Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19407. (Read 26609892 times)

I think when I am discussing my opinion about trajectory, I am saying something similar to Marcus of Augustus regarding the upward trajectory being elastic rather than inelastic.  I am a different person than him, but I thought that he described something similar to me in a much better way.

In essence, I am suggesting, like him, that hypothetically, if the blocksize were to stay at 1 megabyte, then the various inputs are going to adapt to that, and it will not cross and go over because there is a limit.  Surely, it may reach the maximum, and also,  it may cause numerous problems and delays, but those are yet somewhat unknown and hypothetical problems because we are not quite there yet.  Surely we can anticipate and project how the various actors are going to behave, but we cannot really know for sure without experiencing it.










Just because something can be done, does not mean that something has to be done right now, and it does not mean that the thing that you are suggesting “has to be done” in fact has to be done, either now or in the future.

I personally believe that more than 90 % of small blockers believe  that sooner or later the block size is going to need to be increased; however, must of the dispute likely pertains to the urgency of the need to do it right now and without engaging in other considerations first and potentially exploring other remedies that may address both the expanding number of transactions and preserve some of the advantages of small blocks for smaller (in terms of computing power) nodes.


Surely, I keep repeating this over and over that I am trying not to take any sides in this question because I really don’t care that much about whether the block size increases or not within the next week, within the next month or within the next five years, so long as the process for increasing the blocksize has been sufficiently vetted…

If at some point, it appears that a mistake was made, then I may need to leave bitcoin, or if a competitor is doing a better job, then I would migrate my funds over to that.. and surely, maybe some of us will be mourning various lost opportunities with bitcoin, but to some extent that we have to give into the dynamics of the masses and the dynamics of society in spite a large number of injustices and unfairnesses because some of those injustices are systemic… and we still need to live with some of the status quo injustices and adapt our lives accordingly.    Doesn’t mean that we may not complain, also, about a variety of the injustices existing in society… and try to figure out ways that we may have an impact in causing certain positive changes.

Sorry, I am straying a bit, but my point remains that black and white descriptions wear upon me as being exaggerations, and I see that there is a lot more going on in the space.  Surely something needs to be done to address  various short falls, but there is more than one solution, and I appreciate the dynamics of consensus, even though we get a lot of drama through that, too.









You may be correct that there is some urgency in having various plans and attempting to address various issues related to the matter.  I have quite a few doubts that an immediate doubling of the blocksize is necessary because there are various relief plans in place already. 

Let’s say for example seg wit goes into effect in April/May and lightning network has some relief, there also may be other solutions along the way that cause some relief… and all of these facts could change the timeline.  On the contrary, increased users (and transactions as you suggested) could also cause pressures in the opposite direction to increase the blocksize.  Each of these inputs are a work in progress, and surely, increasing from 1 to 2 mb could be on the backburner, for example if there is an ongoing continuous delay in transactions or something like that… but currently, it appears that in the past 60 days the block size average has fluctuated largely between about 45 and 80%.

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I’m no expert, and I just consider some of the information that I read, and in that regard,  surely seg wit seems to be capable of addressing some of the inefficiencies within that current 45-80% fluctuation to effectively bring the average down to below 45% on a regular basis… and even with expansion of bitcoin users and transactions, with the implementation of seg wit and maybe some other efficiency creation measures, there may be considerable abilities for the bitcoin network to continue to handle those increased transaction quantities with throughput of well under 60% for some time into the future.

Therefore, the math problem changes when the inputs and the capacity changes, so then the question remains regarding whether there is any real and meaningful urgency to increasing the block size when that may not be necessary and potentially incapacitating some of the smaller nodes? 

Incapacitating smaller nodes is no small cost in my thinking.










The restriction is not stupid and artificial.

When people come into bitcoin, they come in for a variety of reasons, and if they are disappointed because bitcoin is something other than what they expected, then that is going to happen.


Surely, there can be some dangers when bitcoin is marketed by some as a replacement of visa, and really that is a bit of hyperbole.

Yes, bitcoin is complicated and people may not even understand what they are getting when they invest into bitcoin.

Even if bitcoin is not replacing visa, bitcoin remains very valuable to hold and transfer value, and yes maybe some day bitcoin will develop and transition to such an extent to be able to compete with and to replace visa.. yet I don’t see how that should be a short term goal.. and really a more important goal, at least in the short term, is probably preserving some of the peer to peer nature of bitcoin and the ability to avert various kind of government and financial institution controls over bitcoin is by allowing the network to grow more organically with community input (which frequently seems to be messy), and in the end, it is likely that bitcoin is going to become more and more capable of handling more and more users and there is also going to be more and more processing power that is going to be held by individuals while at the same time mining farms are going to continue to also be constructed around bitcoin and to potentially centralize it beyond individual inputs.








I'm thinking you must have thought something other than you typed here. A certain number of usages will indeed "bring us into this filled up capacity". This is pure math. The consequences that fall out of such an event can be debated, but the capacity is the capacity. The math is the math. It ain't even sophisticated math. Simple elementary school arithmetic will suffice.