So as a legit customer, for the first time I was effected by the BSU (blocksize issue) I paid the fee, and it still did not go through the fee was
This sh*t has to be fixed up and soon. Also I feel segwit seems to not go far enough as to size.
Why are we using a block size that is years out of date given the demand and tech?
I jsut don't get how the miners cannot see this will delay/hamper BTC growth.
The problem seems to be that the Core development team is skittish on implementing a hard fork solution. They want to try Segwit and Lightning network since those are soft fork solutions. Changing the blocksize would only require altering a few lines of code; however, they would then need to coordinate a hard fork.
The best way to go about it is the soft fork but consensus is too high a threshold of 95%, we are split between the original 1MB group, Lighting, and Segwit I run Core so it's on Segwit's list but the longer we are in this state of transaction hell the more it forces people to start to really consider what the community should do and make a decision.
Either way if something seems to happen in the next few months we will be fine although there is the risk the community will coordinate the fork.
Those who still argue each other will lead us to nowhere and stuck with this situation for years (already).
Miners can see this problem, but can't you see how glad they are? To get such amount of 'huge' fees for so many unconfirmed transaction? It is a gold mine for them, that's why they seems like enjoy this BSU and don't want to support SegWit.
There are enough people who are fed up with the bureaucracy and would rather just do something to resolve the issue, there are also personal preferences on the solution but if none of them cut it we could see sister chains like Ethereum/Ethereum Classic.
Bitcoin Forks based on the schism would compete, the miners would split onto the various blockchains and the one with the most hashing power becomes the recognized main chain, while the losing ones either fade to zero or coexist like ETC and ETH do.
A cynical but valid way to look at this rally is that the community and big money is positioning for a Fork outcome.
Owning coins that will be worth something on both sides of the chain and selling the chain you think will lose on the exchanges is a real profit outcome. There may be a devaluation initially but Ethereum shows a precedent that the combined value of two split coins can exceed the original value. The question is if merchants will accept the fork version, the original one or both.
Meanwhile the miners just pile up coins in the end they don't care what happens they own both forks regardless of the decision to the point of the split. So we can't rely on miners to solve it, even if they see the problem why would they rush scenario A is beautiful high value transaction fees to their machines. Scenario B they get coins on the winning fork and the losing fork to the point of the split.
Some value is lost but they are hedged if fork + original = 1 and there is still a chance of fork+original chain being greater than 1 in the mid to long term when the competing chains co-exist.
The people who suffer are the community transacting and paying the fees, the miners just mine new Bitcoins it doesn't matter how they are distributed a mint is just a mint that is where the rub lies.
I point to nodes that have to retain a balance to get paid as a possible solution as they are incentive to well operate and fork with the solution so 8mb nodes would still run and relay they are receiving rewards for existing and perhaps even add some additional functions since it's a hard fork scenario.
This scenario works on presumptions but they are reasonable, first it presumes that node operators would rather be compensated than not and that nodes not online now because their is no incentive would join if there was one ensuring reliability. Two they would increase the block-size and as long as they are compensated would continue to do so without issue a result that will make the userbase that wants low cost transactions and Bitcoin sending adopt the new fork while those who are debating the blockstream, segwit etc would continue doing so on the original chain.
The miners may not like it due to a change in block reward and transaction fees decreasing but some hashing power relative to the user-base would move if the value to the new tokens retain a significant fraction of its value. It kicks the issue down the road regarding block rewards/fixed supply but it resolves the immediate transaction cost issue.
Of course there are many options and it's the community that will decide or fork the one with the most consensus if a soft-fork is not chosen.
A fun area to look at is leaks in the system, consider the scenario where Bitcoin does nothing and transactions stay slow for a long time to come.
The next best coin will absorb the leakages in this case speedy transactions and increase in value proportionately becoming the transaction de franca coin, also known as the coin used primarily for quick exchanges.
If this happens then transaction volume on Bitcoin will drop and perhaps the usage and future growth forcing a resolution through decreased usage.
https://coinmarketcap.com/ Bitcoins is still 85% of the market cap but it is possible that the market cap increases while the percentage of the total decreases and an alt is used as the main transaction coin even if the issue is resolved if it stays an issue long enough users will still prefer using #2 to 1 in the long run, making it an opportunity for alts.
This situation is an opportunity for #2 to build a bigger user base due to the problems at #1.
