The Lightning Network Will Enable Bitcoin to Handle Every

Recent developments in transaction volume on the Bitcoin network show very nicely how keeping the block size limit at 1MB was the correct decision.

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions
Those two abrupt declines in volume were caused by the companies Veriblock and Coinbase respectively (I think this is the result of Coinbase batching, correct me if I'm wrong).
Whatever territory you give them, they will take. Veriblock will just spam the blockchain with its useless crap if it's cheap enough. There has to be a fee market, and those who use the blockchain inefficiently must be made to pay until they improve their practices. Otherwise why would they ever bother to do things better?
luke-jr was probably right when he said the block size should actually be decreased. It could have hastened adoption by making running a node easier. But of course, consensus is the name of the game and neither he nor the big-blockers could get it.
NB: Technically the current limit with segwit is 4 MWU (million weight units), corresponding in practice to a usual limit of around ~2 MB.
submitted by Mccawsleftfoot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"To those arguing that Bitcoin Core fees are no longer "through the roof". It only reached this point because you destroyed your user base with an artificial 1MB block size limit. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block down to 2 year lows with dominance at all time lows."

submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

Binance DEX (decentralized exchange) could kill the dominance of Bitcoin BTC, since all transactions are done on-chain. This will expose the flaw in BTC's small block size limit, and cause BTC transaction fees to skyrocket.

Demo for Binance DEX (decentralized exchange):
Currently, everyone holds Bitcoin BTC as their reserve trading currency.
That's because:
  1. BTC has legacy status as the default trading pair.
  2. Trading costs at traditional crypto exchanges are the same, regardless of cryptocurrency. Ex: Binance trading fee is 0.1%, regardless of coin. That's because transactions are done off-chain.
But we've all known the flaw in traditional crypto exchanges: if the exchange collapses or disappears, you lose all your coins, since you don't have any seed words or private keys.
With a DEX, you hold your seed words & private keys. If the exchange collapses or disappears, you should still be able to access your coins on the respective blockchains.
If DEX exchanges take off, that could be a fatal blow to Bitcoin BTC's legacy status as a reserve trading currency.
That's because:
  1. Bitcoin BTC's on-chain transaction costs are 20-200 times more expensive than for other cryptocurrencies (like BCH, LTC, DASH).
  2. Bitcoin BTC has a small block size limit, and can't scale on-chain, so as DEX trading volume increases, Bitcoin BTC's mempool & transaction costs will skyrocket, making it unusable.
RESULT: If decentralized exchanges - like Binance DEX - become popular, Bitcoin BTC on-chain transaction fees will become ridiculously expensive, and people will start looking for a new default cryptocurrency to hold / trade / spend. It will be the end of Bitcoin BTC dominance.
submitted by normal_rc to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

"To those arguing that Bitcoin (BTC) fees are "through the roof". The 1MB block size limit has not destroyed the user base. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block recently hit ATH and dominance hasn't been higher since December, 2017.

The last year has been good for BTC.
Average number of transactions per block set a new ATH a little over a month ago.
BTC dominance by market cap has reached a level not seen since December of 2017.
Estimated hash rate just hit an all time high, surging above 70 EH/s. Difficulty just underwent one of the largest % increases in the modern era.
Fees remain a bit high but haven't yet reached the same rates as the 2014 bull run.
submitted by NotGonnaGetBanned to btc [link] [comments]

Binance DEX (decentralized exchange) could kill the dominance of Bitcoin BTC, since all transactions are done on-chain. This will expose the flaw in BTC's small block size limit, and cause BTC transaction fees to skyrocket.

Binance DEX (decentralized exchange) could kill the dominance of Bitcoin BTC, since all transactions are done on-chain. This will expose the flaw in BTC's small block size limit, and cause BTC transaction fees to skyrocket. submitted by mikenewhouse to dashpay [link] [comments]

"We do not believe that decentralization means a 1MB block size limit or a responsibility to constrain the block size so that a Raspberry Pi can run a full node while the fee per Bitcoin transaction is higher than the daily income in most developing countries."

Well said. https://blog.bitmain.com/en/uahf-contingency-plan-uasf-bip148/
submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Security of the bitcoin network is funded by the reward miners get: Transaction fees + subsidy. Over time the subsidy drops to 0 and we are left with just fees. If you limit the block size to 1mb you limit miner reward to what fees can fit in 1MB of space. You limit the security of the network.

I've posted this before and was criticized because it was claimed this was a future problem. Actually, the block reward goes pretty low pretty fast. Already 80% of coins are already mined. This is a future problem, but guess what? So are cores hypothetical centralization problems that are supremely trumped by this problem.
Cores hypothetical in the future problem is that miners will geographically centralize because the latency of relaying large blocks will result in close miners having an advantage. The relay network which allows blocks to transmit without latency issues shouldn't count according to core because it is not "decentralized".
The other part of their "decentralization" argument is that we need to all run full nodes to make transactions, but then fail to give an example of anyone being defrauded by an SPV wallet. They then give statistics for how full nodes are dropping (without factoring in that the original bitcoin wallets were all full nodes which skews the statistics)
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit”—new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]

submitted by Peter__R to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If you would like to see mainstream adoption of Bitcoin, continued low transaction fees, and continued decentralization of Bitcoin, then we must raise the block size limit and we must do it soon.

This topic is discussed at length in the most recent "Let's Talk Bitcoin" podcast: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion
submitted by scotty321 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Binance DEX (decentralized exchange) could kill the dominance of Bitcoin BTC, since all transactions are done on-chain. This will expose the flaw in BTC's small block size limit, and cause BTC transaction fees to skyrocket.

Binance DEX (decentralized exchange) could kill the dominance of Bitcoin BTC, since all transactions are done on-chain. This will expose the flaw in BTC's small block size limit, and cause BTC transaction fees to skyrocket. submitted by scgco to GGCrypto [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 0.8.6 Released, Updates to Block Size Limits, Free Transactions, OSX Bugs

Bitcoin 0.8.6 Released, Updates to Block Size Limits, Free Transactions, OSX Bugs submitted by _lemonparty to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015

submitted by Dworfix to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

1) BTC mempool gets clogged thanks to 1MB block size limit 2) Transaction fees rise 3) User experience gets worse 4) Users go elsewhere. People have been warning about this exact scenario for more than 5 years. Now we are "attacking Bitcoin" when we point it out. /r/Bitcoin

1) BTC mempool gets clogged thanks to 1MB block size limit 2) Transaction fees rise 3) User experience gets worse 4) Users go elsewhere. People have been warning about this exact scenario for more than 5 years. Now we are submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

These graphs show that fees for inclusion in 2nd block just shot up 10x from 50 to 500 satoshis/kB, and mempool size just shot up from <5 MB to 30 MB. Would you feel safe sending a transaction into the network now? Can Bitcoin rally if the blocksize remains artificially limited by Blockstream/Core?

http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimates
To select a longer time period, zoom out on the graph by clicking on the word "6 hours ago" to the right of the words "Zoom Out" - which will reveal a drop-down menu.
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin
To see the increase in the Mempool Size (from less than 5 MB, to 30 MB), go to the graph on the graph on the lower right called "Recent Mempool", and use the two menus to select "7 Days" and "Size".
How can Bitcoin continue to rally, if the network is becoming backlogged due to unnecessary congestion?
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

"To those arguing that Bitcoin Core fees are no longer "through the roof". It only reached this point because you destroyed your user base with an artificial 1MB block size limit. The data speaks for itself - transactions/block down to 2 year lows with dominance at all time lows."

submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

I told my buddy about the block size debate. He asked what the transaction limit was, I told him 3 tps. He said that was shockingly low, and too slow to ever build any momentum in the real world. The arbitrary 1 MB limit has become the "ritual cat" in the Bitcoin tech circles and holds it back

I told my buddy about the block size debate. He asked what the transaction limit was, I told him 3 tps. He said that was shockingly low, and too slow to ever build any momentum in the real world. The arbitrary 1 MB limit has become the submitted by aminok to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Security of the bitcoin network is funded by the reward miners get: Transaction fees + subsidy. Over time the subsidy drops to 0 and we are left with just fees. If you limit the block size to 1mb you limit miner reward to what fees can fit in 1MB of space. You limit the security of the ne /r/btc

Security of the bitcoin network is funded by the reward miners get: Transaction fees + subsidy. Over time the subsidy drops to 0 and we are left with just fees. If you limit the block size to 1mb you limit miner reward to what fees can fit in 1MB of space. You limit the security of the ne /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

08-14 20:02 - 'All blocks are full at the 1mb limit. Segwit2x might solve this in the future. Or just grab your bitcoin cash and have fast transaction times with its 8mb block size limit r/btc' by /u/CallinInstead removed from /r/Bitcoin within 37-47min

'''
All blocks are full at the 1mb limit. Segwit2x might solve this in the future. Or just grab your bitcoin cash and have fast transaction times with its 8mb block size limit /btc
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: CallinInstead
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

"We do not believe that decentralization means a 1MB block size limit or a responsibility to constrain the block size so that a Raspberry Pi can run a full node while the fee per Bitcoin transaction is higher than the daily income in most developing countries." /r/btc

submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

"If no changes are made the current 1MB block size limit, the value of bitcoin as a quick, international transactional system would decrease due to longer transaction confirmation times and reduced network reliability." -Will Bitcoin Block Size Increase Cause XBT’s Next Price Move?

submitted by bitcoinik to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

NiceHash: "The costs to process both incoming and outgoing transactions are significant due to Bitcoin block size limitations. Since Bitcoin transaction fees are still on the rise and the solution of increased Bitcoin block size not yet accepted, we are introducing conditional deposit fees."

NiceHash: submitted by BiggerBlocksPlease to btc [link] [comments]

Shouldn't a dynamic block size limit also depend on transaction fee? (for discussion) /r/Bitcoin

Shouldn't a dynamic block size limit also depend on transaction fee? (for discussion) /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

How Long Do Bitcoin Transactions Take - D-Central Monster 369MB Block Processed on Bitcoin SV Bitcoin block size limit concept: history of its establishment Pick the right Bitcoin transaction fee. Send non urgent transactions with 1 satoshi/byte fee. 10 Simple Techniques For How to Invest in Bitcoin - NerdWallet

Weight units are a measurement used to compare the size of different Bitcoin transactions to each other in proportion to the consensus-enforced maximum block size limit.Weight units are also used to measure the size of other block chain data, such as block headers.As of Bitcoin Core 0.13.0 (released August 2016), each weight unit represents 1/4,000,000th of the maximum size of a block. Remember, the size of each Bitcoin block is about 1 MB. There are precious few transactions – a maximum of about 2,600 – that can fit on each block every 10 minutes. Whenever you make a Bitcoin transaction, you are bidding against everyone else in the world to get your transaction inscribed onto the next block through the transaction fee. Remember, the size of each Bitcoin block is about 1 MB. There are precious few transactions – a maximum of about 2,600 – that can fit on each block every 10 minutes. Whenever you make a Bitcoin transaction, you are bidding against everyone else in the world to get your transaction inscribed onto the next block through the transaction fee. The minimum fee necessary for a transaction to confirm varies over time and arises from the intersection of supply and demand in Bitcoin's free market for block space. On the supply size, Bitcoin has a maximum block size (currently one million vbytes) that limits the maximum amount of transaction data that can be added to a block.. However, Bitcoin blocks are not produced on a fixed schedule Each transaction input requires at least 41 bytes for the previous transaction reference and other headers and each transaction output requires an additional 9 bytes of headers. Finally every transaction has a header at least 10 bytes long. Added up we get 166 bytes for the minimum-sized Bitcoin transaction. For 1MB (1,000,000 byte) blocks this implies a theoretical maximum rate of 10tx/s. However change complicates the situation. It isn't always possible for a client to find a transaction

[index] [13084] [27435] [22974] [6121] [18523] [26907] [21560] [4663] [24867] [31115]

How Long Do Bitcoin Transactions Take - D-Central

The Bitcoin network does not look at how long a transaction took. It doesn’t make the decisions about when transactions should take place. That will depend on many technical factors. Dr Peter Rizun has been researching the economics of transaction fees in Bitcoin extensively and joined us to discuss what dynamics affect fees and why he thinks the blocksize limit will ... All rights belong to: Scaling Bitcoin https://montreal2015.scalingbitcoin.org/ The debate which caused the creation of BCH had to do with the problem of scalability; the Bitcoin network has a stringent limit on the size of blocks: one megabyte (MB). BCH increases the block... Blockchain service provider TAAL has processed the largest block to date on Bitcoin SV — 369MB in size and containing 1.3 million transactions. TAAL announced the milestone on Twitter . The ...

Flag Counter