Topic: Average block size was 0.951 MB - page 3. (Read 3454 times)

lol lauda great stuff

for months you been saying transactions are mostly 226bytes which would equate to the 7tps(false assumption but you really loved bragging that 226 magic number alot). atleast now your admitting its more like 400-500 to be at about 3tps, finally some honesty without over selling.

however a 2mb as of 2015 would have headed off the bottlenecks(a few have occurred this year) and kept prices low due to lack of bottlenecks forcing prices up.. while offering 2x capacity potential
but instead we were left with code release delays, which have caused a tx bottleneck many times this year. and what is the future.. a max of 1.8x capacity potential and also, even funnier.. a fee discount to make spamming even cheaper.... now thats just funny..

oh nearly forgot
if you think nefarious spammers will use LN. you would be wrong. their intent it to spam the network not their local machines
and if you think that every genuine user will use LN to not need to worry about spam. you would be wrong in that respect too.
LN isnt useful to everyone, you would be surprised at how little the scenario's for usefulness LN have..(when thinking about real people as oppose to glossy leaflets of exaggeration)

wait. i can already sense you rebuttle. eg not needing to worry about settling because channels dont need to close that often.
well my reply would be to quote your anger that visa takes 1-3 days to fully settle.. because its the same thing. but with LN you think it should be 1month-never.. yep im laughing at that hypocrisy..

now although LN increases "authorizations"/"payments" to large numbers IF people are individually sending funds to the same destination multiples times. but the settling would make it worse then visa.(using your mindset)

REMEMBER: LN helps aggregate "regular spenders" to a lower number. its not really a solution for increased userbase of non regular spenders.

think outside the glossy leaflets you have been handed and look at the some real use case scenarios.

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).

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?

It is indeed. However, "higher" throughput would also be anything > ~3 (which we currently have). I'd consider high throughput somewhere above what Visa does on average (which is 2000 TPS according to some sources).

As "high" is perfectly subjective, we can always be correct, clever. I may need to use this terminology instead of "higher", thanks for the correction.

No. I said it is not able to provide "high throughput", not "higher". There's a huge difference. Unless of course, you consider 6 TPS to be "high throughput". In that case I can't help you.  

The miners decide how long it takes them to adopt it. I can't be the one to predict that accurately. I'd say somewhere in Q3/Q4 this year (if nothing goes severely wrong).

When would you expect Segwit to actually be in place and delivering the "awaited" capacity 'boost' to the live network?

Well said as usual. Increasing the potential size of blocks would not enable higher throughput.

You don't demand to be able to afford to transfer and store London Good Delivery Bars of Gold (native Bitcoin network). You use a gold substitute cerificate, which can be settled with gold if ever necessary (Lightning Network).

Bitcoin was never designed for micro-transactions and as such will most likely not be the best solution for them (depending on what you define as a micro-transaction).

It is pointless trying to tell this to some people. For example: Someone recently complained on r/btc about a TX fee of $50, for some TX that was over 4 KB (or 2000% bigger than normal). They pick out these weird examples and make it seem like the whole system is overly expensive (which it isn't).

Nobody can prevent BTC from becoming more expensive unless you figure out a way that both defies spam and enables a high throughput. Hint: LN is the closest thing that we have for high throughput, and increasing the block size limit is trivial for these two things (neither does it defy spam nor enable high throughput).

If you are too cheap to pay 5-10 cents, you shouldn't complain about Bitcoin.

I agree with you. The Bitcoin fee is already growing too big and makes Bitcoin look unappealing and inefficient.

who cares?  there's still transactions not getting confirmed/processed/included-in-blocks (whatever you wanna call it).  thats the only point that matters.

An increasing number of people are realizing the path of failure core team is leading us down.

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'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.

Why isn't that acceptable? For me it's perfectly acceptable, since I don't buy single lollipops expecting instant confirmation.


The average is still extremely low for all ordinary transactions. Also the "Bitcoin is cheaper than fiat"-thing is not the main attraction factor of Bitcoin. Even if Bitcoin transactions would be significantly more costly than traditional methods, Bitcoin would have a huge user base, because it is more secure and not subject to devaluation and centralized control like fiat.


It could indeed make sense to increase the fees for especially spammy transactions (low value, big datasize).

ya.ya.yo!

ok increase block size isn't the solution, still how the block are right now isn't acceptable either

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

also the spam problem can be counterattacked with the solution the litecoin dev has worked on to make the spammer pay more, far more than what it is currently for bitcoin

Except they didn't. Even back then, cheapskates were complaining that free transactions took too long to be confirmed, and I've been trying to correct their attitude pretty much ever since I got into Bitcoin nearly 5 years ago. Since then, we've had new anti-spam measures, dynamic fee calculation, RBF, CPFP, and now SegWit* and LN to deal with problematic fees, but it's all useless: these are technical solutions to a social problem, and the problem is that people are too cheap to pay 50 cents to use an international payment system, and too impatient to wait more than 10 minutes for their funds to clear.

*Yes, I know SegWit is much more than a capacity increase, but the idiots I'm talking about don't know that. They only know that their barista won't serve them their coffee until they have 6 confirmations.

He's a troll, just ignore him. What I said was, there is no "the mempool" which would define that there are X unconfirmed transactions everywhere. This number differs heavily depending on the settings, and you've just made an example. My node relays everything as I want to keep track of the changes throughout the year.

He's about to tell you that Blockstream this, or blockstream that or you're also part of Blockstream.

Exactly. The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance.

Read the actual thread for once and ignore the trolls. The post above you gives decent input.

I agree, anyone that says that block size isn't going to be a problem, their stupid.

Bitcoin cannot withhold an economy on a large scale the way it is. And paying larger fees isn't the answer, that's just adding to the problem, disincentivising the use of Bitcoin.

Right now, the use of BitCoin I imagine isn't as big as it could be, when millions (hopefully billions) of people start to use Bitcoin, shit will get crazy.

What are you on about? When Lauda said there is no "the mempool", he simply means that it's possible (actually more than likely) for nodes to have different mempools because they have different fee rules. For example, my mempool is typically less than 1MB and contains less than 1000 transactions. My node doesn't forward spam, so it rarely grows much larger than that (even during these spam attacks).

Simply increasing the block size will only lead to larger blocks full of spam. If that isn't obvious to you, well I don't know what to say.

Bitcoin's unique use case is censorship-proof transactions. This is why it's valuable. No one in their right mind should be concerned whether or not they can pay for a coffee using the-ledger-that-every-full-node-must-keep-a-permanent-record-of-forever and get cheap, fast confirmations to boot!

The problem is, most Bitcoiners are spoiled from the first 7 years of Bitcoin when block subsidies provided secure transactions for everyone. They need to realize that if we are going to have secure transactions in the future, we need to move away from the subsidized method of securing transactions to actually paying for them directly. Unfortunately, it looks like some spoiled brats are going to have to be dragged along kicking and screaming.

Well, the only needed components left are soft forks (backwards compatible and with BIP9, 29 concurrent soft fork proposals are possible). All it really takes is a handful of pool ops + status quo = we're good to go.

User/node agreement/permission is not required, nor even really relevant, by design.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0009.mediawiki