Yes, for such small amount a zero confirmation transaction is enough. I mean the risk for the seller is not really high then.

He is a honest guy. Good luck with the trade.

But he easily could have been able to bring out his own version with 8MB blocks. He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem. He had high prestige and now he wasted it.

Well, it's his decision. But it's too bad that we now are in this situation. Would he have been created his own version then many many would have trusted him. But so... even when we know a fork is possible, it is useless when there is no integer developer who creates such a version. No one questionable.

For 100 minutes 90%!!! of all miners need to stop. For 10 hours you know it's way more. And it would not make sense at all that so many miners stop because less miners mean they will earn more because they don't have to share with the other miners that left. Of course that will only happen once difficulty is adjusted but surely there will be no big immediate leaving of the network.

Can have many reasons. Unexperienced in trading, fear of the chance going away, being an employee that has no clue and was told by the boss to sell all these clams. And so on.

But why the h... did he join forces with hearn? Someone he criticized all the time already for his dictatoric style and dangerous ideas. That was incredibly stupid. No he lost his credibility. I can't understand him.

The small miners will not get much from higher fees. Big companies would simply scale their operation to squeeze the last bit of reward out of the network. Small miners are a dying species.

Well, this business idea was awaitable. If you have such a big part of the networks hashpower then you get such ideas i guess. But 13% is not so much. The speed advantage is not really big. It sounds more like a advertising idea.

But why do you bring Gavin into this? Priority transactions would make way more sense with 1MB blocks because the blocks would be constantly full and you would have no luck getting included often. Then you can easily sell such service.

I'm really puzzled what you want with Gavin at this point. What he wanted to do would make this business model useless.

Or did i misunderstood and you are in favor of increasing blocksize limit?

How is that deficit calculated? By the current hashrate? That would be nonsense to do because it would look like we need to keep the miner rewards stable. That is not true. Miners switched off nonprofitable hardware all the time and no one was crazy enough to demand we would need fees to make up for the first block halving.

What do you fear will happen when a chunk of miners will drop off their unprofitable miners? The network is more than secure and nothing happened in the past either. I think your fears are unbased.


Economically that is nonsense. You sound like we need to raise the amount of miners all the time but it is not allowed to drop. In fact mining momentarely is so rewarding that we have this sheer amount of hashpower that we are 100 fold more secure than needed. Shouldn't that be a good sign that we don't need to feed this useless overhead? It's like a overboarding bureaucracy in a country. Eating a lot of money but politicians say we need all that.

Look at the past, maybe you will see that your fears are unbased.

Though they are the ones who can deny changes to the code, isn't it? There is no democracy where the majority decides which code parts get into the next release or am i seeing that wrong?

I think their intentions aren't questioned without good reasons. If someone wants to save bitcoin then he would save bitcoin. And not come up with a solution that practically means not to use bitcoin.

Not bought but it was always said that the developers in question invested in blockstream. So they own the company partly and obviously that means they await to get their investment back with profits.

Well, this is all so dark that you can't really tell what is true and false. :/

Yeah, it's a pain that the idealism from the beginning of bitcoin seems to be lost. All developers act like politicians that have their side job at a bank or insurance company. Effectively not working for the people anymore but for the company.

I was of the impression that the bigger miners spoke out for changing the blocksize limit to 8 Megabytes. Which looked interesting to me since they did not set the shortterm income over the longterm development.

At the end high fees will lead to less transactions, which leads to less total fees again. Well, i hope miners are thinking longterm. Though the difficulty is not really promoting this way of thinking. If you don't have your investment back in the first 2 or 3 months then you most probably will never. So the shortterm income is everything, nearly like trained into miners.

Why the h... would you want such thing? Expensive transactions for what purpose? We have no poor hungry miners that need the money badly. And even if you manage to make up for the next block halving with fees then you would only make it more rewarding for big mining corporations to create a couple thousand more miners. The small miners would not earn much more at the end. Their miners worth would be diluted by those who can create miners cheaply.

I think you might be a miner. But i think you are very mistaken if you think that raising the fees will lead to more income for you. It would lead to more miners going online, diluting the additional reward to the level it was before. Because that level would be the level where it did not make sense to create more miners because the investment probably would not come back.

So especially you, what do you want? Raise the blocksize limit once we are at an average of 95% filled blocks? Or do you want to go over the 1MB with legit transactions? I think when this happens then we already have a big problem. Bitcoin will lose credibility since obviously bitcoin can not be trusted anymore as one could before.

The fee market is not needed as reward for the miners, mining is obviously so rewarding that we are way more secure than needed.

So the risks bitcoin would be placed into are real, but the advantages not really important. I mean why doesn't game developers think that way "if we would develop battlefield so that it could be played on an pentium 2 then we would raise our userbase and would have more sales" They don't think that way because the game would be inferiour then. Nobody would want or use it. You can't deliver work under these premises.

Do you say those who want to make bitcoin able to keep up with the rising amount of transactions are hijackers? I think they are the normal users of bitcoin. Though maybe i misunderstood your sentence.

Didn't realize that there is a gap like that. Well, what should i say? It looks like a problem that might come up in the future.

Though something that is pretty sure is that a restricted bitcoin is a real problem. Imagine the currency of a country has a daily transaction limit. Only a certain amount of transactions can be done by the people of that country. The one who pays more might get his transaction through, others will never be able to get a transaction. The result would be that the people would be forced to abandon bitcoin. And even the ones who still want to use it would have to deal with a high amount of uncertainties. Will my transaction go through or will it stuck? Everyone would only use it if he needs to use it. Because time is essential on bitcoin especially. If you are unlucky you have 10 or even 25% less value the next day. Bitcoin would be risky then.

Exactly. Though i consider the risk too low for the amount of time i would have to invest into escrowing such account. A worthy account has a higher risk and the amount of work is justified. At one point i had so many account trades each day that hours went by by doing it. And the accounts had mostly not even a high value.

Saying that, yes master-P is trustworthy and agreed to do it. If he is not reachable you can try Muhammed Zakir too. I trust them both.

And thanks for all the nice reviews.

I think the reason is speculation. They know it is dead but it can't become worse. So when the price would be a satoshi then what can happen? 2 Satoshies? Then this would be a profit of 100%. That's the reason why many people trade altcoins. Though the volume is pretty low.

I really don't think any of them believes that the company has a promising future.