Changing the economic incentives of Bitcoin can be just as dangerous as changing the underlying code of Bitcoin.

[rogerver]

I've noticed lots of people mentioning how important it is to carefully review code for bugs, errors, or attack vectors before implementing it into Bitcoin.
Even the slightest change could have disastrous effects. That's often cited as the reason improvements to core Bitcoin code take months or even years to actually be implemented. These people are absolutely right, and we should all be extremely careful about whatever changes we make to the core Bitcoin code.

What I think these people often don't realize, is that the exact same arguments apply to the economic incentives that were created with the invention Bitcoin. Up until now, these economic incentives have been incredibly effective at driving growth and adoption of Bitcoin. We all need to be extremely careful about changing any of the economic incentives in the Bitcoin network, or we could potentially destroy the entire system we are all so passionate about.

Until recently, transactions have always been extremely low cost and there has always been plenty of extra room in each block for those transactions. A few months ago that situation changed. Blocks are consistently full and the fee per transaction is increasing quickly. This is a fundamental change to the economics that have been driving the growth of bitcoin up until this point. I think we all need to take a step back and consider just how incredibly disruptive any changes to the economics driving Bitcoin growth could potentially be be to the network as a whole.

I wholeheartedly thank everyone who's contributed coding to the Bitcoin ecosystem, but we all need to stop and realize that the changing the economic incentives of Bitcoin can be just as dangerous as changing the underlying code of Bitcoin.

[chopstick]

Amen brother *claps*

Unfortunately, the human race is one that typically has to learn everything the hard way.

It's true for me too.

[cypherdoc]

Which is exactly what SW does by imposing a centrally mandated 75% discount for SW outputs as opposed to regular tx's. This economically incentivizes use of the LN. Oh surprise!

Another big concern today is who from the community ever gets to express their ideals to kore dev anymore? They're siloed away in their private channels and you get chased away if you're not a dev towing the party line.

That dorsn't sound like a representative form of open source software that represents its community of users today.

[chopstick]

Core is very heavily drunk on arrogance and hubris. Their collective Egos have gotten out of control and they don't want to listen to anyone but themselves, let alone the community. They push rules that fit their agenda. I'm sure they all think they are going to get superbly rich pushing whatever BS upon the bitcoin protocol. Apparently, they've also decided that Bitcoin should have bank-wire level transaction fees, to prevent "spam" (????)

That's not even getting into the "conspiracy" side of who paid tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) to DDoS classic / XT / Unlimited nodes, intentional lies being told to the community, ongoing censorship and disinformation campaigns, collusion with chinese miners, etc etc.

What typically happens to these types of people is sooner or later, their Ego Balloon gets popped. Core is human. Humans are inherently stupid, but they think they're all geniuses. All it takes is for one well-timed pin prick to pop their ego balloon. I predict everything will backfire in their faces spectacularly, sooner or later. Unfortunately, this will probably also result in collateral damage to everyone around them, but it might be necessary if we're going to get new leadership.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I've noticed lots of people mentioning how important it is to carefully review code for bugs, errors, or attack vectors before implementing it into Bitcoin.
Even the slightest change could have disastrous effects. That's often cited as the reason improvements to core Bitcoin code take months or even years to actually be implemented. These people are absolutely right, and we should all be extremely careful about whatever changes we make to the core Bitcoin code.

What I think these people often don't realize, is that the exact same arguments apply to the economic incentives that were created with the invention Bitcoin. Up until now, these economic incentives have been incredibly effective at driving growth and adoption of Bitcoin. We all need to be extremely careful about changing any of the economic incentives in the Bitcoin network, or we could potentially destroy the entire system we are all so passionate about.

Until recently, transactions have always been extremely low cost and there has always been plenty of extra room in each block for those transactions. A few months ago that situation changed. Blocks are consistently full and the fee per transaction is increasing quickly. This is a fundamental change to the economics that have been driving the growth of bitcoin up until this point. I think we all need to take a step back and consider just how incredibly disruptive any changes to the economics driving Bitcoin growth could potentially be be to the network as a whole.

I wholeheartedly thank everyone who's contributed coding to the Bitcoin ecosystem, but we all need to stop and realize that the changing the economic incentives of Bitcoin can be just as dangerous as changing the underlying code of Bitcoin.

Agreed.

I read the complaints each day, it is ruining Bitcoin.

My clients are pissed.

New users are turned-off.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Which is exactly what SW does by imposing a centrally mandated 75% discount for SW outputs as opposed to regular tx's. This economically incentivizes use of the LN. Oh surprise!

Another big concern today is who from the community ever gets to express their ideals to kore dev anymore? They're siloed away in their private channels and you get chased away if you're not a dev towing the party line.

That dorsn't sound like a representative form of open source software that represents its community of users today.

We have publicly offered our help and we receive nothing but lobbyists coming here and telling us how Bitcoin is gold 2.0 and how we should believe them.

Bitcoin is in need of atleast a 4mb blocksize increase with-out Segwit / LN. Core can stop pitching anything else besdes a genuine increase in the blocksize.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Core is very heavily drunk on arrogance and hubris. Their collective Egos have gotten out of control and they don't want to listen to anyone but themselves, let alone the community. They push rules that fit their agenda. I'm sure they all think they are going to get superbly rich pushing whatever BS upon the bitcoin protocol. Apparently, they've also decided that Bitcoin should have bank-wire level transaction fees, to prevent "spam" (????)

That's not even getting into the "conspiracy" side of who paid tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) to DDoS classic / XT / Unlimited nodes, intentional lies being told to the community, ongoing censorship and disinformation campaigns, collusion with chinese miners, etc etc.

What typically happens to these types of people is sooner or later, their Ego Balloon gets popped. Core is human. Humans are inherently stupid, but they think they're all geniuses. All it takes is for one well-timed pin prick to pop their ego balloon. I predict everything will backfire in their faces spectacularly, sooner or later. Unfortunately, this will probably also result in collateral damage to everyone around them, but it might be necessary if we're going to get new leadership.

If they don't listen to us, they will continue to crash.

This is not about who is wrong or who is right, it is about what needs to be done to ensure our billion dollar economy doesn't crash through the floor.

Core, put the ego away and let's start working to build the market the right way.

Can't you wait a 5-10 years with us to accomplish real milestones!?!??!!?

[murtyjones]

Will SegWit and its inherent capacity increase not immediately reduce the the fees/full blocks issue? As you say, Roger, this issue has only been around for a few months. A 75% capacity increase will go a long way towards relieving today's issues.

[BitcoinXio]

Will SegWit and its inherent capacity increase not immediately reduce the the fees/full blocks issue? As you say, Roger, this issue has only been around for a few months. A 75% capacity increase will go a long way towards relieving today's issues.

It may help for a short period of time. The problem is that it's not really a scaling solution. It just happens to help with capacity. We get a small bump and that's it, nothing else. In addition, it will take a while for SW to even be activated, adopted, used, for any benefits to be seen.

Then what happens after this small bump happens? In a year, we will all be saying the same thing, blocks are full! With no scaling solution in sight. Core seems to think Lightning Network is the solution, but that technology is far from being realized. It could be years away before anyone sees any benefit from it at all. In the meantime, bitcoin will be congested, hard to use, and fees will be high which will turn people away.

[murtyjones]

It may help for a short period of time. The problem is that it's not really a scaling solution. It just happens to help with capacity.

It solves today's capacity issues. Why does it matter whether it does so incidentally? If it works, it works.

We get a small bump and that's it, nothing else..

+75% isn't a small bump by any means.

In addition, it will take a while for SW to even be activated, adopted, used, for any benefits to be seen

Longer than a contentious hard fork? I think not.

Then what happens after this small bump happens? In a year, we will all be saying the same thing, blocks are full! With no scaling solution in sight. Core seems to think Lightning Network is the solution, but that technology is far from being realized. It could be years away before anyone sees any benefit from it at all. In the meantime, bitcoin will be congested, hard to use, and fees will be high which will turn people away.

We have to solve today's capacity constraints first and foremost. Once that is done, we have some leeway to explore multiple solutions at the same time. SegWit 1. Solves today's capacity constraints, 2. Allows for further Lightning Network development, and 3. Leaves the door open to a block size increase.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It may help for a short period of time. The problem is that it's not really a scaling solution. It just happens to help with capacity.

It solves today's capacity issues. Why does it matter whether it does so incidentally? If it works, it works.

We get a small bump and that's it, nothing else..

+75% isn't a small bump by any means.

In addition, it will take a while for SW to even be activated, adopted, used, for any benefits to be seen

Longer than a contentious hard fork? I think not.

Then what happens after this small bump happens? In a year, we will all be saying the same thing, blocks are full! With no scaling solution in sight. Core seems to think Lightning Network is the solution, but that technology is far from being realized. It could be years away before anyone sees any benefit from it at all. In the meantime, bitcoin will be congested, hard to use, and fees will be high which will turn people away.

We have to solve today's capacity constraints first and foremost. Once that is done, we have some leeway to explore multiple solutions at the same time. SegWit 1. Solves today's capacity constraints, 2. Allows for further Lightning Network development, and 3. Leaves the door open to a block size increase.

Why is it so hard for you guys to put your plans on-hold for a few years?

Why can't we just listen to the markets advice, upgrade to 4MB and then re-evaluate the situation from there?

It will show the world we can work together, it will help our customers and the network.

Do the blocksize increase with Core and then come back to us and let's evaluate your Lightning solution when it is ready.

We're all going to be here 10 years down the road, so let's take our time.

If you don't do this, it will end in failure. You need the markets support before you can accomplish any goals such as Lightning.

Take our advice, we are trying to help you!!!!!!!

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Here, maybe Core is unsure of what to say...

Release a press release saying something like, "We have listened to the market, we realize it requires a blocksize increase. We will be implementing a 4MB increase in Core right away. Stay tuned for Lightning."

Keep it simple, get it done and let's move forward.

If you are worried that you are admitting to failure, you aren't. Roger sees Lightning as a cool technology whereas I do not. However, in regards to a blocksize increase, we see the same (as does BitcoinXio and thousands of others).

[murtyjones]

It may help for a short period of time. The problem is that it's not really a scaling solution. It just happens to help with capacity.

It solves today's capacity issues. Why does it matter whether it does so incidentally? If it works, it works.

We get a small bump and that's it, nothing else..

+75% isn't a small bump by any means.

In addition, it will take a while for SW to even be activated, adopted, used, for any benefits to be seen

Longer than a contentious hard fork? I think not.

Then what happens after this small bump happens? In a year, we will all be saying the same thing, blocks are full! With no scaling solution in sight. Core seems to think Lightning Network is the solution, but that technology is far from being realized. It could be years away before anyone sees any benefit from it at all. In the meantime, bitcoin will be congested, hard to use, and fees will be high which will turn people away.

We have to solve today's capacity constraints first and foremost. Once that is done, we have some leeway to explore multiple solutions at the same time. SegWit 1. Solves today's capacity constraints, 2. Allows for further Lightning Network development, and 3. Leaves the door open to a block size increase.

Why is it so hard for you guys to put your plans on-hold for a few years?

Why can't we just listen to the markets advice, upgrade to 4MB and then re-evaluate the situation from there?

It will show the world we can work together, it will help our customers and the network.

Do the blocksize increase with Core and then come back to us and let's evaluate your Lightning solution when it is ready.

We're all going to be here 10 years down the road, so let's take our time.

If you don't do this, it will end in failure. You need the markets support before you can accomplish any goals such as Lightning.

Take our advice, we are trying to help you!!!!!!!

Who's "you guys"? I speak for myself and not anyone else. This is perhaps the worst thing about this whole debate; Anyone who thinks SegWit should be implemented first is branded a Core apologist, and vice versa with the block size increase. We need to cut this crap out - stop labeling people as this or that for stating personal opinions. You preach about working together and yet you marginalize by turning the discussion into Core vs Classic. Is this forum not supposed to be an open discussion? Don't label people as speaking for Core just because they disagree with you.

My view is that 1. SegWit is ready to go (see the devs' conversation about merging it today...), 2. it will fix today's issues, and today is a lot more important that one year from now. 3. Block size increases are still on the table and if it truly is as easy as changing a constant in the code, then we can implement it easily. Or we can examine alternatives such as writing one change to gradually increase the size over time. We have options, and with SegWit we have time.

[rogerver]

I have a few more thoughts to add.

• SegWit is far more complicated, and therefore far more dangerous than a simple increase of the block size.
• We only get a 75% increase if there is 100% adoption by wallets. There certainly won't be 100% adoption by wallets for a long time, and a 75% increase only buys about 4 extra months of growth at our previous rates, and I think we are already about 4 months past due with keeping up with the current demand anyhow.
• If we want people to use Bitcoin, we have to make it the most convenient option in their life. High fees, and long waits don't do this. Those two problems can be solved easily today by increasing the block size. Every major consumer facing company today is already screaming for this! (Blockchain, Coinbase, Bitpay, etc, etc.)

[murtyjones]

I have a few more thoughts to add.

• SegWit is far more complicated, and therefore far more dangerous than a simple increase of the block size.

This is a reductionist view of what the change to the block size will require in terms of upgrades/adoption, and attacks that it will open up. E.g. with 2MB blocks, transactions can be constructed that take >10min to verify and open up DoS attack vectors. It's not as simple as changing one line of code and asking everyone to upgrade.

[*] We only get a 75% increase if there is 100% adoption by wallets. There certainly won't be 100% adoption by wallets for a long time, and a 75% increase only buys about 4 extra months of growth at our previous rates, and I think we are already about 4 months past due with keeping up with the current demand anyhow.

A hard fork block size increase will require all nodes to upgrade... So that argument cuts both ways. With SegWit, thanks to the fee discount, wallet adoption will be quick.

[*] If we want people to use Bitcoin, we have to make it the most convenient option in their life. High fees, and long waits don't do this. Those two problems can be solved easily today by increasing the block size. Every major consumer facing company today is already screaming for this! (Blockchain, Coinbase, Bitpay, etc, etc.)[/list]

Absolutely, and the block size needs to increase. But hard forks are hard for a reason, and the factors above and mentioned elsewhere by others are going to require work from all constituents.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Seriously, cut the shit.

Today I read about a 14 year old losing money due to this whole mess. I sure as hell am not going to sit around while kids get robbed and turned away from our technology.

Wallets can't even organize to fix the fee problem Core brought on, and you think you are going to get them to quickly integrate Segwit? Pipe dream.

Enough is enough.

You can either HF to 4MB, or you can suffer the consequences.

If you choose to HF, you have our support.

If you do not, you will forever lose our support.

The choice is yours.