0.4 BTC |
|
|
|
It is time to play another game? 
0.2 BTC |
|
|
|
Franky1, am I correct to assume that the 4 mb blocks that core is proposing now are the direct result of a proposed soft fork for segregated witness and not a hard fork?
No, they haven't proposed "4 MB blocks". He's just trolling with misleading or false information as always. They're likely talking about the possibility, in which the block size can grow upwards to 4 MB with Segwit, but that would require some heavy and complex multi-signature use (no standard TXs in a block). In that case, can you explain or link to an article that explains how it can reduce the size of transactions in the blocks?
Reduce the size of individual transactions?
Update: As you can see under, they continue to troll with wrong information. |
|
|
|
Can bitcoin use dynamic block sizes like the one Monero uses?
Because there hasn't been a sound dynamic block size proposal, in addition to the inadequate amount of research spent regarding such. AFAIK there are 'plans' to switch to such an algorithm in the future, although I'm not aware of a timeline for it. Being serious, though, someone needs to decide what the block size is going to be instead of these 6-month+ long deliberations that have been happening.
"Someone needs to decide" in a decentralized system? They need to make proposals, and decisions need to be made via consensus. There have been several proposals in the past two years, and it is clearly obvious that Segwit is the one that has most of the support. I think both sides are retarded, and should stop attacking each other.
Primarily the side using logical fallacies is the problem. Attacking someone for having a view, when they have decent arguments for such is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
You know, the primary people that don't recognize these bots are spammers. I've seen some of them reply to several of those posts (which tend to be different in content with randomized titles about Bitcoin dying), leading to the conclusion that they are generally unaware of these things even though they 'spend a lot of time' in that section (obviously not for the right reasons). I don't think that this is necessary either as the number of bots there has severely reduced due to the addition of 2 Captcha at registration. In addition to that, we have our own bot that helps kill off some of the spam.
That said, I do remember a time prior to the addition of re-captcha, where the situation was so bad that I had to put the Speculation section on 5-10s refresh timer.
|
|
|
|
1 spot please (any)
tx id: ff9cfe9865d7921d523bc1b0186faed0e0c7c9213cdeeee8bc1dea431b58e276
The payment has been confirmed and I've assigned the character 'b' as your spot. Good luck and thank you for participating.
4 spots to go! |
|
|
|
You'd be surprised how many people would be mislead by jokes like these and end up thinking that 'high' or 'unlimited' block sizes are a true possibility. The primary result of those is the lack of knowledge, or false knowledge. I do have to admit that the image has a bit of humor to it.
"640 kB ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates ... and look at us now.  I'd call false analogy on that one though. The blocksize is too big if it does not allow for users to run their own nodes in a decent computer. It's as simple as that.
It's not as simple as that. What does "not being allowed" to run nodes on a decent computer mean? I've seen a lot of people throw around words without actually backing them up with specifics. Does this imply a lack of storage space, an inadequate internet connection/bandwidth, not being able to validate on time? I do recall a presentation where the potential of 'never being able to catch up' as a new node as presented (I think this was Hong Kong Scaling 2015). |
|
|
|
So it would be safe to say you hate the hackforum rank naming system as that would be misleading of their membership classes too.  I'm not familiar with that particular naming system and my search engine has provided me with inadequate results in the amount of time that I've spent researching. Or is saying that name of that particular forum a bad word? I'm saying the system isn't optimal at all, in addition to those type of names making it worse. It makes it seem like those members are "trusted" or have "knowledge" regarding Bitcoin, when we know that time spent on the forum is not the causation for that. |
|
|
|
Off course is running a full bitcoin client worth it because bitcoin clients will only help you trade or imvest just even better becuase they know what is running right now exactly with the bitcoin.
This doesn't make sense and is wrong. a full blockchain requires around 280 GB of space. It you want to help maintain the network, you can certainly download it. But if it is for personal interest, then it's not a very good idea.
Bullshit. Stop posting misleading information. The blockchain is currently around 90 GB. Downloading the blockchain != maintaining the network. If you are holding serious amount of money in bitcoin, then it is recommended that you use a bitcoin client only, but if it is just for saving a few bucks, use blockchain or coinbase wallet.
No. Using Blockchain.info or Coinbase as your wallet is horrible advice. -snip- theres no need to maintaining a full client i think everyday is secured for using bitcoin @blockchain
This post is flawed and does not make any sense. |
|
|
|
It doesn't worth it, that is why I use electrun wallet
This post is pointless as it doesn't provide any elaboration whatsoever. It will be worth only in case you are operating some bitcoin related service and talking about bandwith and storage running bitcoin client over VPS become easy and cheap. For average user, running bitcoin client/node will be only to support whole bitcoin network.
Obvious spam is obvious. I can't even decipher the point behind this, obviously flawed, statement. I'm sure average user don't bother use bitcoin core or run full nodes as well because connection speed, electricity or storage problem.
It really isn't a problem for people in 1st world countries. I don't understand how someone can claim to be a "Bitcoin supporter" and not run a node. Nodes are the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Electricity isn't really an issue, as (dependent on the system) it would consume only a few bucks more per month. However, a lot of bandwidth will be spent if you don't limit the software. Luckily you can maximize the number of connections or use 'blocksonly' mode (for example). As far as storage is concerned, you can always run a pruned node. I don't run full nodes or use bitcoin core, but if i have solid reason to run my computer 24/7 or have VPS with big data transfer, i would run full nodes  Just assemble a small machine and make it run 24/7. There's no reason to run a node on your main system. |
|
|
|
spot #2 please pay when I win Reserved! Thank you for taking another seat. I wonder if Mantis can take home yet another raffle victory! 
5 spots to go! |
|
|
|
Oh yeah. Seems I've made a mistake. I meant "full clients".
Then, most of the bandwidth will indeed be spent on that initial download. It all comes down to privacy and security. With SPV you're essentially letting a third party node provide you with the "right information", whereas with full clients you don't have to do that as you're verifying everything yourself. Here's another explanation (in addition to some links with further elaboration) of a SPV wallet: A Bitcoin implementation that does not verify everything, but instead relies on either connecting to a trusted node, or puts its faith in high difficulty as a proxy for proof of validity. BitCoinJ is an implementation of this mode.
Simplified payment verificationThin Client Security |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
It's not a bad idea to remove junk and spam messages. But I would like to know about how post quality is determined and I would be glad to hear about all the factors that makes our post spam.
I too want to know the same. Many user are saying about many factors that makes our post spam. Although my messages weren't deleted every bit i am rather afraid of sick policy. I would be happy if you provide the link or say me about full policy. There is no fixed answer to that question. There is no exact "policy", nor can there be a policy that is good enough for determining spam/low quality posts. Easy examples of posts that get answered are posts that contain only emoticons, a good amount of posts that contain only 1 word (e.g. "watching"), posts that contain only insults (without any other input), etc. This is definitely not a "sick policy". This is a privately owned forum, and as such can enact any set of rules that the owners decide on. You can read the full (unofficial) list of rules here. |
|
|
|
For an average user, is the trouble of running and maintaining a full node worth it?
There's no "trouble maintaining it". Once you set up a full node, there's basically nothing that you have to do, besides occasionally check that the system isn't down (for whatever reason, e.g. power outage). It should run on its own. For me, considering that it requires a ton of storage space and considerable bandwidth (at first), plus electricity, I'd rather use SPV.ž
If you're living in a first world country, the storage space should be trivial these days (~80GB). Most of your bandwidth will not be spent on the initial download, but rather later propagating blocks and transactions to other nodes. A average of 1 mbit/s upload per day will spend about 300+ GB per month.
Are you sure that you aren't talking about 'full clients', as in just running Bitcoin Core as your primary wallet as opposed to running a full node? |
|
|
|
Genesis Series 2 '6-coin set': 6 of 6-coin sets (non slabbed): #43 - 0.3 BTC 0.25 BTC#46 - 0.3 BTC 0.25 BTC4 of 4-coin sets: #55 Polished Gold, Polished Silver, Polished Copper, Antique Brass - 0.125BTC3 of 3-coin sets:: #62, 67, 88, 95, 97, 98 - Polished Silver, Polished Copper, Antique Brass - 0.10 BTC
Genesis Series 1:  Clams: #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #29 Coin2: #14, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #26 Darkcoin: #7, #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28 Dnotes: #11, #14, #26 Hyper: #12, #13, #26, Namecoin: #14, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #27 Peercoin: #7, #17, #19, #21, #22, #23, #27 Reddcoin: #13, #14, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, #28 Shadowcoin: #14, #15, #17, #18, #19, #23, #24, #25, #26 Price: 0.06 BTC per coin.Special deal: Buy 4 and get 1 free!
Shipping is handled by minerjones (coins are located in the US). Shipping is paid by the buyer.
|
|
|
|
Casascius 0.1 BTC Silver MS69: 1.1 BTC (sent to auction)
Is this auction on the forum somewhere or? I can't seem to find it. PaperSafe Satoshi Note #000258: 0.2 0.15 BTC
I think this is unreasonably priced. I'd put the value of such a note around $40-$60 (you can find a lower number for almost 1/3 the price on sale right now). I've been meaning to tell you this on Slack, but the account restrictions prevent me from doing so (hint: Once you read this, get on IRC). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
