So like, maybe look to add a aspect where it would say like:
"0.xxx bitcoins can get you a new microwave... etc"
I was also thinking about adding a chatbox to the side, for a more community sensed area.
What do you think?
chatrooms end up being called 'troll boxes' which could de-rate your site as just a crackpot site mainly and a price comparison minerly.. so concentrate on the price comparison part, if thats the niche you want. |
|
|
|
|
if you want to add something unique.. here is something.
look into the cost of living index. or other sites that work out the average price of goods/food/ living costs. and make it so you also show the cost of, for instance:
the cost of bread index.
where 1btc= xxx loaves of bread.
after all bitcoins ethos is meant to be about the separation of fiat.. so by you piloting the cost of living measures, you could help spark peoples minds into seeing the bigger picture of what bitcoin is all about
|
|
|
|
|
id say it wouldnt devalue your brand,
people dont scream at each other:
EG "dont shop there, they accept discover card"
what usually devalues a brand is if you limit the payment options:
EG "there's no point shopping there, they only accept euro's"
i would say the more payment options the better. just ensure the lay out is equal and not busy to confuse people with too many options on a screen
(feng shui)
|
|
|
|
Even though storage media are also growing linear to block size increases, you will still find that most average computer users will not be able to sacrifice hard disk space to store the Blockchain. Most of the people I know, have on average 3TB storage capacity. { Eg. 1 TB for OS & Apps and 2 TB on external hard drives for data archiving or backups } Most of these users are power users, and I expect the average computer user will only have a 500GB to 1TB hard drive, so sacrificing 120GB+ to store the Blockchain, would be a big ask for them.  this is like saying World of warcraft or Call of duty should not make another release because each release adds another 60gb of data to a hard drive each year.. halting 5600 interested and active people that want to be nodes, with speculation about what they may or may not want is foolish blockstream done this foolish attempt in 2015. '2mb is bad because increasing the possible bloat of 52gb a year to 104gb a year is a big ask...' but now blockstream are suddenly happy with 4mb because they need 3mb of weight area to fit in their clunky confidential payments feature in the near future. strange isnt it... how they suddenly stop doomsdaying 'little people cant handle 2mb' the very second they realise their own features require 4mb weight blocks |
|
|
|
but...
personal attacks like "gmaxwell wants to bilateral fork the network to get his commercial services accepted to repay his debt to bankers" has merit. because it impacts other people financially and intentionally
See, I'm not convinced and I see two problems. Firstly, do you know gmaxwell personally? Are you close? Have you spoken at length with them about this matter? Or, more likely, is this merely conjecture or theory on your part? If you don't know someone well enough to comment on what they might "want", then you aren't in a position to comment. Secondly, there's then the issue of the response it invites. The natural reply someone will then give to what I've quoted, is that some other boogeyman from the opposite camp is plotting something equally nefarious and the whole thing goes round in circles forever. If you simply focus on the concern you have, which is "code that doesnt end in everyone forced to use commercial hubs of permissioned contracts. or new features that bypass consensus" and maybe don't place emphasis on what you speculate someone's motives might be for creating it, then it doesn't invite the same cyclical and perpetual character assassinations. Less speculation of motive, more weighing up pros and cons. Then, the natural response is for others to reply in terms of pros and cons, not their own speculations. lol... i know what your getting at. but now your doing the teenage drama of you speculating that im speculating..and we can end up tumbling down the hill you are saying we should avoid.. however i have actually spoke to him at length and do know their motives. so knowing why they want commercial services actually adds to the point of should we allow commercial services as the end goal of "scaling" or try to highlight to the community to only treat it as a voluntary side service and real scaling still needs to be sorted. but as i said which we can both agree on. code most important.. then knowledge of actual reasons for code ( not 6th party rumour-mill / chinese whispers hearsay speculation, but first hand) helps understand the consequences of the future impact. but not going as far as yapping about what if someone stood up during a national anthem or their hair grooming or body weight. |
|
|
|
ok i was replying mainly to the point you made here When a miner is working on a block, it is trying to earn the block subsidy + transaction fees for its proposed block. It will abandon its attempt to find the hash for its proposed block if and only if it is provided with proof that another block spending some of the same transactions has been found.
empty blocks contain no transactions.. so no risk of orphan due to "blocks spending some of the same transactions" this has mitigated the quadratic risk of requiring to wait till full validation. because block B contains no transactions that could cause confusion. to cause block B to get orphaned due to building ontop of A straight away. because it contains non of A's tx's.. thus waiting just to validating before even starting a new block becomes less important. however the bottom part of your scenario post yesterday. and retold now. about pool C making a block to compete against A which gets propagated before A is validated. thus causing B to orphan because A no longer is acceptable... is under 1% risk of occurring. so B wont waste a 20% efficiency gain due to a 1% chance of C pushing A aside. all these scenarios have been played out a couple years ago. |
|
|
|
I'm not convinced you are understanding what I am saying. Your description above may be the way things work today (is it?), but it is a stupid design.
i understand fully what your saying.. pools and others ..including myself are many steps ahead of your scenario. pools have mitigated the risk and found the best efficient ways to handle the problem your describing. i may have skipped ahead a few details which would have made what im saying more understandable. but in short. by pool B telling asics (separate location) to start a new 'empty block'. gains a pool a ~20% advantage rather than waiting the full couple minutes to download the full block A, validate block A's solution and then start a block B with transactions. there was a bit of drama about this in 2014-2015 scenarios thrown around. benefits/risks talked about at length, blah blah blah ultimately, where the orphan risk was only ~1-2%, so that 20% advantage is worth doing. now they found other ways to mitigate it too and the orphan rate is even lower than 1% these days. while still gaining the 20% advantage by starting a new block while simultaneously validating a previous block. remember a pool validates and relays blocks.. but asics (separate location and processors) do the hashing. hashing blocks is not what the pool does.. validating competing blocks is not what asics do.. just like cooking a steak(asic hashing) is not a restaurant manager(pool) does just like driving a taxi(asic hashing) is not a taxi company call centre(pool) does so its not like hashing a new block and validating old block is overpowering a pools CPU.. they are done by separate processors |
|
|
|
The project became to big for him, and he left the scene. He underestimated his support and wanted to come back, but he was not welcomed with open arms. He then started a competing fork, to take back the power. < hostile takeover > but this failed.
this is where lack of knowledge fails.. people start speculating non-core devs want consensus (one chain) agreement.. its actually blockstream employees that want dominance via intentional splits (bilateral fork). What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right-- yep other implementations disagreed to a intentional split.. and only gmaxwell proposed intentional splits. you would have learned this if you read the code of non-core implementations and understood.. or if you looked at peoples real motives by researching them. but instead you followed the teenage drama of accusations about things unrelated to code. and then made your mind up from misinformation handed to you by the teenage drama creators as mentioning doing a talk with the CIA. there are video's of it, so there are no secrets of what was discussed. but what about blockstreams closed door roundtable events with the bankers this month... oh wait you will downplay that teenage drama.. |
|
|
|
very true, and i am willing to wait a day of two for a secure wallet for storage. and if i am intending to deposit coins into that wallet to keep them safe, i do not want to try to monkey around the download time at the risk of being any less than 100% secure
like i said.. by downloading red first instead of last. your getting that the wallet is local. the data is not coming from a central server but from the same diverse nodes. its just downloading the red color first instead of last. ok, let me say that i am not disagreeing with your idea, simply saying i personally do not need it. if the demand for such changes becomes great enough, you or someone else will make it happen. it is not a bad idea, simply one that i do not need to take advantage of. im not saying you personally need it. but you raised a point this is the only time is using bitcoin when there is a huge issue because the the size. i think it is just going to get to the point when fewer and fewer people choose that type of wallet. someone intentionally setting up a full node will have to deal with it
and i informed you that its not actually an issue that cannot be solved in a few lines of code.. because it can be solved with just a few lines of code |
|
|
|
very true, and i am willing to wait a day of two for a secure wallet for storage. and if i am intending to deposit coins into that wallet to keep them safe, i do not want to try to monkey around the download time at the risk of being any less than 100% secure
like i said.. by downloading red first instead of last. your getting that the wallet is local. the data is not coming from a central server but from the same diverse nodes. its just downloading the red color first instead of last. |
|
|
|
I'm not saying we shouldn't check the code before we run it, I assumed that was a given, heh. But clearly discussing the code and, more importantly, the effects of the code, would be a vast improvement over the current speculations and accusations about a person's supposed intent that seems to pervade most threads lately. Talk about good and bad code, not good and bad people or companies.
i agree about things like that. where talking about "is trumps hair real" having nothing to do with the politics and laws he may introduce where talking about "is trump a sexual harasser" having nothing to do with the if he will fix the world debt problem but when he introduces a new law.. reading it takes priority, understanding the law takes priority. but knowing why he introduced it and his intentions of using it reveals HOW it will be used. EG a law that allows tax offices to view peoples bank accounts. thats it. thats all a law code mentions.. reading the lawcode alone can cause speculation, exaggerations, doomsdays and hysterics. but knowing if it would be good by only being used to find the richguys screwing tax.. or the poor... also matters for instance personal attacks like "gmaxwell has a beard, ewww.. and he is fat" is just nonsense teenage drama that has no merit. and should not be the debate but... personal attacks like "gmaxwell wants to bilateral fork the network to get his commercial services accepted to repay his debt to bankers" has merit. because it impacts other people financially and intentionally |
|
|
|
i see no major problem that requires repair
this is the only time is using bitcoin when there is a huge issue because the the size. i think it is just going to get to the point when fewer and fewer people choose that type of wallet. someone intentionally setting up a full node will have to deal with it
|
|
|
|
for me, as a trader and wallet holder, several wallet types without the need for a download are fine. the reason for me ever setting up a wallet deeper than that is because i am going to do some major work in bitcoin. at a bare minimum, i am choosing the run a node and help the network, on the other end of the spectrum, I might be manually constructing transactions via cli. When i am going to work within the network, i am not just not bothered by the setup time, i want that full block chain. what you are talking about is great for many people, but to me it is like starting a painting with only red paint because i am too impatient to wait for all the colors to arrive. getting around a full block chain sync is bypassing some of the security of the ledger and i see no reason to do that. if i need an immediate solution and a full wallet, i will simply download electrum and the official bitcoin core and use electrum while the other syncs
what im saying is you get the cake and eat it.. imagine it as electrum and core combined.. a hybrid.. but the extra advantage of not neding electrums central server that way your still waiting for all the colors of the painting to download. but your not having to wait for red to download at the end because its given to you at the start. thus not needing 2 wallets thus not needing to copy and paste privkeys from one to the other. or spending the funds of one wallet to move it across.. its all one and the same it also wont rely on a electrum server.. it would download the color red from other full nodes on the network like it does with syncing. so it becomes better than electrum by not relying on electrums central server.. simply by downloading red first. rather than waiting to collate the data to get red last |
|
|
|
just a thought: someone who calls a non-consensus, centralized fork which was more like a dictatorship from the devs "a good thing" is obviously benefiting from it  The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
|
|
|
|
I've seen people throw the quote around: "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people" when someone else starts using their chosen boogeymen as a punching bag in an attempt to make their point. So I suppose one possible solution to the issue is to create a hostile environment for the tribalist mindset to operate in.
Others have opted to take a more moderate stance and point out that "it's not about the people and what they might do, but about the code and what it does". You don't need to trust people, just trust consensus to enforce the code that provides the greatest benefit to the network as a whole. Vested minority interests can't prevail, because Bitcoin was specifically designed to prevent hostile takeovers.
Would these two approaches be things we can try? They should both keep the focus on ideas and not on the possible motives or agendas of certain individuals or groups.
the only issue is that the code does not create itself. devs create the code. so understanding the code they create is a priority. but understanding the motives of why they code that code instead of another code also has consequences. EG dont just sit on your hand accepting whatever code is put infront of you. find out why. and choose the code that doesnt end in everyone forced to use commercial hubs of permissioned contracts. or new features that bypass consensus. because thats just letting dominance occur by "trusting" code. thinking code is better than man, is blindly trusting the person that wrote it.. code is only as good as the person that wrote it |
|
|
|
It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump
People often worry about a dump in price before a hard fork, but if anything, people should be looking to secure as much coin as possible before a hard fork so that your coins are safely secured on both chains. Then, whichever chain is successful, you can't lose. Conversely, if you choose to buy coins immediately after a fork, you'll find many sellers would be looking to dump the coins on the chain they don't approve of, so it's unlikely they'll offer to sell you the coins on both chains. You'd have to carefully consider which chain to buy on. So people panic buying before the fork could offset anyone who doesn't understand this who might be panic selling out of fear. try not to use the umbrella term "hardfork" when you actually mean the subcategory of forks which is an intentional split.. because it confuses the sheep into thinking all hardforks=intentional splits even a soft fork can become an intentional split as gmaxwell himself explained with If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
|
|
|
|
i personnally am not bothered by the wait, i was just stating that, as of this moment, the only issue created by block chain size is the initial setup of full wallet, by this i am implying that there is no problem, as not many people need that full node on their pc. those that want to run the node should expect some time to be used. you want to start a new domain, you expect a possible 24 wait for DNS propagation. technical aspects to all project take longer than the standard use version
and my reply was that you can have the cake and eat it. rather than having the implementation useless until syncing. thus holding people up and the sync becomes not discrete and noticable enough to frustrate you can be a full node and not have to wait. simply by devs releasing a implementation that emulates a litenode instantly while it discretely syncs in the background, unnoticed because its no longer a hindrance to utility. |
|
|
|
It will, if people don't activate segwit, hard fork will be done, so soft fork like activating segwit is better than hard fork, hard fork will drive the price dump
consensus hardfork does not mean splitting the network. intentional split is not the default end result of a hardfork hardforks just leave the minority unsynced and stuck.. where by the sensible thing is to join the majority by upgrading with the majority and continue with the majority.. rather than be stuck in limbo.. however, opposers completely adamant to not join the majority.. can add additional code intentionally. additional code is then needed for the unsynced minority to ignore consensus, ignore the majority, ignore the orphans and start their own network. meaning they intentionally start their own chain and reboot their own syncing of new blocks from a different source than the majority. |
|
|
|
Ver wants Bitcoin to split by hardfork just like Etherium
that tweet was a question, not a statement. and it is actually gmaxwell that wants to split the network here i will spell it out for you. here is blockstream gmaxwell trying to get anyone not blockstream to fork away.. and they replied they wont be that dumb to intentionally split the network... and before you reply BullSh*t.. its from the horses mouth himself. What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right-- even funnier.. gmaxwell also says he willing to intentionally split the chain just to implement the soft fork If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
|
|
|
|
|
as for the exponential vs linear.. its neither.
its not linear (straight diagonal line)
its not exponential (horizontal that curves vertically)
it IS an S-curve..
the issue is that we are still in the early days of bitcoin so we are still at the bottom section of the S-curve, so it appears like its exponential
only problem is that growth has been halted to not see the bigger picture
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
