I think that you are suggesting that a lot of these variables are much beyond the ability of folks to know because there is game theory and emotions and attempting to play whatever leverage might be available in order to persuade or cajole self interests, yet even you seem to be playing into the misleading factors such as seeming to blame bitcoin's current design for transaction times and fees.... One thing is having a high volume of useage that is going to bring more contentiousness and even more technical difficulties. Other coins do not really have that, and even ethereum seems to have more limited liquidation avenues.
Correct. I am indeed suggesting that. Bitcoin is now big enough that there are a wide variety of players in the arena each with their own agenda and various motivations and interests. I wish we could know the entire picture but I don't think people like me or you will. There was definite transaction spam on the network which has recently miraculously disappeared. I wonder who it was that did it! I guess you are right in the sense that my statement could be construed as me playing into the false idea that bitcoin's inherent design is responsible for the high fees and transaction spam. It is clearly not from a certain perspective. Anyone on the network can spam it with transactions and the network has no mechanism of saying which is a legit transaction and which is not. I for one did not mind the high fees so much as the ridiculously long confirmation times. At the moment I don't personally see or use Bitcoin as a high volume cheap to transact payment system. In the future though there may come a time when the legitimate transaction volume will be so great that it will put a serious strain on the network like the spam attack did.
It is better to prepare and upgrade the network now. You and I are not very far apart in our perspective, so it is very likely that we would get along pretty well, even if we were arguing while drinking beers.... hahahaha
I might call you a fucker, and you dont take it personally, and come back with some similar retort..
I was all with you in the paragraph and cheering for you, until we got to the bolded part above.
It's like you have the impression that the core team are a bunch of lazy slugs. I just think that your premise is not correct. Even if as laypeople, we have some difficulties figuring out who is performing the spam attack, I think that the sudden discontinuance of the spam attack shows that there is a certain level of cost that is involved in attempting to keep up that appearance.. maybe even risk, too?
An underlying suggestion of yours seems to be that either bitcoin is in a kind of emergency broken status or it is on the precipice of such broken status due to lack of proper preparations to address issues, such as the spam attack. I really don't think that a supposedly simplistic upgrade from 1mb limit to 2mb limit is going to be sufficient to address the matter - and there is a likely hidden agenda anyhow. These fuckjobs that are attacking the network are not really benevolently attempting to help fix bitcoin because they believe a 2mb limit is helpful, instead they merely want bitcoin to become more moldable (in other words changing governance - which would likely cause bitcoin to become a tool of the rich, the bankers and the governments to make bitcoin less of a disruptive threat to status quo institutions). So, even if they got their 2mb upgrade they would likely ask for more .. unless the 2mb is somehow coupled with a kind of change in governance precedence that allows any fucktwad whiner to whine away until being able to accomplish a change - and that is seeming to be what they want - even if they don't proclaim to be seeking such... take Roger Ver for example.. he proclaims to have good intentions, but when you hear him talk, his is a bag of emotions that makes little sense, and a lot of folks in that group are parroting similar kinds of ideas and perspectives -even if they proclaim that they came up with the ideas on their own.
Perhaps whomever performed the spam attack was trying to teach the users a lesson about thinking ahead in the hope that users complaining would spur the core devs to deal with the issue.
Sure, a possible benevolent and good faith motive.
The scalability problem has been a known issue for a really long time now (super long in this fast moving industry).
It has been framed as a problem that likely does not exist at any kind of level that is even close to how it is framed. It is largely a made up issue in order to change bitcoin's governance and attempt to undermine the processes followed by core because some of the folks do not like some core members and attackers are frequently emotional about this whole desire to peronsonalize the situation and to proclaim that core is biased and blah blah blah.
Whether the core devs have been lackadaisical about it is a matter up for debate. I can understand the pressure on their shoulders though. They can't make huge mistakes because the potential damage could be vast.
They have not been making mistakes on any technical level.. they have very solid code.. and I think that it is a good idea for them to stick to their guns on various matters pertaining to the requirements of having to put together large and overwhelming consensus in order to make major changes to the protocol.. and so if there are efforts to achieve changes with smaller levels of consensus, then surely that would be problematic.. and I am glad that they seem to be mostly sticking to their guns on a lot of that.
SegWit should help by making blocks "lighter" and that should give us some breathing room for a bit.
That is assuming that seg wit goes through and the various gamesmanship does not undermine segwit going through and locking in.
Making blocks bigger is just a dumb brute force way of approaching the problem, and yep you are right someone could spam the network even with 2 MB , 4 MB , 8 MB ,etc blocks.
I think so.
It would be very neat if we could come up with a technology that will allow the nodes to filter out spam transaction and share some sort of distributed blacklist. This is but an idea and I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest this nor am I an advanced coder to be able to put this out myself.
Yeah. Neither of us seems to be too technical, so we are kind of blind regarding some of this, yet I have some faith that there are certain and ongoing efforts and brainstorming about ways to address spamming issues - since it has been an ongoing problem in bitcoin throughout its history.. and in that regard, we know that fees is one way to address the matter, and at the same time, a certain amount of spam is likely to be inevitable because there are trade offs in battling spam too much and bringing extra costs and possibly weeding out legitimate uses..
Yep you're right there is a ton of misinformation and mind games being played. For a sincere and genuine user who doesn't have a favorite horse in the race it can be mind numbing to sort through all the rhetoric.
Hang in there my friend and let's stay optimistic.
It seems that each of us is engaged in these kinds forums and conversations because bitcoin is a constant learning situation and we are attempting to engage and learn; however, when I look at your profile, I see that you have known about bitcoin for more than twice as long as me...
You must be rich...
Don't you like it when folks assume you are rich if you been in bitcoin longer than them?
