The fees are not pre-fixed, anyone can send any transaction with whatever fee they want.
And even with the current limited user adoption that BTC has reached so far the block size is near the maximum, a new increase will be necessary sooner or later
Topic: Increase block size or increase fees? - page 2. (Read 3631 times)
I'd rather have a larger blocksize than increase the fees. One of the great benefits of bitcoin is the low transaction fees which is something we want to keep.
At this point there is absolutely no need for increasing the fees, even not when block rewards are halved to 12.5BTC.
And yes, I also think that one of Bitcoin's selling points is the low fee structure. Let's start talking about increasing fees once there is nothing left to mine, not now.
Why do I feel that 95% of the people who want the 20MB blocksize increase are dice, luckybit,... users spamming useless transactions ?
I have never used any gambling site, neither do run any of them or am sponsored by them. I don't spam useless transactions either. I mine, as well.I rather block size increase than high fees. Guess that makes me 5% in your book.
Why do I feel 100% of the people who oppose block increase have no clue on what they are talking about or want bitcoin to fail?
Bigger block size is the obvious solution. Higher fees might reduce congestion, but the fees would likely turn many off to bitcoin. Problem solved? Sort of but the goal should be more people using bitcoins not less. And higher fees only means one thing: less people using it and less people jumping on the bandwagon.
Yes. Anyone against the bigger blocks needs an ego adjustment. Gavin is our chosen leader, now let him do what leaders do -- Lead!
--
Please support block size increase by running a bitcoin-xt node: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases
Thank you.
Why do I feel that 95% of the people who want the 20MB blocksize increase are dice, luckybit,... users spamming useless transactions ?
Nah, Gavinistas are more like
50% underwater bagholders who bought more than they could afford near the ATH, desperate for any kind of pump
25% free shit army
25% spammers
Why do I feel that 95% of the people who want the 20MB blocksize increase are dice, luckybit,... users spamming useless transactions ?
I'd rather have a larger blocksize than increase the fees. One of the great benefits of bitcoin is the low transaction fees which is something we want to keep.
Quote from: thejaytiesto
just being objective and critic with both sides.
LOL, sponsored by DaDice, bloating the blockchain with useless dice transactions. No wonder you want 20MB blocksize.
Gmaxwillistas think nothing will happen when we hit the 1MB limit and that we will never ever need a blocksize increase
Both of those assertions are incorrect.
We Corecoiners think when we hit the 1MB limit a healthy, more efficient market for tx fees will develop:
the "hard crash" theory is wrong. If we are already hitting the limit regularly, then the system is able to handle that. People will learn to use higher tx fees to prioritize urgent transactions, just as they learned to stop using zero fee for urgent transactions a year or two ago, and slightly longer term probably a bunch of spam will get forced off the network altogether. The market mechanism is working.
I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.
I've personally run into very slow confirms of low-fee-paying transactions twice, but it wasn't he end of the world (with a ten minute avg block time you have to be prepared for slow confirms anyway). The next time I do a transaction if I care about urgency I'll probably increase the fee a little above the default.
It's easy to support 'more free transactions' when others are bearing the externalized costs.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
i'm not so sure about that, china for example is against it(because of the bandwidth problem), and they surely hold a large %
they should integrate an algorithm that will auto-fork the client everytime the tx limit is saturated...
The Gavinistas think if they assert the debate is settled and declare victory, everyone else will just fall in line.
Too bad MPEX's GavinCoin Short will destroy XT in the process of protecting Core.
And the Gmaxwillistas think nothing will happen when we hit the 1MB limit and that we will never ever need a blocksize increase because of the Lightning Network being the second coming of Satoshi Christ.
PS: Not a Gavinista, just being objective and critic with both sides.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
i'm not so sure about that, china for example is against it(because of the bandwidth problem), and they surely hold a large %
they should integrate an algorithm that will auto-fork the client everytime the tx limit is saturated...
The Gavinistas think if they assert the debate is settled and declare victory, everyone else will just fall in line.
Too bad MPEX's GavinCoin Short will destroy XT in the process of protecting Core.
I think bitcoin should have a fork and re size of blocks and some form of compression for old blocks introduced to safe space and time on block chain making things run lot smoother and faster archiving anything that is over 2 years old but can still access old transactions on archive chain or something. Increasing fee is going to do no favors but in time it will go up anyway due to more transactions and more demand if it really takes off and if today was the last bitcoin mined would only be tx fees remaining for miners to gain o something would have to budge or happen in the coming future.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
We don't really know yet. We'll know in a couple months when we can compare Core nodes vs XT nodes, then we'll see what % is using what.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
We don't really know yet. We'll know in a couple months when we can compare Core nodes vs XT nodes, then we'll see what % is using what.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
i'm not so sure about that, china for example is against it(because of the bandwidth problem), and they surely hold a large %
they should integrate an algorithm that will auto-fork the client everytime the tx limit is saturated...
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
Yes but not to 20MB. 8MB is accepted by many, so it is better choice.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 509
I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
Yes but not to 20MB. 8MB is accepted by many, so it is better choice.
So many 1 MB trolls in Bitcointalk. The vast majority of Bitcoin users wants the blocksize increase, there's no debate about that.
Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout
-davout
It's easy to support 'more free transactions' when others are bearing the externalized costs.
Everyone gets to benefit by only a small minority of people using the blockchain? Sounds like one-percenter trickle-down theory. More users equals more fees collected. Stop trying to equate the blocksize argument with "free transactions".
You should also quote the part where Davout admitted he doesn't care if bitcoin benefits the majority of people and clearly just wants it to benefit him and his whale friends:
Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.
The majority of people don't want a two-tier system. Why would they support something that doesn't support them? Either it works for everyone or people use something else.
Davout is correct; there are many ways in which the 99% can benefit from BTC without constantly writing directly to the Holy Blockchain. Your ad hom, off-point response consists of trying to smear him using guilt by association with free market economics, and accusing him of non-altruistic motives. You don't have any response to the objection that free tx necessarily externalize their cost.
Yes, I'm a Reaganite/Thatcherite and I don't like your class warfare, politics of envy nonsense. Go take a shower and get a haircut, you stinking Free Shit Army OccuTard.
Quote
The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
-davout
-davout
It's easy to support 'more free transactions' when others are bearing the externalized costs.
Everyone gets to benefit by only a small minority of people using the blockchain? Sounds like one-percenter trickle-down theory. More users equals more fees collected. Stop trying to equate the blocksize argument with "free transactions".
You should also quote the part where Davout admitted he doesn't care if bitcoin benefits the majority of people and clearly just wants it to benefit him and his whale friends:
Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.
The majority of people don't want a two-tier system. Why would they support something that doesn't support them? Either it works for everyone or people use something else.
increase the blocksize but don't increase the fees, bitcoin is popular for low fees transaction so if fees increased then people may lost their trust in bitcoin that fees can be changed anytime
Jump to: