Status as of Thursday, November 2, 2017

[Steve Sokolowski]

I think the reply is a little over the top. Remember that Coinbase charges for every transaction, and so do companies like NiceHash. We're paying $66/transaction to pay people out and don't charge for it.

I also want to point out that 2/3 of payouts are not coming in bitcoins; about 30% are. 2/3 of customer debts are owed in bitcoins, but that's because we need to keep the payout threshold higher and the debts grow larger.

I just don't understand why the Core holds the positions they do. The idea that bitcoin should be capped at 1MB blocks just doesn't make logical sense.

Steve, I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous position. If you don't want to pay those fees there are two simple solutions:

1.) Manually lower the fee that you use when sending payments, I'm fairly certain users would rather wait a day or so for the transaction to clear the mempool rather than pay the fees. At the minimum you could give the user the option.

2.) The simpler solution is just send the payments using a segwit address, you should see a pretty significant reduction in transaction costs. I assume you probably have some moral objection to segwit as per your prominent big-block position, but shouldn't you use the cheapest option available?

I think you guys are great developers and have an awesome product that can be something special if/when you decide to expand and commit to the project. I don't, however, feel that you are the best businessmen in many situations. As you've stated yourselves, you have very fierce competition that has some significant advantages over you in several areas. You are operating on a razor's edge of competitiveness and you really, really need to maintain any advantage you can over other pools. To me this feels like you are mixing your personal feelings about Core at the cost of best business practices.

The Core's own client doesn't support Segwit transactions. There's no way to use the addresses because none of the clients support them.

We're already set to 18 block confirmation times. We can't realistically set the fees any lower. We tried that one day a few weeks back and people complained on the forums that it took all day and it generated twelve support tickets. The tickets cost more to answer than the fees.

As to business, unfortunately it seems like finding good businessmen is more difficult than good developers. We have plenty of people who send us developer resumes, but I have yet to see an MBA or a CPA come by.

We'll be making an announcement on Tuesday about expansion, so stay tuned for that!

[GregoryGHarding]

I think the reply is a little over the top. Remember that Coinbase charges for every transaction, and so do companies like NiceHash. We're paying $66/transaction to pay people out and don't charge for it.

I also want to point out that 2/3 of payouts are not coming in bitcoins; about 30% are. 2/3 of customer debts are owed in bitcoins, but that's because we need to keep the payout threshold higher and the debts grow larger.

I just don't understand why the Core holds the positions they do. The idea that bitcoin should be capped at 1MB blocks just doesn't make logical sense.

Steve, I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous position. If you don't want to pay those fees there are two simple solutions:

1.) Manually lower the fee that you use when sending payments, I'm fairly certain users would rather wait a day or so for the transaction to clear the mempool rather than pay the fees. At the minimum you could give the user the option.

2.) The simpler solution is just send the payments using a segwit address, you should see a pretty significant reduction in transaction costs. I assume you probably have some moral objection to segwit as per your prominent big-block position, but shouldn't you use the cheapest option available?

I think you guys are great developers and have an awesome product that can be something special if/when you decide to expand and commit to the project. I don't, however, feel that you are the best businessmen in many situations. As you've stated yourselves, you have very fierce competition that has some significant advantages over you in several areas. You are operating on a razor's edge of competitiveness and you really, really need to maintain any advantage you can over other pools. To me this feels like you are mixing your personal feelings about Core at the cost of best business practices.

The Core's own client doesn't support Segwit transactions. There's no way to use the addresses because none of the clients support them.

We're already set to 18 block confirmation times. We can't realistically set the fees any lower. We tried that one day a few weeks back and people complained on the forums that it took all day and it generated twelve support tickets. The tickets cost more to answer than the fees.

As to business, unfortunately it seems like finding good businessmen is more difficult than good developers. We have plenty of people who send us developer resumes, but I have yet to see an MBA or a CPA come by.

We'll be making an announcement on Tuesday about expansion, so stay tuned for that!

if i remember correctly, jkdreaper came to you as a CPA and got a "no thanks"

[centar]

I think the reply is a little over the top. Remember that Coinbase charges for every transaction, and so do companies like NiceHash. We're paying $66/transaction to pay people out and don't charge for it.

I also want to point out that 2/3 of payouts are not coming in bitcoins; about 30% are. 2/3 of customer debts are owed in bitcoins, but that's because we need to keep the payout threshold higher and the debts grow larger.

I just don't understand why the Core holds the positions they do. The idea that bitcoin should be capped at 1MB blocks just doesn't make logical sense.

Steve, I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous position. If you don't want to pay those fees there are two simple solutions:

1.) Manually lower the fee that you use when sending payments, I'm fairly certain users would rather wait a day or so for the transaction to clear the mempool rather than pay the fees. At the minimum you could give the user the option.

2.) The simpler solution is just send the payments using a segwit address, you should see a pretty significant reduction in transaction costs. I assume you probably have some moral objection to segwit as per your prominent big-block position, but shouldn't you use the cheapest option available?

I think you guys are great developers and have an awesome product that can be something special if/when you decide to expand and commit to the project. I don't, however, feel that you are the best businessmen in many situations. As you've stated yourselves, you have very fierce competition that has some significant advantages over you in several areas. You are operating on a razor's edge of competitiveness and you really, really need to maintain any advantage you can over other pools. To me this feels like you are mixing your personal feelings about Core at the cost of best business practices.

The Core's own client doesn't support Segwit transactions. There's no way to use the addresses because none of the clients support them.

We're already set to 18 block confirmation times. We can't realistically set the fees any lower. We tried that one day a few weeks back and people complained on the forums that it took all day and it generated twelve support tickets. The tickets cost more to answer than the fees.

As to business, unfortunately it seems like finding good businessmen is more difficult than good developers. We have plenty of people who send us developer resumes, but I have yet to see an MBA or a CPA come by.

We'll be making an announcement on Tuesday about expansion, so stay tuned for that!

The core client does in fact support Segwit, see https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/quest ... it-address for info on how.

As for setting the fees lower, I think the best long-term solution (I understand it would take time and effort to implement) would be to give the option to the user on whether they want fast payout or lower fees. I think people complain when they don't understand what is going on. If you randomly delay payments one day without explaining why first, there will obviously be some discontent. Glad to hear your making an announcement though, that is good news for everyone.

[Steve Sokolowski]

Steve, I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous position. If you don't want to pay those fees there are two simple solutions:

1.) Manually lower the fee that you use when sending payments, I'm fairly certain users would rather wait a day or so for the transaction to clear the mempool rather than pay the fees. At the minimum you could give the user the option.

2.) The simpler solution is just send the payments using a segwit address, you should see a pretty significant reduction in transaction costs. I assume you probably have some moral objection to segwit as per your prominent big-block position, but shouldn't you use the cheapest option available?

I think you guys are great developers and have an awesome product that can be something special if/when you decide to expand and commit to the project. I don't, however, feel that you are the best businessmen in many situations. As you've stated yourselves, you have very fierce competition that has some significant advantages over you in several areas. You are operating on a razor's edge of competitiveness and you really, really need to maintain any advantage you can over other pools. To me this feels like you are mixing your personal feelings about Core at the cost of best business practices.

The Core's own client doesn't support Segwit transactions. There's no way to use the addresses because none of the clients support them.

We're already set to 18 block confirmation times. We can't realistically set the fees any lower. We tried that one day a few weeks back and people complained on the forums that it took all day and it generated twelve support tickets. The tickets cost more to answer than the fees.

As to business, unfortunately it seems like finding good businessmen is more difficult than good developers. We have plenty of people who send us developer resumes, but I have yet to see an MBA or a CPA come by.

We'll be making an announcement on Tuesday about expansion, so stay tuned for that!

if i remember correctly, jkdreaper came to you as a CPA and got a "no thanks"

I can't comment on specifics of a particular person, although Jason is a great guy.

In general, though, we need people who have degrees and certifications, which are difficult to find. Many people have contacted us, but don't have the professional certifications required.

[Mrrt]

I have zero sympathy for those complaining about scaling but can't be bothered to implement SegWit.

It's been available in the core client for three months and rather than figure it out we're still sitting around complaining impotently about block size.

[Nordin]

1.) Senken Sie manuell die Gebühr, die Sie beim Senden von Zahlungen verwenden. Ich bin ziemlich sicher, dass die Benutzer lieber einen Tag oder so warten würden, bis die Transaktion den Mempool löscht. anstatt die Gebühren zu bezahlen. Zumindest können Sie dem Benutzer die Option geben.

*tump up*