Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The idea that running a full node is too expensive is just a myth

"perpetuated by those who are afraid to allow Bitcoin to scale quickly enough to be able to challenge the legacy banking systems." - MemoryDealers

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Also, the idea that everyone needs to be able to run a full node is a myth easily dispelled by the white paper: it was intended from the outset that most people wouldn't need to run full nodes. The network works best with "optimal" or "good enough" decentralization.

"Businesses that use Bitcoin significantly have a fiduciary duty to run a full node. If there is enough adoption, then the businesses will follow the adoption and bring many server-class full nodes with them. This is the decentralized infrastructure that Bitcoin was intended by its creator to produce.

Therefore the question is how do we continue to incentivize adoption? And the answer is: by allowing cheap transactions to ride along, Bitcoin subsidizes businesses and consumers to use it. We should be increasing the block size limit to create "build it and they will come" levels of transaction support. Mining can continue to be paid entirely by the block reward for the rest of everyone's lives." - tsontar

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

In fact, if you want to look at something that's going to be more like Visa, look at the Lightning network.

"If you're a merchant, you are going to be caring about these additional risks, which are going to cost you extra money (whether in hub fees or insurance).

With Bitcoin, once you have a few confirmations, the money is in the bank (your wallet)." - LovelyDay

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

it's a long story, but the guy who owns /r/bitcoin and the other biggest bitcoin forum suddenly started enforcing a new rule that banned any discussion on alternative bitcoin implementations (first BitcoinXT, then Bitcoin Classic) that were being discussed there to deal with the impending capacity problem of bitcoin.

"Likely motivations include being paid by the current developers of bitcoin (now Core), most of them who are involved in a company Blockstream they set up that attracted more than 70 million USD from venture capitalists (chief among them AXA). Any alternative bitcoin client would wrestle control over the bitcoin network away from them, which is something they obviously don't want to happen because of money/power/whatever. So any discussion on them was banned regardless of their merits, and many long time community members were ruthlessly removed from the subreddit. This subreddit /r/btc and the bitcoin.com forum were eventually created/taken over in response to be able to continue discussion on bitcoin in general without fear of getting censored

the general discussion on this has been going on for years and the whole /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org censorship drama is something that started rearing its ugly head in 2015. To people who only visit /r/bitcoin, the censorship might be invisible, but here pointing it has been a common theme since we moved over to the point that people are fed up with it and say they would rather have /r/btc be a forum where we can discuss bitcoin instead of the rampant censorship at /r/bitcoin

so far, the community is split because many people over at /r/bitcoin either don't know about the censorship, don't care about it or actively agree with guys doing the censoring" - fiah84

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Increasing the number of bitcoin users in the world will indirectly and directly improve network security.

"As a bitcoin network user, I desire low fees.
I also desire a network effect, and a growing userbase.

Increasing blocksize will accomplish both.
A larger userbase may also increase security. It creates a larger incentive to run nodes, use wallet services, vendor support etc.

Increasing the blocksize answers many of my desires.

Fees should be low. Number of bitcoin users should grow.
These are two things we should all agree on?

Large number of users will improve community research, resources, and incentive to improve things in the ecosystem. It will indirectly and directly improve network security.

Increasing the blocksize will lower fees per transaction, allow more transactions, and allow/attract more users. " - superconfused333

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Once SegWit is deployed

"transactions are still going to be malleable (Peter Todd review)" - blockologist

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 27 (12/07/2016):

The idea that the blocksize limit somehow keeps us safe is completely insane.

"Your posts clearly show the mental gymnastics Core supporters have to perform to pretend it makes sense. But it doesn't.

In reality technology improves (hardware + software) yet the limit stays the same. At a certain point it makes more sense to assume these people get paid to keep the blocksize limit." - seweso

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's part of their business model.

"that being to insert themselves as "middlemen" into the business of tx fees which just happen to siphon all that revenue away from miners who need it the most. that middleman position is not only as hub fee collectors but as consultants." - cypherdoc2

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

His argument points out the largest flaw of off-chain scaling. It requires trusted 3rd parties to scale.

"The Bitcoin whitepaper's abstract: "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution."" - Annapurna317

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Limiting Bitcoin to allow second layer networks to solve a similar problem is not ideal,

"it values the 2nd layer network over the social contract that gives the blockchain it's value." - Adrian-X

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

What's insane is calling a third party payment system built on top of Bitcoin

"a true scaling solution." - gold_rehypothecation

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

more people using bitcoin --> more demand for bitcoin -->

"higher bitcoin price --> more profit for miners." - FUBAR-BDHR

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

So we see BS/Core using political pressure

"to get miners to use their implementation and changes." - Adrian-X

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

300MB is a big block.

"4MB is a small block." - Jihan Wu

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Transferred some Bitcoin to my Ledger Cold Wallet 5 Days ago.

"Still 0 Confirms..." - dragger2k

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 28 (13/07/2016):

I think Jihan supports larger blacks because his degree is in economics.

"He understands that Bitcoin has lots of competitors in the market place, and we need to provide the best user experience of them all, in order to become dominant. Small blocks, high fees, long confirmation times, and high double spend risks will drive users away from Bitcoin." - MemoryDealers

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Facebook and eBay have to be large to exist because they are used by many people.

"If they didn't have a large customer base, they would not be so large. Website size is not arbitrary. Size is driven by user base, and user base is driven by utility. If something is not useful to many people it will never grow. If something refuses to grow, people will go elsewhere." - road_runner321

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

When asked why Steemit created an altcoin instead of using Bitcoin

"the answer was due to "scalability issues" (full blocks)" - blockologist

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's not just irony, it's a disgusting conflict of interest. How many people still are arguing for capping the blocksize from a pure intellectually honest standpoint?

"'Statistics, research, evidence or GTFO' should be the new bitcoin motto." - randy-lawnmole

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Somebody help me to confirm the transaction.

"https://blockchain.info/tx/d242d17388c2 ... 85e406d9af" - arruah

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Lightning and other projects with payment channels are very complex and unproven.

I hear you when you say there are three great teams working on it right now. Right now it isnt working and we dont know it will work. As an investor in Bitcoin i am supposed to agree to stake the whole future of the project on a completely new system that has never been proven in the real world? Software that hasnt been released and hasnt been tested?

How about sticking with our current system and incrementally raising the blocksize limit and monitoring the effects on the system and the latency issue? If 1mb is ok, 2mb will likely be ok, if we see negative effects then we dont raise the limit again.

With all due respect to the core developers and their programming capabilities i have not been impressed with their economic theories and prognostications. As a commodity trader for 25 years i have heard a lot of prognostications. - HRstuffnpuff

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

We are beyond pretending

keeping the limit in place is anything other than a political move at this stage. - Joloffe

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

But although I am a Core supporter

"I still think it would be awesome if we had slightly bigger blocks, maybe 4 or 8 mb." - -Hayo-

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 29 (14/07/2016):

I'm still not sure how I feel about implementing a layer over the Bitcoin network like this instead of just fixing the inherent flaws with the protocol.

"Especially when said network is being pushed by the company Blockstream which is known for shady practices." - jswny

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

why can't you face up to the fact that Blockstream is the de-facto governance body for Bitcoin? It claims it is, and you spend countless hours on the Internet trying to show the opposite.

"Cryptographic votes" - duh, that's what the Bitcoin consensus should be for. I can't fathom that somehow so deeply engaged in the project doesn't understand this most obvious fact." - bachback

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin development has been hijacked

"by Blockstream since 2014." - wellthissukz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I think he means that blocks are full and even transactions with correct fees will fail to confirm during high-volume transaction times.

"It's a flaw because users did nothing wrong yet their transaction could take hours if not days to confirm if it confirms at all.

The most simple and straightforward fix is to increase the maximum blocksize from 1MB to something larger, which many users in the space have demanded. The max-blocksize was always meant to deter spam and attacks." - ptokb3

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

At it's most basic, the Lightning network is just a way of implementing pre payment cards for Bitcoin.

"Its over engineered and over complex. Which is demonstrated by the comments here trying to explain how it works.

No one has yet been able to explain how they will prevent one central hub from developing which by economies of scale will offer the lowest cost path through the network as it will have channels setup with everyone.

Ask yourself who will operate this hub and you'll understand why people want to implement this." - hashmp

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

-Blockstream Playbook-

"Step 1: Buy off all of the top developers of open-source project. Check.

Step 2: Refuse to support/fix basic network operations so that transactions stop confirming just as the network needs to grow. Check.

Step 3: Create a 2nd-layer solution for growth that allows the company to siphon Billions of dollars over many years. Check.

Step 4: Censor any forum where people alert others about secret get-rich playbook. Check." - ptokb3

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is from the same company that has

"seized control of the development of the main Bitcoin codebase and has been making changes to cause problems that their Lightning Network claims to solve." - deftnerd