|
So what is this skilled nursery? Is he educating nurses or does he has a nurse service? It sounds so far away from what he did all the time. Though you never know what he did before he came to bitcoin and started coding and build projects and all.
|
|
|
|
Es ist so Schade, dass sich so wenige Menschen wirklich mit Ihrer Existenz auseinandersetzen.
Daher finde ich den Versuch mit Zeichentrickfilmen nachzuhelfen wirklich genial.
Leider werden auch in diesem Film - neben vielen nachvollziehbaren Tatsachen - einige Dinge dargestellt, die sich bei näherem Hinsehen etwas anders darstellen. Das ist schade, da es den Film unnötigerweise angreifbar macht. Die Botschaft wäre ohne diese Anteile genauso transportiert worden. Ähnlich sieht das beim Goldschmied Fabian aus. Der springende Punkt hierbei: die Verfügungsgewalt einer Notenbank gehen vom Staat weg.
Da bist Du einer Legende auf den Leim gegangen. Der Staat hat weder in der EU und schon gar nicht in den USA eine Verfügungsgewalt über die Notenbank. Die Handlungen der Notenbank werden von auserwählten Bankern bestimmt. Die Macht sitzt bei den Geschäftsbanken, die notfalls ganze Staaten ausradieren. Ohne die Finanzierung durch die Geschäftsbanken kann eine Regierung auch nicht ihr Militär in Bewegung setzen. Sobald die Banken den Geldhahn zudrehen, ist sofort jeglicher Handlungsspielraum einer Regierung beendet. Die übliche Verschuldung der Regierungen bietet einen stärkeren Hebel für eine noch schnellere Reaktionsmöglichkeit. Selbst Legenden werden von Staaten gekippt! http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/konjunktur/nachrichten/us-notenbank-washington-kontrolliert-nun-die-fed-seite-2/3433534-2.htmlKontrollieren im Sinne von "die dürfen mal kurz einen kleinen Teil der Bücher einsehen" aber nicht im Sinne von Kontrolle über die FED haben. |
|
|
|
Es ist so Schade, dass sich so wenige Menschen wirklich mit Ihrer Existenz auseinandersetzen.
Daher finde ich den Versuch mit Zeichentrickfilmen nachzuhelfen wirklich genial.
Leider werden auch in diesem Film - neben vielen nachvollziehbaren Tatsachen - einige Dinge dargestellt, die sich bei näherem Hinsehen etwas anders darstellen. Das ist schade, da es den Film unnötigerweise angreifbar macht. Die Botschaft wäre ohne diese Anteile genauso transportiert worden. Ähnlich sieht das beim Goldschmied Fabian aus. Welche Tatsachen bzw Fehler meinst du? Der springende Punkt hierbei: die Verfügungsgewalt einer Notenbank gehen vom Staat weg.
Da bist Du einer Legende auf den Leim gegangen. Der Staat hat weder in der EU und schon gar nicht in den USA eine Verfügungsgewalt über die Notenbank. Die Handlungen der Notenbank werden von auserwählten Bankern bestimmt. Die Macht sitzt bei den Geschäftsbanken, die notfalls ganze Staaten ausradieren. Ohne die Finanzierung durch die Geschäftsbanken kann eine Regierung auch nicht ihr Militär in Bewegung setzen. Sobald die Banken den Geldhahn zudrehen, ist sofort jeglicher Handlungsspielraum einer Regierung beendet. Die übliche Verschuldung der Regierungen bietet einen stärkeren Hebel für eine noch schnellere Reaktionsmöglichkeit. Speziell die Weltbank bzw WHO ist da ein interessanter Verein. Economic Hitmen. Also Attentäter die Staaten attackieren mit Geld. Der Trick ist eigentlich ganz einfach. Biete einem Staat Kredite an. Vorzugsweise mit korruptem Staatsführer der noch selbst daran verdient. Biete so hohe Kredite an dass du weisst sie können es nicht zurück zahlen. Wenn sie nicht zahlen können dann verlange Privatisierungen. Und verdiene dich dumm und dämlich an den Bodenschätzen und Ressourcen des Landes. Feindliche Übernahme. Na wenigstens etwas besser als ein richtiger Krieg. Obwohl auch das sicherlich Tod und Leid bringen wird. |
|
|
|
1. Ich will nicht promoten, aber ich nehme an einem interessanten Projekt teil, das genau versucht, dem etwas entgegenzusetzen. 40% der Top 100 Holder haben sich in den Blockexplorer eintragen lassen, um den Kern von Crypto zu manifestieren: nämlich VERTRAUEN. Ich kenne das in KEINEM Coin bisher und bin sehr gespannt auf weitere Moves dort.
Redest du von einer Altcoin? Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen dass wirklich 40% der reichsten Bitcoiner sich personifizieren lassen.
2. Solange wie "Amateure" versuchen, mit wenigen Cents die scheinbaren Millionen scheffeln zu wollen, wird sich das auch nicht ändern: Jedoch sind wir an einem Wendepunkt angelangt: Die Altcoins fangen an, ins wahre Business überzugehen. Betrüger werden an den Pranger gestellt und brauchen sich in der Cryptoszene nicht mehr blicken lassen. Das war noch vor einem Jahr anders.
Jupp... ich habe in den letzten 2 Monaten? 4 ICO's als Escrow begleitet. 2!!! davon stellten sich als Betrug heraus und der größte Schaden konnte verhindert werden. Bleibt nur zu hoffen dass sich herumspricht dass es nicht mehr ganz so einfach ist zu betrügen. Es gibt genug aufmerksame Altcoinfans die genau beobachten was passiert und hinterfragen.
3. Man muss nichts versprechen, um die Welt verändern zu wollen. Der Fortschritt an sich wird jede Veränderung in die Welt setzen, von denen wir uns noch nicht mal zu träumen wagen in ein paar Jahren. Das dezentrale Netzwerk mit den Lokalen Nodes ist der wahre Fortschritt unserer Zeit und ist ein Abbild unserer modernen Gesellschaft.
Greetz
Meta
|
|
|
|
Someone want to buy my order?
$427.98 --> $321 (25% off)
PM me
A little lost by this. Are you saying someone gives $427.98 in BTC for $321, or $321 in BTC for $427.98? The latter. Someone is buying your BTC for less than market value in order to leverage a profit at later date. Purse.io buyers who bought Amazon gifts for users through July to October have seen a nice profit with the rise of BTC. This is actually the opposite of how I thought it worked. Wouldn't that mean that you could profit simply by buying Amazon items for people -> selling the BTC on Coinbase as soon as you get it -> recycle? Only when you have a gift code source where you can get the codes cheaper than the discount you accept on purse. If you want to bet on a rising price then you could buy bitcoins directly to do that. The one wanting to buy at amazon, the spenders, are saving because they can get their items cheaper. It seems to me that a lot of people use that to buy items cheaper and sell them on ebay or other markets for a higher price. And the buyers, who pay with their gift code, have a way to exchange their codes into money. They might get a better rate than buying something with the code and selling it then. But i don't see how they can earn from that except they get their gift codes even cheaper. |
|
|
|
Yup PoS coins are like bubbles (or ponzis) you can make money providing you enter and exit at the correct times. And the money you make is directly related to the money someone else is losing. I would say that sort of unethical approach to taking profit is NOT sustainable. If it hurts an individual it hurts the whole community.
There must be be sustainable investments in the btc world (I'm watching coinsilium right now) but they are not listing in these boards. Bitcointalk securities reputation is so bad no self respecting company would even bother.
If you think that way then trading bit- or altcoins would be unethical too since every won bitcoin was lost by others. It's a zero game. If someone wins then some other is losing. The same goes with stocks. Essentially, gogx is claiming every investment known to man is a ponzi/unethical. Not every investment. Trading on the price of a company should be different than owning a share in a legit business. The latter would not have losers if the business offers something of value to their customers. Because of the additional value created the customers, company and shareholders win. It's not always a ponzi. |
|
|
|
Tolles Video. Da hat sich jemand Mühe gemacht. |
|
|
|
... dass man alles was die sagen glauben muss.
Glauben kannst Du in der Kirche. Hier geht es um Befehl und Gehorsam. Und es fällt einfach ziemlich leicht zu glauben dass ein Staat die Stabilität einer Währung gewährleisten kann. Bzw ist fiat geld ja eigentlich ein Schuldschein der aussagt dass man mit diesem Schuldschein Wert vom Staat erhalten kann. Der Glaube an den Wert kommt dann halt aus dem Glauben in die Fähigkeit des Staates diesen Wert zu erbringen. Dummerweise scheinen nicht wirklich viele zu erkennen dass diese Fähigkeit sehr fragil ist. Die Staaten haben so viele Schulden dass sie praktisch nie diese zurückzahlen können. Ein Geldschein (Bargeld) kann nicht als Schuldschein betrachtet werden. Es gibt nur eine Partei, die Dir gegen Bargeld etwas geben kann und das ist Dein Mitbürger/Händler um die Ecke. Verkauft Dir Dein Bäcker morgen kein Brot mehr gegen Dein Bargeld, dann war es das. Der Staat garantiert (ausser mit Notstandsgesetzen und notfalls Gewalt) hier gar nichts! Dagegen kann man Giralgeld als Schuldschein betrachten. Die erzeugende (Geschäfts!)Bank schafft per Kreditvergabe Giralgeld. Dieses Giralgeld (also sozusagen die Schuldverschreibung) kann man nun an andere Menschen weitergeben. Die Empfänger hoffen nun, dass sie die Schuldverschreibung wiederum weitergeben können oder die Bank ihr Versprechen einlöst, und sie notfalls Bargeld dafür bekommen. Der Staat schützt dieses Geschäftsmodell per Monopol (durch die Bafin), indem er nur ausgewählten Personen (den Bankern) erlaubt, solche Schuldverschreibungen weiterzuleiten. Jeder andere Mensch muss dafür zwingend eine Bank benutzen. In jüngster Zeit haben Malta und Griechenland gezeigt, was von dem Versprechen dieser Schuldverschreibungen (also dem Giralgeld) zu halten ist. Ausserdem muss jedem der darüber nachdenkt (und der den Begriff Mindestreserve einordnen kann) klar sein, dass das Bargeld gar nicht in ausreichender Menge existiert um diese Schuldverschreibungen einzulösen. Soweit ich weiß ist die Definition von Fiatgeld mit Goldbindung dass es ein Schuldschein war mit dem der Staat garantierte dass man, wenn man zur Notenbank geht, den Gegenwert in Gold erhalten kann. Natürlich kann man den Schuldschein auch einfach an den Bäcker geben der dann den Staat als Schuldner hat. Wie das allerdings bei Nicht-Gold-Gedeckten Währungen gehandhabt wird weiß ich nicht. Die Notenbank kann ja nicht wirklich etwas auszahlen. Ja, die Diskrepanz zwischen echtem Wert und theoretischem Geldwert ist mittlerweile eine enorme Blase geworden. Und da der theoretische Wert durch Zinsen immer weiter wächst kann das nur auf eine Katastrophe hinaus führen. |
|
|
|
Am using his services for 1st time. Sent him my funds will see how it goes.
Will send tip once receipt of what I bought arrives.
I see your first confirmations for your payment coming in. Let me know if i should check the item for certain features that you are interested in. You can tell me by pm. |
|
|
|
Start a bitcoin mining operation
Sounds like the best way to lose your 50BTC. I don't know a way to have more than 50BTC at the end. In most cases you will have less than before. Why? Because there is practically no way to mine profitable for the average user. Most users who jump into mining forget that there is something called difficulty which leads to constantly dropping profits each 2 weeks. At the end you have to have made your investment back in the first 2 to 3 months. If you didn't manage you will lose. It doesn't matter if you mine yourself or do cloud mining. |
|
|
|
that's why you have 3 levels of fees in an android wallet ... and 10 levels of fees in Bitcoin Core client.  you can not emit transaction WITHOUT the right fees ... if you are a complet noobs ! but, you want emit the transaction without fees ... and you've fucked. deal with it. every transaction will get confirmed eventually, just the question is if you are willing to wait for 3 months for a confirmation. But I think so as well, if you send a transaction without fees it's completely their own fault that they did so. Crypto currency has a small learning curve and if you ain't willing to go trough that. Well don't use cryptos then. However the next generation will get this shit with ease. Wasn't there an update that makes transactions that were not confirmed in a certain timeframe vanishing from mempool? That would mean that such transactions would not be in limbo anymore at least. But they would not confirm after months too. And if we keep 1MB blocks then unconfirming transactions will be normal. Even with fees. Since it might be that the other users simply chose a little bit higher fee than you. And you already can lose. Jorge described it good. |
|
|
|
Confidence in gold is based on inborn feelings and instincts (which are fixed and universal), while confidence in Bitcoin is purely rational and based on functions attributed to it (which can be called off). Without them it is useless. In this way it is no different from any other fiat money out there, as I said previously. Gold, on the other hand, is loved for what it is, in and of itself, not for what people set it to do. You are bringing forth concepts which are irrelevant to the question and trying to challenge what I have already at first made clear and then set aside as irrelevant...
Namely, the origin of value, subjective vs objective
Yes, this is the crux of what I am saying. You are not born valuing gold. It is a learned trait. There is nothing natural or instinctual about it. So you are saying that everyone is being taught what is beautiful and what is ugly? Now tell me what universally bootstrapped gold in the first place (the issue of primary cause) if this is a learned trait as you say, in all those ancient civilizations divided by oceans and deserts, who had access to it... Was it the same person (Doctor) Who taught them to love gold? Surely a baby won't love gold more than any other glittery stone. I wonder where you got the idea from that the valuation of gold could be somehow genetically. In places where gold was very common it was only loved because of it's special color, for example the aztecs were wondering why these crazy hispanics were to crazy about that metal. And if suddenly half of earth would turn into gold then surely you would not assume that we would still see it as a valuable metal. It always depends on if it is useful for production, art, jewelry or similar things. Gold can serve that purpose and has a value because of that. |
|
|
|
Once must understand that halving is an essential part of the Bitcoin protocol, aimed at approximating the natural increase in scarcity, observed in other money systems, like gold (as opposed to currencies, like dollar, which can be printed ad infinitum) The problem is that Bitcoin itself is not natural. As I have said elsewhere (and been attacked by assclowns of all stripes and denominations, lol), Bitcoin, in this aspect, is no different than any other fiat money out there (or currency, if you please), my point being that mimicking scarcity (or any other quality) of its counterparts such as gold doesn't endow it with the resilience and robustness due to their inherent value (entrenched deep in the minds and nature of people)... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Scarcity is part of what gives both gold and bitcoin value. The only reason anything has any value at all is that everyone believes it to be true. This is true of bitcoin, gold, and fiat. Confidence in the particular monetary system is what bestows value, and part of the confidence in bitcoin is the built in scarcity of a hard cap and halving block rewards along the way. If that confidence is undermined, then the value/utility of the monetary system is going to fall, and that's true of gold and fiat too. What you write about the value is not fully true. There is the intrinsic value too. Gold for example has many usecases in electronics and more places. This means it has a value that comes from being gold alone. Not from the value it has from speculation or believe. So gold might crash but there should always be a bottom value. Of course the question is if so much gold can be used at all. But there are other items that are used as a kind of currency that has it's own value. Let's say cigarettes in war times. Some smoke them away, because they are stupid, some sell them for a warm jacket and are allowed to life because of that. But even when no one would want them, their value would be none for others, there is still a value in using it. (If you can say that at all about cigarettes.  ) The same can't be said about bitcoin. You have nothing than some virtual flags if the value is crashing and everyone believes it is nothing worth. Right, but now you're talking about utility as opposed to just perception of value. Using a resource for industrial uses gives it a value, but that value is a smaller subset of the total value which includes perception of the resource as an asset or store of value, which makes it usable as money. There are plenty of resources that are both scarce and have utility for industrial purposes but are not used for storing value or as money, and the only difference there is that they aren't widely perceived to be have a value to someone in the future. Gold is a special case, but its status is also arbitrary. It's just one of the resources that is scarce and that everyone agrees is valuable. It didn't have to be gold, but its ease of finding to early civilizations probably had a lot to do with why it was gold and not something else. You are right. The value of gold is typically higher than it's value for electronics. Though i wanted to say that gold has an intrinsic value. Even when nobody believes in the value of gold as a currency anymore, it still would have a value. If nobody believes in cryptocurrencies anymore then you have nothing. Rubbish zeros and ones. |
|
|
|
Again you are exaggerating, the block time is occasionally 50-60 minutes. So, with 90% of the hash rate gone, it will occasionally take 10 hours. The table shows what will happen to the average block time if the hash power is cut by 90%.
I'm curious why you deny the evident. Even if 60 minutes today is occasional (which is not good, mildly speaking), then it will be 100 minutes on average, right? What is +1 and +2 in that table? While 100 minute block times would cause difficulties and consternation, I don't believe it would necessarily bring down Bitcoin. People that need faster confirmation times would go elsewhere, but the effect would only be temporary So you think that after a lot of people don't get their transactions confirmed for a few months (which would obviously crash the price, thereby essentially nullifying their Bitcoin holdings they got trapped with), peeps will continue to use it? I'm highly doubtful on this, wtf. Many folks here talked about confidence (and still more thought about it)... I guess it is the right time they showed up (thought again) Check out the difficulty history table here: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficultyIt would not be months, it would be a maximum of 2 weeks until we would have 10 minutes blocks in average again. And even when we would have blocks with a timeframe of 10 hours occassionally, the average would be 100 minutes and there would be blocks with 10 minutes too. You can't only claim the high timeframe exceptions as valid, the low one are valid too. And this is very hypothetical. It did not happen in the past that miners switched off big parts of the network because mining became unprofitabel. It happened, if at all, in steps that were unproblematic. |
|
|
|
Are you kidding? It is not uncommon to see new blocks mined as rare as one per hour. If the major mining pools (which mine over 90% of new blocks) stop operation, the blockchain will be frozen
You are exaggerating. If 90% of the hash rate turns off, then blocks will be found on average every 100 minutes (instead of every 10 minutes) until the next difficulty change, which will be in less than 140 days. Everything will return to normal in less than 175 days. Okay, let's take your figures. Now we allegedly have 10 minutes between confirmations on average. I don't believe these numbers (the transaction weighted mean interval should be significantly higher, simple average being useless), but given that it is often much more than that (50-60 minutes and above), it would amount to 500-600 minutes if 90% of the hash rate is turned off. 600 minutes is 10 hours, Carl. Now we have 10 hours of waiting within which the network is essentially down, and many thousands (millions?) of unconfirmed transactions piling up... Do you really think Bitcoin will ever recover from that glut? After a week Bitcoin will be as dead as a doornail due to escalation effects | Period | Block TIme | Duration | | Current | 100 minutes | < 140 days | | +1 | 25 minutes | 35 days | | +2 | 10 minutes | 14 days |
I don't quite understand what this table means. Care to explain? If you claim that often blocks are found only after an hour then you can't let fall under the table that with the same chance blocks are found way faster than 10 minutes. The 10 minutes really are the average that was mathematically determined to be used to the next time. |
|
|
|
I don't know how the matters stand at the moment, but in August there was a transactional glut, i.e. there were a few thousand unconfirmed transactions that didn't get confirmed in time (up to 50,000, if I'm not mistaken). I got caught too, my ~1 BTC transaction hadn't been confirmed for 2 days. I guess it was a deliberate effort by miners to stimulate the price, since I saw a lot of new blocks with only the miner's TX in them...
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
The Chinese have a fairly good idea where miners are going, and what they are doing - they make them and have the biggest mining operations in the world. I'd say the Russians are in on this, 100%. I assume that the Bitcoin network will be paralyzed (at least temporarily) if 70% of miners (i.e. mining pools) decide to call it a day and be done with that That would be true only for a short time until the difficulty adjusted. If really so many miners stopped instantly, which would not happen in one day timeframe, then it could mean that new blocks are only found every 25 minutes or so. Then when the difficulty adjusted then it should be again at 10 minutes. Are you kidding? It is not uncommon to see new blocks mined as rare as one per hour. If the major mining pools (which mine over 90% of new blocks) stop operation, the blockchain will be frozen Yes, it would mean that we would need 10 times the time to find a new block. So 100 minutes per block. But there is simply no reason to believe that something like that should happen. Why should it happen? Only because mining is not rewarding anymore does not mean that everyone disables his miners instantly. That did not happen in the past too. |
|
|
|
I don't know how the matters stand at the moment, but in August there was a transactional glut, i.e. there were a few thousand unconfirmed transactions that didn't get confirmed in time (up to 50,000, if I'm not mistaken). I got caught too, my ~1 BTC transaction hadn't been confirmed for 2 days. I guess it was a deliberate effort by miners to stimulate the price, since I saw a lot of new blocks with only the miner's TX in them...
Therefore, it is hard to predict what the miners can be up to
That was because the stresstests. Someone created piles of junktransactions with a sligthly higher fee than legit transactions so that miners included the more expensive transactions and normal transactions got stuck. The problem was not that too view miners exist but that each block only can hold transactions worth 1mb of data This is what I had been told. But it's cold comfort, given that I got caught personally (for 2 days, Сarl!) and generally don't believe such stories, lol. The theory of the more expensive transactions crowding out normal transactions doesn't hold since it fails to provide a viable explanation for empty blocks... Um, that is no theory. We know who did the stresstest, we know the transactions that were spam and so on. The empty blocks have a different explaination and they happen all the time. Regardless of spam attacks. The reason for empty blocks are that some miners think they will have an advantage when they create a very tiny block. Because you will win the 25Bitcoins when >50% of all nodes accept your block as the next valid block. So if you send out a very small block then chances are that your block will be spread very fast through the bitcoin network. Maybe you even will orphan a big block that was created a second before your block. Though that is not a really usefull way to handle things. Because someone created a propagation network. He can propgate full blocks in a matter of a couple seconds. Which means it is very fast. Even with full blocks. No need to use empty blocks then anymore when you use that network. But empty blocks and spam attacks have nothing to do together. |
|
|
|
If your wallet is producing valid standard transactions with proper fees, they can be expected to be confirmed with a high degree of certainty for all practical purposes. That changes when blocks are saturated, and there's an ever-growing tx backlog, and fee estimation becomes difficult, but we're still far from that point on average, while we might've already experienced this over short periods of time. I have guessed it's a problem caused by the wallet, but I don't have enough information.
Bitcoin has a fair number of probabilistic variables built into it, and the wallet's job is to account for that fact.
This has been the stock answer of small-blockian core devs to the issue of usability under saturated conditions: "the wallet can be programmed to compute the right fee, and adjust it (with RBF) if needed." Their faith in computers is moving, but the wallet cannot compute an answer if it does not have the necessary data. What is the proper fee to get my transaction confirmed in less than 1 hour? Well, it depends on the fees paid by the transactions that are already in the queue, and by the transactions that will be issued by other clients in the next hour. Since the latter are running "smart wallets" too -- perhaps the exact same wallet that I am running -- the problem that the wallet has to solve is basically "choose a number that is very likely to be greater than the number that you are going to choose". If the network is well below saturation, computing the fee is trivial. If you pay just the minimum fee, your transaction will get confirmed in the next few blocks. A larger fee will have effect only if the backlog of unconfirmed transactions becomes greater than 1 MB. This condition may be caused by an extra-long delay since the previous block, or by the miners solving one or more empty blocks due to "SPV mining" and network delays. As long as the network is not saturated, these backlogs are short-lived (lasting a couple hours at most) and have a predictable distribution of size, frequency, and durations; and many users will not mind the delays that they cause, so they will use minimum fees anyway. Therefore, if I need to have my transaction confirmed as soon as possible, I need to pay only a few times the minimum fee. Those who believe in "smart wallets" seem to be thinking about this situation only. However, if the network becomes saturated, the situation will be very different. If the average demand T (transactions isssued per second) is greater than the effective capacity C of the network (2.4 tx/s), there will be a long-lasting a nd constantly increasing backlog. If the daily average T close to C but still less than C, such persistent "traffic jams" will occur during the part of the day when the traffic is well above average. In that case the backlog may last for half a day or more. If the daily average T itself is greater than C, the traffic jam will last forever -- until enough users give up on bitcoin and the daily averaged T drops below C again. In both cases, while the current traffic T is greater than C, the backlog will continue growing at the rate T - C. If and when T drops below C again, the backlog will still persist for a while, and will be cleared at the rate C - T. In those situations, the frequency and duration of the traffic jams will be highly variable: a slightly larger demand during the peak hours may cause the jam to last several days longer than usual. In those conditions, choosing the right fee will be impossible. As explained above, the "fee market" that is expected to develop when the network satiurates will be a running semi-blind auction for the N places at the front of the queue, where new bidders are coming in all the time, and those who are already in the hall may raise their bids unpredictably. There cannot be an algorithm to compute the fee that will ensure service in X hours, for the same reason that there is no algorithm to pick a winning bid in an auction. But the small-blockian Core devs obviously do not understand that. Not to mention that the "fee market" would be a radical change in the way that users are expected to interact with the system. As bitcoin was designed, and has operated until recently, the user was supposed to prepare the transaction off-line, then connect to a few relay nodes (even just one), send then the transaction, and disconnect again from the network. That will not be possible once the network gets saturated, or close to saturation. The wallet will have to connect to several relay nodes before assembling the transaction, in order to get information about the state of the queue. Since nodes can have very different "spam filters", the wallet cannot trust just one node, but will have to check a few of them and merge the data it gets. After sending the transaction, the wallet must remain connected to the network until the transaction is confirmed, periodically checking its progress in the queue and replacing it with a higher fee as needed. The client will have to provide the wallet in avance with parameters for that process (the desired max delay X and the max fee F), and/or be ready to authorize further fee increases. From the user's viewpoint, The small-blockian Core devs do not seem to see this as a significant change. Or even realize that the "fee market", from the client's perspective, will be the most radical change in the system since it was created. So, Adam, where is the "fee market" BIP? And they do not seem to be aware of the fact that the fee market will cause a large jump in the internet traffic load for the relay nodes. Once the "smart wallets" become the norm, each transaction will require at least one additional client-node access (to get the queue state), possibly several; and more accesses to monitor its progress. So the fee market will certainly harm the nodes a lot more than a size limit increase would. In fact, it seems that the small-blockian Core devs do not want to understand those problems. I have pointed them out several time to several of them, and they just ignored the problem. Hence the theory that they want bitcoin to become unusable as a payment system, so that all users are forced to use off-chain solutions... I did not read everything but your main point is important. You can't be sure to have your transaction being included anymore with too small blocks. Because others compete for the same block with you. And you will never know if your fee might be too low suddenly. The result would be a completely unreliable transaction system. I mean would you use a bank account where you send money to your grandma and you maybe have the chance that it reaches? And a good chance that simply nothing happens? That would be a real fail as a transaction system. |
|
|
|
So i lost some money yesterday because my legit transactions with enough fee did hang unconfirmed because there were too many legit transactions to get included. Great outlook on the future if the 1megabyte blocks remain.
How on earth do you manage to run into this? Blocks are reguraly underfilled, the transaction rate is ~2 tps, average blocksize is 0.5 Mb. Your transaction should've been included quite fast. I guess you simply have wallet problems, e.g. improper fees, non-standard tx or something of that kind, that prevents you txs from being included in a block. Then you probably did not observe the amount of legit transactions in the time when the bitcoin price shot up high. The same goes for when it crashed again. And no, transactions work fine again now, now that the price stabilized. The fees were the same all the time. I mean do you really await that the normal amount of transactions remains the same when the value of bitcoin is rising many percent per day? No, you practically can await that the amount of transactions become a lot more. |
|
|
|
However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business. Right?
Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users? Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table. Well, if the blocksize is increased too much and the adoption rate remains stifled, then it would disadvantage the miners economically, right? But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right? However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need. The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?" It wouldn't affect the miners negatively when the limit would be higher. Because mostly the blocks are not full now too. If there is 50% free space in blocks or 500% doesn't change the fees the miners will get. And since the blocks will only be as big as the real amount of transactions, there will be no speed problem too then. 8MB blocks will not be filled immediately. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
