The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.
look at Nielsen's Law: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem. Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install. How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully? If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using. And you think that will solve somehow by letting the blocks stay at 1MB? What kind of currency would you have when only some transactions can go through? You would solve nothing but destroying what you want to keep. But yes... the downloading of blocks is way too slow. I don't know why that is. I mean every filesharing p2p software is faster most of the time. Maybe it needs only having more nodes connected to? ... A quick check let me read that the versions from 0.10 download the blockchain sequencial. Such allowing faster downloads. Guess they work on speeding up things. |
|
|
|
the key is not to keep your eggs in the one basket, to reduce risk. lend tiny amounts to many people that you evaluate as low risk.
I'm not sure that this is a good strategy. I mean how much percent profit do you get? 10%? And when only one person, ouf of 10 you lend money to, is defaulting then you already lost more than you had before you started lending out. So i think you should really not take a little bit higher risks only to increase the amount of people you lend to. |
|
|
|
You can loan bitcoin from btcjam.
Search for a good offer with low interest.
You can loan also from this forum,if you are a valid collateral.
Is their any way we are sure that we will get back our loaned money in btcjam? can we ask user for some collateral? Since i have read that even very good rated people also doing scam over their. You might want to be cautious with very good rated people if they start to take a lot loans or high ones suddenly. Might be they planned their exit scam with good ratings and then it's time to close the bag. You have to be cautious everywhere when it's related to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Now a days if you check bitcointalk lending section most of the threads useless meaning more than 70% people requesting loans without reading forum rules. Very first post it self request for the loan and these people are not new people they know but still they try their luck. With this lending section become full of scam thread so I was thinking is their any other safe places to earn some interests on our BTC.
In this thread we can also give suggestions for how to improve bitcointalk lending section to minimize scam threads.
You can try btcjam.com or the local subforum. When you only lend out with a proper collateral then you should be fine. And on btcjam.com try only to lend out to persons that are proven to pay back. And don't even lend out to them when they suddenly take a lot and high loans. That most probably is an exit scam then. I wouldn't recommend the subforum since many newbies and scammers try to get loans and give out their useless accounts as collateral. Always try to be careful and invest in trusted users with good reputation. I don't think that's a valid reason. You simply need to only accept collateral that is worth it's money. If newbies are scammed by this then they would be scammed another way too. Bitcoin is a scammers paradise for sure and everyone has to learn to life in it. So i think the subforum is as safe as other places. You need to be very careful everywhere. |
|
|
|
Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix?
Core developers are divided in two parties. One part will increase blocks and the other part won't. The first part will develop bitcoin-xt, in case bitcoin-qt doesn't get updated, the second part of developers want to push the lighning network. They will earn money when bitcoin is crippled. Simple as that.  |
|
|
|
I trust the original, unhindered Bitcoin implementation to scale far better than an artificially crippled implementation with a new bit bolted on top.
The original? Aren't we running the original now? He means the original without the artificial 1MB block size limit. Saying you support a 1MB limit and the lightning network is like saying you want to limit the amount of material you can pass in a bowel movement and fit a colostomy bag to deal with the rest because that's somehow better.
Get rid of the artificial bottleneck and let nature take its course.
That's a bad analogy. We need to have limits otherwise the block chain would grow so massive that most people would not be able to run full nodes. And what's the point of risking that when we can have third party solutions? Why using privately run third party solutions when we have the original. Only because some greedy persons want to break bitcoin for their own good doesn't mean that all bitcoiners will support them. And about massive block chain grow do you speak? You speak like the blocks are full constantly. They aren't. And spamming only works because the fees are increasing then. So how do you get the idea that there would be an uncontrolled grow without a block size limit? Where should that come from suddenly? It does not solve anything? That is a understatement. 8 MB blocks should help us gain the needed time. Who knows exactly when something like the lightning network or sidechains are going to be fully functional.
The developers aren't really saying much about a timeline. Bigger blocks will be needed in the future even with other solutions. Why should we wait when it is much easier to do the fork now?
The fork is not dangerous at all if we use the proper consensus rules.
What needed time? I haven't noticed that we have any urgent issues with full blocks? If there are full blocks the market will adapt and either pay higher fees or develop alternatives like lightning network. And so what if 90% thinks we should have bigger blocks? I still don't think it's the best possible option. That's like saying just because the majority of the people voted for Obama makes him the best possible president. Maybe the market don't want to be forced using lightning networks? And this adaption... it has led to enough confusion already. Didn't you read all the threads about newbies and even established members that got their transaction stuck because of spamming suddenly started? That surely will help bitcoin adoption. About the options... that's mostly right. We often enough only have the choice to use the less worst option. Because the best option, that you think it is, doesn't have the needed support yet. |
|
|
|
Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end.
The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about.
Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? The idea is incremental of 8mb in synchrony with moore's law. This way we should be able to scale up as far as we need to. Though i wonder why having a bottle neck at all. I mean when spammers want to spam then they will do so anyway. They could either spam 1MB blocks or 8MB ones. But 8MB ones would be more expensive so less rewarding. So why not simply removing the blocklimit completely? I mean there is no reason to spam then anymore. The minimum fee would be sufficient. And as long as the blocks aren't filled completely all advertising spam will go through anyway. I think the limit can be dropped. That's something we learned from the spamming.  The fees must stay low tho.. im not saying they shouldn't be a bit higher if needed, but definitely they must feel LOW or else it will be a mass failure. Exactly. Bitcoin with a high fee reward with nowadays amount of transactions would mean bitcoin is dead. I can't believe how shortsighted some people are only because they run their own agenda. Don't they realize that their business model is based on bitcoin completely too? |
|
|
|
Um... it would make these spam attacks stop instantly at least. These spammers might be very well miners, a corporation of them maybe, and they seem to test out the best way to raise the fees permanently that way. At the moment they try to spam often so that nobody knows if he has to take a high fee or not. Raising the fee overall to prevent risk at the end.
The spam attacks will stop once we reach a acceptable level of fee's. Currently it's possible to make transactions without paying any fees. That is not good for Bitcoin as it makes it easy to bloat the blockchain. You sound like you know that this is the case. I fear the spam attacks are done for that really. What a mess. We wanted to create a currency that is not controlled and now some greedy bast... can force the transaction fee higher. I don't know where you got the idea from that bitcoin doesn't scale. The max block size is arbitrary from the start. Im not sure what you speak about.
Please explain how the block size will scale with a hard fork increasing the block size to 8MB? Bitcoin without a block size limit could handle everything. Only because this limit was implemented we became problems. We easily could fight the "bloating" by implementing output related fees. So we need to wait for a third party network to make bitcoin work. Seriously? Really... its no wonder that so many bitcoiners think that the lightning network bitcoin core developers have their own agenda in this. And what dangerous fork? Are you spreading FUD here? So you are saying Bitcoin doesn't work now? I wonder who is spreading the FUD now? What are you speaking about? Where did i wrote something like that? You were the one who claimed we would need an additional network so that bitcoin could become a high fee transaction system. I would not be surprised if you actually would be one of these devs with goal conflict. |
|
|
|
if you really want to put your coins into a dice site, try just-dice, the owner is active on the forum and is very trusted, but youll need to convert your coins to CLAMs.
I want to second that. Just-dice.com is the way to go. Dooglus, the owner, already showed his honesty when he gave back thousands of bitcoins on his old just-dice with bitcoins. And clams are great. |
|
|
|
Now a days if you check bitcointalk lending section most of the threads useless meaning more than 70% people requesting loans without reading forum rules. Very first post it self request for the loan and these people are not new people they know but still they try their luck. With this lending section become full of scam thread so I was thinking is their any other safe places to earn some interests on our BTC.
In this thread we can also give suggestions for how to improve bitcointalk lending section to minimize scam threads.
You can try btcjam.com or the local subforum. When you only lend out with a proper collateral then you should be fine. And on btcjam.com try only to lend out to persons that are proven to pay back. And don't even lend out to them when they suddenly take a lot and high loans. That most probably is an exit scam then. |
|
|
|
I cannot see how this is a problem now... Yesterday I have made 3 transactions and the average fee for the 3 transactions was 0,07915 USD. Where are you getting the 0.30 cents from? I did not even have to wait a long time for the confirmations.. {within 30 minutes there were 12 confirmations} That address is also full of dust payments from faucets I experimented with, so it should have been expensive, but it was not. The only thing periodically pushing the fee's up, is the people doing these fake stress tests to force people to pay higher fees. This is still way cheaper than any other bank I have dealt with or credit card fees.  If this is a real issue for you.... use Xapo. {zero fees} I think it is still a problem. Compared with credit cards it is a small fee. But bitcoin should be compared to normal fiat too. We want bitcoin to be adopted. It should be used widely and everywhere. Only then the amount of fees needed to support miners will be created. And that means it has to be possible to spend really small units of worth, like 0.01 USD. It would not work when you have to pay a 0.05 USD fee on top. That reminds me of paypal. At least not as expensive. |
|
|
|
micro payments? cmon give me a break this is true degennery
What are you saying? Bitcoin was invented to be a money you can use without having to trust banks. Now you start to say it is a money that you can use for small amounts similar to 0.01 USD? That would be no normal money anymore. And would contradict what satoshi wanted to create. I know there are some guys that want to push their own project. Micropayments not on bitcoin but on their own project. Unfortunately these persons are bitcoin core developers too. And... of course, they don't want the blocksize limit to be raised. That is simply stupid. It is like politicians that decide about bank regulations while they are ceo of these banks on the same time. Guess we have our first cases of power misuse and corruption on bitcoin core developer level. |
|
|
|
It is surprising to me that people who are knowledgeable enough about Bitcoin/bitcoin to know what a brainwallet is, don't choose more complex phrases, especially when their bitcoins are at higher risk of theft, compared to a standard privatekey. The "how much wood could a woodchuck..." saying or whatever it is considered could be chosen by tens of people, in theory. With millions of users in the future, that one would pop up hundredths of times. Good luck with your presentation. That is unbelieveably. With that amount of coins on it it must have been an experienced bitcoiner. That he made such an error makes it hard for me to feel pity for him. Guess bitcoiners don't actually need to know about security. |
|
|
|
OP, sorry for loss.  That is uncool. Sorry for your loss. But i don't like brainwallet.org being down now permanently. It was a nice and easy way to check signatures.  You can easy check signatures on http://www.coinig.com/. Thank you, but i liked the simple brainwallet.org verification. You only needed to enter the block of code that included message and all and it verified it for you. On coinig.com you have to copy paste tree things each time. Isn't there another website with such tool? From now and on, please use those which are open sourced and could be run locally.
Generating a private key on a website is a big no..
this would apply too to those vanity address provider..
we should always consult back to the basic law.. there is a very good reason it was called a private key..
This website was open-sourced, and it was made with github pages. This means that it's impossible to backdoor the site without people seeing that change on the github.com repository - in other words, it's OP's fault, not the site's. If you are right then i hope at least some features will be hosted on another domain now. |
|
|
|
SHA256 your passphrase IMMEDIATELY and move your coins to trezor, electrum, etc. But electrum has a mnemonic passphrase that serves as a seed. And brainwallets are mostly a similar list of words. So what i wonder, is this fast brainwallet hacker able to put together enough random words fast enough to hack electrum mnemonic passphrases too? |
|
|
|
|
Does this campaign have problems? No answer to my question after all that time. I wonder if it's only the weekend.
|
|
|
|
That is uncool. Sorry for your loss. But i don't like brainwallet.org being down now permanently. It was a nice and easy way to check signatures. |
|
|
|
Tokyo's District Court has ruled that bitcoin is " not subject to ownership", with a judge informing a plaintiff he could not claim for bitcoins lost in the Mt Gox collapse. Judge Masumi Kurachi stated that, due to their intangible nature and reliance on third parties, bitcoins cannot be covered under existing law. Mark ... this kind of crap that kills Bitcoin . just like Silk road or any other Darknet market Check more and read fully here : http://www.coindesk.com/tokyo-court-bitcoin-not-subject-to-ownership-2/What does this mean now? Mark Kapelles did nothing wrong and he can go home instead into jail? Well that would be great of course... at least for him... and his cat...  |
|
|
|
|
If world economy would crash then most probably we still would have internet. But Bitcoin would get very strong because people would prefer trusting such a currency than the currency of the governments.
That monetary problems are good for bitcoin were shown already with cyprus and greece.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
