BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!! - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

ekoice

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2016, 07:39:14 AM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on March 26, 2016, 07:29:39 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2016, 07:24:23 AM

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

I am reading all comments and they seem to be very interesting and informative since Blocks are getting full and every one needs a chance to add his/her stuff there to share with others. But unfortunately if the blocks will become bigger in size then no use as well since dinosaurs are example by some friends that we can think what happened to them when they got bigger...nothing but just a sad ending. So think about it and then decide what to do in this regard.

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2016, 07:39:14 AM

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

Wow, i`m getting confused with all these definitions, so lets get them straight Cheesy

First of all bitcoin is individualist, this is 100% certain. Now because of this, it can't be socialist, because that is the exact opposite of it.

Then, bitcoin is not free, or not entirely free, it has a low cost, which could be rounded down to near 0, but it's never free.

For nodes you pay electricity, for mining the same, basically everything you do on the internet you pay bills for, so it cant be free.

However we can make sure that it will be cheap as hell, but it cant be free, that is just a fact of life.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: RealBitcoin on March 26, 2016, 07:29:39 AM

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2016, 07:24:23 AM

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

you have got your metaphors mixed up
i think you are following the Fox news definitions of communism and not the reality of the worlds definition of communism.

bitcoin is socialist communism (opensource, no barrier to entry community minded).. but is becoming corporate capitalist. with blockstream wanting dominance
i find it real funny how the blockstreamers are altcoin fanboys. so maybe when consensus moves to 2mb.. you altcoiners can play on the minority chain in your small little club and call your chain clams 2.0

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: franky1 on March 26, 2016, 07:24:23 AM

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists.

Haha, stop drinking marxist coolaid, bitcoin is exactly for capitalists.

Bitcoin was summoned into existence to fight against the communist central banking ponzi scheme, that socializes losses to the taxpayer.

With bitcoin you can keep what you earn, with cash all you earn is socialized and will be taken from you by your comrades.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 06:26:47 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 06:11:59 AM

I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system! Cheesy

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 06:11:59 AM

I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

yo numbskull

more capacity = more people without a price war..
keeping capacity = price war and less people

bitcoin is not supposed to be for capitalists. you have been drinking too much of the blockstream kool-aid and now you want bitcoin to be a fiat coin..
please detox yourself and think for yourself for once

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 06:11:59 AM

I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.

I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it.

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.

You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system! Cheesy

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 06:11:59 AM

I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me.

Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 05:49:01 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.

False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.

Quote from: Lauda on March 26, 2016, 05:49:01 AM

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.

Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always. Roll Eyes

I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.

False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't.

Quote from: SebastianJu on March 26, 2016, 05:43:04 AM

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.

Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always. Roll Eyes

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

maokoto

Nope, bitcoin is not working like normal anymore. I think you did not check the newbie subforums and similar places and saw all the complaints about bitcoin transactions that suddenly don't work anymore like before.

It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago. For no other reason than bitcoin not being able to meet the capacity requirements anymore. Bitcoiner do not suddenly decide to pay higher fees. It was enforced.

Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold. And try to ask yourself how you want to convince someone on the street why he should not simply use paypal instead. He does not need anonymity, he sends legal money anyway. And very few of them need to send money over borders.

Bitcoinpro

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Mr.Wot on March 22, 2016, 10:47:48 AM

wot do we do now?

with all this bickering like 1st graders how will anything get done?? i propose bigger blocks becoz u can add things like video, music, gifs etc to the blockchain and it makes it more fun...

the segwitted will not accomodate 7 billion people stop mucking around and fix this before i lose my investment

fud account

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 23, 2016, 08:43:05 PM

just wait till reward halfs and hash rate starts going down.
we are in for some serious delays

Hopefully miners will not switch off their mining hardware in the first 2 days or so. And they do it over 2 weeks. Then the network would have the chance to adjust the difficulty downwards and blocks would appear again in a more normal timeframe.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 06:04:06 PM

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

Obviously for. If a HF is going to happen, then the developers should use that opportunity to 'clean up' and possibly implement some things from the hard fork wish list.

Quote from: vendetahome on March 24, 2016, 06:06:17 PM

uhmm i dont see a single thing why just an ordinary bitcoin user would be against a block increase because it would cost less fees to send through transactions

There's a difference between what users want, what is achievable and what kind of side-effects it is going to cause.

Quote from: vendetahome on March 24, 2016, 06:06:17 PM

blocks are full for a while already and hopefully devs will do something to solve this problem asap, it should have been done a while ago

They aren't.

vendetahome

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 06:04:06 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 04:59:18 AM

Quote from: Risackwpsp on March 24, 2016, 02:22:54 AM

when the block size will be changed?

Maybe in 2017.

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

uhmm i dont see a single thing why just an ordinary bitcoin user would be against a block increase because it would cost less fees to send through transactions

blocks are full for a while already and hopefully devs will do something to solve this problem asap, it should have been done a while ago

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 04:59:18 AM

Quote from: Risackwpsp on March 24, 2016, 02:22:54 AM

when the block size will be changed?

Maybe in 2017.

would you be for or against such an increase in 2017?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 05:29:42 PM

an adequate fee one day is inadequate the next.

Not necessarily. An adequate fee of day 1 might be a higher than recommended fee of day two.

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 05:29:42 PM

also anyone running an older wallet client, that client's default fee is probably wrong.
thats the source of confusion.

Therefore the source of the problem are the users who aren't willing to either update their clients or use Bitcoin properly (fee wise).

Quote from: adamstgBit on March 24, 2016, 05:29:42 PM

these "spam" tx produced fees, not exactly a bad thing for miners.

Zero-fee spam is pretty much useless these days. However, as there are some users transacting (or trying to transact) in the 1-10 satoshi/byte range, spamming in that one will have a impact on the network.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:07:53 PM

Quote from: sachung on March 24, 2016, 09:56:41 AM

If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

That's the way that the system was meant to be used. What happens is that people include fees that are not adequate and then they complain about it. Usually it is not a problem with the network but the user.

an adequate fee one day is inadequate the next.
also anyone running an older wallet client, that client's default fee is probably wrong.
thats the source of confusion.

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 05:07:53 PM

Quote from: FuegoTropicalArrrrrrriiii on March 24, 2016, 11:24:43 AM

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies.

It is worth nothing that a nice percentage of transactions could be labeled as spam of sorts (even today). There was some statement about it in the recent roundtable but I can't remember exactly what it was.

these "spam" tx produced fees, not exactly a bad thing for miners.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: nagatraju on March 24, 2016, 07:11:03 AM

Bitcoin itself has ability to adjust these fluctuations in block sizes.

This statement does not make sense as Bitcoin does not have this 'ability'.

Quote from: sachung on March 24, 2016, 09:56:41 AM

If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

That's the way that the system was meant to be used. What happens is that people include fees that are not adequate and then they complain about it. Usually it is not a problem with the network but the user.

Quote from: FuegoTropicalArrrrrrriiii on March 24, 2016, 11:24:43 AM

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies.

It is worth nothing that a nice percentage of transactions could be labeled as spam of sorts (even today). There was some statement about it in the recent roundtable but I can't remember exactly what it was.

FuegoTropicalArrrrrrriiii

member

Activity: 67

Merit: 10

Quote from: sachung on March 24, 2016, 09:56:41 AM

I generally don't have a specific opinion in this debate between block increasing fans and the opposite, but just to say Blocks are full is an exaggeration, If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

One look through old threads when SatoshiDice used to spam the fuck out of the blockchain until they were priced out via fees makes you understand that the chain can fit way more legit transactions if businesses optimize their transaction policies.

One good example is how fucking finally Blockchain.info decided to add dynamic fees to their withdraws. Considering just how many services use their API (for better or worse), I'd say this is an important optimization.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2016, 04:59:18 AM

Exactly. It is the same as with mining and thus these doomsday scenarios are just bad attempts at manipulation.

yes devote blockstreamer your doomsday scenario's are just bad attempts at manipulating people away from real bitcoin transactions.

sachung

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

I generally don't have a specific opinion in this debate between block increasing fans and the opposite, but just to say Blocks are full is an exaggeration, If you use the default fees you are more likely to get your first confirmation with the first block i.e blocks are not necessary full at least in most of the time when there is a spam attack.

Topic: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!! - page 4. (Read 4716 times)