Topic: Ok, effected by block size for first time, time to fix - page 2. (Read 1433 times)

1. That is a fair point we are seeing declining nodes that said we still have a good amount I pointed out a system similar to Dash for a reason there would need to be a parking fee and increased block-size in the fork. The more nodes there are on the network the less rewards there are on a per node basis and it does add to the blockchain but the point is there are rewards for the operation of the node and not being pro-bono with 100% of the profits on the miners side.
2. I'll need to research that point but speed, location, uptime are all fair factors towards determining the chance of being rewarded for operating a node.
3. Dash's masternodes aren't launched or paid based on peer-given reputation scores. They are paid if they have collateral, exist, and do their jobs. Period. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz6rFZQywOE The non-collateral nodes do not have sufficient control in the operation.
https://www.dash.org/news/why-dash-is-the-most-sybil-attack-resistant-cryptocurrency-by-far/
(To long to post it all, it addresses your point)
4. Nodes deserve compensation for the electricity, bandwidth and other costs to operate just as much as miners do, they are the backbone, the miners have transaction fees and block rewards a split is already seen in other alt-coins so this concept is not revolutionary and in practice as is runs without issue.
5. https://www.dash.org/masternodes2/ Sums it up. Nodes are managers and should get paid for their work, Pools are secretary's receive a portion of the miner profits, and devs are employees they receive a salary from the foundation etc.

It removes free riding on nodes.

Bitcoin node incentives can be addressed with a parking cost to operate the node and by receiving an incentive as a part of the block rewards, at present the node works for free, adjustments can be made to protect for sybil. If someone wanted to create paid nodes they would need to park a sufficient amount of Bitcoins in order to acquire those parts of the incentive pie in a sense forcing a proof of stake mechanism in the proof of work although they can freely release the coins at anytime.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/afterthought-sybil-attacks-are-not-possible-in-cryptocurrency-no-because-no-reputation-ratings.9683/
https://www.dash.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/masternodes-roi_2016.png

yep sipa caused that. he doesnt want anything to do with another one. it would hurt his C.V (employment resume) when he wants to eventually moves on with his life if he was somehow linked to another event of orphan drama caused by his code.


1. with a block holding only an average 2500tx.. guess what.. with 6000 nodes each block will end up wasting (~0.2mb in outputs only)blockspace just to pay 6000 nodes.
2. with FIBRE ring-fensed around the pools only blockstreams FIBRE nodes will get the pay out(if there was one). so dont expect all nodes to get paid. and dont expect it to 'help scalability.
3. paying nodes will just end up with one player doing a sybil attack with 10000 nodes (imagine a node pool) so that he gets 10000 chunks of the node incentive pie.
4. stop crying about node ability to run. dont be passed scripts of gigabytes by midnight. think rationally. by nodes saying they can only cope with 2mb-8mb a pool will see the overall consensus and not go to the extremes.. the pools will stay in node tolerance zone. otherwise what happens is that nodes orphan that pools attempt. making pools waste time for nothing. so pools already know not to push boundaries unless nodes allow it.
5. emphasising point 4. NODES control what is allowed. imagin it as nodes are the managers. pools are just the secretary and devs are just the employees

Well, maybe Bitcoin Unlimited can wrest control away from the Core team. I don't see the coup as being successful, but time will tell.

I want to see a BIP that disincentive's miners and transaction fees and see a fork that puts in a node incentive along with a larger block size similar to Dash's but we can only deal with the options available.
Either way I'd rather see the damn thing settled one way or another over nothing we have had more than enough warnings that we need to do something so as long as something is done even a hard fork option is palatable at some point.

btc did a hard fork back in 2013, with no warning....so it should be ok with plenty of warning

Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system.

Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system.
Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. 

A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented.
Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation.

Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies.

BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.  


 

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.

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.

Ya it's a pain sent a standard txt didn't look at Mempool woke up from my undead inactive grave to check what is up besides the Bitcoin price and saw that we are finally at the point where its noticeable it did make me think of buying some Bitcoin miners though giant heat hazards they are ^^.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/#delay
If you want an ETA just match it with your satoshi/per byte rate until enough nodes go to Segwit or Ultimate were hampered or someone forces a fork.

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.