Yes, it strengthens the chain -- but if the bitcoin chain is processing (say) the majority of .p2p DNS records, currency users have to fight for space, paying higher fees to do so. Makes miners happy, and currency users unhappy.
This has already been covered, if the block is already full of profitable data (all with reasonable transaction fees), then there is a _strong_ economic incentive for a majority of the generators to increase the block size. Thus allowing more transactions and other data into the chain, allowing them to collect more fees. The entire block chain system, when paid for by transaction fees, is self balancing. |
|
|
|
Ok its time to stop talking and do something. Create another genesis block for domaincoins. Bitcoin will be a pure financial vehicle from this point forward. As such it should be as lean as possible.
Problem solved. To provide the initial security to the network it needs a few miners with gpu cards.
Whos in?
Not me! I think that nanotube's+theymos's proposal has real elegance! Creating another chain is all good and well, but the current chain can be used for many things, might as well maximize it's potential. http://privwiki.dreamhosters.com/wiki/Bitcoin_DNS_System_Proposal |
|
|
|
|
I propose a law:
"He who makes the chain, gets to decide what it looks like"
|
|
|
|
In the current implementation, the user is passing on the costs to the miner, and the miner is passing on the costs to the rest of the network. However, the user's transaction fee only compensates the miner's costs.
Current implementations, in the future the clients will only keep the stuff they care about. The DNS client will keep the DNS stuff, the bitcoin currency traders will keep the currency transactions. Let the generators worry about the chain; if bitcoins become worthless, then they will not have any incentive to generate! I for one have lots of faith in the free market, after all I'm a laissez-faire capitalist  , I will be voting will my generation. I suggest you invest in more that 50% of the generation network (or with like minded people), and ignore my the block I generate if you disagree with the data they contain. That is the life in a free market. When we all bought into bitcoin, we all knew that then network is dictated by the majority of generation power. All I'm arguing is that the generators will look out for their best interests, and their interests happen to fit very nicely with bitcoin: A strong bitcoin currency. |
|
|
|
Fees? Come on, miners! How much do you make from fees?
Not much, I've made about 0.5 BTC from fees. It is just too profitable to just mine for the hell of it, I get 50 BTC each time I make a block, and (if I'm very lucky, I make 0.05 BTC from fees). About the large chain size, this isn't a issue, in the future it will be possible to 'prune' the chain with balances. This will reduced the size by a vast amount. When extra data is included in the chain, it is likely to be forgotten by (most) the network if it stops being important. For example, the BitDns guys will keep a relocation of a the DNS data for ages, however the banks are likely to just keep the bitcoin currency transfer data and drop the rest. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is that when I make a transaction, I announce: Please include this data, and I'll pay you this much for the service.
As a generator I don't care what the data is, providing it is paid for.
If somebody wants to put junk data into the chain, fine, but they should pay for it. I don't care if it is currency data, or BitDns data, or whatever. Obviously _somebody_ cares about it enough to pay me to include it.
In essence, if the generators accept coins for including other data, they are both supporting the bitcoin economy, and strengthening bitcoin from attack.
The reality is reality the network always will be run from the whims of the generators, this is by design. There is no way to stop it. The generators (as a group) have the power.
|
|
|
|
This is not an opinion; read the source. Transaction fees vary on total block size, not just transaction size.
Yes, that is what the source says for the moment, in the future I do not expect the generators to just arbitrarily follow the current rules, rather I expect the generators to be quite discerning in what rules they enforce or ignore. Yes, larger block will be more expensive, (eg. bandwidth, and risk of rejection costs), but as the average amount of data in the blocks increase, the _relative_ cost per data amount will go down. |
|
|
|
Currency transactions would have to fight harder -- pay more fees -- to make sure they're processed in a timely fashion, due to all the non-currency data in the block chain. Increasing the block size does not reduce transaction fees.
Sorry I have to disagree with you, the transaction fees are based upon the 'cost' to generator to include the transaction. The cost is directly related to the amount of data needed to be included. In the future there will be no 'hard limits' on block size, only the risk that the block will be rejected and orphaned by the chain as it is to large. When a generator deciding what transactions to include, if the network is already profitable with very large blocks, (eg. 20mb+ as they have much non-currency data in them), then including very small 'currency' transactions have a minute cost. For example, 20,000,000 vs 20,000,010. If the block chain is restricted to just currency data, there is much less incentive to improve the efficiency of handling large blocks data. Therefore the relative cost will be much greater... 500,000 vs 500,010. Therefore the transaction fees required for small amounts of data are likely to be higher on a system that only induces currency data. |
|
|
|
Rather, it will increase everybody's fees, and incentivize creation of a currency-only chain without all the data spam.
No, as no generators will want to block fee paying (profitable) transactions. When adding non-currency data into the block chain becomes common, then the there will become a strong economic incentive to increase the block size as necessary. Thus keeping the transaction cost down. In the long run, extra data in the chain will _reduce_ the relative cost of a currency-only transaction, because the currency-only transaction uses much less data, compared to the data transactions, per transaction. |
|
|
|
That will disadvantage people who use bitcoins for reasons unrelated to storing data in the block chain -- ie. as cash as intended -- because the "appropriate compensation" will prioritize their non-currency transactions over currency transactions.
No problem with that! It will increase the competitive nature of generation, making Bitcoin harder to attack, and encouraging improvements to the generation network to support more transactions (to maximize profit). You've gotta love the free market! |
|
|
|
|
Transaction fees will pay for the generation of the chain in the future, therefore if the BitDNS guys (or any other group) want to include carefully crafted transactions in the chain, then they must include the appropriate compensation for the generators, or likely their transactions will be dropped.
Even later in the future, those who include extra things without compensation in their blocks will get their blocks orphaned by the chain.
I for one will upgrade my client to v.18 until their come a time when it is profitable for me to accept non-standard transactions.
|
|
|
|
I believe the problem with the generalized BitX is that the more that one adds to the chain, the higher the payload and overhead. The solution to this is to use the Bitcoin chain, and use transaction fees to add additional content, the market will decide what is worth including in the chain or not, based solely on the cost/benefit of doing so. EDIT: see http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1847.0 for info about how the transaction fees will dictate what is included in the chain. |
|
|
|
|
Some companies can pay in shares, if you ask for it. With a public company, one can always take your salary and invest it into the company he or she works for. A private company, it will always be up to the owners to decide how they compensate those who the get help it.
Overall it is all about risk. The investors take lots of risks (capital), so they need to be compensated. An employee takes much less risk, so gets paid accordingly.
|
|
|
|
lol, in retrospect I must have left my scene of humor in my bed that day |
|
|
|
A salary is a share of the benefits that the company produces, based upon the demand and the worth of the work done. It is just taken in the long-run, not the short.
Salary is a previously agreed amount of money that is paid to an employee in exchange for his work. It is the same whatever is the financial situation of the company, whether it is in deficit or in benefit. Somebody needs to pay the salary, that (in the long run), comes from the benefits that the company provides. A salary is just an abstraction of risk, the investors and shareholders take the risk, the salary is paid regardless. So in the long run, the salary come from the benefits of the company, (or the expected benefits), however has lower potential return, lower risk. People who work on commission share the benefits also, however they take more risk, therefore have higher potential income, and higher potential losses. Both share in the benefits, however the those on commission take more, as they take more risk. The person who is on a salary takes the benefit of having a job at all, at the risk of loosing it. |
|
|
|
Anarchist, but I wouldn't describe myself as an ancap or a leftist.
Well, are you ok with people working for a salary instead of a share of the benefits of the company they work for ? If you are, then you're ancap. Otherwise, you're leftist. A salary is a share of the benefits that the company produces, based upon the demand and the worth of the work done. It is just taken in the long-run, not the short. |
|
|
|
|
No the packages have not been breached, however water may have soaked in through the 'one-way' air valve. I am unsure, if this is true, or the product is as-intended.
I'll take your explanation that they are just naturally oily, as intended, just I was expecting it to be, um less 'damp'. I'll compare them to my next order to see if water did seep through or not.
Overall, I do not want to give the impression that your service is bad, rather it is great! Keep up the good work!
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Melbourne (suburbs), I could drop some cash straight into Melbourne UNI.
|
|
|
|
I'll take your word for it, but next time you send it to me, please put both into a zip-lock bag or something (is there any issue about it being air-tight?), they are 'kinda' watertight, they have a puncture one-way air valve. It is good for most transports, except (maybe) when soggy in a puddle.  Anyway, I'm impressed! Thanks for the coffee! I'll order again soon! You can also check out http://www.capulincoffee.com/ I assume where nanaimogold orders from! |
|
|
|
|
Pastecoin should include a address that you can donate to after you have seen the image! (with a donation message)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
