Quote from: ir.hn on December 19, 2017, 04:01:22 AM

Sorry for a lazy post

Please disclose, are you being paid for it? If so, by whom?

Quote from: hatshepsut93 on December 19, 2017, 06:06:48 AM

Alternative solution would be to increase blocksize to gigabytes, so fees will be cheaper but their sum would still buy enough PoW, but that would mean that there will be just a few full nodes in the world that can be very easily attacked by governments or can use their power to enforce whatever rules they like.

You could also remove 21mil cap to keep subsidizing PoW with mining rewards forever, but this would remove a lot of value from Bitcoin, which in the end might net less PoW than any of previous solutions.

In other words, alternative solutions would be to destroy Bitcoin. Of course, thats the agenda.

(To be clear, you are an intelligent poster; and I realize you were highlighting how stupid this whole discussion is. But I think you were a bit too subtle for some of the types suddenly flooding in.)

Quote from: Hariz on December 19, 2017, 08:05:53 AM

+1 - Until the high fee and network congestion issues are solved, this is no different than a traditional bank. The whole point of a virtual currency is dissolved by these hurdles. If the core team doesn't act quick, its not far before LTC/XRP take over the market with their super fast network.

Say what? The decentralized, permissionless Bitcoin network, which vests users with all power over themselves and all responsibility for themselves, is no different than a traditional bank. Its whole point... is dissolved.

Please sell all your bitcoins. Dump BTC, right now! Go back to the banks. You wont be missed.

Quote from: Jet Cash on December 19, 2017, 08:06:50 AM

Transaction fees are set by users, and not by miners. If you don't want to pay high fees, then don't submit transactions offering to pay high fees.

And there, you have described the purpose of the fee market as a filter which stops people from filling a shared global commons with transactions not personally important to them. If a transaction is not sufficiently important to you that youre willing to either pay or wait, then it doesnt belong on the blockchain. Nodes dont need an eternal archive of purchases of cups of coffee. Lightning will handle those; better still, it will enable real micropayments.

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 19, 2017, 10:47:13 AM

Quote from: ir.hn on December 19, 2017, 04:01:22 AM

[...]

I think you haven't taken the time to think this through.

I think he did think it throughor rather, somebody thought it through for him. Never assume stupidity, when malice will suffice.

Quote from: btc_enigma on December 19, 2017, 11:52:32 AM

Please have a look at this paper

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf

It gets comical when the idiotic forkers are referencing the arguments of forks dead and buried.

Quote from: 13abyknight on December 20, 2017, 01:18:01 PM

Quitting on the first ever cryptocurrency which has grown over 1500% this year alone over the fees problem would be plain stupidity with what is to come in the near future.

It bears emphasizing in all these conversations: People who complain about fees to the point of derogating Bitcoin, are in essence complaining that their coins are too valuable, the network is too popular (= in high demand).

My coins increased 1500% in real-world purchase power since I got them. THIS IS HORRIBLE! BITCOIN IS DEAD! THE SKY IS FALLING!

Well, either theyre that stupidor theyre being paid to shill against Bitcoin.

Quote from: Samarkand on December 20, 2017, 02:07:08 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on December 19, 2017, 11:40:32 AM

... Basically, it all went a bit off-script due to unforeseen technological advancements (namely ASICs) and now we're making the best of a less-than-ideal situation. Perhaps it does raise questions over Bitcoin's longevity, but it's likely we'll find a solution later down the line.

Are ASICs really an unforeseen technological advancement? ASICs have been used in other industries for years and obviously
make sense in situations where efficiency on a single task is more important than being
good at many different tasks.

There are two schools of thought here: ASICs are bad, thus certain altcoins embracing memory-hard POW such as Equihash; and ASICs are good, and they should be commoditized. The latter holds that ASIC-friendly algorithms benefit the security of the network by making ASICs (relatively) cheaper and easier to produce.

ASIC-resistance seems a fools errand; but also the ASIC-friendly argument falls down, kicked down by the huge footprint of Jihan. I dont think anybody yet has a good solution. If Blockstream had the godlike powers ascribed to them by idiots, they should decree by fiat that $5 SHA-256 ASICs rain from the heavens.

Quote from: ir.hn on December 20, 2017, 07:36:20 PM

I would argue non-mining full nodes do nothing for the network. The only vote you get is the vote of winning the next block; this vote only comes with hashpower. So non-mining full nodes do not vote; to vote you have to choose which block before you was valid and confirm it into the blockchain by winning the next block.

Ah-hah, the anti-nodes agenda drops its mask! The full nodes do nothing for the network, eh?

Quote from: Tom Zander

[...] I think a much higher rate of benefit can be reached by educating the people that run full nodes and explaining how they are not in actual fact helping the network. The simple fact is that if they didnt run those nodes, this whole discussion would not exist.

ir.hn, at this point I am reasonably certain that you are deliberately, maliciously lying. Youve been spamming your nonsense over multiple threads in a forum designated for well-informed technical discussion. To all explanations, you counterargue with bare assertions. But if you want to play stupid, go read my other recent reply, q.v.:

Quote from: nullius on December 20, 2017, 10:41:21 PM

[...]

General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). Thats what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; thats why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners.

[...]

Full nodes do not blindly follow the longest chain. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesnt matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodesperiod.

ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.

Quote from: nullius on December 20, 2017, 11:21:00 PM

What is so difficult to understand here? Invalid blocks are not in the blockchain. The only way to add a block to the blockchain, is to mine a valid block. Those who produce invalid blocks never actually have any say as to what makes it into the blockchain.