Finney attack? really? how much does it cost to carry out such attack? thousands of dollars, correct? what kind of merchant would accept thousands of dollars in payment, without waiting for a few confirmations? It would take 10-20 minutes for a transaction to be considered safe, IF the transaction is high value. For everyday low value transaction, 1st confirmation is more than enough. With faster blocks, 1st confirmation comes much faster, which is BETTER security than 0 confirmation. Let's face it, currently a solid 6 confirmation often take a LONG time. With faster blocks, 6 confirmation is still pretty solid, but takes a lot less time. Faster blocks hard to implement??? huh??? How hard can it be to implement when 99% of all altcoins has faster blocks??? You guys should search for these topics before asking the same questions that have been asked for many years. Just do a google search.
Some reasons against it:
It decreases the security of the network proportional to how much the time was decreased. E.g. decreasing the block time by half also decreases the security by half because then it would only cost an attacker half as much in order to pull off an attack like a finney attack.
The reduced time does not affect how long (time wise) it would take for a transaction to be considered safe. If blocks can be solved with less hash power, then the orphan rate increases and thus lower confirmation numbers become less safe. It would still take 10-20 minutes for a transaction to be considered safe, just that instead of having 1 or 2 confirmations, it becomes having a lot more confirmations
There is also an increased overhead on SPV wallets (but not really that much) as they would need to store more block headers and thus more data.
And lastly, I think it may actually be a little harder to implement this than it would be to implement a higher block size limit, although to determine that would require some code digging which I don't want to do.
|
|
|
|
With 10 minute blocks, the largest pools have all the power, because the small-time miners are forced to join them, the smaller pools have no chance to compete, because their variance is too high, sometimes can't find a block for days. This is why currently 2 pools from China account for nearly 60% of the hash rate. With faster blocks, the smaller pool's luck becomes much more stable, and has a chance to compete with larger pools. Therefore improving decentralization of hash rates. I'm definitely not an expert on stats and probability (I only had one course in it and it was the most difficult I ever had) but cutting the reward time has a similar effect as joining a pool I think. By joining a pool the user increases their odds of "winning" but each win would result in a smaller reward. Same would be the case with cutting the reward time but not as drastic as joining a pool. It would double a user's chance of winning but they would only win half as much. They both have a null effect on the Return On Investment of the miner "I think" but there may be some nuances that skew the generality (the mining pool's algorithm is the biggest one I can think of).
|
|
|
|
Realistically? Nope. Not going to happen. It would require consensus from an overwhelming majority of all users and miners. Miners aren't going to voluntarily choose to have more of their blocks orphaned, just to increase the number of transactions that they can confirm per hour. If they wanted a hard fork to get more transactions per hour, there are plenty of other ways to do it.
Why is orphaning more blocks too high a price for more throughput? It seems to me that any solution will involve some trade-off, just wondering why this one doesn't seem to be discussed as much as others. Also aren't there issues with the distribution of mining capacity being overly concentrated? Wouldn't alternatives like increasing block size make that problem even worse? If the reward time was lower wouldn't that put more power in the hands of the long tail? You are exactly correct, faster blocks means small-time miners/pools can solve blocks much more often, and not needing to join huge mining pools to have a chance to mine blocks at all. Faster blocks is 100% the superior solution, why it isn't being adopted? I have no idea, old habits die hard I guess. The entrenched interests are too proud to admit they are wrong, and altcoins had at least one thing right. |
|
|
|
If decreasing the reward time results in an increase in orphaned blocks how have alt coins that have a quicker reward time (such as LiteCoin) handled the problem or have they?
They are "handling" the problem because their blocks are practically empty / trending much closer to 0kb rather than 1000kb. That doesn't make any sense at all, since larger block size would also produce more orphans, making it not superior to faster blocks anyway. |
|
|
|
There is no issue with orphans, sure there will be more orphans, but the orphan rate is the same for all miners, so it ends up fair and business as usual. Since there's no issue with orphans, altcoins does not need to deal with it, it's a non-issue. As you already mentioned, Litecoin operates just fine, with 2.5 minute blocks, no complaints from litecoin miners about orphans neither. Block overhead is a non-issue, litecoin blockchain size is tiny compared to Bitcoin, even though it has nearly 3X more blocks. Transaction data takes up more disk space by far. A solution will need to be developed for the fast growing disk space usage anyway, faster blocks has nearly no impact on the disk space issue. Faster blocks is 100% the superior solution, exactly 0 user ever said "nooo, my 1st confirmation came too fast". I'm not even sure why bigger block size was chosen over faster blocks. Maybe it's arrogance, and not admitting altcoins got it right (faster blocks being superior). It's possible, but doesn't help scalability. If there are ill effects due to full blocks, making them twice as frequent won't really help. Full blocks? I don't understand why they would be full after doubling? Perhaps I wasn't clear in what I am asking. When I suggest cutting the reward time in half from 10 minute targets to a 5 minute target I am not saying to also cut the block size in half. The block size would still be the same size but since a block is made twice as often then this would effectually double the blocksize. Already blockchain is in gbs. If they implement your proposed way of reducing reward time by half every 4 years then we need piles of tbs of hard disk just for blockchain. What percent of a block is for non-transaction data? That would be the only increase in total blocksize since the number of transactions are determined by the "market" and the transaction volume. Processing the transactions in half the time should only increase the total of non-transaction data shouldn't it? But, ok, we are getting a list of issues that would be affected and that's why I was asking. The first item in the list was that there would be an increase in the number of orphaned blocks and then I asked how other alt coins that have quicker reward times handle that problem. Haven't gotten any answers to that question yet and am curious if that is still a legitimate reason or not. |
|
|
|
|
The main problem here is still PoW mining:
* centralized in the hand of a couple rich mining farm owner
* centralized in one location, China
* any change to Bitcoin must be authorized by these couple of large farm owners
* they fear large block size due to slow Internet in China
* massive waste in hardware and electricity, money that could have been invested in Bitcoin itself.
Proof of Stake minting would have resolved all of these issues. PoS is "buy Bitcoin to mine", vs PoW "sell Bitcoin and buy more hardware/electricity to mine".
Even if Bitcoin decide to keep PoW. For god sakes, go with FASTER BLOCKS, instead of larger blocks. I don't understand why larger blocks? faster blocks is clearly superior, and PoW miners in China would prefer small blocksize.
|
|
|
|
Hm, 86% ROI if my calculations are correct, assuming only one winner of course. Not as bad as I expected, but still a poor investment of course!
86%? How is turning 2$ into 800M only 86% roi? The odds are, apparently, one in 292 million to win. Of course, I don't know the payout calculation, apparently it updates based on the amount of people participating. Anyhow, obviously statistically you will lose money on this, otherwise the whole scheme wouldn't exist. Normally it would be a negative expected return. But when the prize pool is over 300M, then the expected return becomes increasingly positive. But of course it's all irrelevant, since for a regular joe, if you win, you don't really care if you win 100M or 900M. It's still money you'll never be able to exhaust (if you are smart about it of course) |
|
|
|
add my ticket, 5 shares?  |
|
|
|
... Nice idea, Operatr. But, my wife and I are keeping our two numbers to ourselves. We want it all for ourselves. But, good luck to you all.  BTW, the radio said that the winners (if not sharing w/ others if there are other winners) would get some $496 million "free and clear" (that is, after discounting for Income Tax and for NOT taking the payout over 29 years ("show me the money", now)). And who would trust the government to pay over 29 years? Considering that Illinois stopped paying lottery winners for a while, not I!but 25 million a year would still be a pretty good deal. At some point the money becomes meaningless anyway. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think this thread is legally binding, the winner can just take all the money and not share.
|
|
|
|
i would have done the same qustion when it was dumping, since 230 was never the true value of bitcoin
to answer your question, i can simply say, bitcoin is worth much more, 230 were like free bitcoin, you will remember this in 5-10 years when even 10k would be considered a cheap price
So many people saying that... It's good to have faith but still, keep calm buddy. 10k for one btc is maybe a bit fucking crazy no? I don't believe in long term btc for my on. 10k for one BTC might sound crazy today. But it's possible and I say give it a few more years and we might change to talk about bits when buying and paying with Bitcoin. You don't have to believe in BTC for long term. Others are doing it, and that number will increase. There guys out there, heavily invested in Bitcoin who believe it's value can reach 6 or 7 digits!!! Bitcoin literally can not reach 7 digits in USD, because since even if all currencies in the entire world, were replaced by Bitcoin, then 1 Bitcoin would be worth around $500k in today's dollar. you're basically saying that bitcoin can not surpass gold? cannot be greater than a marketcap of 6T? $500k Bitcoin is a marketcap of 10.5 Trillion USD, it surpasses gold. Also what does gold have to do with this? Bitcoin can NEVER replace gold, it can only exist alongside of gold. What Bitcoin can do is theoretically replace all fiat currencies in circulation. That gives it a value of $500k per Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If you blame Bitcoin ... then you must also blame the US $. Mexican Drug Lord home after being raided https://imgur.com/a/y62XaThats right, thats BILLIONS of US $'s, not Millions. 22 Billion USD in cash stored in a closet LOL. That can not possibly be 22 billion USD. 22 bilion USD means 220,000,000 benjamins，each bill weighs 1 gram, that means 220,000 kg，which is 220 metric ton, or about the weight of six 18wheeler trucks. Does that stash look like it weighs 220 metric tons or six 18 wheelers? |
|
|
|
Bitcoins are going to get very scarce very soon, I would imagine this is only the start of things to come as the old school economy's start to crumble.... This China rise is the tip of the ice berg....
That won't matter until the halving actually hits them like a truck. This was shown in the last halving, there was a run up before the last halving too, but the percentage were very tiny, like went up 80%. Then once the halving hits, Bitcoin went up 6000% in a year. |
|
|
|
i would have done the same qustion when it was dumping, since 230 was never the true value of bitcoin
to answer your question, i can simply say, bitcoin is worth much more, 230 were like free bitcoin, you will remember this in 5-10 years when even 10k would be considered a cheap price
So many people saying that... It's good to have faith but still, keep calm buddy. 10k for one btc is maybe a bit fucking crazy no? I don't believe in long term btc for my on. 10k for one BTC might sound crazy today. But it's possible and I say give it a few more years and we might change to talk about bits when buying and paying with Bitcoin. You don't have to believe in BTC for long term. Others are doing it, and that number will increase. There guys out there, heavily invested in Bitcoin who believe it's value can reach 6 or 7 digits!!! Bitcoin literally can not reach 7 digits in USD, because since even if all currencies in the entire world, were replaced by Bitcoin, then 1 Bitcoin would be worth around $500k in today's dollar. |
|
|
|
* implement captcha for people with less than 100 post.
Personally I think adding another (better) captcha to sign-ups and when you make your first post you have to fill one in would help but not with every post and theymos seems to think they're pretty much useless anyway and I trust his judgement on that as he's a smarter guy than me and knows what he's doing when it comes to tech stuff but I don't think it would hurt adding a captcha personally. Well most of the captcha could be bypassed easily (recaptcha v1+2, solvemedia..), but afaik funcaptcha seems to be the best (+/- are you human). Implementing one of the first category is useless and if the owner of the bot insist in spamming then he could find a way, for the 2 others there is a chance to slower him tho. Btw, i used to report the spam like this (spam bot in the bitcoin discussion section) but when I find too much i report 1 then I write something like: another 5 spam bot posts in the bitcoin discussion section, dunno if it is helpful/easier for mods to nuke it than reporting it one by one? I think any hurdles added to slow or stop them (or cost them more time, effort and money) are better than nothing and the crappy captcha we have at the moment and should be considered but basic ones that can be easily solved/botted themselves will be useless. Are there not any ones that are hard to bypass or possibly time-restricted to being filled in within 10-30 seconds or something to prevent cheap labour filling them out manually? As for reporting, reporting them each is preffered but if you just want to report one and state there's others that will do. Usually someone else will report them quite qucikly anyway. I don't think it's possible to prevent cheap labour solving manually, because they are still humans after all, if you prevent humans from solving them, then legit users can't solve them too?  Adding cost to spam is one of the best way to prevent spam. If it cost them $0.10 per spam post, and then that gets removed in a few seconds, it's not cost effective for them to spam any more. |
|
|
|
* implement captcha for people with less than 100 post.
Personally I think adding another (better) captcha to sign-ups and when you make your first post you have to fill one in would help but not with every post and theymos seems to think they're pretty much useless anyway and I trust his judgement on that as he's a smarter guy than me and knows what he's doing when it comes to tech stuff but I don't think it would hurt adding a captcha personally. * Auto flag(delete) a post if 5 different people(IP) report it as spam. (though also ban the reporting account for a week, if the report was false and not in good faith) Not a good idea. This could be abused in the same way with bots. They get nuked after one post once they're reported anyway so this will suffice. Captcha can be solved by spam bots, but it cost money, because they hire someone in the 3rd world to solve it manually, about $0.10 per captcha. I think you can try to do a statistic report, you should see no one with 100 or more post count, is spamming. So it should be very effective in vastly reducing spam. I never tried the report feature before, I just tried it, and reported 3 spam in Chinese forum. Looks like it does work well, they were removed pretty fast. |
|
|
|
|
Simple logic:
1. the Quran teaches beliefs that loosely translate to "death to all non-believers", yes?
2. in order to be muslim, you have to believe in what the Quran teaches, yes?
Then why should I not hate you, since you believe that I should die, since I'm a non-believer.
|
|
|
|
|
* implement captcha for people with less than 100 post.
* Auto flag(delete) a post if 5 different people(IP) report it as spam. (though also ban the reporting account for a week, if the report was false and not in good faith)
|
|
|
|
Sorry first time doing this auction, forgot to include some information: * End date and time: 12/10/2015 7pm EST * Buy it now price: 5 BTC * Payment method: I will only accept BTC I just recently received this advertising request today from mbitcasino, this site receive these requests from time to time, but I often don't have time to follow up with them, so here's something that you can start working on immediately. Let me know if you have any questions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
