Topic: Bitcoin Network Capacity is Reaching a Critical State: Mike Hearn (Read 1735 times)

the funny part is that he is promoting a more centralized coin, than bitcoin, i smelling just hating from his words

Gavin isn't a ceo or anything he just helping bitcoin, also even mining is far away from being centralized

MicroGuy is hilarious, I always read his posts in his voice after seeing him promoting that Goldcoin thing on youtube.
Sorry but no, Bitcoin is not centralized, and Bitcoin is and will be the king of crypto.

That can be automated.  Clients should observe the recent blockchain to see what the going rate is for confirmed transactions. They then adjust their transaction fee accordingly. If a transaction isn't getting confirmed, double-spend to cancel it, then resubmit with a higher transaction fee. Transaction fees then go up and down automatically. This requires no changes to the blockchain, and any client can implement it without affecting other clients.

That may work for a while but not for ever. The situation becomes a fixed supply with an ever increasing demand so transaction fees will skyrocket. The free market will of course find a solution to this; namely use a non Bitcoin blockchain without this artificial limitation.

Edit: There are alternatives to Bitcoin right now that do not have this blocksize limitation baked in.

Fine.  Then there is no need to raise the block limit at all.  'Problem' solved.  What's all the bitching about?

No, just NO

You double spend your own transaction with a higher fee, or you pay a miner directly to include it.

Increasing the 1M limit does not mean every block has to be 1M or larger. Miner can continue to mine 500k blocks. What are the arguments against it?

Quick! Everyone sell your coins! 

This bullshit is the equivalent of whooping and making loud noises to try to get a bunch of cattle to run through an open gate which is pretty much the universal way that leadership acts.  It is the equivalent of the 40 years of assertions that we are near or passed the 'tipping point' where some sort of climate catastrophe is inevitable (it was the coming ice-age back when I was a kid.)  This kind of crap can be ignored and ridiculed.

It is probably true that there will be some strain on Bitcoin as a free-to-use system where operator revenue is achieved by spying on users and exploiting them in various other ways.  To bad, so sad.  As far as I'm concerned this would be a healthy evolution (finally!) and about as far from some sort of a calamity as one can get.

I'll bet a dime to a doughnut that by investment magnitude a majority of hodlers were fully aware that Bitcoin would and could never be something which scales to replace all exchange currencies, or even a simple centralized system like VISA, and trying to make it so would destroy it.  In my case I considered the risk that this would even be attempted to be a limiting factor on how much I wanted to risk on the system.  I'll welcome the day when I am compelled to pay what the solution is worth for the capabilities it provides.  As it is I set my client to pay about $10.00 per transaction just because it is a fantastic deal and in my opinion the right thing to do.

From me to Hearndresen:  Go to hell.  I'm still betting that sidechains and/or similar actually workable scaling methods will win the footrace between you guys who want to make Bitcoin an inferior substitute to PayPal and those we who want it to be a net positive for humankind.

The only one who would be remotely worthy would be the original. He/she/it has made their wishes known with deafening silence.

In other words, you need someone to tell you what to do. You can't bear to be responsible for your own actions.

Right now it takes longer for miners to process your transaction. I hope it never gets to the point where your coins get lost in limbo because the network is overloaded.

What happens if you dont pay the required fee an your transaction is never processed? you lose the money?

summary: we are doomed. end.

In my view, we need to find a new Satoshi to lead us out of the darkness. These tiny patches are miniscule when compared to the real challenges facing bitcoin.

Let's face it, go ahead and admit it, bitcoin is centralized. Now let's find, and crown, a really awesome king to light the way.

What does it mean? I cannot understand clearly.

So are we giving up on that whole Bitcoin replacing fiat thingy? lol

Does the dev team even know how to contact the mining majority in China to ask them if they will support the change?

It is clearly in miners best interest to increase maximum block size…but it is not in their best interest to produce larger blocks with the slow block propagation speed on the Bitcoin network as it stands today. I don't know who the idiot was that suggested as max block size --> infinity, tx fees --> 0. That simplistic view is complicated enough to make people think they are understanding some deep truth and react religiously as opposed to thoughtfully.

Peter Todd had a great and very simple write up on the calculus of tx inclusion On the dev list about 1.5 years ago or so. Max block size is not the problem at the moment…the very high BTC25 block reward is the reason miners won't make large blocks. Block size will grow as block reward goes down and/or block propagation speed goes up.

Kudos, a big +1 here gentlemand.