Topic: Can we just stop with the block size panic crap? - page 3. (Read 3974 times)

AFAIK they're soft-launching in targeted areas for now (Philippines being one of them)

As for remittances it does need a tech-savy person and one someone somewhat familiar with Bitcoin to really leverage the benefits of it.

Personally I use Bitcoin regularly to send money abroad using rebit.ph and it's saved me a great deal of money and hassle.

I agree. Peter_R seems to be the new Mike Hearn. Paying ChartBuddy to promote BU, buying ads on Reddit, etc...

Really starting to get on my nerves.

Remember, Bitcoin is currently working fine. People are just pressuring and using fear to make the community conform..

Yup - I am not trying to "win an argument" or help the paid trolls - if this topic devolves much further I'll just lock it.

You are arguing with a paid troll (NotLambChop)

Don't expect to come out on the winning side of the argument (or have the last word for that matter)

I've been registered at Abra for a long time but it seems there is no progress

See Abra & Align Commerce

Oh - so what "side" am I on (strange that you know but I don't)?

Nope, not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you are talking rubbish when you say you are not taking sides. you clearly have.

Nothing wrong with that, you understand. But just be open about it.

And I won't even go into the childish "ZOMG! Hearn is taking over Bitcoin!!"  crap.  

agreed i still have the majority of my bitcoin income from 2012.. id rather spend fiat first and use bitcoin as only the last resort, and im happy with how that plan is working so far


id say bitcoin trying to clash with governments to become the 'one world currency' utopian dream of libertarians wont happen.. infact by doing that the same libertarians lose 'options/choices' and are then less liberated..

as for taking on fiat payment networks.. i actually think that fiat payment networks can utilise bitcoin and bitcoin can utilise fiat payment networks.. rather than fight them.. but bitcoin does need to grow its usefulness, otherwise it will just stay as the gimmicky currency of geeks..

i think there can be a fair balance of bitcoin and fiat. without one or the other fighting.. but thats just me

I guess most of them do not have enough skill to "go to exchanges -> purchase some bitcoin -> send them to another exchange in another country -> sell them for local currency". I have tried to teach one friend to transfer the fund from another country (she is a 37 years old professor) when she visited me, she said there is so much hassle and she will never do it again, she does not care about the expensive bank fee, she just want fast and easy process of use her credit card

So even bitcoin were used in remittance, it will be some large companies utilizing bitcoin and the end user would only notice the speed and fee advantage. However, if it is operated by large companies, then they are operating more or less like Western Union, have frequent clearing and settlement and do not need blockchain for more than one transaction per hour

I think the reason that some people spend their bitcoins is because they are monetarily illiterate, sooner or later they will realize that spending deflative bitcoin is much worse than spending inflative fiat money, so the end result will be that they would still spend fiat money, unless there is a total crash of fiat money

And politically it is also decent that bitcoin do not clash with fiat money at payment space. Being a value storage is much better than trying to replace the fiat money, which will cause nation wide or world wide sanction from established power. Anyway, it is very easy to limit bitcoin at ISP level, especially when a block become so huge

I see - you have made some sort of important point then?

When people are posting as shills and have ad sigs then I think it is entirely reasonable to call them out as being "paid shills" (I am not arguing that they are being paid by anyone other than the ad sig campaign owners).

Also Mike Hearn is on record as trying to take control of Bitcoin (so no words were put into his mouth by me).

Perhaps you think that I am trying to imply that Mike Hearn is paying all the shills (re-reading my OP I can see why you might think that)?

That was not actually what I meant so sorry if I created some confusion with the OP.

The "coffee" transactions can be done using services that use off-chain transactions, like Xapo. It's not the ideal solution, because we want people to stick to the Blockchain

and not make it too complicated by introducing secondary services... but it's a workable alternative for those type of transactions. I ignore most of those paid shills, because

I can make up my own mind, but they are successful in spreading confusion. We should actually just debunk their misinformation and continue spreading the truth.  

Oh ok. So nothing meant by your opening gambit then:

I don't "take sides" but just try and work out what makes sense or doesn't.

If you are able to replace a tx with another (that has a higher fee) then actually you will be able to much more easily cheat (so I don't think merchants will appreciate anything that helps to make that possible).

If the merchant is able to pay the fee to lock in the tx then that might work but I still think you have edge cases (such as the fee not being enough to stop the tx from being dropped from the mempool before it is confirmed).

As there is simply *no way* to know for sure that your tx won't get dropped from the mempool (apart from perhaps paying ridiculously high fees) then there is no solution to this problem.

No such problem exists with existing payment systems so Bitcoin does not really shine in this particular area.

Who's side are you on again?   

I thought 0-conf was working quite well for lower value tx's.  RBF will obviously change that. 

I think you should change your terminology as the txs are not "locked into blocks" but "locked into weak blocks" (there is a very big difference).

If a miner doesn't care to participate then such "weak blocks" would not be included in a new block so their "safety" is not the same as "real blocks".

subchains. means every 30 seconds tx's are locked into weakblocks and these are then picked up in the order they are made to then form the normal bitcoin blocks. that way if your tx is in the weak block you know its ready to be added, thus helping confidence that it not only will hit a block soon. but also because its in a weak block in 30 seconds.. someone cant then double spend the origin funds as the weak block will ignore those attempts..

as for lightning network.. well once malle is sorted good and proper.. then id like to know how these 'channels' are going to ensure funds move between the parties inside the channel without abuse, and how the settled tx that hits the blockchain will be any better than the several independant tx's people could do onchain.

im hoping it truly does translate (left column) into (right column) so that there is less bloat on the network

I read about it but am not yet convinced although clearly having some "proof of work" is better than none at all.

Overall I think that Bitcoin's biggest problem is that because of the issues that txs may never get confirmed means that it is just not suitable for small things. If the Lightning Network or other things are able to solve this then I'll happily change my opinion but for now I would certainly not recommend any vendor to accept a zero confirmation Bitcoin tx.

It isn't like a VISA tx nor a cash one really - so vendors will need to actually understand the problem of zero confirmations (which I think is harder than buying a machine that checks whether or not a fiat note is counterfeit).

i personally liked the idea of subchains(weakblocks) combined with upping the block limit. that way every ~30seconds, transactions can be 'locked' into mempool knowing they are next in line for the next block (helping confidence in atleast accepting a tx after 30 seconds) and then all those 30second weak blocks being mashed together into the normal 10minute(average) standard block.
i imagine it as the 30scond confirm 'debiting funds' making them unspendable elsewhere(reduce double spend chances), and the 10minute block crediting the recipient.

but i still think they need to fix malle attacksway before worrying about block limits

For sure Bitcoin doesn't scale currently (no-one is arguing that) - the question is about "how to scale it" and just upping the block size is not an intelligent way to do that (which is why the core devs are not proposing to just do that).

Those that support BIP101 are not actually even interested in scaling Bitcoin - they just want to take over the project (that much is clear).