In your opinion maybe. But others may disagree - if fees are too much when moving bitcoin, then the rational economic thing to do is to switch to an alt with a lower fee. It is the price mechanism at work. There is no monopoly in cryptocurrency, that is the beauty, instead there is plenty of choice. If there is a failure point in bitcoin, the market will simply move to the next best alt.
If you want to be a cheap person and need fees that are < 5 cents, sure. Otherwise, no. Besides, you probably pay a fee at converting so you lose out most of the benefit anyways. Altcoins are not even worth my time as a means of transfer. The only thing that could be useful are the rare features such as found in Monero (some of the anonymity). Maybe Bitcoin sidechains could work much better than highly volatile altcoins.
Yes, they are going to be the right 'option' and you can practically say 'bye' to these altcoins. An interesting example of that would be Rootstock. Normally the fee of public unconfirmed transactions is just few Bitcoins, but sometimes someone can mistakely send 0.0001 BTC wih 100 BTC fee, or with spam attack the fees of public unconfirmed transactions might go higher.
Again, someone needed to confirm whether this actually happened as blockchain.info can show the wrong information at times. I haven't noticed the thread in time, else I would have verified it on other explorers. |
|
|
|
fee reached 500 BTC.
It happens; nothing special (albeit it could be an error on the website itself). However, there is some weird behavior that my node has picked up on today so it might be something else as well. I think this is healthy. With the increase in transaction volume, the fee will sure increase and eventually take over the reward from the newly generated coins. Therefore the effect of 4-yearly reward halving will eventually be diluted by this increase.
That's not what is going on here. Read the thread. I expect this development will hasten the move into alts.
This is not any kind of development. There is no reason to use alts. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure whether he is trolling or he truly believes that this can be done. In either case, whoever attempts to do this will be disappointed. However, this could also be a targeted attempt, i.e. they want the individual(s) to hack someone's system which has X amount of BTC. While this technically isn't a hack on the network itself, it is a doable hack. If the Bitcoin network could truly be hacked, they could literally take as much money as they wanted. 1000 Bitcoin would be literally nothing then.
That's why there's the possibility of a targeted attack as I described above. |
|
|
|
You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more?
Yes Good, because I've seen a lot of people mistakenly think that they represented Core as a group. That is why we need to mitigate this risk by taking the action only when Classic looks almost totally defeated, with a 12 month grace period, a 95% activation threshold, in two steps (softfork flagging the hardfork, then the hardfork itself) and only to 2MB or smaller. There is another risk, which is that we avoid doing a hardfork only to avoid the perception that these aggressive inappropriate attack tactics work.
I still don't follow your reasoning behind a 2 MB hard fork and I disagree with it. The level of stupidity in /r/btc is so severe that I even suspect some small blockist agent provocateurs may be contributing to it.
Good, you're part of those that realize how bad that place is. |
|
|
|
I think Garzik is very likely to have his view of the best interests of the system driving his decisions. I would have said the same about Gavin, except after the CW fiasco I have little conviction as to his intentions. I think the best thing would be for him to stop supporting the counterproductive Classic attack for several months and then revaluate.
Fair point. Even though Garzik was in support of the HF, I didn't see him getting involved much in the 'politics' nor do much coding for Classic (if any at all?). However, he's the sole example. This is why I think the actions of the developers in the HK agreement was unfortunately necessary and somewhat justified.
You do realize that the people that signed that 'agreement' only represent themselves and nothing more? This is why we should do it form a position of strength. The Classic node count is down to 15% and the hashrate is around 5.5%. I still think these metrics are too high for a hardfork to 2MB. However if they fall further and Core looks stronger, then I think we should implement a hardfork to 2MB.
I think that you've got this all wrong and do not realize the type of 'people' that are behind this. Since Maxwell already mentioned shills and whatnot, what I see happening, assuming that Core does agree to do a 2 MB block size limit for this reason that you've mentioned, is :"We've succeeded in pushing 2 MB blocks, it is time to go further. 4 MB blocks!". Do you really think that with all that was said in /r/btc that most (not all!) of these people have any kind of respect for the current (Core) developers? The answer is a clear no.
Update: You seem to miss that there is a difference between respect and blind unthinking obsequiousness.
No. |
|
|
|
|
Seems like they're trying to escape the grasp of those who 'protect' people from getting scammed by giving out warnings and negative ratings. It's nothing special really, just report them when you see them. I've already moved one of them (prior to seeing this thread).
|
|
|
|
I disagree, especially after you've provided no sources. Modern Mathematics has made random number generation completely irrelevant and it should be removed from computer programming altogether,
No, they haven't and no, it shouldn't. if your computer is running random number generators for Bitcoin or anything else its now an unessisary flaw that can be removed,
Why would someone use a RNG and what for? |
|
|
|
|
I have one suggestion, make the description larger. Depending on the resolution and screen size at the time of reading, it is quite hard to decipher without zooming in. I see a lot of potential in this satire, i.e. you can make it for 'known/trusted' community members of the forum.
Oh, and my cat is disappointed that you've left it out.
|
|
|
|
exactly, 2MB every 10 minutes is basically nothing. that's about 416 Bytes per second (~3Kb)
Did you forget that blocks have to be validated? You can't just do the calculations like that and assume that the network would be healthy if it took 10 minutes to receive each block (assuming regular time between blocks). There's even that potential attack vector at 2 MB where the validation could take more than 10 minutes. However, this would go a bit away from the topic(?). |
|
|
|
Memory in the past wasn't cheap but because people can make smaller chips with more memory on it. The old ones will become very cheap. And after a year the newer ones gets cheaper because there is a new
generation.
This post makes little sense and does not necessarily contain the right information. The old generation of memory did not become "very cheap" (e.g. DDR2 2GB costs more than a DDR3 2GB stick). Unless you're talking about storage, then that might be a different case. They can now store more memory in a smaller platform which is ideal in most situations.
It really isn't about the space required to store memory when it comes to Bitcoin. Now you can buy MicroSD cards with 1TB capacity and even higher if you so wish. So much memory in such a small piece of plastic. It's mind blowing.
The only thing that is mind blowing is that there are some fools that are willing to pay insane premiums to get those cards. I've managed to find a 512GB card and it costs a ridiculous ~350 euros.
Did some small calculation: If we assume a 2 MB block size limit and that 100% of the blocks are full (which is unreasonable) we have: 2MB * 6 blocks per hour * 24 hours a day * 365 days a year = 105.1 GB. A more reasonable view (75%) would result in the blockchain size increasing at around 78 GB's per year. This doesn't seem as much, but I'd hate downloading that from scratch (combined with the size today). The price per gigabyte in 2015 is 0.03$ ( according to this) which equals to ~2.4$ for that year. Which does not seem much at all (if we assume that these prices are available everywhere). |
|
|
|
|
I can't really be interested in a coin when I'm unable to actually see anything related to it. That video is inadequate. I'll rather wait for sketches or an actual picture before I get my hopes up.
|
|
|
|
Just bought my 1st game from steam using bitcoin, what a great way to pay.
How about you share some relevant information about this? Stating that you've just bought a game does not really help as it provides no information to the people reading the thread. I would not trust those sites, like the other poster said, they may be stolen.. otherwise where is the business for them?
They are as legit as the "shared" accounts and cheap gift cards that are being sold on this forum.  Smooth seamless with Bitpay?
I don't see why it would be any different as with the payments at other services that are involved with Bitpay. Are you paying any premium or charged certain % more than regular payment methods?
I would not see the point of adding a premium to the prices, else there would be little reason to use Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is only as strong as it's weakest link. And in this i refer to the community, if many people drag bitcoin down then it will be weak.
I do agree with this. Bitcoin as a system is practically unbreakable (it does have some attack vectors though) if we leave humans out (as in control over mining, development and such) of the equation (assuming there are machines serving as miners and as nodes). Humans are the main weak point in this system. Don't some people realize just how XT and now Classic have shifted the idea of taking control over our money, decentralization and whatnot to the idea of "fighting" over 'implementations'? If you think about it, in order to achieve what was originally wanted (from this perspective) Bitcoin does not need some sort of 'rush' (sacrificing some aspects partially to achieve that goal) that will enable as many people as possible to use the system at all times. Tl;dr: I'm glad that the Classic chapter is over and that we can focus on more important matters and prepare for the next controversial HF (maybe Bitcoin Reloaded?). |
|
|
|
I'll obviously have to read more and maybe try this out soon, but it was my understanding that the speed of 100 000 TPS was more based on available nodes? With fewer nodes, fewer transactions? If that is the case then this technology seems pretty scalable to whatever is required by the network.
Correct, just read this part carefully: Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network
This is why we need exact numbers. 'A few thousand nodes' could be a lot of numbers. I'm interested in how many nodes are required to achieve 1000 TPS. I don't really get the overall idea here, but what caught my attention are the scale and extremely cheap payments.
Start with reading the Lightning Network wallpaper and finding ELI5 explanations. And with cheap payments,this could entice more people into the bitcoin world.
Bitcoin is already cheap; I don't see why this would make a difference as far as that is concerned. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not aware of any proposed changes to the trust system. I don't recall anyone proposing a better system than what is currently available either. IIRC the beta does not have trust ratings implemented yet (I will verify with a update a bit later).
Update: Just confirmed this. There are no visible trust ratings at this time.
|
|
|
|
Wow this sounds amazing, i paticullarly liked the "better than visa scale" comment. more than a 100000 TPS  This seems like a bit 'overkill'. Bitcoin is far away from needing 100 000 TPS. I'd be very satisfied if we had a capacity of 1000 TPS at the moment as there would never be some kind of backlog due to inadequate amount of space (unless there was some kind of attack) for quite some time. I believe this could potentially open doors to new avenues of attack that wouldn't be possible on the main blockchain.
There might be attack vectors for the off-chain system, but that is rather unavoidable. However, I'm certain that those will be discovered and prevented on time (or at least most of them). |
|
|
|
Please add me in this campaign. -snip- Your response will be highly appreciable.  Did you seriously not even read the title of the topic? The campaign is full. |
|
|
|
From what I can tell they effectively have a veto ability when anyone attempts to make any changes to the consensus rules.
They can't. If a scammer were to open a payment channel and engage in a series of transactions that results in his "balance" being zero or effectively zero (very small economic amounts) then he will have nothing to lose in attempting to broadcast an "old" closing transaction that would potentially result in him receiving more btc then what he is owed from the payment channel. The payment channel will be protected by the "penalty" transaction that they can broadcast, however it is not a 100% guarantee that this will successfully confirm and in the off chance that it does not then the scammer is able to steal from the payment channel. If the "penalty" transaction does confirm then the scammer will have lost nothing because he was owned nothing in the first place.
Interesting. Source? Each time a new transaction on the LN is done, a series of transactions must be signed and sent to the various counter-parties in a very specific order. I fear that LN clients will potentially be tricked into thinking that they have received a signed transaction from the other party when in fact it has not and/or being tricked into sending a signed transaction in the incorrect order, potentially exposing the owner to risk of loss.
"You fear"? Speculation is not how we determine flaws. Anyhow, people need to be much more open to these solutions especially since they're in very early stages of their development. There are bound to be problems, flaws and whatnot and that is not necessarily a bad thing (at this point in the cycle). |
|
|
|
I don't think this is strange. I trust that blockchain.info's best interests are aligned with that of Bitcoin. I cannot say the same with blockstream.
Of course, everyone has the right intentions besides Blockstream. Maybe I was misinterpreting the announcement. I was hoping that bc.i was able to resolve some of the many flaws with LN.
What kind of flaws are we talking about? I'm not sure where you've gotten your information from. Most of the "flaws" (that I've read about) was just 'ranting' in articles about how they will not be able to solve the decentralized routing and similar engineering tasks. |
|
|
|
At least some of the Classic/XT advocates did genuinely have Bitcoin’s best interests at heart, we just disagreed with their methods, we need to still respect them.
Exactly who might those be? Hearn, Gavin, maybe Toomin? Gaining this victory was vital, it demonstrated the rules of the system are resilient, but at the same time weaknesses were exposed in the process.
One of the fundamental points of Bitcoin is this very resilience. Therefore it is potentially possible to eliminate and existing protocol rule without strong consensus, in some circumstances.
Elaborate? Recognizing this imperfection, I think we should, from a position of strength, be pragmatic, and as a sign of respect for those people who have hopefully been defeated, implement a change in the limit to 2MB, consistent with the HK agreement.
Disagree. Their support has gone beyond disagreeing with views to just being irrational about everything regardless of evidence presented (either their way or none). Giving in to such uneducated fools (if I may say) is not going to help anyone. While I might not be necessarily against a 2 MB block size limit (only after the validation time is down to O(n)), I disagree with trying to either push for it now, or impose additional limitations as Classic did. People can have as many 'agreements' as they wish, Bitcoin ain't moving an inch.
This. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
