Topic: ... - page 4. (Read 4569 times)

Then we should do the hard fork when 0.8mb is reached, not now. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.  

Fixing it via a hard fork to say, 2MB is easily and quickly done; consensus will be there if the limit is almost reached. I agree with turtlehurricane about waiting, though I am a bit more pro hardfork.

More here - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536

increasing block size is not the solution. even at 1 TB you cannot fit all of the day to day transactions for billions of people + IoT + all of the financial stuff build ton top + micro transactions + unknown unknowns.  Lightning network is the best solution that i see so far.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451
https://gist.github.com/sipa/c65665fc360ca7a176a6

Where can I read about and download those proposals?

When Bitcoin is dumped to 50 cents, someone will pay 1 btc to save what remains of his btc value. See above comment about brainwashing in regards to the "2 guys".

You have been propagandized to believe that a block increase is possible using only XT. There are 4 alternative proposals. Don't demonize a progressive improvement in the functionality of Bitcoin because of two clowns and the mob fighting them.

Ok, almost nobody. If they would send 1000 BTC then maybe. What I mean is that if someone asks you 500$ for a cofee, you probably won't buy it, but some will. There is a demand for bitcoin transactions and a supply limited by the block size. Right now there is more supply than demand, and you want to keep it this way disregarding the risks. Even if it means a hard fork without consensus and using software controlled by 2 guys with dubious intentions. This is not about the block size anymore, it's about the controversial hard fork. I want the block size to increase, but with a proposal like sipa's with the block size increase following technological growth.

THIS! Cant be said better than this. The spam test showed us even blocks of 100MB is doing nothing to stop real transactions with a bit of fee to be included in blocks. Doing a hard-fork, and allowing ourselves to have 2 people running the show of Bitcoin is madness.

Why not?!

Do you see how you contradict yourself? There will be no larger blocks, then you say there will be larger blocks. This is why your argument is invalid, it's self-contradicting.

The lie is your comment. It just happened this month. A backlog of 2 days for people that paid small transactions. I was affected by this because payments to me were delayed. There is no doom and gloom, it's just a fact, it can be proven ANYTIME, but you seem to be either blind or have a short memory term.

Again, contradiction. Fees will not rise, because when they do people will use something else? Are you really oblivious?

reasonably, what about the people with the XT node? leave them away, and let them die for the insufficient storage?
within 20 years, not even 30 years would be full of blockchain data, and people would have no choice but either buy more hard disk, or stop using the XT node and start using the third party wallet. with or without XT, result would be exactly the same. instead, we should have the flexible block size, to prevent the network spammer. apparently, the blockchain, even stress test would not affect the full node users a lot, however, as the block size increase, the more burden of XT node users would be. no matter how fast the technology would be, the growth of technology is never reaching how fast that block grow. when the day, the block size went to the maximum, meaning 8 gb per block, unless we got the solution for the ultimately large size of hard disk, which is affordable and sustainable enough, otherwise, i am sure people would leave their XT node wallet.

The joke in all this is: we would actually now be good for a bull market if Gavincoin-camp wouldn't create massive FUD for the coin.

Some of these people say scalability (it's actual pseudo scalbility) would bring in new money. But hey, folks, if you would just leave it alone and not threaten to break it price would probably be higher already. These people seem not to understand that they are spooking the investors at the periphery massively and drive away the money with their Gavincoin-circus.

I completely agree with you.

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions with very low or no fees = less fees!

If you pay a decent fee, you won't have issues even when blocks are constantly full. Only dust and spam transactions are hindered. You want to quickly build more lanes on the highway even if there is a significant risk that the bridge over the big river collapses under the weight.

False! That's because the miners are happy with their current incentives, but that will change. Anyway, many stupid dust transactions actually pay a very small fee, and they will only make room for legitimate transactions after fees rise a bit.

False! A fee market will form and noone will be stupid enough to pay 1 BTC fee. This market will reach a price equilibrium at slightly higher fees than now (an equilibrium for which at least the stupid dust transactions are infeasible). And for the long term, I don't think people would want to run full nodes that will verify and store the transactions for all the guys paying for cofee directly with bitcoin.

That list contains completely true reasons that many people, including me, agree with. I don't care if they never reach consensus. We need consensus to perform this kind of hard forks, I see everything else as an attack on the network.

The way I see things, the gullible masses (mainly pissed-off reddit people) lead by Gavin and Mike are preparing for a massive attack on the bitcoin network. Save it by destroying it!

+1

when blocks were full i had instant confirmation at all time with standard fee included of course. I had no delay during all the spamming cuz i way paying appropriate fee to get into blocks before all the broke asses that couldn't afford 3 cent tx fee and were crying about it on the forum.  


The possibility of tx volume dropping like a rock due to scenario a, b, c or  d is almost never discussed in this forum. What you gonna do if txs drop off? Core could deal easily with a sharp drop in txs and could recover later. XT on the other hand could get into trouble if txs were to drop sharply.

1) bigger blocks don't create transactions in and of itself. Larger blockchain probably prevents further adoption or at least slows it. Most txs you'll get will be spam which goes away the very second you charge fees. (lol)

about 2) complete bogus. Fees rise and huge backlogs won't happen even with smaller blocks because fees will drive junk txs off chain. So you got a huge whole in your argumentation there. The doom and gloom backlog-story is a lie. Won't happen. No evidence that supports this idea.

4) No, idiotic idea of exponential fee rise. Do you think btc is the only way to do txs in this universe? No it isn't. Fees will be found in supply/demand  freemarket-fashion (this mechanism never fails and no other mechanism is more efficient, free market, ya know bro? Instead of central planning, got it?)  and txs will cost exactly what people are willing to pay to use bitcoin instead of a substitute. So exponentially rising fees sounds like something right out of Hearns' ass. Again: no evidence to support this idea, niet, nada, poof, zero

all made up crap ...

use da brain, folks, use it!

False! Bigger blocks = more transactions = more fees!

That means on average, it also means that at some times during the day, blocks are constantly full and the queue gets long, exactly when people need it the most. If you want the blocks to be full, then you can lengthen the queue to weeks (just like regular banks). You don't want to build a highway that needs to be 100% filled with stationary cars before you decide to put more lanes in it.

False! Free transactions have a pre-allocated spot in each block. They will still be allowed under normal settings, even with high fees.

False! If the blocks are full, fees grow exponentially to obscene levels, such as "I just paid 1 BTC fee to send my other BTC to an exchange to dump this shit, because everyone else paid 1 BTC fee!".

Too many chefs, not enough cooks. They each think that their idea is the best and other ideas are shit. What if they never reach consensus? This shit is being discussed for over 2 years, the actual block usage increased steadily, and now needs to magically be capped at some random number, with no plan to plan for an increase (yes, there is no plan for a plan, they just push the decision for later).

It also amazes me that NOBODY is capable of understanding the social, economical, technological, networking and computational aspects of this change, as a whole and everyone conveniently ignores some aspects to push his propaganda, such as this example list of false reasons to not prepare for an increase in the block size.

That's all fine when you control all the software being changed, bitcoin network is a bit different and changes have to be planed way ahead, not when there's a problem, for everyone to upgrade, or at least a majority, it takes probably a year.