Quote from: Lauda on May 08, 2016, 06:43:31 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on May 08, 2016, 06:22:57 PM

What do you want to proof with this graph? It only shows the total amount of fees. Which does not make much sense to compare with times where the blocks were not full nor mit times where the bitcoin price was very different. Besides that... there is clearly a rising from 2015.

I'm now starting to seriously question your comprehension skills (no ad hominem). Did you even take a look at the Graph? It clearly states total fees IN BITCOIN. The price in fiat should be irrelevant. Your argumentation is also wrong: If the blocks are only full now, the fees should be higher now on average than they were back then which they aren't (or you're trying to say that the blocks were 'more full on average' back in 2013). In either way, your argument has no merit.

I already know that you miss a good bunch of comprehension styles. Otherwise you would have been able to understand that I wrote that this only shows the total fees paid regardless of how many kb the block contained.

And yes, the fees are in bitcoin. And the bitcoin price has a connection regarding how much people would want to freely give away as a fee. For example fees were given freely by many when they thought they are rich in 2013. Your comparision simply contains too many variables to judge from that what transactions can go through. Since you know very well that at those times you could send with a minimum fee. It does not matter if some rich person wanted to donate to miners. What matters is what fee is needed. And now we need higher fees. And this requisit is rising.

I already know you will try to negate it and I hope it's not again from missing comprehension of what I wrote. Maybe read it twice.

Quote from: Lauda on May 08, 2016, 06:43:31 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on May 08, 2016, 06:22:57 PM

Ah, so when you post something you can't proof with a link then it is fine, though not when I do the same. I know already you life with double standards alot. So I won't spend time on climbing up your wall of anger and naming. Roll Eyes

There are no double standards in this case. Unlike me, you tend to post partially-true, partially-misunderstood information which ends up a total mess. Additionally, you do not read what is posted (or you don't understand it). I've posted this several times in threads where you were also present! I've had to waste time again searching for it:

Quote

Additional post-segwit soft forked script improvements can improve the effective block size for p2pkh txns from 1.7MB to 1.9MB, and for 2/2 multisig from 2MB to 2.5MB/3MB.

So my memory served me well ("~190-200%").

Well in this case I simply wrote it differently. My 50% were what the 1mb transaction amount would be in the ideal case.

Let's hope segwit will be as powerful but you know it needs adoption and more to be able to do that.

I'm not sure what stage of segwit development this referred to and if future changes were calculated in already.

Quote from: Lauda on May 08, 2016, 06:43:31 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on May 08, 2016, 06:22:57 PM

You can't force people to adopt something they don't have a usecase for. That's nonsense argumentation.

You're practically saying 'we don't have a use-case for more TX capacity' (whether it is Segwit, or a block size limit increase doesn't matter in the argument). If you do not adopt Segwit, you are basically making a statement that you don't need the extra TX capacity (same could be said for a block size limit; if that was the way that Bitcoin was going forward right now). Period.

What we need is a working bitcoin whose needed fees will not grow constantly. And a bitcoin where transactions don't stuck because of too low fee. Of course it could be implemented in all wallets though you know quite well that it will lead to a fee fight at the end. And yes that means we need a higher tx capacity.

Sure, you can move along in ln what you want. Though only IF you need it it would make sense. I don't see a usecase for the normal user. You might see it, that's fine for me. Tell me where the normal users would need it. Normal use cases.

Quote from: Lauda on May 08, 2016, 06:43:31 PM

Quote from: SebastianJu on May 08, 2016, 06:22:57 PM

You know how payment channels are established? Then as long as you can't tell me that there will be the possibility to send to more than one received through such a payment channel then my point is valid.

Your point is not valid. The establishment of payment channels is irrelevant. Scenario: "Noob" opens up payment channel with Exchange. "Noob" wants to pay for Coffee. The exchange and Coffee shop have an open channel. "Noob" -> Exchange -> Coffe Shop. This is one of the options (keep in mind that exact details are not determined yet IIRC).

Oh wait... I asked that question to users that actually were interested to educate me. This is not yet implemented in some form. In fact I wrote about such thing as one of the risks for bitcoin. LN building banks. I mean why would you think it will be an advantage to not use bitcoin as a network anymore but use an exchange instead. Well, I could use a credit card then too. I'm sure that scenario is the dream of every regulator.

It's interesting how the fundamentals of bitcoin are tried to be eroded.