That is a flawed understanding of the fee rules. High priority txs have no required fee, none. As in 0 satsohis. This applies regardless if a block is 1MB in size.
The min mandatory fees FOR LOW PRIORITY TXS are designed as a denial of service prevention mechanism. They are only enforced at the client level. Even if miners follow those they have absolutely no effect on high priority txs.
I don't think this is correct. Under the Satoshi client's fee rules (which as I understand are enforced by most, but certainly not all, miners), high priority transactions with no fees will only be included in the first 27 kB of a block (this limit can be changed with the blockprioritysize option). Once the block hits this limit, only fee-paying transactions will be included, regardless of priority. Lastly the rules aren't enforced at the protocol level. Miners an build any valid block they want by using custom bitcoind. This is hardly beyond the capabilities of a major pool (all are using custom nodes already). It is possible to have a block contain NOTHING but no fee txs (as in ~2,400 of them) and the block is still valid.
True, but hardly relevant unless a significant fraction of miners are using non-standard fee rules. A few do (which is the only reason transactions paying insufficient fees are ever confirmed at all), but I'm pretty sure most do not. |
|
|
|
Maybe I should change the title of this thread... you are addressing something that I feel is quite off-topic. I just wanted to have a discussion over what dynamics changed after Nov. 3, 2013 -- not a general discussion about transaction fees and confirmation times.
So far the hypotheses are that Elgius changed how they prioritize transactions based on address reuse and that we hit recently hit a threshold of transactions broadcast per day (due to the growing adoption of Bitcoin).
This is what I'm talking about. I didn't bother mentioning it because it's already been explained several times in this thread. I was merely elaborating on why, with a sufficiently large number of transactions, many of those transactions will not get into a block, even though the block size is nowhere near the limit and the transactions pay the minimum required fee. The minimum fee is not sufficient if a block is more than a quarter full. If nobody ever pays more than the minimum fee, blocks will never be more than a quarter full, leading people to ask "why is there a huge backlog of fee-paying transactions when the blocks are nowhere near full?" And now you know. And knowing is half the battle. |
|
|
|
// Free transaction area
if (nNewBlockSize < 27000)
nMinFee = 0;
By default the client reserves 27kb for free high priority transactions. /** The maximum allowed size for a serialized block, in bytes (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;
/** The maximum size for mined blocks */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/2;
// Raise the price as the block approaches full
if (nBlockSize != 1 && nNewBlockSize >= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN/2)
{
if (nNewBlockSize >= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN)
return MAX_MONEY;
nMinFee *= MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN / (MAX_BLOCK_SIZE_GEN - nNewBlockSize);
}
Also it will raise the minFee once blocksize becomes larger than 250kb. Of course miners can change this. ^^ This. Miners will not mine large blocks unless you pay more than double the normal transaction fee. Much more than double, if you want very large blocks. People have often asked, "will paying a larger transaction fee really lead to faster confirmation times?" and the answer is now yes. Will not paying a fee (even where free transactions are "allowed") lead to longer confirmation times? Also yes. People, pay the fucking transaction fees. If your transaction is taking a long time to confirm and you paid no fee, or only the minimum required fee, it's your own damn fault. |
|
|
|
|
There is absolutely no reason for Bitcoin-Qt to ever access your floppy drive unless you explicitly tell it to (eg, save a wallet backup to a floppy disk). The only thing I can think of is that the large memory and/or hard disk usage might be screwing with Windows' disk cache management or something.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin was described as an "ANONYMOUS DECENTRALIZED CURRENCY."
Nobody ever said Bitcoin was anonymous. If anyone did, they're a damn liar. Go find whoever said this and punch that lying son of a bitch in the face. |
|
|
|
Saying that a ball weight 10 pounds on earth and 2 pounds on the moon is a misleading vulgarization. It begs the question: what is a pound, then? The truth is that a pound is a unit of mass and it does not depend on the gravitational field. The gravitational force, expressed in newtons, does depend on it, not the mass.
Actually, a pound is both a unit of mass and of force. That's why acceleration is a dimensionless quantity under the U.S. system (since it's force divided by mass, it is measured in pounds per pound, and so the pounds cancel out), which is how U.S. rocket scientists can get away with measuring specific impulse in seconds instead of feet per second. |
|
|
|
|
Plus500 is a legitimate trading platform, and the prices look about right. The reason the price movement looks batshit insane is because your mother's position is, in fact, batshit insane. What she has spent her money on is, basically, an extremely leveraged long position in the Bitcoin/USD currency pair (which is itself an extremely volatile financial instrument). What this means is that if Bitcoin (a digital currency, in case you don't already know) increases in value relative to the U.S. Dollar, your mother will make a tonne of money. Conversely, if Bitcoin decreases in value relative to the U.S. Dollar, she will lose everything. I cannot fathom why anyone would buy such a risky investment without even knowing what Bitcoin is or what a CFD is.
Anyway, the biggest question at this point is: should your mother close the position now and take the money, or wait until the 31st? Waiting might result in even more astounding gains, or it might result in losing it all. I'd have to ask why she thought it was a good idea in the first place. If she understands that there's a large risk of losing her money and is okay with that, then by all means wait and see what happens. Otherwise, my advice is: get out now.
|
|
|
|
I told her to buy her own fucking bitcoin, or better yet buy bitchcoin.  But if she buys it herself, it obviously won't be a fucking bitcoin, will it now? |
|
|
|
As for those that use "hyperbolic" as I've heard, it's nonsense when talking about stocks (or actually any real-life situation) : it would imply that the value of the stock becomes infinite, in a finite timeframe (singularity):
Actually, it doesn't imply that at all. All it implies is that the value of the counter currency will drop to zero, which is certainly not nonsense when you're talking about fiat currency. |
|
|
|
He clearly doesn't understand the code, then. MAX_MONEY is only used as a sanity check to prevent "impossible" transactions and integer overflows (any transaction sending more than MAX_MONEY is invalid, regardless of all other factors). The actual limit is enforced in this function in main.cpp: int64 static GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 210000 blocks, which will occur approximately every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
} The result of this code is the first 210,000 blocks are worth BTC50 each, the next 210,000 blocks are worth BTC25 each, and so on (any block created with a greater value (eg, by modified or faulty mining software) will be rejected as invalid by all other nodes). This is a convergent infinite series with a limit of BTC21,000,000. However, due to rounding errors, the series is actually finite, and reaches a limit of BTC20,999,999.97690000 after 6,930,000 blocks. |
|
|
|
|
So? It was mined only a few seconds after the previous one. What do you expect?
|
|
|
|
Bin nie zufrieden.
Es gibt kein Ziel.
Gibt kein Genug.
Ist nie zuviel.
All die anderen,
Haben so wenig...
Ich brauche mehr! 
|
|
|
|
|
China is bearish... on U.S. dollars. Be prepared.
|
|
|
|
|
He would owe capital gains tax on the difference between the present value of the coins and the value of them at the time he obtained them (exactly the same as if he had sold the coins and bought the house with the proceeds). This tax must be paid to the country in which he bought the house, and, quite possibly, also to the U.S. If that's the case, he may want to ditch his U.S. citizenship before he buys.
Either way, he definitely needs to hire a smarter lawyer.
|
|
|
|
drugs
Bitcoin doesn't do drugs; people do drugs.  |
|
|
|
So, 1.2 million $ worth of bit coins go missing (or more the way the value is going up), and its not going to be reported to the police?
Correction: it's not going to be reported to the police by TradeFortress. Whether his depositors report it to the police remains to be seen. I urge everyone who has lost money in this scheme to report it to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. |
|
|
|
This is a really truly bizarre ruling ... it might make Bitcoin a preferred settlement for legal disputes (involving bitcoins), i.e legal tender.
It's not bizarre at all. The preferred settlement for a legal dispute over property (including bitcoins) is for the property in dispute to be delivered to its rightful owner. If the contract stipulates payment in bitcoins, then those bitcoins are the legal property of the payee, and the court can and will order the debtor to hand them over. Only if that fails will the court award damages in legal tender. |
|
|
|
Since when does the tax service get copies of your bank statements?
Since always. Where'd you get the idea that they don't? |
|
|
|
Once the transaction that sends 1 BTC to 1HqMUG2gf8J1ZUAgj4kcNRaMqqXLFnNRCf confirms, then the transaction sending 5.384 to 1E67jR6bvbkcHEMhmDPqJcEaiTsscGtX7b will confirm.
Not for a while it won't. The transaction fee is only BTC0.0001, but a fee of BTC0.0002 is required. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
