Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 65 (10/09/2016):

/r/bitcoin moderators are banning people who expose and/or disagree

"the Bitcoin Uncensored hosts and their friends." - 10mmauto

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

/r/Bitcoin mods make up the rules or ridiculous rule interpretations as they suit them. My second perma-ban from there has never been explained.

"They try to hide behind "rules," but they're clearly flimsy excuses for blatant censorship." - chinawat

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

the r/bitcoin mods are a joke and should be ashamed of themselves, I had contributed to that sub for years with nothing but helpfulness.

"It's also kind of funny in a sad way that they use censorship to try to hide evidence to censorship so that people can't read others saying there is censorship." - zcc0nonA

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I just tried to send bitcoin for the first time in a year to fund my virtual card and mycelium is saying 21p for a normal fee!

"What the hell happened? All I want to do is pay for Google drive with my Wirex card (to avoid international fees from the UK). I knew fees had gone up, but I didn't realise this much!" - AgrajagPrime

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This is what happens when the blocksize is artificially limited in order to promote off chain solutions

"that don't exist yet." - Username96957364

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin fee's will only increase from here out, if you want cheaper or free transactions

"look to other coins." - evilgold

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

waiting to remove the block size limit seems stupid

"I want bitcoin to scale to 1 billion people with the ability to do 10 transaction per day, that equals 143.3GB/block or 238Mbps

I say remove the blocksize limit completely, a 1GB block would cost 600bitcoins today, go ahead and do a tx dos, the miners will be happy, 1GB/block would take 13.3Mbps

65% of the world has atleast 4Mbps, that would lead to blocks of 278.6MB " - Gaby_64

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 66 (12/09/2016):

MultiSig seemed to have failed to reach an audience beside exchanges using bitgo's wallet, because its implementation is simply unusable for most people. Even exchanges prefer to pay a fee to bitgo than building it by itself. The idea that lightning will reach a mass market after the multisig-failure

"is horribly failing to touch reality. " - CBergmann

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

all that centralization you're complaining about is the result of the 1MB cap.

" increase the blocksize to bring in more users and you will see increases in mining, merchants, and nodes." - hodls

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Economic incentives will encourage the majority if not all LN traffic to be routed through well funded and highly connected LN hubs that already have channels open to most endpoints. It’s not difficult to imagine that most of these major hubs would be run by players that have existing payment infrastructure and relationships with businesses and users.

"In this context, we see a few very vocal people want to sacrifice Bitcoin’s native potential utility and capacity to keep maintenance costs low for someone who wants to run a full node in the jungles of Costa Rica… In the name of this jungle node we accept an overlay network where nearly all “Bitcoin” traffic ends up being routed through the LN hubs of BitPay, Blockchain.info, Blockstream, Coinbase, etc. P2P cash becomes P2Hub2P scrip. The very opposite of the decentralization they claim to be protecting. It also siphons tx fees from Bitcoin’s real security providers, the miners.

We are told that Bitcoin is sick, it’s weak, it can’t handle any more use… and, surprise! Those that are saying this and steering development to artificially incentivize uptake of payment contracts just so happen to be stockholders in companies that are going to be selling you the medicine for your disease! It’d be bad if Bitcoin had a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, it’s disastrous in the fiercely competitive landscape we will face in the future. " - goatusher

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Wow! This is actually quite amazing! I had no idea that Core's transaction-generation code was so inefficient. I think this really highlights the benefit of having multiple competing implementations. Here we have a new implementation (Bitcoin Unlimited) with a culture focused on on-chain scaling, and so they find things that Core never found. Since Core wants Bitcoin to be a settlement network, their definition of "efficiency" is completely different from Unlimited's--both teams are trying to do completely different things.

"In the end this gives more choice to the end user, and choice is good!" - bitcoool

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The scaling issue is not a technical one but a political one. Not all cryptos are under

"such an issue." - knight222

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The narrative that 100s of Core contributors determine the development direction of Core and the protocol seems a bit dubious given how many regularly participate in development meetings and other open development discussions

"that the public can see." - SpiderImAlright

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I am looking forward to learning the results from BU's testing with bigger blocks

"(heard you folks are already capable of >10 MB blocks on the no-limit testnet!)" - LovelyDay

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Although Core was contemplating a hard fork to reset difficulty in this case (AFAIK Luke Jr was working on it), a better solution would be

"to allow large blocks so long block times do not result in transaction build up." - thezerg1

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Bitcoin already missed years of adoption because of this really non-issue. Who do you think has a massive interest in hindering adoption of a non-censored worldwide currency? And who is working on the cashless society,

"where you don't have a free choice which currency to use?" - satoshis_sockpuppet

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

LN doesn't address scalability. It offloads its own operations, that's all. Non-LN usage (i.e. everyone today) doesn't benefit. LN doesn't address capacity in the same way. Non-LN use cases gain no capacity increases. At best, they reclaim space that goes unused by LN use cases.

"On ramping a ton of new users and merchants into a system that doesn't have space to support existing users is just bad planning." - chernobyl169

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Lightning trades instant and / or free transactions for locked assets. What you gain in the front end,

"you lose in opportunity cost / time cost to close." - jeanduluoz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

LN is not

"a scaling solution" - Ant-n

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Peter Rizun given the boot from Core Slack

"Dr. Rizun's account has been disabled." - bitsko

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Corecensorship at it's finest.

"the Core Slack is run by BitcoinCore-dot-org so Core (Blockstream) cannot blame theymos this time and let's not forget also the main admin of the Core Slack is btcdrak, pro-scammer!" - blockologist

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Blockstream wants all non-Core devs out of their way. Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn,

"Peter Rizun..." - BiggerBlocksPlease

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 67 (13/09/2016):

"We should not change BTC to accommodate more users." - Current Bitcoin Core supporter and /r/Bitcoin moderator

"Today I was reading the chat logs from when Peter R was booted from a Core Slack channel. I could hardly believe anyone involved with Bitcoin could actually think such a thing. This seemed almost as shocking as the Core supporters at a recent Silicon Valley Bitcoin meetup telling people that they should use credit cards instead of Bitcoin for payments. I'm more than a bit stunned that Bitcoin has been partially taken over by people who think:

Bitcoin shouldn't change to accommodate more users.

People should be using credit cards instead of Bitcoin.

This is madness!" - MemoryDealers

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Could it be malice

"instead of madness?" - chriswilmer

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

This pretty much sums up my opinion too. It's obvious that some are ringleaders that simply do not believe in Bitcoin as a fully decentralised system, but are hell bent on systematically destroying it if there's a chance they can turn it into a profit making exercise.

"instead of madness?" - ferretinjapan

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Its indeed odd, I recently had a discussion with someone that was convinced growing too fast was going to be devastating to those that have a full node. I explained how you really don't need that much bandwidth.

"Yet, he continued pushing." - ThomasZander

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

constantly loosing market shares

"until finally being left in the dust." - knight222

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

A central committee fighting for decentralization by limiting the number of users of a good?

"Hmmm." - SeemedGood

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Once you realize that BlockstreamCore are actually out to destroy bitcoin then you will get it. However they will be unsuccessful in destroying Crypto , no Alt-coin dev. team will allow these toxic people

"anywhere near their coins." - the-goat-herder

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's obvious bitcoin has been hijacked by poeple not holding any bitcoin at all.

"What's less obvious is why miners are still blindly following them." - knight222