an ASIC miner has NO hard drive.
an ASIC miner does NOT store the blockchain
an ASIC miner is NOT affected by the blocksize in any way.
an ASIC miner just receives a hash.. (small string of text) and it processes that string of text using a puzzle to create another string of text

it does not matter how much data a block has, the hash an ASIC miner receives stays the same length.

do not blame the block size on miners!!

blame it on PEOPLE thinking that USERS NODES cannot cope. when in reality USER NODES can cope
blame it on PEOPLE stupidly thinking the block bloat needs to be gigabytes a day and terrabytes a month.

blame it on PEOPLE who ignore the rational consensus since last year that is 2-4mb a block .. no 80mb-100gb(fake irrational doomsdays)
yes that is right for the last year the compromise has been 2-4mb.. so will people stop the irrational random numbers needed tomorrow..

yep Gmaxell (team leader of bitcoin core devs) loves his monero and his blockstream elements and his hyperledger sidechains.. more than he loves bitcoin.
yep Luke_jr (third in command bitcoin dev) loves his merge mind coins and is looking forward to merge mining side chains
yep Rusty Russel(5th in command bitcoin dev) loves his LN network that will be the swap mechanism between altcoins and bitcoin

You are paying a miner's fee for priority for a FINAL SETTLEMENT.
When you pay with a credit card or debt, your tx is REVERSABLE up to 6 to 9 months.
Bitcoin allows for a near immediate SETTLEMENT in a P2P way.

Whether the future use is as a CURRENCY or ASSET, is currently debatable.


This statement doesn't really mean anything.


This statement doesn't really mean anything.
The average person doesn't care nor will ever understand what is going on behind the "scenes".
Do the average people know what is occurring behind the scenes in world financial exchanges?

Do you have any evidence or source material for altcoin people preventing Bitcoin from being "fixed"?


Do you have any evidence or source material for people bribing others to argue not to "upgrade"?

The community can not vote for people to work on Bitcoin because most work is purely voluntary.
Most of your understanding as to Bitcoin and how it works, or why it works, is incorrect.

Actually the most problem is coming from the difficulty level, which is increasing a lot .and the cost of electricity is also very high and solar mining is also very helpful to some extend.

I haven't discussed them, because I don't fully agree with your assumptions and opinion as to certain issues.
I do have issues, but in my view, some issues deserve priority over other issues.

There are many things that need to be defined in order to determine what is what.
For example, what is your definition of "perfect" in this case? Because in my view no system can be perfect.

Would you say that the VISA Payment system is perfect, in your view?

A transaction in order to be accepted, the main problem is that it takes 3 blocks (~30 minutes) for a transaction to be accepted by an exchange.
If we replace the blockchain then it no longer becomes Bitcoin as mining is required in order to keep the currency as decentralised as possible.

I'm not sure bitcoin is broken? The bugs that are found are fixed quite well by the developers (so far).
It isn't unfixable (altcoins are more unfixable).

Is there evidence of them saying this? I'd be happy to consider it if there is, if not, Bitcoin has fewer problems that what you think it does.

Bitcoin is transacted immediately, like a creditcard or debt.
For bitcoins to receive a confirmation, thus creating a final settlement, it must be within a block.
For Bitcoin to have faster confirmation times, there are three possible choices:
1. Shorten the block interval
2. Raise the max blocksize
3. Create second layers designed for faster and more tps.
Those three choices is what the current "blocksize debate" is about.
Each choice creates other problems that can or can not be currently solved.
Some of the opinions about each one, are also in debate and are just opinions.

No one knows anything for sure and an incorrect choice could damage the system and its future.
Sometimes, things only get "fixed" when the people are forced to "fix" them.
Currently, there is no true need nor a forcing enough, to cause a consensus toward a change.

If you want to change confirmation times, which is a reasonable request on its face,
the question then becomes, what are you will to give up for it? If we want faster times,
we will need to lose security and/or it decentralized nature, IMO.

If we can wait and hold out for a few more years or more, we might be able to design a
solution in which we can have high tps and high decentralization with Bitcoin directly.
That is what I want. I do not think we can legitimately do both now, IMO.

Well it is a choice that would allow more tps.
It is just a highly controversial one and we both know no one would ever agree to it.
I just listed it since it is an option.

But you are correct, that it is not directly part of the "blocksize debate".

nope.

the blocksize option is not that bad. right now my client has a 2mb rule and is working fine. there are several hundred nodes with blocksize rules of over 1mb actually running right now on the network..

in 2009-2014. there were thousands of nodes with 1mb rule even when the blocks were only 0.5mb.. i know shocking right.. mindblowing thought that users can actually have a higher buffer set than what pools are producing. and doing it years before pools think the network can cope with it..
yes, mega brain fart explosion moment that decimates most of all the doomsdays rhetorics.

the funny part is that the node count can have the rule inplace before mining pools even decide to vote. the code has been available for implementations that are not core since last year. and it would only take a couple days for core to tweak their code too.. but they refuse as they fear the community will adopt it.. so their mindset is if you dont give the community caviar they will never ask for it next time they are spoonfed.

ofcourse mining pools wont move to bigger blocksizes unless majority of nodes can cope with it. which is why core wont offer it.
as for cores segwit. this doesnt need node implementation meaning the code that has a functioning wallet (not released yet(yep even 0.13.2 doesnt allow segwit transaction creation on mainnet)) is not released and wont be released until after activation, which means after activation there will be mad panic to download and peer review the code independently.

kind of backwards.. but hey. thats core.

1min?
those complaining about 10mins would complain about 1min

think about it, you are at a shop and someone swipes their touchless NFC debit card and is gone in 3 seconds. you are then there standing around. after 10 seconds you hear people tutting and whispering "why is he just standing there" by 30 seconds you see them looking at their watches and getting angry. by the 1minute mark your apologising for making them wait.

1minute and 10minutes wont help most situations people cry about..
onchain double spending needs to be fixed by not having invented things like the fee mechanism (causing possible reject by simply not paying adequate fee maliciously/intently) or making a second tx that diverts funds and then use RBF and CPFP to force your preferred tx through first. thus rejecting the other tx.


but now you are talking about middlemen managed services.. this is what offchain LN is. imagine coinbase you you set up a multisig together where coinbase cant move the funds without your permission and you cant move funds between them. yep it allows for faster transactions than the ones requiring confirmations.. but now your no longer in a permissionless position but instead a banking position.
also although you can 'trust' the funds instantly.. the true settlement lock will be longer than the 10 minutes. but hey if settling is of no concern, then go for it.. but you might aswell be using fiat too..