aaaand here we go again

[jonald_fyookball]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

[cryptoanarchist]

Beg your pool operator overlords to fix it for you!

They can do it via the

obvious simple move (literally 1 line of code)

Yes, and no. With about 90% of nodes still using Core, only a little over 10% will validate the bigger blocks. Miners might be waiting to get that number higher. The problem is that this could have been done with a core update, but instead users have to pick a new client, whether classic, XT, BU, or just Core with the limit manually removed.

[BADecker]

We are down to less than 43,000 unconfirmed, even though it was over 60,000 this morning.

[QuestionAuthority]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Right, in Satoshi's day, the client software was the node, sent and received coins, and mined for blocks using a CPU.

[The One]

Making blocks larger does not necessarily mean that miners will earn more transaction fees. Larger blocks will simply fill up with free transactions until there is once again pressure to compete to have your transaction included in the next block. Once there is pressure again, coffee drinkers will resume their complaining or the blocks will have to be made even larger. That's not a valid solution for either coffee drinkers or decentralizationists.

Using a second layer which can aggregate many small transactions (with small fees) into a single on-chain transaction (with a large fee) is beneficial for both coffee drinkers and decentralizationists, however.

There will only be demand for Bitcoin transactions if Bitcoin offers something unique, which in my mind is a system which allows censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. Increasing the resources required to maintain the block chain is in direct opposition to the properties which promote decentralization. A system where you have to record every transaction into a permanent ledger which all full nodes must maintain forever will never be able to compete with centralized solutions when it comes to speed and efficiency, so I'm not sure why we should base future improvements on attempting the impossible when we can base them on strengthening the very properties which gives Bitcoin it's unique use cases and thus it's value.

There is no mainstream demand for Bitcoin transactions (I'm not sure why "big blockers" like to pretend there is). The only people who will find it valuable are those who are willing to intentionally evade the capital controls implemented by their governments. Pretending it can compete with more efficient, centralized solutions while maintaining the properties that make it valuable, and attempting to "improve" the protocol based on those imaginary use cases, is pure folly. The average debt slave can't even write a check for $500, so I'm not sure why anyone would think they are going to purchase bitcoins in order to make their everyday, mundane purchases.

Pretending other cryptocurrencies (which must also maintain a permanent ledger) won't run into the same issues as Bitcoin should they obtain similar usage is silly.

I think I've fully acknowledged every possibility in your post.

Transactions should not be free. At current price 1000 sats should be the minimum.

What kind of second layer - LN? At the moment i am suspicious of any second layer that will take away transaction fees from miners due to decreasing block rewards. It is not something we all need to rush into right now. It does take time and lots of thinking before making a decision. There are always people trying to manipulative a situation to their advantage/agenda that isn't always fully revealed.

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?

Not really. I do think that rushing into something now when the demand isn't there isn't right, except for doubling the blocksize to 2mb for now is the most simple solution, better than BU and Segwit. The demand maybe there in the future. I do know friends who are not yet involved, but may do so if it was easier to use and has reasons for using it. There is nothing wrong with researching and debating for now, so when the time comes it can be implemented quickly.

The average debt slave can't even write a check for $500 - if they had any sense, they should invest and wait to clear their debts.

[jonald_fyookball]

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?
 

Yes there are checkpoint blocks and Core seems to think they are a good idea for that reason.

[The One]

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?
 

Yes there are checkpoint blocks and Core seems to think they are a good idea for that reason.

Just to double check. By prune, i meant remove data older than 1 year.

[BADecker]

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?
 

Yes there are checkpoint blocks and Core seems to think they are a good idea for that reason.

Just to double check. By prune, i meant remove data older than 1 year.

Would it be practical to keep the full blockchain in a few storage facilities worldwide, justt so that we have a record, but limit the working blockchain to the first time every address was used, and the last 3 or 4 times it was used? Of course, if an address isn't used for more than a year, only save the first and the last.

[Wind_FURY]

It can be seen as also the miners' fault.  Core does not have all the power to change everything. They have a proposal, it is Segwit. It is clear that the support behind it is not enough, then why blame everything to them? The miners are also at fault here. I have a feeling they want everything to stay as is so that they enjoy more profit if the fees remain high.

It could also be them who is spamming the network. Spend a little in fees to get a little profit in fees.

Imagine two mechanics own an autobody shop and there's a car that needs an oil change.
One guy wants to do it the simple way: drain the old oil, and pour in the new oil.
The other mechanic says "no no, we can't do it that way, we might spill some oil,
so we're going to do a fancy engineering project that will cost 5000x as much.
It will involve dissassembling the car, building a separate garage, its going to
take 2 years, but that's my plan."  If the mechanics disagree, who's fault is it?

Raising the blocksize is the obvious simple move (literally 1 line of code), and it was the Satoshi's plan from the beginning.
Miners all favored it, but it was Core who blocked that with their influence, and then came out with segwit which is
literally 5000 times more complex (5000 lines of code).  

You decide who is at fault.



 

Then why are the miners taking too long to do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited now? You keep blaming it is Core but they really are powerless if it does not get the support of the miners. You also say that Bitcoin Unlimited is supported by the miners, then where are they? Where are the bigger blocks?

[The One]

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?
 

Yes there are checkpoint blocks and Core seems to think they are a good idea for that reason.

Just to double check. By prune, i meant remove data older than 1 year.

Would it be practical to keep the full blockchain in a few storage facilities worldwide, justt so that we have a record, but limit the working blockchain to the first time every address was used, and the last 3 or 4 times it was used? Of course, if an address isn't used for more than a year, only save the first and the last.

Yes full storage can be saved by the selected few if they wish to do so.

[Quickseller]

Yeah, 70,000 garbage, no-fee transactions by tumblers and gambling sites.

This is not true. The required fee to get a transaction confirmed has risen substantially over the past few days based on the artificial fee market. If these were low/no fee transactions then the required fee would have stayed the same.

The tumblers can go to hell. Bitcoin is not supposed to be Mastercard. It is a settlement system for people transferring significant amounts of money, not jokers buying sandwiches and playing nickel slots.

Also not true. Even if you were to only look at transactions into and out of exchanges cold storage, then most transactions would not meet your criteria if you define "substantial sums of money" in line with the global economy.

If you look at Bitcoin transactions then almost all transactions are around your explicit definition of what Bitcoin transactions should not be.

[jonald_fyookball]

The tumblers can go to hell. Bitcoin is not supposed to be Mastercard. It is a settlement system for people transferring significant amounts of money, not jokers buying sandwiches and playing nickel slots.

Gavin and Satoshi would disagree.

im sure Blockstream would agree with you though.

[JGoRed]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

We are down to less than 43,000 unconfirmed, even though it was over 60,000 this morning.

Finally, perhaps the network will fix itself soon

[jonald_fyookball]

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.
 

Yes if you read the whitepaper.  Not sure if there would be slower transaction speeds without non-mining modes;
why would there be?

[LoyceV]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself
More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

[jonald_fyookball]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself
More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

I don't think that's what he is talking about.  Blocktime is 10 min but transactions can be near instant with good relaying which is the situation currently.

[zimmah]

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction.  His vision was that all full nodes are miners.  Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself
More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

yes but no one said 1 block can only be 1 MB.   

current technology allows for blocks to be far bigger than that, so why don't we?

1MB is hurting bitcoin.

[European Central Bank]

Today's congestion brought to you by 1-meg Greg and all the Blockstream superfriends.  Go team!

this is being done by the usual big blockers to pile false pressure on. note when it was clear that unlimited had been roundly rejected by everyone else they lost their mojo for a little while and couldn't be bothered to spam the blockchain.

[Kprawn]

almost 70k unconfirms in the mempool.

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Today's congestion brought to you by 1-meg Greg and all the Blockstream superfriends.  Go team!

Everyone knows jonald_fyookball is an anti-core, anti-blockstream shill.

Well, if you didn't know, now you know 

Even if there were solid proof that Bitcoin Core were not to be blamed for these spam attacks, people like him will still shill for BU... so do not

even waste your breath. Who has the most to gain from these spam attacks? .... Miners... If Bitcoin were not pseudo anonymous, people behind

these spam attacks would have been charged with something like industrial sabotage.... but unfortunately this cannot be traced. 

[NUFCrichard]

You can complain, but BU and/or Segwit don't seem to be winning over the miners.
It looks like it is a flawed system, the turkeys have to vote for Thanks Giving, why would miners vote to increase the size, when it means that transactions will get cheaper, so they will lose out.

I think someone might just have to fork Bitcoin without having 66% or whatever is 'required'.  The current situation can't really last too long, it just makes Bitcoin look bad.