Bitcoin has not learned anything in past 3 years

[konfuzius5278]

Talking with many people on Discord and Telegram they say Bitcoin is developed very strong and solved main problems.

One of this "development" was implementing SegWit in October 2017.

These Bitcoin Maxis say, with a more and more use of this, the problem of expensive transactions that happend in Dec 2017 is solved.

I can say this is wrong.

Nearly 3 years later after this development, still rare people use it because they are not forced to use.

Even Binance use very old adresses for deposit with a 1 at the beginning.

The result can been seen e.g. on first of May, 16:10 Central European Time (I can provide a screenshot) where 50.000 unconfirmed transactions are in the line and there is a fee of 0.00097 BTC/kvB.

So in worse case (I know its not like this) 50000 user wait for their transaction beeing solved.

And this time some rising pice but not a real bull run.

What will happen if BTC is really accepted.

Lightning Network need also be fundet and is in alpha test phase and its totally unclear if its a save solution APart from that has nothing to do with idea of Sathosi and Bitcoin.


And some simple answer why this happens:
1) Bech32 was set a standart very late in Bitcoin Core for receving adress (about Version 19.0)

2) Main part Bitcoin developers are phobic of any hard fork with the block size or block time.
When you have 10 Mbs blocks and 2 min block time without any other changes, you can have the TX volume as VISA

Your thoughts please :-)

[1714604140]

1714604140

[1714604140]

1714604140

[1714604140]

1714604140

[BrewMaster]

These Bitcoin Maxis say, with a more and more use of this, the problem of expensive transactions that happend in Dec 2017 is solved.

i don't know what a "bitcoin maxi" is but they sound wrong. what you refer to is not a problem it is a feature and as long as there is a limit to block size we will see that feature. it is there to prevent spam attacks that could cripple full nodes easily.

Even Binance use very old adresses for deposit with a 1 at the beginning.

it is only because no matter what kind of shit these centralized sites offer their users (such as scamming them, getting hacked, leaking or selling their documents, not implementing a feature that was added years ago) people continue eating that shit up and say nothing.

So in worse case (I know its not like this) 50000 user wait for their transaction beeing solved.

if there are n unconfirmed transactions in the mempool it doesn't mean there are n users waiting for confirmation. in fact a lot of those transactions are being spammed by the same shit services such as Binance.

And this time some rising pice but not a real bull run.

well if 140% rise in a 2 week period is not a bull run then i don't know what is!

Lightning Network need also be fundet and is in alpha test phase

alpha testing is when the code is not even released. LN is already released and has been used for millions of dollars worth of transactions so far.

that has nothing to do with idea of Sathosi and Bitcoin.

then you don't know what Satoshi or Bitcoin is.

[LeGaulois]

Less than 3 years and over 50% use it. Did you expect to see it adopted 100% within 1 year? It's like if you say Instant SEPA transactions are a flop because only a few banks use despite it started 1-2 years back


Exchanges platforms don't care about paying less fess but why? Because they don't pay for it, the users do. And it's up to a platform like Binance to make an example of it.
But they don't because it also costs money to reply to customers asking "Why my address changed suddenly, what is that? a scam?"
Not even talking about training the staff, making a change in large infrastructure centralized with millions of dollars

LN is not in Alpha!

[konfuzius5278]

These Bitcoin Maxis say, with a more and more use of this, the problem of expensive transactions that happend in Dec 2017 is solved.

i don't know what a "bitcoin maxi" is but they sound wrong. what you refer to is not a problem it is a feature and as long as there is a limit to block size we will see that feature. it is there to prevent spam attacks that could cripple full nodes easily.

Even Binance use very old adresses for deposit with a 1 at the beginning.

it is only because no matter what kind of shit these centralized sites offer their users (such as scamming them, getting hacked, leaking or selling their documents, not implementing a feature that was added years ago) people continue eating that shit up and say nothing.

So in worse case (I know its not like this) 50000 user wait for their transaction beeing solved.

if there are n unconfirmed transactions in the mempool it doesn't mean there are n users waiting for confirmation. in fact a lot of those transactions are being spammed by the same shit services such as Binance.

And this time some rising pice but not a real bull run.

well if 140% rise in a 2 week period is not a bull run then i don't know what is!

Lightning Network need also be fundet and is in alpha test phase

alpha testing is when the code is not even released. LN is already released and has been used for millions of dollars worth of transactions so far.

that has nothing to do with idea of Sathosi and Bitcoin.

then you don't know what Satoshi or Bitcoin is.

These people that say Bitcoin is the one and only coin at this stage say, because there is a leak of savety (there is a easy attack beeing discussed) and the problem of need enough funded nodes in your transaction and that is often not the case (I make this experiance) its in alpha test.

And a real bullrun is when new users are in the network and we reach old ATH

Satoshi said all transactions must be seen for all time to prevend double spend in his whitepaper. With LN its not the case

[pixie85]

I'm not worried about acceptance because it won't ahppen overnight.

OP is giving the curent state of segwit and LN and comparing it with future state of Bitcoin when it's already accepted. It makes no sense.

Im sorry im of no help because im new here. Can someone help me

What do you need help with?

There's a beginners and help sections, try there.

[spazzdla]

LN and stuff will get pushed when transactions fees start to go crazy again.  Sometimes it takes a push to get people to do things.  When the news starts talking about how it costs hundreds of dollars to send BTC around LN and stuff will get massive traction.

[carter34]

Your question about what will happen if bitcoin gets accepted, surely price will fly and steadily move up. Adoption is what will bring better stability to the price of bitcoin.

Im sorry im of no help because im new here. Can someone help me

Then you stay off it. You can go to beginners sections to learn and grow.

[GreatArkansas]

I do understand your opinion that the price must not be high and the queue be decongested at the speed of light, but compared with what we have in 2017 might not be totally right due to a lot of improvement from that time till now.

For me, price does not matter here. But you also have point, especially what happened last bull run 2017, which the price of Bitcoin is too high and transaction fees too.

In short, we are still in early age or Bitcoin or pioneers.
We can't force to people use those. Even lightning network, since it is just on top of Bitcoin, so it's up to you if you will use it. We still more time to adopt these.

[kawetsriyanto]

Nearly 3 years later after this development, still rare people use it because they are not forced to use.

How can you conclude this? Do you get information from a valid source?
Personally, I am not sure to say "rare" or "more" people use Bitcoin if there is no a research with valid data.
The development of Bitcoin should be viewed from various factors, not only from the number of holders but from its function in real-life or current adoption.
Anyway, we don't have the right to force people using Bitcoin. You know every country may have different regulations related to the use of Bitcoin.

[pooya87]

LN and stuff will get pushed when transactions fees start to go crazy again.  Sometimes it takes a push to get people to do things.  When the news starts talking about how it costs hundreds of dollars to send BTC around LN and stuff will get massive traction.

i don't think so because if a transaction costs "hundreds of dollars" to be sent then it still costs hundreds of dollars to enter LN and that means people would still not be able to do it.
the only time i believe LN is going to gain a much bigger popularity is when more popular wallets release new versions that support it. for instance Electrum has already been working on a new version which is nearly complete but not yet released. right now regular users find it hard to use.

[ABCbits]

2) Main part Bitcoin developers are phobic of any hard fork with the block size or block time.
When you have 10 Mbs blocks and 2 min block time without any other changes, you can have the TX volume as VISA

Increasing block size or block time have more problem than you think (i only list few) :
1. Storage capacity
2. Storage speed
3. Processing power to verify transaction & block
4. RAM speed / capacity
5. Costs to run full node due to point 1-4
6. Initial block download (IBD) time for those who run full node for first time
7. Internet speed/price heavily depending on country and location (e.g. big city or in the middle of nowhere)
8. All Bitcoin transaction which use timelock/HTLC will be broken

[DoublerHunter]

^ Adoption will not really happen overnight it might take a while before the changes will be embraced by everyone. If bitcoin maxi can really lessen the problem particularly on the transaction fee then soon it will still be accepted and use once it has been proven. If bitcoin will be accepted and takes place as a new mode of exchanges then probably for sure there is maybe a scarcity on the supply and price will reach a skyrocketing. Nevertheless, we all know that Bitcoin was already mainstream and that was the advantage there.

[witcher_sense]

2) Main part Bitcoin developers are phobic of any hard fork with the block size or block time.

Your thoughts please :-)

Bitcoin developers are essential part of the community, but they can't force any improvements, they can just propose them in order to solve some network problems or fix some bugs. The grade of usefulness of a particular improvement is basically determined by all participants of the network such as developers, exchanges, miners, users, full nodes, etc. It is not easy for different people to achieve consensus when they live in different corners of Earth, when they have different views and ideas on how something should work. That is why everything go slow, robustness of the network rely on decentralization and vice versa it is because of the network robustness is being essential part, people care to not broke it by some changes that can decrease decentralization. Increased block size is one of the things that will dramatically decrease decentralization.

[GreatArkansas]

^ Adoption will not really happen overnight it might take a while before the changes will be embraced by everyone. If bitcoin maxi can really lessen the problem particularly on the transaction fee then soon it will still be accepted and use once it has been proven. If bitcoin will be accepted and takes place as a new mode of exchanges then probably for sure there is maybe a scarcity on the supply and price will reach a skyrocketing. Nevertheless, we all know that Bitcoin was already mainstream and that was the advantage there.

Agree! It's still early for us now to judge Bitcoin, as I said we are more likely still in the early age of Bitcoin.
What is continue to grow is the Bitcoin transactions per day, the hash rate of Bitcoin, and mostly the total transactions which as long we continue to climb, it means there are lot of people using Bitcoin day by day and there you can see the adoption.

[konfuzius5278]

Nearly 3 years later after this development, still rare people use it because they are not forced to use.

How can you conclude this? Do you get information from a valid source?
Personally, I am not sure to say "rare" or "more" people use Bitcoin if there is no a research with valid data.
The development of Bitcoin should be viewed from various factors, not only from the number of holders but from its function in real-life or current adoption.
Anyway, we don't have the right to force people using Bitcoin. You know every country may have different regulations related to the use of Bitcoin.

I am not talking of forcing to use Bitcoin, I am talking of forcing to use SegWit

[konfuzius5278]

2) Main part Bitcoin developers are phobic of any hard fork with the block size or block time.
When you have 10 Mbs blocks and 2 min block time without any other changes, you can have the TX volume as VISA

Increasing block size or block time have more problem than you think (i only list few) :
1. Storage capacity
2. Storage speed
3. Processing power to verify transaction & block
4. RAM speed / capacity
5. Costs to run full node due to point 1-4
6. Initial block download (IBD) time for those who run full node for first time
7. Internet speed/price heavily depending on country and location (e.g. big city or in the middle of nowhere)
8. All Bitcoin transaction which use timelock/HTLC will be broken

Currently its already hard to run a full node. You need 3-4 days to download and valid blockchain on a normal computer
But the security of the network  NOT depend on then number of full nodes.
Currently 4 TB Disc Space costs 120 $ so its not the problem to find servers to store on it.
Even a full VPS with 1,6 TB Space, 60 GB of RAM, 10 Cores with a GBit Internet connection with 2 Ghz costs 25 Eur a month (https://contabo.com/?show=vps)
So there will be still enough people to run a full node comparing to the actual price and we get rid of the problem.

[AniviaBtc]

I do understand your opinion that the price must not be high and the queue be decongested at the speed of light, but compared with what we have in 2017 might not be totally right due to a lot of improvement from that time till now.

For me, price does not matter here. But you also have point, especially what happened last bull run 2017, which the price of Bitcoin is too high and transaction fees too.

In short, we are still in early age or Bitcoin or pioneers.
We can't force to people use those. Even lightning network, since it is just on top of Bitcoin, so it's up to you if you will use it. We still more time to adopt these.

In 2017, we're all proud and shocked about the price of bitcoin hitting its all time high, it is because of the factors that affected it in the market like bull run. Bitcoin's advantages are to help people in many transaction to prevent hassle and make people to have a store of value besides gold. Price always matter, people are looking forward for cryptocurrency development because they see some advantages and improvement in its price. Without seeing some improvement in its price, people will think of it as a losing scheme, but this is not the last days of bitcoin. I know that bitcoin can improve more 5 to 10 years from now because bitcoin is the most famous cryptocurrency and I believe that it will dominate the market soon.  

[witcher_sense]

I am not talking of forcing to use Bitcoin, I am talking of forcing to use SegWit

Half of the transactions in a block are SegWit transactions. And % of transactions per block is slightly increasing over time.

https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1&from=now-2y&to=now



This type of transactions shouldn't be forced because SegWit has intrinsic benefits and itself should incentives people to make SegWit-transactions.

It is always better for users to pay less fees while getting faster transaction confirmation. So, people now have a choice.

Some of them still holding their bitcoin on Legacy addresses and won't move them anywhere. If we made legacy addresses no longer compatible with the network,

Satoshi and other old school miners would lose their bitcoin or would have to transfer them to new addresses. They would have no choice.

[konfuzius5278]

Currently its already hard to run a full node. You need 3-4 days to download and valid blockchain on a normal computer

It's true and it will be far worse if maximum block size is increased and average block size is also increasing

But the security of the network  NOT depend on then number of full nodes.

I get the reason you say that, but would you say that if block size is significantly increased (e.g. 32 MB) and block often full which makes running full node become far more expensive.

Currently 4 TB Disc Space costs 120 $ so its not the problem to find servers to store on it.

Assuming you're talking about 4TB HDD, it'll be useless if maximum block size and average block size is too big due to intensive I/O.
For example, to run ETH archive node, you must use SSD to store the blockchain nowadays.

Even a full VPS with 1,6 TB Space, 60 GB of RAM, 10 Cores with a GBit Internet connection with 2 Ghz costs 25 Eur a month (https://contabo.com/?show=vps)
So there will be still enough people to run a full node comparing to the actual price and we get rid of the problem.

IMO the price is too good to be true, other popular VPS provider have far more expensive price for similar spec.

P.S. i don't oppose increase maximum blocksize, as long as it follows hardware/internet growth and Bitcoiner still can run full nodes at reasonable cost.

I run 3 of these contabo VPS. Price is true.

I see a discussion here about the number of full nodes, dont find it again, there it was long discussed about more full nodes makes the network not more save

[konfuzius5278]

I am not talking of forcing to use Bitcoin, I am talking of forcing to use SegWit

Half of the transactions in a block are SegWit transactions. And % of transactions per block is slightly increasing over time.

https://txstats.com/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1&from=now-2y&to=now



This type of transactions shouldn't be forced because SegWit has intrinsic benefits and itself should incentives people to make SegWit-transactions.

It is always better for users to pay less fees while getting faster transaction confirmation. So, people now have a choice.

Some of them still holding their bitcoin on Legacy addresses and won't move them anywhere. If we made legacy addresses no longer compatible with the network,

Satoshi and other old school miners would lose their bitcoin or would have to transfer them to new addresses. They would have no choice.

I am not 100% sure that a bech32 TX is cheaper then an old one. The bitcoin core makes a standart suggestion and is not asking for that before.

Not need to send them away from legacy adresses. But network could prevend sending on them in some way.