The real comparison is between EFTPOS "debit cards" 20 cents transaction fee versus Bitcoin "3% transaction fee". An average transaction is usually above $10, so bitcoin loses already.
How you end up with 3% transaction fees in bitcoin
usuallly tx fees are 0.0001!!
Yeah. well, ANZ P2P payment system is free. lol. You can't beat free. That's the future, it's probably in America, Europe, and China already. You can already buy items using direct deposit. That's like using bitcoin. Furthermore, most bitcoins sold on bitcoinlocal use this method too.
Don't forget whose analysis that transaction fee comparison is.
It's SecondMarket's Bitcoin Investment Trust - One of the biggest wallets with bitcoins.
I merely changed a few constraints with the transaction limits.
This isn't even an analysis. Just a bunch of thoughts mixed with some numbers.
Anyway it seems that max_block_size really bothers you so you may want to take a look here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0It is analysis. If you don't understand it, then I can't provide any advice other than to try and learn some valuation methods. It's all there and is conducted by one of the largest holders of bitcoin. It's one method of analysis, you can use technical analysis, but that too has flaws, it can be a straight line up or a straight line down.
------
As for that link you provided, there hasn't been a solution. In fact there is evidence in that thread that states there will be a new fork, a new bitcoin chain. People will try and fork the chain but only if the miners consent to it. It could happen if everyone wants the faster system rather than the slow system. But if it doesn't happen, then we are stuck with the old clunky system that doesn't confirm enough transactions per day.
I always thought two of the benefits of Bitcoin are:
Fast transactions
Low transaction fees
It seems, that these points are outright Lies
If the blocksize limit isn't lifted and Bitcoin grows it will at one Point be virtually impossible to make transactions unless a ridiculous high transaction fee is paid.
I can't see how we can ask any merchant to accept Bitcoin, if it is clear that, unless Bitcoin remain a sideline payment system, at some point it will be impossible to accept Bitcoin for small payments.
No rebuttal to this argument.
Then it goes on about forking and whether it will be successful.
It doesn't take into account which part of the fork will be most accepted but states that there will be two or more blockchains forked. But let me put it simply:
If there is majority consensus that the block size needs to be increased and the normal developers don't accept it, then the validating nodes will become the new nodes that are running the bitcoin-2.0/fast software to allow more transactions. This is kind of obvious. Majority rules. It will fork but everyone will lose confidence in the original one because it's flawed and limits the number of transactions. Only an idiot would stay with the old one and wait several days to confirm their transaction. Either way the original bitcoin would have lost enough confidence to screw itself over and the new one would be the one that would be used.
Who would use the old one that is slow?It's not the miners who make the call in the max_block_size issue, right? I mean, all the miners could gang up and say: "we're not going to process blocks with more than 2 transactions," if they wanted too. It's the validating nodes that make the call as far as what will be a valid block. If all the nodes ganged up, they could change the limit as well.
I think miners should keep their own market determined limit on transactions. If I was a big pool, I'd make people pay for access to my speedy blocks. They're being nice processing no fee tx's as it is.
This doesn't take into account that if everyone pays higher tx fees, then it will just bid up the price and transactions will still be left unconfirmed... But there is a mention that ganging up could change the limit if there is enough consensus. Of course it wouldn't be called ganging up, but rather progressive change that makes bitcoin more user friendly. But then the developer comes in and says that it won't happen.
Wrong I say, because majority rules.If there is not enough consensus than the devs attempts to fork the chain will fail all on its own.
No rebuttals. It seems like they don't care, but there will soon be a new thread with the same issues. All of the ideas would create a fork, but it doesn't go anywhere to determining which one would be accepted. It could well be the one that is not on bitcoin.org...
The only rebuttal is this:
Correct.
Any miner that increases MAX_BLOCK_SIZE beyond 1MB will self-select themselves away from the network, because all other validating nodes would ignore that change.
Just like if a miner decides to issue themselves 100 BTC per block. All other validating nodes consider that invalid data, and do not relay or process it further.
But what if most of us decide to validate it? That's why it's either open source (Let us fork), or it's closed source (bitcoin.org only). So with this in mind, this software is more
closed and totalitarian than I would have originally thought. The developers even believe that it won't happen, that's the kind of thinking that would imply we can't fork it and they want control... By why? What if that control hurts the users? Why would we then decide to use it? You don't hurt your clients and expect them to come back, that's just poor business management.
My opinion is with the white/black hats. Hackers would state, nothing can't be broken. We either let bitcoin be controlled like the Fed, like I mentioned above, it's centralised, or we fix it ourselves.
