but at the same time, there is a trade off currently, when we have some people who are very poor, and if they are buying $10 of bitcoin at a time, I hardly know how they can do that onchain without causing problems for themselves in the future, and if you are proposing BIG blocks to resolve it, that does not seem to be a tradeoff that is going to fly with a lot ofbitcoiners in order to achieve consensus, for reasons that I largely already discussed.
seems rather then reading what i actually talk about you prefer to grab the scripted narrative of the joke that is "bigblocker"
the stupid narrative that tries to quash any progress by going to insane extremes and pretending the extremes are whats being proposed
yet actual progressive proposals are not extremes.. but instead SCALINGs
Ok. Let us just take it for granted that I do not sufficiently understand what you are proposing to change, and I am saying that until any changes are made, each of us should be striving to figure out our own ways of dealing with uncertainties in current fees and future fees. If we cannot be sure about if various changes in the direction that you are suggesting to be "not extremes" yet we cannot take if for granted that such changes are going to happen.. unless you are talking about a variety of changes that have already been coded and are being considered for possible integration.
I also would consider this thread to be aimed more at observing what is going on with the mempool rather than ways it could potentially be changed in the future.. although some of us could hang onto (or even continue to create) some of our smaller UTXOs if we consider that in the future there might be economical ways to spend them.
not just or intently growth of blocksize, but mainly making transactions lean, strengthening the ruleset again where every byte of a tx counts and has purpose and formatting requirements that rules know of and examine. and uncludging the code to allow better utility of the full blocksize rather then the 25% 75% separate functionality..
Fair enough.. but when are these going into effect? I doubt we are even in the right thread in which it is very relevant if there is uncertainty regarding the probabilities that any such proposals would be going into effect and when they are going into effect.
oh and by the way segwit and taproot addresses can still operate inside such a united block, with their sigscripts at the end of the transaction. but as a united transaction thats fully validated..
It sounds like progress if you are no longer suggesting that various prior consensus-based changes need to be reversed, as you seemed to have had been seeming to propose such reversals at various times in the past. But still? how technical is this thread in regards to those kinds of topics?
other things like punishing spammer/bloaters can cut down on how many spammer/bloaters use up the space allowing for more normal people to use bitcoin. .. but your not interested in solutions to onchain stuff
I sent a merit to one of your earlier posts in which you outlined various proposed solutions, even though I don't claim to exactly understand the various categories or how they would be accomplished, and I don't see why you are concluding that I have problems with potentials to bring down on chain transaction fees if it seems that some of the proposed changes could be reasonably implemented. It seems that I already suggested that the uses of various third parties might be more practical than relatively poor people having a bunch of small UTXOs that might already be uneconomical to spend or might become unecomomical in the future... so even right now, it might be difficult to justify sending anyone less than a $20 transaction on chain, since it appears that the lowest that the transaction fee has gotten in recent times is around 25 sats per vbyte (which is about $1.50 - which is about 7.5% in fees).. but even that is uncertain since this is about the lowest that any onchain transactions have been in the last 3 months... so if we have any UTXOs that are $20 or less then it is going to cost us at least 7.5% to try to spend them, and we have a UTXO that is $40 and we want to send half of it, then we end up creating two UTXOs that are $20 (the one that is sent and the one that is the change)... and so there still could be ways that the $20 to $500 could be carried out in economical ways onchain, but I have been a bit reluctant to purposefully create such UTXOs especially if some folks might be choosing between how much value to keep on chain until they reach the $500 threshold that I am suggesting to transfer into a private wallet.. so I am also not that excited about spending BTC, but yeah there are going to be people who are needing to spend their BTC, so that also seems harder to accomplish online with the smaller transactions, so if lighting channels are already established (considering Phoenix or Breez), those ways could be possible, and Aqua wallet seems a possibility too.. since Aqua wallet is not exactly custodial... but yeah there could be some folks who are using the various custodial services to engage in smaller level transactions, some are using stable coins and other shitcoins too.. and so I doubt we want to go there.. because I guess you are correct in the sense that we likely do need to be somewhat attempting to relate our conversation towards the various ways that the mempool would end up getting involved in whatever ways we are choosing to transact.. and if the transactions are completely removed from the needs for resolving with the mempool from time to time, then in some of the cases they might be merely vouchers.. but in other cases they are still mostly decentralized.
Currently, I don't have too many UTXOs that are less than $500.. but I also sometimes feel uncomfortable sending small transactions to people on chain if there might be concerns that the transactions might not be as spendable in the future, but if any of members of the forum should be experienced enough to be able to manage a $100 or $200 transaction on chain, even though we also may need to be careful when we consider when we might spend those size of UTXOs in the future... I don't know. Maybe it won't be as BIG of a problem as I had been thinking, because another thing that we can do is coin control.
but in the end, stash sizes is hardly even very relevant at all to our kind of discussion
I am happy about any of this either.. including the high fees, and I think the more likely ways that poor people are able to transact in bitcoin is using second/third layers and even custodians.. but that still would not invalidate bitcoin because even some of the various second and third party solutions are still somewhat pegged to bitcoin.. more than what Franky seems to be ongoingly wanting to argue..
the only reason i brought up the stash is because i can see passed my own wealth status to see points of view of those with less coin that have problems using bitcoin. where those people should not be made to use third parties because certain people just want to be complacent and keep the status quo of the elitism core roadmap path..
I doubt that I am being biased against the poor, as you seem to be suggesting.
it was more about getting even a poorer person to realise that he himself is digging himself into a ditch of requiring himself to need third party services shooting himself in the foot by promoting that those without wealth should use third party services and leave bitcoin alone and not want to change bitcoin.. they need to realise they are talking about themselves being pushed off network..
That makes little sense frank. Poor people are likely both obsessed with fees and figuring out ways to avoid them, and so they are not going to like it if they end up creating a bunch of UTXOs that they thought were causing them to have thousands of dollars saved up - such as my example of having $5k worth of transactions, but if they are divided into 100s of UTXOs, then it is going to be much more difficult to actually get close to the $5k worth of perceived value as compared with the person who might have the same $5k but only have 1-10 UTXOs... and yeah, even 10 UTXOs of $500 each might still be problematic, but NOT as problematic as 250 UTXOs averaging around $20 each.
So, I have my doubts that whatever you have been saying is more "poor person friendly" than what I have been saying, even if we can presume that your intentions are in the right place, which is not always very clear when you seem to spend so much time obfuscating matters into battles in the direction that seem to devolve into "what frank wants," yet if you are recognizing and appreciating some of the arguments from various sides, then you likely even realize that sometimes proposed solutions are not as straight-forward as you frequently want to make them out to be... especially if you might even be struggling to recognize that in bitcoin one of the features (not a bug) is that there is already a built preference for the status quo, so proposing a bunch of changes is all fine and dandy, but it seems way more practical to be figuring out ways to deal with actual happenings on the ground rather than getting stuck in "ought to be" propositions which are not going to be helping any poor peeps in their current decisions about whether and how to possibly incorporate their bitcoin usage in ways that either have current usage of on chain transactions (and considerations of the mempool and fees) or might result in later usage of onchain transactions.
reasons for this i can only fathom is while ostracising themselves off the network they are kissing the institutional asses that have taught them to favour bitcoin becoming a network just for the elites,
I already mentioned that there are direct benefits and indirect benefits in regards to bitcoin, so hopefully you can still appreciate that some times the benefits of bitcoin are not going to be direct.. You seem to be spinning than really trying to grapple with actual trade-offs that normies are going to need to consider.. especially when potentially dealing with relatively smaller UTXO possibilities (whether current or future).
it is truly funny to see those with less value sing scripts of let bitcoin be just for the wealthy. going against their own financial security.. who is that benefitting? it certainly isnt benefitting those with less stash
You don't really seem to be adding anything here, and does not even seems to be a proper characterization of what anyone is saying, including yours truly.
i am not the one shouting people should stop using bitcoin, quite the opposite. im the one saying get the core devs to be devs of the decentralised open bitcoin network again for the benefit of bitcoiners. and not simply be institutionally sponsored playboys of elitist desires
From your perspective core devs are causing these issues because they are allowing fees to stay high and not implementing code changes that would fix the matter, in which you consider that there are several fairly easy code changes that are not being taken seriously.. o.k. that's all fine and dandy, so then what choices do we have? Discontinue using bitcoin because no one is trying to rectify ways to more easily (economically) transact on chain, or what is it that people (poor people or whatever) are supposed to do? Anyone can contribute and propose code, and is that what you are suggesting? Where's the obstacles? You want to change bitcoin's governance in order to get some more "frank-friendly" policies? It is not easy to realize what you are saying and even how we are really staying topical when you can't get yourself out of "the ought" kind of thinking and even suggesting the you are more practical than someone like me..in terms of my own supposed promotion of "not bitcoin enough" values.. which also seems largely distracting mischaracterizations to the extent that they might have some relevance in the sense that you are correct that we should be attempting to figure out the extent to which we are interacting with onchain solutions and then also there are probably degrees in which second or third layers are more pegged to bitcoin and other solutions become way too detached from bitcoin.
point being there is code that causes these extreme mempool congestion events to occur more often, more easily and ways to exploit bitcoin to purge peoples cheap fees out of mempool before mining pools even get to transaction select for block candidate. all done to make bitcoin annoying. and yet people are too afraid to call out on the cludge and prefer to let it ride.
In recent times, I have become more bothered by some of those kinds of dynamics, too.. ..and I would imagine that sometimes there are cases in which there are exploits in software and it might take some time to figure out if there might be some plausible solutions, even if you come to some kind of realization earlier than others in regards to the existence a problem and what might solve or reduce the problem, it still could take some time to either reach consensus and/or to implement such changes, if the changes are perceived to be needed (such as the change resolves more problems than it creates).
By the way, FeeBuddy has not posted for 24 hours. Has FeeBuddy's frequency been reduced or otherwise debilitated?
I think 4 times per day is a fair/reasonable frequency in that kind of a posting.., and even with 4 times a day, there could be times in which FeeBuddy's numbers might not be representative in terms of if it catches a spike or not.. but maybe that is not really FeeBuddy's purpose since we can look at some charts if we want to see some kinds of details that the FeeBuddy chart might not be depicting... personally if anyone is claiming spikes or dips, then to verify, I like to look at
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#BTC,4d,weight
