Topic: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!! (Read 4706 times)

Sometimes you get blocks that are 750kB or nearly zero. Though that is only the choice of the miner that mined that block. It does not mean that not enough transactions are available too.

I wonder if some people claiming that blocks are not full calculate these as full blocks or not. But even if not... it doesn't matter when blocks are not full at times of the day nearly no one in the world uses bitcoin.

Checking the last blocks we can see that all of them are almost full ~1,000 kB, i think in the near future it's to upgrade to 2MB per block

What are the solutions besides not handling them and pushing them to the next block?

On dialup?  I didn't think such internet connection still is in use.

this is messed up :9

Never fear guise. There are solutions working today to handle the tx's that won't fit in 1MB blocks... this keeps our rasb pi full economic nodes on dialup safe n sound.

I don't say that I want 0.00001 bitcoin fees again. I only said that we now are forced to pay more when we want to hope to get included in a reasonable time. And this get's worth constantly. You can't negate that trend.

Of course one can set a reasonable blocksize, nobody said we need to set it very high. Besides that... it would only be harmfull when the new limit is full instantly too. Otherwise the block size in practice would grow slowly.

Besides that it would be interesting how much data would be needed to save the details of LN. Bandwith and harddisc. The data needed for using it and the nodes it will use. I wonder if any or how much bandwith and harddisc can be saved with it. At the end individual transaction would not be needed to be known to everyone I guess.

It's new to me, the usage you describe is in some form similar to ripple. And no I don't say it's the same. It sounds more interesting then. If this is the plan that it might be good to take a look at the problems ripple had. I think some problem was receiving coins that were stolen. The new owner was innocent but he already lost the equivalent value.

Anyway... let's see how LN turns out. Only practice will show.

There's nothing that helps you build a case. The fees are low enough. Tell me what you want exactly? 1 cent transactions, a fraction of a cent? Free transactions?

Tl;dr: You were wrong again.

Which is not achievable with any kind of block size. Regardless of how much decentralization you want to sacrifice, and regardless of how ridiculously high you set the block size limit it will never be enough.

LN benefits:

• Trustless
• Cheap
• Near-instant transactions

You will be able to use the LN the same way that you are using Bitcoin now (the TX's are just faster), assuming that there is adoption.

Stop. Erase everything that you've ever read about LN from your brain and start from scratch. Who was talking about "exchanges" as money transmitters? It was an example, "exchange" as in entity. Secondary example: "Newbie" has payment channel to "Newbie2". Noob wants to pay for his Coffee at the Coffee Shop. "Newbie2" has a payment channel with the Coffee Shop. So: Newbie -> Newbie2 -> Coffee shop. The "LN building banks is a risk for Bitcoin" is also pure bullshit.

Bullshit.

---

---

Update: It isn't like Ripple. Ripple is centralized, and LN isn't (or won't be).

I already know that you miss a good bunch of comprehension styles. Otherwise you would have been able to understand that I wrote that this only shows the total fees paid regardless of how many kb the block contained.

And yes, the fees are in bitcoin. And the bitcoin price has a connection regarding how much people would want to freely give away as a fee. For example fees were given freely by many when they thought they are rich in 2013. Your comparision simply contains too many variables to judge from that what transactions can go through. Since you know very well that at those times you could send with a minimum fee. It does not matter if some rich person wanted to donate to miners. What matters is what fee is needed. And now we need higher fees. And this requisit is rising.

I already know you will try to negate it and I hope it's not again from missing comprehension of what I wrote. Maybe read it twice.


Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case.

Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that.

I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.


What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.

Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.


Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.

It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.

I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit.

There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it:
You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period.

Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC).

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming.

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation. And if the only force to force people to use it will be the limited blocksize then you can be very sure that people will find another way to avoid that extortion. Doesn't matter if we like it or not.

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

It isn't. As finding the right data on this is a bit hard, you can take a look at total fees per day. They balance out.

Not sure whether trolling, stupid or both. I never said that I'm not sure, I said that I can't find the exact link to the exact calculations (hence why "~" was used).

If people want more TX capacity, they will adopt it quickly, otherwise they are indirectly stating that they don't want additional capacity. Simple as that.

Who said that you would only be able to send/receive between yourself and the exchange? Are you sure that you know how LN is supposed to work (in theory)? Because from what I see, you don't.

Sure there is no fixed fee. Though there are times you need to pay more than at other times. And the days of transactions going through instantly with minimum fee are over. So it really does not need much intelligence to see the trend going on. The reason is clear.

So you say I'm not sure but you post numbers where you are not sure too.

Anyway... segwit first needs adoption to have an effect. This takes time. And the best effect it would have on multisig transactions. Which is not something that is spread as far as was assumed in this claim for the future.

Right, I chose the wrong word. I meant I don't really see a lot of usecases for LN, not for segwit.

Sure I keep bitcoins in my wallet. But to send it wherever I want. I would not bind them into a payment channel to some exchange only because I might send some bitcoins there in the future. Why should I when I could freely decide about it? So no, I don't really see usecases for myself nor for most users.

Don't blame the Bitcoin network for creating large transactions. This is why fees are measured in satoshi/byte. There is no fixed fee.

[1] If you aren't sure, then stop spreading misinformation? [2] Wrong. While I can't find the exact link from the mailing list, we are looking at ~190-200% in realistic usage.

Whatever exactly 'build on this' is supposed to mean, the answer is yes to both sentences.

You start complaining about 'not seeing use-cases for Segwit' and then continue talking about LN users? That does not make sense. A Segwit use-case is LN.

Do you keep coins in your wallet? If you do, then your argument has no merit.

I often enough had to send with 0.20$, which is less than half of the minimum paypal fee and clearly it goes in this direction.

I'm really not sure about the effect of segwit since the effects that are hoped on are mostly calculated with a way higher amount of multisig transactions, as far as I remind correctly. I'm really not sure that we can build on this. Of course even when it not brings nearly to 50$, every 10% is a nice thing. Only the big question is if it really will help avoiding full blocks.

And segwit... as far as I learned about it... I don't see a usecase for me and I doubt many other users have. If one has as much coins to block it in some payment channel then ok, possible LN user. But most users have the amount for one payment, that's it. So the LN effect won't be high too. Besides that... LN is not really a loved thing.

Bullshit. The fees are not unusually high, and nowhere near the maximum that we've experienced. They're currently at: 40 satoshis/byte [1]. For a TX of 226 bytes that is 4 cents. Quite like paypal, indeed.

It will be fine.

---

---

[1] - https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

You were lucky that you sent at a time without overload though there are times at a day when it does not work except you pay fees that more and more look like paypal fees.

I welcome segwit but it surely can't bring the huge effect as fast as needed. Well, maybe it will surprise.

we will have segwit soon and it should give us enough time to keep scaling. I did transactions today and this week some other too and I have never had problems with it. Just pay the recomended fee.

Is it me or is the blocksize debate starting to come to a close thanks to SegWit + LN release coming closer and closer.

No. It just shows that you lack adequate knowledge (e.g. importance and difference of best && average && worst case running time in algorithms) to actually make a case with "arguments". Instead of wasting everyone's time with misinformation, it is best to give up (as you just did). Your "arguments" are not based on evidence but rather beliefs (e.g. Gavin being the lead contributor in the past implies that he is a excellent developer today); appeal to authority.

There are "people" that tend to complain about the (yet) nonexistent problems of there not being enough space in the blocks. In the majority of the cases, this is the result of their flawed use of the fee system.

Sorry Lauda but it doesn't work to discuss on that level. I come up with arguments and you answer with nothing more than "No, I'm right". No need to go into details since... you are right by default.

Good luck with that attitude.