|
Maybe HODL everything will be better.
|
|
|
|
|
By the end of the next year is a realistic date for a new ATH.
|
|
|
|
|
In a few years we are going to be mainstream and everyone will knowns our name.
|
|
|
|
|
Why the price is going down? Any news?
|
|
|
|
|
We need the chinese continue with the pump
|
|
|
|
Don't listen to the idiots, buy some btc as SOON AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN..... no need to go all in, but don't be thinking about waiting until next year or the following year because btc will jump to $10,000 and then....... Put into perspective check the thread below http://bitcoininstead.comNice site, make me cry |
|
|
|
|
Always is the best time. Always...
|
|
|
|
|
Let's hope everything goes well and nobody can stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
Almost every thread in alt is very dangerous, you must walk with caution for that section.
|
|
|
|
Always hate Steemit  ...the nextgen coin will come without notice. |
|
|
|
|
Please someone close this scam and find the guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
I am the elected "Developer" (committer) to Bitcoin Unlimited. I am breaking my silence of a year and a month on this forum to say that we do have a solid development team, but that you will have a very hard time discovering information about us and the Bitcoin Unlimited project on this forum since much of it has been "moderated" out of existence. We will see if this post lasts. Please do use Google searches to learn about us.
|
|
|
|
|
The reasons above are all true, but the "creative moderation" that twisted legitimate debate and discussion about the bifurcating future of Bitcoin as either a person-2-person or settlement network into altcoin censorship gave this forum a final huge kick in the nuts. It was a huge loss-of-confidence in the impartiality of this forum regardless of which side you were on.
And whether you agreed or disagreed with the author of the GCBU thread about that issue, the fact remains that he provided an awesome distillation of and commentary on current world economic events. GCBU readers would then pop off and comment on other threads in speculation.
Basically this forum and bitcoin discussion as a whole just had its Mt. Gox moment.
|
|
|
|
I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say If everybody adopts a "do the opposite of anything Mike Hearn suggests" policy, then they've just shut their brain off and given complete control over their decision making to Mike Hearn. It's a great way to achieve the opposite of the stated goal. Even if that would make any sense at all that's quite an interpretation of what the guy said... The point is: don't make this about people. If you do, you fall into the same system that has doomed politics / representative democracies. You vote for the guy who promises X but doesn't actually DO it. Look at Greece for the most blatant recent example but it happens everywhere. Stay focused on your opinion of the issues and you can be simultaneously allies and opposing with the same person depending on your respective opinion on ongoing debates. For example, I disagreed with Cypherdoc about sidechains but agree with him about block size... (although at this point I do have to recognize that while I still like sidechains technically, he was correct in his estimation of the conflict of interest they might create) |
|
|
|
…
At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.
I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way. What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit. Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ." What would happen? Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB. This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes. I'd expect many people to do the same thing. Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size. We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks. Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows. TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit. That is exactly what I think. The miners will have to try it out or get some feel of what they can do through other channels (social media, conferences, node versions), including associate with other miners. As long as the association is voluntary, it will not form a monopoly. yes, this has been considered and discussed before. The danger is that a large block miner cartel might develop naturally whose blocks put small-bandwidth players at a disadvantage. But as others have mentioned, some people are at an electricity cost disadvantage, some bandwidth, some something else... basically it would just be another metric to take into account as you site your miners. So I would be 100% for this if miners could only work with real txns. But a miner could fill up a huge block with a bunch of "fake" (unrelayed, fee pays to himself) txns to artificially drive up network costs. Its too bad Bitcoin doesn't have the "pay portion of fees to miner pool, receive portion for the next N blocks" feature... that idea closes a lot of miner loopholes. But regardless I'm not sure if this "loophole" really is one; it does require 51% of the network to be as connected as you are and willing to process your monster garbage block. I have a hard time believing that miners would do so since over the long term they need bitcoin to succeed. More likely (as you guys suggest) they'll just configure their nodes to ignore monster blocks unless > N deep in the chain. |
|
|
|
this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake. I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now. I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week. I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition). So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it). Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1). So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer. Bad argument. The current network @ 5 tps can handle 432k transactions per day. If all the high volume stuff (most of which is tied to speculation in one form or another) were moved off that would be maybe 431k people on-ramping per day which is vastly more than is needed. I'm not sure that you have any basis to your claim that the high volume stuff is tied to speculation. Regardless, the purpose of the use does not matter. What matters is the structure of their transactions. I can invent lots of network structure and use patterns which LN does not work for but is speculative. For example, lots of people doing weekly dollar cost averaging purchases could take a large bite out of that 400k daily txn rate. Also presupposing the high volume stuff is moved offchain means txn fees are likely high and blocks filled which will negatively affect new users making their one time purchases. People tend not to do stuff proactively, especially when it entails adopting a new technology operating within a questionable legal framework (are LN nodes money transmitters?) Also, I think we've onboarded most of the speculative investors we are going to get in this phase -- we need a wave of utility next. I have a hard time believing this utility use moves from once per month to multiple daily txns. Rather it will be monthly txns becoming weekly txns driven by B2B, remittance, and intermittent online purchases by bitcoin users. And it will be colored coin and ledger use (which LN cannot optimize). |
|
|
|
this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean
And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake. I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now. I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week. I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition). So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it). Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable. Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1). So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today. And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer. |
|
|
|
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time). That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge. For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions. "interest of users and miner's incentives could diverge"... this is a very odd way of describing the situation because these interests are of course divergent. The interest of a seller is always to sell at the highest price, and the buyer to buy at the lowest. It is this tension that makes price discovery work. This chart brings up a very good point. Like you point out, in such a scenario, the miner can only earn a profit if he can include a sufficient number of fee-paying TXs in his block. But what happens if the miner before him cleaned out the mempool? It seems the rational miner will stop hashing1 entirely until enough new transactions have built up to push his block into the "profitable" zone in your graph (the zone where the supply curve is below the demand curve).
Do you see this as a problem? I see this as the network working at its maximum efficiency... note that every miner will have a slightly different cost so hashing power will turn off at different times. And if running intermittent hashing power causes blocks to come less often than once per 10minutes, the difficulty will be reduced. The reduction in difficulty will allow blocks to be found with less hash power so your hardware will be more likely to find the block. This means miners will power up their hardware with fewer transactions in the mempool. So the system self-adjusts. The awesome part of it is that there is NO minimum fee. Difficulty will always adjust to allow the minimum fee to be whatever people are willing to pay (presumably to just below competitive money transmission systems). |
|
|
|
If my understanding of IBLT is correct, its main advantage is that the quantity of information transmitted on the wire is constant, whatever the number of transactions inside the block.
IMHO, it's fair to say that propagation of these data is not the whole story. There's a reconciliation to be done between the new block and the local mempool but I think it's also fair to make the hypothesis that with such a mechanism in place, mining pools may have an incentive to keep an exhaustive mempool (in order to avoid the burden of requesting missing transactions and to increase their performances/profits).
...
Right, the reconciliation process will take time (information must be communicated), and the amount of time will have a lower limit proportional to the Shannon Entropy in the new block. One could argue that the Shannon Entropy in a new block will not in general be proportional to the size of the block, but that doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, the only way I can imagine that it would be possible is if the block solutions contain no information about the included transactions at all (i.e., the case of infinite coding gain). But if there's no information communicated about the transactions included in a block, then in my opinion the miners aren't peers but slaves and the system is already centralized. If the network is composed of peers who build blocks based on their own volition, then I argue that information (Shannon Entropy) about the transactions contained within the new blocks must be communicated as part of the block solution. If this is the case, the fee market will remain healthy (according to the definition of a healthy fee market given in feemarket.pdf). Basing the argument on information theory is problematic because there are 2 phases to the communication (txn exchange and block solution broadcast) and we are just focused on the second phase. Observations like communication must be proportional to # txns apply to the whole communication not its parts. |
|
|
|
It may be a good time to invest in NBG, it has never been this low. It's really a 50/50 situation. If the Troika doesnt let Greece fall, whoever investing on NBG now will get pretty good returns, the problem is if the Greexit actually happens and your investment goes literally to 0. If you have something like 1K dollars lying around that you dont know where to put and you are already on Bitcoin, maybe a gamble with this may be a good investment if Greece recovers in the next 5 to 10 years.
Just don't. Don't throw money into a disaster hoping that someone else temporarily patches things up for you so you can sell at a profit. On the other hand, if you think that certain Greek companies are a good deal at these prices go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
