So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.
Dear Curious. TL;DR: Yes, that's how Bitcoin works. ^This. Or at least it's how it did work before the fee event. |
|
|
|
Here is a real newbie question. If the current 1Mb blocks are underutilised, is there any evidence that doubling them to 2Mb will make any difference at all?
The two major sources of under-utilization are empty blocks and pools which are using the 750k soft-limit. This is a small (but significant) fraction of blocks. The rest are mostly full and the network would definitely benefit from having some overhead to work with to avoid transaction backlogs. |
|
|
|
Any and all minors, large pool, small pool, and/or solo, ought to suffer trying to put out partial blocks when the backlog is big enough.
Try to make them suffer for putting out empty blocks and they'll just fill them with dummy transactions. |
|
|
|
.@Richy_T: what are these?  Those are the mined blocks. White square for a regular block, black square for an empty block, red for 99% full and purple for 75% full (but not more than or less than that). |
|
|
|
Please allow me to extend my apologies for fucking Comcast's crap service. You're referring to the problem with the picture? I don't understand why, on a very random basis, some pictures are not shown by chartbuddy :/ Those are usually where uploads to imgur fail and I don't have retries yet. However, right now, my connection is particularly bad and will also be contributing. |
|
|
|
Please allow me to extend my apologies for fucking Comcast's crap service. |
|
|
|
just look at the author's profile picture  fucking movie star!   Oh, ffs, giphy doesn't work? |
|
|
|
I agree. Add in some propaganda in the media. Associate cash with crime, poverty, germs, drugs. Very easy to do, very effective. The only thing that might make it hard is us, the people who are awake to (monetary) reality.
And the people who want to pay their cousin, the builder to work on their extension without tripling the cost in taxes and regulatory fees. |
|
|
|
There's rather a large gulf between what the back room economic egg heads want, and what your average personage on the street will put up with. Debase and inflate by all means, that's something that rarely crosses the average mind, but removing cash is going to make a few people think. It seems to be well on its way in Scandinavia. I'm not so sure other parts of the world are so keen to succumb to total slavery. There's no doubt that governments are on a mission to end cash. The people won't put up with it though. Not just Bicoin but private currencies will rise to fill the gap. Think cigarettes in prison (which is effectively where we'll be) or people exchanging laundry detergent. |
|
|
|
Blocks full, price falls. Big shock.  |
|
|
|
[angry stuff goes here...]
Feeling a little strange inside/ A little Dr. Jekyll/ A little Mr. Hyde Its all just a shadow playAs I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives Each wife had seven sacks Each sack had seven cats Each cat had seven kits Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, How much did he have to pay to make sure his transaction was included in the next block? |
|
|
|
I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?
I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage. ------SNIP----- By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened 1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains 2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$. I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, so I'll just settle for two points : -If the miners decide transactions you call abuse make sense for them to include in blocks, why does this bother you? -of your numbered points, #2 is obviously wrong. Security in this context is measured as cost to attack vs. potential profit, yes?It follows that as BTC valuation, and therefore the value stored on the network, goes up, you must correspondingly increase spending, in fiat terms, on mining to maintain the same level of security. By this view, it's the BTC cost of mining that is relevant. Going to leapfrog off your quote as you already did the trimming for me but he forgot that another way to compensate for subsidy losses is for miners to stop mining. We are arguably over-secured at the moment. As the subsidy decreases, a true market arises. |
|
|
|
Can't prioritize both - as the ol' bearded coder explains, there are 'engineering trade-offs' that need to be made when working with reality.
If you're not a central-control poopy-head, you don't prioritize either, you get out of the way and let the market decide. |
|
|
|
So if I want to buy an mp3 from an artist, and the artist charges me 0.99$ for it, paypal will take ~0.40$ of it. Paypal becomes the artist's 60-40% partner. So this option is clearly not viable. If you go through bitcoin, the artist can keep like 98-95% of the money.
As Leo says, we need to go deeper. https://www.paypal.com/webapps/mpp/merchant-feesWhat Paypal calls "micropayments" are 5%+5c per transaction. For $1, that's 10c, getting dangerously close to the 4c you're always talking about. Personally, I would put the upper end of micro-transactions at 10c tops and probably down to 5c and maybe lower. What you would like to see as fees for a transaction come out as a ridiculous portion of the cost. |
|
|
|
I am a stealthy ninja! You do not spot me until I'm upon you and it's much too late! Because my little green activity box isn't green, so you thought you're safe. But you're not safe, oh no! the trap is sprung! ere I am!
A stealthy cat-ninja with razor-sharp claws that scratch and poisonous fangs that bite!!
Your worst nightmare come true...
 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Rearranged your bolds for you. Now, what do you consider the top of the micropayment range and what would be a reasonable fee for that? I frequently use Paypal to buy stuff for $1 and I would consider that well into the "payment" range. |
|
|
|
Rpietila has a castle where he will tell you about the jews and the New World Order.
I thought he put that up for sale a year or two ago (which may not mean he doesn't still have it) |
|
|
|
Every Core developer associated with Blockstream/PwC should lose commit access. What a disgusting alliance.
core has done good, they said they needed more time, and with time they came up with segwit. Peter Todd now saying that segwit soft-fork is dangerous. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.htmlNote how because of this the segwit soft-fork has properties not unlike
hard-forks in terms of the need for nodes to upgrade with regard to the
P2P layer.
|
|
|
|
The number of nodes isn't a problem, and really never has been. Plenty of people put up and run publicly accessible p2pool nodes. Heck, I was one of them for 2 years. Ideally, if you're interested in p2pool, you'd run your own node. That's the ultimate design of it - to be completely decentralized. It's a fantastic concept. As I pointed out, not everybody does so. So, if there are plenty of nodes from which people can choose, why aren't more people here? Well, that leads back to the part of my post you didn't quote. The variance here is twofold. First, is getting shares onto the chain. Share difficulty is currently 1360000. So what does that mean for expectations? - Antminer S1 would expect to land a share every 9 hours or so
- Antminer S3 would expect to land a share every 3.5 hours or so
- Antminer S5 would expect to land a share every 1.4 hours or so
- Antminer S7 would expect to land a share every half an hour or so
So, the price of entry is pretty steep. And, it only gets worse as more hashing power is added to the pool because the share difficulty rises in conjunction with the added hash. That's the ultimate problem to be solved: how do you keep miners from suffering more and more variance even as the pool gains hash and solves more blocks? Any way to do fractional shares, perhaps? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
