I had a discussion with AlexGR in the snake pit (Wall Observer) and I am curious to see if anyone in technical has an opinion on the network spikes we're seeing. Have you noticed that the mempool tends to bloat up massively whenever the price moves $10-$15?
Spam? Dust? Or people desperately trying to move coins to make a trade?
Why isn't there a fee spike then? Are those "desperate" people to "make a trade" lacking 2-3-4 cents? Would it be a big impact to their wallet to pay such a small fee if they are going to make so much money from a good trade? Because they are users. They do what's supposed to work and it doesn't. Not that adding fees will make the blocks bigger anyway.  Gimme a break: 1,900,982.81 XBT (x440 = 836mn USD) Total fees 4.8090 XBT (x 440 = 2115 USD) "We want to move around 836mn USD but are only willing to pay 2k in fees so we will wait a few hours or days".Makes sense, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. Which sort of shows that the fee market doesn't work. Maybe we should invite Mike Hearn back so he can sort this out. The fee market works great: https://bitcoinfees.21.coCan you see who are waiting? Oh yes, those who pay the least. |
|
|
|
Gimme a break: 1,900,982.81 XBT (x440 = 836mn USD) Total fees 4.8090 XBT (x 440 = 2115 USD) "We want to move around 836mn USD but are only willing to pay 2k in fees so we will wait a few hours or days".Makes sense, doesn't it? [I'm beginning to suspect that you're a bit dim.] No, it doesn't. Which sort of shows that the fee market doesn't work. Maybe we should invite Mike Hearn back so he can sort this out. The fee market works great: https://bitcoinfees.21.coCan you see who are waiting? Oh yes, those who pay the least. Do you mind if I copy paste this into a thread I'll make on technical so we can get some proper debate about this? |
|
|
|
Gimme a break: 1,900,982.81 XBT (x440 = 836mn USD) Total fees 4.8090 XBT (x 440 = 2115 USD) "We want to move around 836mn USD but are only willing to pay 2k in fees so we will wait a few hours or days".Makes sense, doesn't it? [I'm beginning to suspect that you're a bit dim.] No, it doesn't. Which sort of shows that the fee market doesn't work. Maybe we should invite Mike Hearn back so he can sort this out. |
|
|
|
Have you noticed that the mempool tends to bloat up massively whenever the price moves $10-$15?
Spam? Dust? Or people desperately trying to move coins to make a trade?
Why isn't there a fee spike then? Are those "desperate" people to "make a trade" lacking 2-3-4 cents? Would it be a big impact to their wallet to pay such a small fee if they are going to make so much money from a good trade? Because they are users. They do what's supposed to work and it doesn't. Not that adding fees will make the blocks bigger anyway. Maybe they're not responsible for it.
For example when you withdraw money of a plateform you have no choice on the fee!
And that. |
|
|
|
|
Can't move coins to pump.
Can't move coins to dump.
Can't use the frecker.
Bullish?
|
|
|
|
We need more moon pictures.  No can do. They're rationing fuel. Glad to see some blocks not full. As long as some blocks are not totally full it means new tx can go through right? no transaction can be left unconfirmed if there is still place in a block? It doesn't matter if blocks are full, because they are full of practically zero cost txs, in terms of fees. What matters is whether a user can transact - and this is definitely the case, if a user includes a fee like 0.01$ (longer confirmation times) to 0.03 0.05$ (very short confirmation times). Have you noticed that the mempool tends to bloat up massively whenever the price moves $10-$15? Spam? Dust? Or people desperately trying to move coins to make a trade? |
|
|
|
Could they say "core" a few more times. It would be nice if Satoshi could just jump back in again. And tell us he's been to rehab.... for smoking baby hair. Maybe we could stop pushing him in front of every argument then. Wouldn't you rather a delicious helping of girl otter with potato & fish testicles? @billyjoeallen: Credit is the first step on the cul-de-sac of Debt Slavery. DO YOU HAVE SOME? CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME? NOW? Stop tummy teasing, you little hussy! |
|
|
|
Could they say "core" a few more times. It would be nice if Satoshi could just jump back in again. And tell us he's been to rehab.... for smoking baby hair. Maybe we could stop pushing him in front of every argument then. |
|
|
|
Swastikas and Klan-robes. Sexist, racist, homophobes.
Aryan-Nations and Hammerskins: you can wear my nuts on your nazi chins!
God, I love a man in uniform!
(But, uh, before we get too intimate here, big fella):
what exactly are the great historical accomplishments of "your" race that make you proud to be white?
Capitalism? Slavery? Genocide? Sitcoms? Guns? War? Pollution? Addiction? NAFTA? Thigh-Master?
This is your fucking white-history, my "friend".
So why don't we start making a history worth being proud of and start fighting the real fucking enemy:
the white male capitalist supremacist.
Swastikas and Klan-robes. Sexist, racist, homophobes.
This one's for the "Master Race": my brown-power ass in your white-power face!
Kill them all and let a Norse God sort 'em out!
Sitcoms. Oh! And fiskeboller i hvit saus. What was the question again? |
|
|
|
Go ahead and show it. I'm genuinely curious.
Sry, no more snuff for you. Just a healthy reminder.  |
|
|
|
It is interesting to see just how emotionally based supposed logical thinkers are. And on that note, a thought occurs. rebuilder, is the problem you have with Trump that you are afraid he would be successful at enforcing his immigration policies?
The problem with logic, in this respect, is that it lacks value judgements. Those are important in politics, and they are always present. If everyone were to accept yours and Trumps value judgements, and follow them to their logical conclusion, all hell would break lose. Like we saw in the 30s and 40s. That's just noise without explaining your definitions. What do you mean by value judgements in this context? What do you see happening? And what happened in the 30s and 40s, for the non-americans among us? Whether race is an acceptable criterion for other than physical issues (e.g. medical treatment), is a value judgement. If we accept it is, and follow the logic, you can have all kinds of undesirable results, to put it mildly. Like what the Europeans did to the Jews in the 30s and 40s. Or what the Hutus did to the Tutsis in 1994. Or what the Turks did to the Armenians in the 1915. Or what the Russians did to the Tatars in 1943. I'm being way to polite here. As someone who half of his family was murdered between 1941 and 1944 because of race, and as someone married to a "mud person" as you call them, I think I can genuinely say that you are a first class asshole. It's scary how quickly people forget. Nothing has changed under the surface. Which is why politics is important. |
|
|
|
... system used for central heating for nearby houses or office buildings. 40-60 degrees celsius through radiators makes sense. ...
Forced hot water heat temp is 82-98C. 40-60 for radiant heat (not really common). Would have to be fairly special houses -- central heating (for apartments) usually means *steam* heat (convenient, because no return pipes with steam). That's part of the problem. It's difficult to retro-install the systems, you basically have to build the neighborhood at the same time as you build the data center. I can't find where I got this from but i think they might have used underfloor heating. |
|
|
|
"As someone who comes from a physics and engineering background, over the long run I'm not concerned with mining centralization. Physics will ensure it is distributed." "As a result, the mining centralization we see in Greenland and large data centers becomes enormously unprofitable. Any centralization of mining would REQUIRE heat recycling, which severely limits data centers and necessitates distribution unless you introduce heat pumps, which also increase cost." --submitted 1 year ago How's that decentralization goin' thus far? The guy doesn't understand that mining is centralized in China, not Greenland. He doesn't understand that it's economically idiotic to heat your hot water with miners, because miners need *cold water* going into the waterblocks -- recirculating hot water for cooling ain't cooling, it ain't gonna do much. If hot water was used at a constant rate, 24/7, he might have a better point, but it don't work like that. Regardless, *mining is concentrated around cheap electricity,* not where it's cold (Greenland). The fact that silicon might hit quantum dead end "round the year 2024" ain't doing diddly for us now. TL;DR: don't buy his "physics and engineering background," he doesn't think things through. P.S. If you wanna talk about particulars of utilizing waste heat, I'll be glad to. P.P.S. LOL, HE'S the bro behind "That is why we are building a bitcoin miner that fits inside a water heater."I remember when IceDrill was selling us stories about their farm providing heat for apartment complexes  Well, the heaters are just one thought. But I think there is more to the thought of commoditization (e.g. longer and longer development circles for ASICs). BTW: I don't see mining centralization as a big problem. There is always competition by other crypto-currencies to balancethings in Bitcoin. Let's get to the heat waste discussion: Maybe it would be possible to gain back some energy by using Stirling engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine>I don't see mining centralization as a big problem. In that case, the point's moot. I don't see it as a catastrophic problem, but it's a serious one. One that effectively nulls any pretensions to Bitcoin being "decentralized." >heaters are just one thought It's an awful thought. It's fail. >Stirling engines Not sure if srs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine#Efficiency <==and that's just what's theoretically possible. Have you also considered this?  Put it this way: Let's say Chinese coal-fired Electricity is 2 pennies per kWh, and yours is 4 pennies. Your Stirling engine manages to convert 3% of wasted heat back into electricity. Yeah. Bonus: if Stirling heat reclamation made sense, Chinese megaminers would use it too. They'd make the thing, too -- you'll buy it from them  Seriously tho, read the laws of thermodynamics, it's straightforward stuff. I can see, why it makes no sense for the chinese miners today. However, I expect margins to become zero/negative in the forseeable* future. What do you think will happen longterm (*10 to 20 years)? First of all, I think the guy in the article is confusing Greenland with Iceland. Absolutely nothing is concentrated in Greenland. Second of all, data centers existed before Bitcoin mining, so there's no need to reinvent the wheel. The only viable solution for reusing the heat is to run the mining coolant in several closed loops inside the data center, run them through several heat exchanger where the heat is led to a different closed loop system used for central heating for nearby houses or office buildings. 40-60 degrees celsius through radiators makes sense. Heating the liquid further cancels any gains because it will need to be cooled down again (remember, you can't use the liquid from the closed loop system directly), and water heaters are (as lambie pointed out) used too sporadically. Third, miners don't do that because sunk cost is a killer in Bitcoin mining. And such a system is very, very....VERY expensive. |
|
|
|
[An update on the solar solo mine would be groovy too.]
When building a Solar power grid or using microhydro one must plan for peak electrical use. I prefer Microhydro, but the cost of solar is getting much cheaper every year. Normally, one would float charge batteries and than burn off extra electricity to heat water , but I find that solar water heaters are better suited for this task, and excess electricity that would normally be discarded is used to mine bitcoin. What would be the best of all worlds is using those ASICs to heat water as well to close the loop and recycle the waste heat. Originally and all the way up through the GPU era, mining was something that could be done profitably part time, so taking advantage of off-peak cheap electricity was an excellent use case. Now however, miners are so damn expensive, that if they are not running 24/7 you can run a real risk of never being able to recoup your capital investment. It is a race to break even before your miners are obsolete, halving cuts revenue, or the market crashes. I guess if you live somewhere cold, you could still run obsolete miners as a space heater, sell them as a curiosity or mine some altcoin with a SHA256 hashing protocol and a much lower difficulty, but other than that, it's a race. WE HAVE A CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM. Miners outside of China are reluctant to invest substantially in new mining gear because they face an uphill battle competing with Chinese mines with electricity and labor cost advantage. Miners are also reluctant to build up because the code development uncertainty and scaling uncertainty. It's hard to make long term plans with so many unknowns. So mining concentration may not be corrected until there is code development decentralization. Then we have the problem that code development centralization (with Core) is an established practice, something that will not be easily changed, if at all. Miners do not want to switch to Classic or other alternative because they fear (rightly IMHO) that a switch will cause market volatility or an outright crash. They can't do something even if they know or suspect it is in their long-term best interest if they need to keep mining revenue high enough to pay for their gear operations in a shorter time period. The vaccine could cause the death of the patient before it cures it. I think this is a risk worth taking, but I'm not a miner. It is up to them. Without taking the medicine, there is limited potential for growth and price appreciation. Any miners want to weigh in on this? Not a miner, but someone who had to deal with off-the-grid (due to ...no grid being available) power (wind, solar, diesel, hydro) and water cooling (well... machined my own waterblocks, at least): First, the reason that non-subsidized alt energy is not used more often is because -- yeah, it's a tremendous pain, and is far more expensive than being on the grid. The most practical off-the-grid power sources are gas/diesel generators. There even were some portable gas turbines, lol. Second, there's no need to convert electricity into heat to store it, because see here. Granted, you need a legal hookup & power meters. Micro hydro is basically a joke, because you need head. like so:  It's great when there are no alternatives and you're lucky enough to be in *just the right place,* but it's not a paddle wheel in a stream hooked up to an car alternator. Using hot water from waterblocks (how many commercial miners are currently water-cooled? Yeah, water cooling's expensive, that's why.) is a non-starter - think about plumbing farm, think how useful warm water is (not hot, if your chip's running at 120C, the water entering your water block is ~35C & exiting @ ~60C) , etc., etc. TL;DR: Most people advocating shit like that don't know which end of the screwdriver to stick in a screw. There are some remote locations where it may be possible to build this kind of setup profitably due to lack of regulations, lack of competition from the grid, constant demand due to cold climate, etc. but those areas also suffer from a lack of bandwidth that makes capitalizing on them for Bitcoin mining a non-starter. You can run a farm on a mobile broadband connection if you're mining on a pool. And that won't change. |
|
|
|
I don't understand the point about the "quadratic validation" problem, but the first two issues of undermining consensus seem sufficient in order to cause the proposal to be totally and completely unacceptable.
Validation time is quadratic. This means that somebody could construct a transaction (at 2 MB) that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes). BIP109 does not solve this, but adds a limit to the size of transactions. Segwit on the other hand scales down the validation time making it linear. Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)
Again, you didn't understand the roundtable at all. The people who were present there (some Core developers) have to present a HF proposal and code between April and July. This does imply that this proposal will be implemented/accepted by either developers/miners/community (i.e. no guarantee). You first have to wait for the actual proposal. How many times do I have to tell you this? You're either being naive or disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Speaking of 'high school science fair project', the Raspberry Pi 3 is about to be released soon. Does this mean it's safe to increase capacity?
I believe that was one of the major hurdles for you, Lauda.
A lot of these things that you fail to acknowledge are important for decentralization. Anything is still better than promoting the Sybil attack for $10/month. Here you go, ignoring the fact that the chances of Classic supporters being the ones behind the DDoS are equal as expected. There is also a possibility that it has nothing to do with either. Huh? I think I gave my view on the ddos a couple of posts back. This was just a friendly jab at your earlier Raspberry Pi rant in one of the echo chambers. |
|
|
|
This is the thing that people here don't realize. Astounding logic that wants to throw everything we've worked for for a 'high school science fair project'.  Speaking of 'high school science fair project', the Raspberry Pi 3 is about to be released soon. Does this mean it's safe to increase capacity? I believe that was one of the major hurdles for you, Lauda. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
