I had to reindex the blockchain to be able to examine old transactions and due to a design decision that is annoying but that I can sympathize with, that makes the data unavailable until it completes and it was taking a long time so I disabled the widget. I think it should be done now though.

Edit: Nope, still rolling.

Hodling for life. Expecting a rough ride and fiat cannons on standby though. It's likely going to get like Mad Max up in here before the year is through.

Fees rise, transactions stall, businesses, suddenly providing poor user experience go into reverse adoption. Nothing happens for months and months since there is no room for growth and then the halving happens, miners switch off and our transaction volume drops to 1/3 or less because you can't compensate for slower blocks by increasing the transactions per block and difficulty moves out to 30 days and then longer as declining value causes more miners to switch off.

This is the scenario without 1MB blocks and some complicated fix slated for 2017 (an eternity in internet time). I'm confident a fix will be applied but it's now too late to avoid a lot of people being hurt. This is not an argument for bigger blocks any more, it's a straight-up prediction. Buckle up.

I think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now.

(I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.)

Maybe he still is freediving in Hawaii and hallucinating the chat.

Blocks are full. Let's see what happens.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41whvw/maximum_of_transactions_second_that_bitcoin_can/cz5v60m

I think the blocks received vs blocks sent has interesting implications for complaints of how bandwidth intensive it is to run a node. Having to forward everything to 8 other nodes, my arse.

https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/blocks

I actually believe the full node should run in the background as a service and you should never see it. Fire up the wallet and bam, your ready to go.

I think the user experience of running a node has more to do with why people don't run it than disk space issues. If Luke-jr would quit dumpster-diving 486s, we might start getting somewhere.

It gets more complicated also.

It's quite possible (even likely) that a transaction you create from either wallet could end up leaking onto the other chain and get mined into a block. So if you send me some bitcoins on wallet #1 and Coinbase some on wallet #2, you might end up sending both to me or Coinbase.

So it turns out that you have to have a transaction that gets on one chain but not the other. Typically this would be by ensuring it got mined into a bigger block (so that the small block chain would reject it). How this is done is left as an exercise to the reader but it would quite likely involve sending to yourself until it happened.

Sorry, bug in the last couple of widgets that meant non-75% blocks were showing up as purple and 75% not showing up at all (average indications not affected). Fixed now.

Having studied the data for another project, it has come to my attention that some of the miners out there are still mining with a 750k soft-limit.

What this means is that some blocks which appear to be 75% full are, effectively 100% full. This skews the averages. I'm not going to have ChartBuddy change the way he calculates the averages but I am going to have him mark them in the dots. I think purple will be the color to use.

Additionally, someone seems to be mining with a 250k soft limit. I don't know what to make of that and I'm not going to add any processing for it but just thought I'd note it out of interest.

I think you'd have to work hard to do it. Though I think the party line from Core is to push Segwit as if it is an actual block size increase so that might count.

Unlike Luke-jr who just went ahead and implemented them.

So it sounds like I need to be running a separate bitcoind for p2pool. Does it work well with a pruned blockchain?

I think the thing keeping people away from p2pool is the variance. It's kind-of a self fulfilling thing though since it would be better with more hashrate.

I don't think there's a good way of doing much about it without making p2pool look more like a regular pool. Possibly more publicity about being able to mine on p2pools that are already set up...

It is what it is though. Still my favorite pool.

It's not really helpful but it just works for me. It grabs the rpc credentials from bitcoin.conf. Are you running it as the same user? (Wait, I see you're using Windows so you probably are)

Indeed, one of the core devs has already done it for zero conf. (That's Peter Todd for those not following)

Hence points off. The other parts didn't match either.