Increasing the fee does not magically increase capacity. More capacity is needed, not fees.

[rogerver]

increasing the fee does not magically increase capacity. so stop playing the dumb game by saying that increasing the fee will speed things up for users. it wont.

more capacity is needed.. not fee's

3000 people making a tx in a block capacity of 2500(average) means 500 will lose out the chance of getting into the very next block.
no matter if all 3000 people equally paid 4cents not all of them will get into that next block.
or even if all 3000 people equally paid $400 fee not all of them will get into that next block.
heck if even those 3000 peoples tx had a $40,000 fee each. there is no guarantee that they would get into the next block

[cypherdoc]

very obvious to me.

but 1MB seems to be a Magic Number that has been adopted by a small group of core devs as a Holy Grail. while they criticize Satoshi overall, they fail to admit he must have been a god on this matter.

[rogerver]

It should seem that 1MB is just as arbitrary as 2MB, or 8MB or 20MB.
If the network can handle more traffic than we have today, the network should allow it.
There is no reason to artificially limit the number of on chain transactions.

[MikeUK]

It should seem that 1MB is just as arbitrary as 2MB, or 8MB or 20MB.
If the network can handle more traffic than we have today, the network should allow it.
There is no reason to artificially limit the number of on chain transactions.

exactly, especially if you look at the data sizes which the proposed core road map will be using.

a true full node accepts, relays, validates and stores ALL data. so if you discount their pruned, no-witness, lite mode options and concentrate on the true meaning of a full node. Then count up the extra bytes of data needed for things like confidential payment codes, etc. It becomes very obvious that if core believes the true full node bitcoin network can cope with 5mb blocks to cover all of their proposed features past, present and near future. Then there was obviously never a problem with propagating just 2-4mb of standard transaction block data proposed in 2013-2015. Meaning this lengthy data bloat debate has been meaningless and just time wasted not moving forward.

So telling people to disregard any previous attempt at scaling, or any scaling that is done by random people has caused an unnecessary fee price war.

From 2009-2014 the fee was only a couple cents at most. That is correct, you have read it right, 5 years of just a couple cents.
But in the last couple of years we seen it jump to over 20cents, while also still not guaranteeing users get their transactions into the next block.
This issue should have been rectified at least a year ago, and definitely not delayed until 2017.

anyone arguing "if your transaction is slow to confirm, simply increase the fee" is not helping the community.

In short if core dev's think 5mb is ok for their own full node road map. Then why do/did the core dev's even argue that 2mb or 4mb blocks of standard transaction types are/were bad. which has resulted in a delay of scaling and the false belief that increasing the fee is a solution to the speed/capacity issue.

[johnyj]

In short if core dev's think 5mb is ok for their own full node road map. Then why do/did the core dev's even argue that 2mb or 4mb blocks of standard transaction types are/were bad. which has resulted in a delay of scaling and the false belief that increasing the fee is a solution to the speed/capacity issue.

The most funny thing it that the solution they proposed (Lightning network) is prepaid card, a very old finance model from 50s and has been mostly abandoned by telecom operators 10 years ago

21inc's Lightning Network has been out for 2 months, who cares? There is simply no one need that. LN transactions happens on LN network, it is a private insecure network, who is going to use that? Core's contractors of course

[inBitweTrust]

increasing the fee does not magically increase capacity. so stop playing the dumb game by saying that increasing the fee will speed things up for users. it wont.

Well I completely agree with this.

Can you cite anyone who is even making this claim or is this attacking a straw man?

very obvious to me.

but 1MB seems to be a Magic Number that has been adopted by a small group of core devs as a Holy Grail. while they criticize Satoshi overall, they fail to admit he must have been a god on this matter.

Citation on this claim as well. From what I understand core developers do believe 1MB is arbitrary and some would even suggest that 0.5Mb is preferable while other contend that 2 or 4 is fine at this point in time. This is why segwit will increase the effective capacity to 1.7-2MB. Because most core developers are comfortable to around 2MB at this point in time as long as it includes other adjustments and fixes that Segwit includes.