this is the bottom  |
|
|
|
|
really liking how we poked past the weekly high, i think we're just about ready to jump to 250+ , give it a week or two
|
|
|
|
 I, want bigger blooooocks! |
|
|
|
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume. small blocks = death of bitcoin. large volume of TX, or none, take your pick. |
|
|
|
you get a Starbucks gift card, but you don't want coffee you want a more potent drug?
NO PROBLEM!
liquidate your Starbucks gift card for bitcoin and buy le durg!
Hmm... not sure what to make of that. Anyway - I think this is all now rather OT so perhaps get back to bashing XT.  its sorta on topic some poeple say bitcoin isn't useful for low value transactions, and at the same time they are saying low value tx are clogging up the blocks. somehow low value TX using bitcoin are both not useful and popular? i could ONE DAY see bitcoin being use for high value TX ( country A making a deal with country B ) but we arnt there yet, and we'll never get there if we fuck with its current usefulness ( low value TX at little to no cost ) |
|
|
|
People that keep on saying they want to buy coffees for BTC can really only be people who are sitting on a large stash of BTC that they got for very little (say 5 USD or less).
what about poeple that sell drugs for BTC? they like coffee, they have bitcoins, they would like some coffee for their bitcoins.  |
|
|
|
I have my virtex account setup
I can send 2000$ for 7.5$ so 0.3% fee
then i buy le bitcoins for 0.8% fee
so i encounter ~1% fees
Not bad.
How much fees do you think Starbucks is charged for credit card purchases? (hint - less than 1%) Advantage for Starbucks to accept Bitcoin then? None. oh idk about that some stores will not allow me to use my CC unless i buy 15$ or more of stuff. but the use case I illustrated Starbucks isn't included with le bitcoins and bitcoin users get 20-40% off at Starbucks you get a Starbucks gift card, but you don't want coffee you want a more potent drug? NO PROBLEM! liquidate your Starbucks gift card for bitcoin and buy le durg! the person that buys the Starbucks gift card is happy he got a discount the person that sells the Starbucks gift card is happy he got BTC fast |
|
|
|
You really don't. People can buy BTC for dollars and then buy coffee.
You are kidding aren't you? So I pay a % in order to by BTC for dollars then I buy a coffee making my coffee actually more expensive (and it took me the time to first change my dollars into BTC which I could have instead just used to by my coffee saving me that wasted time). Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does). And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins). Why on earth would anyone do that? It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles. circle makes it pretty easy. but forget that for a second I have my virtex account setup I can send 2000$ for 7.5$ so 0.3% fee then i buy le bitcoins for 0.8% fee so i encounter ~1% fees Not bad. since i'm all setup its actually very easy. now why would i do this??? well to get 20-40% more value out of my dollar ofcoures by buying gift cards on https://cardforcoin.com/ at 20-40% discount  ... i gotta start doing this. |
|
|
|
I do not understand what he means by "hiring" Bitcoin not "using" Bitcoin. I am not a native speaker and always has understood "hiring" as paying someone to do something. Cannot see how you can "hire Bitcoin" ...
"whos willing to pay to use bitcoin." |
|
|
|
I, want bigger blooooooks! |
|
|
|
Bitcoin-NG debuts Perhaps the most newsworthy event of the day came during the "Testing, Simulation and Modeling" section of the day's content when Cornell computer science post-grad Ittay Eyal presented Bitcoin-NG, a new proposed solution to scaling the bitcoin network.
Developed by Adem Efe Gencer, Emin Gün Sirer and Robbert Van Renesse, Bitcoin-NG seeks lower latency, higher throughput and better security on the bitcoin network by proposing changes to the bitcoin mining process.
The proposal recommends breaking up the process by which miners are provided both a reward for finding a "nonce", the arbitrary number that decides who wins the 25 BTC reward distributed every 10 minutes, and the process by which those winning miners determine the transactions added to the blockchain.
Bitcoin-NG would create two types of blocks: key blocks, which contain no content but elect a "leader"; and microblocks, which would contain only transaction content.
Bitcoin-NG
"Only the leader can generate the private blocks," Eyal explained. "The interval between the key blocks would be 10 minutes, while 'microblocks' come in every 10 seconds."
Under the system, keyblocks would be given the rewards from the mining block, while 40% of fees would go back to the leader and 60% to those who submit microblocks.
The proposal is still in its early stages and no white paper has yet been released. that's what i'm talking about! more crazy idea like this, that's the BIPs we need. |
|
|
|
I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:
Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well. Yes, and that is sort of my point. You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking. I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking. At the cost of sacrificing decentralization. This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa. Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking. We agree on the primary point. So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread. Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency? Right Exactly! the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue. the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load" or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible. The min requirement is simple: being able to run a node over an anonymous low-bandwidth connection I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution. By low bandwidth you mean a 56K external modem? You never answered my questions about how do you plan to make the protocol measure the "cost" of running a node btw. he wants full node to run behind TOR which is retardedly slow, he's bonkers. go make a shit coin brg444, we want to make a really good digital currency not enable childporn. |
|
|
|
I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:
Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well. Yes, and that is sort of my point. You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking. I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking. At the cost of sacrificing decentralization. This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa. Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking. We agree on the primary point. So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread. Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency? Right Exactly! the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue. the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load" or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible. The min requirement is simple: being able to run a node over an anonymous low-bandwidth connection I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution. ya tell that to kim dom |
|
|
|
I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:
Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well. Yes, and that is sort of my point. You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking. I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking. At the cost of sacrificing decentralization. This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa. Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking. We agree on the primary point. So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread. Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency? Right Exactly! the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue. the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load" or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible. |
|
|
|
I am holding too, but for me, I'm in a pretty bad financial situation right now, there might come a time in the very near future where I would have to sell all my bitcoins, however little I may have.
that sucks dude  hopefully you can solve your problems. personally i would rather sell my car before i sell my Coins  who needs a car when BTC magically teleport across the globe in seconds, right? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is new technological advancement. Created out of hate, its purpose to destroy and liberate. Where bitcoin comes from and why it was created is besides the point; the point is that these units have the right properties to be used as money Scarce, Durable, Portable, Divisible, Impossible to counterfeit, Fungible... Their utility is a weapon, with this weapon humanity can unite under one banner and declare their independence once and for all.  |
|
|
|
2MB? please slow down! 1,1 MB first and then more testing... not sure if your being sarcastic, but i'll run with it. That's my feeling as well, why have these sudden doubling of the limit? and at some fixed schedule for each massive jump. why not simply increase it slowly like 0.1MB a month, or better yet dynamically adjust it according to demand, up to a hard limit ( to prevent node centralization ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
