You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.
I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify. As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today. However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools. On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs? That statement is wrong. Hashing power has nothing to do, with the amount of transactions in a block. An empty block takes the same amount of hashing power, a full block does. I think block reward halving will reduce hashing power, since less efficient ASICs will not be profitable anymore and will shut down. The last question, I can not really answer. I think, someone with more knowledge than me, could make a calculation about that. My guess is, that the ASICs win, but that is just a guess. This is correct, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. Since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do instead. GPU's and CPU's will never be able to mine Bitcoin profitably again, even outdated ASIC's are far more efficient. There are currently hundreds of thousands of workers running on the Bitcoin network, much more then mere thousands, so ASIC's do and will indeed always win. No, this is wrong on several points. Miners absolutely run full nodes. If you are only hashing and pointing it to a pool you are not a miner. Blocksize will necessarily increase mining centralization for reasons repeatedly stated which I won't bother explaining again because you have an irritating tendency not to be honest in your debates anyway. I am actually a miner myself, and the vast majority of miners most certainly do not run full nodes. I run full nodes at home but not for the purpose of mining. I recently even calculated that it would require a minimum of at least five million dollars to setup a mining operation that would be able to feasibly solo mine, which is what mining with a full node implies. According to your logic only the pool operators are the "true" miners then, I can accept that definition. It does not change the fact however that the vast majority of mining power today is under the control of people that do not rely on their own full nodes for mining and point their hashing power towards pools instead. Therefore it is accurate that increasing the blocksize would not effect the majority of the hashing power whatsoever because they do not run full nodes themselves. Considering the cost of solo mining it would be silly to think that this should be a measure of decentralization, since we have departed from that reality in Bitcoin mining many years ago already. Again, if you don't solo mine and validate transactions yourself you are not a miner. Hashing and mining are two different things. Also solo miners are slowly but surely taking over the network:  So no, you are wrong on all points, again. where are you getting this data looking https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC the first 90% of hashing power seems to be coming from pools and VeritasSapere has a really good point 1 mavise solo miner isnt nearly as good as 1000 pooled miners, as far as mining decentralization gose i mean come on, you make up the definition of a miner to exclude what 90% of the hashing power is currently( workers free to join whatever pool they choose ) furthermore, miners do not pool together because running a full node is costly, FFS poeple run full nodes for fun! so, increasing the blocksize would not lead to increased mining centralization whatsoever. deal with it. |
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland.
I see we had a little action last night but we seem to be coming back to $230 pretty consistently lately.
Must be driving the daytraders crazy. Long-term holders yawn.
What is actually our (long term hodling cult, inc.) target? 10 000? 100 000?? 1 000 000??? 32K |
|
|
|
There is a reason why we cannot fit millions of micro/nano transactions on the blockchain.
What is this reason? makes for a lot of communications between nodes makes blocks full increases size of the blockchain full nodes bla bla bla |
|
|
|
These are all interesting news, I am just afraid that all of these banks will never adopt Bitcoin. Instead, they will develop their own centralized blockchain system where they will be the only rulers as they think they should be. They are not ready to lay down all of their power and do business in decentralized and very open way. This is just not in their DNA. maybe you should read the article again? |
|
|
|
little machines autonomously making money online, is this the beginnings of skynet?  Buy 21 bitcoins or die! |
|
|
|
Is this company just an elaborate troll? Srs question  What's even dumber is that this product is built specifically for developers. Developers know you could build one of these easily for $100- unless this is some miracle terahash chip, that is. well it comes with 128GB which alone cost ~100$ then the mining chip and stuff i guess 400$ is a "fair price" i mean it's like a fancy Hardware wallet you can program, plus it a full node, plus it to makes some Bitcents constantly. I don't hate it. $70 for a 128GB SD. Maybe you're thinking in loonies...  The mining chip is better than bitmain s5, worse than bitmain s7, but still so tiny as to be pretty inconsequential. I certainly hope they, (or whomever might buy these things) devise some kind of compelling use case. I sincerely hope that happens. I'm underwhelmed so far... Not even a fancy industrial design vanity case? All this IoT hype seems less likely to happen vs companies who want to use the blockchain now (and pay fees), cough, fidelity, but can't/won't due to lack of clarity on the move past 2.7tps. yes loonies... the mining chip will pop out ~1cent per hour which might pay for its energy usage ( lol MAYBE! ) at which point you have a full node that pays for itself ya the usefulness is kinda ...meh... i wonder how programmable they are, looking quickly its main use seems be to serve up webpages to "sells digital content" kinda weird. these little machines autonomously make money online, magically! This is the beginnings of skynet? Buy 21 bitcoins or die! |
|
|
|
A wobbly Raspberry Pi? Can someone explain to me why this isn't the dead end I think it is? I don't understand it either. Raspberri pi: $38 63 GH/s antminer U3: $20 64GB SD card: $20 21 microcomputer: $400???For everything else, there's Mastercard TMIs this company just an elaborate troll? Srs question What's even dumber is that this product is built specifically for developers. Developers know you could build one of these easily for $100- unless this is some miracle terahash chip, that is. well it comes with 128GB which alone cost ~100$ then the mining chip and stuff i guess 400$ is a "fair price" i mean it's like a fancy Hardware wallet you can program, plus it a full node, plus it to makes some Bitcents constantly. I don't hate it. |
|
|
|
I am concerned that there is an allegation that Australian banks are deliberately choking small businesses, while setting themselves up to offer the same services, banksters! F'ing banksters... |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm...   100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. Try again noob. the specifics of BIP100 or BIP8MB are irrelevant point is minners want bigger blocks. miners have a strong incentive to do what they think is best for bitcoin. a minority in devs, miners and users feel it's not a good idea to increase block size. you are very much in the minority. and <100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000 Miners incentives are NOT aligned with users and therefore what miners want is irrelevant. Moreover, it is a majority of devs that are against any significant or irresponsible block size increase and the opinion of users not running a full node is exactly worthless. Why resort to lies and deception Adam? This is rather sad coming from you my arguments can't stand on there own, i need lies and deception to make them appear legit  |
|
|
|
|
furthermore, as far as syndicate global coins go, engineer generated paper wallets are very secure, redefine real-time ASICs or not, blocksize must be raised. exploiting non-reversible mixing services will be the achilles heel to 1MBters. hard-fork secure-key exchanges and visualize peer-to-peer miners are already in place, tamper-proof private-key hash rates and transition open-source transaction fees are the future of bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm... 100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. Try again noob. the specifics of BIP100 or BIP8MB are irrelevant point is minners want bigger blocks. miners have a strong incentive to do what they think is best for bitcoin. a minority in devs, miners and users feel it's not a good idea to increase block size. you are very much in the minority. and <100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000 |
|
|
|
Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem. Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace.  there is some urgency. right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee. i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles... What exactly is a "good fee?" Bitcoin provides services unavailable in any other form; there no substitute for several of its functions. But there you are, whining about paying less than a dollar for access to those miracles (which are produced at great expense). There is no "urgency." Repeating such Gavinista agitprop was for a time effective at misleading the public, but that seasonal fad is over. BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact. So keep stewing in your impotent frustrated FUD and butt-rage. The rest of us will continue to scale Bitcoin via the proper channels, based on facts instead of choreographed panic. BIP100 is at 61% hashing power. where do you get the idea that BIP000 is winning? |
|
|
|
i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed.
not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.
"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point. My background is not tech Nobody with a background in tech or basic logic will accept the surreal anti-conceptual Red Queen Interpretation that "not changing" "is changing." Anyone with a background in policy debate should know (and deeply appreciate) why the default state is status quo, not Doing Something Because Reasons. You don't get to redefine A as Not-A and expect anyone except drooling, easily excited ADHD Redditards to support you. Presumption has always been negative, and that's not going to change just because you think the limit needs to move up Right Fucking Now And Faster Please. Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem. Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace. there is some urgency. right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee.
i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles... You're lying I can send a tx with no fee right now and it should get picked up fairly quickly. right now the traffic seems low lets do a test? post your address. |
|
|
|
i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed.
not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.
"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point. My background is not tech Nobody with a background in tech or basic logic will accept the surreal anti-conceptual Red Queen Interpretation that "not changing" "is changing." Anyone with a background in policy debate should know (and deeply appreciate) why the default state is status quo, not Doing Something Because Reasons. You don't get to redefine A as Not-A and expect anyone except drooling, easily excited ADHD Redditards to support you. Presumption has always been negative, and that's not going to change just because you think the limit needs to move up Right Fucking Now And Faster Please. Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem. Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace. there is some urgency. right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee. i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles... |
|
|
|
|
altcoins will remain a bit of a joke as long as bitcoin continues to improve itself, maybe one day when bitcoin is processing 50K TPS with a healthy distributed full node count there won't be any more major improvements to be had, but until that day comes, it's important for bitcoin to stay ahead of the curve with continued dev. right now there is this scaling problem, if an altcoin clams to solve it... bitcoin better be not far behind. also look at ETH a coin with a built in scripting language, bitcoin was originally designed to have the same capability, but was left out because there wasn't time to make damn sure it wouldn't expose bitcoin to a security risk. Maybe it would be a good idea to get this feature up and running soon? MySpace could have changed its itself to compete with facebook, but it didn't so it died. this crypto currency war thing isn't much different. If bitcoin thinks it's the biggest strongest and therefore unsinkable no matter what decisions it makes, it will most definitely suffer the same faith as the titanic.
|
|
|
|
|
in short the only good argument for not raising the block size is that it would require more bandwidth to be consumed by nodes, and in turn drop the full node count. which is a very good argument. enough to force me to agree 1MB limit is necessary. the good news this argument won't hold up for very long, as internet connectivity improves and more importantly optimizations are implemented
|
|
|
|
whats disheartening is seeing how poeple are so afraid of the tiniest changes, bitcoin development grinds to a halt.
Even if people make a hard fork to 1.5MB, it wouldn't be tiniest of changes. Stopping mining pools to run a new daemon is easy and all, but the problem is that the world wouldn't update all at once, and the whole Bitcoin "ecosystem" would have a temporary problem with the "2 blockchains". I think they can all update at once, like BitcoinXT planned to do, everyone run the new software which runs old code until some high percentage of blocks are hashing with the new version. and one time there was an emergency hard fork without any of this fancy way of updating everyone all at once and it took a few hours for the new chain to catch up. i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed. satoshi knew what that would do, and he talked about SPV clients becoming more important as time went on. not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way. "i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point. I would add that not changing is not the same and shouldn't be evaluated as a proxy for something else that isn't yet invented or otherwise ready-to-go as an alternative (ex: sidechains or LN). From what I can understand, sidechains and LN will be groundbreaking/important regardless of blocksize. I get the feeling that a lot of folks see sidechains/ln as mutually exclusive w/ XT or any other blocksize increase BIP. Related question: If you have time , what are the best two or three arguments against raising blocksize in your (or anybody else's) opinion, notwithstanding whether you agree with them? My background is not tech, and I'm positive I'm in the same boat w/ tons of folks, so some short bullet points would be helpful for us non-techies. From what I can tell, the best arguments against increasing blocksize are things like: 1) security (decreased node count), 2) unreasonable economic barriers (objections based on specific BIPs (Blacklisting argument against XT) seem less concerning b/c they're fixable and negotiable). Are there obvious solutions to the strongest arguments (whatever those are to you) that resolve the concern and still increase blocksize? heres a good link http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/36085/what-are-the-arguments-for-and-against-the-increase-of-the-block-size-limiti'll comment on them. Arguments against increasingBandwidth requirements are too much for full nodesthis is #1 argument, and is true when you talk about blocksize >8MB's without any optimizations to limit bandwidth usage for full node. I agree to delay any significant increase until optimizations implemented. Bigger blocks will destroy the market for transaction feeshas been mostly discredited. Bitcoin is not meant for every person on the planet to pay for their every cup of coffeePretty sure this idea ( bitcoin is GOLD not money ) isnt what the white paper says, and is merely an excuse to not scale bitcoin. Consensus may not be achievable, bitcoin may split down the middleweather devs push for 1MB to stay forever, or increase the block limit, this statement holds true. at this point there is a gr8er chance of splitting bitcoin if the answer is 1MB stays forever. Bitcoin is destroying viability of altcoinsAn increased Bitcoin blocksize would decrease demand for other blockchains, hurting investors of altcoins. this one's just retarded. Arguments for increasingThe transaction capacity is too low to support a global payment networkGreater blocksize will increase total transaction feesEffective blocksize will not increase over nightConsensus will be achieved before the hardfork is initiatedTechnical issues will be fixedSlower block propagation due to bigger blocks will be mitigated by Header-first synchronization, etc. |
|
|
|
This is yet to be seen (which I am not really optimistic to be honest), otherwise expect a more aggressive fork that would cause a split. I would gladly support that if it means leaving "bitcoin that doesn't scale" right where it belongs: dust.
Man, I really don't know what you are doing here, since you are so unsatisfied with Bitcoin the way it is (currently zero issues with blocksize for non-spam transactions despite Hearndresen-FUD the system would break). Personally, I came to Bitcoin because it is a one-of-a-kind decentralized and secure store of wealth and transaction system without counterparty risk. Otherwise I would have been satisfied with Paypal. It seems to me that you want "scaling" at all costs, even if there is no current demand and this means giving up decentralization. Also, you want to scale the dumb way by implementing extremist block size increases only, instead of using much more efficient second layer solutions. Therefore I don't think it's Bitcoin you want (as indicated by the message in the genesis block) - you want a Paypal 2.0. There's a promised altcoin* out there that promises to satisfy this need: It's named Hearndresencoin / GavinCoin (short: HDC / GVC). Although it seems to be failing to get sufficient support to achieve its mere existence, competent altcoin adopters like you will surely push it for success... so I suggest you should join the altcoin boards full time and don't waste your time in a Bitcoin forum any longer. *) Why promised altcoin? Because Hearndresencoin doesn't even have its own blockchain (it tries to live on Bitcoin's resources) it is not yet able to execute its core altcoin functionality (other "features" like IP filtering already work though). Therefore HDC is a promised or double-virtual altcoin. ya.ya.yo! there is demand, and lots of it. Fidelity Investments is one of many. "second layer solutions" are a nice idea but have yet to implement let alone proven, its going to take years to have a proper second layer and years more for it to prove itself. "GavinCoin" failed because of many things, the least of which are bigger blocks. the simple fact remains if bitcoin doesn't scale ( with big block or second layer ) soon ( within a year or 2 i guess) there will be a huge demand for an alternative solution, and we could very well see an altcoin capture a significant % of bitcoin's market cap. i always said that altcoins will never have any change at taking over bitcoin, because bitcoin's code isn't static it's protocol has the ability to " learn and adapted", but if this proves false, then altcoins suddenly looks more promising, and then economic incentives ( altcoin4KTPS is in a bull market, while bitcoin is losing market share ) i could see a complete switch taking about 3 months. luckily most of the devs do not share the extremist view that block size should always remain at 1MB, I read some of the top devs commentary, and it seems clear that they are simply delaying the increase to implement some optimizations which allow for bigger blocks being less of a burden on full nodes. I am confident bitcoin development will continue to outpace/outperform altcoins dev. we will have optimized code, we will have bigger blocks, we will scale this thing sky high. all in good time. also, sidechains are not a scaling strategy they are likely to increase TX on the main chain considerably actuly. ( another reason to scale the main chain...) lighting network will also be instrumental in scaling bitcoin, trying to scale bitcoin skyhigh requires all possible solutions. |
|
|
|
the insurer refused to pay out, saying: The Computer Fraud Insuring Agreement is only triggered by situations where an unauthorized user hacks into or gains unauthorized access into your computer system and uses that access to fraudulently cause a transfer of money to an outside person or place. |
|
|
|
With BitPay following similar trails as the Mt. Gox scandal, can they and their integrity truly be trusted in the foreseeable future?
The big issue here is because BitPay is a payment procesor. Many companies accept Bitcoin through them. Mt. Gox was "just" an exchange. BTW, how big is this lost compared to the size of BitPay? Can they legally "burn" some of their investment capital (money invested in the company) to temporarily cover the loses? maybe they begged second market to buy another 5KBTC for real this time  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
