An ever decreasing supply of BTC being the only way to get money out of Gox.
What of the China factor? I can't imagine plenty of them even knew what Gox was. Gox's market share steadily slipped away during the run. Dunno if that was down to being crap in general or whether people had finally wised up. Some of that as well. And a fair bit of irrational exuberance too. But I believe Gox was the trigger. |
|
|
|
What was the justification for a run up to 1000+ after months of barely hanging onto $100 following a crash from $260 -> $60.
An ever decreasing supply of BTC being the only way to get money out of Gox. |
|
|
|
OK, so that'll pay for the fee... |
|
|
|
Sombody flush the mempool? Or wat?  I restarted bitcoind as I wanted to tweak some settings so the mempool starts again. It's really not very useful. |
|
|
|
Should have bought Facebook stock instead of bitcoins
Because of the historic enmity between Zuckerberg and the Winklevi, I consider MZ prime suspect in the rough consensus attack. He has the means, motive and opportunity to pull it off. If he is the culprit, Bitcoin Classic is going to face an uphill battle. Nah, he's too busy monetizing your personal data and swimming through huge piles of cash Scrooge McDuck style. |
|
|
|
Definitely have some concerns with sidechains. They may be a valid use case but they are not Bitcoin (though they are being sold as if they are) and are therefore a compromise. My biggest concern though is that they are being sold as a solution to a problem we are having but as yet, they are untested vaporware. Problems are not solved with promises. And when we do have them, there is the whole infrastructure thing. Segwit feels like it is overly complicated for what it does and I suspect it doesn't bring the benefits claimed except for a relatively small proportion of users. If you don't want to keep all the data, just use pruning. |
|
|
|
Antpool has two blocks over 900000 in the last hour so...
Also, priority hasn't been completely killed off yet.
Not sure what their game is then. There are a disproportionate number of blocks at the 750000 size and antpool is mining the majority of them. Perhaps they have different nodes set up different ways. |
|
|
|
There are still miners out there with old versions of the software and running the defaults. Thus, if there's not too much of a backlog, it's quite possible zero fee transactions will get included.
So if zero fee transactions are actually a problem, perhaps it is better that we do have a bit of miner centralization so we have professional miners who actually pay attention to what they are doing instead of a bunch of amateurs not acting in their rational self-interest as was supposed to happen.
Don't amateurs mainly hash for pools? It seems hard to believe there's any significant hashrate operated by hobbyists who actually run their own bitcoind for mining. Good point. And mainly so I think. In fact, some of the offenders seem to be large pools. Antpool and slush appear to be still mining with a 750000 soft limit so it would be interesting to see if they were mining 0 fee transactions also. |
|
|
|
Correct - but you are relying on the kindness of strangers to get your tx in to a block. and that will only happen if there is spare capacity ( i.e it costs the miner zero to include it ) But bear in mind that the old 'reserved' portion of the block (50K) for free priority tx's is now gone (by default) and that the concept of priority is about to be killed off entirely, I think its fair to say that the idea of free tx's is dead.
There are still miners out there with old versions of the software and running the defaults. Thus, if there's not too much of a backlog, it's quite possible zero fee transactions will get included. So if zero fee transactions are actually a problem, perhaps it is better that we do have a bit of miner centralization so we have professional miners who actually pay attention to what they are doing instead of a bunch of amateurs not acting in their rational self-interest as was supposed to happen. |
|
|
|
I was thinking that an ideal way to eliminate spam would be for the miners/nodes to agree to not process txs that use a fee lower than 10 cents. We'd probably go down to 200-600kb blocks right away (depending the load) with plenty of room to spare - and probably everything would go in in the first block. But having prices in USD doesn't work in terms of code (which deals with BTC fractions).
It's all price controls and cartels with you, isn't it? |
|
|
|
4c is high.
I'd say we don't know if it's high or not, and protocol decisions shouldn't be made based on opinions on market pricing. Low-fee transactions aren't any better a design goal than high-fee transactions if reaching that goal requires developers to start intervening in free price discovery. What I'm getting at: Better efficiency is a great goal, and would lead to a lower unit price for transactions, obviously. Trying to fix prices outside the market is a bad goal. Absolutely. My claim is based on what I believe the cost would be for the service provided in a competitive free market. It is up to that market to determine the actual value of the service though. |
|
|
|
Richie..... I think to be objective, you gotta concede a bit on your rendition of the cost(s) of credit cards. We cannot calculate costs from only one side of the transaction.... Credit card transactions are generally at least 2%... and frequently closer to 5% by the time you add all the various charges on merchants.
I'll happily concede. But when someone is comparing apples to oranges, forgive me if I wax lyrical on the properties of bananas. Quite simply, you have to look at the system, what backs it, what kind of market it is (monopolistic, oligopolistic, competetive, peer-to-peer etc) , the respective costs and so forth. What, really, is a reasonable cost to process and store 250 bytes of data? Is that not between the miner and their customer? Here is a Bitcoin transaction to give an idea: 0100000001f07dc78617ee497ce81d9c3024ba052f532c76dea9c7cba6479fdfbf803f9d76010000006b483045022100fc5af108513379925a1925ba287659303acac924158b271dbd49d7e0e70fee11022056ac8c66cac785a6bfd08863f4b4e846995afaa55662e86ec1275aba60bdd4e50121032328833755deab07f5aeacdd6ee25f5a4c4a864d874197cf5795ed1d9f6eb1dffeffffff02304b8400000000001976a914270a5f4d1e192551ca7dcc2d97242753d54ad39a88ace060bc02000000001976a914871e8e5104fab525293068a1f399defc4a69adb488ac08070600 Expanding the topic a bit into bank transfers: In recent times, I have come across quite a few bank transfer services that are free between customers of the same bank or with minimal efforts to set up sending and/or receiving accounts. However, really, are those services free? Frequently, they can take 1-5 business days to clear, and also banks are rarely paying any meaningful interest rate on the money that they hold for you (as they had in the olden days). In this regard, banks are providing some purportedly "free" services, but they are getting use of trillions (or at least billions) of dollars without paying any interest rates.
True. I would avoid any comparison with American banks because, quite frankly, their services are crap and still rooted in the 50s and 60s of the last century. My point is that I think that we should really consider whether a transaction is free, such as using our credit cards..... when we are comparing the current and/or upcoming costs of using bitcoin.
Yes. We should not be comparing with legacy services but with the modern, advanced systems of the world we are stepping into. |
|
|
|
Sorry. I'm having a hard time avoiding the snark in me here. I guess I see why this has all blown up so badly... If only belittling others could be used to secure the blockchain!
My god, I think you might be on to something. |
|
|
|
4c is high.
High? Are you high?  Compared to any other alternative (banks, visa, mc, paypal, western union, swift) it's the lowest you can get. Even an sms will cost me 0.12 euro and if I send it globally it might cost me half a euro. Mail -> Email Visa -> Bitcoin. Stamp->49c Email->marginal cost Visa->0 cost to customer, BTC->? Do the maths. And comparing SMS? LOL, a horrendously overcharged item enabled by government granted monopoly... Are *you* high? |
|
|
|
Use first block inclusion fees.
Yeah, I was thinking that and maybe something else. Possibly max fee in mempool. |
|
|
|
No, blocks shortly after the previous block will be coinbase only, distorting your metric, we will never see avg. 0.99MB with a 1MB limit.
Correct. In fact, between empty blocks and some miners mining with a soft limit of 750k and others with a soft limit of 250k, the current maximum average is around 90% full. (Or rather, an average of 90% of 1m means full would be a more correct way to state it). |
|
|
|
That's 4 cents / 0.04 USD for urgent first block inclusion, despite "full blocks" and 55+ mb of queued transactions. I asked "why" before but I didn't get an answer. Why don't we have "5$ fees" or "100$ fees"? Why is it just 4 cents?
4c is high. And we are in a period of lower congestion right now so you'd have to start looking at when the blocks were full on a regular basis a few days ago. And even then, that doesn't tell the full story since people will be optimistic for a while. |
|
|
|
57MB in the pool. What did we hit during the epic stress-test of a while ago? Is there a record all time high we should be shooting for? It's hard to tell. It grows continuously based on the min relay transaction fee (which I have set fairly low) after a reboot by my understanding and I don't think this version has an ejection mechanism. So the number by itself is fairly meaningless. I'm thinking of replacing it with something more useful. |
|
|
|
Yeah, you know, thats it. I forgot how clogged up AV and Yahoo were getting ( and still are)
Google, to be fair, always kept the UI clean and simple.
Yeah, I think that was their gameplan. Google was very in-touch with their audience in those days. In spite of a few missteps, I think they still largely are. |
|
|
|
This the text fatman omitted without explanation.
Yeah, but sAt0sHiFanClub had him covered there. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
