Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Only when you stop caring, will they win. Only when people stop fighting and resisting will they win. The only thing they have won is this particular battle.

"Work to provide a better environment in the fork code. Entice them with cool ideas and implementations that they can sink their teeth into. Developers love a good elegant problem and solution." - cm18

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

They haven't won. Miners are not powerful, they only control the order of blocks on valid chains. Changes in the protocol always results in 'forks' its just most of these forks are not controversial.

"We can fork anytime we want ... the users control bitcoin not Chinese Miners, people just haven't quite realized this I think." - Spartan3123

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

There's going to be a change soon

"and it'll happen without Core." - JacobElProdigy

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

If this is how they are going to keep playing then the only solution IMO is to out-compete them, take away the market share that they think they deserve.

"As long as the majority hash rate remains this group of buddies in China they are just going to keep pissing around. Now if only I had a few million $ to start a big mining operation..." - cryptonaut420

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The current Blockstream version of Bitcoin is going to die just like Slashdot. That is, it's not going to die, just remain so small that it's going to be forever irrelevant.

"Slashdot was biggest and dominated the 1990's with their fantastic "millions of users". But then Digg ate their lunch. And then Reddit ate Digg's lunch. Today Reddit has about 250 million monthly active users, and Slashdot still 1-5 million users." - todu

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Eric Mu of HaoBTC, one of the most influential, if not the decisive, mining entity in the blocksize debate, stated today that most miners did not care about the blocksize question and those who do can easily collude/conspire, are easily alienated or cajoled or…. much more shockingly,

"are intimidated." - Andrew Quentson

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

They don't care about people who are actually using Bitcoin for commerce

"at all." - MemoryDealers

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

At this point, you have to assume the worst.

"Allowing an officer of the company to run around acting like Greg has is a signal of something far more malicious." - SWt006hij

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I bought an 130$ gift card with bitcoins and havent received anything.

"Its been 30 hours already, anyone else experienced this kind of problem" - randoma252

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Is a centralized, VC funded, for-profit company really influencing Bitcoin protocol code by hiring core developers

"or is that FUD?" - BitttBurger

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A conflict of interest is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise,

"one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization." - Future_Me_FromFuture

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes, unfortunately at this point Bitcoin's development is controlled by Blockstream.

"Blockstream claims benevolence, but that "benevolence" includes no longer listening to the demands of a majority of users for a modest max-block size increase. That benevolence also includes turning Bitcoin into a settlement network rather than keeping the peer-to-peer electronic cash vision directly on-chain." - Annapurna317

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Trust the charts.

"If you were managing Bitcoin, and new users couldn't come onto your system because it can't handle anymore transaction volume (block size limits the number of transactions in a block), and you had an incredibly easy fix staring you right in the face that's literally a few lines of code to change a config setting, would you change it from 1000000 to 2000000?

I sure as hell would.

So ask yourself, why hasn't Blockstream, who pays the developers who contribute most to bitcoin core, made this simple change a priority?" - 10mmauto

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is the exact moral hazard at play here. They are a for-profit company with a runway, and thus a deadline when they need to be making money.

"IMO we cannot allow this kind of moral hazard in the guiding hand of bitcoin. You're correct, we should accept help from everywhere, but the reference implementation should not be from a for-profit private company." - Polycephal_Lee

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 57 (30/08/2016):

Transaction not confirming

"Hey all, I'm hoping you all might have some advice. So I have about 4 coins in a wallet I have been using for the last 4 years for mining proceeds. I just got a Trezor and am trying to relocate those coins to the Trezor wallet. I'm using Multibit classic, and am trying to send out that coin, but the network isn't relaying the transaction. The last couple of times I sent it out with a .003 fee, and nothing." - Stagetek

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

who wants to wait for an hour or more for a transaction to confirm when 0-conf in person was beyond minimal risk

"it would be even more dangerous in the future to conduct in person transactions with the threat of RBF reversing the transaction" - DaSpawn

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

forking will allow changes and bring vibrancy--

"it will allow Bitcoin to out-evolve the altcoins." - almutasim

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The only solution I can come up with is to now attempt to convince a digital currency exchange to carry Joe's fork and label it as a new asset. All existing holders of Bitcoin would hold the same amount of this asset at the point of fork.

"Now the entire market of users has an opportunity to vote on the merit of Joe's change. The result may either be: (1) Mostly everyone sells the new asset and it's clear that the market sees no value in the change or (2) on the contrary, nearly everyone sells their Bitcoin in favor of buying more of the new asset. And there's possibility (3) where some people see value in Joe's change and some don't and users go their separate ways-- some now preferring to purchase and transact in the new asset representing Joe's change while others reject it." - SpiderImAlright

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 58 (31/08/2016):

blockscheme core seems to be nothing more than a

"venture capital scam" - paulh691

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I think Gmaxwell is completely full of shit

"and a complete sellout." - fat_tony555

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Perhaps the judgement of the experts ought to be questioned, ever so slightly.

"I imagine it would be if their opinions were not so well aligned with financial gain for those who support them." - Piper67

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I agree:

"the one megabyte block size is causing irreparable harm" - markkerpeles

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I refuse to trust a monetary system that is so influenced by a disproportionate

"and unreasonablely few guys." - SWt006hij

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It is too important to leave it in the hands of blockstream ilk,

"unless you purposefully want to destroy it." - size_matterz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I thought Bitcoin was supposed to be about distributed consensus with no central authority,

"and you are completely acting like a central authority, so which is it already? " - DaSpawn

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Genuinely don't understand how you can draft the long-term roadmap for the Bitcoin protocol then claim that you have no control.

"It seems incongruous to me. Is my logic broken or yours?" - SpiderImAlright

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A big company stands to make a lot of money if they can manage to slow the development of a new technology so that they can sell their "version" of it instead.

"In order to make their product look better they need to make the competing technology look bad or unusable, they do this mostly by paying people to argue their side for them in internet chat rooms. To further stifle development of the new competing technology, they offer fake solutions to the problems they have been pushing for in the internet chat rooms." - StolenEther

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A scam

"The reason it can scam most of the user is because almost no one understand it: Even the one give lectures about segwit often list wrong conceptions. Given a such complex set of code and logic, most of the uses can either blindly listen to the core devs or refuse it, there is no way they can understand it by their own research and reasoning in a reasonable time frame ( 2 years )

This is very common strategy in large IT enterprise, called technical politics: Using extremely complex solutions to gain political advantage, because it is so complex, who made it can describe it as whatever they want and gain user support

You can easily see that those who support segwit are those who are most illiterate of bitcoin protocol level design" - vattenj

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Transaction unconfirmed for 14 hours

"Hello everyone,

Yesterday I made a purchase with bitcoins. The only problem is that it doesn't get confirmed and my coins are somewhere in limbo.

Did I just lost my coins for ever now?

Thanks for any help.

here is the transaction in the blockchain: https://blockchain.info/en/tx/03f074244 ... eb7cc2d7a8
" - Loupland

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin pending and not showing in blockchain.

"Hello i need help.

I sent a transaction but now after around 10 hours its still pending. Some data about my transaction:

Btc: 105.5803 mbtc Fee:0.2 mbtc I use electrum

Its also not showing up in the blockchain or blockexplorer.

Is there a way to fix it. I googled all over the place and found no solution." - __todaywasagoodday