...
Hmm... From what I know scaling bitcoin on the number of visa tx for example would need blocks of 80GB.
If you do it simply by rising block size.

Can someone explain why people are complaining about the ability to send any amount of money anywhere in the world in about an hour without having to ask a middleman for permission?

Gonna have to explain that one a bit clearer.

That is not how fee markets work , there are upper limits to how much spammers and users will spend on fees. My wallets adjust just fine and insure I always get in the next block.

Either you want btc to be able to scale high tx numbers, either you don't. But just rising blocksize is nothing but an emergency measure.

Correct, We should limit on chain tx's ... this isn't a secret or anything to be ashamed about. The main chain necessarily needs to be treated as a settlement network for payment channels. ...

What do you mean by a transaction? It's still instant, and confirms are as they always have been for me.

Can someone explain why people are complaining about the ability to send any amount of money anywhere in the world in about an hour without having to ask a middleman for permission?

Core developers have been clear about this. We can't handle all these transactions. Because maths. We have to learn to share now.

Make that 20% in 4 min.

<> If Bitcoin loses the property of being The One True Crypto Money, it is just one other in a sea of competing currencies. A sea of competing currencies, with new ones created at will, can not ever be non-inflationary. <>

Me too - and absolutely love seeing them crash and burn. Like ETH does now. Magnificento!

It's the wet dream for many that buying bitcoin will finally make them rich, without the necessary work and skill that is regularly needed to earn riches.
There are those who are attracted to the technical innovation part, and there are those who are attracted to the easy riches part. The last type is especially excited about the "inflationary" part.

<>
Paypal does 228bn USD. At that point we've already "scaled" financially past Paypal with our "pitiful" 9 tx/s, and with fees being at ridiculous costs like 0.02-0.05$.

Don't underestimate the scaling of value transacted. It's a very important side of scaling.

Not the dream - the promise. Hence 21M.


You describe the properties of a deflationary money. Again, the promise. If currency units are created willy-nilly, there is inherently inflation. You're speaking against yourself.

Yes, I do. i do not want my store of value to lose value over time. As do most rational people.

protip: Currency is not wealth. 'Stuff' is wealth. The amount of 'Stuff' in existence, plus created, is not determined by the amount of currency units. As more and more currency units chase after the same amount of 'Stuff', each currency unit buys less 'Stuff'.

I posit to you that for the majority of Bitcoiners, the 21M cap figures very heavily in their decision to get involved.

The quota is a given due to hardware and software limitations. It's not like right now you can remove the 1mb limit and you'll be successfully mining 20-100-1000mb blocks. It can't happen. That's the reality of it. So you make the best use of what you have. That's how all technologies evolve.

In the 90's, when email started getting traction, as soon as people had a few kb / a few mb mailboxes, mailbombing begun as an attack vector. You could literally clog one's email address, making it unable to receive any email because you simply carbon copied the same email 100 or 1000 times, or put a small attachment and sent it 10 times. If people were as "bitchy" back then, they would be saying "oh what's this crap with this email thing, this can never work, it's DOA, it can't scale" etc etc.
<snip>

Where do you see centrally planned production quota? Core devs are Benito Mussolini is a part of the free-market supply-and-demand model.

Initially it might have started uncapped - I actually remember having one that was uncapped, although I didn't use that one - until they had to impose the few kbytes limits due to practical considerations.


...as technology allowed it.

<>
No. Instant means instant. I pay my VPN in bitcoin and I don't have to wait an hour, or a minute, or more than two seconds for the purchase to punch through.

Everywhere! Only extremely naive people think that a manufacturer of certain product or service don't have to plan their production in a free market economy.

Okay so you have decided that anything I say that goes against your world view is a lie. Good to know.

@Bitusher I'm glad you enjoyed your little experiment. Can we up the block size limit now and keep this kind of crap on the testnet from now on?

Always another pump with these altcoiners ...

Sorry I don't read German so I didn't understand anything in your article.

Why are you talking about German banks going bankrupt?

Quadruple means large action coming up? Like, a price rise? So mid next week something happens finally?

What civil war? There is no civil war. Bitcoin is cleaning itself from

Good thing about the blocksize debate is that node count is increasing.
At 7000 nodes now, compared to about 5000 nodes a month ago.

Agreed. Anyone still worried about block size or "scaling bitcoin" is simply not diversified enough.

Any one of those projects could fail, nothing is certain, which is why you hear about eggs and baskets and all that.

Even if some core members don't want a blocksize larger than 1mb, the core development plan has a Segwit rollout in a couple of months, with an effective 1.7mb (or more - depending the use) capacity.

Right now we are at 0.74mb avg blocksize, so at ~1.7mb we are looking at something like 120% upgrade (or more for certain uses) - despite the fact that current fees are still ridiculously low.

And some are like "ohh something needs to get done"....

the first one?
...
the one where they pretended to reach consensus


I remember, i was  saying " take notice of poeple speaking out against the consensus, it's likely they are stupid "

the next day Amstrong had a blog post.

vague?

segwit asap ( probably may ) and 2MB HF about 1 year later.

I've done a lot of localbitcoins transactions, both as a buyer and as a seller, and I've never had an issue.  I take a few precautions, but so far they've never been necessary.

Typically, the localbitcoins transaction escrow is funded before we meet.

My preference is to meet in a public place (such as a fast food restaurant or coffee house).  I try to arrive earlier than the agreed time, and sit inside as far from any exit as I can, with my back to the wall so I can see who is entering, and which door they enter from. This allows me to see if the other party arrives alone or with a friend, and what direction he is likely to exit. It also means that the other party will have a distance to cover to get out which may allow me to chase, or shout, or gather information about them and their vehicle. In situations with a large amount of cash, I've had a friend come along with me and asked that friend to sit next to the most likely exit. I usually will buy a beverage from the business I am meeting in, and have it at the table with me.

It is important to remember though, that your health, and life are far more valuable than any amount of money you might lose.  If at any time before the transaction you feel concerned for your safety, you should just call it off and make other arrangements with someone else.  If, during or after the transaction, the other party becomes threatening or engages in any activity that risks your health or life (such as pulling out a knife or a gun) you and any friend you bring along should be prepared to just walk away and let the thief keep what they've taken.

Once we meet, my preference is:
The seller gets their mobile device ready to send the transaction while the buyer counts out the money for the seller to see that it's all there.  The buyer leaves the money on the table in view of the seller.  The seller then releases the escrow to the buyer and asks the buyer to confirm that they've received it.  Once the buyer confirms they've received the released escrow, the seller removes the cash from the table and re-counts it themselves in view of the buyer.  When both parties are satisfied that they've received what is due to them, they thank each other for a smooth and easy transaction and go their separate ways.  I typically remain at my seat and continue to sip at my beverage. It is obvious that I plan to finish my beverage before leaving, or if it happens to come up in conversation I mention that I'm going to finish my beverage and possibly order some food. This allows me to wait for the other party to leave and be comfortable that I'm not going to be followed when I leave.

Note that there can be variations to this scenario. There is no "standard" or "official" way of completing the transaction.  You'll need to be flexible enough to deal with any modifications.  For example, some people are uncomfortable with leaving cash sitting out on a table in public.  They may expect the cash to be exchanged discreetly.  Others might require you to complete your side of the transaction before they are willing to complete their side.  You might arrive and find that the other party is already there. Some people refuse to use the localbitcoins escrow service and will want to send or receive bitcoins directly.  You'll need to decide for yourself if someone's requirements are acceptable to you, and if not then find someone else to exchange with.

Note that, the business you are meeting at probably has more than $500 in their cash registers and office.  So, if the other party is going to use a weapon to try to get away with your cash, they can get a lot more for the exact same risk to themselves buy stealing from the business instead of you.  The other party also risks you contacting the police and being able to identify them, and they risk you leaving feedback on their localbitcoins account explaining to all future potential victims what happened.

Some risks to be aware of...

It is possible for a seller to pretend not to arrive and instead wait outside for you to leave. They now have a victim that they can wait for, knowing that you are carrying at least the specified amount of cash.  When you leave they can use a weapon to steal from you before you get to your vehicle, or they can discretely follow you and use a weapon to steal from you when you get to a less populated location (such as your house?).

If a seller sends directly to your wallet instead of using the localbitcoins escrow, it is possible for them to create a transaction that will take hours (or even days) to confirm.  They might do this on accident if they are using a poorly written wallet, or they might do it on purpose with the intention of attempting to invalidate the transaction later (before it confirms).  In either case, it can be difficult to agree on what should be done about this.  If possible, it may be a good idea to have an agreement ahead of time as to what will happen if the transaction doesn't confirm before either of you want to leave.

If a seller uses localbitcoins escrow, it is possible that they could fund the escrow but the localbitcoins service is down at the time of the transaction. It can be difficult to agree on what should be done about this.  If possible, it may be a good idea to have an agreement ahead of time as to what will happen if escrow is funded but localbitcoins is unavailable at the time of the transaction.

"Some lose yet gain, others gain and yet lose."
               — Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

< >
Zero cost txs / near zero cost txs => bring zero-cost abuse or near-zero cost abuse.

When that happens => cost to transact increases to bypass the abuser's queue.

Doesn't that automatically stop it from being bitcoin any more?

Anyone can activate a script and broadcast millions of transactions. When the cost to transact is near zero, the cost to spam the system tends to near zero as well. This means that the transaction backlog is to be expected under these circumstances and it won't change whether the blocksize is 1mb or 1gb - as long as people can spam it for free or near-zero cost.

Too much politics. Is there some technical reason we can't have both bigger blocks and better blocks? Is this more than jockeying for power?

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attribute a claim to me that I am not making.  Most people, including myself, seem to believe that some kind of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place down the road (the extent to which the time-line for such capacity increase is foreseeble seems somewhat speculative).

I don't know.   You seem to be attempting to attempt to attribute a claim to me that I am not attempting to make, and/or have attempted to make in the past or am in the process of currently making.  Had i have attempted to make such claim, which you are attempting to attribute to me, to wit that we will need greater transaction capacity in the foreseeable future, which as stated previously, I have not attempted to make, nor am likely to make in the foreseeable future, my line of argument would be quite unlike the one to be pursued below, i.e the one i find fitting to pursue in light of your nasty and manipulative misinterpretation of my intended claim, which, as I believe I have conclusively conveyed, was not the claim that i have attempted to make.

Most people, including myself, i.e. I and many, though not all, people who are not myself, or, in layman's terms "the others," of whom there are more than one or several, and, implicitly, significantly more than one, that is up to as many as all, though I'm not attempting to imply that all the people concur with the claim which I have not made, thou such an claim would be justifiable, nay, almost begging, though make such a claim which you are attempting to attribute to me I have not made, seem to believe that some kind or another of increased blocksize limit is going to have to take place, or rather, will be appropriate, down the road (the extent to which the time-line, that is to say the time dimension of the space-time continuum, which accounts for sequentuality and temporaity of the topic at hand by allowing flux in the system that, otherwise, would be doomed to the stasis of pure persistance, which is to say "our world as we know it," for such capacity increase is foreseeble, in as much as anything could be said to be foreseeable to a predictable degree of certitude, seems somewhat, albeit not altogether, speculative).

It surely seems that greater transaction capacity is going to be needed at some point, because it is anticipated that bitcoin is going to continue to grow.  

At this point, Seg wit is in the works and it is getting closer and closer to implementation (so it seems), and there are various plans to consider the extent to which additional increases to capacity are going to be needed after seg wit is brought live.  

So, yeah, seems pretty likely that increased users and increased transactions are going to cause for increased needs for larger block size limits.  

At this point, it does not seem to be an emergency as it is made out to be, except for a bunch of loud mouths making the problem out to be greater than it really is.  That is part of the problem.. too much whining about a supposed, alleged and speculative problem that doesn't really exist beyond the attempts at fabricating such and other innocent people seeming to believe such fabrications and the loud mouths rather than actual..

Even though there is some truth that down the road there are likely going to need to be various expansions to capacity, the matter is not as urgent and dire as it is made out to be, and no one is really arguing that expansions will never be needed.  Those are kinds of strawmen arguments to suggest that core advocates do not believe that a blocksize increase will be needed down the road.

Bitcoin is not a business.

...
If Bitcoin "can't scale", with given network parameters intact since 2010, then perhaps someone can answer me how did it climb from a few dollars per day in transactions in 2010 to doing 150-230 million USD per day? It would seem impossible if we heard all the trolls.

And why is it that it can still scale from 200 million per day to 2 billion USD per day, doing over 600 billion USD per year and getting a volume that exceeds paypal and western union, multiplied by two (!), without even increasing the basic system by 1 transaction per second?

I did not read all of your rewriting of my sentences because it seems like a complete waste of time because it really boils down to a childish form of an ad hominem attack.  

Don't you have better things to do with your time?  

O.k.. yep, the job of a troller is to attack and to distract with non-sense, and I suppose in that regard you are attempting to earn your money with such efforts?  

And, since you are getting paid for these kinds of trolling efforts (hopefully you get paid well, maybe ?? I hope.  Is it by the post or by the hour or a salary?  

I imagine you are getting paid by the post (in BTC how ironic), maybe .01 or more BTC per post? or some other rate,... I'm kind of guessing the rate.  The best paying signature campaigns receive around .0015 per posts, yet the best paying ones explicitly require that posters do not spam or troll, and even the best paying signature campaigns are not going to bring anywhere near enough money to live (maybe .2BTC or so per month).  Even if you live in some very cheap place, you need to be able to make 1 BTC per month or so to live, no?  I suppose it could be a supplemental income too, even with all your creative efforts?

Since you are getting paid for your distracting efforts, then I suppose, there is some kind of value.  In this regard, you get paid and your employer gets some of the value of your efforts as part of the troll/shill team.  I hope that you are making at least a couple of BTC per month for your attempts (before you get banned).

You are a newbie, and amongst some of the evidence of you being a troll or paid shill: 1) you coming into the conversation as if you know everyone (and I don't give a shit about your supposed cover story that you have been reading the forum for years, blah blah blah), < snip >

... CPU, and ram requirements will also grow requiring a 30 usd a month or 40 usd month VPN.
...

1) 10-28% theft from capital gains taxes that
2) Theft from a exwife, expartner mandated by a judge
3) theft from asset forfeiture

So it's actually Satoshi & Nakamoto?  

I've been saying it wrong all this time? Why didn't anyone forward the memo to me, you complete load of bastards.

if there is technical merit to risk segwit
there is technical merit to risk 2MB.

infact Core says it themselves there is technical merit to risk BOTH.

...
leverage is not useful for me
i have money in the bank and bitcoins in my pocket

What I\m writing below is hardly a novel ...

C'mon...don't be so lazy.
https://github.com/bitsquare/bitsquare/releases

...
You can use SEPA, OKpay, etc. The exchange is just starting, but it has lots of potential. At least, it is impossible to take down.

1) The bitcoins are programmed to be released only when two of three people agree that the money has been received.
2) When the money gets to your bank account you and the buyer release your coins.
3) If you lie about it, the buyer and a random aribitrator release your coins.

Not sure that I would trust it...  but seems legit.

...
2 days later my bank calls me and says the person's account that sent me the money was hacked and that they needed to refund the 180 euro. Nothing I could do at that point.

... chargebacks are possible with e-Bay and yet things work. ...

Last months pump had to end in one way or another. Was there any delicate information or coins stolen?