Hum, so... 144*7=1008 or approx one week of block size data  Not really sure what to make of that. About 50 (around 5%) empty blocks, 220 (around 20%) full blocks and a fairly boring distribution over the rest of the sizes with some rather odd spikes at 25%, 75%, 93% and 95%. Of these, the 75% has an obvious explanation. I wonder if the others are pool specific. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone else had any trouble with p2pool interfering with their bitcoind?
I run some software which queries the RPC interface periodically and it's been giving 500 read timeout errors. I bumped my rpc threads up to 100 and it helped but it was still doing it. I just killed p2pool and a lot of the read errors stopped but also the requests I was making were coming back a lot faster. Does p2pool hit RPC pretty hard?
|
|
|
|
Even though I am not really sure about the total impact of all of these numbers, except maybe getting a sense of longer confirmation times, I think that I agree with you that hourly averaging may be a better depiction of block fullness as compared with block averaging of fullness over 24 hours, if that happens to be the case with the blockchain.info charts?
Which chart are you looking at? I don't see one which relates directly but I may be looking in the wrong place (apology from earlier accepted BTW) Edit: NVM, found it. That looks like daily average. Might be instructive to plot it as a distribution. |
|
|
|
The signs have been there for a while that the crazy is infectious. (Disclaimer: I'm actually not against RBF) |
|
|
|
So for anyone still harboring any doubts, here is the actual data ChartBuddy used to generate this widget. Please feel free to point out any errors. I picked one with both empty and full blocks to give an illustration. Block Size Limit Perc
394091 995032 1000000 100%
394092 929728 1000000 93%
394093 995189 1000000 100%
394094 927529 1000000 93%
394095 210 1000000 0%*
394096 995123 1000000 100%
394097 999928 1000000 100%
394098 949174 1000000 95%
394099 998803 1000000 100%
394100 64143 1000000 6%
================================
AVE-NOMT 7854649 9000000 87%
AVE-MT 7854859 10000000 79%
Note that this round included 10 blocks, way more than the targeted 6 and 50% were still full. I probably should have included the times as well as though the last block is only 6% full, it came a scant 44 seconds after the previous block. Empty blocks marked with a * |
|
|
|
**Disclaimer - I'm not admitting to regular drug abuse via RL dealers though  ** So irregular drug abuse then...  |
|
|
|
Sounds like get everything the fuck into cold storage to me & await the chaos. Edit - NLC style  Just use half your coins to buy massive amounts of drugs off the darknet and wake up in 2019 |
|
|
|
What kind of notice could/would/will we expect?
I've got coins spread across various devices, forms of storage etc. I don't fancy being left with a load of shitcoins (whichever becomes the defeated chain).
Acid rain, dogs eating cats...chaos everywhere.  Points off for missing the chance of a Ghostbusters reference. |
|
|
|
What kind of notice could/would/will we expect?
I've got coins spread across various devices, forms of storage etc. I don't fancy being left with a load of shitcoins (whichever becomes the defeated chain).
It's only an issue for coins stored on keys you don't control (exchanges primarily) Though it could get kind-of complicated for regular coins if a fork happens and the weaker fork somehow manages to stay relevant for any period of time. |
|
|
|
How can anyone take btc-e to court over a slight of hand like that? Nobody knows who they are, what country they're from, or what country btc-e operates from. If nobody knows the slightest thing about them there's no legal recourse for anything they do.
Which is also exactly true of the current point in time. They could walk away with all the funds any time. If you don't control the keys, you don't control the coins. |
|
|
|
^Not frog? (my favorite story).
The fox and the frog? |
|
|
|
This might be a dumb question, but: have we ever had a contentious hard fork before? What will plenty of notice look like?
Good question. I believe the plan for classic is to go straight to 2mb but I'm sure there will be a notice period and there may be a trigger. They plan to release end-of January so that's fairly short. BIP101 had a trigger and then a wait to give the network chance to catch up. Unlimited is a bit of a wildcard as it's designed to follow the network. |
|
|
|
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services.
They could also purchase filthy fiat, depending on their preference. Given how easy Bitcoin is to move around, only lying scumbaggy exchanges need worry. Which may not be all that comforting depending on your level of cynicism. |
|
|
|
I really wonder when this damn blocksize shit is going to be solved. It's becoming retarded.
we are not even close to seeing the end of this imo. the fork will come and core, better said gmax/luke, will fight fiercely with the remining 25% hashpower or whatever hash they have. expect more "bitcoin is dead" press releases etc but this time from core-members... Except they're planning to go nuclear with POW which will screw over any miners that would like to go with them. Puts me in mind of that fox and the scorpion story. |
|
|
|
Regarding existing holders, if you have your own keys you are relatively ok (minus the obvious destruction of USD value), but the situation with coins in online exchanges and wallets will be "problematic" if say an exchange with 500k BTCs, say 'ok my clients, now you have 500k BTCCs because we adopted this fork' (and we are keeping 500k BTCs of the other fork for ourselves). It would be like stealing BTCs and exchanging them for Gavincoins.
This is a legit concern. However, there will be plenty of notice. Anyone who is genuinely worried about this should ensure their Bitcoins are withdrawn to keys they hold themselves, as always (and as you say. Missed that bit). |
|
|
|
Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...
No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid. Which killed Mt Gox. Are you saying you want more Mt Goxes? And dead puppies? |
|
|
|
Nah.. I've been seeing 'Fullblockalypse' around for a while now...
It's my creation. I expect a satoshi any time you use it. chart buddy should calculate "Estimated time till the Fullblockalypse" Too much of a grey area. I actually think it will start to have seriously negative effects at an average block fullness of around 75% which we're pretty much at already. ChartBuddy reports verifiable facts |
|
|
|
So you're telling us Core is planning an increase to 2 MB blocks and Cconvert2G36 tells us Core devs have found 2 MB blocks bring a risk of an attack no-one knows how to defend against... One of you should check their sources!
Based on Cconvert2G36's previous posts, I think he was applying heaping doses of irony and his text should be taken with a large shovel of salt. |
|
|
|
You seem like a level headed guy, are Core out of their fucking minds?
I am fairly confident that at the very least, one of them is. |
|
|
|
You forkers can move on with coinbase/blockchain/KNCminer/MIT/bitpay. bubye  You get me wrong. I'm all for it. I can fire up my video cards again and make plenty of Coretel coins to sell all the way down to 0. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
