- Block Reward - 8
- Premine - 30,000,000 for POS Sales for affiliates and causes
What the fuck is wrong with you? exactly my thought dev has 5000 days ahead of mining, absurd |
|
|
|
|
it will hard to see an additional 100k gpu in no time like one/two years ago, this mean that it should remain profitable if investors don't dump
|
|
|
|
Wich x11?? Whats the hash rate?
He means x11 asics instead of sha asics, basically it's a different algorithm which means you can't mine bitcoin but only certain altcoins which you can then sell for btc. It's currently more profitable but it might not stay that way. Make sure to make proper calculations to make sure you ROI.  Oh ok ok, Im more interested on mining btc you should seriously consider it, because if you point it at nicehash it's basically like mining bitcoin, the autoconversion make it look like you are mining bitcoin directly i see the chance of not reaching profit is equal to an antminer, with the current strong network of dash which is a x11 coin, will not die easily trust me... Wich x11?? Whats the hash rate?
He means x11 asics instead of sha asics, basically it's a different algorithm which means you can't mine bitcoin but only certain altcoins which you can then sell for btc. It's currently more profitable but it might not stay that way. Make sure to make proper calculations to make sure you ROI. it's 3 times more profitable and consume far less energy such as 1/7, i don't see the point to mine bitcoin directly when you have those option, with an anminer many are already going bad to reaching their roi |
|
|
|
S bitcoin could split, fork whatever the term is?
It's not a fork/split when 90+ % of the miners choose it. Then it's a peaceful protocol upgrade. On the other hand, SegWitCoin lunatics might want to pull something off when they see themselves losing the battle. They are known to be sore losers and that's the kind of stuff desperate people do. then we can not have any hard fork or split, because without the 75% or 90% you will not have any new chain active, but we will remian on the current one if 50% go to BU for example, they would mine an altcoin with no value, the main "core" chain will remain the one active with merchants and everything as it is now |
|
|
|
It is a good idea if Bitcoin will be the currency in the space.
But I dont think to some governments if they want it.
And im think Bitcoin technology is fit in the space.
as long as there are a computer you can use bitcoin, you don't need the permission to anyone to use it, that's why it's decentralized i can't see a real difference between using bitcoin here on earth or any other planet, if there are the prerequisite to use it, such as internet and a computer and both thing are needed by the government anyway to comunicate with earth... |
|
|
|
it's another chain(or altcoin if you prefer) with no limit on the block size, which is currently set to 1MB, it seems that for now this hardfork will not happen thanks to a bug that was discovered in BU anyway https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/ |
|
|
|
Yea, you are quick to explain how "good" bigger Block sizes will be for Bitcoin. Now try to be biased and explain how vulnerable 10MB / 20MB blocks sizes will be to other attack vectors and why Satoshi never increased it to those levels from the start.
How long can you upgrade only the Block size to match transactions throughput equivalent to VISA and Mastercard?
I am curious to see your answer to this. ^smile^
wait.. wasnt the "original" block size 32mb?? it was brought down to 1mb AFTER by the "core" developers, and it was temporary to keep spam down.. yeah it was but it was not used, apparently they were only two people using it, and those people were probably dev(satoshi and dunno...), and you can't expect any attack from them to the network(would be silly if not for testing), therefore having that huge limit, wasn't a problem back then basically the block was changed only because of the evil nature of the human, if no one was going to attack it anyway there were no reason to change it |
|
|
|
The original Bitcoin code handled 32MB blocks.
When there were 2 people worldwide using Bitcoin, it could handle 32 MB blocks, but all the blocks were 1 kB or less at that stage. Because only 2 people were using it When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit. All of which you know, you lying scammy little shit i find it weird that satoshi didn't forecast the increase in usage and thus making the limit to 1MB since the beginning, also if he changed it later it mean that he hard forked bitcoin? or maybe when you diminish it you don't need to hard fork(it would work as a opposite to ram increase in VMware for example you don't need to close the VM...), but i always thought that bitcoin was never hard forked |
|
|
|
|
honestly i prefer to use core only, it's easy and with pruning you don't have to worry about the size of the blockchain, and you can use many wallet with it, just set prune to be 1-4 weeks in size, so you have room to change your wallet
all the other fancy wallet doesn't offer anything that is so useful more than core, and i'll never use an online wallet no matter how good they are, i like to have full control of my keys
|
|
|
|
|
you don't need more than the right amount of investors to support the price, this current value was done with a steady and slow climb, this make this raise very solid and not really affected by what is happening in the legal money world
see the EFT as a bonus as a launching pad that could have been useful to speeding up the adoption rate, also the value was build long before the EFT was even in question, and therefore i don't know why people were expecting the price to crash just because of the rejection...
|
|
|
|
|
still no nvidia miner for this? ocminer can you provide one? if it only only to change the parameters shouldn't be that hard
|
|
|
|
i'm curious what need to be changed here to achieve that hash increase?
Magic  well i'll see it when it is done, by comparing it with the last version i already know that is that table... |
|
|
|
|
sp blake2s could see an improvement of 50%, can you reproduce it?
|
|
|
|
|
well i was right, correct initial value is 1000 satoshi, but this has 50 coins per block should go higher though
|
|
|
|
|
if everything go well and the hard fork will not happen it can reach that value in a short time, seeing how it retunred very fast to $1300, before summer is a good estimate
if FUD for BU come in play it can take longer, but the probability of a bitcoin being at $1500 or higher for this year is basically guaranteed
|
|
|
|
Mining fees will not eventually kill bitcoin because they are not that big and they are now getting lower in numbers. It doesn't make thise transacting at mining to be profitable to them and even those investing to a reliable sources decline back and stop transaction with them, because most of them were scam.
they are higher than ever, 50k satoshi on average per transaction is huge, it's more than $0.5 and that is only the average, many people are paying already above $1 per transaction, how cna you say that this is small currently miners are earning something like 1 whole btc added to their block reward, their block reward is basically 13.5 btc now Yes, the mining fees are getting more and more expensive day by day and we must find any concrete solution for it otherwise, it will reach the level of what other fiat companies are charging today. The core benefit of bitcoin is that it is (still) cheaper than other payment options in terms of transaction costs and it needs to remain under control.
yes i am also not in favour of increasing the mining fee. i also think that this problems must of solve on priority basis include the bitcoin transaction fee also. it's common misconception that are miners increasing the fee, it's actually the user that by wanting to be first among other is paying more, the more you pay the higher is your transaction priority against other, this is happening because of the limitation of the block, and this why bitcoin will not die because of fee increase |
|
|
|
Actually even 1 satoshi can be spent and there will be 21 million x 10^8 Satoshi which i think will be more than enough for everyone. Also by the time when all bitcoin will be mined, world population may not remain 6 billion only.  you can't spend one satoshi as long as the fee are higher than 1 satoshi, and will never be below one satoshi unless again you are willign to hard fork and make another unit which is smaller than 1 satoshi you have the option to send without fee but it's not feasible anymore currently, the TX will just return back, the minimum spendeable is equal to the fee at least assuming 50k satoshi per transaction as a average you have 2k satoshi much for each btc, still 42B "50k" satoshi to be divided to everyone |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
