|
Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case
|
|
|
|
If you have to use a stop order then your exposure is too high  |
|
|
|
The idea behind SW sounds like: In order to prevent a hard fork, we must do what ever is possible It is the fear of a hard fork twisted the architecture of bitcoin  Why don't we defeat that fear first by doing a hard fork |
|
|
|
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
even with a 2mb limit.. miners dont need to fill that limit.. EG at the moment with 1mb miners let in 500k-700k of fee paying transactions. and then a handful of free transactions if generous.. some miners (antpool) have been known to prefer to only fill 200k or 700k per block. i really dont see why people still think that 2mb limit means 1.99mb of data for every block in some doomsday scenario.. so, back to the 2mb blocklimit. miners that want to add more transactions will have 1.005mb of data as their first toe in the water test on processing times.. and when they are comfortable to process transactions without much lag compared to competitors, they will slowly increase adding a few extra transactions to test how fast they can process data. there is no 0.99 or 1.99 boolean choice.. data can be anything from 250bytes all the way upto 1.99megabytes.. and any amount they want in between.. the 2mb rule is just a buffer to allow growth.. not a hard rule that forces miners to need to push through 1.99mb of data. so even with a 2mb limit your idea works as the miners can then test their limits and increase to add more transactions as they are good and ready Again, the cost of digging out gold does not have anything to do with the transaction cost of the gold, when gold is dig, miners will leave, if the fee does not rise enough high FED just printed several trillions of dollars, it does mean that it costs several trillions to do transactions in USD Anyway, talk here does not mean anything, you can not generate hash power by talk, those who have invested millions and millions dollar and years and years of work building mining farms now finally can have some advantage in this political game |
|
|
|
|
Just had a new thought: First let the block fill, so that there are always dust transactions queued in mempool which have to raise the fee to a reasonable level. Then look at the fee to let majority of the transactions confirm in 10 minutes, if that fee is too high, raise the block size, but still keep the block filled. So the raising for block size works as a mechanism to prevent fee from going too high, but still enough high to maintain the mining incentive
The problem is, the power is in the hand of miners, they have the incentive to keep the blocksize and raise that minimum fee and you really can not do a lot about it. The only thing you can do is to develop your own mining farm, or your offchain services. And it seems the later is more practical
|
|
|
|
I think miners are the one that matters most, my reality is like this:
-snip-
Your reality is wrong. Did you not see the last consensus threshold set for a soft fork? There will be no miners left behind or there might be 1-2 small ones. Attacking SW nodes has not different impact than attacking normal nodes. Services do not care about soft forks. Hard fork: Useless fork. Services will be damaged in this 'they will know..' due to a time frame in which they do not function. If you really think that cutting off people is a green point that I'm actually going to stop discussing and most likely ignore and of your future input. This is a consensus algorithm, not total war. You see, listing part of the facts does not help, since each solution has its merits and weakness. In the end, if miners say no, nothing will be implemented. You can start a new coin without hash power, and see how much that coin will worth
It was a summary, not a technical explanation. I just want to be clear about the facts about soft fork It's funny that Pieter claim that a soft fork is one of the merits of the SW solution. I highly doubt that he does not know that a soft fork will force all the miners to upgrade at the same time. If he knows about this fact but intentionally hide it, trying to fool the miners, then this action is even more questionable So SW will not do 4MB, only 1.7MB; soft fork will not allow miners run old version, they must upgrade, that's two false claims. I can't think of other reason than marketing when people are making false claims |
|
|
|
As a result 100% of the miners have to upgrade, they don't have a choice
Let's be clear: that's the goal! We want all miners going in the same direction. I understand it won't be easy to convince everybody, but all miners shall understand that not going the way of the fork (soft or hard) is taking the risk to be left behind. This is a good point, we really need 100% consensus, but if you try to force it to happen, what kind of consequence will that be? The appearance of Bitcoin Classic already shows that forcing people will always generate unintended consequence. This is similar to that you beat your wife to force her to listen to your idea, the result is a divorce |
|
|
|
|
I don't think it is the army that backs fiat money, otherwise fiat money will be backed by President, who is the leader of army. If fact President do not have direct control over the creation of fiat money, he only borrow money from central banks
I believe it is backed by an illusion which is very difficult to get rid off, and once everyone have this illusion, the loop is closed so it can maintain itself indefinitely
|
|
|
|
Are the miners the only ones who matter? Really? In reality it is more like this: SegWit soft fork- Clients that do not upgrade are unable to validate 'new format' signatures
- All interactions between new and old clients possible
- Services that do not upgrade function normally
2MB hard fork- Clients that do not upgrade are completely cut off
- Services that do not upgrade stop functioning
- Interacting between new and old clients impossible
You could argue that the people who get 'cut off' could remain on that chain, but they're at a huge risk of 51% attacks (a singular example). I think miners are the one that matters most, my reality is like this: SegWit soft fork- Miners that do not upgrade are unable to validate 'new format' signatures, and their blocks mined will be orphaned
- All interactions between new and old clients possible, so a roll back is also possible, e.g. some SW nodes can roll back to Core thus leave a small number of SW nodes to be attacked easily
- Services that do not upgrade function normally, so they don't know what is happening
2MB hard fork- Miners do not upgrade can have their fork as they wish
- Services that do not upgrade will stop functioning, so they will know it is time to upgrade
- Interacting between new and old clients impossible, so that people clearly understand what they are running
You see, listing part of the facts does not help, since each solution has its merits and weakness. In the end, if miners say no, nothing will be implemented. You can start a new coin without hash power, and see how much that coin will worth Anyway, to have 100% of miners to switch at the same time is extremely difficult, better let them fork and make the choice by themselves, when some of the minority miners see that their chain is get obsolete, they will be convinced that upgrade is necessary |
|
|
|
This paranoid atmosphere is healthy  |
|
|
|
This is because the miners do not have a choice in the case of a soft fork. They can not run the old client to mine, since those mined blocks will be orphaned by the new clients which supposedly have larger hash power and do not accept old blocks. As a result 100% of the miners have to upgrade, they don't have a choice In a hard fork however, old miners can still run their small fork and see how that works (of course it will die eventually due to less support, but it is their own choice to run a minority fork), their mined blocks will not be orphaned, so it is not so hard as a soft fork http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-forkLook at the button of this page, it is very clearly explained by Charlie Lee So I think a soft fork will be much more difficult to get miner approval since it leaves them with no choice |
|
|
|
What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?
Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service? surely, yes, and it is why for now i'm with deutesche bank, because they have zero fee on everything and anyway bitcoin has fee, too, yes they are negligeable but they are not zero, and in the future they may be a problem...so i'm not sure what is the argument here All the banks in my country charges a monthly and yearly fee so you don't have a choice here. Some large banks might provide zero fee because they can print money to deal with those cost, but bitcoin obviously can not create money out of thin air. I think fee wise bitcoin will never be able to compete with fiat money |
|
|
|
What is a negative interest? My debit card account has no monthly or yearly fee. The savings accounts have no fee either right?
Suppose they start to charge you a fee (like my bank did), would you stop using banking service? |
|
|
|
Is it a common characteristic of open source projects to wait until there's fire to agree to make changes? Srs question.
Dunno. But most open source projects don't involve money or political pressure. I guess that never stopped anyone bitching and sniping anyway. That's true. Because it is money, and especially a lot of money have been invested in infrastructure, any change will receive enormous amount of resistance if it is not necessary And to debate if a change is necessary does not make any sense either, because most of the participants here are paranoid libertarian type, they trust nobody unless they see it with their own eyes and understand it with their own brain |
|
|
|
I think OP is confusing it with the way banks pay him to make posts
Today banks charge you when you put money in a bank (negative interest), but still it does not stop you from using banking service |
|
|
|
The analogy here would be more accurate with bitcoin's synthetic scarcity, there are only 21mil to be mined (just to produce the the effect scarcity has on value). I don't see a problem with that, its a game-theory mechanism to use when building systems, the problem is how well the system works, and thats the issue with 1mb...
It's similar for the transaction service, like only 2000 transactions per 10 minutes can be processed. Bitcoin on-chain transactions have several unique properties like confidential, direct settlement and non-reversible. You can never achieve the same thing with any other payment system today, except some other alt-coins. But alt-coins have much less mature infrastructure and much higher risk If you only care about the transaction cost, you would rather use fiat money instead, many latest mobile payment solutions cost nothing to do transactions |
|
|
|
And new users will stop arriving because transaction fees are too high, then greedy users only waiting for a price increase will leave, then miners will get less money because of transactions getting scarce, then they'll raise transaction fees again, then more people will leave and transactions will get even more scarce, etc etc. Miners will benefit for a time but after a while bitcoin will just die. That's why it's such an important issue and that's why so many people are trying to come up with solutions to it.
In the case of Apple for example, scarcity made you want to buy a high-class product because of its artificial scarcity.
Here it will be the opposite: you don't want to pay more to see your transaction being transmitted just as it used to be for lower fees in the past, do you? Well, no one does. People will leave if fees increase.
Well I mean I'm not completely against higher fees, because anyway, right now they're ridiculously low, and anyway in the future, when block rewards will be counted in satoshis, fees will have to increase at least a little. But here we're talking about the dissuasive kind of high fees.
The thinking behind hunger marketing is just because the product is unique and there is no competitor, so a reduced supply will not hurt demand but increase it. It is more psychological: when you are hungry, even a piece of bread tastes better It's the same here, it is the special properties of bitcoin transaction (confidential, non-reversible, direct settlement) made people want to transact in bitcoin blockchain, since there is no other way to do it with fiat money. Of course for micro transactions, they can also use fiat money to do transaction, and many mobile payment solutions are already cheaper than bitcoin today. So 1MB forever won't make it worse, people do not come to bitcoin to do cheap transactions, and I think they accept the fact that high quality financial service will have higher transaction fee |
|
|
|
What do you mean, here? What's the connection between companies purposely not providing enough products for everyone, thus creating demand and price raises, and the blocksize being limited to 1Mb? There's no added scarcity for bitcoin with 1Mb blocks.
It might be me, and I'm sorry if it's the case, but your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me.
If you consider doing transaction on blockchain is a payment service provided by the bitcoin network, then limiting the block size at 1MB is equal to artificially limit the supply of transaction service, thus raise the price of transaction fee. So what people will do when the transaction capacity is scarce? They will bid up the price, and the miners become the beneficiary |
|
|
|
-snip-
People do not come to bitcoin to do transaction every day, they are after something that they can not find in fiat money: anti-inflation and anti-censorship and international payment, they should be willing to pay a high fee for these since they could not find these features anywhere else
Bitcoin is expensive in price because it is currently useful. All the other things you mention would be better served by monero. As many here will be happy to explain.  People come to bitcoin seeking protect from inflation, and Monero is inflation in cryptocurrency world thus no one cares seriously |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
