But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize) Why? You've had it pointed out to you that miners can choose what they want to charge to accept transactions, whatever the block size. |
|
|
|
Oh, they'll pay if doing nothing wrong can still get you in trouble. For an extreme example, try being gay in a country where that's illegal and/or will lead to death threats if known.
If you live in a country like that and you think BLACKMAIL is the problem, then I really can't help you. That's so dumb, I can't formulate a response. How about a country where what you do in your free time can get you kicked out of your job, because some things are considered crimes although there's no victim? |
|
|
|
Someone who's done nothing wrong won't pay, so the threat is a waste of energy or letting a wrong doer who's NOT on the hook stay off the hook and pay for his (or her) misdeeds in a different way that possibly causes less collateral damage.
Oh, they'll pay if doing nothing wrong can still get you in trouble. For an extreme example, try being gay in a country where that's illegal and/or will lead to death threats if known. |
|
|
|
|
Well, this is even more off-topic than usual! Re: why blackmail is objectionable:
As a blackmailer, you're either threatening to release damaging information about someone who's done nothing wrong, or offering to let a wrongdoer off the hook in exchange for money. Neither seems exactly proper.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi's vision originally was that eventually block subsidies and fees would likely not cover the costs of mining, but that institutions with an interest in keeping the network secure would spend funds to secure it. Even so, 10% of market cap yearly seems like an unreasonable cost. The end user must pay that in the end.
if bitcoin becomes the new reference standard (in 20 years+) there will be enough incentive to secure the network even if return is negative. That still means resources expended. Someone must pay for it, and I doubt it's going to be an altruistic cabal of billionaire philantrophists redistributing their wealth by subsidizing blockchain security just for the hell of it. I wonder, how does 10% costs over market cap compare to the banking industry? |
|
|
|
1) Bitcoin block rewards will eventually become infinitesimal, at that point transaction fees will be the only rewards miners get. Right now transaction fees are around 0.1-0.5 BTC per block, which is nowhere near enough funding to secure the network by itself. We need transaction fees to go up, and the only thing that will force them up is the blocksize limit. Increasing block size might cause fundamental damage to Bitcoin due to this.
2) Currently average block size is less than 0.4 mb now that the stress test bullshit is over. Gonna be a long time until we even hit the 1 mb limit.
[Snip chart, you've seen it already...]
3) Once we hit the 1 mb limit free and nearly no fee transactions will be forced off chain. There is TONS of dust, spam, and gambling that can be done off chain. Over half of all Bitcoin transactions right now are basically dusty junk. This will make plenty of room for legitimate transactions.
4) Once almost all the junk is forced off chain the rise in fees will be very gradual, and it will take a long time for the fees to become an issue for people. In any case the blockchain will function perfectly fine regardless of transaction data volume, fees will simply rise.
If fees ever do get too crazy I'd support a block size limit increase too, but I don't expect that to happen for over a decade if ever.
5) Hard fork of Bitcoin is dangerous and can result in mass confusion, double spends, and loss of Bitcoins. It will damage the value of Bitcoin at least temporarily.
6) We need to maintain a group of scientists which reach a consensus, not just centralize Bitcoin under a couple of developers.
Feel free to add if I missed any.
1: A limited block size is not the only thing that can force fees up. Miners can choose to not process 0-fee transactions, and likely would if they find rewards aren't sufficient to cover their costs. That's the whole idea, isn't it? Miners choose what fees they require and the market sorts it out. The block size limit was put in to prevent bloating of the blockchain itself. Setting a hard limit on transactions per second was not the goal. 2: From that chart, and the longer-term version of it, it looks like we'll probably hit 1 MB some time in 2016, assuming the rate of growth remains the same. 4: I'll address this more generally below 5: Hard fork isn't great, I think we can agree on that. Consensus would be better if it can be found. 6: The problem is, there's no consensus on design goals: How many transactions per second should Bitcoin support? Should it be a backbone for serious financial industry or a payment network for Joe Q. Public? Lacking a common vision on that, it's no wonder there's difficulty agreeing on engineering solutions. I'd recommend reading these posts by DeathAndTaxes and jl2012: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0 - DeathAndTaxes :"Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea, if you are a bank." https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1054482.0 - jl2012: "What is the optimal block size" The more salient points: -currently the network supports about 2.3 TPS. 7TPS average is an estimate based on every transaction being the smallest possible size, which doesn't happen in real life. -If you wanted Bitcoin to grow, say, to half the size of PayPal, you'd need it to handle about 70 TPS. -Given we're likely to hit or get close to the 1 mb ceiling within a year or so, and given you really want to have a solution that's announced well in advance and tested thoroughly, it seems time to start doing something. Another point that relates to miner costs is that currently blockchain maintenance costs (as per DeathAndTaxes) roughly 10% of the Bitcoin market cap, each year. Maintaining that cost does not seem like a good goal. The question is: How secure does the network need to be? Currently, looking at the amount of money spent securing it vs. the valuation of the currency, it seems pretty damn secure - but is there any reason to assume we're at an optimal point? Why should we try to keep miner profitability up if the result is decreased cost-efficiency? Efficiency is supposed to be a main marketing point for Bitcoin, right? Satoshi's vision originally was that eventually block subsidies and fees would likely not cover the costs of mining, but that institutions with an interest in keeping the network secure would spend funds to secure it. Even so, 10% of market cap yearly seems like an unreasonable cost. The end user must pay that in the end. |
|
|
|
Nodes, not miners. (?)
From what I read, the threshold is 75% of the previous 1000 blocks mined by XT-compatible miners, but in January 2016 at the earliest |
|
|
|
The possible complication is if the community gets stuck in a half-way state, with almost equal mining power on each side. Then there may be two blockchains, lots of orphaned blocks and branches, etc..
You don't want to know about that possibility; just pray that it does not happen, and, if it does, just stop issuing transaction until the impasse gets resolved as above. Even after the critical block, all the unspent coins that were created before that block will remain there, no matter what happens.
It was my understanding the XT fork will only take place if 75% of hashpower supports it. I suppose miners could change their minds after the fact, but otherwise a "half-way state" will not result in a fork. |
|
|
|
i mean, even though it would happen, i still would not let the blockchain to increase the size which is unneeded. that would harm newbies to use the full node wallet. doubling the block size limit would ever encourage the spammers to spam in the blockchain network if the active users did not increase. that's shit-awful with those junk transactions.
we need a sustainable currency to help bitcoin mingle with the world , just like a currency joining to the IMF.
Honestly, I think Joe and Jill Average running full nodes is a pipe dream, whatever we do with the block size: -If you increase the block size indefinitely, the storage and bandwidth requirements will become high enough to deter casual users. -If you don't increase the block size but increase fees instead, the fees will become high enough to push casual users off the blockchain, to use payment processors etc. instead. This leaves them with no reason to run a full node even if they technically could. -either way, I don't see many apart from a hard core of enthusiasts wanting to run a node. |
|
|
|
webshites
Spending too much time here, Mr. Stolfi? The more unfortunate habits of the local fauna seem to be rubbing off on you... |
|
|
|
No fiat hit bitstamp today
Based on orderbook? Or did I miss something? |
|
|
|
but it doesn't mean it would double every year, unless the number active wallet grew explicitly fast, it would be impossible to double the block size per year. plus, i am tired to see most of the junk transactions in the blockchain.
Not every year, no. Next year, though? I don't think you can rely on that not happening. |
|
|
|
Note that alot of the spike recently was a stress test, it just dropped back down to where it should be under 0.4 mb. Still growing at a good clip but will be years if you extrapolate it not including the spam attack/stress test.
Sure. Disregarding the spike, even in the chart you posted, you can see the average block size has nearly doubled in one year. If that continues, we'll hit 0.8mb per block in a year or so, and that's assuming a steady growth rate. A year or so to start hitting the 1 mb ceiling seems like a safe estimate if you want to figure out what to do about it before you find out experimentally, like it or not. |
|
|
|
It seems like good news to me. An option has been put out there and people are free to select or reject with a year or so to consider a transition.
So now we get a year of trolling and catfights like you've never seen before. |
|
|
|
Why are you putting on the helmet? Would it not be more visible on a t-shirt or something..?
There's a good point here - anything facing front or rear is much less likely to get motion blur in a picture than if it were facing sideways. |
|
|
|
Well what we can do is, since i have already put on to https://6282.jua.comI will do a weekly update on the interests earned, with print screen. So at least this will help the community on this Cheers Won't help at all. If it's a scam, they'll pay interest and even let you withdraw, until one day they vanish with all their victims money. Is there any reason to think it's not a scam? |
|
|
|
Any determined troll will just bypass or pay to get around restrictions so again all it does is punish the innocent who just want to post/contribute.
I think, for me, the irony of knowing NLC would have to have bought and used BTC to spam his doom graphs would go a long way to making up for any shortcomings in the measure... |
|
|
|
What exactly was he banned for? I don't remember any instances of him making a bunch of shit posts, nor of him causing any real kind of trouble, although it is possible that he would frequent different sections then that I frequent.
I'm guessing it had to do with how NLC is a textbook troll, pretty much solely posting to get a rise out of people. I guess by the time he moved on to calling people pedophiles etc. even the moderators' patience wore too thin. I'm not sure he was actually banned before the spam epidemic started, it was my impression he caught on to being ignored by so many people and started farming alts. Maybe someone who kept better track of things can comment on that. |
|
|
|
Is the exhange rate for CNY-USD they are using on BitcoinWisdom wrong or is China really more than $5 above Bitfinex?
Okcoin is at 1693 CNY/BTC, which at the current rate of 6.43 CNY/USD comes to 263.3 USD. Maybe Bitcoinwisdom hasn't caught on that the Yuan has been devalued twice in two days. Edit: What are you referring to actually? Bitcoinwisdom is showing Huobi's price as 263 USD |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
