Only a fool, a troll, or someone who isn't paying any attention, would think that blocks aren't full recently.

[rogerver]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

People with ulterior motives are seeking to build a network they control and can tax, thus they don't care about increasing the blocksize.

A network where they can brand as their own (silly ego's). Unfortunately for them, it will never work-out.

[patrick.miller]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

I don't disagree that blocks are currently full, it's that I just don't care to allow people unfettered access to bloat the blockchain without paying for it. I just made a purchase at your Bitcoin store with Bitcoin using BitPay. I paid the relevant fees (actually CoinBase did because I used that wallet this time) to make sure the transaction will process. I could have easily used BreadWallet or the Blockchain wallet as well. I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom, if it costs 10 cents.

I realize 10 cents in a third world country is a barrier to entry for using the blockchain currently. I also realize that the technology is not yet ready for the type of real-world use we all desire. There is a lot of work and education that needs to be done when it comes to internet and computer security alone before people should be handling their own private keys.

Bitcoin is not ready for prime-time. There's a LOT of work to be done. The current blocksize limit is doing a great job of making sure people that want to spam the blockchain with nonsense will not be able to bloat it without paying a price. Down the road, payment channels will allow people who want to spam each other to oblivion do so as they please.

[arnoudk]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

I don't disagree that blocks are currently full, it's that I just don't care to allow people unfettered access to bloat the blockchain without paying for it. I just made a purchase at your Bitcoin store with Bitcoin using BitPay. I paid the relevant fees (actually CoinBase did because I used that wallet this time) to make sure the transaction will process. I could have easily used BreadWallet or the Blockchain wallet as well. I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom, if it costs 10 cents.

I realize 10 cents in a third world country is a barrier to entry for using the blockchain currently. I also realize that the technology is not yet ready for the type of real-world use we all desire. There is a lot of work and education that needs to be done when it comes to internet and computer security alone before people should be handling their own private keys.

Bitcoin is not ready for prime-time. There's a LOT of work to be done. The current blocksize limit is doing a great job of making sure people that want to spam the blockchain with nonsense will not be able to bloat it without paying a price. Down the road, payment channels will allow people who want to spam each other to oblivion do so as they please.

I'm genuinely curious. What is the LOT of work that needs to be done for a block size increase to two megabytes?

You say that you don't want people to spam the blockchain. I hear that argument a lot, but to me any transaction that pays the appropriate fee is by definition not spam, regardless of what that transaction is for and who it is between. Transactions that do not pay enough fees, are already not included in blocks (some exceptions, such as spending old coins, but sending lots of small value transactions with 0 fee already gets excluded). A small block of course ensures that fees rise, and that certain use cases get excluded. But those would have been fee paying use cases - and a use case that is able to pay fewer transaction costs are not spam by definition.

I really do not think there is a single technical reason to not increase the size today... yet you claim there are "a LOT". Can you give concrete examples and steps that you think need to happen before the block size can be raised?

(Yes 10c is indeed a barrier to entry in the third world. So are transaction confirmation times. I live in Belize - an absolutely stunningly beautiful third world country - and many people here would not be able to use bitcoin as it works today for day to day payments. Maybe for remittances, either domestically or internationally, but not for regular payments. When I pay someone for a days work, he will go out and immediately spend ALL of it within the next hour or so. If he needs to wait an hour for a confirmation (he can't spend it!), or if he needs to pay large transaction costs (he can't afford it!), or if he needs to lock up funds in a biannual lightning payment channel (he has no savings!) - he simply cannot use it. It just does not fit within the options that he has.)

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

I don't disagree that blocks are currently full, it's that I just don't care to allow people unfettered access to bloat the blockchain without paying for it. I just made a purchase at your Bitcoin store with Bitcoin using BitPay. I paid the relevant fees (actually CoinBase did because I used that wallet this time) to make sure the transaction will process. I could have easily used BreadWallet or the Blockchain wallet as well. I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom, if it costs 10 cents.

I realize 10 cents in a third world country is a barrier to entry for using the blockchain currently. I also realize that the technology is not yet ready for the type of real-world use we all desire. There is a lot of work and education that needs to be done when it comes to internet and computer security alone before people should be handling their own private keys.

Bitcoin is not ready for prime-time. There's a LOT of work to be done. The current blocksize limit is doing a great job of making sure people that want to spam the blockchain with nonsense will not be able to bloat it without paying a price. Down the road, payment channels will allow people who want to spam each other to oblivion do so as they please.

You are talking about a big IF, if people will use payment channels, which they won't. Especially not when the technology is developed by a bunch of shady developers of whom have a history of scams. I wouldn't trust my business running any of their software and neither should you.

Keep dreaming, while we venture into the trillions!!!!!!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/744901159886819328

Does anyone disagree, and if so, why?

I don't disagree that blocks are currently full, it's that I just don't care to allow people unfettered access to bloat the blockchain without paying for it. I just made a purchase at your Bitcoin store with Bitcoin using BitPay. I paid the relevant fees (actually CoinBase did because I used that wallet this time) to make sure the transaction will process. I could have easily used BreadWallet or the Blockchain wallet as well. I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom, if it costs 10 cents.

I realize 10 cents in a third world country is a barrier to entry for using the blockchain currently. I also realize that the technology is not yet ready for the type of real-world use we all desire. There is a lot of work and education that needs to be done when it comes to internet and computer security alone before people should be handling their own private keys.

Bitcoin is not ready for prime-time. There's a LOT of work to be done. The current blocksize limit is doing a great job of making sure people that want to spam the blockchain with nonsense will not be able to bloat it without paying a price. Down the road, payment channels will allow people who want to spam each other to oblivion do so as they please.

I'm genuinely curious. What is the LOT of work that needs to be done for a block size increase to two megabytes?

You say that you don't want people to spam the blockchain. I hear that argument a lot, but to me any transaction that pays the appropriate fee is by definition not spam, regardless of what that transaction is for and who it is between. Transactions that do not pay enough fees, are already not included in blocks (some exceptions, such as spending old coins, but sending lots of small value transactions with 0 fee already gets excluded). A small block of course ensures that fees rise, and that certain use cases get excluded. But those would have been fee paying use cases - and a use case that is able to pay fewer transaction costs are not spam by definition.

I really do not think there is a single technical reason to not increase the size today... yet you claim there are "a LOT". Can you give concrete examples and steps that you think need to happen before the block size can be raised?

(Yes 10c is indeed a barrier to entry in the third world. So are transaction confirmation times. I live in Belize - an absolutely stunningly beautiful third world country - and many people here would not be able to use bitcoin as it works today for day to day payments. Maybe for remittances, either domestically or internationally, but not for regular payments. When I pay someone for a days work, he will go out and immediately spend ALL of it within the next hour or so. If he needs to wait an hour for a confirmation (he can't spend it!), or if he needs to pay large transaction costs (he can't afford it!), or if he needs to lock up funds in a biannual lightning payment channel (he has no savings!) - he simply cannot use it. It just does not fit within the options that he has.)

If it weren't a spam "con", it would be some other con. These guys will move from con to con attempting to convince whoever they can. The believers will follow them down a path of destruction.

[patrick.miller]

I really do not think there is a single technical reason to not increase the size today... yet you claim there are "a LOT". Can you give concrete examples and steps that you think need to happen before the block size can be raised?

I did not say that is a lot of work that needs to be done before a blocksize increase, but that there is a lot of work that needs to be done before Bitcoin is ready for prime-time usage globally. Everyone knows it is simple to hard-fork to a 2mb, 4mb, 8mb, or 20 GB block. Why go to 2MB when we could just go straight to 2GB?

There is a lot of work before blockchains are ready for use by people who don't know how to handle private keys securely. I'm really not interested in my cup of coffee or sandwich being on the blockchain. I am more interested in Bitcoin being a secure store of value than a high volume payments network.

I have credit cards and debit cards for bullshit transactions. I don't need to use Bitcoin for sending tx's daily, and neither do most people on this planet. I would say the majority of people use Bitcoin to store wealth securely and they are happy to spend the 10 cents to make a secure P2P transaction.

People are buying BTC primarily for the same reasons they buy Gold. People don't spend gold at stores. So why do they buy gold? They buy it because they are hedging against inflation and they want freedom from central banks and government violence. All of the reasons that Roger Ver believes in Bitcoin.

I realize that the Bitcoin P2P network is a payments network and a bearer asset settlement network. It is a lot easier to pay my friends using Venmo than Bitcoin. Bitcoin needs scaling solutions as a payments network, and when they come, the price will be astronomical.

Until then, I view the Bitcoin as a store of value and a bearer asset settlement network NOT designed for instantaneous settlements of every cup of coffee on the planet.

I will continue utilizing the existing payment channels of JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Paypal's Venmo until such time the technology for scaling is available that does not bloat the blockchain.

[arnoudk]

I did not say that is a lot of work that needs to be done before a blocksize increase, but that there is a lot of work that needs to be done before Bitcoin is ready for prime-time usage globally. Everyone knows it is simple to hard-fork to a 2mb, 4mb, 8mb, or 20 GB block. Why go to 2MB when we could just go straight to 2GB?

Maybe I misunderstood. Are you in favor of a block size increase immediately?

I agree that the block sizes could be a lot bigger than 2 MB, but that seems politically achievable today and I am fine with that as a first step. Personally, I would make the block size limit configurable in the client, as a setting, not as a centrally planned and dictated limit. This is the approach Bitcoin Unlimited uses - and I think it is very elegant. Just let the market decide.

There is a lot of work before blockchains are ready for use by people who don't know how to handle private keys securely. I'm really not interested in my cup of coffee or sandwich being on the blockchain. I am more interested in Bitcoin being a secure store of value than a high volume payments network.

Well, I respect your opinion that you would rather use your credit or debit card to pay for your coffee. I would never think about crippling your payment card network in order to prevent you from using your credit card for that purchase. It is neither my business or my place to tell you how to pay for your coffee. Would you grant me this same freedom? Would you allow me to use bitcoin to pay for my coffee?

I have credit cards and debit cards for bullshit transactions. I don't need to use Bitcoin for sending tx's daily, and neither do most people on this planet. I would say the majority of people use Bitcoin to store wealth securely and they are happy to spend the 10 cents to make a secure P2P transaction.

People are buying BTC primarily for the same reasons they buy Gold. People don't spend gold at stores. So why do they buy gold? They buy it because they are hedging against inflation and they want freedom from central banks and government violence. All of the reasons that Roger Ver believes in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has value, because you can use it to buy things.

Bitcoin has value, because I can use it to pay for my shopping. I can use it to pay for my coffee. I can use it to transfer money between continents - and I can keep savings in it, but ultimately it's value is derived from it's utility - and that means that I must be able to spend it.

If all I can buy with bitcoin is something priced from a Boeing 777 to an aircraft carrier - then for me it has no utility... and is thus worthless.

If you disable bitcoin from being useful to buy stuff - you undermine its value.

[inBitweTrust]

I don't disagree that blocks are currently full, it's that I just don't care to allow people unfettered access to bloat the blockchain without paying for it. I just made a purchase at your Bitcoin store with Bitcoin using BitPay. I paid the relevant fees (actually CoinBase did because I used that wallet this time) to make sure the transaction will process. I could have easily used BreadWallet or the Blockchain wallet as well. I am perfectly happy to pay for freedom, if it costs 10 cents.

I realize 10 cents in a third world country is a barrier to entry for using the blockchain currently. I also realize that the technology is not yet ready for the type of real-world use we all desire. There is a lot of work and education that needs to be done when it comes to internet and computer security alone before people should be handling their own private keys.

Bitcoin is not ready for prime-time. There's a LOT of work to be done. The current blocksize limit is doing a great job of making sure people that want to spam the blockchain with nonsense will not be able to bloat it without paying a price. Down the road, payment channels will allow people who want to spam each other to oblivion do so as they please.

Very reasonable and sound advice. I look forward to increasing the blocksize and capacity in general but believe we should exhaust other options to increase scalability first. I actually prefer the blocks to remain completely full as that allows the fee market to root out lower value spam tx's so a simple while loop cannot attack the network. There are limits to how high the tx fees should be to remain competitive and once you start going over 30 cents for a normal tx than it is a warning sign that we are falling behind on development and capacity. In the future microtxs and machine to machine tx can be handled with payment channels but we aren't quite there yet.

[patrick.miller]

Maybe I misunderstood. Are you in favor of a block size increase immediately?

I agree that the block sizes could be a lot bigger than 2 MB, but that seems politically achievable today and I am fine with that as a first step. Personally, I would make the block size limit configurable in the client, as a setting, not as a centrally planned and dictated limit. This is the approach Bitcoin Unlimited uses - and I think it is very elegant. Just let the market decide.

I support the Bitcoin Core developers because I believe they are the best team capable of improving Bitcoin. I believe that dividing the community and tearing down the Core Developers is not productive. If and when the Core developers decide that a blocksize increase is the wise choice, then I will support them. Adam back proposed the 2-4-8 increase before SegWit was developed as a soft-fork. I supported him then. Once SegWit became feasible through a soft-fork, then I supported the scaling roadmap. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 11865.html

Well, I respect your opinion that you would rather use your credit or debit card to pay for your coffee. I would never think about crippling your payment card network in order to prevent you from using your credit card for that purchase. It is neither my business or my place to tell you how to pay for your coffee. Would you grant me this same freedom? Would you allow me to use bitcoin to pay for my coffee?

You are completely free to use the blockchain to pay for your cup of coffee, and have it processed quickly, provided you can pay the fees to quickly and permanently put this data into the blockchain..

Bitcoin has value, because you can use it to buy things.

Bitcoin has value, because I can use it to pay for my shopping. I can use it to pay for my coffee. I can use it to transfer money between continents - and I can keep savings in it, but ultimately it's value is derived from it's utility - and that means that I must be able to spend it.

If all I can buy with bitcoin is something priced from a Boeing 777 to an aircraft carrier - then for me it has no utility... and is thus worthless.

If you disable bitcoin from being useful to buy stuff - you undermine its value.

I agree, Bitcoin does have value to buy things - but it's currently no where near safe for use by most users due to the complexity of understanding it requires to keep private keys safe and simultaneously simple. I want everyone to be able to use Bitcoin and the blockchain. We all have the same goals, and we shouldn't tear each other down just because we believe it should be done differently. Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited did not achieve the goals that they thought they would. Just because these software implementations were not successful in achieving broad consensus, does not mean we should go back to hurling insults at each other and calling each other "cons" and "disingenuous".

Furthermore, I believe that the most recent spikes in the mempool size are in fact due to spam attacks of ultra-low fee transactions, as can be seen from the chart and graph below. The network is working PERFECTLY in ensuring those who pay the proper fees have transactions prioritized. The blockchain is not censoring out low-fee transactions, it is merely prioritizing them for both users and miners.

In the mean-time, while I love paying for things with a Bitcoin tx, it's really easy to get a Bitcoin debit card and pay for your coffee with it off-chain. I don't see a need to bloat the blockchain with a bunch of minor transactions, so I keep my Bitcoins securely on a hardware wallet and make the majority of my transactions with legacy payment channels. I also work on a blockchain project in the mean-time with the hopes that some day the technology being developed in our project will be incorporated into Bitcoin.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Maybe I misunderstood. Are you in favor of a block size increase immediately?

I agree that the block sizes could be a lot bigger than 2 MB, but that seems politically achievable today and I am fine with that as a first step. Personally, I would make the block size limit configurable in the client, as a setting, not as a centrally planned and dictated limit. This is the approach Bitcoin Unlimited uses - and I think it is very elegant. Just let the market decide.

I support the Bitcoin Core developers because I believe they are the best team capable of improving Bitcoin. I believe that dividing the community and tearing down the Core Developers is not productive. If and when the Core developers decide that a blocksize increase is the wise choice, then I will support them. Adam back proposed the 2-4-8 increase before SegWit was developed as a soft-fork. I supported him then. Once SegWit became feasible through a soft-fork, then I supported the scaling roadmap. https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/piper ... 11865.html

Well, I respect your opinion that you would rather use your credit or debit card to pay for your coffee. I would never think about crippling your payment card network in order to prevent you from using your credit card for that purchase. It is neither my business or my place to tell you how to pay for your coffee. Would you grant me this same freedom? Would you allow me to use bitcoin to pay for my coffee?

You are completely free to use the blockchain to pay for your cup of coffee, and have it processed quickly, provided you can pay the fees to quickly and permanently put this data into the blockchain..

Bitcoin has value, because you can use it to buy things.

Bitcoin has value, because I can use it to pay for my shopping. I can use it to pay for my coffee. I can use it to transfer money between continents - and I can keep savings in it, but ultimately it's value is derived from it's utility - and that means that I must be able to spend it.

If all I can buy with bitcoin is something priced from a Boeing 777 to an aircraft carrier - then for me it has no utility... and is thus worthless.

If you disable bitcoin from being useful to buy stuff - you undermine its value.

I agree, Bitcoin does have value to buy things - but it's currently no where near safe for use by most users due to the complexity of understanding it requires to keep private keys safe and simultaneously simple. I want everyone to be able to use Bitcoin and the blockchain. We all have the same goals, and we shouldn't tear each other down just because we believe it should be done differently. Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited did not achieve the goals that they thought they would. Just because these software implementations were not successful in achieving broad consensus, does not mean we should go back to hurling insults at each other and calling each other "cons" and "disingenuous".

Furthermore, I believe that the most recent spikes in the mempool size are in fact due to spam attacks of ultra-low fee transactions, as can be seen from the chart and graph below. The network is working PERFECTLY in ensuring those who pay the proper fees have transactions prioritized. The blockchain is not censoring out low-fee transactions, it is merely prioritizing them for both users and miners.

In the mean-time, while I love paying for things with a Bitcoin tx, it's really easy to get a Bitcoin debit card and pay for your coffee with it off-chain. I don't see a need to bloat the blockchain with a bunch of minor transactions, so I keep my Bitcoins securely on a hardware wallet and make the majority of my transactions with legacy payment channels. I also work on a blockchain project in the mean-time with the hopes that some day the technology being developed in our project will be incorporated into Bitcoin.

You back scammers with a history of thieving to develop your businesses code? That is a bad move and I'd suggest you research the people you do business with before running any of their software. It is why I dropped Core as did the businesses I work with.

Look at it like this, there has been many problems thus far, add 5 years to this direction and you are operating in a disaster. None of these guys have ever run a successful business either (besides successful scams).

When the con's out-weigh the pro's, it's time to use a different strategy.

These are my opinions and you do not have to follow them!

[zju]

If all I can buy with bitcoin is something priced from a Boeing 777 to an aircraft carrier - then for me it has no utility... and is thus worthless.

If you disable bitcoin from being useful to buy stuff - you undermine its value.

But then Bitcoin would be valuable to people that buy Boeing 777s and aircraft carriers.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

If all I can buy with bitcoin is something priced from a Boeing 777 to an aircraft carrier - then for me it has no utility... and is thus worthless.

If you disable bitcoin from being useful to buy stuff - you undermine its value.

But then Bitcoin would be valuable to people that buy Boeing 777s and aircraft carriers.

Pipe dream, bankers laugh at Bitcoin and are taking the blockchain technology to use in their own network.

Bitcoin's best use-case scenario is how it was originally designed, to help the masses, rich and poor.

"Let's completely redesign an airplane that was otherwise working perfectly". Just upgrade the engine, or in this case, the blocksize.

You guys are embarking on a dangerous mission that will lead you to failure.

[rogerver]

I believe that dividing the community and tearing down the Core Developers is not productive.

Unfortunately the community is already severely divided. This isn't due to the difference of opinion on the scaling roadmap though.
It's due to the overt censorship by Theymos on the main Bitcoin discussion platforms, and that censorship being openly advocated by core developers like Greg Maxwell, and ever so tacitly condemned by other core developers.
In a recent poll on this forum, more people said they are upset by the censorship than the slowness of scaling. Myself included! If a free and vigorous debate had been allowed, and the small block side won, I don't think there would be even 10% of the bitterness that exists currently in the Bitcoin community. Instead the small block side has severely damaged the ethos of our ecosystem by suppressing dissenting opinions with an iron fist.

P.S.
Patrick, even though I disagree with some of the points you're making, I like the way you lay them out in a constructive manner, and am very glad to have you be a part of this forum.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Wladimir van der Laan has just merged 'Compact Blocks' into Bitcoin Master

"An average full 1MB block announcement can be reconstructed by the receiving node with a block sketch of 9KB, plus overhead for each transaction in the block that is not in the receiving node’s mempool. The largest block sketches seen top out at a few bytes north of 20KB."

This will dramatically improve block propagation and better block propagation means we can have bigger blocks without dangers of centralization.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/comm ... 668a9d6ed1

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Wladimir van der Laan has just merged 'Compact Blocks' into Bitcoin Master

"An average full 1MB block announcement can be reconstructed by the receiving node with a block sketch of 9KB, plus overhead for each transaction in the block that is not in the receiving node’s mempool. The largest block sketches seen top out at a few bytes north of 20KB."

This will dramatically improve block propagation and better block propagation means we can have bigger blocks without dangers of centralization.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/comm ... 668a9d6ed1

Please stop scaring the public by saying with large blocks that Bitcoin will become centralized, it is false.

Wladimir van der Laan, you need to keep Bitcoin Core as is besides increasing the block size. Improving network performance with-in Core is acceptable.

You have the power to cease plans of this disastrous Segwit Lightning venture. Let's open Bitcoin to billions of people, rich and poor.

If you do this, Bitcoin will prosper.

If you don't do this, Bitcoin will suffer.

You will lose and the people will lose.

This is not a choice, it is a demand.