|
shit doesn't look good, max leverage short now?
|
|
|
|
|
all this talk could lead to some uncertainty, which could push price further down, we might be instore for a new all time recent low in the coming months? possible.
damn the naysayers and there need to disagree simply for arguments sake!
|
|
|
|
...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.
That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will. Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.? The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin  I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem. problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second first thought: why not up the limit? the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. ) and so the majority want to up the limit. You're missing the point. I'm not saying that bigger blocksize isn't an attractive solution, only that it wouldn't become an option without the powers-that-be getting behind it. Core devs != community. >its nice to see the community think about Gavin is not "the community." The community doesn't have a clue re. tech. aspects of bitcoin. The community only moons about farting through silk. >... and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue. Let's hold off with patting ourselves on the back. Nothing has been solved. A hardfork (which would be a temporary solution) has been proposed, not implemented. look around everyone's discussing it, poeple are dreaming up possible pitfalls to the proposed solution, videos have been made about it, if this isnt the community thinking about the problem IDK what is... it just so happens that "the power that be" ( Gavin ) and the majority, agree, while a smaller but still rather significant minority still and always will disagree, so your getting confused into thinking this thing is being pushed onto us. well we have a solution thats been thought of alot and seems ready to go, which is 99% of the battle in most cases, with bitcoin tho having a good solution seems to be 1% of the problem... |
|
|
|
...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.
That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will. Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.? The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem. problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second first thought: why not up the limit? the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. ) and so the majority want to up the limit. |
|
|
|
if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?
Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that most miners in pools do not even know what is in the block that they are mining; they only get the header and hash of the transactions. If so, they will not be affected by block size increase. Is this correct? I feel that the full implications of yesterday's stress test still have not sunk in. Before, for many opponents of 20MB blocks, it seemed to be a case of "not seeing is not believing". Still now, it seems that they would rather ignore the test than reverse their positions. On the other hand, even an increase to 20MB a year from now already seems too little, too late... yes i believe this is the case right now, meaning that the argument against the 20MB limit is pretty fucking lame. not sure what exactly the stress test proved, you can successfully spam the network with TX but no one cares because TX with a fee still go through ahead of minimal fee spam TX's. If you spam the network we will allow it but the confirmation time on that spamming will be slow, fucking inconvenient isn't it? 20MB limit update is in preparation for higher TX vol in the future, we are not really bumping up against the TX limit these days, we only barely manage to go over it on a few occasions where the network was experiencing much higher than normal TX volume, with no serious consequence other than slightly slower confirmation time during this random period. its not to little too late, its nice to see the community think about and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue. |
|
|
|
|
question: can a miner with a 56K dial up modem connect to a mining pool to contribute hashing power without having to worry about downloading and verifying the TX's?
|
|
|
|
the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years.
fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system! what's good is that the violence can only really come from the bottom up, not the top down. we have a system where the will of the majority always wins. If the majority wanted to keep the 1MB limit, then the coins held on that chain would remain valuable, making the TX spam attack economically unfeasible. maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around. this is good. |
|
|
|
Are we on fork? Where is dev?! there's no fork and if there is, the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years. fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably. |
|
|
|
if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast? if so upping the limit doesn't really affect miners, of course it make solo mining more costly, but literally no one does this unless they are already a huge operation in which case getting a good internet connection is no problem... and is it really all that hard to download 10-20MB? doesn't that take like 10seconds tops, even on a relatively cheap home connection? cant solo miners get the next problem to solve right away and slowly download the block while hashing away at the problem? I not sure, but i think there is a all of fuss about nothing |
|
|
|
lol, the network is STILL choked off after all this time. i don't blame the short sightedness of the guy who just sold us off down to $232 given how strident iCE and his buddies have been about making any progress whatsoever on this block size issue. i think it's a big mistake as it just gives the rest of us cheaper coins to accumulate as i think a block size increase is inevitable and soon as a result of the stress test:  Is this a TX spam attack? |
|
|
|
This could really boost adoption...   Am now bullish this is going mainstream with this shit. Who doesn't want to send a turd in a box to a friend. I voted crash below the other day lookis like I am a winner how low do we go? I think "briefly break below" is still on the table. 6K dumped in 10mins in the late am's, smells like downward manipulation, will it stick? |
|
|
|
Lol 26000 unconfirmed transactions. And blockchain.info is lagged like shit.
I think what's happening is other nodes are hanging onto 26,000+ old transactions while blockchain.info drops them after a certain amount of time, with only 5000 transactions, hence the discrepancy.
Where do you get the 26000 number? I suspect many of the transactions will be considered spam or below the dust limit or whatever. I'll be watching this guy's attempt to see if these transactions ever get accepted. https://blockchain.info/address/12qLgVrkW561PbpfvokKwfj7CPjCVwwCTSAre they paying the fees for those transactions, and how much is the combined total of fees paid? I assume the miners will ignore any transactions with no fees. edit] Block 358596 had fees of 0.4 Bitcoins. Spamming the Bitcoin network is not cheap. That's the first transaction he sent, paid 0.000019 BTC in fees. I'm pretty sure all his transaction will go through eventually. Also pretty sure that all this panic that bitcoin will collapse if we reach the block limit is just a bunch of bullshit FUD. [Rant] the main chain should not be treated as if it is a free unlimited resource. There should be a cost involved to place your entry in the blockchain, eventually, this cost will be significant. Scarcity on the main chain should be preserved.Personally, I'm still undecided on how we can achieve this super-secure ledger while still offering a reasonably secure solution for everyday transactions, but I'm currently leaning towards side chains... or even just using alt coins, if there were low enough friction of transferring back and forth [/rant] Everyday purchases can be done using a 3rd party that you periodically top off. for example using http://www.getonebit.com/ to buy stuff anywere paypas is appected. I cant wait for this to be in beta, hopefully i get in on the "early access" in anycase, i don't see why TX costs has to increase, for now the mining reward is sufficient, and TX vol will increase, 30 years from now when there is no more block reward the network will avg 100TX per second, 8,640,000TX a day, each with a 0.00001BTC fee bring in ~86.4BTC a day making the block reward ~0.6BTC. Assuming a tx fee of 0.00001BTC = 10 cents that means 1BTC = 10,000 dollars, making the block reward 6000$, currently the block reward is about 5900$, so we should be able to deliver the same kind of network security based off of TX fees alone. 8,640,000TX @ 10 cents a TX = 8640$ a day to keep bitcoin running. Maybe bitcoin is used by 2million poeple making an avg of 4.3 TX a day ( actually using bitcoin for day to day purchases ) These users would incur fees of 43cents a day or 13$ a month or 157.05$ year in TX fees, which appears to be competitive with banking fees bottom line we need 2 million people using bitcoin for the network to be secure without a block reward doable. OK, but you are giving the same level of security (around 6000 dollars per block rewards) that is currently protecting a network worth about 3.5 billion and you want to use that same level incentive to protect a network where (1BTC = 10,000 dollars, so network worth about 210 billion)- and that doesn't even take into consideration colored coins representing equity in companies trading on nasdaq (coming soon  You are talking about a network worth a hundred times more, so the fees would need to be a hundred times higher (in this example, $10 fee to embed your transaction, perfectly reasonable, cheap even) Bitcoin should be used for buying houses and lambos and private islands and settling debts between nations, not for buying coffee or tipping 25 cents to watch a you tube video. ... I don't have the answer, I don't think anyone can know for sure. I just think that bitcoin's killer app is the security and immutability of the Blockchain, and unless you can leverage the value of that security by enforcing scarcity and providing sufficient incentive to the miners to provide that security, then it's just not going to work. who knows... have you considered secret option #3 in which bitcoin is used by everyone on earth and the computing power required to secure the network is provided by governments ( because China has to make sure US doesn't try to double spend their debt payments ) allowing for totally free BTC payment for everyone.  |
|
|
|
... Everyday purchases can be done using a 3rd party that you periodically top off. for example using http://www.getonebit.com/ to buy stuff anywere paypas is appected. I cant wait for this to be in beta, hopefully i get in on the "early access" in anycase, i don't see why TX costs has to increase, for now the mining reward is sufficient, and TX vol will increase, 30 years from now when there is no more block reward the network will avg 100TX per second, 8,640,000TX a day, each with a 0.00001BTC fee bring in ~86.4BTC a day making the block reward ~0.6BTC. Assuming a tx fee of 0.00001BTC = 10 cents that means 1BTC = 10,000 dollars, making the block reward 6000$, currently the block reward is about 5900$, so we should be able to deliver the same kind of network security based off of TX fees alone. Maybe bitcoin is used by 2million poeple making an avg of 4.3 TX a day ( actually using bitcoin for day to day purchases ) These users would incur fees of 43cents a day or 13$ a month or 157.05$ year in TX fees, which appears to be competitive with banking fees bottom line we need 2 million people using bitcoin for the network to be secure without a block reward doable. right now we are at like 1.5 TX per second so we need an increase of 6666.66666666666% in TX vol assuming price rises by 6666.66666666666% aswell that gives us a price of 15,800$ making the 10 cent tx fee look more like 6.329113924050633 e-6... assuming price discovery will over shoot this 15,800$ BTC target by a factor of 2.5 we should see >32,000$ bitcoins in <2 years >32,000$ bitcoins in <2 years  |
|
|
|
Lol 26000 unconfirmed transactions. And blockchain.info is lagged like shit.
I think what's happening is other nodes are hanging onto 26,000+ old transactions while blockchain.info drops them after a certain amount of time, with only 5000 transactions, hence the discrepancy.
Where do you get the 26000 number? I suspect many of the transactions will be considered spam or below the dust limit or whatever. I'll be watching this guy's attempt to see if these transactions ever get accepted. https://blockchain.info/address/12qLgVrkW561PbpfvokKwfj7CPjCVwwCTSAre they paying the fees for those transactions, and how much is the combined total of fees paid? I assume the miners will ignore any transactions with no fees. edit] Block 358596 had fees of 0.4 Bitcoins. Spamming the Bitcoin network is not cheap. That's the first transaction he sent, paid 0.000019 BTC in fees. I'm pretty sure all his transaction will go through eventually. Also pretty sure that all this panic that bitcoin will collapse if we reach the block limit is just a bunch of bullshit FUD. [Rant] the main chain should not be treated as if it is a free unlimited resource. There should be a cost involved to place your entry in the blockchain, eventually, this cost will be significant. Scarcity on the main chain should be preserved.Personally, I'm still undecided on how we can achieve this super-secure ledger while still offering a reasonably secure solution for everyday transactions, but I'm currently leaning towards side chains... or even just using alt coins, if there were low enough friction of transferring back and forth [/rant] Everyday purchases can be done using a 3rd party that you periodically top off. for example using http://www.getonebit.com/ to buy stuff anywere paypas is appected. I cant wait for this to be in beta, hopefully i get in on the "early access" in anycase, i don't see why TX costs has to increase, for now the mining reward is sufficient, and TX vol will increase, 30 years from now when there is no more block reward the network will avg 100TX per second, 8,640,000TX a day, each with a 0.00001BTC fee bring in ~86.4BTC a day making the block reward ~0.6BTC. Assuming a tx fee of 0.00001BTC = 10 cents that means 1BTC = 10,000 dollars, making the block reward 6000$, currently the block reward is about 5900$, so we should be able to deliver the same kind of network security based off of TX fees alone. Maybe bitcoin is used by 2million poeple making an avg of 4.3 TX a day ( actually using bitcoin for day to day purchases ) These users would incur fees of 43cents a day or 13$ a month or 157.05$ year in TX fees, which appears to be competitive with banking fees bottom line we need 2 million people using bitcoin for the network to be secure without a block reward doable. |
|
|
|
Blocks get time bugged... Block #358597 was "find" after #358598 LOL!  mine shows block 358597 found 4 mins before 358598 |
|
|
|
'bout time something interesting happened. T-47 minutes... we should stress test bitfinex's buy button at the same time. |
|
|
|
I want to hear your feedback and analysis on what you posted from 1 to 5.
Bullish as Fuck. I know that man, why I love you then I really would like to hear about all those news you posted about, if you don't mind  maybe later, ill update bitmovements. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
