111
112

Something needs to change (self.Bitcoin)

i0X が 投稿

(I'm assuming most of this story as I couldn't actually hear the conversation, but it doesn't really matter if it actually happened, or if its just hypothetical.)

Yesterday I witnessed what I believe was two individuals buying bitcoin from an ATM. They hung around the ATM for probably 20 minutes, repeatedly checking their phones. It is my assumption that their recently purchased BTC was not showing in their wallet.

It looked like they got the establishment to contact the owner of the ATM, who actually showed up and talked with them. I'm not sure if he was able to cancel the transaction, or what happened in the end, but they eventually left. All-in, they were probably there for an hour.

All I could think during this scene was "damn, the mempool is massive right now and that transaction probably won't confirm for hours. I wonder if they know that." If this was their first bitcoin experience, it must have been incredibly disappointing.

I realized that it doesn't matter if they know about the mempool, or fees, or if they are completely oblivious as to how bitcoin works. The point is that it wasn't working. The ATM probably has a hardcoded fee for transactions, as I'm sure many wallets and other bitcoin services do.

If the mempool backlog is spam, or if its legitimate, something needs to change. Bitcoin cannot go mainstream if situations like this continue to occur.

Remember, this shift to regularly full blocks and an increase in fees/confirmation times is a new economic policy for bitcoin, and it will drive users away.

We need SegWit. We need bigger blocks. We need to contain this premature fee market before it gets out of control.

We need these things today.

全 96 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Zepowski [スコア非表示]  (25子コメント)

I agree. When I got into bitcoin a few years ago, I sent lots of small transactions back an forth between wallets just to learn. I practiced with cold storage, moving funds, re-securing it in Armory, shared bitcoin with friends, ran demonstrations, etc. How could any newbie do this today? The time it would take and the amount of transaction fee involved would be completely off-putting. I personally would have given up and probably not looked back if the current situation existed when I first started.

[–]freework [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

We need SegWit.

Segwit would not solve this problem. If the ATM can't be updated to use a dynamic fee, do you think it'll be updated to use segwit?

[–]3_Thumbs_Up [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The current segwit proposal includes a block size limit increase.

Although in the long run, the ATMs need to support a better fee policy, because we will hit a point where we simply can't increase the limit without severe consequences to decentralization.

[–]SeriousSquash [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We need these things today a year ago.

[–]Vaultoro [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I had this experience in Prague. I sent to the atm with a high fee, but then the ATM sends it again to the exchange. Only then do you get the filthy fiat. The second tx is a hard coded fee and the tx was stuck for 2 hours :/ I had someone with me and I kept on saying, it's not normally like this. Usually it's fairly fast. Sadly it's starting to be normal. We need segwit, LN and a little bigger block size limit.

[–]Unironic_Monarchist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Or bitcoin atms are a bad idea right now.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (18子コメント)

The current plan is for bitcoin not to go mainstream ever. That is what Gold 2.0, store of value is. I know exactly 0.0 people that save with Gold. Which means the vast bulk of the population has no use for bitcoin as Gold, that's the only way to justify forever anemic blocksize. Essentially redefining what bitcoin is for. Most of us apparently were fooled into believing it's more than a glorified inconvenient savings account.

Bitcoin apparently is not for the regular guy and gal on the street.

I just hope the price doesn't collapse until after jan 1 2017. I'll likely liquidate everything on jan 1, which will push capital gains into next year. I have exactly 0 uses for gold 2.0, good luck with that though.

[–]Lejitz [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

capital gains

Ironically, the only reason you have these is because more people are using Bitcoin in the way you say they won't.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

No up to recently there was room for more transactions. We are in uncharted territory going forward. I held because I figured eventually we'd have more transaction capacity and more places would accept it, no transcation growth now, there is little reason for more places to take it. So, stuck at nearly useless level of adoption.

[–]Lejitz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well... For over a year it's been obvious that capacity is limited. The market has responded by tripling the value.

The thing is big money doesn't care if it has to pay $20 per transaction. We know we will outbid the coffee purchasers and we don't care about them. Right now we care about the return on investment. In time we'll be happy using Bitcoin just for the return OF investment.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

People "accepting" Bitcoin was a 2013 thing, nobody does that because the sort of people that use Bitcoin are horrible customers and unlikely to offset the cost of having to deal with all this BTC you end up with (sure, BitPay will for a small fee, but then what's your profit margin like?).

Literally go to a store that still has a crusty "Bitcoin accepted here" sticker on their window and ask if they even remember what it is, from businesses posting here about it, it's pretty unlikely they would.

My estimation is that by this time next year, my Bitcoin sales will be around 0.05% (considering the BTC sales are slowly declining while USD sales are quickly rising as the business grows).

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2wtr1q/report_on_my_business_bitcoin_sales_since_april/

0.05% is just hilarious for something pandering to darknet market fanboys with cocaine dust on their upper lip.

There are numerous merchants accepting Bitcoin, there's simply not many spending it.

Yeah, ouch. Capacity is definitely the problem here.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I was more speaking of the pathetic adoption level on the internet even, much less the virtually non existent adoption in the real world. I figured long ago, something like lightning would be necessary for real world adoption to be "practical", but even lightning requires more transaction capacity if it were to serve millions in a convenient manner, I highly doubt most will be locking up thousands in a channel for a year.

Hey, I must have had the point of this all wrong, it's okay, to many Andreas videos I suppose.

[–]alexgorale [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Did you get it all out?

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Get it all out? I still have most of it in my Trezor.

[–]falco_iii [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The current plan

Who's plan?

[–]TulipsNHoes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yep, I am not very interested in bitcoin as some kind of 1% transfer protocol at all.

[–]coinx-ltc [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

With Lightning it is for every person on the earth.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

No because even the lightning devs said we'd need more transaction capacity for bitcoin to be used widely. No increased transactions means bitcoin will be a niche case forever.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

The number of transactions happening in Lightning is really irrelevant in terms of the block size. They said you'd need more if you wanted to have thousands of channels being opened and closed an hour which is pretty unlikely in the way it's intended to be used.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Well, of course there would be thousands of channels opened and closed an hour if there were millions of people using it. What's the point of a global network like this if .001 percent of the world uses it. Millions of people is miniscule compared to 7 billion people world wide, we aren't shooting for the moon here.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

What's the point of a global network like this if .001 percent of the world uses it.

It's decentralised, that's the only interesting thing about Bitcoin. Centralised systems are a lot more efficient.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Decentralized for the sake of Decentralization is dumb. Decentralization for the sake of improving something is possibly worthwhile. Decentralization for the sake of providing the rich with another means to move money around is redundant.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If you don't care about decentralisation, there's better systems for you to use.

[–]DakotaChiliBeans [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Didn't say that come back when you can read. I said decentralization for the sake of decentralization is dumb. You could decentralize your body if you want, wouldn't make it better. Decentralization plus some quality that is better overall is worthwhile.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Decentralisation is what gives Bitcoin security, decentralising your body would be putting a loaded shotgun in your mouth.

[–]korinda456 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately we haven't progressed much in Bitcoin in terms of tech development. No wonder Ether is doing so well in market cap today.

[–]Noosterdam [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Segwit isn't enough.

[–]marcus_of_augustus [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Most of the ATM operators probably shouldn't be in business unless they can provide for their users a good service. The fee market is here, like it or not it is built in to Bitcoin's long term security protocol that we have a fee market. ATM providers need to get with the program or get the hell out of business.

We probably need a Bitcoin ATM association policing it's members to can give users an assurance for a reliable experience (or some such).

[–]KuDeTa [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

We need to contain this premature fee market before it gets out of control.

This is the key line, understand: for a hardcore of the devs, in particular, Wladimir van der Laan (lead maintainer), pressure in the fee market is the main goal, and the block size debate is of secondary importance ("I do not doubt a block size increase will work"). One argument used to defend this approach is that "it will eventually have to happen - why kick the can down the road." The answer is obvious: if the total capacity of the network increases, the cost of individual transactions decreases! Bigger network. More transactions. More useful. Another objection is that increasing the block-size, now, :"changes the economics of the system." Again, the answer is obvious: those of us that signed up for bitcoin in 2009 expected capacity to increase, this is the vision we were sold on! Not doing is the very change in the dynamics that you apparently so vehemently oppose!

To me the current approach is absolutely insane. Why hold capacity down to what it was capable of nearly decade ago, when all of the key metrics that are important for the networks overall capacity have radically improved, globally (CPU, HD, Bandwidth, global connectivity, - hell - even latency). If this is a balance between "decentralization" and "performance" - we can certainly afford to trade a little of the former for the latter. And of course, these metrics will continue to improve.

Conservative increases in the block-size are not only almost certainly theoretically possible, but as the hard-forks of other networks have shown - they are not nearly as complicated as one might imagine.

Let us hope that the failure of segwit beckons a significant shift in the development community. The essence of segwit itself remains an important idea, but if is to be implemented and activated it really must be complemented by a hard-fork that increases the blocksize.

Gavin was many things, but he was definitely a leader. There is currently no clear vision at the heart of bitcoin and development is ponderously lacking. The first and key step is for the devs to concede on the notion of the fee market, now, and to just let us actually use our goddamn coins without these ridiculous backlogs.

We also desperately need to come to a consensus about what decentralisation is when it comes to bitcoin (is it number of nodes, cost of operating a node, geospatial distribution of said nodes - a function of all three? More?) and what level of this decentralization we actually desire.

[–]viners [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

We also desperately need to come to a consensus about what decentralisation is when it comes to bitcoin (is it number of nodes, cost of operating a node, geospatial distribution of said nodes - a function of all three? More?) and what level of this decentralization we actually desire.

Exactly. More transactions = more adoption = more nodes = more decentralization. The cost will slightly go up, but bitcoin's popularity will produce more nodes regardless.

[–]UKcoin [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

Try telling the people that are actively trying to block Bitcoin development. People here know we need to scale and that the perfect solution is on the table and additions are in the making. Unfortunately, we have a cesspool led by a criminal that wants to block it all, for purely childish and selfish reasons.

[–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's weird: both sides say exactly the same thing. And I can't even tell which side you're on.

What's being blocked? segwit "the perfect solution" (yeah right) or the blocksize limit increase "kicking the can down the road"?

[–]PumpkinFeet [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Haha I agree, I couldn't tell which side he's on either.

[–]gemeinsam [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Bitcoin development is a hard fork as satoshi intended.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yet, Satoshi never did any hard forks, crazy!

Instead, he talks about backwards compatibility (soft forks) with older clients.

[–]AnonymousRev [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Satotshi wrote the code.

If block > 135000

Then blocksize = 2

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes, in response to someone saying they should change it instantly. He's giving a clean syringe to a heroin addict not saying it's a good idea.

[–]AnonymousRev [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It's not like a core dev called this 2 years ago and was actively trying to fix it with a simple straightforward solution.

[–]TulipsNHoes [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

SegWit is NOT a simple straightforward solution. It's a stopgap that moves transactions from on-chain.

In my opinion we need both, and the fact that core focused to heavily of SegWit is a huge weakness.

[–]TulipsNHoes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That's not how it works.

[–]killerstorm [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

The problem isn't in the mempool or fees, Bitcoin protocol is inherently slow.

Bitcoin mining is a Poisson process, thus you might end up waiting for a confirmation for an hour even if mempool is nearly empty. This happens about once per week.

Bigger blocks won't help. We need better wallet UX and second layer protocols like Lightning Network.

The problem is that ATMs are optimized for happy case, not worst case. It shouldn't be the case when you work with money.

[–]CubicEarth [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

You are right the confirmations will never be instant, and for rapid Txs, Lightning will be key.

However, moving to 5 minute blocks would cut waiting times in half across the distribution. What problem would it solve? It would save people time in every instance where people have found themselves waiting for a confirmation or six.

Yes, it would increase the orphan rate and add slight mining centralization pressure. I would argue that centralization pressures due to propagation delays are a minor factor, with hardware, labor and electricity costs (and associated regulations) as absolutely dominating the decisions about where to physically locate hash power

[–]killerstorm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are much better ways to do it like Bitcoin-ng and Byzcoin. It is possible to make mainnet nearly real-time without crutches like Lightning, but it's quite complex and you need some tradeoffs.

(The problem with Lightning is that it doesn't allow you to send money whoever you want whenever you want.)

I think BitShares is best-in-class now with 3 second confirmations. I tried trading on BitShares exchange, and it feels like real-time.

BitShares decentralization is quite limited, but I think it's OK if there is another layer which provides long-term immutability.

I think it will take 10 more years until we see really good cryptocurrencies.

[–]tmornini [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

It is my assumption

There's your problem...

that their recently purchased BTC was not showing in their wallet

I know of no wallets that don't show transactions until they've confirmed...

[–]i0X[S] [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

that doesn't change the point of the thread

[–]tmornini [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

You're right, it doesn't change you projecting your fears by writing unfounded posts.

[–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Those are not simply fears. We're turning people away. How can you doubt that? I've experienced this first hand. If the transaction doesn't arrive within reasonable time a new user thinks bitcoin is broken. And he's right: it is broken for that use case!

[–]3e486050b7c75b0a2275 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

/u/tmornini is right. transactions show up immediately. you seem to have jumped to a lot of conclusions. it's not like you know what really happened. you didn't actually go and ask them now did you?

[–]I_RAPE_ANTS [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That happening does seem like the most probable scenario here, honestly.

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course not! See a problem, jump to your favourite agenda without asking if that's actually the case.

[–]moleccc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm just saying I've seen this kind of thing happen in my own experience with bitcoin newbies. That's how I can conclude that those are not just "projected fears". Of course you're correct, I cannot say this is what happened in the reported incident.

[–]tmornini [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Every wallet I've ever seen shows transactions immediately.

[–]TulipsNHoes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Want to trade some BTC with me and consider 0 confirmation safe? If so PM me and I'll teach you a fun lesson about how double spending works.

[–]killerstorm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It kinda does. Bitcoin is just not real time. We need wallet UX to recognize this, not tinker with fees and block sizes.

[–]Tony_Tony_ [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

wut? it is aparent you pulled this ancecdute straight from your ass as you seem to have a fundemantal misunderstanding of how wallets work. tell me, what business do you have hanging around the ATM with them for twenty minues? you're telling us you watched them for twenty minutes straight to prove your point online?

and twenty minutes is just two blocks on average, this is not long to have to wait for a confirmation. another gross misunderstanding on your part.

[–]SkyMarshal [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

>Remember, this shift to regularly full blocks and an increase in fees/confirmation times is a new economic policy for bitcoin, and it will drive users away.

Maybe, for a while. But they'll come back as long as the fundamental value of the network is protected and preserved by an engineering team that knows that they're doing.

You know what will drive people away permanently? Catastrophic, irreversible failure due to centralization and resulting and loss of trust in the system. Mitigating the forces of de-decentralization is the #1 priority.

We need SegWit. We need bigger blocks. We need to contain this premature fee market before it gets out of control. We need these things today.

No, we don't. Every cryptocurrency will have these problems. The one that gets it right in the end is the one that will win the long game and become the global digital currency.

Patience, grasshopper. This is a very different game than any you've ever played.

[–]Vegazer0redditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well said

[–]ReadOnly755 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A lot (100k) is obfuscated in ~10 transactions, as long as a transaction is around 0.35 it's just what a brokerage would charge. Wake me up when we hit the double digits.

[–]sharko21redditor for 3 months [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It make me think about the street food guy next to my door, he likes bitcoin but can't require customers to wait 10 min to validate the payment of their Falafel.

[–]viners [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Anyone with a shred of common sense saw this coming which is why there was so much urgency to deliver a small block size increase in core last year. So the miners would have time to reach consensus and upgrade in time before the limit was hit and to buy us time to develop other long term solutions before the next limit was hit.

But no, we've hit the 1MB wall and everyone is downplaying how big of a deal it is. I remember a few years ago when everyone was dying for bitcoin to get more adoption and a better rep, and now the narrative is "well we're not ready yet so everyone should stop using bitcoin for their particular use cases.". No, we should have never run into this problem. It damages bitcoin adoption catastrophically through bad word of mouth. We do still want adoption, right?

[–]Taviiiiii [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Good thing you didn't actually talk to them

[–]BobAlison [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Assuming your read of the situation is correct, the problem lies with the kiosk operator, who failed to account for well-known network behavior (floating market fee density).

[–]TulipsNHoes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Would you like to write code that handles actual financial transactions using a completely floating fee? Cause I sure as hell wouldn't want to use it live in an ATM.

[–]pokertravis [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Your story is an assumption you may or may not have heard?

[–]InstantDossier [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Bitcoin blocks can frequently take over an hour and a half, this has nothing to do with capacity. If you do stupid things with Bitcoin the user experience will be shit, big surprise!

[–]brg444 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yes, your sense of entitlement needs to change.

[–]chealsonne [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

this is pure speculation by you. any responsible btm owner would use dynamic fees.