Now that we are heading to BIP 148...

[Dorky]

... which I am not even sure if that will really take place in August, considering so much shitty (that refers to the developers, the miners, and the rothschilds) drama keep relentlessly playing out between the developers and the miners, and Dash is going full force trying to topple Bitcoin (seems like the developers and miners are indirectly lending a helping hand on that with disagreements on the scaling issue), I want to ask just 1 simple question:

>> Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

Yeah, the transaction fee is high, but if they make it a rule for everyone to pay a fixed percentage of transaction fee (taking the opportunity for anyone to bid for higher priority out of the equation) and confirm transactions that get sent first, then there would be no competition of Mr. A (2nd in line) trying to get faster transaction ahead of Mr. B (first in line) by paying more, because both will pay the same relative to the dollar amount being transacted and the miners will not lose out.

Or maybe setting the fee based on the amount of bytes sent is a bad idea, which since this is the case, then Bitcoin mining will eventually be centralized and probably along with a new protocol version similar to PoS.


Note: If Segwit + LN is finally activated, Dash will crash. Are the rothschilds scumbags trying to shift the goal post to Dash with all the Bitcoin scaling drama?



"Hi, I am Mr. Lord Scumbag Rothschild. Do I look shitty or what?"

[pereira4]

I don't think nobody cares about dash, there's no conspiracy. Bitcoin is going through the usual scaling drama and people are speculating with other cryptos (mostly shitcoins) because nobody uses them so they are faster and cheaper than bitcoin. Nothing to see there.

[Emoclaw]

Doing what you said defeats the purpose of transaction fees, which is to pay a bit more and send money faster.
If fees are fixed for everyone, then you might as well eliminate them right? Miners would not accept such change, but had they not been introduced in the first place it would be the same thing wouldn't it?
And also how would fixed fees be determined? Would the developers and/or miners set them, or would they be based on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
In either case, Bitcoin would become what it's trying to avoid, centralized. Why would anyone have control over what fees I pay, I don't want to pay any fees.

[Dorky]

Doing what you said defeats the purpose of transaction fees, which is to pay a bit more and send money faster.
If fees are fixed for everyone, then you might as well eliminate them right? Miners would not accept such change, but had they not been introduced in the first place it would be the same thing wouldn't it?
And also how would fixed fees be determined? Would the developers and/or miners set them, or would they be based on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
In either case, Bitcoin would become what it's trying to avoid, centralized. Why would anyone have control over what fees I pay, I don't want to pay any fees.

How does sending a $20 transaction with the same $20 fee work for you?

I wouldn't have any problem if the fee commensurate with the dollar amount of bitcoin transacted, like $20 fee for a $20,000 transaction while $0.2 fee for a $200 transaction, but not $20 fee for the same $20 transaction.

[BitHodler]

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

[Emoclaw]

Doing what you said defeats the purpose of transaction fees, which is to pay a bit more and send money faster.
If fees are fixed for everyone, then you might as well eliminate them right? Miners would not accept such change, but had they not been introduced in the first place it would be the same thing wouldn't it?
And also how would fixed fees be determined? Would the developers and/or miners set them, or would they be based on the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool?
In either case, Bitcoin would become what it's trying to avoid, centralized. Why would anyone have control over what fees I pay, I don't want to pay any fees.

How does sending a $20 transaction with the same $20 fee work for you?

I wouldn't have any problem if the fee commensurate with the dollar amount of bitcoin transacted, like $20 fee for a $20,000 transaction while $0.2 fee for a $200 transaction, but not $20 fee for the same $20 transaction.

I have a choice in what fee amount I use. With your proposed solution I wouldn't.
Fees are not the problem, scaling is. The fee system has worked fine for years, and still does. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. high fees are the result of a deeper underlying problem.

And how would the network determine the exchange rate? Why should it be dollars and not euros?
That's not how a decentralized currency should work. In addition to your proposal not solving the underlying problems that are actually plaguing Bitcoin, there are flaws that can create abuse of power, thus making Bitcoin centralized.

[XbladeX]

***
Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

Once people start using alternative and will stick to IT
NOW Jihan is mining probably 2x less than he could more value is creating ETH from mining than Bitcoin
becouse of fees he earn actually less guys.

So BTC no Segwit is 1m$ for him while BTC with segwit would be ~3m$ becouse of coin use and price.
BTC without upgrading will be Nokia guys coins like ETH will crash hard but once they will win battle.

Who care today Nokia when you have Iphone or Samsung ?
Same future is for BTC if will never upgrade.
Do you use still win 3.11 in home?
Do people use today gold ?

this is future of not upgraded tech a graveyard  : )

[krishnapramod]

Looking at the current scenario, it would not be wrong to conclude that the technical aspect of the scaling debate is almost forgotten, it is more of a struggle for power to dominate the bitcoin network.

At first BIP 100 and 101, both hard forks, one to increase the block size based on miners decision, the other a one-time block size increase from 1 MB to 8 MB, 2015 gone debating over the incompatibility of these two.

Then comes BU and SegWit, the blame game continues, one leads to centralization + would put small node operators out of business, the other one is also somewhat centralized in terms of LN + increasing the block size to 2 and then 4 MB might be enough temporarily, but sooner or later it needs to be increased. 2016 gone.

Then Segwit2x, Segwit + increasing block size to 2 MB via a hard fork.

And then BIP148, in this whole BU vs Segwit drama, the two Goliath's,  BIP148 is David, and we users are just the spectators. They are not fighting, just stalling each other, and sooner or later the audience would get bored.

Hope 2017 would not be another year of endless debates with zero outcome.

[mindrust]

Ver is paying bits to his shills on twitter. How pathetic those BU supporters have become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjqGEvpUMvE&feature=youtu.be

The situation is exactly like OP said. They have heavily invested in altcoins shitcoins like dash,zcash and other bullshit so that's why they don't want bitcoin's development at all.

They want big blocks because that's the only way they can completely take over.

They give us two options:

1-Piece of shit BU
2-Blocking segwit and pumping alts

We need to get rid of them as soon as possible or it will be too late for bitcoin.

Aug 1,
#UASF

[BillyBobZorton]

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

If we assume that miners don't want any scaling (because any scaling, would lead to lower fees for miners) and it's all staling tactics, then what the fuck are we waiting for to go all in on UASF BIP 148 support?

They are leaving us no choice. If we want to scale, there's no other way out.

[deisik]

Because miners don't care about anything other than their financial income, and that's exactly why they prioritize transactions based on the included fee, and not who or what was first.

If it is up to the miners, we will stay in this situation for many more years. Seriously, they earn 16BTC per block in current times ~ that's $44,000 per block at current prices.

It makes them easily forget about the 25BTC block rewards from last years.

Antpool mined 27 blocks yesterday ~ 27 x $44,000 = $1,188,000 per day. Never have miners had a higher income value before. Exactly the reason for them to make this situation last longer.

If we assume that miners don't want any scaling (because any scaling, would lead to lower fees for miners) and it's all staling tactics, then what the fuck are we waiting for to go all in on UASF BIP 148 support?

They are leaving us no choice. If we want to scale, there's no other way out.

It is good that more and more people now come to understand the tactics of rogue miners. As I tell it constantly, miners are not interested in changing the current situation, they are quite happy with the status quo and the fees they charge (or collect, if you please). Whatever they do or suggest should be viewed from this point of view, and then it becomes abundantly clear that their "proposals" (whatever they might be or look like) are not actually meant to get implemented for real but only to forestall further Bitcoin development as well as raise meaningless arguments and futile debates. OP seems to be ingenuously pushing Dash ("Dash is going full force trying to topple Bitcoin")

Another shit coin, another trash bag

[Kprawn]

Dash is the new Anarchist and drug users wet dream, because it is supposed to be more anonymous than Bitcoin and it reflects the true principles

of a Anarchist idea of a coin that would circumvent government controls. Bitcoin has become more mainstream and shed the ties to Anarchist

ideals. Bitcoin is also being regulated now, so criminals will look for a alternative for their shady actions. 

[Iranus]

Dash is the new Anarchist and drug users wet dream, because it is supposed to be more anonymous than Bitcoin and it reflects the true principles

of a Anarchist idea of a coin that would circumvent government controls. Bitcoin has become more mainstream and shed the ties to Anarchist

ideals. Bitcoin is also being regulated now, so criminals will look for a alternative for their shady actions.  

DASH isn't much more anonymous than Bitcoin.  It's very similar to Bitcoin, but with a mixer built-in to the reference client ("Private Send").  You could equally use CoinJoin with Bitcoin and have the same options as DASH's private send feature.

Bitcoin's regulation would also be very similar to DASH in that governments will find it pretty difficult to actually track down transactions and users unless they put a crazy amount of resources into it.

Smaller coins obviously can be less regulated for now, but broader government regulations in the future will cover "Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies", or just "cryptocurrencies", and DASH would be handled in a similar way.

Monero is the criminal alternative IMO, but if you go on dark net markets like Alpha Bay you'll see that the majority of merchants still deal with BTC and not Monero or ETH (despite those being options there).

[Dorky]

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.

[Dorky]

Hope 2017 would not be another year of endless debates with zero outcome.

Judging by their behavioral pattern, I would bet 2017 will be another lost year.

[Dorky]

If bitcoin adapt "first-come-first-serve" rule, then bitcoin hater can make lots of spam transaction easily and it will be disaster for bitcoin itself.

That's true. I never thought about that.

[qiman]

"first-come-first-serve" rule is useless as long as bitcoin transaction fee still exist, i think segwit + increasing block size is better choice. If bitcoin adapt "first-come-first-serve" rule, then bitcoin hater can make lots of spam transaction easily and it will be disaster for bitcoin itself.
Also, i think DASH isn't the only altcoin that will could crash once bitcoin problem has been resolved.

I believe selfish miners are making the biggest problem for Bitcoin would be double the price by now and more and more mainstream users using it but because of the higher transaction fees and infighting it is causing many Newbies to go to other coins instead that are faster and cheaper to use as transaction.s.

[Emoclaw]

Fees are not the problem, scaling is.

Someone here said that the miners will just "spam" the blockchain with their own transactions (they will just be paying themselves the high fees) to make the blocks full again, so scaling won't resolve the high fee.

"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are).

[Dorky]

"Someone here" is making baseless speculation.

This has never been done before to a troublesome degree. So why would miners do it now? Did they just suddenly decide to go rogue and attack Bitcoin?
Not only that, such an attack would be unaffordable to maintain.

Before scaling was ever an issue, Bitcoin ran fine. The blocks were not full, because there weren't that many transactions.
Wanna know why? Because there weren't any miners spamming the network (and there won't be), but there also weren't many people using it (and now there are).

Why is such attack unaffordable to maintain? The miners are just paying themselves back from the high fee that they themselves paid for the spams to make the block full.

[pooya87]

Why are the developers and/or miners not enforcing "first-come-first-serve" rule in confirming transactions?

pretty simple!
because that will open up way for an easy and huge attack vector which will possibly cripple the network!

imagine if it was first come first serve without the who pays the high fees. someone can easily flood the network with millions of small transactions with small fees and at some point it will be his turn and we have to wait forever until those millions of transactions are confirmed so that we can get our turn.