Quote from: AlexGR on August 20, 2015, 01:27:39 PM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 12:54:30 PM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 20, 2015, 11:25:24 AM

Quote from: Norway on August 20, 2015, 10:45:11 AM

So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.

There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.

Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?

Bitcoin is both store of value and a service. And the service has a cost/reward ratio when using it.

My mailman has a certain limit of how many letters or packages he can deliver per hour. However the postal costs prevent companies from mailing millions of spam envelopes, and, indirectly asking my local mailman to deliver 10.000 spam envelopes per hour. Thus snail mail is used when the cost/reward ratio is adequate for the one who is using it.

I need to pay 0.60 euro, for a simple envelope that will be delivered in the same city I live - even if it's the house next door. Why shouldn't I pay a few cents for transferring 10 btc / 2300$ - when a wire transfer would take tens of dollars?

If I want to move around 0.05$, and the fee is too big, it's ok - I won't do it. That's what real life is all about. Compromises. When you want to send money to a friend through paypal (using CC), paypal charges 70 cents, whether it's 1$, or 10$, or 100-1000$. It's apparent that in the case of 1$ you won't even consider it due to the charge.

Likewise, I have a ton of junk that I could be selling in ebay, but I'm not doing it because they are heavy and the cost to mail them is, in many cases, much larger than the item itself. Thus I'm not able to sell these junk stuff because a buyer sees the item at, say, 20$ and postal fees at 30$ or 50$ or 100$ due to weight, so he is like, ok, this is absurd - fuck it. That's because the postal service has limitations while carrying weights that make you pay a lot if you are "overusing" their service. Again: These are compromises we make all the time, why would anyone expect that BTC will do everything without any compromise whatsoever?

So in crypto, in theory, you could make very large block sizes and make a mandatory fee structure that escalates dramatically as it tries to fit in a lot of transactions that are considered above rational capacity - to emulate the postal service. But, still, you won't compete with VISA's 2000tx/sec average because you can't do microtransactions at low cost. Maybe BTC can compete with certain SWIFT and Western Union transactions, cost wise, and then get altcoins, modeled after bitcoin, to do the VISA stuff for microtransactions. Or find another way to do it.

For as long as half the block transactions are dust or near-dust, there's not much rush. Yeah, some companies might try to flood the network to "prove" that we need a bigger block, and then after the block is raised to say 8mb or 20mb, the same companies might be doing similar tests and saying "oh, yes, you see at this rate of increase for a determined attacker like us that is willing to spend XXX BTC per day in fees, it's just a matter of X time for BTC to become unusable for most, or centralized, so we have to find alternatives - and we are now selling to you the new, offchain service that will protect the future of Bitcoin" Grin

People are saying that 1mb promotes interests of offchain companies etc, but wait what'll happen if it ever goes to 8 or 16 or 32mb blocks and these same companies become much more "necessary" to "protect the future of btc".

Bitcoin allready has a fee structure to deal with spam, and the wallets are implementing dynamic fees as we speak. A higher capacity system will be a lot more expensive to spam. If you think 7 tps is enough for the future of bitcoin, why don't you just say so?