Don't worry friend, I'm sure you can wait until July 2017 for a blocksize increase right?
Right???
Don't forget, in April we will get Segregated Witness which will give an amazing a boost of x1,6 in transaction capacity. That will be more than enough until July 2017. |
|
|
|
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/Need a blocksize increase now. But we're all retarded. People will stop using BTC when it takes 3 days for their tx's to confirm No, we need block size increase 2 months ago... |
|
|
|
|
It's been like this for quite some time now, you can't rely on the network, you better stay off bitcoin or use other alternative payment system.
It will only get worst, well, unless people stop using bitcoin...
|
|
|
|
|
There will be no bitcoin in 20 years because bitcoin can't scale and people stop investing their time and money and everyone lost interest.
|
|
|
|
Well, what I've been noticing lately is that a lot of bitcoin faucet games and bitcoin faucets are having their google adsense contracts cancelled for some reason. There hasn't been a real explanation given yet but it started happening several weeks back.
That's because those are low quality websites without any content, often users are asked to click advertisements, that's against Adsense terms of service, it has nothing to do with bitcoin.. One of the more recent Google Adsense casualties was "Game Vault Studios" which was gathering quite a large following in the general public with their faucet based strategy games. Here is an article which may support your position: http://www.stacksofcoin.com/game-vault-studios-innovators-or-idiots/I don't know though....It doesn't seem like Google wants to be supportive of that type of advertising because it's Bitcoin related intrinsically. I'm an Adsense publisher since 2006, I've read a lot of "horror stories", pretty sure there's nothing special about this one. People lose their accounts all the time, sometimes, apparently, for no reason at all. |
|
|
|
That was indeed funny  But I'm curious as to which pool is mining Classic blocks... Looks like Classic is having way more support than XT. Slush and KNCMiner, I believe. |
|
|
|
|
So, someone is paying 1000 VPSs to host fake nodes?
That's commitment...
|
|
|
|
Well, considering that most Classic nodes are fake ran over VM + VPS I can see them wasting time to do stuff like this, instead of actually developing code. I guess life is easy when all you have to do is rip off the Core's code and then change a couple of things.
What's a fake node "ran over VM + VPS"?And you clearly don't understand how open source software works... Spoofing nodes is pretty easy and cheap for people with a bit of knowledge.I'm not one of those by the way. So node count is a bad metric paramter. VM+VPS = virtual machine (Ubuntu as OS for instance)+ virtual private server (via amazon if you like) I know what VM and VPS are, I don't know is why that is bad or fake... If it is so easy, why aren't there tens of thousands of nodes? Bitcoin Core node count is going down as Bitcoin Classic node count is going up, were those Bitcoin Core nodes fake? And now they are fake Bitcoin Classic nodes instead? That is not accurate because with a bit of money in your pocket you can launch hundreds nodes and more if you want.So pretty easy to manipulate the stats I would say and to use for your propaganda .Possible for both sides of course. Example: 4 weeks ago, or let's say 24.01.2016 Bitcoin Core nodes had been 4,47k. Today node count of core is 4,43k. A slight difference.And since october 2015 core nodes are hovering around 4,3k to 4,4k. 24.01.2016 Classic nodes had been 5. Today it's 1,09k. What I interpret of these stats is that core has not dropped a thousand nodes which allegedly switched over to Classic, what a few supporters of Classic claimed! But Classic has seen a drastic increase 3 weeks ago.Not impossible, because 1 week earlier Classic client was released, but definitely suspicious.So either these Classic nodes had been launched by former core node operators who switched off their core nodes 4 months ago or these nodes ares spoofed imo. And Classic pushed pretty hard the last weeks and therefore each success and sign of growth is welcome of course. And the nodes can be missused for that politics pretty easy. I mean we have the same with XT nodes last year. https://coin.dance/nodes/allThis started before that, you're ignoring XT nodes. Please enlighten me on how to create fake nodes. |
|
|
|
Well, considering that most Classic nodes are fake ran over VM + VPS I can see them wasting time to do stuff like this, instead of actually developing code. I guess life is easy when all you have to do is rip off the Core's code and then change a couple of things.
What's a fake node "ran over VM + VPS"?And you clearly don't understand how open source software works... Spoofing nodes is pretty easy and cheap for people with a bit of knowledge.I'm not one of those by the way. So node count is a bad metric paramter. VM+VPS = virtual machine (Ubuntu as OS for instance)+ virtual private server (via amazon if you like) I know what VM and VPS are, I don't know is why that is bad or fake... If it is so easy, why aren't there tens of thousands of nodes? Bitcoin Core node count is going down as Bitcoin Classic node count is going up, were those Bitcoin Core nodes fake? And now they are fake Bitcoin Classic nodes instead? |
|
|
|
Well, considering that most Classic nodes are fake ran over VM + VPS I can see them wasting time to do stuff like this, instead of actually developing code. I guess life is easy when all you have to do is rip off the Core's code and then change a couple of things.
What's a fake node "ran over VM + VPS"? And you clearly don't understand how open source software works... |
|
|
|
another clock shows 129 days http://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/ versus this that show 137, and another one show 137 like this one, so i guess the first that i saw is wrong The can all be wrong, and probably are. |
|
|
|
Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results? ..almost pays for mining when full.
It doesn't. You don't have data to back this up. However, BIP109 does look good but I'd like to see an implementation of it as soon as possible. Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough. Bear in mind, with the current situation 2000 tx give around 0,4 in mining fees, extrapolating that would be something like 12 bitcoins, which is what we are going to get in a few months. Anyways, fees will probably go down with bitcoin price increasing, so we need even more on-chain transactions to finance mining. |
|
|
|
|
Looks good, BIP 109 promises something like 100 TX/s and we really need that, that gives us something like 60000 transactions per block, which, probably, almost pays for mining when full, at this point other layers can be implemented for off-chain payments with on-chain settlements.
So, when/if Bitcoin Classic is adopted by majority all Bitcoin Core discussions will be moved to Altcoins section?
|
|
|
|
Thank you, so the fee probably wont increase but the value of btc will? Not only the value of bitcoin but also the number of transactions. If you use the standard/minimum fee as 0,0001 per transaction, at 100000 transactions per block that's 10 bitcoins reward, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough to sustain mining. |
|
|
|
Well, what I've been noticing lately is that a lot of bitcoin faucet games and bitcoin faucets are having their google adsense contracts cancelled for some reason. There hasn't been a real explanation given yet but it started happening several weeks back.
That's because those are low quality websites without any content, often users are asked to click advertisements, that's against Adsense terms of service, it has nothing to do with bitcoin.. |
|
|
|
Well reworking the divisible units might solve it, but I am not entirely sure about it.
Look at this example:
Imagine that 100 satoshi actually means something. You can buy thing A for 100 satoshi. Now you would renumber so 100 satoshi would be actually 10 000 satoshi.
That would either mean that thing A that costed 100 still costs 100 satoshi and then everybody got suddenly super rich or what costed 100 satoshi now costs 10 000 satoshi and nothing has changed. And therefore the rework of divisible units failed.
And the quote from Satoshi is correct but not indefinitely. I know its not our problem, but it is a question to ask.
/edit typo
It only makes sense increase decimal places if there are things that cost way less than 1 satoshi. Imagine that in the far future 1 satoshi is worth $100, that means you cannot use bitcoin to pay less than that, so, more decimal places. |
|
|
|
Next generation miners will be treasure hunters. They will recover the lost coins. Quoting Satoshi again: Lost coins only make everyone else's coins worth slightly more. Think of it as a donation to everyone. I wonder though, is there a point where the difficulty of generating a new coinbase is so high that it would make more sense to try to recover keys for lost coins or steal other people's coins instead? The difficulty of that is really high so for now it makes a lot more sense to generate but I just wonder what the real figures are.. would that ever become more productive? Maybe Satoshi can address this..
Computers have to get about 2^200 times faster before that starts to be a problem. Someone with lots of compute power could make more money by generating than by trying to steal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
