable in terms of fiat if you have a higher user base and a higher amount of transactions.
Mining is an industrial activity and these people think about the life cycle of equipment and the timing of block halvings. We are still so early in the bitcoin inflation cycle that is should not be necessary for bitcoin fees to become the primary source of income over block rewards yet. Most of us won't be alive when the block rewards have got so low that transaction fees become the dominant factor.

[franky1]

Bitcoin doesn't have a problem with scaling btw

it does have a problem.
by not being allowed to scale. (im not talking about the baited one-time half gesture segwit)
we should have had real scaling changed years ago
scaling which grows naturally over time(not stupid gigabytes by midnight, but instead natural node capable and managed by nodes scaling over time(not devs, not pools))

-- it simply was never designed to execute thousands of transactions per second like a credit card.

thats  a close mind statement to make
like computers were never designed for call of duty or video calls 20 years ago, but now its natural and no big deal
let me guess, you would love to go back 20 years and tell skype, twitch, youtube, google, to never get into the computer industry because
online gaming and video content was never designed to work on a computer. i can hear you now "just dont bother"

your mindset seems to be either 0 to 1billion in one night else dont bother.
you fail to realise that natural growth over say 3 decades where nodes are allowed to set limits that change over time, CAN scale..
just not gigabytes by midnight, but instead slow natural capable increments over months-years

Increasing block size, won't change that or solve issues with unconfirmed transactions.

HALTing onchain growth wont solve issues either
whats next, shoot childrens feet or break their knee caps at 8months old out of fear that they may run infront of a car should they slowly learn to walk?
how about slowly teach them to walk and naturally ensure they check for risks, and learn when its safe to cross a road... kneecapping them is not the answer
i bet you would love a world of locking children into wheelchairs where a parent(hub) has control of risk by refusing movement(not signing) or controling it(setting the rules/routing costs/participants).

Block size really is a pointless debate.

blocksize alone is not the solution. especially if devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite

[Xester]

Sound about right? Thoughts?

Even those compensated to campaign against bitcoin on media, internet forums, conferences will be the ones that also buy bitcoin purely for survival.

For those compensated, they would be intelligent enough to see that such compensation paid by whomever to undermine bitcoin would shed light on the fact of how much funny fiat money there is and how expendible/unprecious it is. On the flip side, bitcoin is truly decentralized, immutable, scarce, and secured store of value and has been globally in use for many years. So much use already in all sorts of places including Sweden, Philippines, Russia, USA, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil.   

That is a sound argument and that is very true. Many are destroying bitcoins reputation saying that it will die and will be replaced by so and so. But they are just causing a panic to stir the community and leave them vulnerable to panic selling. But those who post about the destruction of bitcoin are already prepared for the incoming dump and thus after the dump they have a lot of bitcoin at their storage. And so we must not believe all lies that are being thrown into the forum whose purpose is to make us panic and sell our bitcoin in a low price.

[Wind_FURY]

Sound about right? Thoughts?

Even those compensated to campaign against bitcoin on media, internet forums, conferences will be the ones that also buy bitcoin purely for survival.

For those compensated, they would be intelligent enough to see that such compensation paid by whomever to undermine bitcoin would shed light on the fact of how much funny fiat money there is and how expendible/unprecious it is. On the flip side, bitcoin is truly decentralized, immutable, scarce, and secured store of value and has been globally in use for many years. So much use already in all sorts of places including Sweden, Philippines, Russia, USA, India, Indonesia, China, Brazil.   

First please define "so much use", because I do not think this is accurate. The average people in those countries might not have heard of Bitcoin and know what it is.

You want to know where it has "so much use"? The dark markets.

[pooya87]

one interesting thing that i have noticed is that many people around here (specially in signature campaigns) are like parrots. someone with clear agenda spreads some FUD and you see them repeat it all over the forum.

i saw a comment in altcoin board from one of those brainless parrots talking about bitcoin and it having a bug in the code which was exploited! and we have all seen thousands of comments talking about "split" in the past month.

[franky1]

one interesting thing that i have noticed is that many people around here (specially in signature campaigns) are like parrots. someone with clear agenda spreads some FUD and you see them repeat it all over the forum.

i saw a comment in altcoin board from one of those brainless parrots talking about bitcoin and it having a bug in the code which was exploited! and we have all seen thousands of comments talking about "split" in the past month.

the only ones shouting
"splits are bad"
"anything not core needs to split"
"if segwit isnt activate a splt will occur"
are the blockstreamists.

the rest of the community want consensus. meaning network PEER upgrade..
not blockstream upstream TIER network
not blockstream split, anything else= 'altcoin'

a real proper consensus.
also if the pools and nodes say no to segwit. no mandatory push it in by delaying another year
http://www.uasf.co/

Can BIP148 be cancelled?

Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

instead blockstreamists should accept consensus said no. and then blockstream should listen to the community and try something the community do want.
non of this intentionally give to pools and then point fingers at pools with 'pools are attacking' crap.

pools and non-core nodes have done literally nothing. no deadlines, no demands, no threats.
so stop pointing the finger at everyone else when the root of the issues/debate/drama is blockstream

[ImHash]

Yup pretty much, but what do you know eh? all bitcoin needs is a community of 20M daily users and I'm sure China has more than 50 times of such population, so while you guys are constantly bi**hing around spend some time thinking about that as well.

[AngryDwarf]

Block size really is a pointless debate.

blocksize alone is not the solution. especially if devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite

Don't forget, core will be removing other anti spam measures. From the 0.14 release notes:

Removal of Priority Estimation
- ------------------------------

- - Support for "priority" (coin age) transaction sorting for mining is
  considered deprecated in Core and will be removed in the next major version.

Whilst one could argue this makes coins more fungible, I think it is premature to remove such an anti-spam deterrent at this moment in time.

If people do not understand this concept, it effectively gives priority to UTXO's with a higher confirm count. It reduces the priority of those who send the same UTXO amount over and over again.

[jonald_fyookball]

^

this is a terrible idea, more so with unconfirmed backlogs.

Whereas before you had to wait 3 days, now your transaction
might not get confirmed at all until the logjam is cleared.

[Wind_FURY]

Yup pretty much, but what do you know eh? all bitcoin needs is a community of 20M daily users and I'm sure China has more than 50 times of such population, so while you guys are constantly bi**hing around spend some time thinking about that as well.

A community of 20 million users from China doing what? Buy and holding their coins or trading them in a website called an "exchange"?

If Bitcoin gains that amount of "daily" users from China, it will be nothing for them except use it as a store of value or some kind of "digital gold". Maybe some will use it as a money laundering mechanism to get their money out of the country which is good.

I would go for 20 million drug addicts using Bitcoin actively in the dark markets than the Chinese buy and holders and exchange traders.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

@Wind_Fury would you not consider those who buy and hold to be considered use?

If people buy and hold stocks
or buy and hold gold
or buy and hold real estate
this should also not be considered use?

A question for anyone else; so if there are 950 individuals buy to simply hold bitcoin, represented by 950 transactions, but there were 50 individuals doing either dark market or spam transactions stuff with 10,000 transactions - in this scenario bitcoin's use is more for what?

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

The shills continue to still buy Bitcoin - what hypocrites.