I like the idea that XT progressively increases the blocksize limit, but I think it would be better to fix core instead of switching entirely. However I need more information comparing the two. It would be nice if someone could post a quick comparison table between core and xt so everyone knows what they are voting for.
apparently it has only two new features which are getutxo and double spend relay enhancements. and Core was not the original name also, XT is returning more to the QT path as a name... |
|
|
|
|
xt for me too, i'm with Gavin on this, because the fork is needed, and there are no better alternative for now, also others dev should provide at least their reason for not accepting the upgrade
|
|
|
|
... Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized
satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem. However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos. there wasn't any 1MB at first he added that limit to prevent possible ddos attack, so this is like knowing the problem of the transaction limit |
|
|
|
|
nothing worse than what happened with the value overflow incident, if we have passed that problem, we could pass everything without a scratch
a slight price crash is expected though
|
|
|
|
We need a central figure to take control of the Bitcoin ship and guide it between the icebergs.
It's fine if the other developers want to submit proposals, but Gavin should have the final say when it comes to core changes.
This is a so called(not really) "decentralized" cryptocurrency. There should be NO central figure. Satoshi would be ashamed of you all. but satoshi did create this whole thing, so it must be centralized then right? no, as long as it is open source you can't really call it centralized, but it's obvious that only competent people should change the code and not average joe from the street Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized
satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future |
|
|
|
Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.
That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them. Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner.  Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya. Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there. No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability. it's more around 3-4 tx per second, because there are multisig, and because one trasaction includ input and output, 7 is just far-strected... |
|
|
|
i hope it goes down. because i have some extra fiat money that i didn't know what to do with.
now i am waiting for an opportunity to convert it to bitcoin if the price was right.
but i am doubtful that this can happen, and i am going to have my orders left unfilled
What price are you talking about? $200? $170 $150 Maybe even lower? Seems sunny weather is also holding bitcoin buyers outside enjoying the sun and not buying bitcoins that are daily mined. nah, this is the usual drop in the same boring range between 230 and 240, expect a raise when the whole Gavin drama will end |
|
|
|
ok and then you're going to solve the scalability problem how?
Use bigger blocks, but not jump immediately from 1Mb to 20Mb. Instead, I think we should slowly ease our way up to 20 Mb blocks. We should increment the changes since this is not that large of an issue with the network yet that we need to jump up that high immediately. it is done in this way to prevent the need of a future change and repeating the current situation many times, we can't hard fork every year because we didn't do the right change at the first time, this should be avoided |
|
|
|
Hi guys I'm just wondering is bitcoin creators able to lift or increase the limit of the number of bitcoins which can ever be produced(21,000,000)?
When you answer, if possible please also let me know how sure are you about the answer. I need some advise on this. Thanks.
The correct answer is, "Yes". Not only can this number be increased, I believe that sometime in the future it will be increased. do you think it will be increased in the future? I'm sure some people out there would not want to buy into bitcoin based on believing that alone. Would you be ok if it was increased in the future? the only good thing about increase it, is to replace those lost coins from early adopters or other heedless guys, but at worse it could be limited even more, which should increase the price in the case it will not reach a good price |
|
|
|
not to mention that he still not understanding, because we are not talking about faucets by any means, he really need to watch a game of Starcraft 2 before we can continue this conversation...
Yes I know that this is game but I just want a compare to faucet, is this worth to play as a game or we can just do this like faucets claim after you get some resources because I know that Starcraft game is not easy to play and need a lot of time to earn about the gas and everything that need to build your base to become strong That's why this game need to be a fun game, so although we don't earn so much Bitcoin but we spent our time for fun  The point is we need to play this game to earn a lot so why should it be fun? Altough it is not fun since the payout is good I think everyone gonna play it like crazy. That is just wasting time not a fun time to play again it's not about earning, it's about playing video game and earning something, it's all about fun... when you play gta5/random moba/battlefield 4, you do it for the earning? maybe you are not a gaming guy, because otherwise you would have already realized, what we are talking about |
|
|
|
they have just "banned" it from exchange or trading with it in general, they can't certainly stop someone using it in his house you can still receive and send bitcoin to someone else, if you live in those places i wonder if someone use sites like all4btc using maybe a proxy, from those country, what will happen...nothing i guess |
|
|
|
Its better to invest money than just save it.... but smart investing.
Gold is always good option.
Gold is not always a good option though. Basically if you are looking to invest your money into a form of "goods" than real estate is a better option than gold. Obviously it is because real estate business have always been increasing since the past time and had neber shown a sign of decreasing ( more human , lower hectar of land, higher real estate prices ). Plus that "land" is much more easier to keep than gold though Because its better to handle land than a gold and gold can be stolen and land is not. And as time as passed by, the real estate increasing its value. How are you going to handle land? gold is much more easier to handle because we just need to find a safer then we can safe it right away without anyone notice it. There are many banks that provide this kind of safer. Value oth of them are increasing but imo real estate is more fluctuative than gold Land is safe as long as the government recognizes said land as yours, which means if anyone tries to stole it, they'll send the police to kick them out. The day this changes tho, the only way to protect your land will be by being on top of it with a shotgun. even land could suffer a devaluation, in the case for example of a very bad weather, that could ruin it, or aquifer taht could lead to several pits but at least they are more safe from thief's operations, it's not that easy to steal a land, like a bitcoin wallet or ounce of gold |
|
|
|
It will always be volatile because of reward halving every 4 years. If FED cut new money supply by half every 4 years, it will cause some shock for sure
The halving is a good thing because hopefully and in theory that should make bitcoin's value increase. I think we can all agree that the value increasing couldn't possibly be a bad thing. As long as it keeps creeping up gradually everything is rosey but it's when it falls or a bubble bursts which causes panic. the value increase should bring more stability, so it's not the halving the problem but the time required for it, if it was 2 years, it could have been far better fr a faster grow of bitcoin, now we are stuck with this slow motion because of this also |
|
|
|
|
difficulty is not even growing actually, there is an averaging decrease, looks at april we were at 5% now about 2%
now compare it with 2014 and the situation looks even better
|
|
|
|
Why is this, I thought Btc-e was one of the major exchanges?
withdraw and deposit take too long, also bad fee, and price are usually higher compared to bitstamp for example(even now 234 vs 231) i guess it could be good for arbitrage... |
|
|
|
hi
my english languge is not very good but i want learn it
i want ask you if i can join to any signature compaing nd give me please a name of some signature compaing accept newbie
thanks
You can try 64block https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1024916.0please what's means this i see it in the terms We don't pay for posts in Off-topic, games and round, and alternate crypto currencies and where i must post to pay me it means that in some section you will not get payed, you need to post only in the remunerative section, it's all described in the rules of each campaign |
|
|
|
Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.
Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price? the miners will decide, they can't secure both without compromising one, there can't be two legitimate bitcoin, and surely the hash won't double over night |
|
|
|
If there are better solutions that have been proposed then the update is definitely not mandatory. Even though I agree on the increase of the block size, I do not agree with Gavin forcing it. If the developers don't agree then it should wait.
but as it is right now, there are no better alternatives, so in fact it is mandatory, we can't certainly wait forever on it, there is still time until early 2016 i think, then you must have a better plan or simply do the hardfork or the soft version |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
