Before this deteriorates any further, try to stay focused.
Don't break this up into a zillion sub-topics, with each word I type addressed in a separate catty comeback.
inb4 not a zillion: no. stay focused. resist. We want one cogent, cohesive response, even if you miss out on a few snark opportunities.
Now then: My traffic analogy.
It's fucking great, no sense being coy about it. Unoriginal, sure -- network traffic is typically visualized/modeled/ in terms of everyday meatspace traffic.b What don't you like about the analogy?
it's not that i don't like it. it's that you haven't shown how it's applicable. what evidence do you have that there is such a "traffic jam" or if there is, that it is an actual problem?
Which seamlessly segues us to the main thrust of this opus. Pay attention, 'coz what's coming up is the only important bit. Up 'til now, it was fluff, sort'a like what you did to me with your gudxillion sub-quotes.
Enough! Reader, follow me!
TehGist:
1. You made a claim that "blocks aren't actually full on average."
2. I replied that while this is the case, it is impossible for things to be otherwise -- blocks *can never be 100% full on the average*.
3. If analogies are a strain (abstract thought could be a bitch for some), here's the actual mechanics: as long as a miner is able to mine an empty block, the average can't be 100% full blocks. Because that's how averages fucking are. That's how they work.
I hope this helps.
i was referring to the
actual growth in transaction volume (therefore block size) over time. i'd have thought this would be obvious. seems relevant to your suggestion that capacity is insufficient. there is a tendency to point to short term batches of 9xx kb blocks, then to ignore the 400-600 kb blocks that come after the backlog has cleared.
the network actually isn't under the constant load that some suggest, and during the times that it temporarily is, paying an extra tiny fraction of an mBTC in fees alleviates the issue.
anyway, this has nothing to do with evidence of your suggestion that there is an urgent problem here. since the transactions backlogs are always cleared and fees are miniscule, what's the problem again?
You were "referring to the
actual growth in transaction volume (therefore block size) over time"? How does the fact that "blocks aren't actually full on average" figure into this? Taking into account that it's as likely for blocks to be "full on average" as it is for the busiest road to be bumper-to-bumper jammed, on the average, which is to say "not at all"?
Why bring up a meaningless metric?
At the risk of belaboring the obvious: Blocks will never be "full on average." Don't wait for blocks to be full on the average.
>since the transactions backlogs are always cleared and fees are miniscule, what's the problem again?
If you're stuck in traffic for 6 hours on your way back from work, what's the problem? I mean, you get home eventually, every day, amirite?
The road is clearly of sufficient capacity, no one *never* gets home. In other words, "
traffic jams transactions backlogs are always cleared."
I like the analogy, however in the case of Bitcoin there is simply not enough capacity for everyone to get "home", regardless of the fee that is payed.
Furthermore as a counter argument, if we imagine this road being like a toll road, then we can say that other roads exists, in the form of potential Bitcoin forks and altcoins. If the other roads are both faster and cheaper then I think people will choose to drive on those alternative roads instead, the economics of it all are quite simple really when it comes down to it. I think that if we allow the Bitcoin network to become overloaded making transacting much more expensive and unreliable then I think Bitcoin will simply be outcompeted and obsolesced.
I am glad you installed Bitcoin Classic David Rabahy, that is the solution to this existential crisis after all.
