Topic: The Blocksize Issue = Doing the Dirty Dishes - page 2. (Read 2171 times)

I like OP's post! Seems many people here are just too technical to grasp the obvious

Under the cover of all of these excuses for increasing/holding block size limit, there are basically 2 motivations:

1.Afraid that bitcoin will fail to function and lose its adoption and value
2.Afraid that bitcoin will lose people's trust and fail

Functional view is the view of most of the developers, if an application failed to provide an intended function, it will fail

But this is a service provider view. Central banks never view things this way, they know that scarcity cause demand and abundant cause abuse. They never provide enough money, they even put every money as a debt, and all people work hard to repay those debt and it will never get repaid fully, in this way, they successfully command the whole society to work for them

How could they achieve this? Through trust. Although they are stealing people's money and making profit, people still trust them, since they always take the most expensive and good looking house in the city and wear nice clothes, professional looking, very consistent, seldom changes, looks stupid, but that is how it gained the trust of majority

IMO, it's the same for bitcoin, it really doesn't matter how difficult the transaction will be, as long as bitcoin holds it's promises, it will gain people's trust and support. When you have the support of merchants/exchanges/miners, no matter what kind of problem there will be, all of these people will come out with brilliant ideas and help. But if bitcoin could not hold what it promises, people will just simply abandon bitcoin

One solution that would go a LONG WAY toward addressing this issue would be if miners/pools would look at the entire tree of unconfirmed transactions and compute the best bitcoin-per-byte payoff for each branch.

Example:
Transaction A 10,000 bytes 0 fee (2 outputs)
Transaction B 400 bytes 0.01 BTC fee
Transaction C uses one output from Transaction A and is 400 bytes 0.1 BTC fee
Transaction D uses the other output from Transaction A and is 800 bytes 0.3 BTC fee

Right now, Transaction B gets confirmed, and Transaction C and D (both of which have higher fees) are stuck.

A forward looking calculation would find that:

Transaction A alone pays 0 BTC per byte
Transaction B alone          pays 0.00002500 BTC per byte
Transaction A & C together pay 0.00000962 BTC per byte
Transaction A & D together pay 0.00002778 BTC per byte

Clearly it is more profitable to include Transaction A & D together than it is to include Transaction B alone.

If most miners would adopt an algorithm like this, then a receiver (merchant?) could create a transaction that used inputs from multiple payers and add their own fee to increase the "bid" ensuring that all the small "free" or low fee transactions that they accept still get confirmed.

I don't think this process will work well until there is a user-friendly method in place to cancel an unconfirmed transaction (or at least a way to add to the fee of an unconfirmed transaction).

It is difficult for a user to know at the time they are creating the transaction how big of a fee they will need if they want their transaction added to one of the next 6 blocks.  If half an hour goes by and they are getting anxious, there is no way to increase their bid.  There is a possibility of creating a transaction with such a low fee (and total network transaction frequency to get so high) that the transaction will never make it into a block.  What options are available to the sender (or receiver) of the transaction at that point?

I think that is a false conjecture.  I have not seen evidence of that.

Ideological evangelists on this board are typically non-technical (i.e. they don't understand the technical details of how Bitcoin works, despite ample documentation). Probably they are not fluent in any compiled languages, but that's just conjecture.

Speaking of which, do you know any languages? Computer languages I mean.

So many spats between husbands and wives end up revolving around the dishes. What is it about dirty dishes that causes so much friction?

It's not so much that the annoyance of doing the dishes causes the contention, but more that the dishes serve as a focal point for all the various little things that bother the spouses about each other. The dishes merely bring matters to a head.

The recent controversy over the coming change in blocksize reminds me of this, and specifically I think we are witnessing the first wave in the clash between ideological bitcoiners and practical bitcoiners.

The first party are more motivated by what they perceive as Bitcoin's ideals than its practical benefits, and the second party care more about benefits than ideology. Some people wear both hats at different times, and insofar as ideology is ultimately (if roundaboutly) aiming at some kind of benefit there is a degree of overlap and interplay between the two. For example, the concern that larger blocksizes will leave poorer people behind can be called both ideological and practical. Moreover, Bitcoin's immense practical advantages inevitably move the world toward shifts that happen to be favored by certain ideologies.

At first the ideologues dominated, and this was good because it gave bitcoins their initial value. Inasmuch as Bitcoin continues to be advertized in terms of its ideological points, it is clear that the ideological side is both strong and persuasive. But as we leave the innovator/early-adopter phase and the general public starts pouring in, the ideologues will be drowned out, and the pace of this drowning out will only accelerate.

As such I expect more controversy going forward, and I think recognizing the undercurrent and pedigree of the controversies will be of great assistance in sorting them out.