What about multiple blockchains? And i dont mean competing blockchains, i mean other bitcoin blockchains that use the same bitcoins we use now. These blockchains wouldn't add any coins to the economy and would work entirely on transaction fees. Coins would be added to these blockchains by sending coins from the original blockchain to an address on the new blockchain and coins could be sent back to the original blockchain at any time.
The reason i suggest this is because eventually if bitcoin became a global phenomena, even while pushing the upper bounds of blocksize that the network could handle it could still be the case that transaction fees could be in the range of hundreds or thousands of dollars to get 1 tx included in a block. I dont really know what the solution to this is and admittedly i am grasping at straws here but who knows maybe you guys can take the idea and run with it.
Unless there where reasons to fafour inner blockchain transactions more than others, this would on average increase the total size by ~50% for the same amount of transactions. 25% Chain A to Chain A transactions 25% Chain A to Chain B transactions 25% Chain B to Chain A transactions 25% Chain B to Chain B transactions So 50% of all Transactions would have to be noted in two chains. Unless I understand this proposal wrong. |
|
|
|
I'm basically not a big fan of this Idea. And Peta is really a bad example. But if you really want to do it, consider something: Next to nobody will see this sticker and remember to visit bitcoinme.com the next time he is on a browser. Because of the Slogan "Chasing Paper". Make a sticker with a few key words that immediately spark interest. And include a QR-Code that people can scan with their phone and get to your site. It's 2013. Here is one:  |
|
|
|
Vermutlich wollen sie ihn kopieren.
Lol, und damit das Seedersche Produzentzennetzwerk auch gleich loslegen kann haben sie die Fotos auch gleich ins Netz gestellt? Stimmt, warum ASICS kaufen und am Zoll Mehrwertsteuer abdrücken. Machen wir doch eine Retroshare Projektgruppe und entwickeln unser eigenen ASIC. Steuerfrei und so...  |
|
|
|
As a slight tweak on the pay for space rule, what about making it exponential.
When difficulty is updated, update the max block size for the next period based on the total fees for the previous period.
...
I don't think making the Blocksize a function of a fixed BTC fee amount would be a good Idea. 1. We can impossible know how much 50 BTC will be at some point. This could mean (unlikely, but still) at some point that you would have to pay 1000st of Dollars to get a Transaction processed. 2. This directly contradicts that lost coins are not a problem. 3. Lets look at the 50 BTC total reward example. That would mean at some point that each Year 6.75% of all BTC to ever exist would have to be spend as fees. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, this is really surprising.
Interesting to see if / how much of their employees will take the offer.
|
|
|
|
And, if price dropped, the people's interest (and thus transaction volume) will decrease, then the system will become good again
...and doomed to stagnation. No more innovation would occur, no more moderately sized and up businesses would start accepting bitcoins, and the businesses that do accept it would phase it out over time. Interest in bitcoin would drop, and it would be declared a failure. Because of that stigma, businesses would become even more hesitant about accepting crypocurrency in general than they already are, and it would stay that way until either something radically different from bitcoin was created or several generations passed. Later on, people would look back in awe about how Bitcoin was far ahead of its time and wonder what happened. That is our worst-case scenario, and it's more likely than you might think. +1 Exactly this is what I'm (and I think most are) worrying about. It's not about having free transactions (as some seem to think). |
|
|
|
Ah I see, you were referencing the "if it won't be profitable for miners to include free transactions" part. The problem is, having larger blocks means validating more transactions, and that still costs cpu power/money, so in the end if it is a zero sum game, including free transactions definitely won't be worth it.
No, I only see miner provability not as an argument. For both sites. More transaction fees mean a securer network, though. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable.
I don't necessarily agree. It's obvious if the state of bitcoin remains like it is now, when the reward drops to zero security by mining will drop ridiculously low. There are only two ways to make it work, either increase the fees or increase the number of transactions (with fees) per block. There are currently about 0.5 btc of transaction fees per block, so if the transaction rate would increase 20-fold that would take care of things. You probably didn't understand what I mean. Even if the reward on one Block would be 100 BTC (extreme example) thanks to fees. As soon as you can buy plug and play mining equipment for low cost (jalapeño) is available to direct buy, people will buy this things until mining will barely be providable again. |
|
|
|
|
As soon as I can buy a sports-car with my Bitcoins blocksize wont matter anymore.
But until then...
|
|
|
|
And let's not forget that miners are the ones setting the required fees. If it's not profitable for them to include free transactions, they just won't.
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable. No matter how high the fees are. Simply due to the fact that as long as you can make money with mining there will always be new Hashpower added until it reaches a equilibrium, where it won't be providable any more to buy mining equipment. As soon as direct buyable Mining equipment is available this will go very fast. The free marked dictates this. The amount of money made by mining will only set how much money is invested to secure the network. Mining is (soon) a near zero sum game. |
|
|
|
|
Danke yossarian.
Ich hätte das sonst übersehen. Endlich etwas Spielgeld zum ausprobieren.
(Jetzt müsste ich nur noch wissen, was ich damit tun kann)
|
|
|
|
How about not vandalising your neighbourhood?  That's even better. Not Vanadalize your neighbourhood BTCBitcoinme.com |
|
|
|
Paper=Fiat Money
I couldn't think of a better way to succinctly put it. Any suggestions?
How about "Honest Money - Bitcoin" |
|
|
|
I'm a 17 year old girl with huge bazongas.
Pics or it didn't happen. |
|
|
|
Self adjusting algorithm like difficult. We don't know what the future brings (hardware and demand wise) changing it again might be even harder, so a solution that possibly fixed this once and for all.
Difficulty adjustment is to make hashing competitive. If you allow for bandwidth adjustment you make that competitive as well. All adjustment methods are exploitable. Do you want people to compete on bandwidth? Well not necessarily. Pools will always have to run full nodes. The decision which way to support could be made with on which pool you mine. Also a calibration could be applied to the max Blocksize. Like: All 2048 Blocks, new max. Blocksize. Target: Average Blocksize of the largest 1024 Blocks = 80% of max Blocksize. Max Blocksize increases or decreases by max 20%. Therefore over 50% of all miners would need to produce constant Blocks at least at 80% the max Blocksize for it to increase. Ensuring Transaction space is always scarce and not enough for all transactions during peak times. This is only a quick Idea. Please don't pick on the details. |
|
|
|
Wrong on all counts. Its in the miners' best interests to NOT raise the limit since the limit is what drives fees.
That's only true to a certain point. Every BTC User has a point where he isn't willing to pay even more fees to get a transaction processed. Once this point is reached it will be more providable to allow more transactions. Also mining will at some point (very soon) become a zero sum game. As long as mining is profitable additional Hash power will be added until it equals out. The total amount of money made with each Block only specifies how much money will be spend to secure the network. That's just how a free marked works. |
|
|
|
|
Quickly looked over it.
That's pretty heavy stuff.
I might do it if you spend at least 2 BTC. But not before Sunday and only if I'm bored.
|
|
|
|
|
r9RpJFpD6vkKhgHhrRjkgofSbNsE1oYFZ1
|
|
|
|
Die Billiarden sind ja ganz lustig, wir haben aber auch ein Vermögen von 4Billionen Euro, das sind 0,4Billiarden cent zu verwalten. BTC ist in seiner jetzigen Form kaum in der Lage den Euro zu ersetzen.
Natürlich kann man alles ändern, man kann auch den Euro ändern oder das Bankenwesen. Eine Argumentation drauf aufzubauen, das man wenn Probleme auftreten einfach was ändert ist idiotisch. Es ist unumgänglich etwas zu ändern wenn es ein Problem gibt. Aber genau das ist es ja, was im Vorfeld erörtert werden muss, weil es hinterher nicht mehr möglich ist.
Wenn du die Anzahl an Stellen änderts, änderts du den Wert, weil es jetzt mehr Stückelungen gibt. Das würde schlagartig alle die BTC gehortet haben reicher machen. Wie willst du das den machen? Jeder darf nur xxBTC halten? Wer sollte den diese Änderung anstossen? Es gibt nur eine Gemeinschaft an User und bei besagter Wertänderung wird es tendenziell eher wenige Gewinner und viele Verlierer geben. Wie wollen die Gewinner da die Mehrheit stellen? Meinst du das Zockerpotential der Nutzer reicht dazu aus?
Aber das ist eben nur eines der Probleme welches BTC als Sparbuch deklassieren, es gibt da huntert bessere Optionen. BTC hat andere Qualitäten.
Stimme ich mal voll und ganz zu. Ich sehe es nicht passieren, das BTC eine Währung ersetzt. Das große Potential von BTC sehe ich tatsächlich in 2 Bereichen: 1. (Wirklich-) Neutrales Geld. BTC können von jedem genutzt werden um Überweisungen International durchzuführen. Ohne das man Konten einfrieren kann. Das kann sehr viele positive Effekte haben. Siehe Begründung Wordpress für die Bitcoin Akzeptanz. 2. Privates Elektronisches Geld. Man hat ein Recht auf Privatsphäre(Nicht unbedingt Anonymität), auch beim Kauf von Dingen. Beispiel dem Wahrscheinlich jeder zustimmt: Junge Frau aus einer hoch religiösen Familie die einen Schwangerschaftstest braucht. BTC ermöglicht den (digitalen) Kauf solcher Dinge ohne das zusätzliche Informationen neben dem eigentlichen Geldtransfer vermerkt werden. Beides war bisher mit Bargeld möglich, doch in einer mehr und mehr digitalen Welt brauch man auch digitales Bargeld. Und da sehe ich die wahre Stärke von BTC und den Grund warum es so etwas wie BTC geben muss. Sorry, jetzt ist der Thread komplett OT gegangen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
