Wenn Du willst kann ich Dir einen Client mit der maximalen Blockgrösse Deiner Wahl bauen. Aber was soll das Dir bringen, solange Du nicht vorher einen Konsens unter den Nutzern hergestellt hast?!
Irgendeinen Wert zwischen 2MB und 8MB - vorzugsweise erst mal 2MB - würde ich ebenfalls aktzpetieren. Unabhängig davon könnte man in einigen Bereichen natürlich jetzt schon Payment Channels nutzen und so die Situation entschärfen.
Ich hab mich mal an C probiert und fand es furchtbar umständlich. Jeden kleinen Sch... musste man sich extra programmieren. Deshalb würde ich wohl so eine Version nicht weiterentwickeln können. Ein Konsens kann ja eigentlich nur dadurch hergestellt werden indem man glaubt dieser oder jene Bitcoin kostet so und so viel, bzw dass einer der Chains der echte Bitcoin ist. Momentan gibt es so eine Wahl einfach nicht. Und, es mag ein falscher Eindruck sein, aber mein Eindruck ist dass diejenigen die das Limit bei 1MB halten wollen eher wenige sind. Für den Rest erscheint es einfach nur logisch dass Bitcoin nicht größer werden kann wenn man es in ein Korsett steckt. Die Frage bleibt natürlich wie viele davon den anderen Client nutzen würden. Im Endeffekt besteht keine Gefahr erstmal da man ja Coins in beiden Netzen hat. Aber grundsätzlich sollte der Glaube an den Wert einer Chain bzw einer Bitcoinversion die Entscheidung bringen. Und spätestens wenn Bitcoin anfängt unvertrauenswürdig zu werden, weil normale Transaktionen nicht mehr bestätigt werden, werden die User ärgerlich und gehen auf die Fork, wenn sie denn vorgeschlagen wird oder verlassen bitcoin ganz. Und ich bin ziemlich sicher sie werden kein Lightning Network nutzen da der Einfluß auf die Situation der aus der Richtung kommt viel zu kontrovers gesehen wird. Ist schon traurig dass wir jetzt angeblich Hilfsmittel brauchen damit Bitcoin funktioniert.  Ein Verschwörungstheoretiker könnte daraus vermutlich viel machen.  |
|
|
|
So can I use purse.io to order stuff to France? I have tried it once 6 months ago but it hasn't worked and I had many problems with it.
I don't want to try it again if it doesn't work 100%.
What where the problems? Some articles can't be shipped to some countries. You need to login into amazon and then you can read at the product page if it ships to your country. At amazon.com you can even filter for that. |
|
|
|
i need to ask one thing, from where they ship the item? they use the amazon the buyers usually use in their language or from the abroad amazon? because in the last case there is the customs to pay....
It is the same like you order the items. If you order on amazon.com then it will be sent from america for example. It depends from which amazon country you made a wishlist. And yes, customs have to be kept in mind. If your country has an amazon version and purse is supporting it, then you can make your wishlist there. |
|
|
|
Make sure that your thread follows all the rules and hasn't already been posted.
What thread do you want to make?
I was making a thread to promote a advertising program i just joined in the investor based games section. I can't see what is wrong with what i posted, are referral links not allowed in that section or something ? Referral links are not allowed anywhere in this forum in a post. You can only have them in your signature. That's the theory. I know a user who posts regularly "Tutorials" filled with reflinks in each second sentence. He promises the next part comes soon but it never comes. Requests are ignored. And the first tutorial is so easy that nobody needs it anyway. Even when the mods are informed, they don't care. So either they don't care generally or only by certain persons. |
|
|
|
|
Schau dir auch mal bitbill.eu an. Ich hab die schon ein paar mal für kleinere Rechnungen genutzt und es hat immer ziemlich schnell funktioniert.
Haben sogar einen funktionierenden Support, was ja nicht selbstverständlich ist im Bitcoinbereich.
|
|
|
|
Zusätzlich kannst du soviel Bitcoin an Gebühren zahlen wie du willst, wenn kein Block gefunden wird hilft das alles nichts.
Und woran liegt es, wenn eine Transaktion trotz Gebühr nicht im Block aufgenommen wird? Miner wollen möglichst viel Bitcoin pro Block verdienen. In einen Block passen zur Zeit 1MB an Daten. Entsprechend sortieren sie die Transaktionen nach Gebühr pro Byte und stopfen den Block so voll es geht. Nur weil du also eine Gebühr zahlst heißt das noch lange nicht das du auch in den oberen 1MB bist. Das sollte aber nur in seltenen Fallen ein wirkliches Problem sein. In der Regel steht man halt irgendwo in der Schlange und kommt auch relativ zügig ran solange man nicht an der Gebühr spart. Ab und zu rauscht mal jemand vorbei und zahlt halt Extra dafür. Wenn es also mal etwas dauert wird die Gebühr in den allermeisten Fällen zu niedrig gewesen sein. Das ist z.B. auch ein Grund wieso Bitcoin ohne eine Vergrößerung der Blöcke immer ungeeigneter für Kleinstbeträge wird. Andere, seltenere Faktoren die eine Transaktion aufhalten können sind: - Dust. Du sendest weniger als 2730 Satoshi bzw. die Transaktion (TX) erzeugt weniger als 2730 Satoshi als Wechselgeld. Dieser Betrag ist nicht fix und ändert sich von Zeit zu Zeit. Zur Zeit gilt 2730 Satoshi für alle Versionen von Bitcoin Core 0.11.x, für ältere ist die Grenze bei 546 Satoshi. In jedem Fall ist der Effekt aber der selbe. Ein Knoten im Netzwerk der deine TX erhällt und Dust findet leitet die TX nicht weiter. Daher ist es schwierig einen Miner zu erreichen was die Basis für eine Bestätigung ist. - nicht Standard TX. Ähnlich wie Dust gibt es TX die zwar gültig sind aber bestimmte Regelungen nicht erfüllen. Diese werden ebenfalls nicht weitergeleitet. Das betrifft aber in der Regel niemanden der übliche Software nutzt. - Konflikte mit einer bestehenden TX aka "double spend" bzw. malleability. Eine TX nutzt Eingänge und erzeugt Ausgänge. Die Eingänge verweisen auf TX die du in der Vergangenheit erhalten hast. Jeder Eingang kann nur genau einmal verwendet werden und hat einen festgelegten Wert. Ausgänge können später von dir oder anderen als Eingänge benutzt werden, ihren Wert legst Du fest. Ausgänge sind sozusagen was du jemandem sendest und Eingänge sind das was du erhalten hast und nun verwendest. Wenn Du (oder jemand anderes) eine TX (A) erzeugst die die selben Eingänge wie eine andere (B) benutzt steht die beiden solange im Konflikt bis eine bestätigt wurde. Welche das ist liegt an diversen Faktoren, in der Regel hat aber die erste TX die höchsten Chancen. Wenn z.B. erst A erzeugt wurde und jetzt 95% des Netzwerks A kennen, werden diese Netzwerkknoten B nicht akzeptieren und auch nicht weiter leiten. Malleability ist ein Angriff der eine Unterart davon darstellt. Dabei werden bestehende TX aus dem Netzwerk gefischt und leicht manipuliert. Es werden immer noch die selben Eingänge benutzt und die selben Ausgänge erzeugt, aber die TX ID ist unterschiedlich. Es entsteht eine Art Zwillings TX, nur eine kann bestätigt werden. Das hat vor einiger Zeit fast alle Programme massiv verwirrt. Blockchain.info hat z.B. teilweise doppelt soviele Bitcoin angezeigt wie eigentlich da waren, etc. - unbestätigte Einänge (für was sind Eingänge siehe "Konflikte..."). Das ist vermutlich noch vor Dust der häufigste Faktor nach zu geringen Gebühren. Solange ein Eingang nicht bestätigt ist kann auch die TX die diesen benutzt nicht bestätigt werden. Dadurch das viele Programm es aber erlauben unbestätigte Eingänge zu nutzen kann man lange Ketten an TX mit geringen oder keinen Gebühren machen und für die 100te in der Folge dann eine übliche Gebühr zahlen. Für den Empfänger der 100ten TX sieht alles dufte aus, ist es aber nicht. Der ganze Rattenschwanz muss erst bestätigt werden. Das kann zwar alles im selben Block passieren, aber wieso sollten die Miner die ersten 99 bestätigen wenn sie dafür (so gut wie) nichts bekommen? Es gibt soweit ich weiß einen einzigen Pool der eine solche Kette bestätigten würden wenn die 101te TX für alle vorherigen mitzahlt. Das Prinzip nennt sich "Child pays for parent (CPFP)" und meint das die letzte TX in einer Kette die Gebühren zahlt. Wäre das ein weit verbreitets Prinzip wäre es sehr einfach Probleme mit zu geringen Gebühren zu lösen. Der Empfänger erzeugt einfach eine weitere TX und legt ordentlich Gebühren drauf. Dadurch könnte man die Gebühren vom Senden zu Empfänger verlagern. ... mehr fällt mir erstmal nicht ein. - Volle Blocks wegen Spam oder auch einfach nur weil der Bitcoinpreis gerade mal wieder Richtung Mond geht oder abstürzt. Na Hauptsache wir behalten die 1Megabyte Grenze damit wir auch ja herausfinden wie es ist wenn das alles noch schlimmer wird. |
|
|
|
Bei diesen Diensten muss man auch aufpassen dass wirklich mindestens die korrekte Summe ankommt. Ich hatte schon mal das Problem dass ich dachte alles richtig gemacht zu haben aber nichts ist passiert. Keine Fehler- oder Erfolgsmeldung. Bis ich mir habe sagen lassen müssen dass ich 0.0001 Bitcoin zu wenig geschickt hatte. Und das kam daher weil manche Exchanges dieses bescheuerte Verhalten haben dass sie dir nicht auszahlen wonach du fragst sondern dir die Summe die du willst MINUS die Gebühr auszahlen. Kein Wallet dass ich kenne macht so einen Blödsinn aber bitcoin Exchanges schon. Man stelle sich vor man geht an den Geldautomaten, fragt nach 100€ und bekommt 99,50€ da eine Gebühr abgezogen wurde. Wer auf die Idee kam das so zu regeln gehört bestraft. Und alle die das nachmachen genauso. |
|
|
|
*lol* Gemein... aber durchaus möglich dass es etwas in der Art ist. Nur wenn er einen Zettel mit Code erhalten hat dann hat den selben Code auch der Bezahlende. Und der kann das Konto schon lange leergeräumt haben. Ich frag mich ja wie man nur auf die Idee kommen kann eine Bezahlung im Wert von 12T € in einer Währung anzunehmen von der man überhaupt keine Ahnung hat. Der Nachbar erzählt entweder Unsinn oder hat sich reinlegen lassen und ist generell nicht besonders clever sich darauf einzulassen. |
|
|
|
Das Problem stellt sich ja nun nicht mehr nachdem Bitcoin-XT praktisch tot ist. Ich hoffe ja immer noch dass es einen unabhängigen Entwickler gibt der nicht umstritten ist und dem man trauen könnte. Wenn so jemand einen alternativen Client mit größeren Blocks rausbringt würde ich ihn unterstützen. Aber XT scheint ja jetzt gestorben zu sein. |
|
|
|
It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).
Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.
Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change. It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change." You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs. The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl* "Denier?" You mean like a holocaust denier? What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy. In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested. By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like. Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article? I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs. I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate. No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!" You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering. In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman. I like your way of communication. You give me every time a laugh when i read how you attach something to what i said so that it sounds like i wrote something indecent. For example... you making me making misusing the holocaust. Great idea though a little bit inappropriate i think. Well, i forgive you since it shows that you think you can't solve the conversation on a factual level. Which hypothesis? Only because you claim the blocksize limit was implemented for checking out a hypothesis does not make your statement true. In fact it is utterly wrong. So you can come up with that argument all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you made that argument up. The blocksize limit never was implemented to test a fee market. Well, i know all these "arguments" against a climate change happening. It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article. Pretty much every of these nonsense claims are dissected there. Well, some people seem to want to believe what they want to believe. Maybe it feels better to "know" that you are part of a small group that really knows what is going on. Shut up you Nazi... *rofl* you know, i can't get myself to being angry at you with having to laugh so much. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I think so. The transaction times are quite high and I think that it is one of the reasons Bitcoin is not mainstream yet. Some of my transactions have taken more than 1 hour to process. But normally it only takes around 10 minutes which is not very long. Another reason Bitcoin is not mainstream, is that not enough places accept Bitcoin.
Well it is up to you if you really want to wait for one or more confirmations. It should not be needed with a high enough fee. Of course only when you look at the real blockchain, preferably on your own computer or smartphone. Not looking at a blockchain the other party is showing you. Maybe bitcoiners should handle ans communicate this topic more. I mean bitcoiners mostly speak about waiting for confirmations though it should not be really needed for most amounts. That might give the impression of bitcoin being slow. While in fact it is only MORE safe with one transaction. And like with banks, you only need higher security with higher amounts of money. If you don't bother with security (small amounts of money) why use Bitcoin? What's so wrong with spending fiat and saving Bitcoin? Why do we have to pretend that Bitcoin has to be used and is better in every aspect? It's not. In fact it's frankly lacking in terms of convenience and daily usability. Gresham's law is not going away What are you speaking about? Who said that i don't care about security? I only say for small amounts it is not needed to wait for a confirmation when there is a fee that most probably will be sufficient. For bigger amounts of course one should wait for at least one confirmation. Nobody said it's wrong to spend fiat. Where did you read that? Of course a currency is only a currency when it flows. And satoshi created bitcoin as an alternative to bank money. Which means it needs to fulfill the things bank money can offer. Of course that means it has to be possible to use it in a similar way. Otherwise it would be no alternative. Bitcoin has only a learning curve. But in daily life, when everyone would accept it, it would be great. Paying with the smartphone in seconds, receiving the same way. For more security wait for a confirmation. So with adoption, and that is another thing that is inevitably needed for bitcoin becoming an alternative to bank money, bitcoin would be superiour to fiat. No change money, simply paying and with enough acceptance you can pay everywhere. |
|
|
|
It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).
Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.
Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change. It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change." You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs. The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl* |
|
|
|
So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already?
I'm saying that the block size topic was always avoided by the rest of the team on the mailing list/chat/github while both gavin and hearn were trying to find how to increase it, and this is the only reasons so that they have chosen to make the fork. The last chance. Yes, that is what i knew too. Don't know why you thought i'm trolling then. Even when hearn tried to solve it, chosing him as the partner, knowing well how controversy he and his ideas is was not a smart move. Gavin should have know that hearn would misuse his position to implement something stupid that could bring up critics. And it did so hefty that xt died. Now gavins fame is in trouble... |
|
|
|
What is the socioeconomic majority to you? At the moment it looks like the only one who decided singlehandedly that we don't get bigger blocks now are the developers that have the power to push their will through. I don't see who else decided or could have decided yet. What are you even talking about? Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.
Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full. Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP. It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variableThe control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter. Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work. Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections. Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream. The system ossified around 1MB blocks and nothing is going to alter it until there is such a good reason that the socioeconomic majority supports a change. "Because I really want to" isn't a good enough reason. Max block size may change eventually but " Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!" |
|
|
|
We need to strongly stress this 3tps fee market when block subsidy is going to be a minimum of 12.5 btc per block for the next 4 years. Socioeconomic "majority", i.e. not you, says so. #1MB4EVA. #gavinREKT #digitalGOLD #tuckawaydemwallets
Because we did not do this when the previous halvings happened and bitcoin nearly died at these points in time... Where you this strong need take from is a mystery. |
|
|
|
It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).
Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.
Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change. Sometimes you write things... The reason why we should change the limit immediately is because we can guess pretty good what will happen. There is no need for a fee market at all. It only needs that legit transactions won't confirm. And who in their right mind should use a currency where he can't be sure that his transaction actually will go through? That would be a waste of time and effort. And your second claim, not far away from the level of your first one, the 21e6, 10min block target and so on are really important settings. The blocksize limit is arbitrary, artificial and was never an important part until some people decided we need to experiment on bitcoins open heart to see what a fee market, that nobody needs, would look like. It's like bad scientists who experiment on a patient and don't care if the patient might die. We have alternatives, look, blockstream is there. |
|
|
|
He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem.
What? Maybe you have missed a lot of the history of this problem or even you are trolling me.  Then i have missed a lot of the history. Care to explain? My knowledge about the developers is not even deep enough to connect faces to them or big background stories. I only can say which position a couple of them are in. So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already? That passe me completely. Probably most of the other bitcoiners too then. The controversy suggestions like tainting and so on only came from hearn all the time isn't it? |
|
|
|
Yeah, I think so. The transaction times are quite high and I think that it is one of the reasons Bitcoin is not mainstream yet. Some of my transactions have taken more than 1 hour to process. But normally it only takes around 10 minutes which is not very long. Another reason Bitcoin is not mainstream, is that not enough places accept Bitcoin.
Well it is up to you if you really want to wait for one or more confirmations. It should not be needed with a high enough fee. Of course only when you look at the real blockchain, preferably on your own computer or smartphone. Not looking at a blockchain the other party is showing you. Maybe bitcoiners should handle ans communicate this topic more. I mean bitcoiners mostly speak about waiting for confirmations though it should not be really needed for most amounts. That might give the impression of bitcoin being slow. While in fact it is only MORE safe with one transaction. And like with banks, you only need higher security with higher amounts of money. |
|
|
|
Escrow statement :
7 X Bitcoin @ $338.73
Total due : $2371.11
Buyer to cover Escrow fees.
Payment to be made via perfect money.
Seller : Webkiemitien24h
Buyer : Streetpil0t
Escrow provider : OgNasty
Why do you post this in this thread? I think it is not the right place for noting down facts for future reference. Though you don't need to be afraid about OgNasty... he is one of the best escrows in here. And he even runs a security that he managed to remain profitable all the time. This is VERY rare in the bitcoin community. Besides, i don't see how stating the trade here could help in any way. |
|
|
|
I always thought a payment can not go thru if it doesn't have at least 1 confirmation no matter how small it is.
Even below the miners fee.
When it has 1 confirmation then it is pretty sure that the transaction will stay. If it does not have a confirmation then slight risks exist. That's why exchanges at least demand 1 confirmation before they give you the coins you sent into your account. This would not work anymore when the ones get their will that want bitcoin stay with 1 megabyte blocksize limit. Because then you can't trust anymore if transactions will reach and confirm. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
