Quote from: shorena on April 23, 2017, 11:33:40 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 23, 2017, 09:32:38 AM

Quote from: shorena on April 23, 2017, 08:10:34 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 16, 2017, 02:38:51 AM

Quote from: jehzlau on April 16, 2017, 01:25:31 AM

It's like a city full of cars. The more the cars within that city, the traffic will be heavier and people will arrive from one point to another point longer. This is what's happening to bitcoin right now. We all need to be very patient, because we'll arrive from origin to destination longer than usual. 😁

Or we could do what most cities that consistently have congestion problems do...increase traffic capacity in as simple and cost effective way possible.

You might want to reconsider this analogy unless you are suggesting reducing the blocksize.

-> https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

There are a couple of things that are noteworthy about that article.

1 - From the looks of it, the traffic patterns that the article examined were those that major roadways were operating at a maximum capacity, the capacity was increased, but not enough to satisfy existing demand, so the roadways continued to operate at a maximum capacity after additional travel lanes (ect.) were added.

The only similarity to bitcoin I see here is: as long as its dirt cheap it will get used until it no longer is. In Bitcoin terms this would mean bigger blocks would not (permanently) reduce fees to previously unsaturated levels nor would it solve the "my TX is not getting through" issue, because bitcoin would just be used more until it reached this level again. Whether or not this research into roads can be transfered to bitcoin I dont know.

I would think for it to be more along the lines of that traffic capacity was increased 11% but population growth and demographic shifts results in potential demand of >11% of prior capacity, therefore the roads continued to run at capacity.

If the max block size were increased to 1.11 MB today, then the blocks would probably still be full, and transactions would probably not get much cheaper. On the other hand, if the max block size were raised to say 8 MB today, then blocks would probably not be immidiately full, and the cost of including a tx in a block would be more in line with the cost of the miner including one additional transaction of it's size in a block plus some amount for profit. Over time, I would expect that demand for blockspace would increase to the point that blocks would become full again (because of things like increased adoption, and a higher number of economic transactions) , and the max block size would again need to be increased -- this would be okay because it is likely for technology to have improved by then.

Quote from: shorena on April 23, 2017, 11:33:40 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on April 23, 2017, 09:32:38 AM

2 - The article mentioned that reducing travel capacity did not result in horribly reduced travel conditions because citizens were forced to utilize alternate travel arrangements. This is not unlike the fact that maintaining the artificial 1 MB block size limit is essentially picking winners and losers in that LN and other similar arrangements are the winners.

or alt coins (subway).

I think that altcoins might be used more today because LN is not currently an option, however using altcoins will generally involve costs above a Bitcoin tx fee, such as exchange fees, and slippage when trading altcoins.