Topic: Average block size was 0.951 MB - page 2. (Read 3454 times)
most people already aware that block almost full
What utter rubbish, not being ready is hardly "as close as it gets" - when it actually is in live and being used how would you describe that, "even closer than as close as it gets"?
No. Technically it isn't even "live" after being merged, it has to go through the activation and grace period. Anyhow, RC1 should be released soon.I think this is semantics - in the context of this thread, the inference is clear that you were referencing Segwit as providing "The" capacity increase.
Again, the main idea behind Segwit is fixing transaction malleability. If you want to improperly understand a statement, I can't stop you.Segregated witness is a soft fork - what relevance does a hard fork have to this discussion?
Because a certain group of people tried to promote a controversial HF (which is useless) as the alternative.I notice you did not address any of my other points, and I am confident that the adoption argument is completely relevant for this and indeed any other upgrade; but especially since the benefits we are discussing are dependent upon widespread adoption.
The argument does only hold no merit in the case where one was comparing it to the block size limit increase. It does not seem like you do and as such feel free to ignore it. This might be a 'decent' argument for deploying Segwit as a HF. I answered this already.
Then don't quote it twice and make double posts.That was the average block size was id almost 1gb and for now it has rised to twice so now it is almost 2g and that is not good for the miners you know.
Bullshit. That doesn't make sense.
That was the average block size was id almost 1gb and for now it has rised to twice so now it is almost 2g and that is not good for the miners you know.
The blocks are supposed to be full. That's what forces users to outbid enough other users to have their transactions included, which in turn is what is supposed to incentivice the miners to mine and protect the network. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee. I can understand why users want the fees to continue to be neglible but Bitcoin won't survive if they do.
I did not know this. It makes sense. I don't mind paying a fee, it is minuscule and the benefits of btc outweigh the small fees. Lets keep btc moving.
In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:
It isn't. I've simply stated that a capacity boost will come with Segwit (which is correct). Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.
If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.I think this is semantics - in the context of this thread, the inference is clear that you were referencing Segwit as providing "The" capacity increase.
Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it. For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?
Not understanding how to use it? As far as the user is concerned nothing changes. You just have to update your wallet. Besides, when it comes to a hard fork everyone has to upgrade or else they will be left behind (adoption argument makes no sense as far as Segwit is concerned).Segregated witness is a soft fork - what relevance does a hard fork have to this discussion?
Even if "nothing changes" for the user if that is not widely understood (i.e. not understanding how to use it), then it will, in my opinion hinder adoption. Not everyone will take time to understand the implications, their current wallet will continue to work, so why upgrade?
I notice you did not address any of my other points, and I am confident that the adoption argument is completely relevant for this and indeed any other upgrade; but especially since the benefits we are discussing are dependent upon widespread adoption.
OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased.By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
I answered this already.
No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.
It is as close at it gets. It will be merged when it is ready. Anyhow, complaining won't get anyone anywhere. I've seen quite a few people demanding stuff yet they've never contributed anything.What utter rubbish, not being ready is hardly "as close as it gets" - when it actually is in live and being used how would you describe that, "even closer than as close as it gets"?
I do not think I have complained or demanded anything, I am trying to understand where things stand and what is likely to happen.
Indeed I don't consider myself on either side of this debate particularly, rather I am an interested observer, and what I observe is a considerable lack of clarity.
Yet the miners are producing partially full blocks. It comes down to their own settings, some might not want to include very cheap/free transactions.
Of course, but those are even more artificial limitations than the block size. It works as long as most of the reward comes from the block reward and not fees, but eventually the fees will be the majority of the reward that pays the miners. At that point they won't be able to set such limits because they will be undercut by other miners. 0 fee blocks can still be excluded but not the ones that pay the minimum fee. If the blocks are filled because of spam transactions then they would still be full.
I disagree. Take a look here:
Yet the miners are producing partially full blocks. It comes down to their own settings, some might not want to include very cheap/free transactions.
I doubt that many 0-fee transactions would be included at this point even if the average block size was lower. This is due to some factors, and one being the huge amount of spam transactions in the 1-10 satoshis/byte range.
If the blocks are filled because of spam transactions then they would still be full. No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.
It is as close at it gets. It will be merged when it is ready. Anyhow, complaining won't get anyone anywhere. I've seen quite a few people demanding stuff yet they've never contributed anything.The blocks are supposed to be full. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee.
I doubt that many 0-fee transactions would be included at this point even if the average block size was lower. This is due to some factors, and one being the huge amount of spam transactions in the 1-10 satoshis/byte range.
The blocks are supposed to be full. That's what forces users to outbid enough other users to have their transactions included, which in turn is what is supposed to incentivice the miners to mine and protect the network. If they are not full then there is no need to pay a fee. I can understand why users want the fees to continue to be neglible but Bitcoin won't survive if they do.
OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased.By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
No, it doesn't fit my definition ... I have highlighted just one reason why not.
In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:
It isn't. I've simply stated that a capacity boost will come with Segwit (which is correct). Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.
If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it. For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?
Not understanding how to use it? As far as the user is concerned nothing changes. You just have to update your wallet. Besides, when it comes to a hard fork everyone has to upgrade or else they will be left behind (adoption argument makes no sense as far as Segwit is concerned).OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
Implementation == working code. It is implemented in the testnet, so that fits your definition of it as well. These are the two pull requests that you should be looking at: Segregated witness, Segregated witness rebased. By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?
Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite. In this very thread, about block size and capacity, you said:
Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it.
If that isn't offering Segwit as a solution to increase capacity I don't know what is.
It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.
I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.Inertia; laziness; not understanding it or how to use it; suspicion of change - I can think of any number of reasons why people won't use it. For comparison, what proportion of the network is currently running the latest version of the client?
Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.
OK, I think we have a different understanding of the term "implemented".
By "implemented" I mean in place, being used in the live environment and able to deliver the benefits set out for it.
And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?
Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite. It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.
I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged. And so back to my original question - when is it expected that we will reach that "top" point?
Nobody can answer that question. They'd just be making guesses. As such, I can't answer this either.And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think? It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.
I think I've never done a single transaction which was worth less than $10. But there's a risk because of competition. What if some altcoin could perform faster and cheaper transactions than BTC? This is a market economy. BTC rules as of today, but many people, including myself, are looking at altcoins. Core developers should always have in mind that if BTC has a hiccup, there will be many altcoins ready, and willing to beat it.
If those altcoins had any desirable technology that is worth implementing into Bitcoin, it would be implemented. Nobody in their right mind cares about them besides traders who want to profit (excluding a few niche coins, e.g. for anonymity and such).And so back to my original question - when is it expected that we will reach that "top" point?
Nobody can answer that question. They'd just be making guesses. As such, I can't answer this either. But is that the point at which Segwit will start to deliver increased capacity? From my reading (which may have misled me) I had understood that users actually had to send and receive Segwit transactions in order for it to provide that increase in capacity? I was really wondering what was the (your) expectation for when we would be at that point?
That is correct. As soon as some people use the updated client and interact with each other, we will see increased capacity. The more users use Segwit the more capacity the network 'will get'. This will reach a top somewhere around ~180% (or 1.8 MB of TX data). And so back to my original question - when is it expected that we will reach that "top" point?
I don't support micro-transactions. I think I've never done a single transaction which was worth less than $10. But there's a risk because of competition. What if some altcoin could perform faster and cheaper transactions than BTC? This is a market economy. BTC rules as of today, but many people, including myself, are looking at altcoins. Core developers should always have in mind that if BTC has a hiccup, there will be many altcoins ready, and willing to beat it.
though true micro transactions are not a thing to think about for every day users (only for lets say google/advertisers). we do atleast have to think about bitcoin in regards to average users.
for instance lets treat the fee as a percentage..what is the minimum fee people are happy to pay..lets say its 1%.
if the fee when the blocks capacity bottlenecks increases, to lets say 20cents(happened many times already) then people would not want to buy items costing less than $20 because then the fee's would be more than1% and just like using visa/paypal
so now we are starting to cut off a certain demograph.. no longer is it just the $2 coffee concept no longer wanted in 2015, but now its the ram, memorysticks, iphone cases blueray movies industry that people dont want to be transacting on chain..
at a 40cents fee(also happened a few times already) we will be cutting off purchases below $40 due to regular users opinion that 1% fee is alot
some thoughts from the past based on bitcoiners centiment about microtransactions
micro transactions in 2009-2013 were deemed as under 1cent..
micro transactions in 2013-2016 were deemed as under $2..
micro transactions in 2016-20xx whats the next threshold to deem as not being worthy
when the average will be so high that you need to pay always higher fee, to get in the priority list, it would kill the whole "bitcoin is cheaper than fiat" thing
I'm very much afraid of this. Not that I would mind paying some higher fees, I'm more worried about the share of BTC economy made of small transactions. I don't want, nobody wants BTC to evolve into a rich guys club only exchanging large sums and who don't mind paying substantial fees.
Lightning Network is being designed to handle all of these small transactions, instantly, and with very small fees paid to LN Hub operators. Bitcoin is about the status quo, it doesn't really matter what you want, the status quo simply is, and that means small value transactions are priced out first as they can't fit.
If you are just too impatient to wait for LN and the soft forks to Bitcoin it requires... may I suggest Litecoin? or Dogecoin? perhaps Monero?
I don't support micro-transactions. I think I've never done a single transaction which was worth less than $10. But there's a risk because of competition. What if some altcoin could perform faster and cheaper transactions than BTC? This is a market economy. BTC rules as of today, but many people, including myself, are looking at altcoins. Core developers should always have in mind that if BTC has a hiccup, there will be many altcoins ready, and willing to beat it.
Jump to: