Quote from: jackg on August 20, 2016, 12:28:48 AM

Quote from: philipma1957 on August 19, 2016, 10:06:54 PM

Quote from: NorrisK on August 19, 2016, 04:49:33 PM

Quote from: jackg on August 19, 2016, 03:46:12 PM

Quote from: NorrisK on August 19, 2016, 07:25:38 AM

Quote from: jackg on August 18, 2016, 06:11:21 PM

Quote from: Das on August 18, 2016, 02:43:27 PM

Bitcoin developers need to deploy lightning network. If things go according to plan and bitcoin goes mainstream, the congestion will multiply and people might start looking at some altcoin to replace bitcoin.

That'll never happen.
What about the block rewards? How frequent is a new block released.
Maybe a network with a new block every 60 seconds and an income to miners of 1.25BTC may be quite good. However, then there's more problems (such as: how is the hard fork done on the network, It's decentralised and cannot really be controlled by one device, every bitcoin core has to be edited in order or this to happen and that's easier said than done).

Faster blocks also increase the risk of forking the network. The only thing that needs to be changed somehow imo is to allow more transactions to go through at lower fees. The fees have grown quite fast the last year and the blocks are almost all full nowadays.

Hardforking the network is not very likely after ethereum/ethereum classic drama. It will only get people to want to have both coins and both coins tradable and there will always be some exchanges that will offer the original chain coins.

Exactly. It's not a good idea to do a hard fork as it also reduces stability.
Based on the maintenance fee idea. I understand that the transaction with the greatest BTC/KB gets priority in the block. The only way to do this is by getting the majority of the community to reduce the fee so then it is much cheaper to send bitcoins.

If I'm not mistaken, there are a few more parameters than just the fee/kB that is included to determine whether a transaction gets included in a block or not.

Coin age is one of those. I think it is possible to send the coins mined and not moved in the early days without a fee and still get high priority when sending them.

A big move of btc say 1000 btc gets pushed up the list vs a move of .1 btc.

this would be in the case of size in kb and fee being equal the 1000btc move gets the nod.

Doesn't that transaction get pushed up as the fee is greater as some more amount of data would have to be stored to transfer 1000BTC compared to 0.1BTC (It'd only be a few bytes bigger but it would have a greater fee). This probably is also used to stop people clogging the network with small transactions when they can send one large one instead.
Also, based on the previous subject, if the network releases the blocks in a lower amount of time then the community would have to edit everything (Including, site scripts and APIs).

no the data size for 1000 btc can be as low as 227kb the data size for .1 btc can be as low as 227kb.

If I had 1000 btc from solo mining when blocks were 50 btc it would be 20 blocks into my account. Forget fees just made it 50btc per block for easy math. This would be 20 x 227kb = 4540kb on move from address A to Address B since it was 20 transactions to get the 1000 btc.

When I move from Address B to Address C it wold be 227kb physical size.
I could do a fee of .0001

in the case of the 0.1 btc Lets say I was mining on a pool and I ran 0.01 per block so 100 transactions at 227kb = 22700kb

moving from address D to address E when I move from address E to Address F THE SIZE IS 1 TRANSACTION OF 227KB.

SO if I pay 0.0001 for this move of 0.1 btc size of 227kb

VS 0.0001 for the first move of 1,000 btc size of 227kb

the network will put the 1000 btc ahead of the 0.1 btc in priority.

as for the smallest transaction in kb it is 227kb.

I have moved 36btc in a 227kb transaction on a group buy of Avalon 6's