Ive read about these before but really dont see the point. There is no internet. Users can chat and file share but why chat if your close enough to pickup a wifi signal? Also to share files what not just connect to each other via ad-hoc?
Not trying to be negative, I honestly would like so understand the product better.
Without impacting your own internet service you can share with others nearby (neighbors?? people at a coffee shop, etc) . You do not need to know them. This has nothing to do with your internet IP so it adds a level of safety. Some people just wanna share.  |
|
|
|
There should be NO transaction without a fee!
Reason 1:
Fees prevent or put a cost on spam.
Reason 2:
Fees provide income for miners.
Whoever wants their tx in the block should pay. Only that is fair!
Miners can do this now. Nothing is stoping them. No miner has to include free transactions. |
|
|
|
Why is this even a thing?
So we're going to solve a deficit issue by jumping right to inflation?
Great way to show off your principle, Bitcoin.
Full retard mode engage
You really do not understand what you are talking about. Block size increases do not cause bitcoin inflation. This allows more transactions to be processed per block. If we reach block size limit we could slow the adoption of bitcoin which would limit economic activity. You seem to be confusing increasing block size with increasing block reward. |
|
|
|
I want to set up a rig from parts I have laying around and just need a proc.
Let me know what you have.
I am looking to spend $20 shipped. Can pay in bitcoin. This may seem low but ebay has a glut of low end am3s for $30... but who wants to hassle with ebay?
Thanks,
If you are in the USA I have a Sempron 140 I can do at $20 worth of btc. Can ship tomorrow. Fan is $6 more if you need one. |
|
|
|
Is there any mechanism in place (or one that is being designed) to prevent this? If so, where can I find more info about the mechanism for preventing data chain bloat?
The maximum growth rate is limited to 52GBytes/yr by the rules embedded in the system— meaning a $100 1TB HDD can store around 20 years of Bitcoin history.. The users of bitcoin would be foolish indeed to change the Bitcoin protocol to permit more size than that until computers and storage are advanced enough that the increased burden wouldn't be problematic. You just worked against your own point. If a $100 drive can currently hold 20 years of history, allowing a 4x increase would not be problematic. Also $105 will buy 2x the storage you quoted. Allowing a 4x increase in transactions would still allow 10 years of blockchain to be stored on a $105 drive. This is not a problem. |
|
|
|
Remember: Bitcoin is a proof of concept and an experiment not a plan to take over the world.
Wrong. I guess we agree to disagree then Wouldn't it be better to wait with our plans till the original objective is successful? I gladly discuss world domination plans with you once we have hit the hard limit consistently and have a balance between initial block reward and fees in terms of mining income. Well maybe, maybe not. The original plan seems to be successful to me. The world domination was a joke, but the world changing part is not. Transaction volumes are growing as we speak. Soon there could be regular backlogs of NON FREE transactions. Increasing the allowable volume is not really dangerous to mining income. If 1/4 of the miners allow unlimited free transactions then free transactions could wait 40 minutes or more (and have uncertainty) while paid transactions move to the front of the line. Right now with a block reward of 25 BTC, the miners are being paid. When the block reward drops to 12.5 then I am sure even more miners will be unwilling to do free transactions. At some point miners will need to voluntarily decide to move to pools that offer less or no free transactions. This is much more important to mining income then the maximum block size. This, along with a larger blocksize then current, both seem to be a part of Satoshi's original plan. |
|
|
|
Remember: Bitcoin is a proof of concept and an experiment not a plan to take over the world.
Wrong. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth
Please explain how you come to this conclusion? Gladly. If the block size is increased every time it comes close to the limit there won't be ever a real transaction market since it would mean practically unlimited supply. It's a classical bait and switch game. Eventually the initial block reward gonna go away almost completely. So miners will only depend on transaction fees but this is only the case of a steady state economy. With an increasing block reward there will be a practically unlimited amount of supply of transactions. Unlimited supply == no market so the income miners have to sustain themselves with what consists of whatever is left by the block reward at that time. I am a miner. All miners have to do is join a pool that conforms to their pricing strategy. If most of the miners want to offer transactions for free, they will be free. If we as miners elect to require a reasonable fee, then people who want fast transactions will pay that fee or wait until the next block (or more). Making the market larger does not greatly impact the price of transactions because it is the percentage of miners offering free transactions could cause the problem you are worring about. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin with a fixed block size limit == steady state economy
Bitcoin with an increasing block size limit == self destructive economy with the requirement of sustained exponential growth
Those of us who are into bitcoin because we seek a sustainable lifestyle will not stand for it. Just because you want to get rich quick we won't abolish our goal.
You might win this battle but the war is just beginning....
Respect existence expect resistance.
Another yawn....... You do not seem to know what you are talking about and just want to rant. Increasing the block size limit is like upgrading to a faster internet connection. It allows you to surf faster BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE you to do so. The only problem would be increasing to such a large size that a reasonable computer can not process it anymore. You seem to be equating increasing the block size with increasing the reward size or some other nonsense. Having more bitcoin transactions MAKES BITCOIN STRONGER. Limiting the blocksize will force more transactions off the blockchain and encourage centralization. The only issue seems to be balance. We can not allow the blocksize to be so cumbersome that it restricts it to special purpose computers. That is not being proposed by anyone. The devs have a reasonable proposal and it is actually bringing the rules BACK to where Satoshi had originally envisioned them. |
|
|
|
In this case it probaly would have been best to finance the vehicle and make payments with deflating bitcoins over several years. Hmm... a new car sounds like a good idea. Is that a hybrid?
Hybrids are for absolute suckers. Suckers who like low per mile cost and high trade in values. Prius has one of the lowest TOTAL ownership costs. |
|
|
|
Careful with the MPG since the British gallon is larger than the US gallon. The newer cars are also not getting the same mileage as the older ones. Mine is a 2000 and I'm getting just a touch over 45 to the gallon. Mostly I like it because I can go nearly 700 miles on a tank which, for me, means only stopping once a week to refuel.
I haven't seen a Prius making over 40MPG... I took a bunch for a ride from ZipCar and on average they did about 37MPG... Not that impressive since I had Ford Fiesta doing 35MPG and Fusion doing 32MPG... And Fusion is a much better car. And yea, Golf TDI was doing 35MPG with 2 people and 2 large dogs (70 pounds each) and a trailer behind at about 1500LBS. Must have been winter. When driving a 2009 Prius I was able to do 45 mpg easily. I usually get epa highway ratings on most vehicles I drive going 65 mph since they further revised the EPA tests. It is amazing though that dodge has a full size truck doing 25 mpg on the highway now. |
|
|
|
Just curious on what you guys think. I didn't buy one :T
Last I looked, their website was still selling a bundle with the first 5 issues which means there's probably too many of #1 floating around to ever become truly valuable. The bundle listed on their website does not include issue number one. It is currently every other issue other than issue one. Issue number one also has some minor printing flaws that would probably not be reproduced on any reprint. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, less then 9 BTC these days at current rates!
|
|
|
|
|
I have received three of these coins and am happy with the condition. There is a little gunk near the rim but other then a light scratch in one they seem pretty good. I think the gunk could be cleaned mechanically without liquids but I am leaving them as is for now.
|
|
|
|
Yawn.
If the majority of developers feel it is important to change the protocol to keep it functioning properly I will change my miners or switch to a pool that supports it. Changes have happened before and they will happen again. Bitcoin is not a frozen protocol. If you don't like the change, don't change though you may no longer be a part of the majority network. These things resolve themselves quickly based on the TECHNICAL MERITS of the change.
Bitcoin has changed before, but the last time a hard-fork change happened was way back in the summer of 2010 to fix the overflow bug. Back then Bitcoin's were nearly worthless, there wasn't really an economy built, and the userbase was tiny. There have been soft-forks like P2SH, where only mining power requires upgrading, but even those took months of planning and advocacy. Why would changing the blocksize be any different? I see a lot of FUD in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
Yawn.
If the majority of developers feel it is important to change the protocol to keep it functioning properly I will change my miners or switch to a pool that supports it. Changes have happened before and they will happen again. Bitcoin is not a frozen protocol. If you don't like the change, don't change though you may no longer be a part of the majority network. These things resolve themselves quickly based on the TECHNICAL MERITS of the change.
|
|
|
|
I'm quite sure the Casascius coins will be collectors items one day, since they're beautiful and coins are already collectors items.
Well, if bitcoin survives, the Casascius coins will outperform the bitcoin, sure. But do you believe the 25Ƀ coin will be traded for millions on top of the millions in pure bitcoin value? I see somebody is trying to sell them already at 220% but find this rather bold given the fact that you never know if the coin went through the hands of somebody with good radio scanning equipment emptying the coin at any future point. Sure Casascius has to sell them above face value due to production costs but in this example people already try to sell this production costs for $300. Sorry that is a joke. The 1 BTC original series one Casacius is selling for about 2 BTC as well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
