So your 2nd transaction was nearly 4 times larger, did you increase your fee for that transaction x4, no so what did you expect?
Obviously he didn't. Let's all blame the network because people don't know that flat fees don't work (in a sense where a fee works for transaction A but does not work for transaction B). Its a large block size so the speed of transaction is always depends in block size..
It doesn't. The transaction speed remains the same. You might be talking about confirmation time. For most people, if you you use high fee, but the mempool transaction size is very large, you still cannot get confirmation in time.
Yes you can. It seems like you don't know how it actually works. |
|
|
|
1) You can't work out the correct Core dynamic fee. (you will also need to see the future to be sure )
2) You didn't know paying higher and higher fees is in the Core roadmap. ...vvv
1) You don't have to see the future. 2) It is not part of any known Core roadmap (there is only one that I'm aware of). This may or may not be a problem. Transactions are still extremely cheap, so blocks are filling up. But are those transactions that important? Are the blocks filled with mostly spam-like low-value transactions? I don't have the answer.
Well, you can start with this picture: 
Almost all of the unconfirmed transactions include a fee that is a minimum of 5 times lower than what it should be. Then it comes down to how you define spam. An example would be signature campaigns that have daily payouts; those just waste space instead of paying weekly/bi-weekly or monthly. |
|
|
|
I would like to point out Ethereum wasn't hacked. The DAO had an exploit in it's smart contract which was on ethereums blockchain, was which is like the counterparty for bitcoin in case you didn't know...so all these people boasting about ethereum death don't know shit lol it's like saying bitcoin failed because a counterparty had a huge hack, because they share a blockchain...btw you guys make Btc look bad.
No. That's a very bad analogy and read the thread. People are saying that "ETH failed" because their plan is to rollback the chain. This destroys decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance. Bitcoin has never and will never (or it is dead) control coins regardless of whether they're stolen or not. We certainly do not "make BTC look bad". I support all of crypto
Supporting 99% of the scams? Good perspective.  That is a theft by exploiting the loophole. It is not the intent of the counterparty to give away the money like that.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
It's getting very annoying,2 days ago i sent a payment of 0.14 btc and it took about 3 hours to be confirmed.
This must be change asap otherwise it will hurt btc
No. Bitcoin is working as intended. Don't blame Bitcoin if: 1) You're cheap. 2) You don't know how to use it properly. I have yet to find someone that I know (which are mostly experienced members) that had "problems with this". Besides, Segwit is getting ready to be merged. The "awaited" capacity 'boost' will come with it. |
|
|
|
Sent a payment of 1,5btc on tuesday that was confirmed today morning after ~5days! Have forgotten to check the mempool before I sent the coins. With 35k open transactions and a small fee of 0,00002...not my best idea so far There is no such thing as "the mempool" and certainly not with "35k open transactions". This solely depends on the settings that a specific node uses. My node has had 40-50k unconfirmed transactions on average for months, but you could clearly see that the mempool at other places (e.g. blockchain.info) was almost empty at times. Spam transactions? I sent 2.6 bitcoin a few days ago with 0.001 bitcoin with just 226Byte, it took more than 5 hours to confirm.
Provide TX ID or go away with these stories. I'm expecting the situation to get worse. Unless the block size is increased.
Bullshit by people who don't know what they're talking about (again). A block size limit increase is no solution at all. It does not improve scalability, it does not do anything than open an already pressurized valve even further and hope for the best. Regardless of what you set the block size limit at, the very same people will be able to spam it up all again and then we will have the same people complain (again) about unconfirmed transactions because they don't know how to use the fee system properly. Wow that is ridiculous you can't count on your money this way. When even a normal bank transaction is faster than a bitcoin transaction. Thought it was meant to be a fast solution to send money to each other.
Bitcoin is faster than anything in the traditional system if you use it properly. If you don't use it properly, you can't blame Bitcoin for slow transactions. Period. |
|
|
|
"Centralized blockchain platform" adds no value whatsoever. Ethereum may survive for a while doing that because the hype is strong, but it would become (if it isn't already) fully a ponzi scheme with no underlying business value.
Exactly. I am a miner as well as a DAO holder. So I can support the fork to get my money back. That is the benefit of being a miner.
Correction: That's the benefit of being greedy and having some capital. Intersting and true. May I reuse this on a BTC context?
This is how the fork is going to take place with lobbying: "Sure, we will support that as long as we get a nice piece." I believe so. The SegWit is so complex system and might fail in the implementation, so why would Core team implement it?
A perfect example of the personal incredulity fallacy: Because you find Segwit difficult to understand (complex system), you made out that it is complex for everyone and might not get implemented. This is very wrong. Segwit's complexity is overblown. Segwit is undergoing final testing before it gets merged. Hint: This is all off-topic. |
|
|
|
Your statement might be true, it may lose all those qualities however it may become the most TRUSTED centralized blockchain platform. Do you really think that the Ethereum community will abandon ship if they all got their money back or if the DAO is completely restored and patched?
I think they will stay.
Properly said in other words:" The whole idea behind cryptocurrency of going towards decentralization/ditching banks and governments goes down the drain. These people just want profit and are not better than those corrupt officials that we oppose." They will become hypocrites the second that they criticize another bailout in the future (regardless of whether we're talking about banks or other coins). I agree with this. I hold DAO and want my money back. I am also a miner. So I will vote for the fork if the thief does not return my money.
You've made a mistake investing into something so complex (complexity is the enemy of security). How about just accepting it? |
|
|
|
I think there is a chance that it might actually increase TRUST in their system as there will be a leadership that will protect the Ethereum masses from hackers and other deviants. In today's world, there is a lot of talk about Socialism and it seems that people like their leaders to take care of them.
This is definitely a big no. Such a system could never be resistant to government control and general corruption. What is Vitalik thinking? The intrinsic value of the blockchain lies within its decentralization, immutability and censorship resistance (which are arguably interconnected). They're about to lose all of them. |
|
|
|
Forking to remove 184 billion Bitcoins is a form of coin control.
Wrong. Stop posting nonsense to defend scams like ETH ("scam" because it claimed decentralization and immutability). The problem which occurred with Bitcoin broke the initial specification at a protocol level. The DAO hack did not break ETH. Read the posts by other people first. Did Bitcoin roll-back after Mt.Gox? Hint: No. |
|
|
|
In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. I thought that is democracy. Like bitcoin, it has forked many times. Every new version coming out, the community decides if it wants to upgrade or not. You're mixing apples and potatoes here. Bitcoin mostly uses soft-forks in order to improve its capabilities. Bitcoin has never used any kind of coin-control or bailouts which is exactly what ETH is going to do. If they do that, ETH is not immutable. Period. In Bitcoin it would take total overwhelming concensus to hard fork a change like this.
Which is obviously never going to happen. Only foolish people would support something like this. And if it was soft forked in under the table presumably the value would plummet because of it?
The instinct value of a blockchain lies in the decentralization and immutability. Such a move would negate both, so I expect the answer to that question to be yes. |
|
|
|
If 51% of the miners decide to fork, I think I will follow the majority and support the fork to get back the money from the attacker.
In other words: ETH is centralized and susceptible to corruption. For most coin holders, serious bugs that can ruin a coin should not be acceptable.
For any single rational person, decentralization and immutability should be the priority in these coins. Without that aspect, you're just left with inefficient systems. As it should be. If crypto isn't censorship-resistant it's a toy. What has to happen to block the fork? Anything miners or nodes can do to stop it?
Miners and nodes should be able to stop it (unless it works a bit differently with ETH). As long as they don't update, then everything is fine. |
|
|
|
Hey, this whole little split in the community is just a natural thing happening with every technology out there... We have seen this with the OS wars {Linux / MS / Unix / Mac.. }
-snip-
The irrational people are always at the wrong sides of those. Similarly they are at the wrong side of this "debate". Bitcoin did have a fault back in 2010 but it was rectified quickly and also the market cap was nowhere near what ethereums and the dao is. If this flaw had been only found recently in bitcoin history then it would be completely different. I also heard that the eth/dao developers were aware of this flaw yet it was never rectified, in fact it was spoken about just days before and they said they had fixed it. this makes the whole situation worse as well.
Wrong. Stop posting about things that you do not understand. Bitcoin had a problem at the protocol level, which broke the initial consensus rules (specifications) and raised the supply artificially. What happened to ETH is not comparable to that. ETH has not been broken at the protocol level in such a way that someone could artificially increase the supply. Do not justify an ETH bailout with Bitcoin's past. As soon as one does this ('forks' to "reclaim" coins), they aren't any better than the Fed. |
|
|
|
Bag hold + Lie your ass off and play games and cash out is the motive / agenda.
That's what the ETH supporters are currently doing. After the hard fork, they all have to work longer as their $50 million will be lost back to the DAO. Let wait and see.
You do realize that ETH will lose all the value that the underlying technology (the blockchain) has? If they take back those coins, they are no better than the Fed and they lose decentralization and immutability. This suggestion is horrible. Nobody should have any right nor power to take anyone's coins in a decentralized system regardless of whether they are legit, stolen or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin survived well from previous problems and correction hard forks. So did the Monero. I think Etheruem will also survive.
Stop posting nonsense and read the thread. fluffypony has already explained why the situation with Bitcoin can not be compared to this one. Bitcoin was broken at the protocol level and a fix was applied. ETH is not broken at the protocol level. Reverting anything means that they are rewriting history and that the blockchain is not immutable, nor decentralized. I can't say anything about Monero as I'm not familiar with their situation (past). |
|
|
|
well, then, bitcoin should have 184 billion coins right now.
-snip-
No. The *spec* for Bitcoin is 21 million coins max. If something breaks the spec it is an implementation issue and can (and should) be reversed in order to maintain the *social contract*. The 2010 bug was clearly an implementation bug that broke the spec. The DAO had no spec, the truth was in the (poorly documented) code. Per the about page on the website: https://daohub.org/about.html - "The DAO is borne from immutable, unstoppable, and irrefutable computer code, operated entirely by its members, and fueled using ETH which Creates DAO tokens." I keep trying to tell everyone who tries to use this as a justification for a bail-out. ETH seems like the Fed of digital cryptocurrencies. The following applies to also this user: history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
Bitcoin; 2010 (about a year after start)-similar episode with Bitcoin where 184 billion bitcoins were created in a few transactions, then these transactions were erased and bitcoin forked.
Wrong. That incident in Bitcoin created additional supply that breaks the initial specifications (protocol). That can not be compared to this incident, where the ETH specifications were not harmed. Everyone keeps using this as a bullshit argument to bail-out the holders, and rewrite a history of a "immutable blockchain" (which ETH will not be afterwards). The Mt.Gox incident proved which blockchain is truly secure and immutable.
 |
|
|
|
About that Coinbase and Gemini situation. Exchanges are a business, they pick what they think is promising coin and try to capitalize and profit from it.
Adopting a coin into their exchange is one thing, making blog posts on how it is the "leading digital currency" and promoting it all around, is another. Can you do anything to ask the Bitcoin Core team to implement the 2MB block size as they promised in Hong Kong.
The "Bitcoin Core team" has not promised anyone anything. The people present on that meeting were representing themselves. They've agreed to deliver the code. This has nothing to do with Bitcoin Core itself (which is one of the many implementations of the current protocol). The slow transaction confirmation is causing lots of problems and it is because the coding is centrally controlled by the Core team.
1) The confirmations are 10 minutes on average as they have always been. 2) A 2 MB block size limit does not solve anything. 3) "Coding" is not centrally controlled by the "Core team". 4) There is no such thing as the "Core team". 5) This is not relevant to this topic. |
|
|
|
I agree that we shouldnt discuss altcoins unless necessary but the community has been debating for a while now about forking to another bitcoin (altcoin). Some of us would never even be aware of this if it wasnt for other source of reading. If the only place i visited was bitcointalk and /bitcoin then i would not even be aware of other options to overcome current problems. That's the problem i see.
I disagree. If you wanted to get information about altcoins, all you had to do is to go into the Altcoin section (specifically: Altcoin Discussion). All the relevant posts were moved there. Bitcointalk does not endorse censorship, it has moderation. There is a difference between those two even though a fair amount of people do not recognize it. I can't say much about r/bitcoin as I'm not involved with it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
