Wow, no Adam, no Chartbuddy...bloody hell.
On a more pedantic note @RichyT - you do realise the Voltaire quote is a fiction (mainly due to the interweb echo chamber).
Oh well. The meaning stands. I think most supposed Churchill quotes are misattributed also. |
|
|
|
aww , gd luck dude , gona miss ya here  ever thought of becoming ETH chart buddy?  Haha, it could happen. I desperately need to modularize the code though. I hate to switch off but Theymos' actions, mostly on Reddit but here also have been upsetting me for some time. I meant to do it a while ago but Adam's banning reminded me to get my ass in gear. |
|
|
|
And when fees are high enough that they are a days wages for some people, what would be the incentive for them to want to validate Bitcoin transactions?
If bitcoin transactions become too expensive for some people, an altcoin will pop up to fill the need. Yes, indeed. |
|
|
|
Some people only have mobile to connect to the internet. No PCs, 3G. Lot of people actually. This way they can validate transactions for themselves. Could just sync for personal transactions and run in listen-only for minimum impact. I think it is great that this is now possible -- kudos to Core.
Well to be honest, I would rather see an effort to get better Internet access and stable electrical power to those people. Feel free to donate.  Rolling out fiber optic infrastructure is insanely expensive, one of the reasons why its not very widespread yet. Bitcoin is limited to the private/govt internet infrastructure (one of its weakenesses) so it makes sense to aim to accomomdate high latency/low bandwidth situations, rather than aiming to eventually be ahead of the tech curve. What Id like to see are real scaling solutions for bitcoin that mean you can run a node on a phone AND we can see continued adoption. What I'd like to know is how much spam can be squeezed out of the system. People say "spam" is subjective but it (and "dust") have pretty specific definitions in bitcoins history -- uneconomic transactions. There is still a lot of dust tx being pushed around (that's why the threshold went up recently to 2730 from 546 satoshis). A fee market should help squeeze some of that traffic out. We gonna need a fee market sooner than later. Going on 16 million out 21 million coins already mined. That means we are on the tail end. When that reward dwindles, fees need to be there to incentivize miners to secure the system. And when fees are high enough that they are a days wages for some people, what would be the incentive for them to want to validate Bitcoin transactions? For the two transactions per year they do to put funds on the lightning network? |
|
|
|
Maybe cell phones can be adopted as node (just a thought)....
With wallet pruning it can get down to 2gb which makes it possible. As long as it's still possible to sync on 3G or 4G. Not sure it's really possible to run a full-time node that way though, maybe just to run your own wallet. But maybe. The R-Pi is basically a cellphone but missing some of the radio stuff. I'm not sure why you would want to do things that way though. It's going to be a battery killer. There's no reason not to run a full node with proper hardware and a low-cost network connection and access the wallet using RPC calls if you want to be using your own node. |
|
|
|
It's not the idea of 2MB that poeple are obsessed about, it's about cores vision for bitcoin's future. not everyone agrees we should consider the specs of a 60$ raspberry pi when designing the world's financial settlement layer.
So what is your vision? I remember when I got on board in early 2013, there was so much talk of "the unbanked." Have people given up on that? With 0.12 in pruned mode (and with 3g/4g bandwidth limitations in mind), people in Africa could conceivably actually validate their own transactions now (instead of depending on Bitpesa). A lot of the world has pretty shitty internet. Is bitcoin a global currency? Or coffee money for Starbucks customers in US/Europe? I believe in the original vision of bitcoin, ie "being your own bank." And I don't think I should have to run an SPV node (which trusts anyone it connects to) in order to do that. You'll have to wait. Adam has been silenced banned. |
|
|
|
Well technically yes, but still no. If the fees drop by half, and the amount of empty block space is 50% then such attacks would be as expensive as they are now. There are just a lot of variables and factors to consider.
Nope. If a 1MB block is 95% full, you just have to pay for 50k of transactions. If that was a 2MB block size limit, you have to pay for 1050k of transactions, 21 times as much.
Artificially restricting resources makes it easier to create attacks.
|
|
|
|
whats up with all those zeros in the second exchange?
Looks like Bitstamp changed the format they're sending the bid and ask back as. I'll throw in some code to compensate sometime. i'm not looking at this group very much at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't even know about it but Open Bazaar has just done a release on the testnet so I mined a few for myself. I still have a bunch on a regular bitcoin wallet but I like Mycelium better for regular use.
|
|
|
|
How does this relate to Mycelium?
Mycelium has a testnet version which is not currently was not showing the correct balance. My apologies, I was not explicit in my original post. By searching back, I was able to find that the testnet stuff on Mycelium has been following the wrong fork before and caused a similar issue. It appears to be up-to-date now. Thanks, Mycelium guys. |
|
|
|
Hi guys. Looks like testnet is maybe stuck again like it did in the past (from what I can see). No biggie. Just 100 or so fake bitcoins stuck in limbo  Bump? |
|
|
|
so where is P2Pool heading? 8 days expected to find a block.. shouldn't we at least remove the "pay only the last 3 days" part? and make sidechain with longer block time ( less work restarts, longer chain )..
so PPLNS could average over the last 30 days or so?
If there is a hardfork necessary to support >1M blocks, that would definitely be the right time to do something about this. At the moment, when mining with p2pool you're essentially betting on the pool to find a block in the next three days, which is roughly 30%. Otherwise your hashrate is completely wasted, isn't it? Plenty of hashrate is wasted anyway. It means it isn't counted as part of your share though. If your percentage of the pool hashrate remains fairly constant, it won't really make much difference. |
|
|
|
Bookmarked, thanks. If people can link to that page from elsewhere, that should also increase the search rankings. So remember to do it when you get the chance |
|
|
|
|
When I search for "p2pool blocks", I still get the seriously out-of-date p2pool.info page. I know there is a more accurate one out there but it doesn't appear to show in the search results. Any ideas on what we can do to either get p2pool fixed or disabled with a redirect and/or get the other page promoted in the search rankings? The defunct page is also cited in the first post in this thread (paging forrestv)
I wouldn't be surprised if this page has been fairly damaging to p2pool to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Hmm... not much good using a fork designed to increase the max blocksize limit if you can't... increase the max blocksize.
It's a p2pool bug, not a Classic bug. I don't recall saying it was a classic bug anywhere... but I understand your desire to pop up here and defend classic in that way. You can increase the max block size limit, just not the soft limit when mining with p2pool. You overlooked that these are two different things in your urgent need to snark. |
|
|
|
Hi guys. Looks like testnet is maybe stuck again like it did in the past (from what I can see). No biggie. Just 100 or so fake bitcoins stuck in limbo |
|
|
|
Good luck gaining consensus (albeit 75% isn't consensus) for the HF before April. I'll push veto myself.
You are aware that the soft fork also has activation requirements, right? Good luck seeing that in "April" (Those quote marks are sarcastic by the way.) |
|
|
|
yep 2mb rule allows real capacity buffer increase, ready for when miners are ready to expand
The 2mb rule would also be trivial to back-port for people who want to run older versions but still maintain consensus but not be running a crippled node. |
|
|
|
However segwit is not ready yet now
How can you claim something like this? Have you done sufficient testing that proves that segwit will not be ready for April? If not, then don't make false statements. Is it April already? I must have overslept. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
