Topic: I propose core forks to bigger blocks now. (Read 147 times)
Actually, only few services support SegWit while others working to implant SegWit support on their system. Also, raising block size is very controversial and i suggest you start your research from here (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy)
Lightning network may well be the correct path to take but that doesnt get around the problem that we have today, The mempool is huge and transactions are far too expensive and only getting worse.
This is getting worse because some miners have found out the perfect way to make money: spamming the mempool.
Knowing this will help knowing that increasing the block size will have basically no effect - the spam can cover that in no time.
Its no use lightning coming in and working a year from now when bitcoins lost all its value to a competitor.
The market doesn't really agree with you.
Im suggesting raising the blocksize to give us some breathing space untill lightning can be implemented.
As stated already, this will not fix the problem and will not really help. And may cause more issues too, although I am not technical enough for those details.
New poeple using bitcoin can already see its lagging behind and the only alternative if they want to do anything is to use an alt? Thats not great publicity is it?
It depends where people buy Bitcoin from. Many exchanges group the withdrawals in a way to reduce the fees and still transfer the money in reasonable time. My Bitcoin Card company uses SegWit for their transfers.
So the smart companies will survive well, the dumb ones will try to blame Bitcoin.
Individuals may have issues indeed, especially if they do small transfers with money gathered in time from small inputs (faucets). For them the fees will be unbearable too; they have to wait and optimize. Try to send 1000$ with WU or MoneyGram and you'll see what expensive means.
It seems obvious that bigger blocks are not the answer, we need some other solution. Bigger blocks will just bloat the system, and make things worse.
Harddrive space is cheap. The argument was always that nodes must be available for all users to run no matter what income but why would anyone that cant afford to send a fraction of a bitcoin bother to run a node?
Scaling is going to be an issue for a while but why not uncripple bitcoin in the meantime until the lightning network can actually deliver?
Where have you been in the lats year? This was the main debate before the SegWit came to life and before BCash was forked out of Bitcoin.
Just do your reading. The ones believing Core developers are correct and just increasing the block size is not an answer are here. We believe that SegWit, LN and the future development will get Bitcoin on track.
The others have their altcoin and their dreams. BCash, from what I know, has increased size blocks, although I am not certain, I didn't follow that path.
Lightning network may well be the correct path to take but that doesnt get around the problem that we have today, The mempool is huge and transactions are far too expensive and only getting worse. Its no use lightning coming in and working a year from now when bitcoins lost all its value to a competitor. Im suggesting raising the blocksize to give us some breathing space untill lightning can be implemented. New poeple using bitcoin can already see its lagging behind and the only alternative if they want to do anything is to use an alt? Thats not great publicity is it?
It seems obvious that bigger blocks are not the answer, we need some other solution. Bigger blocks will just bloat the system, and make things worse.
Harddrive space is cheap. The argument was always that nodes must be available for all users to run no matter what income but why would anyone that cant afford to send a fraction of a bitcoin bother to run a node?
Scaling is going to be an issue for a while but why not uncripple bitcoin in the meantime until the lightning network can actually deliver?
Where have you been in the lats year? This was the main debate before the SegWit came to life and before BCash was forked out of Bitcoin.
Just do your reading. The ones believing Core developers are correct and just increasing the block size is not an answer are here. We believe that SegWit, LN and the future development will get Bitcoin on track.
The others have their altcoin and their dreams. BCash, from what I know, has increased size blocks, although I am not certain, I didn't follow that path.
It seems obvious that bigger blocks are not the answer, we need some other solution. Bigger blocks will just bloat the system, and make things worse.
Harddrive space is cheap. The argument was always that nodes must be available for all users to run no matter what income but why would anyone that cant afford to send a fraction of a bitcoin bother to run a node?
Scaling is going to be an issue for a while but why not uncripple bitcoin in the meantime until the lightning network can actually deliver?
It seems obvious that bigger blocks are not the answer, we need some other solution. Bigger blocks will just bloat the system, and make things worse.
As everyone is probably aware, fees have risen to unacceptable levels for old and new users of bitcoin. For months ive read about how the lightning network is going to solve this problem but in my opinion the lightning network is going to be too little too late. We've already upgraded to segwit and in its current state is no use.
Its well documented that the 1mb block size was a temporary limit so why not increase this even by a small amount to ease up the congestion? I fear bitcoin is going to stall and strangle itself if nothing is done.
Its well documented that the 1mb block size was a temporary limit so why not increase this even by a small amount to ease up the congestion? I fear bitcoin is going to stall and strangle itself if nothing is done.
Jump to: