7 ms·

Bitcoin core needs to raise the blocksize, the transaction fees are too high and the delays are way too long. If eventually the lightning network works as good

Bitcoin core needs to raise the blocksize, the transaction fees are too high and the delays are way too long. If eventually the lightning network works as good as they claim it will they can always lower it later. I don't believe a majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5. But the core developers are holding the bitcoin's github hostage, along with many of the websites and forums.

ryanlol 9y ago
>I don't believe a majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5 You might be right, but keep in mind that there's also a significant chunk of people mostly sending amounts in the tens of thousands. $5 doesn't feel like very much then.
- fosap 9y ago
  But you can't order Pizza (or drugs) with Bitcoin anymore. And I don't see much of use case of a currency that can't do that. Without adoption a fiat currency like bitcoin is not worth anything. Even gold can do that better.
  - wolco 9y ago
    Why would 5 extra dollars stop drug purchases or pizza? It cost 7 dollars extra to get just eats or ubereats to deliver food which doesn't many.
    - CryptoPunk 9y ago
      And this is a perfect example of the disconnect that is behind the current problems in the Bitcoin community. Why would 5 extra dollars matter for a pizza purchase? Are you kidding?
    - pandler 9y ago
      Delivery services charge for value added services. We are talking about payment processing fees. For someone making minimum wage in the US, that $5 is on the order of 40 minutes of labor just to make a single payment. That's simply not viable.
      - tom_mellior 9y ago
        True, but someone on the minimum wage is not the current target of businesses that accept Bitcoin. Their target market is more likely techies, probably reasonably well paid, and in particular with Bitcoin holdings that have appreciated over time. For these people, $5 may not be a big deal, and in particular it may be an even lesser deal since it's not priced in dollars but in Bitcoin. If my Bitcoins have appreciated tenfold since I bought them, that $5 fee suddenly corresponds to only $.50 that I put in in terms of dollars. Also, such people are interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed in the long term, and supporting the network with fees, even such high ones, is one way of contributing towards that. If you want, you can see Bitcoin's "value added services" as supporting real-world use, which supports a high price for the Bitcoins you bought for cheap. So... fitting squarely into the stereotype sketched above, I don't mind that much paying a few dollars for ordering a couple of pizzas. My problem (as mentioned in a cousin comment) is the annoying unpredictability of the fees.
        UncleMeat 9y ago
        Techie here. Paid well. If I have the choice to pay $15 for a pizza with a credit card and $20 for a pizza with BTC I will choose the credit card every time.
        tom_mellior 9y ago
        Good for you. If I have the choice to pay $15 for a pizza with a credit card and $0 for a pizza with BTC I bought a long time ago at 1/500th of their current value, I'll factor in several things.
        davrosthedalek 9y ago
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- taysic 9y ago
  Just a note - about 60% of Bitcoin addresses have less than $60 in them: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... As fees get higher, those addresses become unspendable.
tom_mellior 9y ago
> I don't believe a majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5. I can't speak for others, but above all I would want the costs to be predictable. There is no reasonable way to divine transaction fees at the moment. BitPay certainly doesn't help. They handle the payments for most sites where I sometimes pay in Bitcoin. After submitting a payment they'll show a page saying "we saw your transaction, but the fees you specified seem pretty low". That's not helpful. What would be helpful would be to tell me before I pay how much they recommend as fee. If it's $5, I may be willing to pay it if I'm sure that will placate the BitPay gods.
- sbenitoj 9y ago
  Check this fee estimator: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/
  - tom_mellior 9y ago
    Thanks, that looks nicer than others I have seen.
keypusher 9y ago
I used to believe this too, but not anymore. High transactions fees and slow times are a problem, but increasing the blocksize is not the answer. BTC can currently process 7 tx/second with 1mb blocks. If you double the block size, you get to 14 tx/s, it scales linearly. PayPal processes ~150 tx/s, Visa processes ~5000 tx/s, and can burst up to 50k tx/s. This is orders of magnitude off, and would require scaling blocks up to 1GB. By setting the precedent that increasing blocksize is the answer to slow transactions, you open the door to a future where only a very limited number of powerful entities can afford to run a full node, which brings you right back to a centralized currency. In order to scale BTC, it basically needs to move to off-chain transactions or some other new tech. The devs know this, they want fast transactions too, but they don't want to risk centralization to get there. > they can always lower it later I don't think this is true. Once you have blocks on the chain greater than 1mb, those blocks must be valid forever. That means protocol must support new blocksize forever.
- steveeq1 9y ago
  Can't you just increase blocksize to 2-4 megabytes for now until a more scalable long term solution comes into play (segwit)? Sounds like a "best of both worlds" solution.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Increasing the blocksize for now will have the effect of postponing any more scalable solution.
    - steveeq1 9y ago
      How?
      - marcosdumay 9y ago
        The same way that a temporary solution postpones any definitive solution of any problem. Every time. And, as the GP pointed out, the sum of practical temporary solutions will have a very bad long-term effect. Of course, that doesn't mean that anybody will change course.

ryanlol 9y ago

>I don't believe a majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5 You might be right, but keep in mind that there's also a significant chunk of people mostly sending amounts in the tens of thousands. $5 doesn't feel like very much then.

fosap 9y ago
But you can't order Pizza (or drugs) with Bitcoin anymore. And I don't see much of use case of a currency that can't do that. Without adoption a fiat currency like bitcoin is not worth anything. Even gold can do that better.
- wolco 9y ago
  Why would 5 extra dollars stop drug purchases or pizza? It cost 7 dollars extra to get just eats or ubereats to deliver food which doesn't many.
  - CryptoPunk 9y ago
    And this is a perfect example of the disconnect that is behind the current problems in the Bitcoin community. Why would 5 extra dollars matter for a pizza purchase? Are you kidding?
  - pandler 9y ago
    Delivery services charge for value added services. We are talking about payment processing fees. For someone making minimum wage in the US, that $5 is on the order of 40 minutes of labor just to make a single payment. That's simply not viable.
    - tom_mellior 9y ago
      True, but someone on the minimum wage is not the current target of businesses that accept Bitcoin. Their target market is more likely techies, probably reasonably well paid, and in particular with Bitcoin holdings that have appreciated over time. For these people, $5 may not be a big deal, and in particular it may be an even lesser deal since it's not priced in dollars but in Bitcoin. If my Bitcoins have appreciated tenfold since I bought them, that $5 fee suddenly corresponds to only $.50 that I put in in terms of dollars. Also, such people are interested in seeing Bitcoin succeed in the long term, and supporting the network with fees, even such high ones, is one way of contributing towards that. If you want, you can see Bitcoin's "value added services" as supporting real-world use, which supports a high price for the Bitcoins you bought for cheap. So... fitting squarely into the stereotype sketched above, I don't mind that much paying a few dollars for ordering a couple of pizzas. My problem (as mentioned in a cousin comment) is the annoying unpredictability of the fees.
      - UncleMeat 9y ago
        Techie here. Paid well. If I have the choice to pay $15 for a pizza with a credit card and $20 for a pizza with BTC I will choose the credit card every time.
        tom_mellior 9y ago
        Good for you. If I have the choice to pay $15 for a pizza with a credit card and $0 for a pizza with BTC I bought a long time ago at 1/500th of their current value, I'll factor in several things.
        davrosthedalek 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
taysic 9y ago
Just a note - about 60% of Bitcoin addresses have less than $60 in them: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.... As fees get higher, those addresses become unspendable.

tom_mellior 9y ago

> I don't believe a majority of the holders or users want transactions costing $5. I can't speak for others, but above all I would want the costs to be predictable. There is no reasonable way to divine transaction fees at the moment. BitPay certainly doesn't help. They handle the payments for most sites where I sometimes pay in Bitcoin. After submitting a payment they'll show a page saying "we saw your transaction, but the fees you specified seem pretty low". That's not helpful. What would be helpful would be to tell me before I pay how much they recommend as fee. If it's $5, I may be willing to pay it if I'm sure that will placate the BitPay gods.

sbenitoj 9y ago
Check this fee estimator: https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  Thanks, that looks nicer than others I have seen.

keypusher 9y ago

I used to believe this too, but not anymore. High transactions fees and slow times are a problem, but increasing the blocksize is not the answer. BTC can currently process 7 tx/second with 1mb blocks. If you double the block size, you get to 14 tx/s, it scales linearly. PayPal processes ~150 tx/s, Visa processes ~5000 tx/s, and can burst up to 50k tx/s. This is orders of magnitude off, and would require scaling blocks up to 1GB. By setting the precedent that increasing blocksize is the answer to slow transactions, you open the door to a future where only a very limited number of powerful entities can afford to run a full node, which brings you right back to a centralized currency. In order to scale BTC, it basically needs to move to off-chain transactions or some other new tech. The devs know this, they want fast transactions too, but they don't want to risk centralization to get there. > they can always lower it later I don't think this is true. Once you have blocks on the chain greater than 1mb, those blocks must be valid forever. That means protocol must support new blocksize forever.

steveeq1 9y ago
Can't you just increase blocksize to 2-4 megabytes for now until a more scalable long term solution comes into play (segwit)? Sounds like a "best of both worlds" solution.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Increasing the blocksize for now will have the effect of postponing any more scalable solution.
  - steveeq1 9y ago
    How?
    - marcosdumay 9y ago
      The same way that a temporary solution postpones any definitive solution of any problem. Every time. And, as the GP pointed out, the sum of practical temporary solutions will have a very bad long-term effect. Of course, that doesn't mean that anybody will change course.