Here's the full list of spots (I've double checked it by replacing all by color, and hope that everyone has the right number of spots):  |
|
|
|
To speed things up, I wrote a small program in Java to automatically distribute the spots for everyone. This is the result (will move into Excel sheet now): [TheNewAnon135246, TheNewAnon135246, vizique, Mitchell, vizique, TheNewAnon135246, Hhampuz, Zepher, BG4, minifrij, Zepher, Lutpin, Mitchell, Zepher, Lauda, Lutpin, Hhampuz, Lutpin, TheNewAnon135246, Zepher, Zepher, minerjones, TheNewAnon135246, minifrij, TheNewAnon135246, minifrij, minifrij, Lutpin, Mitchell, Hhampuz, vizique, null, Lauda, Zepher, Zepher, Lauda, Mitchell, Lauda, TheNewAnon135246, Lauda, Zepher, Lauda, vizique, null, Lutpin, Hhampuz, vizique, Hhampuz, Mitchell, BG4, vizique, Lutpin, minerjones, minerjones, minerjones, minifrij, BG4, Zepher, Zepher, minerjones, TheNewAnon135246, minifrij, minerjones, vizique, TheNewAnon135246, Hhampuz, BG4, vizique, minifrij, vizique, TheNewAnon135246, vizique, Lauda, Lutpin, Zepher, minerjones, Hhampuz, Lutpin, Hhampuz, Lauda, Lauda, Zepher, minifrij, Lutpin, minifrij, Mitchell, minifrij, TheNewAnon135246, BG4, Mitchell, vizique, Mitchell, Zepher, Lutpin, vizique, minifrij, TheNewAnon135246, Mitchell, Lauda, null, Hhampuz, TheNewAnon135246, BG4, Hhampuz, BG4, vizique, Mitchell, Lauda, minerjones, minerjones, minerjones, Hhampuz, Mitchell, Lauda, Hhampuz, Zepher, Zepher, BG4, minerjones, TheNewAnon135246, BG4, null, Hhampuz, minerjones, minerjones, Zepher, minerjones, BG4, Hhampuz, Lauda, Mitchell, vizique, BG4, Lutpin, vizique, minifrij, Hhampuz, Lauda, minerjones, vizique, Mitchell, Hhampuz, Mitchell, Hhampuz, Zepher, minifrij, BG4, minifrij, BG4, BG4, Lutpin, Lutpin, Hhampuz, vizique, Zepher, null, Lauda, minifrij, minerjones, Mitchell, TheNewAnon135246, Lutpin, Lauda, vizique, BG4, BG4, minifrij, TheNewAnon135246, vizique, BG4, vizique, minerjones, TheNewAnon135246, Mitchell, Mitchell, BG4, Lauda, BG4, BG4, Zepher, minerjones, Lauda, minerjones, Hhampuz, BG4, vizique, BG4, TheNewAnon135246, Lutpin, Lutpin, Mitchell, Mitchell, vizique, BG4, TheNewAnon135246, Hhampuz, minerjones, minifrij, Zepher, Lutpin, Mitchell, Lutpin, TheNewAnon135246, minerjones, Mitchell, minifrij, Lutpin, BG4, vizique, Zepher, Lauda, minifrij, Lutpin, minifrij, Hhampuz, Lutpin, Mitchell, minerjones, Zepher, Zepher, TheNewAnon135246, Zepher, Hhampuz, Hhampuz, Zepher, vizique, Lauda, Lauda, BG4, Lutpin, Lauda, Mitchell, Mitchell, vizique, Lutpin, minifrij, minifrij, TheNewAnon135246, minerjones, Lauda, null, Lauda, minifrij, Lauda, Hhampuz, TheNewAnon135246, minifrij, minifrij, minerjones, TheNewAnon135246, minerjones, Hhampuz, Lutpin, Mitchell, Lutpin, TheNewAnon135246]
'null' fields are for klaaas.  |
|
|
|
If this deal is still up, I'll grab another ticket.
Yes it is. I already have a ticket in the first lot so I'd be happy with a random spot in the 2nd lot and the bonus ticket can be anywhere to fill a gap.
I reserved 'd' in lot [8-f] for you, and gave you '6' in [0-7] as the bonus ticket and market as paid. |
|
|
|
ssds are the actually best option for keeping the blockchain because of the iops. when you need to reindex or whateverit flies compared to a spinner.
Obviously it is faster, that was not what I was arguing against (ergo strawman). ssds have so many rewrites you dont need to worry. so that ssd used for the blockchain will only last 6 years instead of 9. so what. your hard drive will be outdated in the same time period.
No, no they don't. That is true if we are talking about the latest high end products (e.g. Samsung 960 Pro) and non-heavy users. The general SSDs don't have that many rewrites (or not an amount that I'd consider *many* since I would run out if I were to run Core on it). I have had a few internet providers in the last few years and never had an issue, I am in middle of the nation and I do not deal with comcast or timewarner though.
You don't spend enough, and can't draw to conclusion based on anecdotal evidence. Most of these plans world-wide come with a fair use clause, that isn't usually even defined properly (e.g. at what point do you exactly become *unfair). (I wonder though if the Bitcoin Unlimited wallet what kind of people it appeals to?  Imagine random workers (with little to no relevance in the field) in a company deciding the amount of workload that the company servers are able to take. That's pretty much what it is. |
|
|
|
I'm fine with paying higher fee. In fact i have it set high for the purpose that the tx will be confirmed fast. Unfortunately that wasn't the case. BTC txs are getting more and more expensive.
A modest amount of people keep claiming this, yet I don't see anything backing it up. Surely it is more expensive than it previously was (as you could even get zero-fee TXs to confirm), however it isn't getting "more and more expensive" (sounds like a generic statement that is used in political campaigns, where we're talking about non-marginal increases). I have not noticed any significant change in my transactions (fee-wise). |
|
|
|
It can get frustrating when people have to pay $0.2 worth tx fee and still wait for like 1.5 hour to get a single BTC confirmation. This thing needs to be fixed asap.
What are you talking about? How about you stop making ridiculously big transactions and then blaming Bitcoin for having to pay a high fee? The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 100 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 226 bytes, this results in a fee of 22,600 satoshis (0.12$).
Which is actually unusually high. I was expecting 60satoshis/byte when I started writing this post. |
|
|
|
It's not about quantity, but about quality, even though we can't let total bitcoin full nodes is too few.
In past, we can see lots of full bitcoin nodes because blockchain size was very small and bitcoin qt was the most popular wallet, but most of them weren't good nodes because they're average user and don't run full nodes 24/7.
The thing is that those nodes are still helpful to the network, even if they operate only for a few hours per day (assuming that they have their port forwarding properly set up). Also, in future i think numbers of bitcoin full nodes will be decreased because there'll more transaction which means full nodes needs faster computing, internet connection and good storage capacity as well.
Obviously everything runs better on workstations, servers and such. However, that doesn't mean that we need to limit the decentralization to such. So, i think total full nodes about few hundreds to few thousands are fine as long as all of those full nodes runs smoothly and ready to handle more transaction after blockchain size have been solved.
"Few hundreds" is definitely way under what I'd consider acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
Can we speed this up somehow please? Minerjones can give out the places to everyone as they've done 256 spot raffles before (which shouldn't be an issue now). As far as payments are concerned, you could just use one of your own addresses until you get the donation one.
|
|
|
|
I think that in total we're going to need in excess of 16,000 nodes, similar to what the survey is saying, however for now I think having between 1,000 and 2,000 is pretty good overall for the network. If we can kick it up a notch from there it'll be even better, but it will make sure nothing is getting overworked.
The numbers that you think are "pretty good overall" are useless as they aren't based on any testing methodology, but rather a 'gut feeling'. It's a shame running a node doesn't actually hold any incentives aside from a 'feeling good for helping' feeling.
You're thinking from it from a limited perspective though. I think that being able to use a decentralized network such as Bitcoin should be considered an incentive from the user-perspective. Then you have businesses, tech-savy users, hobbyists, etc. who all have different *incentives* to run a node. I run a full node, and I'm not even sure why. It's obvious why so many people don't even bother.
There is no incentive to buy a machine for the sole purpose of running a node, indeed. However, if you have a spare and resources to run one, why not? |
|
|
|
if :
- you have 80% of the network in 0.14.x segwit enforced
- and you have a new client in 0.14.x thaht it must download a new blockchain
- you can rebuild the whole blockchain with a segwit optimisation
- result = reduce per 4 the size of the local blockchain
- and at the end of the 2017, all clients have segwit local blockchain rebuilded with the new size
- because you can rebuild a segwit local blockchain from all clients of the Bitcoin network
I still have no idea what you're talking about. Are you sure you haven't mixed up something? Well we do know that ssd's are growing much higher then our standard hard drives
AFAIK you should not be running Bitcoin Core on a SDD due to the intense stress on IOPS (if you have to run reindex or something). They aren't as durable as HDDs (yet). It's the internet bandwitdh and maximum monthly bandwidth.
Funny thing about those ISP providers. They give you a certain download and upload speed, but if you attempt to use your internet at full speed for 30 days you're likely going to hit some cap after which you will either get your speed reduced or access cut off completely. |
|
|
|
I will take spot #c from the second lot.
Thank you Lauda!
Added! I'll take you up on that offer! Give me one more random please  Added [0-7] c as reserved, and marked free ticket as paid [8-f] 6. Thanks. |
|
|
|
The limit will be 25 spots per person to make this fair for everyone and of course if anyone wants to donate more than the suggested entry price that would be great too.
What's the point of this if it's a charity raffle? I wanted to buy 128 right now. Anyhow, give me 25 whatever numbers. |
|
|
|
We're in a period of low price volatility. It's all gone a bit boring, forum traffic & increased adoption will improve the quality of the forum, we just need some good news to pump the price.
False. If nothing is done, the exact opposite will happen. The quality will be even worse than it is now, which says a lot since some sections are already mostly unreadable. Do you remember back in 2015 when there were 4-some bubbles and a billion of the same threads about "btc is $n now" or "how high will btc go?" appeared?
Quite annoying, redundant and rule-breaking threads, yes. Increased adoption will only bring way to more people... with the majority of those becoming spammers.
Unless something is done, that is likely the case. |
|
|
|
Here you have it, a perfect example of what I was talking about: as for the "People who have kept a close eye on your posts" i dont care about your small little flock of gmaxwell religious friends are talking about, yo can all circle each other pretending gmaxwell/adam back are your kings and saviours.. that has nothing to do with bitcoin code. but more so some off topic religious/political view of wanting to ruin bitcoins decentralization, within your little minds..
EG 5200 nodes... taking XXmonths to get 95% majority after they developed tested and deployed to then show their desire.
leaving 260 nodes not yet ready.
You still think that the activation mechanisms are based on the percentage of nodes running the new version?  So much about the demonstration of knowledge. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
