No, not even close. Just not feeling as excited about spending $3,000 to promote it in print across Monadnock, but I’m going to anyway.
1 Like
A dynamic block size could absolutely be -done-, the original code actually used a dynamic block size, but it was changed to one mb per block on fears that malicious actors would deliberately inflate the size of the blockchain to discourage full copies from being held. It’s less of a concern now, given that the blockchain is -already- over 120 gb. We’re certainly exploring different options, I think the three I’ve seen seriously floated and debated are 2mb blocks, 8 mb blocks, and dynamic blocks. A lot of the resistance to larger blocks comes from china, due to their distance from the other major nodes, they experience lag which can cause them to lose out on some of the split second determinations of which miner got the block first. But even they are starting to accept that it needs to be expanded.
Well, so it’s a technology in development. I don’t think anybody thinks Bitcoin is the final solution for crypto currencies. Lots of things can be improved. Anonymity being one of the greatest examples. I’m not giving up on Bitcoin just because it doesn’t do anonymity well… 
but I’ll support what comes next when these things develop a bit more.
Bitcoin is to cryptocurrency what Limewire was to file sharing.Very effective, but definitely something you can improve upon.
1 Like
this is what i was going to bring up with india and how they are doing this because they have banned most of their own currency denominations.
i agree with this[quote=“penguin, post:11, topic:9118”]
I’d be skeptical if the average Bitcoin user now- and especially in the future even knows what they are paying in fees.
[/quote]
i can appreciate this skepticism. i’m eager to see how this plays out[quote=“penguin, post:11, topic:9118”]
It’s useful for more than purchasing small inexpensive items. It’s a significant saver for larger items like purchasing electronics online, hotel rooms, transferring money overseas, and similar.
[/quote]
i feel that it really is a problem tho and that the market will satisfy this need. keep an eye out!
is there an opportunity cost here of not being able to establish anything that could be made into something really special utilizing micro transactions? could we be missing out? [quote=“Jacob_Migdela, post:22, topic:9118”]
the original code actually used a dynamic block size
[/quote]
i don’t know as much as i’d like about this but maybe the original coder(s) saw that it was worth the trouble and foresaw this problem
maybe whenever they see that its in their best interest to change they’ll do it… i wonder what would trigger that? could take popular publication of the evidence showing lower bitcoin adoption rates or usage or drop in value due to the transaction fees resulting from their own operations.
Also, what about future transaction fees? What if the fees just keep climbing? Could it really break or seriously diminish utility? i’m sure you guys have a better grasp than i do, what could fees look like in 5-10 years if this trend continues?
I don’t want to find out. I hope they fix it. SegWit is now turned on for over 27% of the blocks mined, so it’s moving up:
https://coin.dance/blocks
1 Like
If the fees continue to climb, it WILL diminish the utility of bitcoin, which will in turn, create downward price pressure. The miners may not necessarily care about the utility, but they DEFINITELY care about the price. They’ll react eventually and do SOMETHING to fix the fee issue.
Scrolling back in this thread, three months ago, I said a “high” fee was .001 per kB.
Now, according to https://bitcoinfees.21.co/, the recommended fee is .004 per kB.
Median fee is over .0008, or at this time over $1.35.
Ugh.
Have we seen any progress on the adoption of either solution to this problem?
Seems like no progress has been made. Maybe 1% in months now?
Yeah, that’s statistically insignificant - the % varies day by day/