AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?
Timing is crucial. Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright". Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam. Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam. you place way too much weight on spam. think of spam as a placeholder for legit TX, we welcome the placeholder because it pays some miner fees |
|
|
|
Lol? The problem is that this is not an "argument by those who reject a block-size increase". It's simply the reality of the matter, whether it's BTC or ...Ethereum. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-PaperScalability One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history. The problem with such a large blockchain size is centralization risk. If the blockchain size increases to, say, 100 TB, then the likely scenario would be that only a very small number of large businesses would run full nodes, with all regular users using light SPV nodes. In such a situation, there arises the potential concern that the full nodes could band together and all agree to cheat in some profitable fashion (eg. change the block reward, give themselves BTC). Light nodes would have no way of detecting this immediately. Of course, at least one honest full node would likely exist, and after a few hours information about the fraud would trickle out through channels like Reddit, but at that point it would be too late: it would be up to the ordinary users to organize an effort to blacklist the given blocks, a massive and likely infeasible coordination problem on a similar scale as that of pulling off a successful 51% attack. Again, this is from ...Ethereum, not BTC. So if Ethereum seriously considers centralization as a problem, and most if not all altcoins do too, then how is this relevant only for "btc smallblockers"? define "centralization" |
|
|
|
JayJuanGee you're a small blocker?  |
|
|
|
|
AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?
|
|
|
|
isn't there a slider bar on Core to set the fee/byte of a TX
what happens when you set it to the max?
Never set it to the max but it won't result in 15 BTC. This was either a mistake or money laundering. what is the max? for fun From what I know, this is the biggest one in the recent years. Someone might have thought of it as fun to do something silly like this in the early days though no i mean if you max out the fee slider bar on Core the thingy to set the fee/byte of a TX what is the max setting for fee/byte on core. i know this is a little OT but we are 8 pages in... |
|
|
|
There is no reason to do so because 1BTC=100.000.000 satoshi.
These are more than enough units.
I can not see this happening for a good reason.
Bitcoin has way more branding power than Satoshis. If Bitcoin increases its value, we will reach a point where adoption will be blocked by the general perception that Bitcoin is too expensive. Also, but correct me if I am wrong, Bitcoins are comparable to shares of a company. The whole Bitcoin network is controlled by the total number of Bitcoins. If you don't have Bitcoins and need to transact in Bitcoin, you need to buy some and become "shareholder", even if this is for the fraction of time you need to complete the transaction. Expanding the number of Bitcoins would mean open the network to new users and avoid having a centralized control. you do understand they can buy 0.0100001BTC right? |
|
|
|
isn't there a slider bar on Core to set the fee/byte of a TX
what happens when you set it to the max?
Never set it to the max but it won't result in 15 BTC. This was either a mistake or money laundering. what is the max? for fun |
|
|
|
|
isn't there a slider bar on Core to set the fee/byte of a TX
what happens when you set it to the max?
|
|
|
|
|
Core's vision make no sense
they want to make bitcoin full nodes be able to run by anyone
but they want the use of bitcoin to be limited to elite central bankers types
i dont get it.
lets run the world's "financial settlement layer" on a raspberry pie V1
|
|
|
|
Pft deterring fees will occur automatically as the block reward disappears. At a price of 500$/BTC it would work out like this:
1 block (25 bitcoins) created every 10 minutes -> for each minute, 2.5 bitcoins are created X $500/bitcoin = $1250/minute.
So every minute $1250 in fees needs to come from transactions (instead of the block rewards today)
Using 10 transactions/sec as maximum speed (with current block size), 600 transactions each minute.
$1250/600 transactions = $2,08 per transaction.
Even higher BTC price -> even higher fees.
Edit: and if you use 5 tx/s instead of the theoretical 10 tx/s the amount doubles.
Yup. What's wrong with $4 a transaction? Totally fine. $40 a tx is fine too .... the problem is see with that is that it isn't very competitive... poeple will start using centralized BTC payment processors poeple will start using altcoins and the idea that we can't do better then 5tx/s is insulting make segwit make block interval 2.5mins make block size 8MB there i've solved bitcoin scaling!  Sure... and in the process make the blockchain grow by 1TB / year instead of ~30GB / year... good thinking...  Yes it is. With more users and more money flowing into the field 1TB (Except it won't be. Upping the limit does not mean that every block will be 8MB. That's sort of the point with a higher limit.) a year isn't a problem. 30GB a year on a stagnating dud is a problem. If people want to play right wing hippie with their mobile broadband in a cottage in the woods, I'm sure Luke-Jr can whip up some suitable shitcoin. cost of storing bitcoin's blockchain if it scaled & was used 2 orders of magnitude - 60$ a year  |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0jCjyrew8you should look up the different "what is bitcoin" Intro Videos and pick one this one is pretty good if you want to explain the "evolution of money" at the same time you explain bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
i dont see price sticking to 420 very long... breaking 425 today or tonight is my bet
|
|
|
|
Pft deterring fees will occur automatically as the block reward disappears. At a price of 500$/BTC it would work out like this:
1 block (25 bitcoins) created every 10 minutes -> for each minute, 2.5 bitcoins are created X $500/bitcoin = $1250/minute.
So every minute $1250 in fees needs to come from transactions (instead of the block rewards today)
Using 10 transactions/sec as maximum speed (with current block size), 600 transactions each minute.
$1250/600 transactions = $2,08 per transaction.
Even higher BTC price -> even higher fees.
Edit: and if you use 5 tx/s instead of the theoretical 10 tx/s the amount doubles.
Yup. What's wrong with $4 a transaction? Totally fine. $40 a tx is fine too .... the problem is see with that is that it isn't very competitive... poeple will start using centralized BTC payment processors poeple will start using altcoins and the idea that we can't do better then 5tx/s is insulting make segwit make block interval 2.5mins make block size 8MB there i've solved bitcoin scaling! |
|
|
|
Anyhoo, how about them 420's?
baby steps towards 750, fun to watch, but not particularly impressive, i can imagine nubs going "Wow what a nice spike, maybe i should close my short" ehehehhehe, nubs.... |
|
|
|
altcoin hostility. altcoins existed since litecoin, and are the original scaling mechanism envisioned by Satoshi. Simply start 2000 Bitcoin clones with 1MB blocks each and you have 2GB worth of blocks (visa scale) - instantly! limited bitcoin capacity allows altcoins to innovate, experiment and explore novel concepts. If Bitcoin actually becomes challenged by an alt (it won't), it can adopt
This I agree with, the only problem is that so many altcoins are scams that there is little trust in altcoins. I won't go near them because every single one I have looked at either has a huge premine or other shady aspect to it, or doesn't keep up with changes in core that we know are necessary fixes. But in the future I believe there will be region specific altcoins that work (region specific meaning businesses in a certain geographic region are more likely to accept them) and that bitcoin will largely be the mechanism by which people exchange from one altcoin to another when they travel or do business outside their region. all this talk reminds me that bitcoin has seen a lose in market share, poeple appear to be moving to ETH as a safe haven to bitcoin's scaling crisis I don't know why people are moving to Eth, it looks dangerous to me. I think the reason why a good alt-coin hasn't arisen yet is because it is expensive to properly maintain a code branch and the demand just isn't there yet for serious continued funding of an alt-coin. Ethereum seems to be spending a lot of money on marketing even though it isn't being used for anything novel, only the promise that it someday will be used for something novel, but I just do not see a market demand for what it is promising. A lot of people make speculative buys into something they do not believe in simply because they predict a pump they can profit from before the dump, and that's unfortunately I think why people are buying Eth. Bitcoin does not yet have a scalability problem. It can handle the transactions it gets right now just fine. With SegWit it will handle an increased TX rate. The point will come where it needs something else - whether that is sidechains, alt-coins, or a block size increase remains to be seen. That being said, I am not opposed to 2MB blocks - we can get the code for it now, to trigger if the last 1000 blocks used 950 MB or something (filtering out empty blocks). That way it is only implemented if the 1 MB blocks are not big enough with SegWit. you're underestimate Ethereum. maybe you should watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3jCV-JxYkyou're right about it being very dangerous, I wouldn't feel comfortable with serious money in ETH, but having SOME is probably not the worst idea. At this time ETH does seem to be in a bubble, and thats definitely being fueled by bitcoins scaling crisis. when the hype about bitcoin "dying" or "unable to scale" dies down, ETH price might take a nosedive, hell it not unlikely it'll take a nosedive regardless, it's gone up to high too fast at this point... But it's a fairly strong reminder that Bitcoin isn't the only game in town, bitcoin's network effect can only carry it so far, at the end of the day bitcoin NEEDS to be better than the alternatives if it is to remain #1. |
|
|
|
Buy or Die Take 2 a few weeks ago there was the "The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus", right after this i wrote the update above. well bitcoin didn't skyrocket to that 750 target i had... unfortunately the poeple seem to have little faith in "Consensus" reached at the round table, Core's roadmap does promise segwit and then 2MB HF later ( IF there is "widespread Consensus" ), but poeple aren't still convinced this is the best way forward. 2MB is popular, of course there are still many that loves cores vision of scaling bitcoin with a second layer solution but as far as popular opinion, main chain scaling is what "the poeple" want, And Core is playing a very dangerous game, they are going against popular opinion. They have a different vision than most when it comes to scaling bitcoin, and they are sticking to it. how exactly this is all going to play out is anyone's guess, and fuck i'm done trying to guess this, frankly i dont give a crap. My idea is that one way or another bitcoin will be made to scale, hopefully core can deliver segwit on time and this will allow the market to breath a sigh of relief ( breaking 500 ). I'm currently buying the FUD about bitcoin being slow broken, unable to scale, i'm buying into this FUD because I thinking it is unjustified... Despite the lack of resolution from "The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus" ( if anything it seemed to have added fuel to the fire ) the graph still looks good doesn't it... this is the bullmarket effect, FUD can only slow down or temporarily prevent a rise. We are currently at a very important resistance / support line (415-420 ish) and appear to be moving above it. I do not believe the market will wait for segwit release to break up higher, this market likes to try and stay one step ahead, so this means we are moving up and we are doing it now. Adam's prediction: >= 750 in < 2 months Adam's Cheap Coins Target: 405 |
|
|
|
i like to Relax and Enjoy Live Shows for Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
