Bitcoin Forum
July 03, 2024, 03:50:44 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 [577] 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 ... 1343 »
11521  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: BITCOIN WHEN GOING DOWN ??? on: June 21, 2016, 09:09:07 AM
This topic has been moved to Speculation.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520718.0
11522  Economy / Speculation / Re: How it went from 780$ to 708$ in hours ? on: June 21, 2016, 08:53:29 AM
I don't understand people like you. We were in the ~250$ range for a very long time after which the price went to around ~450$. This sudden rise is not something that can ever be stable. It has to correct itself (i.e. come down) from time to time. Last night Bitfinex was down for a few hours as far as I know. That could have been a contributing factor (as the people there were losing money not being able to trade, while other exchanges were going down). You should not be looking to solely profit, and know by now that this is the wrong section for price speculation.

Yeah, we can afford to wait longer to earn higher profits, as price is not too good at a moment to sell as it will not allow you to make higher profits.
Bitcoin was meant to be used not "wait longer to earn higher profits".
11523  Other / Meta / Re: A mod in the speculation subforum deletes negative posts about ETH on: June 21, 2016, 08:38:20 AM
You should not be talking about any kind of altcoins, regardless of whether the posts are positive or negative. That section is solely for Bitcoin related price talk (moderation should be discussed in Meta).


~Lauda
11524  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 21, 2016, 08:31:37 AM
And so offering up SegWit as a solution that will increase transaction capacity 1.8 fold is a little misleading don't you think?
Nobody has offered Segwit as a solution to increase transaction capacity. Segwit was designed as a solution to malleability, which comes with a few other benefits (including increase transaction capacity). If you don't use Segwit and complain about transactions (and/or capacity) then you'd be a hypocrite.

It may increase capacity by some (largely unknown but certainly less than 1.8x) amount at some (largely unknown) point in the future if it gets implemented and used.
I don't see why people would not use it. Also, Segwit is implemented. The code has just not been merged.
11525  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 21, 2016, 06:23:17 AM
I think I've never done a single transaction which was worth less than $10. But there's a risk because of competition. What if some altcoin could perform faster and cheaper transactions than BTC? This is a market economy. BTC rules as of today, but many people, including myself, are looking at altcoins. Core developers should always have in mind that if BTC has a hiccup, there will be many altcoins ready, and willing to beat it.
If those altcoins had any desirable technology that is worth implementing into Bitcoin, it would be implemented. Nobody in their right mind cares about them besides traders who want to profit (excluding a few niche coins, e.g. for anonymity and such).

And so back to my original question - when is it expected that we will reach that "top" point?
Nobody can answer that question. They'd just be making guesses. As such, I can't answer this either.
11526  Economy / Digital goods / MOVED: [LIFETIME] Netflix Generator - $1-$5 Packages - UNLIMITED Netflix Accounts [Auto on: June 20, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generator.
11527  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 20, 2016, 07:43:23 PM
But is that the point at which Segwit will start to deliver increased capacity?  From my reading (which may have misled me) I had understood that users actually had to send and receive Segwit transactions in order for it to provide that increase in capacity?  I was really wondering what was the (your) expectation for when we would be at that point?
That is correct. As soon as some people use the updated client and interact with each other, we will see increased capacity. The more users use Segwit the more capacity the network 'will get'. This will reach a top somewhere around ~180% (or 1.8 MB of TX data).
11528  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 20, 2016, 07:32:51 PM
As "high" is perfectly subjective, we can always be correct, clever. I may need to use this terminology instead of "higher", thanks for the correction.
It is indeed. However, "higher" throughput would also be anything > ~3 (which we currently have). I'd consider high throughput somewhere above what Visa does on average (which is 2000 TPS according to some sources).
11529  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 20, 2016, 07:18:05 PM
Well said as usual. Increasing the potential size of blocks would not enable higher throughput.
No. I said it is not able to provide "high throughput", not "higher". There's a huge difference. Unless of course, you consider 6 TPS to be "high throughput". In that case I can't help you.  Roll Eyes

When would you expect Segwit to actually be in place and delivering the "awaited" capacity 'boost' to the live network?
The miners decide how long it takes them to adopt it. I can't be the one to predict that accurately. I'd say somewhere in Q3/Q4 this year (if nothing goes severely wrong).
11530  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 20, 2016, 07:02:41 PM
Why isn't that acceptable? For me it's perfectly acceptable, since I don't buy single lollipops expecting instant confirmation.
Bitcoin was never designed for micro-transactions and as such will most likely not be the best solution for them (depending on what you define as a micro-transaction).

The average is still extremely low for all ordinary transactions. Also the "Bitcoin is cheaper than fiat"-thing is not the main attraction factor of Bitcoin. Even if Bitcoin transactions would be significantly more costly than traditional methods, Bitcoin would have a huge user base, because it is more secure and not subject to devaluation and centralized control like fiat.
It is pointless trying to tell this to some people. For example: Someone recently complained on r/btc about a TX fee of $50, for some TX that was over 4 KB (or 2000% bigger than normal). They pick out these weird examples and make it seem like the whole system is overly expensive (which it isn't).

I don't want, nobody wants BTC to evolve into a rich guys club only exchanging large sums and who don't mind paying substantial fees.
Nobody can prevent BTC from becoming more expensive unless you figure out a way that both defies spam and enables a high throughput. Hint: LN is the closest thing that we have for high throughput, and increasing the block size limit is trivial for these two things (neither does it defy spam nor enable high throughput).

I agree with you. The Bitcoin fee is already growing too big and makes Bitcoin look unappealing and inefficient.
If you are too cheap to pay 5-10 cents, you shouldn't complain about Bitcoin.
11531  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will Blockchain revolutionise more than the financial industry? on: June 20, 2016, 01:40:16 PM
Public blockchains enable publishing.  When I make a publicly verifiable transaction on the bitcoin network, it is just publishing that the coin is now held by a new address.
That's the idea behind a blockchain. Making it private, or closed is counter-intuitive.

Exactly. It is really unbelievable to see how bankers try to employ some buzz-worded "blockchain-technology" for any use case that pops up into their minds irrespective of the efficiency of the solution. Most of banker's blockchain use cases can be served by traditional data banks much more efficiently. The simple reason is that bankers consistently renounce the most important aspect of the Bitcoin blockchain: decentralization. If you want a centrally controlled service, there is no advantage of using "blockchain-technology" over a simple data bank.
What I see happening here is that they improve their services with a closed blockchain (or with multiple blockchains) which will cut down their cost, but I think that this will have a great effect on the customer. Even though a closed blockchain does not have intrinsic value as its main aspects are lost, it does have a much greater potential than the systems that are already in place. Just think about Visa. Look at how long it takes them to completely settle transactions and compare those times with Bitcoin.
11532  Economy / Web Wallets / Re: Coinbase multisig vault - bug unable to withdraw? on: June 20, 2016, 12:34:22 PM
I use coinbase is it legit or a scam?
It is "legit" but has too many ties to banks and regulations. I've seen a lot of people complain about their service though.

Why should I stop using coinbase? may I know the reason
The OP has answered this simply: Once you have a "big problem", the support just ignores you for quite some time. Horrible customer service.
11533  Economy / Web Wallets / Re: Coinbase multisig vault - bug unable to withdraw? on: June 20, 2016, 11:59:54 AM
Here's a small list:
1) Don't use Coinbase.
2) Service discussion threads should be in service discussion.
3) Nobody can really tell you here what the problem is. Coinbase has the answer.

As I don't use Coinbase myself (staying away from them is the smarter decision), I'm not aware of their support services (e.g. Bitstamp has great support IMO). Are they really that bad, i.e. they ignore you for a while?
11534  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will Blockchain revolutionise more than the financial industry? on: June 20, 2016, 11:34:29 AM
What do you think blockchains can be used for? Obviously decentralising banks, but I am interested in the more unexpected options
No. That's not what is going to happen. The correct statement would be "Bitcoin's blockchain could decentralize the financial system.". Closed, private and similar type of blockchains are pointless. They are not immutable, nor resistant to corruption. I don't understand how these people do not realize this. Such a blockchain is worthless as it retains no attributes that give it the intrinsic value.

I'm certain that there are a lot of use-cases that we have not even thought about yet. This was surely discussed already, so it might be worth searching for relevant threads.
11535  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas M. Antonopoulos is "bullish on Ethereum" on: June 20, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
If the Ethereum recovers from the current crisis, it could be stronger than ever. There are many big investors in it.
"Recovers" how exactly? By becoming a centralized, alterable and non-censorship-resistant blockchain? Any kind of fork that controls coins is a huge mistake. They're even talking about forcing a HF by investing a lot of money to rent out mining power. Roll Eyes

OP, no he's not bullish on ETH. He's just interested in the concept of experiment with smart contracts, not ETH specifically.
11536  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Average block size was 0.951 MB on: June 20, 2016, 08:01:22 AM
What are you on about? When Lauda said there is no "the mempool", he simply means that it's possible (actually more than likely) for nodes to have different mempools because they have different fee rules. For example, my mempool is typically less than 1MB and contains less than 1000 transactions. My node doesn't forward spam, so it rarely grows much larger than that (even during these spam attacks).
He's a troll, just ignore him. What I said was, there is no "the mempool" which would define that there are X unconfirmed transactions everywhere. This number differs heavily depending on the settings, and you've just made an example. My node relays everything as I want to keep track of the changes throughout the year.

Simply increasing the block size will only lead to larger blocks full of spam. If that isn't obvious to you, well I don't know what to say.
He's about to tell you that Blockstream this, or blockstream that or you're also part of Blockstream. Roll Eyes

Bitcoin's unique use case is censorship-proof transactions. This is why it's valuable. No one in their right mind should be concerned whether or not they can pay for a coffee using the-ledger-that-every-full-node-must-keep-a-permanent-record-of-forever and get cheap, fast confirmations to boot!
Exactly. The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance.

I agree, anyone that says that block size isn't going to be a problem, their stupid.
Read the actual thread for once and ignore the trolls. The post above you gives decent input.
11537  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Core have been derelict in their duties. on: June 20, 2016, 07:49:50 AM
You don't have that knowledge.
Of course I do, but that is not even relevant.

I know. It is like advanced mathematics.
Correction: Wasting time with useless nonsense.

Now to direct back to the thread: "Core have been derelict in their duties". This is a false statement especially if you consider the Classic 0.12.1 implementation, or should I say anti-implementation? The developers just removed the warnings of the features that it does not have. It was discussed before and now Maxwell has made another post about it. How many (non-destructive features) has Classic developed in comparison to Core? 
11538  Economy / Digital goods / MOVED: Selling lifetime access to 50+ sites (TV, XXX, MOVIES, SPORTS) on: June 20, 2016, 07:31:48 AM
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generator.
11539  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Core have been derelict in their duties. on: June 19, 2016, 09:18:49 PM
Yes. Thats what I said you saiid. You cleverer than all of them people.
Having more knowledge does not imply being more intelligent, but sure, I'll take that.

Yes, I know you cant understand 1+1=2=twice as much=scaling=solution.
That does not even make sense.

The one you said finally gets it.
He's not a "Bitcoin sage".

I don't see the point of these posts. You aren't making arguments of any kind. Read the post above yours.
11540  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Core have been derelict in their duties. on: June 19, 2016, 09:06:00 PM
Lauda,
Anyone asking about a block size increase doesn't know what they are talking about. Lauda is more cleverer than them.
No. Anyone spreading the false information that a block size limit increase improves scalability or is a solution of any sort does not know what they're talking about.

Obviously 2 mb is no solution at all. (wait for segwit 4mb with the 1.8mb effect)
Yes and yes.

Yet someone who cannot spell or nothing is a bitcoin coding sage?
Who's the "Bitcoin coding sage"?
Pages: « 1 ... 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 [577] 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 ... 1343 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!