Doesn't help much if half you frontal lobe is missing  But at least for the optics... If they accept Bitcoin I would donate for Phins surgery. |
|
|
|
I'd like to propose "Stealing/Copying another user's avatar" as a red flag as well. I've been noticing that quite a bit.
Really? I don't have seen this once. Unless you mean the forums standard avatars? This can hardly be counted as stealing. |
|
|
|
... If the 1Mb limit (keep in mind 1Mb/block means a max size of 52.6GB/year for the blockchain, which is a ridiculous quantity) is raised, then the potential FUTURE mining revenues, namely transaction fees, are being diluted. Gavin calculates that RIGHT NOW there is only a small cost to blocks being orphaned ( https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482see his back-of-the-envelope calculation). But in the future, when transaction fees are far larger than the block rewards, and bitcoins are at $1000/each, an orphaned block will represent a much larger cost to miners. ... Just some some points on that: 1 Mb/blocks allows for max ~180 Million transactions a year. How many people could actually use bitcoin in that case? 2 - 3 Million maybe, if they only use it rarely. Do you think that's enough for your 1.000 Dollar coins? Do you think business will keep accepting /add accepting BTC if this only reaches such a small group? Also, do you think the amount for transaction fees is unlimited. Why should someone use Bitcoin if he has to pay (significantly) more when using it? There is a limit to the amount of fees people are willing to pay. At this point it would be more providable to allow more transactions. A free marked would find a balance between fees and number of transactions. But a hard cap is hardly free. |
|
|
|
Can I take it? I am willing to let a trusted member hold the amount from my own wallet before receiving it. (IE there is no way I can scam you, as I have passed on the coin before I even got it.)
What would be the point of this? I could send it directly to said member. But if you find a Member who has already participated to do this and if Garr255 agrees, than OK. Other than that, if there isn't someone to take that coin soon, maybe it's time to send it back to Garr255? |
|
|
|
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded? Have you done your homework?  Have you done your homework? |
|
|
|
Noch etwas. Mag Zufall sein, aber etwa zeitgleich mit dem letzten "Crash" haben wir die 250kb Grenze erreicht: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0Grenzen des Wachstums... Es ist nun wirklich entscheidend wie sich die Miner verhalten. Sie haben ein Interesse an höheren fees und werden die Blöcke wohl klein halten. Die Frage ist wie das dass Gesamtnetz beeinflusst. Faktisch funktioniert Satoshidice nicht mehr wie gehabt. Ich finde es gut, dass wir diese Grenze austesten bevor wir wirklich Mainstream beworden sind. Ist jetzt zwar wieder OT. Aber ich finde das auch sehr gut. Und ich hoffe wirklich das die meisten pools diese Grenze nicht gleich aufheben. Das ist die einzige Chance die wir haben um zu testen was passiert wenn es mehr nachfrage nach transaktions-space gibt als space verfügbar ist. Wenn wir uns die entgehen lassen stoßen wir als nächstes an die harte Grenze die sich nicht durch ein einziges Kommando in der Konsole aufheben lässt. |
|
|
|
Hmm...  Would this be better? |
|
|
|
How to raise the most amount of fees is really an interesting question.
The need to raise enough fees to incentivize enough miners to protect the network is clear. The question then is, do we raise more fees by restricting the number of transactions and bidding up the cost of each transaction, or by opening up the the number of transactions to near limitless and thus having more, but smaller fees per transaction?
It's sort of like the long debated question by politicians. Do they generate more revenue by raising taxes or lowering them?
I'm sure the answer is something similar to a bell curve.
As gmaxwell alluded to earlier, being stuck at the current limit isn't the answer, and neither is allowing infinite block sizes. There needs to be an algorithm that equitably adjusts the rate of increase of block sizes. I think that would be a much more worthwhile debate than banging our heads against the wall worrying about what constitutes spam and what doesn't.
Actually it's pretty simple. Adjust the block size to allow for a steady 10% bandwidth use of the average broadband speed across all major countries: http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/Which right now would be about 1Mbit/s, which approximately translates into 100MB blocks. So simply add to the Protocol that it only accepts blocks it downloads in <= 1 Minute, maybe add it also starts accepting them if it falls more than 10 Blocks (or so) behind to allow below average nodes to still participate. The only problem I see here, is that pools are probably better connected than the average node and could increase the bandwidth requirements. But other than that, such a solution would allow Bitcoin to always use the actual state of technology, no matter where it develops. |
|
|
|
|
Argh.
They weight of this coin is pressing heavy on me.
Is there nobody left to carry it?
|
|
|
|
Fair article. Things I have to point out: When incremental adoption meets relatively fixed supply, it should be no surprise that prices go up. And that’s exactly what is happening to BTC prices. What’s interesting to note is why BTC prices plummet, which they did in the back half of 2011. The cause was a very short-lived hack attack on one Bitcoin “Wallet” company out of Japan, which caused the price to drop from $27 down to $2 in a few months. Confidence in money as a store of value is the ultimate driver of its value, both in the cyber and real worlds.
They got this right! I have no idea which way Bitcoins will trade in the next 2 days or 2 years, but the whole process of starting a new Internet currency is a great case study in how real people use real currency. Limiting supply has clearly been a huge plus for the BTC. Becoming known as a currency for illegal drugs and gambling is more problematic, of course. But let’s not forget that the U.S. Treasury printed 3 billion $100 bills in the 2012 Fiscal Year. Most of those (the Federal Reserve estimates 80%) go overseas and many of them simply facilitate the global drug and arms trade, not to mention tax evasion and human trafficking. So the BTC’s growing role in the same types of business might qualify it for “Reserve currency” status sooner than anyone thinks. and they got this right, too. Impressive. |
|
|
|
OK, dann nenne Deine Quelle!
Ich habe meine vom Rechtsanwalt, daß es sich bei Bitcoins um "elektronische Ware" handelt.
Wenn Du für Deine Behauptung - ausser "so ein Quatsch" zu schreiben eine Quelle hast, nenne sie!
Als Zahlungsmittel bestimmte Werteinheiten, die in Barter-Clubs, privaten Tauschringen oder anderen Zahlungssystemen gegen realwirtschaftliche Leistungen, Warenlieferungen oder Dienstleistungen geschöpft oder wie z.B. die Bitcoins gegenleistungslos in Computernetzwerken erschaffen werden, scheiden damit aus dem Tatbestand des E-Geldes aus, auch wenn sie wirtschaftlich die gleiche Funktion wie E-Geld haben und unter Geldschöpfungsgesichtspunkten das eigentliche Potential privat generierter Zahlungsmittel stellen (s. hierzu auch die RegBegr. zu § 1a Abs. 3, BT-Drucks. 17/3023, S. 40). Diese Einschränkung vollzog der nationale Gesetzgeber bereits mit der Umsetzung der Ersten E-Geld-Richtlinie[7] im Rahmen des 4. Finanzmarktförderungsgesetzes[8]; mit der Streichung des Tatbestandes des Netzgeldgeschäftes (§ 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nr. 12 KWG in der Fassung der 6. KWG-Novelle; KWG-Novelle 1997, Inkrafttreten 01.01.1998), wurde der Aspekt privater Geldschöpfung ausgeblendet.
Erlaubnisfrei sind insoweit jedoch nur die Schaffung derartiger Werteinheiten und ihr Einsatz als Zahlungsmittel. Wenn unterdessen diese Werteinheiten ihrerseits selbst zum Handelsgegenstand werden, ist das Geschäft je nach seiner Ausgestaltung als Bankgeschäft nach § 1 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Nrn. 4 oder 10 KWG oder Finanzdienstleistung nach § 1 Abs. 1a Satz 2 Nrn. 1 - 4 KWG zu qualifizieren und steht nach § 32 Abs. 1 KWG grundsätzlich unter Erlaubnisvorbehalt. Diese Werteinheiten sind Rechnungseinheiten und fallen als solche ohne weiteres unter die Finanzinstrumente im Sinne von § 1 Abs. 11 KWG. Siehe: Finanzdienstleistung --> keine Mehrwertsteuer. |
|
|
|
|
Das gibt's doch echt nicht. Jedes mal wenn man denk jetzt müsste es langsam wieder abkühlen kommt ein neuer Anbieter dazu der BTC akzeptiert.
Ist ja schon fast auf täglicher Basis.
Als ob die sich abgesprochen hätten... wir wohl Zeit mal wieder meinen Alufolienhut zu entstauben.
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone. I'm Eric, but you can call me trainhappy.
Don't like it both. I'm going to call you fluffers. |
|
|
|
Personally, I see the miners who are refusing all transactions (so their blocks propagate faster, less chance of orphans), who are only mining for the reward, completely ignoring that the purpose of mining is to process transactions in the first place, as being a bigger problem than Satoshi Dice is.
As long as Satoshi Dice's transactions are following the rules, that's all that matters to me. I don't care what the purpose the transactions are for. Not my business.
Look at the block explorer from time to time. I see plenty of found blocks that have 0 transactions in it, just the reward generation.
That is the big problem.
-- Smoov
I agree this is a point. I know mining is a (mostly) free marked. But this guys are basically hurting the bitcoin users. Wouldn't it be possible to thread this behavior as an attack on bitcoin, therefor not accepting this blocks, when there is a significant amount of transactions required? Something like: if unconfirmedtransaktions >= 1000kb and blocksize <= 150kb then reject block Of course at least 51% of all miners would have to agree to this, otherwise miners that agree would only hurt them self. |
|
|
|
|
Wenn du low priority Transaktions sendest (mit weniger als 1nem Bitcoin day + keine /sehr geringe Gebühr) kann es momentan sehr lange dauern bis diese bestätigt werden.
Grund ist, dass dank des momentanen Ansturms das Bitcoin Netzwerk sozusagen überlastet ist. Im Standard Client ist ein Softlimit, dass eine Maximale Blockgröße von 250kb zulässt.
Das reicht momentan nicht für alle Transaktionen. Die ersten Pools haben bereits ihr Limit angehoben. Trotzdem hat sich mittlerweile ein Backlog von 2200kb aufgestaut (fast 10 komplette Blocks) dies wird zur Zeit langsam abgearbeitet. Kann also noch eine Ganze Weile dauern bis das bestätigt wird.
Wenn du schnelle Bestätigungen willst, eine Gebühr bezahlen. Die Zeiten von gratis Transaktionen sind wohl vorbei.
|
|
|
|
...some of you may have noticed that while the difficulty has begun skyrocketing, our donations have barely budged. This is due to me pointing a few of my personal miners at the NASTY MINING pool address (listed in the OP) along with continued donations to the club.
I was wondering how that was being maintained! Thanks OgNasty! We appreciate your hard work and generosity! Wow! Thank you. I was wondering how the donations could stay so stable, too. That's much appreciated. |
|
|
|
Again, Im right here... It is a trust experiment, why not stretch the boundaries?
Sorry, sending it to you would be against the rules of the game. Only "Full members" and above can participate, just to avoid someone creating an account to steal the coin |
|
|
|
Ich vermisse Seeder. Wo bist Du?
Drüben im US Forum haben wir proudhorn und luzif als gegenpoole.
... Wobei der Vergleich hinkt, Seeder ist ja eigentlich kein Bär.
Ich vermisse Seeder !
Last Active: Today at 14:29:04 Mach dir mal keine Sorgen. Zuschauen tut er noch. Und Posting Aktivität kam bei ihm ja schon immer in Schüben. |
|
|
|
Bump.  Seem there are not many left that haven't played yet. |
|
|
|
Welchen Hardfork?  Von kommen kann keine Rede sein. Da wir aber momentan gegen User Softlimit stoßen, werden wir jetzt sehen was passiert wenn es mehr Transaktionen gibt als Platz im Block. Ende off Topic. - Sorry |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
