This is deep in the weeds for most people. Why not explain the benefits of a larger block size, for starters?
More transactions per block. |
|
|
|
I do not understand the meaning of the two images, whether they are large companies who invest their money in bitcoin? someone please explain  the problem is with the first image i think, it doesn't have enough information in it and not a good comparison with the list of participants in 2016. anyways it says in 2013 bitcoin didn't have the same amount of supporters like now. Here: http://www.bitcoin2013.com/Gavin's presentation was, most probably, the one with most attendees, pretty full room... https://youtu.be/xjYJ8FXfJJ4?t=18m18s |
|
|
|
I had this discussion with a friend not long ago and here is my thoughts... This came about when talking about 21INC and Intel being involved in blockchain tech.
There are about 2 billion PCs in the world at the moment. If each motherboard had a single ASIC chip from the AntMiner S7 (25GH/s @ 5 watts) it would equal 50billion GH/s.
Are those boxen running 24/7? Never switched off? And Toto Laptops too? Constantly connected to the internet? Why would anyone pay an extra, let's say $25 (because arbitrary numbers are fun) for a computer, knowing they will "mine" $5? Is Grandma/Visa/my hospital interested in Bitcoin mining? Do you pay extra for your computer because it has 2 extra USB ports? or even firewire? No, its so cheap for them to add it that its just added. You dont sell it as a mining device, you sell it as a PC with an extra feature of mining. Ive never once used a firewire device but I have owned lots of systems that have the feature. If its not something you are interested in then you dont set it up. This is the same idea as the 21inc computer. Those who view it as a mining device are missing the point. The entire network is about 1.3 billion GH/s at the moment. 8 watts isnt going to break the bank for any homeowner, or even a large corporation I wouldnt think.
When I was a kid, I reasoned like that too: "Most people don't even pick up a penny when they drop it, they couldn't care less. If everyone in the world just sent me a penny, it "isnt going to break the bank," but I'd be a millionaire!" Maybe this could be worded differently. Id be willing to 'donate' $0.50 a month to run the mining chip in order to help secure the network. Those who would not be can simply not configure the miner and it will sit idle. This is uber nonsense, if the bitcoin network can't sustain itself than it has to die, no one should be subsidizing the network, and yes, you bet you're paying those extra USB ports, otherwise they wouldn't be there... |
|
|
|
What exactly do the pictures imply? Please explain this for dummies.
Earlier conferences add very few attendees, now you can see all the big names at bitcoin cons. |
|
|
|
the solution. expand the manufacturing and get more rig manufacturers on the market. which will trickle down as more choice, and more options and also a price war on the rigs. which will result in cheaper rigs to allow for more chance of competition.
Where is silicon valley folks? All those manufacturing plants... Dont let them go to waste, they should start producing cheap mining equipment for americans and europeans. Even if you produce cheap mining equipment elsewhere besides China, operating costs such as electricity and manpower would still kill your profits. In all honesty the only situation that can keep mining as decentralized as possible is for the difficulty to remain stable. That's not, and should not be, an option. A possible solution would be other variables gaining importance for mining, not just cheap electricity, for example, if blocks got bigger good Internet connections would be crucial for success when mining and the playing field could be leveled and a bigger percentage of mining would be done outside of China. |
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing it out BruceSwanson. Quoting answer here for the lazy.  Hi guys, Dave here from MIT. ChainAnchor isn't for bitcoin. With all due respect to Peter, ChainAnchor is for permissioned blockchains like what R3 and others are working on. It also wasn't a "leak", we posted this months ago on our public website. He never asked us about it, etc. First we heard from him was his blog post. We are in the middle of migrating sites but by Monday you can find it at trust.mit.edu (for now it is at www.mit-trust.org). We would welcome your feedback, after you read the actual current documents, at chainanchor@mit.edu. Sorry, guys, this one is off base. MIT fully supports the bitcoin community. ChainAnchor was never intended for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Some serious shenanigans going on in there. Also: How would you describe the Bitcoin market in China now and in the future?
The Bitcoin market in China now is off its peaks. Our volumes are not as high as compared to fake volumes of competitors, but we have a good pulse on the market. Our research has shown us a lot of people are on the sidelines. The Chinese government put a chill factor on the market in December and scared a lot of people. Half of the people are scared. Some strong believers are still there. Volume is one tenth of what it used to be. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/future-bitcoin-china-bobby-lee-speaks/ |
|
|
|
|
Tinha ideia que tais taxas não existiam, as únicas taxas que paguei/pago por transferências é para o estrangeiro, normalmente 0.52 euros independentemente do valor e pelo que me foi dito pelo banco isso é um imposto qualquer a transferências internacionais...
|
|
|
|
do you run a full node? I think If your wallet was encrypted then they sent it via rpc calls.
What? |
|
|
|
|
Not going to happen, the fact some merchant starts accepting bitcoin doesn't mean a lot of people will adopt bitcoin, the most probable outcome is merchant eventually dropping bitcoin because no one is using it.
But if "millions of buyers came in" that would be catastrophic, the network can't even properly handle current usage, imagine with "millions of buyers" more.
|
|
|
|
If you want a fast transactions bitcoin is not for you. |
|
|
|
Because it requires a shit load of bitcoins, I assume only exchanges will run such channels, at least the relevant ones. Well, that assumes the exchanges are the biggest holders, but remember the blockchain tells us that the majority of Bitcoins are not being traded or transferred at all. My bets would be that wealthy early adopters or some of the big DN marketplaces would be equal or bigger players than the exchanges, and all this assumes that Lightning channels will elicit a centralising phenomenon, which is not necessarily so. The political environment (of which your scenario is only one possible example) will partly determine the way in which these Lightning channels become arrayed, the underlying design doesn't necessarily force any particular outcome. Doesn't make it better, still middle man, still centralized. What's the biggest percentage of the network do you think a single miner has? 5%?
I think it's higher, probably closer to 15% or 20% I find that hard to believe, is there anything to support that? |
|
|
|
I assume this will be even easier to do with Lightning Network, even if they cannot force/bribe miners to do this they surely can do it for companies running Lightning Network and the small number and expensive on-chain transactions will be irrelevant, correct?
I'm not sure about that, to my mind it would be the opposite: the big miners are easy to identify due to the significant hardware requirements (and everything that hardware itself requires...), but being a high throughput Lightning channel requires no more hardware than is needed to run a Bitcoin node today. How can the Lightning channel owners be identified if the channels are decentralised, self-organising, and the owner obscures their IP? Because it requires a shit load of bitcoins, I assume only exchanges will run such channels, at least the relevant ones. What's the biggest percentage of the network do you think a single miner has? 5%? |
|
|
|
|
I assume this will be even easier to do with Lightning Network, even if they cannot force/bribe miners to do this they surely can do it for companies running Lightning Network and the small number and expensive on-chain transactions will be irrelevant, correct?
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately most of your solutions appear like wishful thinking to me  Not just the solutions but also the problems... |
|
|
|
do i need anything else when buying a bitcoins? like a wallet or something? sorry i am very new.
If you want to spend your bitcoins or store long term you need a wallet. If you just want to spend in legal stuff Coinbase.com acts as an exchange and as a wallet. Using exchanges you don't need to interact with people, you just transfer the money and you buy the bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
