|
The transaction fee is included as part of the coinbase transaction. If you look at any block's transactions, you will see that the coinbase transaction is little over 25 BTC. The extra on top of the 25 are all of the transaction fees. This way the miner can spend those Bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Before I cast my vote, I need to know more about XT. In which language it is written ? Where do I get to see the source code ? Who are the people in control of the source code ?
XT is a fork of Bitcoin Core. It is written in C/C++ and the code is located at https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt. Mike Hearn is in control of the code and possibly Gavin now too. I might switch, if I knew what the differences between Core and XT are. Also, XT is very behind on updates to Core and it hasn't been updated in over 5 months. |
|
|
|
"If you’re not really a fan of digesting the technical aspects of Bitcoin and how it works, this probably wouldn’t be of concern to you. However, chances are that most Bitcoin users from all around the world hope that Bitcoin will actually become the currency of the future, but how can that really happen in the case that it currently only handles 7 transactions per second? Yes, that’s right. Each second, only 7 people are able to make a transaction, which is mostly due to the block size limit of a Bitcoin. To put things into a better perspective, only 420 people can make a transaction during the same minute. While this may seem like a large number, it definitely isn’t as nobody wants to wait minutes or even seconds before a transaction is actually completed." Source: http://themerkle.com/coins/overcoming-7-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-limit/Most probably the article is wrong but I have aòways thought 7 tx/sec (now the average size of each block is 0.55 MB). I feel that the tx/sec measurement is misleading. With the current limit, a block can have about 5000 txs. This averages down to 8 tx/s and with the varying size of transactions and the extra data with a block, about 7 tx/sec. However, this doesn't mean that only 7 txs can be created and broadcast per second. You could theoretically have 5000 txs broadcast per second, and have 5000 tx/sec. But, only 5000 txs are put into a block and confirmed, which means that for more transactions to be confirmed, a larger block size is required. |
|
|
|
|
Did you compile Bitcoin with wallet support? Could you show us your debug.log?
|
|
|
|
Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there.
However, if it was the bottleneck, then we would see tons of 1 Mb blocks right now, and there aren't. The average blocksize right now is around 0.5 Mb. |
|
|
|
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin-HT is simply a different coin ! WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL ?
THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT BOTH!!!!
:-)
====> no worries!!!
Since the new coin is based on blocks from the old Bitcoin, then people who have Bitcoin prior to the fork then have Bitcoins in both the old Bitcoin and the new Bitcoin. If both coins are still on the market at similar prices, then everyone who had Bitcoins prior to the fork just got their money doubled. This is a major problem if that happens. The market cannot support both. |
|
|
|
1. For users asking for mining address, mining pool and other mining information:How in the hell did you arrive at the conclusion that we are offering cloud mining? Did you even bother to READ OUR WEBSITE? Someone starting asking questions like: "where's the mining address?" "show us the mining address" and then others with NO RESEARCH WHATSOEVER have started to ask these questions and calling us a scam or ponzy because we don't want to provide this information. THIS SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR IF YOU DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ OUR WEBSITE: https://cloudthink.io
Your site implies that you are offering a mining service and contracts. As you see in the image, It can be misleading since you are saying that we can sign up and start mining bitcoins.  WE DO NOT SELL CLOUD MINING CONTRACTS, CLOUD MINING HASHING POWER or anything like this.
We do not offer users mining power or mine in to their address. We do not give any public access to our mining farm.
We didn't say anything about cloud mining or offering hashing power to our users. This is NOT our business plan, this would be very a inefficient plan in comparison to what we do.
This and many other details about our business plan and services are available on our website.
So from what I gather, it looks like you want people to invest in your company and they will receive a daily payout which comes from your mining operation. Is this correct? |
|
|
|
|
Since they are a registered company in the UK, if they do turn out to be a ponzi, then would get in some serious trouble with the law.
|
|
|
|
|
One question is whether Gavin passes off the alert key. If he leaves Bitcoin Core dev and works on Bitcoin XT, will he give the alert key to someone else or will he keep it and once the fork is finished, alert everyone to switch to the fork. That could be the threat, but he doesn't actually threaten anyone in the message to the mailing list.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that is a great idea, propose it for the new forum. It would essentially prevent the sale of accounts since private keys need to be transfered. However, what happens if I lose my private key? Would there be a way to recover accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you guys noticed that he is asking for opinions? He isn't threatening anything and he wants to implement this, so he is lobbying for people to switch to Bitcoin XT, but there is no threat. I also noticed that Bitcoin XT hasn't been updated in 5 months.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.
Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price? At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ. AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins. I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast. There will only be casualties and no winner in that war imo. Of course, if the core devs can agree on this and Gavin doesn't fork Bitcoin by himself, the new version will probably have enough people on it for that fork to be considered Bitcoin, and the old chain might just die off. I don't think that Gavin will actually fork this by himself anytime soon, but will continue discussion with the dev mailing list and the other core devs. Personally, I think that we shouldn't jump immediately to 20 Mb blocks, but work our way up there incrementally. I feel that that jump would invite people to spam, and some people's bandwidth is not enough to keep up with the large sizes. |
|
|
|
Hang on a second. You want a Bitcoin loan, but you also are offering Bitcoin as collateral?
I am trying to make a point, why take a loan with alt coins when is the same thing??? oh just because is bitcoin means im trying to buy trust, I can go to an exchange an alter the bitcoins, what is the fucking difference? few minutes of my time thats all. Alt coins should nt be considered collateral when I can just get bitcoins for them. you guys asking for alt coins dont make anysense Wait, is this a legitimate loan request where you will provide the collateral in Bitcoin, or are you just trying to prove a point? |
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure how it works, but someone made a bot that does it for you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=865250.0. You could look at the source code and try to figure it out, or you could just let the bot do the work for you. |
|
|
|
This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin  and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin). Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin) but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right? Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense. In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B. If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies. ... So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic. You are wrong because chain b is a fork of chain a and it therefore based on chain A. One problem with this that I can think of its if there is a half and half split in consensus, don't start on the old and others go to the new. If someone uses both clients, he could theoretically double his money if both chains are still used. And have value. |
|
|
|
|
Can you post the contents of the debug log? That will help us troubleshoot.
|
|
|
|
|
Can you describe what exactly happens? Also You might be able to get more help if you move this to the spectrum sub forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
