Bitcoin will have high fees. The block size shouldn't be increased

We've had this debate for years, and it's cropping up again. I think we need to nip this in the bud now.

If you increase the blocksize then you will decrease fees, thus making it easier for Veriblock and Coinbase to spam the network and never bother to optimise their platforms. When VeriBlock temporarily paused their system, confirmed on-chain transactions dropped from ~325,000/day to ~225,000/day. That should give you a sense as to just how much spam is being caused by low fees.

If we go to 2MB, those companies will fill blocks up again. Fees will rise to the exact same level in a short period. Now you've got the same situation as before, except a whole lot of full node operators can't keep up with the bandwidth so turn their nodes off. Blocks will propagate through the network slower, centralising mining and providing an unfair advantage to the previous block winner.

The final point, which really should shut this whole discussion down, is that we've already been through this. Bcash exists. It had the same code base as bitcoin at the time of the split. If that's how you think Bitcoin should operate, then just use bcash and be done with it. LN can be built on top of bcash, it's just barely anyone wants to develop for it because overwhelmingly technical people understand why raising the blocksize is a bad idea.

If you're right, bcash will overtake Bitcoin and you can tell everyone I told you so. But you're not going to convince us to change the block size.

And for the love of Christ, if you're a non-technical investor, maybe consider a little humility before insulting the Core devs and demanding a solution you know nothing about to a problem which doesn't exist.

Attached: decentralization-key-to-bitcoins-success.jpg (1108x1108, 139K)

buy my bags goy

Attached: 1554641844514.png (900x905, 100K)

bitcoin is old tec and should be forgotten, like we don't play ps 1 anymore either

Bitcoin is a failed project
Screencap this

Based and corepilled

>I think we need to nip this in the bud now.
why do you think this board has any say on how it runs

I was just having this discussion with my friend. Txn fees should be high. Street shitters should not be using digital gold onchain. They can use LN or something like xDAI. Bitcoin is a permissionless, immutable ledger and $20 txn fees are not absurd to utilize such technology.

>txs fees should be high
Yep. Stopped reading

Go use Nano you autistic street shitting faggot. Bitcoin is and will always be for rich white men and chinks.

good
we got that out of the way
collect your tokens and fuck off
meanwhile we need a currency

High fees are good so that we can keep the use to a minimum and the blockchain desentralized

big fucking yikes

This is actually quite a high-IQ post.

The actual beef is that devs were not happy about Blockstream's control over the BTC protocol and switched over to the BCH camp. BCH has some very competant devs who left BTC after their improvement proposals got shut down by a small group of hardheaded Blockstream execs. Everything else is just normie propaganda.

>transactions are spam

Imagine being an unironic blockstream shill

>Txn fees should be high.
literally end your life.

>defending non miner voting rights
>defending pos

The absolute state

Stick with Sir-toshi's Vision Hanjit, I'm sure his blocks have space for your 1000 sat transactions

you hold shitcoins and you hold them on binance, don't you

Agreed. Only banks should use the blockchain. Everyone else can just use IOUs they issue on LN. its a no brainer!

I'm not sure what's worse. People who believe LN will work or people who believe Craig is Satoshi without proof.

I actually agree with you, btc is a short term hold. It will serve its use as a gateway drug. I see it dead in 5-10 years.

Yep. The only way to survive would be by switching to PoS.

Like I said, BTC is for richfags, not street shitters.

BTC is for trading on exchanges and nothing else. If you unironically spend this shit you're a fucking retard.

I made a $20 purchase the other day. I used BCH. If I used BTC I'd be paying about a 10% fee or $2. This will only get worse as the price raises. Long term this ship is fucking sunk. In the meantime its the primary trading pair on exchanges. That's the only reason I hold it still and I never move it unless its $1000+.

> LN can be built on top of bcash

Strictly true but would require a mayor reimplementation and it would be more painful and maybe worse. LN uses segwit to get immutable txids.

Att. Programmer interested about LN technicals

Not sure what you're arguing at this point. You just said yourself that BCash is for retail transactions and Bitcoin is for moving sums of $1k+. Sounds like we're in agreement on that.

The hashrate protecting BTC is orders of magnitude greater than BCH, thus the scale of money moved on it should also be several orders of magnitude greater. BTC will not die, it won the hashwar just like ETH won against ETC. Game over.

People with brains posting on Jow Forums???? What is going on?????

Game has just started. If BTC's solution to scaling is to tell people not to use the network, well we will see how well that helps with adoption.

Attached: btc.jpg (910x422, 76K)

Small blocks are literally communism.

Fooled again by the almighty "leaders" (Core devs).

Enjoy going broke eventually (aka starvation under communism).

This is actually a very low-IQ post

china ghost cities. my dream.

>node subsidies
>block limits
>malleability fix
>Non Pow consensus (UASF)
>Substituting off chain for on chain (lightning network, LBtc)
>censorship and mass downvoting of dissenting opinions on r/bitcoin

Blockstream

>node subsidies
>block limits
>malleability fix
>Non Pow consensus (arbitrary, centralized block validation every 10 blocks, avalanche)
>Substituting off chain for on chain (Wormhole Cash)
>censorship and mass downvoting if dissenting opinions on r/BTC
ABC another blockstream company

I love when people post about bitcoin scaling. All of the brainlet shitcoiners come out of the woodwork it’s tasty as fuck

Block size increase means more active users means higher potential value for the network means higher price per coin. Prove me wrong.

If you think dust and crypto cats and veriblock should be free and useable on a decentralized consensus network youre going to have a hard
It's not a matter of feels and opinions it's math
High amount tx, consolidating LN channels, writing results of several processes to the ledger for a fee to ensure that ledger remains distributed secure and true is how this is going to work
It's math it's what makes sense 75% of you idiots don't get it

Block size increase means more centralized network means less people will trust the network means less users will value the network. Prove me wrong.

My friend works in the BCH sphere and that is exactly what happened behind closed doors.

There was one cashie on here who I asked if they think of any disadvantages of bigger blocks and his answer was 'no, there are none'. Anyone with even half a brain would at least consider things like bandwidth, latency and centralization. That's how you know you're dealing with an absolute brainlet whose emotionally invested in his shitcoin.

Clever application of data structures can, and will, allow other chains to welcome the use cases that bitcoin considers spam.
Sharing security with hundreds of sister chains through veriblock is not spam. Securing assets like crypto kitties or homes is not spam.
These are use cases that are being turned away. Bitcoin is getting good at that.

Yup.. It aint hard to spot.. you a good guy fren

Bitcoin was a failure the literal moment Satoshi died (most likely killed)

>comparing a cryptocat transaction to a house

Where the fuck do you think this is headed? Going to secure assets immutably and then not use it for the biggest source of dispute and wealth in the world?
Literal wars could be avoided if we had consensus on ownership.

This is why the comment line should be removed instead. Prevent the spam by taking away the very possibility. Now blocksize can be increased as desired to keep up with inevitably increasing use (which is inevitable even if using btc only as a value store)

>Roger ver said bitcoin is killing babies

Not really. Ownership could still be given away by the owner under duress which is basically what war is.

Not without the truth being present for all to verify.

>for all to verify

ETH Maximalist here. Current plans are to buy more Bitcoin. Not from fees. But brand. If crypto gains mass appeal again, people will be buying something with a name they already know. I believe that ETH is superior tech-wise but I also know how irrational people are. I expect at least an 8x for BTC from here if there's another rally in the coming years.

War doesn't fucking care about the truth, only the strongest.

Strength doesn't matter in the post-truth age. Only propaganda.

>he really believes this
Propaganda only works for the countries who have atom bombs frendo