Topic: Bitcoin at risk. (Read 2128 times)

yes, please start to act when the shit hits the fan! always the best choice in life  !

yeah why need to add higher limit when 1 mb is just more than enough, its useless and pointless

Block size limit will be increased when there is a need for it. Can we keep this crap in the XT (is dead) thread?

Bitcoin was the one being used for ransoms, drug deals and more bad intentions. But not any more. If we use bitcoin for legitimate business more, the proportion of bitcoin used in illegal activities will reduce. US dollar is most widely in drug dealing, but most people use it in legal things.

But still according to the government bitcoin is the one being used for ransoms, drug deals and more bad intentions because of its security to the user. Bitcoin should be lifted up by users because we wont get any help from the government. That is the risk. We against the government.

Effective methods have been found, but still there are some flaws in bitcoins which are like risky for bitcoins.
(1) Hackers have developed some new techniques for gaining access to wallets, no matter how much secure bitcoin wallets have been, still it's got some loopholes which are not tackled.
(2) There is some insecurance too if you forgot your wallet details and you don't even have a backup.
These risks are harmful for the currency and should be took into consideration.

The 7tps thing is a peak. To reach this peak we still have a lot of margin. No need to rush things, but sure, I like to think with a futuristic mind so we should get ahead of the curve.

In any case, big blocks are a death sentence for Bitcoin if it translates into centralization of mining, thats why anyone with some common understanding of all of this should be against XT and any BIP that raises the blocksize to ridiculous levels that would alienate the average joe running a node specially in countries that aren't as advanced.

enforcing a fee is not helping transactions flow, but aiding greedy miners to want to ignore 'second class' (free) transactions.. it's reinforcing and telling the miners that their greed is allowed.

so asking people to 'just pay a higher fee' is not positive advice, and is not the point of bitcoin.
if everyone paid a fee, then miners would then cherry pick the highest fee's and then ignore the minimal fee transactions. which will lead to a ongoing cycle of increasing fee's. which will drive away small purchase items if it costs more then those things just in tx fee's.

bitcoin meant to be devisible to 10million parts.. but if it costs 0.0001 just to send. then businesses that use things like google adsense cannot pay users pennies or parts of pennies. because it costs 3cents to send the tx..

this 3cent will increase, not just by people paying more btc to get priority in and endless priority war, but also because bitcoin has risen in fiat value .. meaning its not long before the average tx will cost 4 cents.. then 5c, then 6 cents

so imagine it next year if 1btc=$1000, and imagine everyone paying a fee..
people will end up not paying 0.0001 but 0.0002, which will be 20c/tx..

its simply not helpfull to bitcoin and is purely about greed of miners. this is why the block limit needs to rise, so miners cant make priority excuses to ignore transactions. and instead just do their job of accepting transactions.. which is what bitcoin should be about

i know there is no actual issue at the moment in regards to data confines of a 1mb block as statistics and other peoples observations have shown blocks on average are only half filled.. but its more about removing the limit to get greedy miners to stop pretending that the limit is the cause of their greed

Block size limit will be increased when there is a need for it. Can we keep this crap in the XT (is dead) thread?

The block size limit issue again?

Yes, we are having a static 1MB limit per block atm, and today each block contains--most of the time--half of that limit. I wonder where'd you get that we are having a large mempool and many full blocks.

i think we can handle double of the current transaction per second, with a bit of delay even x3 or x4 that, i remember that with the stress test we wen tto 140 tx per seconds, which is a crazy numbers

but still the network has proceeded it eventually

Its true, there are more and more transactions per day. There are more full blocks and yes, they are taking longer to process. But at the same time, the network is also improving and we will slowly be able to process the blocks quicker. Well, thats what I think is going to happen. Pretty much if you have a higher fee compared to the others make transactions at the same time as you, the transaction will be processed quicker.

imagine it like a 40 seater bus, and 20 people waiting for the bus..
the bus driver is selling seats at a first class premium. anyone willing to pay the premium gets the seat, while the others are left waiting for the next bus..

yea buses come every 10 minutes on average, but it might take an hour waiting at the bus stop for a generous bus  driver to just let anyone waiting to get onboard

1 MB block limit is totally absurd and inadequate and even a fool can realize it.

If the price keeps rising the volume of transactions will also increase with it.

This will show the developers that an increase is actually needed. Current solutions may not be optimal as every side has some interests in their own solutions, but a new one will be found when it is really needed.