Topic: The Answer to the 1MB BitCoin problem! - page 2. (Read 2176 times)

But doesnt segwit also increase the transaction throughput? If it doubles the size of the transaction count, why not use that as a solution for now and then increase the block size later? Safety and security is more important than a good upgrade.

You know what i think is you are saying it right ..increasing the difficulty can surely sort out this problem..but there are other solutions tooo for this problem.Like the use of segwit. It' been seen that during the transaction of btc signature is the one which occupies the largest amount of space (about 65%)..So what segwit does is it creates a extended block..containing only the signatures of the respective transactions..Like this The problem of 1MB Block Can also be solved.

i think you are trolling, but in case you don't know there is a valid reason for the 21, it's not a random number

in the way the reward was set, with an halving every 4 years, starting from 50 coins per block, it make sense to have as a result that number of bitcoin, the 21M figure is a derivate from the halving block time frame

i'm sure satoshi thought at first about the halving and then by doing the math(summing all the coins generated every years) he ended with 21M total coins, in fact it's actually a bit less than 21M and this prove the point, that the "21M" was just a result

-assumevalid=0

Yep, that´s the problem...


please elaborate on that....
Reading https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/
i don´t see any info...

But block size and difficulty don't really have anything to do with each other. Additionally, if you changed targets to increase the difficulty, times between blocks would increase so that there'd be even more congestion.

Say NO To 0.14

Exelent idea, Fee could be directly inversly proportional to the Transactions per Block....
More Fee, less transactions per Block,
Less Fee more Transactions per Block.

+ Elastic Block Size when Network detects delays like an automatic road traffic light that sense a public transport vehicle and change the lights automatically...
giving faster speed.

like a train wagons that automatically adapt to the size of it´s cargo...
and an engine that adapts the power to have a constant velocity/speed independent of the load.

in electronics it´s called constant current and constant voltaje.

The ultimate solution is to have one transaction per block. This gives you scalability and instant confirmation. Blocks are packed into records in the blockchain, so it isn't as far fetched as it sounds. One day computer and network speeds will allow this. Why should we move further away from this ideal by increasing blocksizes at regular intervals, and thus slowing down the system.

There will be not be a fork in my opinion, and the price if it falls will be bought up really quick.  i believe that everyone still has the best interest of bitcoin at heart.

The New 0.14 has ASSUMED VALID BLOCKS!!! WTF!!!?

https://bitcoin.org/en/release/v0.14.0

i had a lot of problems/errors downloading the complete block chain a few months ago when 0.12 & 0.13 were introduced, tested different USB Wi-Fi adapters, and they all had errors...
for some unknown reason... could never download the complete valid block chain.
tested the SSD, the HDD, the Memory, the CPU, everything was ok, tested different operating systems, Windows, Linux, 32-Bit, 64-Bit...

they only way to download the blockchain was using Ethernet 100Mbps + CAT 6 cable,
i did tested USB to Ethernet Adapter + USB2.0 Hub with USB extension cable and worked Flawless.
the error had something to do with Wi-Fi & the Router.

ASSUMMED VALID BLOCKS + PRUNING = TROUBLE.

Fewer people having complete blockchains... = less secure & harder to download.

it´s like Opening the doors to Fraud & Errors...
incomplete blockchain was Ok with Android Phones for obvious reasons, but DESKTOPS.? NO F!"#$%& WAY...

I WON´T INSTALL 0.14,
developers do what they want, No poll, no democracy... "i´m smarter, i do what i want, don´t need feedback, ShhhUp!!."
 
People that have a lot of coins should think TWICE about this.


it´s like someone changing the rules of the game, in the middle of the game.
0.14 has many advantages, but just 1 Hidden Trap in Decision Making, kills everything.



has no one played this game?
https://youtu.be/DWc8dUl7Xfo

Another problem is the 21Million BTC limit...

BTC idea was to be everybody's digital currency.
But 21M limit is Elite only.

8 decimal places limit is another problem,
8 decimals would be enough, if there was no 21M Limit.
There is a conflict.

Great idea, but was not implemented properly...

Why 21? People live ~100 years...
21 does not make sense.

What could happen if there is Unlimited BTC ?

that was another mistake.... real gold is still being digged from the ground 1000 years later..., scrapped from old computers and cell phones...

The 21 BTC limit is wrong, it should be 21 years...
That would motivate to invest harder.

The limit should not be in quantity, should be in time...
We don't know how much gold is left on earth... we can guess, speculate, if gold price is falling, means the reserves are much more.

there'll be a cost at some point where everyone cares about higher fees. some have already reached what they feel is acceptable, others may have a long way to go but they'll hit it eventually.

Bitcoin Unlimited has a Big problem, the reason why 1MB limit was created...
To avoid Big fish to eat all the small fish in the sea.

Small miners will be basically kicked out of the business... and your smile will vanish. LOL. Jajajajajaja
Unless you have >200x Antminers s9 around. LOL. Jajajajaja
The smallest miner investment would be $300.000usd. + $50.000usd electric bill each month, minimum.

If humans eat all the fish in the sea, there will be no more fish... "humans are the big fish."
Humans must put a limit on fishing...
Unlimited fishing will eventually lead to the end of the world.

Exchanges have already cleared that they will list bitcoin unlimited as an alt so practically bitcoin unlimited will be altcoin with bigger block  

I'm against only increasing block efficiency, SegWit, here is my argument:

There is always a compromise when making something too efficient...

For example .mp3 has lower quality... "too efficient."
.flac has "same quality", but... it has a limit, the same limit as .rar at maximum setting.

Is SegWit lossless? If Yes, it has a limit, is that limit enough? Don't think so. Like internet speed vs. file size.
If SegWit is Not lossless... security is doomed.

Let's talk about electronics, and how they solved that problem.
different methods increase efficiency, but compromise...

Class-A amplifiers waste 50% of the energy in heat... and heat & power consumption becomes a limit in maximum possible output power, usually considered best sounding amplifiers because the amplifier is always ready, to deliver all the power, so there is no distortions.

Class-AB amplifiers, "the most common type in the 70's, 80's & 90's" they increase efficiency, wasting less heat/energy, but introduces crossover distortion at point 0 if not well designed, more complex to design, more expensive but allows more power, usually less than 2000w RMS are Class-AB.

Class-H amplifiers adds Voltage shifts like an automatic gearbox of a car, usually has 2-gears, maximum 3, increasing efficiency beyond Class-AB but also increase price, complexity, more size & weight, but allows to have even more power, usually all amplifiers beyond 2000watts are Class-H.

PWM Class-D amplifiers, very efficient, much more than Class-H, but sacrifice sound quality, they limit sound quality, like .mp3 but allows to be very light weight, very power efficient, very heat efficient, the result is massive power in a very small size, but the sound quality suffers.

The answer to that problem, was making an Envelope Follower Power Supply, much more complex, much more expensive.
Like Yamaha EEEengine Technology or some LabGruppen amplifiers.
With this technology the power amplifier power supply voltage changes, like Class-H but much more complex, it follows exactly the input load of the signal. Basically it's 2 amplifiers in one.
Becoming as efficient as Class-D, with the sound quality of Class-H, if well designed.

http://download.yamaha.com/api/asset/file?language=ja&site=countrysite-master.prod.exp.yamaha.com&asset_id=53052

Increasing Block Size to unlimited could be considered as Class-A.
Increasing & Decreasing Block Size, Following the need of the network, could be like EEEengine.
Increasing Block efficiency more data with same size, would be Class-D or .mp3

If there is not a unanimous decision, BitCoin will split, and price will split also. LOL. Jajajajaja
Please Share...
Comment if you agree.

I think so too, bitcoin price movement is not based on a block size, but because of total volume transactions and big bitcoin news.
Block size only affects status of pending transactions in some time, this is where bitcoin group divided into two sides: BU and segwit.
If the size is added to more than 1 mb would cover transactions pending/flooding problems for a while.

there wasn't a proposal for a 2MB increase from core in 2017 alongside with the segwit implementation, i remember this roadmap for core, are they changed their mind?

i remember that they said in the case segwit would not be activated in 1 year, they were going to increase the block to at least 2mb

if you think the 1MB is the reason for the price fall then you are very wrong my friend.

traders don't care about 1MB they don't care about paying higher fees either and 1MB has been here for a long time and situation was like this for some time and price was rising.

the only reason for this recent fall is manipulation and FUD. nothing else.

and your proposal seems to be simple but it is hard to do. going up to 2 MB, .... is not easy thing to do every day that there is a spam attack that fills that space right up.