Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

They get the transaction fees on LN. So they're taking Bitcoin away from the developing world (who need p2p more than anyone else) and using it for their own financial gain while censoring, manipulating and visibly misleading the community to think what they are doing is the original vision of Satoshi.

"Very smart con men. Blockstream is the enemy to an open protocol cash system." - cdn_int_citizen

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin approx avg transaction fee, in USD terms, has increased 206.8%

"since Jan. 31, from $0.073 to $0.224" - Jeff Garzik

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

blockstream core has gone deranged,

"completely out of touch with reality." - realistbtc

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

You ain't seen nothing yet.

"In the next months we are going to see much bigger fee-waves. Would have been nice if we had some kind of scaling solution by now." - seweso

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

you don't keep convicted burglars and robbers out of jail so we can keep improving security systems.

"Why would we keep these guys around who have been trying to steal Bitcoin out from under the users? Cool, they can write code. So can a lot of other people without nefarious intentions." - PMmeyourBitcoins

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The utility (scale and usage) of Bitcoin is what gives it value and that value increases when the exchange rate goes up.

"Removing utility when transactions stop confirming will only make the exchange rate go down.

This is why a fee market is bad for Bitcoin at this stage in the game, and isn't needed for several decades. c++ developers making economic decisions is a bad idea." - Annapurna317

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Oh, and I think now's the time to ditch them completely.

"If the miners show reason soon, I don't want another such clusterfuck happening." - awemany

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The idea that raising the block size to 2 MB is going to some how destroy or harm Bitcoin is insane.

"The original block size was 32MB and Satoshi believed there didn't nee to be a limit at all in the long term. Even people who are now fighting tooth and nail to keep the 1MB block size have said in the past they had no problem raising it and it would be fine. The only thing that has changed for those people is that they now work for a company who wants to hold the block size hostage as a way to force things like segwit into Bitcoin which they absolutely need in order to implement their company's business plan of a proprietary off chain transaction system.

Because they managed to gain control of most of the traditional Bitcion discussion forums they have been able to control the narrative about block size and spread lies, nonsense, and misinformation about efforts to raise it." - moYouKnow

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Indeed.

"There was a strong majority for on-chain scaling by the ecosystem businesses before Blockstream hijacked Core." - solex1

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

exchanges

"all want 2mb+" - pazdan

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Small Transaction Rejected

"I just tried to send $.01USD from my coinbase wallet, but it threw an error message saying that it was too small to be accepted by the network.

Wth is going on here? Is this just a coinbase thing? I thought one of the advantages of btc was supposed to be that you can send very small amounts. thx!" - omitinimo

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

To send that $0.01

"you need to pay around $0.20 in fees right now." - r1q2

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It does make me uncomfortable that we are approaching similar levels of fee's as other payment processors so soon.

"fee's this high could impact Bitcoins utility in 3rd world and other uses." - 45sbvad

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

High volume, low fee

"is the way to scale Bitcoin." - Annapurna317

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Exactly, no point in having 10 people pay $10 for a fee

"when you can have 1000 people paying $0.1 for a fee instead." - NoGooderr

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 19 & 20 (05/07/2016):

The bitcoin net has been operating at full capacity for a long time.

"The appeal to upgrade of bitcoin agreements has been lasting for more than one year. However, some developers of Bitcoin Core for example have been repelling against such upgrade." - LightningHuang

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A lot of people here want the same as you.

"To increase the blocksize limit. It's very interesting to get your perspective from China." - shludvigsen2

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Based on the chart of transactions confirmed per day, I would say that the 1 MB block size limit started to have an effect only about 1 year ago, when the "stress tests" caused unexpected delays and appear to have driven some users away.

"The capacity limit became a persistent problem only 6 months ago, when "traffic jams" due to normal (?) traffic became recurrent. They seem to have slowed down and finally halted the growth of the traffic. Other people have reported increasing average delays, and average fees of 0.20 USD/tx or more." - jstolfi

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Through Blockstream, Bitcoin is under the direct influence of profit-seeking and status-quo-preserving forces. Bitcoin is in the hands of technocrats who seem incapable of being guided by the principles and social dynamics you identified.

"Bitcoin communications are impaired by heavy censorship aimed at the uninitiated.

But if you saw the truth anyway, there is hope." - biosense

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

There is nothing wrong with seeking profit.

"There is something wrong with monopolizing an open-source protocol, destroying it, and reshaping it in your own interests." - jeanduluoz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Why a decentralized system would be under the control of one small group? Are they the bitcoin creators? Even satoshi did not intend to govern the system development.

"These guys are anything but in the satoshi 's philosophy. If they don't feel incomfortable, they may follow an hidden agenda." - ahmonche

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's far more likely that Bitcoin just fails to launch and only ends up as a sad lesson to others about poor governance and developer arrogance.

"It will have its bones picked over by its faster and better neighbours who pull ahead in the next 2-3 years." - nanoakron

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is my mindset now, I am not upset about anymore,

"If Bitcoin got corrupted away form its original vision because of a temporary patch, that mean that any cryptocurrency that has any weakness in the code then that weakness will be exploited to gain control over it.

Sadly that might mean that Bitcoin will fail and the cryptocurrency ideal will survive in another projet, with hopefully a code mature enough so that nobody can gain control over it.

We may be many.. Many years ago from cryptocurrency mainstream adoption.." - Ant-n

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yup.

"Better coded alts are going to steamroll over Bitcoin very soon (they already are, look at ETH vs. BTC performance since presale in spite of the DAO attack) if Bitcoin fails to accommodate more users at the non-zero prices they're willing to pay." - RobertEvanston

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A lesson as old as time,

"if you don't/it doesn't give users what they want, they'll find someone/something that will." - ferretinjapan

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I know for certain that Bitcoin Core is not that balance.

"And they are not only not balanced in the blocksize direction. They are not balanced in a lot of other ways..." - awemany

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I have seen interactions with them for many years now and there is a lot what went down in the mean time.

"There is a lot of history. I have seen enough." - awemany

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Turbulence warning

"https://i.redd.it/8ppv9ab8gf7x.png" - seweso

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

There has always been a market for tx fees.

"This is an artificially manipulated fee market that is not in natural equilibrium." - jeanduluoz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Fees should determine blocksize,

"not the other way around." - seweso