...Peter R had his own transactions version. That seemed like it could work back in 2014. In both cases I believe we've seen at least 100% increases while the market cap has not quite followed.
I'm curious what both charts would look right about now but I'm afraid it would invalidate both theories. The reason might be that no one knows exactly how to quantify the amount of users in the network.
Sure.   Brg444, what do you think of my last response to your comment about moving the block size limit out of the consensus layer? How do you envisage this working? Can you give some more details? Presumably remove any block size limit altogether. Thus letting it be a scramble to cram as many transactions into the next block, as as time and internet speed would allow? This would probably lead to a new dimension for mining profitability calculations (currently it's just electricity price arbitrage) We would also have connectivity arbitrage too? I speculate the future of mining and validation will play out to the point it actually becomes non profitable. Meaning I see a possible scenario, whereby some combination of partial chain validation (think treechains) and massively distributed pooled mining ( think 21inc ). In this scenario everybody has a mining chip in their device, (a bitcoin RAM equivalent) that partially validates the full chain. The sum of all theses mini nodes fully and provably validates the entire chain with a suitable redundancy. Further to this there would be archival nodes (the various pools, governments banks and big business). This would mean the block size limit would be redundant, as only those organisations that were financially dependant on full independent blockchain analysis/validation would be required to keep the entire blockchain. Thoughts ? Or am I barking up the wrong treechain? |
|
|
|
That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.
I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that: Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto
Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency. Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero. So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No! YES! Now are they as "rare" by my definition than Bitcoin? No. But by all account they have obtained a significant amount of "collectors" because of its own rather unique property, as smooth pointed out. Hang on a sec whilst I just nip down and photocopy an thousand copies of the Mona lisa. This is money were talking about network effect and userbase are all that is important. |
|
|
|
I really wish I hadn't just watched that. |
|
|
|
There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.
So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit? Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully be less controversial. |
|
|
|
Jeff is saying that miner voting via BIP100 will be submitted (merged in the BIP library?) implemented (pull request?) within two weeks. This is great news. I see it as compatible with BIP 101 if a mined block size conforms to the least of the prevailing maximum of 100 and 101. http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdfProtocol changes proposed: 1. Hard fork, to 2. Remove static 1MB block size limit. 3. Simultaneously,addanewfloatingblocksizelimit,setto1MB. 4. The historical 32MB limit remains. 5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015. 6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016. 7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks. 8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step. 9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen. Absolutely fantastic. Hopefully this will put a stop to this constant block size bickering |
|
|
|
The problem with calling people 'fucking morons' is it really bites you in the ass when you say something stupid yourself. Your "coup de grace" only serves to illustrate the point I have made several times here, that whatever anyone says, you will find some way to spin it to suit your own agenda. Here is your last post, without the fancy words: I don't understand why its fair for everyone to be able to use the blockchain, I'm afraid that somehow I won't be able to get more benefit than everyone else, so I'll call you names.
I don't really care about facts or reason, I just like arguing on the internet because I feel safe protected by anonymity and the lack of accountability it affords me. Look how I can misconstrue this quote to support my argument.
Hey everyone look at me I am super cool because I can make text red and I know what a hashtag is.
Yeah its ad hom. sue me. class dismissed.  |
|
|
|
I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned. One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing). This would minimize the propagation impedance. While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem. We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages. But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…
Is there any disadvantage to a pure P2P super pool? |
|
|
|
Awwwh thats a shame, would have made for a few interesting conversations  |
|
|
|
priceless:
[–]WinkleviBitcoinTrust 6 points 23 hours ago
Sure I can imaging it. I just don't feel like supporting those block cock blocking devs.
could be time for a new Zhou Tong remix....... Chemical brothers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaU5qkQJ1e4 |
|
|
|
The mainstream knows how to use plastic 
The Bitcoin Debit Card - now accepted wherever major credit cards are welcome worldwide Gone are the days of asking: "do you accept bitcoin?" Not seen this project before. I'd wager the fees charged per transaction work out more or less the same if not more than a credit card. (if you take into account the fees\commissions and the calculated exchange rate of BTC, compared to the average indexed bitstamp price) The day some company open sources one of these, making it zero cost relative to the bitcoin network, plus only charges a one time fee for the card issue, is the day everyone wants one. |
|
|
|
I'm just writing to say that, even though I haven't been posting, I haven't forgotten about this, and I'm still very keen on finding a solution and helping where I can. I'm sure there are many others out there that are keeping an eye on this thread for any developments.
The only news I've seen is that Jon was arrested, but I didn't see why. I also don't know where he is ATM or if anyone has communicated with him.
Does anyone have more up to date / complete info, or any ideas?
Any update on Graet ? |
|
|
|
|
Whilst I don't see this as an 'impossible' scenario the fact remains if this did happen bitcoin would need 180$ million a day in support just to keep at theses levels...... cue, massive loss of support and return to say 5000 levels
|
|
|
|
Yeah these three buried posts cleared a few things up Tardigrade1 8 points 2 hours ago*
Well, not entirely true. There is more to processing a transaction than propagating and storing it. But now that discussion has proven wrong and confirming that the only problem is the blocksize. There is no reason not to upgrade from a node/network perspective.
Before these spam attacks there was definitly discussion about if the nodes could handle the large volume of tx/s spamming them. This has now gone.
[–]awemany 11 points an hour ago*
This is a very good point. What you are basically saying is this, if I understand you correctly - please correct me if I am wrong:
The Bitcoin network got indeed 442tx/s for a short while, filling up mempools.
That means that nodes processed and validated 442tx/s for a while. They only didn't write them to the block chain, to disk as valid blocks, because enforced protocol rules right now prevent that.
The only reason the average actual rate didn't go up to 442tx/s is because the hard blocksize limit prevents blocks from being that large.
Note that without IBLT being implemented yet, you'd have to cut the effective transaction rate in half. Mined blocks would about contain the same number of transactions that get put into the network.
But this still means that the current, as-is Bitcoin network can handle 221 tx/s for a short period of time.
I think it is thus very safe to assume it can handle at least a tenth of that (to play it extra safe) continuously.
That would be 22.1tx/s. ~7MB blocks.
Lets please remove the damn limit now.
[–]Tardigrade1 12 points an hour ago
Yes precisely. This spam-attack has been far more interesting than people here realize. What we learnt was that a very high rate of transactions can still successfully propagate across the world, from node to node. Then they just wait to be included in the block.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
