Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[balu2]

This exactly, there will be a time that we run into the 1MB block limit. This needs to be fixed before the blockchain grinds to a halt (maxes out on TPS really) and transactions take forever to confirm.

this is exactly what will NOT happen. The chain will not grind to a halt. You have no evidence to back that claim up. It's just fearmongering/FUD /doom preaching

[1713509262]

1713509262

[1713509262]

1713509262

[1713509262]

1713509262

[balu2]

Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.

-ad hominem
-i did not say that
-you are offtopic

you lost the argument threefold

[turvarya]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
I didn't see any argument, explaining why that growth would stop. Can you show it to me?

Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid.

Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions.

Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?

[LeMiner]

You are taking into account, that there will be a time, when you can't use Bitcoin as you are used to do it. I think, that would really hurt Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin is successful, this problem will occur.

Do you have hard evidence for your hypthesis other than vague projections that may or may not come true?
You are repeating the same over and over again while ignoring the counterarguments presented.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
I didn't see any argument, explaining why that growth would stop. Can you show it to me?

Nobody said the growth would stop, what has been said is: hitting the blocklimit will not cause big trouble because the first thing that would happen would be microtransactions for tiny amounts of money happen somewhere else. So all your doom preaching and urgency is invalid.

Hitting the limit will not render btc unusable - in fact it will clean the chain from spammy microtransactions.

That's funny. So here you are entering a store, present your creditcard to pay for your coffee..... But guess what? I'm sorry sir, your order is below 5$, you will have to fill up this special "Starbucks-card" first with at least 50$, since we don't accept 5$ creditcard payments here.

Give me one reason we would not allow micropayments to happen on the blockchain? They're all fee-paying-payments just like the large(r) ones. If you want the blockchain to be supported by transaction fees at one point you're going to need a lot of transactions.

Besides that, why put a hard limit on an open-market-concept? Let the market decide. If miners don't want to mine what in your opinion are "spammy" transactions then they wont. For the rest of us, let miners mine what they want to mine, in the end for the miners they are all equal in terms of transaction fees.

[R2D221]

Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.

-ad hominem
-i did not say that
-you are offtopic

you lost the argument threefold

I never said your argument was invalid because you were a climate change denier.

If you don't think climate change is real but neither that it's fake, then what do you think?

[davout]

It's not a hypothesis it is fact

Facts can not, by definition, reside in the future.

[balu2]

Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?

Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem.
Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower?

Oh, fuck. So you ARE one of those people that think climate change is not real. There's no point arguing with you, then.

-ad hominem
-i did not say that
-you are offtopic

you lost the argument threefold

I never said your argument was invalid because you were a climate change denier.

If you don't think climate change is real but neither that it's fake, then what do you think?

i never said anything about climate change deying and in fact i don't even care because this discussion isn't about the weather. You want to start a discussion about climatechange now? Seriously?

[LeMiner]

This exactly, there will be a time that we run into the 1MB block limit. This needs to be fixed before the blockchain grinds to a halt (maxes out on TPS really) and transactions take forever to confirm.

this is exactly what will NOT happen. The chain will not grind to a halt. You have no evidence to back that claim up. It's just fearmongering/FUD /doom preaching

....The current network can support 4200 transactions per block (estimation) (assuming exactly 10 minutes per block) before hitting the 1MB block limit. After that transactions will start queuing up and you will have to start waiting for your transaction to confirm. Why would you want that to happen?  

[davout]

It's not a hypothesis it is fact

Facts can not, by definition, reside in the future.

So it is not a fact that if I stop breathing I will die?

Try it. Stop breathing. Are you dead?

[R2D221]

i never said anything about climate change deying and in fact i don't even care because this discussion isn't about the weather. You want to start a discussion about climatechange now? Seriously?

I used climate change as an anology about how we can't get 100% consensus even on scientific facts. Then you reply to me with absurdities about unicorns and such.

The problem is not climate change, but the fact that you seem to disregard logical reasoning, something that is needed to determine whether the proposed change in the Bitcoin protocol is a good idea or not.

[balu2]

It's not a hypothesis it is fact

Facts can not, by definition, reside in the future.

So it is not a fact that if I stop breathing I will die?

Try it. Stop breathing. Are you dead?

exactly. Isn't possbile to die by holding the breath  
That's the fact.

[balu2]

i never said anything about climate change deying and in fact i don't even care because this discussion isn't about the weather. You want to start a discussion about climatechange now? Seriously?

I used climate change as an anology about how we can't get 100% consensus even on scientific facts. Then you reply to me with absurdities about unicorns and such.

The problem is not climate change, but the fact that you seem to disregard logical reasoning, something that is needed to determine whether the proposed change in the Bitcoin protocol is a good idea or not.

how is you arguing with a comparison to climatechange less absurd than unicorns?

You are the one disregarding logical reasoning, not me.

[turvarya]

Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?

Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem.
Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower?

It wouldn't get more expensive because there are more transactions. Finding a block, doesn't have anything to do with how much transactions are there.
You dodged my question about the fees growth.

[R2D221]

how is you arguing with a comparison to climatechange less absurd than unicorns?

It was an analogy. If you don't know what an analogy is, it's obvious it may seem absurd to you.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

Im starting to think we are fucked without afork.

[balu2]

Wouldn't it be bad for Bitcoin, when transactions are happening somewhere(an altcoin?) else?
Spammy microtransactions are those with smaller fees aren't they? So more transactions means higher fee. So, it will lead to private people stopping to use Bitcoin, since they can't afford transactions.
Isn't small fees one of the main arguments for Bitcoin?
Tell me, how wouldn't that lead to higher fees?

Obviously we don't share the same vision of the future, maybe that's the problem.
Can you explain to me why microtransation MUST occure on the bitcoin chain secured with huge and expensive hashpower?

It wouldn't get more expensive because there are more transactions. Finding a block, doesn't have anything to do with how much transactions are there.
You dodged my question about the fees growth.

to not doge your question i would have to go look somewhere - i was reading a comment from Luke Jr. how bitcoin is specifically not good for microtransactions and i think he has that right. Smaller fees are possible on some crapcoin that isn't secured with such expensive hash and it's fully rational to say 'for transactions below 2$ reddcoin is secure enough and that shit doesn't need to be on btc chain. You really want to keep satoshi dice on chain don't you?

But i don't see why i need terrabytes on my PC full of satoshi dice crap ...

[R2D221]

If transactions keep on their current course and keep growing the 1mb limit WILL BE REACHED. This is a fact and in the future.

You can't have a fact with such an assumption. What if transactions don't actually keep on their current course?

What you're stating is a prediction. It may be more than 99% probable, but it's still a prediction and not a fact.

[hdbuck]

you denier!

[balu2]

my point is:

Your FUD of a "chain grinding to halt" is pure FUD and has been proven to be wrong by me - i have shown in case the blocklimit will be reached microtransactions will go to a cheaper chain and bitcoin is better off without them as they only cause bloat and use expensive recources with little need to do so. So reaching the blocklimit at least for a while will do more good than harm and will in no way cause the chain to grind to halt. All the urgency that people want to imply here is false FUD

Now carry on.

[davout]

the most convincing reason I've seen yet to support a hard fork is all the FUD and empty arguments being put forward against it

That's not really how a sane brain works.

We can all agree on that but now here is the thing we need to decide what we want to happen

Or maybe we agree with neither the premise, nor that the conclusion even logically follows.