I honestly fail to see the problem. Why is it important that there be only -one- true coin?
Bitcoin blocks are getting full. so what? fees will drive up. It's survival of the fittest.
Scalability problem was solved with altcoins, 5 years ago when litecoin launched. Those who cannot afford the bitcoin fee, always have the option to move to an alternative, cheaper blockchain.
Look at the real world history. People used to trade gold as a currency hundreds of years ago. When It became to scarce and hard to find, it's value raised dramatically.
So poorer people started using cheaper metals i.e. silver, copper to do their daily business and gold became a high value currency that only those who could really afford it would use.
Nowadays we use paper cash because it's the cheapest method.
The same principle should apply to crypto currencies.. Bitcoin is the gold. litecoin is the silver, [insert random non scam coin] is the copper, etc.
Those who want to make small transactions, can use the cheaper coin, so (1) they can move money for less fees and (2) remove the unnecessary clutter from bitcoin blockchain.
And there is nothing to limit the scalability. once litecoin blocks get full, bring on the next coin, Dark coin maybe? when that's full, move on to the next
Increasing the blocksize limit DOES have a scalability issue. You force everyone to use a big blockchain. but by splitting the blockchain into multiple coins, the rich will use the bitcoin(gold), middle class would use the litecoin(silver) and the poor would use the feathercoin (shit). they don't spam each others' coins, and they use the blockchain they can afford.
You don't have to deal with hardforking issues either. it's a win win win for everybody.
Topic: Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 6. (Read 25112 times)
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions -- it must be extended fast (now). it should have been extended the day before yesterday.
Average confirmation time hasn't changed
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
It's not that bad as it looks. The fee will just increase by 5-10% that is nothing.
If we do something without research, then it could cause far bigger damage than that 5% extra you pay.
Consider that extra 5% a sacrifice for bitcoin's wellbeing in the long term. We must never rush decisions without real evidence.
If that small increase in fees shall produce that so much relief in transfer volumes (which I do not know) then it will be a nice temporary solution. However I think that one of the good things about Bitcoin is the possibility of transferring small amounts of money, which allows for microearnings. If that is going to be a problem due to transaction fees rising, I think that it will be a loss for Bitcoin.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions -- it must be extended fast (now). it should have been extended the day before yesterday.
Average confirmation time hasn't changed
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
It's not that bad as it looks. The fee will just increase by 5-10% that is nothing.
If we do something without research, then it could cause far bigger damage than that 5% extra you pay.
Consider that extra 5% a sacrifice for bitcoin's wellbeing in the long term. We must never rush decisions without real evidence.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions -- it must be extended fast (now). it should have been extended the day before yesterday.
Average confirmation time hasn't changed
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
Nobody should neither impose hard fork nor soft fork without consensus IMHO, not even on core.
Although I believe that with a soft fork, everything keeps working for everyone and with a hard fork there are users who can't see some transactions, and think they haven't gotten paid when they have.
But with soft forks, the protocol in 10 or 20 years is going to be a horrible and confusing mess.
TL;DR soft forks are grotesque. Hard forks are violent.
Although I believe that with a soft fork, everything keeps working for everyone and with a hard fork there are users who can't see some transactions, and think they haven't gotten paid when they have.
But with soft forks, the protocol in 10 or 20 years is going to be a horrible and confusing mess.
TL;DR soft forks are grotesque. Hard forks are violent.
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions -- it must be extended fast (now). it should have been extended the day before yesterday.
Unfortunately regular users doesn't have much say on the matter as it will be decided by big companies with significant share in the bitcoin world.
Regular users can refuse (do not accept) forked bitcoins as payment. Or they can migrate to services which stay on consensus path.
Big mining pools are composed of many small miners (hashers). Big companies would not find their BTC as valuable if common people (and/or significant players) won't accept them as payment or as wage or as collateral or whatever.
Unfortunately regular users doesn't have much say on the matter as it will be decided by big companies with significant share in the bitcoin world.
If the blocksize is too big, you can't host the blockchain in your computer. Right now for example myself, if the blocks x2 by increasing to 2MB, im done with it, im not running a node, because I will run out of space. Like me, a lot of casual people running nodes will give up. This is why raising the block size right now is an act of stupidity, when we have segwit to deal with it, not to mention the actual risk of a hardfork. Anyone supporting bigger blocks now doesn't get it or has a certain agenda.
Yes i get it now, although not because of that argument, because a harddisksize argument is not good, you can get a new HDD for 20$.
What the real problem is the spam transactions and the hard fork risks of splitting the bitcoin, because divide and conquer is how the enemy operates.
Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.
Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.
Therefore the block structure won't really be destroyed, it's not like you have to reformat earlier blocks to all have the identical size. Even now block sizes vary so that's not an issue.
But what you are doing here is artificially not letting the block size go up, and when the limit is hit, then people will compete for the empty space, so the TX fee will massively go up, and most people cannot transact and the TX confirm time will go up.
That is the real sabotage.
The blocksize will go up anyway, the question is, will you let it go up naturally, or you plan to make bitcoin a communist centrally planned currency. I hope not.
Having a bunch of "free space" that's unused due the cap being too big brings a lot of problems and possible exploits. What centralizes Bitcoin is not being able to run a node in your computer, not the nonsense you are talking about. Bitcoin will never scale to worldwide levels by raising blocksize.
Honest newbie question: how rising block size prevents from running a node on regular PC?
If the blocksize is too big, you can't host the blockchain in your computer. Right now for example myself, if the blocks x2 by increasing to 2MB, im done with it, im not running a node, because I will run out of space. Like me, a lot of casual people running nodes will give up. This is why raising the block size right now is an act of stupidity, when we have segwit to deal with it, not to mention the actual risk of a hardfork. Anyone supporting bigger blocks now doesn't get it or has a certain agenda.
Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.
Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.
Therefore the block structure won't really be destroyed, it's not like you have to reformat earlier blocks to all have the identical size. Even now block sizes vary so that's not an issue.
But what you are doing here is artificially not letting the block size go up, and when the limit is hit, then people will compete for the empty space, so the TX fee will massively go up, and most people cannot transact and the TX confirm time will go up.
That is the real sabotage.
The blocksize will go up anyway, the question is, will you let it go up naturally, or you plan to make bitcoin a communist centrally planned currency. I hope not.
Having a bunch of "free space" that's unused due the cap being too big brings a lot of problems and possible exploits. What centralizes Bitcoin is not being able to run a node in your computer, not the nonsense you are talking about. Bitcoin will never scale to worldwide levels by raising blocksize.
Honest newbie question: how rising block size prevents from running a node on regular PC?
What about people who do want to run full-node, but do not want to buy new harddrive every two years and new computer every five years?
It doesn't, hard-disk size is scaling much faster than bitcoin. You can already buy 5 Tb hard disks, by the time BTC gets 5 TB there will be like 1000 exabyte speed hard disks.
Shit learn to quote folks. The answer is yes, everything is evolving ,so should those guys too.
Even the Operating systems require a better and better PC, not to mention video games and applications.
You need to keep up with technology, plus those hard disks will become so cheap that it wont matter.
I remember buying my first USB stick for 60$, now I can get one for 5$.
Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.
Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.
Therefore the block structure won't really be destroyed, it's not like you have to reformat earlier blocks to all have the identical size. Even now block sizes vary so that's not an issue.
But what you are doing here is artificially not letting the block size go up, and when the limit is hit, then people will compete for the empty space, so the TX fee will massively go up, and most people cannot transact and the TX confirm time will go up.
That is the real sabotage.
The blocksize will go up anyway, the question is, will you let it go up naturally, or you plan to make bitcoin a communist centrally planned currency. I hope not.
Having a bunch of "free space" that's unused due the cap being too big brings a lot of problems and possible exploits. What centralizes Bitcoin is not being able to run a node in your computer, not the nonsense you are talking about. Bitcoin will never scale to worldwide levels by raising blocksize.
Honest newbie question: how rising block size prevents from running a node on regular PC?
What about people who do want to run full-node, but do not want to buy new harddrive every two years and new computer every five years?
It doesn't, hard-disk size is scaling much faster than bitcoin. You can already buy 5 Tb hard disks, by the time BTC gets 5 TB there will be like 1000 exabyte speed hard disks.
Because raising the blocksize to 8MB out of nowhere is way more risky than staying with 1 while we search for ways to scale Bitcoin properly (raising the blocksize will never properly scale Bitcoin, not without something like LN). We don't want datacenters running nodes, we want to be able to run nodes on a single computer, what's so hard to get about this? That's the real sabotage, centralized nodes.
Dude, the 8 MB limit is not each and ever block. If the cap is 8mb, and the current block size is 0.5 mb , then 0.5 mb blocks will circulate. The 8mb block is only the cap limit, not the default size.
Therefore the block structure won't really be destroyed, it's not like you have to reformat earlier blocks to all have the identical size. Even now block sizes vary so that's not an issue.
But what you are doing here is artificially not letting the block size go up, and when the limit is hit, then people will compete for the empty space, so the TX fee will massively go up, and most people cannot transact and the TX confirm time will go up.
That is the real sabotage.
The blocksize will go up anyway, the question is, will you let it go up naturally, or you plan to make bitcoin a communist centrally planned currency. I hope not.
Having a bunch of "free space" that's unused due the cap being too big brings a lot of problems and possible exploits. What centralizes Bitcoin is not being able to run a node in your computer, not the nonsense you are talking about. Bitcoin will never scale to worldwide levels by raising blocksize.
Honest newbie question: how rising block size prevents from running a node on regular PC?
It doesn't, hard-disk size is scaling much faster than bitcoin. You can already buy 5 Tb hard disks, by the time BTC gets 5 TB there will be like 1000 exabyte speed hard disks.
core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
How is it possible that segwit is being tested if it is "fantasyware?"
Oh I see, you are defining anything not yet in production as "fantasyware."
How typically dishonest of you.
When _Classic launches 2MB blocks, the "fantasyware" now being tested will come in handy, as _Classic is immediately softforked with 2MB+8MB segwit blocks (which will create a support/logistical nightmare for anyone brave enough to be among the first defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority.
Sorry, took me a minute to cut through your #CORERAGE to find the half arsed point you were half way making.
I'm assuming your distress is from coming out of your local PC World and not having found a shrink wrapped, shiny boxed copy of Bitcoin Classic? Oh dear, I am sorry. But you see in grown up OS world, things work a little differently. I could explain that to you, but we both know that would be a waste of time.
So, instead, please accept this picture of a kitten. Ive dressed it up a bit, coz I know what you like....
core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
How is it possible that segwit is being tested if it is "fantasyware?"
Oh I see, you are defining anything not yet in production as "fantasyware."
How typically dishonest of you.
When _Classic launches 2MB blocks, the "fantasyware" now being tested will come in handy, as _Classic is immediately softforked with 2MB+8MB segwit blocks (which will create a support/logistical nightmare for anyone brave enough to be among the first defectors from Core's socioeconomic majority.
Speaking of Brian Armstrong, his latest tweet is comedy gold. He's as valuable to Team _Classic as their conveniently memory-holed Cryptsy scammer!
core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
I can see you are trying to sow the seeds of doubt regarding Classic, but really, its a little pointless considering the insane complications that core needed to introduce to get aound the need to HF. A lot of the capacity gains you constantly claim for segwit are little more than cheap accounting tricks. segwit has important features for bitcoin - but scaling is not one of them. To try and push segregated witness as such is either deliberately disingenuous or simply a misunderstanding on your part.
I am completely fine with classic /BIP102 which will be avalaible at the earliet on march 1st and probably take 1-2 more months to reach a super-majority.
Segwit has already been in testnet so Core has been testing it for 6+months in sidechains alpha and plan on up to 4 months testing in the maintestnet for a similar April release.
I wouldn't be surprised if some of those miners simply went with segwit + core if the softfork rolls out in time as they simply want concensus.
And how much testing was done with classic? Think before you post.
Classic is now BIP 102 so doesn't need a whitepaper , but needs to be written first , than a testnet created to begin testing. So you are correct segwit has a head start with testing an peer review. To be fair , segwit is more complicated so needs more testing , which is why core has tested it in sidechains alpha for 6+months and is giving it 4months in the main test net.
No, Classic is the choice. There is no fallback, if you want to stay relevant.
Can you clarify a technical advantage of classic above core with segwit ?
As Far as I am aware Cores proposal comes with 45 developers, proposal is already further along, written and being tested right now, comes with many other improvements, and has practically the same capacity advantages as Bitcoin Classic/BIP102.
I really don't understand why people would pick Classic unless Segwit is delayed for some reason or for political reasons which I am not interested in as I want to judge each proposal by their technical considerations.
If classic was a 2+4 BIP + Segwit that may be interesting because it would contain all the advantages of segwit and have an effective 3-4MB capacity and than 6-8MB effective capacity with plenty of headroom to put off future forks for a couple years. It may have some centralization tradeoffs , but at least it is different enough to consider and make interesting. I know why Jonathan Toomim is so dissapointed that his proposal was vetoed for such a conservative one now.
core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.
And how much testing was done with classic? Think before you post.
No, Classic is the choice. There is no fallback, if you want to stay relevant.
Can you clarify a technical advantage of classic above core with segwit ?
As Far as I am aware Cores proposal comes with 45 developers, proposal is already further along, written and being tested right now, comes with many other improvements, and has practically the same capacity advantages as Bitcoin Classic/BIP102.
I really don't understand why people would pick Classic unless Segwit is delayed for some reason or for political reasons which I am not interested in as I want to judge each proposal by their technical considerations.
If classic was a 2+4 BIP + Segwit that may be interesting because it would contain all the advantages of segwit and have an effective 3-4MB capacity and than 6-8MB effective capacity with plenty of headroom to put off future forks for a couple years. It may have some centralization tradeoffs , but at least it is different enough to consider and make interesting. I know why Jonathan Toomim is so dissapointed that his proposal was vetoed for such a conservative one now.
core with segwit is still fantasyware - they are testing it, yes, but there is a long way to go before even the most reckless development manager would consider it production ready. The market wants commitment on capacity now, not a vague, ever shifting promise of it in the future.
That is the essential difference between classic and core ( + whatever dream additions you like)
I can see you are trying to sow the seeds of doubt regarding Classic, but really, its a little pointless considering the insane complications that core needed to introduce to get aound the need to HF. A lot of the capacity gains you constantly claim for segwit are little more than cheap accounting tricks. segwit has important features for bitcoin - but scaling is not one of them. To try and push segregated witness as such is either deliberately disingenuous or simply a misunderstanding on your part.
Credit card companies charge merchant for credit card using. Normal charge is about 2%,I believe. So there is a a clear incentive for merchant to accept bitcoin payments over VISA or Master Card for instance. I'm not sure, but I believe accepting mobile payments is not free either for merchant.
2% is the Interchange fee so cc fees are only that lot if the business is large enough and own the bank/processor or can negotiate a volume discount 2.1-2.2%. Most merchants pay 2.9-5% in the US and more elsewhere.
Jump to: