7 ms·

We've already got a 2x block-size/capacity increase in the form of SegWit. > increase the block size, but unfortunately Bitcoin Core developers refuse to do it

We've already got a 2x block-size/capacity increase in the form of SegWit. > increase the block size, but unfortunately Bitcoin Core developers refuse to do it This is simply untrue.

alanfalcon 9y ago
That’s not true at all in practice. If it were then we’d be seeing 2x as many transactions confirming after SegWit went live (we’re not).
- warbiscuit 9y ago
  Segwit was a soft-fork upgrade. It only takes effect if you move to a Segwit compatible wallet and send from there. Which tells me people don't actually care enough, or they'd be doing that. Which makes me wonder about the validity of the majority of the complaints.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    Maybe because nobody's using Bitcoin as a currency and it's all speculation. Currencies actually get used for transactions...
    - phaemon 9y ago
      That's an interesting theory, considering this story is about someone using Bitcoin for a transaction. EDIT: it's Friday, be nicer me
    - warbiscuit 9y ago
      That doesn't fit. Per bitinfocharts.com the coin with the highest txn rate is Ethereum, followed closely by Bitcoin. The others are far behind. I'd say it's seeing a lot of use.
- nadaviv 9y ago
  The capacity was increased (more than doubled). Now its a matter of utilizing this new capacity by upgrading to SegWit-supporting wallets. Note that upgrading your own wallet to SegWit immediately saves you about 50% on mining fees, regardless of whether other network participants upgraded or not.
cryptodogemoon 9y ago
What? The core developers (employed by Blockstream) have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB in order to support the product they're attempting to develop (lightening network layers) which lets them facilitate federated payment processors siphoning fees out. It's a red herring to claim larger blocks increase centralization when it's just data storage. Drives are cheap. Centralization already happened once sha256 ASIC hardware was produced enmasse, preventing normal users from earning block rewards. The Bitcoin devs are lost in political dogmas, rather than improving the software for users. Thankfully there's alternative iterations.
- johnvonneumann 9y ago
  Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman. There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block. Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core. Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business. Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik) Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions. The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line. Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.
  - ericb 9y ago

We've already got a 2x block-size/capacity increase in the form of SegWit. > increase the block size, but unfortunately Bitcoin Core developers refuse to do it This is simply untrue.

alanfalcon 9y ago

That’s not true at all in practice. If it were then we’d be seeing 2x as many transactions confirming after SegWit went live (we’re not).

warbiscuit 9y ago
Segwit was a soft-fork upgrade. It only takes effect if you move to a Segwit compatible wallet and send from there. Which tells me people don't actually care enough, or they'd be doing that. Which makes me wonder about the validity of the majority of the complaints.
- Daishiman 9y ago
  Maybe because nobody's using Bitcoin as a currency and it's all speculation. Currencies actually get used for transactions...
  - phaemon 9y ago
    That's an interesting theory, considering this story is about someone using Bitcoin for a transaction. EDIT: it's Friday, be nicer me
  - warbiscuit 9y ago
    That doesn't fit. Per bitinfocharts.com the coin with the highest txn rate is Ethereum, followed closely by Bitcoin. The others are far behind. I'd say it's seeing a lot of use.
nadaviv 9y ago
The capacity was increased (more than doubled). Now its a matter of utilizing this new capacity by upgrading to SegWit-supporting wallets. Note that upgrading your own wallet to SegWit immediately saves you about 50% on mining fees, regardless of whether other network participants upgraded or not.

cryptodogemoon 9y ago

What? The core developers (employed by Blockstream) have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB in order to support the product they're attempting to develop (lightening network layers) which lets them facilitate federated payment processors siphoning fees out. It's a red herring to claim larger blocks increase centralization when it's just data storage. Drives are cheap. Centralization already happened once sha256 ASIC hardware was produced enmasse, preventing normal users from earning block rewards. The Bitcoin devs are lost in political dogmas, rather than improving the software for users. Thankfully there's alternative iterations.

johnvonneumann 9y ago
Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman. There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block. Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core. Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business. Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik) Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions. The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line. Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.
- ericb 9y ago