Topic: Core have been derelict in their duties. - page 3. (Read 5159 times)

I do have a bit of a problem with segwit, but that is not the issue here. It's the period from now untill segwit, (or not) that is relevant here.


I am saying adoption is growing, not falling. (yet) Or there would not be a problem.
So, if blocks become full, (due to continued adoption) high fees will be needed to drive away users.
If high fees do not drive away users, and adoption continues, still everyone cannot fit into blocks, causing delayed and unpredictable tx's.
Delays will then drive away users.
Either fees or delays will drive away users. If the average tx rate goes over 1mb per 10 min, (due to continued adoption) something has got to give.


I do not want free tx's, I want standard(ish) fees I can plan for, as I have said earlier.
In a panic or busy time, if a rush is on, if the mempool grows rapidly, you will need to spend far more than 10 cents to have any hope of moving coins.
But worse, more likely your coins will be stuck in the mempool for days as panic goes on and your fee is over bid.
That is when you will be hostaged.


Time is bringing that day closer.
Were Gavin and Hearn a year too early. Should they have waited untill it was a problem?
I guess they were looking ahead to now, (and the next month or two) trying to plan. (foresight?)


That is in the balance. If tx's do gridlock, panic, HF.
Maybe not, but Core will be pushing people that way for sure.
What other option is there?
Wait for segwit. (which could be delayed, slow to adopt, etc.)
If a perma backlog occurs, Core are planless. Powerless.


A full block backlog situation.
There is no crisis currently I agree.
But it is coming "at some point". For certain if adoption is continuing, or as a possibly due to a panic.
(i also suspect it could happen very quickly and permanently)
The question is will segwit arrive in time, (before gridlock) to avert panic/frustration.
(BTW, an increasing hash rate is finding "quicker" blocks at the moment, giving the effect of a larger block size - more tx's per second. that wont always be so. diff adjustment in 4 days may change that)


I think they do need a plan B. I think they should have foreseen this possibility.
Even if it was only a "possible" outcome.
It is certainly going to happen in time. segwit is now under pressure to deliver, even more.
A plan could have been in place. Simple.

It's possible that this has helped in one way; by demonstrating to us the least desirable outcomes, Andresen/Hearn/Garzik etc have kept the issue of short term scaling strategies to the fore. And because the technologies now in the pipeline tackle the scaling issue so effectively, we're set to gain a huge amount of additional strength in the overall system. Economic activity will follow.

Exactly. One can never be too careful when making such decisions. I've been always telling others that, especially when it comes to scaling, Bitcoin has to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios (e.g. Classic has introduced limitations due to the worst case scenario that could otherwise cause chaos).

About 22 hours ago 0.12.1rc2 has been tagged, that is: BIP9, BIP68, BIP112 and BIP113. Even though some of them got distracted by the debate, the development seems to be going well.

Well it has been 2 weeks since the OP started this thread and we are still here, alive and kicking. The Core team are a bit cautious, but I guess it is the best approach to this

whole situation with the Block size increase. You cannot gamble with a Billion dollar experiment and other people's wealth, if you have to listen to people's opinions on the matter

and they not even developers. The Core team know what they doing and they taking small steps toward a bigger goal. 

Yes. If you would rather rush a solution than properly test it for invalid reasons (greed?), then you've come to the wrong place. Changes like these have to go through extensive testing.

The added capacity of Segwit is a bonus, the main idea behind it is solving transaction malleability.

A lot of those transactions are spam, you will get a different percentage depending on who you ask and what criteria they've used.

Bitcoin is not experiencing any issues at the time, nor should the users be. If you are experiencing issues with transactions (e.g. delays) then it is usually your own fault.

But if we had 100 times the tx ability and adoption, in time, tx's would be 7cents.
That is why there is a good block subsidy in the earlier years, decreasing with adoption.
Inflation allows other still early adopters, and secures the network.

Utilities are just part of miners overheads. Electric companies also have overheads, and so on.

Here is the current cost per transaction graph for those who are curious:

https://blockchain.info/charts/cost-per-transaction

An INSANE $7 per transaction and all of it is getting paid for through inflation. Why I don't invest in Bitcoin, illustrated. Great to hold for incredibly brief periods of time but these fees will almost certainly bury investors over the long haul. They are forking money HAND OVER FIST to miners who are forking money HAND OVER FIST to utilities.

The people getting rich off of BTC are electricity providers...

So, we "need" more capacity, and you have a problem with Segwit providing it? Personally I'd prefer that there were no Segwit discount. As a user, I want fees to rise. But Core is doing what Classic supporters have long asked -- finding compromise due to the demand for cheaper fees.


Full blocks are not a problem. Bitcoin works, and will work, as intended. Any evidence for the bolded? The fact that BTCUSD price is UP 82% year over year suggests that adoption is not failing.


What = being held hostage? Being forced to pay 5 cents for a transaction? 10 cents? What exactly entitles you to virtually free transactions, anyway?


I don't see any of that. If anything, these supposed "horror stories" of stuck transactions are only becoming less prevalent. Fee estimation is no longer some abstract concept, and people are not as clueless as they used to be. You are repeating the same FUD that Gavin and Hearn repeated a year ago, yet none of it has come to fruition. I think you should stop repeating this fear mongering.


Quick consensus? Good luck. I sure as hell won't be installing Classic. I highly doubt BTCC, Bitfury and Kano will either.


What situation? XT and Classic have been trying to force a hard fork for nearly a year. Bitcoin has functioned perfectly well during that entire time, and fees are still incredibly cheap. There is no crisis currently, nor is there one on the horizon. And these "OMG STUCK TRANSACTIONS" FUD is only getting less effective.


They don't need a "Plan B" because there are no viable alternatives to Core, nor is there any crisis. If Segwit can't achieve consensus, status quo prevails.

It's been 2 weeks, will you allow me a couple more?

I explained previously why I think a "fee market" is not compatible with "full" blocks. (i mean full, not nearly full)
Spare capacity is needed to deal with busy times in a consistent fee market, or it becomes a "hostage market".

And why plan to build up fees now, only to collapse fees with the "extra" capacity of segwit in a few months.
That is boom and bust.
Also Core want miners to allow segwit cheap fees?

Blocks are nearly full now, but not really full. Big difference.
On Bitcoin's present trajectory blocks will be really full before segwit. (as that's months away, if ever)
Or bitcoin adoption is kind of failing/slowing/deterred anyway?
Can that really be orderly or wanted by users.

I'm not prepared to be held hostage in the near future, unable to move my coins in the next general panic/rush.
Unable to move my coins in any predictable time frame.

All I see happening while we wait for segwit are delays, high fees, inability to move funds with any predictability,
panic/loss of faith.
Followed by HF to Classic as the only viable option for quick consensus.
(didn't satoshi foresee this kind of rapid consensus under pressure.?)

Core don't have a (publicised) plan B to avert such a situation.
Core will be handing it to Classic.
Maybe it will all be fine for Core.
Core supporters could stop using bitcoin for the next few months, that would help.

Obviously not going to be a popular opinion.
But Core could have had a plan B ready and publicised.

2) Just because you and I can't think of one, that doesn't mean that there isn't one.
3) It isn't a problem at 1 MB block size limit (it is at 2 MB).
4) You could always ask some developer about it.
5) I don't know as it could be a lot of things (e.g. something that 'breaks' Bitcoin in a certain way).

1. correct
2. Oh, tell me.
3. Wasn't to harmfull then.
4. Oh, shame.
5. You mentioned a possible (presumably core) hard fork as a solution if things went the "wrong way". That's why I asked you

Or, a migration of money from uᴉoɔʇᴉq into something else like Athereum which I think is something that's causing some concern....If that's how we're gonna be heard, then that's what we're gonna have to do.

EDIT:  That's not the way I spelled E T H E R E U M.....April fools thing I guess.

Yeah, sounds ok.

But have you ever mentioned increasing the block size to core (supporters)
Even a tiny bit, to tide us over. 1.1mb maybe. (too late now to start planning that for next week)

The community will have it's say.
One way may be a swift hard fork to Classic in the heat of gridlock?

Well, we can't let Core take all the responsibility....I mean, we are all part of the community.  We all have a say; we just aren't excercizing it.  There are the users, the minors, and the developers....we all have a responsibility.  If Core isn't working in our best interests, then we need to find a way to let them know.  Right?  That's our duty too!

Even if we exclude empty blocks (of which there are quite a few), the number would not reach 100% on average indeed.

You can't know what use cases such a transaction could have.

F2Pool already did and it was no attack.

I can't tell you more.

Not really, no. I'm sure that if you ask the "forkers" you are going to get plenty of answers to that question.

There was never any implicit guarantee of cheap transactions. Satoshi wanted to keep transactions cheap for as long as possible to bootstrap adoption, but we are seven years out and almost 75% coins mined.

All that is required is some patience. Great progress is being made on real scaling solutions like Lightning Network, which won't require most transactions to be committed to the blockchain. Accordingly, fees should be considerably lower as transactions can be relayed through nodes but do not need to be relayed to all nodes nor published in a block.

What evidence is there that users are being driven away? Price is up 77% YoY. If users are leaving, others are swooping in to buy from their weak hands. Try to remember that bitcoin is not merely some payment channel, but a unique store of value. Many people (including myself) do not believe that the existence of cheap on-chain transactions matters very much.

I believe we should pay for the privilege to use the blockchain--pay for the security of proof of work. FYI the real cost of a confirmed transaction is $1 - $6, not a few cents, so fees are still extremely subsidized by inflation. This is not possible forever, and the upcoming reward halving should be a stark reminder of that. Micro-payments solutions are being developed so we don't necessarily have to pay for that privilege, in order to use bitcoin.

Partly what this comes down to: do you believe all information should be stored in the blockchain, forever? I certainly don't. Satoshi didn't, which is why payment channels were in the original software he released. There is nothing that says every transaction between contracting parties must be committed to the blockchain; there are reasons to commit transactions to the blockchain, but it is not what defines bitcoin. I believe what defines bitcoin is this, from the introduction of the whitepaper, and is very much in line with Satoshi's inclusion of payment channels in the software:


Committing to blockchain not required.

The predicted growth of bitc0in, nearly full blocks,

It will happen naturally at some point in the future, on this trajectory.
I think that time has almost come.

Trouble is, it is not a problem that will come and go.
Once blocks are full, they are full.

This time fee paying users will be effected.
Stress tests and dust are low fee?

High fees can only help by driving away users.
(or persuade them not to tx)

The network has seen many stress tests and dust attacks in recent times. Performed well, as expected. What makes you think this time is different?