2.61 BTC.  |
|
|
|
|
So the answer to my two questions is a clear no. Nothing surprising for people supporting Classic. Good luck next time.
|
|
|
|
its hopeless, you will forever believe 8MB blocks would break bitcoin.
They would. Even a 2 MB block size limit could, but that's what the 'hacky workaround' with those limitations is all about. It is you who does not know things, and it is you who is being fed lies. Do you even know what the difference between linear and quadratic scaling means? Have you even heard of the big O? The questions are: Is it optimal? Is it necessary? Is it worth risking of contentious hard fork over? The answer is a resounding "No" on all fronts.
I concur. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Tl;dr: My current normal transactions are considered 'attack-only' transactions and would be disallowed. I thought nobody was able to control my use of Bitcoin? Why not use his initial 20 MB block limit proposal with even more limitations?  gavin's opinion is just as valid as maxwel's
And C.W. is Satoshi.  doesn't matter which way we go.
what matters is how we get there.
That statement doesn't even make sense. Did you get that from some inspirational quote? |
|
|
|
2MB is not a technological limit
we understand the trade offs...
If 2 MB was so 'safe', then Gavin would have not added all those limitations in his proposal. Just saying. |
|
|
|
IMO devs should have 0 say, they give options and opinions and "the poeple" decide on the way forward, using nakamoto consensus.
You mean, the people without any relevant knowledge should tell your engineers what to do? Oh, I didn't realize that those people understood the technological limits better than the engineers. Nice to know! |
|
|
|
The market rallied because of ant pools independent thinking demonstrated that bitcoin works!
Bullshit. Antpool's reaction is negative at best. They need to think before they act because the might end up losing their miners. what if, miners leave core if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation?
Are you trying to imply that the miners should decide on the 'way forward'? -snip-
The HK meeting happened. The way Core deals with it will influence the success of Segwit and maybe even Core itself. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Core does not have to do anything. The people who signed the HK meeting agreed to prepare a proposal and code for a HF. That's it. |
|
|
|
Thanks again Lauda,
What I can see is that is was included in Block #413529.
It says:
Received Time 2016-05-26 17:28:00
Included In Blocks 413529 ( 2016-05-26 18:33:11 + 65 minutes )
But the next block was 2 minutes later and the prior block was 18:31:51.
I am confused now but learning.
IAS
Block 413527 was mined at 17:25, and your transaction was received at 17:28. There was no block until 18:31, i.e. a time span of 66 minutes (usually 6 blocks on average). There was most likely a backlog of transactions where your fee was not adequate anymore and thus was punished into the following block (2 minutes later). It was just an unlucky period. Hopefully that answers your question. |
|
|
|
You do understand how an agreement or a contract works, don't you?
Your buddies apparently signed on behalf of Core (it doesn't matter how you feel about it, they did) . The miners signed on behalf of their share of the mining industry. You do understand how open source projects work, don't you? WTF gives a few guys the sole authority to dictate what goes into a release? They said they would write the code -- that's all they can do. Feel free to link me to something from the signers that suggests otherwise. Exactly. This assumption that someone else can sign something in my name without my consent is idiotic. The people who were present at that 'argeement' only represented themselves, not other Core contributors, not Core, not my cat, no one else besides themselves. I disagree. Fuck this deal, and fuck Antpool. He can go ahead and block Segwit implementation all he wants -- it's only big blockers that are crying for a capacity increase, anyway. And in that case, no one can blame Core for "stagnating development" given how many doors Segwit opens for scalability, privacy and new features.
Exactly. Some question how long it would take for Segwit to be adopted and actually bringing the 'capacity' increase. I find it very simple: If you want the capacity increase, you adopt it. Else you don't want the capacity increase. Classic supporters have tried just about any nonsense argument against it. i'm right here with carlton ... waiting to fire up my blockstream hub you drooling idiot.
Greetings from the PR department (according to Franky). |
|
|
|
I would say that they are partially negative. The problem isn't the coins themselves, the problem are the people who are buying them in the hopes of 'making their dreams come true' (i.e. a lot of profit). 99% of those coins are useless and some were damaging to the 'investors' who bought them. Aside from that, I don't see it being a huge problem. They might dilute the value in the short term, but looking further, it helps grow the crypto scene. New blood is coming in daily, and not always due to BTC, but it might lead them to BTC in the end.
It usually does do 'damage' in the short term. However, Bitcoin could benefit from a secondary coin that could be considered a 'success'. Additionally, some 'competition' might not bad that bad either. Most of the successfull alts are used for niche markets ..
The anonymity of Monero would be a example of that. |
|
|
|
I simply do not care for these excuses, and neither does antpool( and others ). they will code it in, or else.
These are not excuses, these are facts, facts that make you and Jihan look like very intelligent people. There was zero guarantee from Core that this implementation will be merged. This is because the people who were part of that agreement can not do anything on their own. This is not how the project works. they will code it in, or else.
or else what? we don't code for terrorists. They actually think that they can do something about it, what a joke. Like saying let's fuck up the whole thing of bitcoin just because either a few people are having troubles figuring out fees and receiving confirmation of their transaction as quickly as they had pland and/or other people are making a lot of noise about having such troubles (which stories are likely mostly fabricated or exaggerated, by the way).
I say this every single time that I encounter such posts: You can't blame the network for your own lack of knowledge. Miners will leave antpool, if they don't agree with their lack of cooperation in bitcoin and ill-found destructiveness
Correct. As it now stands, their position is negative. |
|
|
|
|
I would be interested in this, however it mostly comes down to the price.
|
|
|
|
It took just over 1 hour. I thought maybe I missed that first block, quite common for 20 minute or so confirmations in my experience. But never had an hour before.
It was quite possible that you've transacted within a unlucky period (this has only happened once for me). Sorry to say, I don't know how to check the intervals. Is that something on the blockchain explorer page or ? Perhaps it helps others not so technical.
You can see the block timing on a lot of blockchain explorers, including blockchain.info. Example: 
According to G.Maxwell (on reddit) this "isn't interesting". Apparently, this isn't more than a nuisance. Aside from potentially making some nodes a bit 'sluggish', it doesn't seem to do anything else.
Update 1: Added missing information. |
|
|
|
Is this still ongoing as I sent a payment over an hour ago via the Electrum wallet with a suggested 0.000187 fee and there are still no confirmations.
Any ideas? Thanks in advance,
IAS
I can't really tell you that without un-banning them to check whether they would reconnect (Shorena can answer that question). However, this 'DoS attack' (or whatever it is) does not have a negative influence on your transactions. edit - just cleared, lol. But would be curious to know what happened.
How long did it exactly take? Did you check the block intervals? It is quite possible that your TX was not confirmed in let's say 2-3 blocks and then there was no block for 1 hour. |
|
|
|
Congratulations Lauda, you've been the only one to answer my point. When I mean leader, I don't mean someone to give rules, nor to tell us what to do, but someone to fix problems. We may imagine that some hacker tomorrow, finds a vulnerability and writes a virus to attack all miners. Just like a city needs a fire department service, BTC needs someone able to fix any problem which may arise, and I say that's why so many people like about Ether: there's a guy in charge.
You're not talking about much more that developers IMO. Technically you could say that Wladimir is in 'charge' because he is the maintainer of the Bitcoin Core project on Github. However, there are plenty of developers working on Bitcoin. Exactly how do you imagine this 'guy in charge'; what would be the difference between that system and the current one that we have? We can't really compare to ETH since "our Vitalik Buterin" has disappeared long ago. Exactly, the lack of a single entity to put pressure on is a huge advantage. There are many thousands of leaders in Bitcoin.
If we have learned anything in the recent times, it is that this is not true. If the majority of people misunderstand the point,you failed to project it in a functional way to appeal to the masses.
Maybe you should put more thought into reading and analyzing before rushing to make a post. I am quite happy with bitcoin. As user has increased, there is a competition and you have to pay a strong fee to get included.
Apparently some people think that it is economically viable for the Bitcoin network to be practically free to use, which is a completely irrational view of the presented system. Nothing is free.
Update 1: Another off-topic post. |
|
|
|
For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.
For a network, Segwit brings a lot of benefits while a block size increase brings none (if we exclude the TPS increase which is present in both). There isn't much to discuss here. make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
Neither one happens if you know how to properly use Bitcoin. Don't blame the network for your lack of knowledge. and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...
Nonsense. When Core says that the fees are important, 'big blockists' say that it won't be necessary until the year of 20XX (there was a post in /r/btc recently, stating that it won't be important for the next 50 years or so - IIRC). Now you come back with another story? all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.
No. There's even a risk at 2 MB, that's why Classic added additional limitations to the system. on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.
There's also very strong evidence that my cat is a Jedi master. Anyone thinking of a controlled block size increase is discredited as a "Classic" losers. Case closed.
No. |
|
|
|
From what I understand, all posts currently made on the Beta will be gone. Once it is ready, the final mitigation from all content will happen and the forum will transition to the 'new version'. How will the mitigation to the new forum be done?
The same way that it is being done now (the topics/posts up until a certain date are there). Should we already now register in the beta?
All accounts have been transferred, you just need to reset your password there. |
|
|
|
Here you can find some useful function regarding exponential distribution. I've posted these images recently in another thread:   Read[1]: There are lots of block intervals with a time less than 10 minutes but then a few block intervals much longer which bump up the average to 10 minutes. So the bitcoin network can get unlucky and a block won't be found for a whole hour.
[1] - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmation#Confirmation_Times |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
