Topic: What's going on with Bitcoin???? (Read 406 times)

I think it's quite clear that bitcoin is becoming increasingly unusable for small value transactions. The reason is well known and widely discussed.

I think, Nothing happens with bitcoin, what you are witnessing is first-hand greed and what happens when a group of people disagree...

Scaling isn't the sole responsibility of nodes. Peer to peer networks are designed to oush innovations to the edges not to the center. Alot of people don't understand this. Every participant have a responsibility here.

Wit high increase in the number of bitcoin users,the network has become more congested and segwit also seems not helping to solve the problem.The only thing which could be done is to activate the lightning network.

Come on nothing could be worse but that too will slow down because the architecture of the block-chain
as it has been implements is the biggest load crap i have seen and was designed to start CPU wars and to waste
energy.

IOTA Tangle is a bit better but the one to watch seems to be HashGraph not that any coin is based on
it yet.

With fees this high BTC becomes useless for trading, testing or moving around so i guess when people leave then they
won't come back ! Once ripped off, twice shy

Stuff the miners and the developers because it's not hard to add code to limit the maximum fees
and having 20,000 full nodes is barking mad anyway.

You are looking for improvements.

SegWit is an improvement.


I expect it to be usable within 6 to 24 months.


I think you are wrong.


Every user has the same access. No user is forced to involuntarily pay a higher fee per byte than any other user. The fact that the access is valuable and valuable things are expensive is the nature of the universe.


If there is a high demand for a limited resource, it will ALWAYS be inaccessible to those that don't have the means.


I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means.


That is not a solution.  That is not even an improvement.


There are no solutions to the fact that valuable things are expensive.  The option is to destroy the value (then it's cheap and nobody wants to use it, like Bitcoin Cash), or allow the market forces of supply and demand manage access through the effects on cost.


THE owner?  You mean am I THE GUY that "owns" the protocol?

No.  The Bitcoin protocol does not have an owner.

Or are you asking if I have some bitcoins?  In that case, yes.  I have a little bit.


I'm not telling to to go use another coin.  I'm letting you know what your options are for "how we can handle more transactions with lower fees".

Lern to read.  Lern context.  Pay attention.

Yes. Or more specifically, they are choosing it because of the value of a block.  (Remember the part where I suggested that block space is very valuable and that transaction fees are purchasing block space?)


Not much reason for it to do so.

The block space isn't very valuable considering there is more of it than anyone is wanting to use.

If it does somehow become the cryptocurrency that is most in demand, then it will experience the exact same situation as Bitcoin has today (high fees and slow confirmations for transactions with low fees).  The alternative is to destroy decentralization by allowing arbitrarily large blocks, but the loss of decentralization would destroy the value of the protocol.


It can support the number of transactions that is needs to support.

It can't support the number of transactions that you want it to support.

The motivation to be careful about changes is to not inadvertently destroy what is clearly and provably very valuable.  No sense in killing the goose.

If you have a suggestion for an improvement that is well thought out, and that isn't going to have an adverse effect on other aspects of Bitcoins very carefully balance incentives then I'd like to hear it.  Bitcoin is constantly adding improvements.  Users and developers are not against improvements.  I'm certainly not against improvements.

You started out by stating a bunch of things that weren't true, and then you asked how we can "get it back on track" with the whitepaper.  I responded to that.

You've asked about improvements, and I've pointed out some recent improvements (SegWit and Lightning).

You want more improvements, and so do we all.  For example, I'd like to see more wallets and more merchants supporting SegWit addresses.  I'd like to see more fee estimators reporting in fee per weight unit rather than fee per byte.  I'd like to see more people involved in developing and testing Lightning Network.

Improvements will continue to come as people figure them out.  Do you have any improvements to suggest? Or are you just here to complain about something you don't understand?

What's that number now? it's enough to support the transaction needed by the world economy?

Don't you think the miners are choosing to mine bitcoin because of the value of the coin? what's going to happen if the value of bitcoin cash raises?

and still, I haven't heard a convincing motivation to not to improve a system that cannot support the number of transactions that needs to support

And I didn't hear a single suggestion of an "improvement" that would actually work, nor did the original post that started this thread ask for any suggestions for improvements.

The original post only asked how we can "get it back on track" with the whitepaper, and since it is already on track with the whitepaper that particular question is meaningless.

If you want suggestions on how we can handle more transactions with lower fees, then you should have asked that.

Here are some suggestions for you:

• Use SegWit addresses
• Participate in the development, testing, and use of Lightning Network
• Take low value transactions off-chain
• Come up with a viable change to the protocol that increases on-chain scalability, get it coded up, convince people to use it
• Go use some other coin if you don't like what Bitcoin is doing

The miners only care about how much fee is paid per block weight unit.


The fact is that SegWit has increased that number.  You are quoting an old and outdated number.


Your guess is provably be wrong.

Bitcoin Cash already exists as a protocol.  It allows up to 8 MB of block space, which increases the quantity of average size transactions from 3 per second to 24 per second.  And yet, the majority of miners are choosing to mine on the Bitcoin Blockchain where they get higher fees, but less transactions.

Just to recap ... So far I didn't hear a single valid argument that says why we shouldn't improve the system, I just heard someone telling me I'm stupid wanting to use my cash to pay something is worth less than thousands dollar (or at least 0.1 bitcoins so nobody corrects me)

To the miners won't change much if the fee comes from mining 2 transactions or one, the fact is that right now the system is able to process 3 transactions per second, and this include the whole world economy! My guess is the miners would be extremely happy to be able to have a system to process more than 3 transactions per second and win a lower fee from each of them

Now you made him mad! The liom came out!
I want to agree and also disagree.
Maybe if you are on the miners side you can understand it and I have heard it.
True that it is congested. We are having problems now because of the overload transactions that are making a wall for the others to enter.
Who made this? Us.
We are so cheap that we want an almost free transaction and miners needs to make a living too.  (Although some of them are really greedy).

Maybe after all of this is cleaned up we should start changing how we do our txs.

where does it say this? looks like this is your own speculation

I'm sorry, does the whitepaper say bitcoin is a digital diamond or does it say it's a digital cash?

You are welcome to your own opinion.

I'll stick with the facts.


Exactly.  This is why I would not send an on-chain bitcoin transaction to pay for $20 worth of product or service.

There are multiple ways a business could handle it, but in the end on-chain transactions are very valuable things.  Very valuable things are expensive.

I wouldn't use a $14000 diamond to trade for something that is worth $20.
I wouldn't use $14000 worth of gold to trade for something that is worth $20.
I wouldn't use a $14000 car to trade for something that is worth $20.

I also wouldn't use a $14000 bitcoin to trade for something that is worth $20.

Note that the transaction fee is based on what the transaction fee is paying for (space in the blockchain).  It is NOT based on the value of the bitcoins you are transfering.  So, a 192 byte transaction that transfers 1 BTC ($14,500 worth of bitcoin) is going to cost the same in fees as a 192 byte transaction that transfers 0.00137931 BTC ($20 worth of bitcoin).  This is because in BOTH CASES the fees are paying for 192 bytes of space in the blockchain.

The fees system was designed by Satoshi to INTENTIONALLY DISCOURAGE use of bitcoin blockchain transactions for smaller value amounts.  This makes sure that there is always space available in the blockchain for the transactions with the highest value to byte-size ratio.

This was the intended design from the beginning.  Your choice is to create smaller transactions, pay higher fees, or leave bitcoin to those that are willing and able to create smaller transactions and pay higher fees.  This is what the whitepaper was created for. This is what Satoshi's code was designed for. This is how bitcoin always has worked, and always will work.

given that the amount you are suggesting guarantee the transaction, in my opinion it doesn't, $3.90 to transfer the equivalent of $20 worth of bitcoin is around 20% premium on the transaction. A credit card charges 3% to the merchant.

And we can't really blame them at all, the developers are closed their ears to the investors and the very thing which was supposed to be free from the control of anyone in the entire, has been hijacked by the developers who have made themselves dictators.Bitcoin Cash will eventually surpass bitcoins.