... Let me ask you this: If I take bitcoin-qt source, change a few lines of code regarding the suggested fees in order to hardwire it to pay a fixed 0.1$ fee (~100 satoshi / byte) for a 250byte tx, compile it and market it as an alternative client that works every single time, then what would you say? That now bitcoin works predictably and that the network is fine?  ... Let me cut in. Yes, soon you & hdbuck/brg444/ice will be the only 2 people transacting on Bitcoin. Caveat: this will make your bitcoins worth less, as in "virtually nothing, because no one uses Bitcoin because useless. So may not be the utopia you've been dreaming about. |
|
|
|
|
Last I checked, there was ~$8 million US in "spam transactions." What are we up to now?
|
|
|
|
we are two months away from being one full year on this block size debate: http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgentand within that year blocks have filled up that the red and blue 3d glasses person did not post this morning because we will see all the blocks are filled up all the time now. the more the blocks fill up the more valuable the bitcoins become in relation to fiat currencies. something wrong with this scenario . People don't go there anymore it's too crowded! Bitcoin, so useless you can't use it because there's too much demand What is it you don't understand about your cardboard box never becoming the world reserve currency looooooo best club in town because must be bigger than a box to be taken seriously (amongst other things)? Your days of luring the bridge & tunnel crowd into your shithole are over -- they're on to you  inb4 I never wanted anybody to come anyway, i like playing in my cardboard box, which is behind the dumpster, all by myself: LIAR! |
|
|
|
... Next block could be issued in an hour due to variance, or you could have 3-4 blocks found in 20 minutes.
My momma always said, "Bitcoin's like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get [if anything]." |
|
|
|
the thing is bitcoin won't shrink in size. but it won't grow either. it simply will stay the bonsai size it currently is. all the money waiting on the sidelines will flow into alt-coins directly. good luck with your empty bag - so called early adopters of bitcoin.  You don't understand. What's gonna happen is people will transact off-chain, maybe consolidate their paltry txs on pay now buy later Lightning Network, and then pipe dream use Bitcoin as the settlement layer, teh backbone, so to say. The money will roll right in! |
|
|
|
@BlindMayorBitcorn: See my edit above. Yes, I'm certain a neckbeard would get ripped off harder by buying on the street How do studies like that get conducted? Who structures them? Is it failures (those who get popped/end up in hospitals) that comprise the sample of "street buyers"? |
|
|
|
Wait, a website about DNMs claims DNM drugs are better?  Well color me surprised! P.S. Haven't checked the "study by the Lisbon-based European Monitoring Centre," but my guess is their "researchers" are not my wholesome, God-fearin' American runners. |
|
|
|
... bitcoin is not a democracy.   |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended  no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch. $0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying? You keep telling us we should stop bitcoin for coffee, what your encouraging it now. Each transaction is subsidizes by $5-10 in monetary inflation, such ignorance calling a $0.06 increase in fees a win. Core 0.12 claims to only allow transactions that meet a specific centralized control policy to be admitted to the mempool, so yes a win for Core 0.12 nodes and a big middle finger to the rest of the Bitcoin network. Do you have daddy issues? The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not. If you can't pay then you get the big middle finger indeed, simple as that. Bitcoin doing what Bitcoin does best...  But really ugais, I'm totally not savoring every delicious moment of this... |
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality. The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize. You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees. A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing. The very thing that was missing from legacy finance! Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much They're trying to get in touch with you, BTW. Wondering where to send your bonus for trying to gimp Bitcoin. Wishing you luck & hoping you don't get discouraged |
|
|
|
Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch.
That's why our honey badger is getting his tummy pumped. By a semi tire  |
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality. The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize. You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees. A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing. The very thing that was missing from legacy finance! |
|
|
|
... no way they are investing in Eth chain directly , that is being done mainly by young adults and teenagers who want to catch the next big IPO wave without understanding the fact that Ethereum Bitcoin has no practical use cases. ...
...well, other than CP, shitty drugs & extortion, I mean. |
|
|
|
More than that, the fee market can't work.
It can't work because the absolute number of transactions that have to be done is still the same! All those transactions stuck aren't just transactions of a few cents, they can't just be grouped together.
No, payment channels can group these txs together. No, some of these tx never need to occur in the first place or can be handled off chain. <snip> This pleases Visa and PayPal!  ... Limiting block size is to protect against unsolicited use of Bitcoin. ... Err... Unsolicited by whom? You realize that miners can reject tx they don't feel like handling, right? Still haven't answered me re. why miners would start rejecting "unsolicited" tx they accept now. |
|
|
|
Not sure I understand.
1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum No, there isn't a ponzi sub on this forum. There is a sub where a number of threads exist concerning services which may or may not be ponzi schemes, but it isn't for the forum staff to dictate whether those threads should exist or not. If I remember correctly, it was created as a Ponzi-containment sub. I could be wrong tho. Could you explain to me what an investment-based game is? 2. Either the user is off-topic, in which case you should ask user/mods to move the post, or it is in the correct sub, in which case you tag the user with negative trust.
Correct?
Again, no. What I am proposing isn't about forum administration, it is about community communication. People can still support ponzi scams as much as they want, but not without consequence. Sticking with my assumption that "Investment-based games" is a euphemism for Ponzis, I find it difficult to understand why people offering Ponzis in a Ponzi sub are negatively rated. Do you think that the majority of users participating in Ponzis are unaware of them being Ponzis, and need someone to point it out? Have you asked around? Or just, you know, assumed? There are more than enough legitimate investment, gambling and gaming services for them to use that there is absolutely no justification for actively participating in and, by doing so, supporting those operations that are clearly ponzi scams.
So wait, the marks that are playing those Ponzis, they get the scarlet letter too? I like it, nail drug dealers AND drug users. Time 2 clean up this bad neighborhood I know that if I want to best determine whether a user is trustworthy or not, the fact they are marked as being the kind of person who doesn't care that they support these toxic schemes in return for a share of the loot, is an objective indicator that they are not trustworthy. So the choice is theirs, they can continue to help these scammers and, as a result, be marked as such, or they can concede that it is morally bankrupt to collaborate with fraudsters and conmen and cease their involvement.
Meh. My understanding that most openly admit to running Ponzis, going as far as putting Ponzi in the name. You don't like Ponzis, so are taking it upon yourself to do what most here rage against when NannyState does it. |
|
|
|
|
>There is nothing "very good" about it. It's way too low. Near zero cost fees attract near zero cost abuse.
If miner include those [near zero] tx now, what will make them reject them later?
>Plus it is not futureproof
Subsidizing miners with block rewards isn't future-proof. It's done to let Bitcoin grow up without having to earn its keep, like sending your kid to school [instead of putting her to work as soon as she can walk].
|
|
|
|
|
^How's that solar mining farm of yours going, all good?
|
|
|
|
Ofc, they're probably 100% bull, with no proof of actual mining. Link? Of course you can check if they are mining, by simply looking up the pool they are pointing their hash power at. So ask OP/mods to move to correct sub. Problem solved. Would be sort of funny to tag people for being on-topic in a forum [Ponzi] sub, no?
They aren't being tagged for being on-topic, they are being tagged for being provably untrustworthy people who do not care where their profit comes from or that they are supporting a fraudulent scam. Not sure I understand. 1. There's a ponzi sub on this forum 2. Either the user is off-topic, in which case you should ask user/mods to move the post, or it is in the correct sub, in which case you tag the user with negative trust. Correct? |
|
|
|
...
The other day I got 250$ in paypal. From sender to recipient's bank account (=my bank account) I lost 20$ in various fees and conversions - and it took 4 days btw because there was a weekend in-between and a "random security check" by paypal that got me +1 day delay.
... You should probably stop using PayPal & try Bitcoin. Hasn't occurred to you? I'm waiting for ebay to start accepting Bitcoins (insert meme here "still waiting" / skeleton). PayPal can afford to charge its fees because people like yourself are willing to pay them. Because eBay is free to not accept irreversible Beanies. Because free market. Lrn2free market, AlexGR True. Still ebay and paypal dominate the online selling market, so not much choice out there if you want to hit a large pool of potential buyers. It's like paying the pimp, lol. No. PayPal is just one of the payment methods available on eBay. You chose to use PayPal. That said, eBay is far from the only online marketplace.It's the only one worth using tho, because already explained. At some point -we can always hope it'll happen- perhaps we'll be able to do the same through decentralized markets and bitcoins or altcoins, that actually get decent volume in terms of listings and transactions.
yeah, I understand the console version of Open Bazaar or whatever is available. Edit from above: The ability to reverse transactions is essential for eBay, and most online trading, to function. Beanies might be trustless, but the guy selling you alpaca socks is not. You send BTC, get dick instead of alpaca socks, wat do nao? That's where PayPal & its exorbitant fees comes in. That's where credit cards come in for lower-risk transactions. Yeah, from one perspective that is true. Still ebay and paypal makes a somewhat arbitrary choice that while the risk is there, it will be entirely shifted to the seller's side. The buyer is placed on a pedestal where he can do no wrong, allowing him to scam a seller with any excuse possible. That's because it minimizes headaches & maximizes profit -- their rational self-interest. If eBay could make more money by shifting the responsibility onto the buyer, trust me -- they would. But it don't work good like that. So they don't. Also: free market; don't have to justify dick. Don't wanna use PayPal? Don't wanna use CC or checks? Feel free to vote with your feet & take your business to AlphaBay |
|
|
|
...
You can stick various types of stamps on an envelope and depending the accumulated value of the stamps you can ask for first priority, second priority, express, etc.
If, on the other hand, you don't buy stamps that add up to the proper value of even the basic service, your mail will be rejected.
... If my post office had a policy of letting me guess the price of stamp to put on my letters, and email was an alternative... *And if I found out the price of mailing a letter was gonna skyrocket any day now, I'd have no problem with teaching Granny how to use a 'puter. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
