Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 7.

Matias

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 101

Quote from: johnyj on December 18, 2015, 08:24:49 PM

Quote from: RealBitcoin on December 18, 2015, 01:37:15 PM

Quote from: johnyj on December 18, 2015, 12:56:27 PM

Bitcoin gaining popularity not because its payment function, and it will never be. There are plenty of statistics showing that people are not interested in using bitcoin to purchase coffee, they are more interested in use bitcoin to hedge against inflation and make money

Well then bitcoin will have a much higher fee, and will lose most of it's appeal in the long run.

I already have problems sending transactions at 0.0001 BTC fee, so now I use 0.00025 BTC/kb as set in electrum.

Soon that will double of triple, and bitcoin will lose its fast & cheap transaction appeals. It will be a huge marketing blowback.

Bitcoin might get a higher fee, but it will never lose its most significant appeal in the long run: Long term saving and international remittance

Let's be honest: Bitcoin will never be able to compete with those fast&cheap mobile/3rd party payment solutions that charges 0 transaction fee and instant confirmation (you even get some bonus when using them), and the possibility of refund

For example, Sweden has already over 50% of population use mobile payment. So all of these users will feel angry when they need to pay a fee to use bitcoin to spend, besides all the hassles about exchange into and out of bitcoin

So, even if you make bitcoin 0 transaction fee + instant confirmation + refund, people would still not use bitcoin to spend, because they gain nothing from switching from existing mobile payment solutions to bitcoin. People who care about bitcoin mostly attracted by its deflative nature for value storage, and they usually buy large amount of coins, so the fee is the least concern for them (I have seen these people paying 5-10% above market price to get 1-2 bitcoin, do you think they really care about the current level of fee?)

If you consider its major advantage against existing financial system, it is clear that the best marketing for bitcoin is either its exchange rate rises (for long term saving), or more and more exchanges are available in each country (for international remittance)

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.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 15, 2016, 08:22:27 PM

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.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 06:23:42 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 15, 2016, 05:55:11 PM

source? re-read the slack and you will see that segwit is also-ran for now. What ill be developed will not necessarily reflect whats in core right now.

So looks like Bitcoin classic will be a fallback for miners if Segwit on core doesn't roll out quick enough.

No, Classic is the choice. There is no fallback, if you want to stay relevant.

spiderbrain

legendary

Activity: 889

Merit: 1013

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 01:22:09 PM

Consensus is soon, I just wish there were more details as to what Bitcoin Classic represents as I cannot give my opinion on the matters until there is.

My best guess is that it is a 2 -4 plan with Segwit hardforked???
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Miners supporting Classic

   Bitmain/Antpool - 27%
   BitFury - 13%
   BW.COM - 4%
   HAOBTC.com -
   KnCMiner - 5%
   Genesis Mining

= over 49%

Companies supporting Classic

   Coinbase
   OKCoin
   Bitstamp
   Foldapp
   Bitcoin.com
   Bread Wallet
   Snapcard.io
   Cubits

Developers

   Jonathan Toomim
   Gavin Andresen
   Ahmed Bodiwala
   Jeff Garzik
   Peter Rizun

Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.

I wish there was more transparency over the consensus forming process, I can't see any clear way to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 15, 2016, 05:55:11 PM

source? re-read the slack and you will see that segwit is also-ran for now. What ill be developed will not necessarily reflect whats in core right now.

Yes, I now see the new Proposal is simply BIP 102
So looks like Bitcoin classic will be a fallback for miners if Segwit on core doesn't roll out quick enough.

Segwit softfork = 1.75-2MB capacity with many additional benefits
Bitcoin Classic hardfork= 2MB capacity

I understand why they prefer the simplicity with a hard fork , but there really isn't much reason to choose classic above core without more of a differentiation in benefits; 0 to .25 isn't going to be overly motivating IMHO.

Sorry to bring this up , and no disrespect to Gavin as I respect his contributions, but when I saw this on slack it freaked me out--

None of the other devs even acknowledged it either. Was this some sort of Joke Gavin was making?

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 04:43:52 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 15, 2016, 04:35:49 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 01:57:52 PM

I'm sure with some reasoned discussion there could be reconciliation between Classic and Core

I applaud your efforts towards harmony and union. There are dscussions going on now, but its not looking good for your hopes re: segwit. Maybe at a more realistic timeframe.

source? From the Classic developers statements on slack and elsewhere I see them favorable to segwit(but perhaps more in favor of a hardfork rollout instead which is fine to do in conjunction of a blocksize increase because most of the problem with hardfork is coordinating everyone ) Cores main problems with a hardfork is the difficulty in coordinating this responsibly. If one is going to perform a hardfork you may as well do 2MB+ Segwit and the appropriate sigop protections being adjusted.

source? re-read the slack and you will see that segwit is also-ran for now. What ill be developed will not necessarily reflect whats in core right now.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 15, 2016, 04:35:49 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 01:57:52 PM

I'm sure with some reasoned discussion there could be reconciliation between Classic and Core

I applaud your efforts towards harmony and union. There are dscussions going on now, but its not looking good for your hopes re: segwit. Maybe at a more realistic timeframe.

source? From the Classic developers statements on slack and elsewhere I see them favorable to segwit(but perhaps more in favor of a hardfork rollout instead which is fine to do in conjunction of a blocksize increase because most of the problem with hardfork is coordinating everyone ) Cores main problems with a hardfork is the difficulty in coordinating this responsibly. If one is going to perform a hardfork you may as well do 2MB+ Segwit and the appropriate sigop protections being adjusted.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: BitUsher on January 15, 2016, 01:57:52 PM

I'm sure with some reasoned discussion there could be reconciliation between Classic and Core

I applaud your efforts towards harmony and union. There are dscussions going on now, but its not looking good for your hopes re: segwit. Maybe at a more realistic timeframe.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: Queenvio on January 15, 2016, 01:38:29 PM

What about an dynamic size?
So I would recommend something like the average of the past 50 blocks . With an maximum of 10 MB , to prevent spam or dos,...

I'm not an developer so I'm sure there are a lot of more things thing about it.

I can empathize with Core not wanted to do 2 hard forks and simply preferring to perfect flexcap.... but despite it being a pain in the ass, there needs to be some reconciliation where all parties feel they win and lose equally to move forward.

The Big Blockers have already gone from 20MB to 8MB to 2MB .... and Core has already gone from 1 to ~1.75MB with segwitt for capacity.
I'm sure with some reasoned discussion there could be reconciliation between Classic and Core where SegWit is soft forked in ASAP, and a planned and controlled hardfork of 2-4 MB BIP is rolled out later this year to give a little breathing room to properly test flexcap , and most importantly stop all the politicking so everyone can focus on code and testing.

Queenvio

hero member

Activity: 838

Merit: 534

What about an dynamic size?
So I would recommend something like the average of the past 50 blocks . With an maximum of 10 MB , to prevent spam or dos,...

I'm not an developer so I'm sure there are a lot of more things thing about it.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Consensus is soon, I just wish there were more details as to what Bitcoin Classic represents as I cannot give my opinion on the matters until there is.

My best guess is that it is a 2 -4 plan with Segwit hardforked???
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Miners supporting Classic

   Bitmain/Antpool - 27%
   BitFury - 13%
   BW.COM - 4%
   HAOBTC.com -
   KnCMiner - 5%
   Genesis Mining

= over 49%

Companies supporting Classic

   Coinbase
   OKCoin
   Bitstamp
   Foldapp
   Bitcoin.com
   Bread Wallet
   Snapcard.io
   Cubits

Developers

   Jonathan Toomim
   Gavin Andresen
   Ahmed Bodiwala
   Jeff Garzik
   Peter Rizun

Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1562

No I dont escrow anymore.

Quote from: achow101 on January 15, 2016, 12:05:40 PM

Quote from: xdrpx on January 15, 2016, 10:31:46 AM

Would Bitcoin nodes be downloading and upload a lot more?

If the new maximum block size was reached, then yes, nodes would be downloading and uploading more. The blockchain's size would grow faster and it would require even more disk space.

Quote from: xdrpx on January 15, 2016, 10:31:46 AM

Would we lose a lot of full nodes because of the higher BW and memory requirements?

Probably.

After reading the 0.12 patch notes I see no higher memory requirements. The memory imprint is already small, the biggest part are the transactions, which will be less with bigger blocks as more get confirmed. At least for a while. IF memory was meant as = disk space, then yes.

achow101

staff

Activity: 3458

Merit: 6793

Just writing some code

Quote from: xdrpx on January 15, 2016, 10:31:46 AM

Would Bitcoin nodes be downloading and upload a lot more?

If the new maximum block size was reached, then yes, nodes would be downloading and uploading more. The blockchain's size would grow faster and it would require even more disk space.

Quote from: xdrpx on January 15, 2016, 10:31:46 AM

Would we lose a lot of full nodes because of the higher BW and memory requirements?

Probably.

Quote from: xdrpx on January 15, 2016, 10:31:46 AM

Also because of this would there be more control over hash-power which could lead to centralization - need for attaining equilibrium?

Probably not. Since most miners already mine at one of 10 or so mining pools, only the pools have to maintain nodes that can handle the larger blockchain and bandwidth requirements. I'm fairly certain that the pool operators have the money to be able to upgrade, although if the block size limit grows even larger, there are concerns that it would take a while for blocks to reach pools in China due to the Great Firewall of China.

xdrpx

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 603

I myself am very confused about what would be the best blocksize and how should this be incremented. A lot have suggested initially at least increasing it to 2MB and increment it over the years, but I don't really understand what would be the aftereffects of this. Would Bitcoin nodes be downloading and upload a lot more? Would we lose a lot of full nodes because of the higher BW and memory requirements? Also because of this would there be more control over hash-power which could lead to centralization - need for attaining equilibrium?

eternalgloom

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Quantus on January 14, 2016, 12:37:43 AM

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on January 13, 2016, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: Quantus on January 13, 2016, 08:34:39 PM

I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Why not just soft fork it down to 0.5MB to clear up some of this cruft sooner than later? Bitcoin is a value storage and transfer tool of the wealthy elite, poors may use doge and litecoin.

We should never have gone above 0.5mb

The problem with that though is that quite a lot of people are currently depending on it for it's use a a currency or payment method. Not increasing the block size would just be a slap in the face to those people :-/

ZephramC

sr. member

Activity: 475

Merit: 255

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on January 13, 2016, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: Quantus on January 13, 2016, 08:34:39 PM

I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Why not just soft fork it down to 0.5MB to clear up some of this cruft sooner than later? Bitcoin is a value storage and transfer tool of the wealthy elite, poors may use doge and litecoin.

Because once you allow max block size change there will be endless arguments about which exact size is the right one (0.5 MB, 2 MB, 100 kB, 16 MB, 1 kB, ...) Huh

For every size you can find group that would benefit from it.
Only neutral interest-group-free solution is to keep constants fixed. Status quo.
Change is possible, but with much, much higher consensus. 75% is not enough, only miners, only large business, only small merchants, only startups, only investors, only full-noders ... this is not consensus at all. All of them should agree, No one of them should veto. (Every one of them should have right to veto.) Until we find broadly acceptable solution, status quo is the best one.

rubygon

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Blocksize increae is absolutely necessary now and it will be done immediately. There are occasions where we have seen unconfimed transactions for days and even a week or two. The strongly accept the debate over blocksize increase. However, we need more nodes and high performing machines to handle the increase in size.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Cconvert2G36 on January 13, 2016, 10:17:59 PM

Quote from: Quantus on January 13, 2016, 08:34:39 PM

I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Why not just soft fork it down to 0.5MB to clear up some of this cruft sooner than later? Bitcoin is a value storage and transfer tool of the wealthy elite, poors may use doge and litecoin.

We should never have gone above 0.5mb

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: Quantus on January 13, 2016, 08:34:39 PM

I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Why not just soft fork it down to 0.5MB to clear up some of this cruft sooner than later? Bitcoin is a value storage and transfer tool of the wealthy elite, poors may use doge and litecoin.

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

I hope we reach the 1MB limit soon I'm sick of all this fear mongering. Nothing will happen other then threw natural selection the micro transactions will be pushed out of the blockchain.

Topic: Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 7. (Read 25164 times)