Clearly we have reached capacity -- check the size of blocks, they are all 998, 999 etc. Yesterday, when the spam was in the off position, there were plenty which weren't full. |
|
|
|
Well, my network lives behind a NAT router so I'd have that challenge to overcome. You can change the port with a simple addition to the config file (maybe even via the GUI). You'll want to change the block chain directory for your second client as well (also can be accomplished with the config file) if running on the same machine. Suppose I did; would it make a difference? No harm in trying. Nodes are beneficial to the network. Yes, people care. I think maybe I need a developer to merge the two code paths together and then a big effort to popularize it.
If that's what you want! |
|
|
|
Wut?
I don't make a lot of Bitcoin transactions (it's ridiculous to think it's well suited for mundane, daily purchases) but I made a few during the peak of this latest transaction spam. Every single one was confirmed in the next block and I used the same fee I was using since 2011.
This uproar is either bullshit from people who have an agenda or flailing from morons who think taking up a bunch of block space by combining tons of their ridiculous sig spam earnings so they can buy a coffee while not paying the miners for securing the network should have as much priority as high value, single input transactions with healthy fees. Give it a rest already.
L2Bitcoin...
you were just lucky because using 10k satoshi as a fee now would make your transaction going directly in the queue, you won't get any confirmation if not after many hours, this is more ture now with this spam or flooding or whatever it is Luck had nothing to do with it and if you read my post you would see that I made the transactions during the peak of the most recent spam-fest. I went here: http://bitcointicker.co/networkstats/Clicked on: Fee - kB/btc - within n blocks Double checked the mempool on my node (since I don't forward spam, I know exactly how many transactions there are with fees above a certain point). Decided on how fast I wanted it confirmed, and paid the appropriate fee. The fee was tiny because I wasn't crafting a transaction with a bunch of minuscule inputs and outputs, so it was small (in bytes). It's so easy a caveman could do it. It's called taking responsibility for your transaction instead of letting software do it for you. If you want to ignore that responsibility for the oh-so-sought-after convenience, then you will cross your fingers and deal with the consequences. |
|
|
|
TX fee should have been a fixed rate, there should be a way to ignore the added sum from imput and output, maybe it's doable maybe not, but it would definitely get rid of a lot of problems
I think there has been enough evidence throughout history that price fixing is a complete failure which always makes things worse. |
|
|
|
These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee).
Wut? The fee market is working perfectly. I pay more, I get a confirmation ahead of those who pay less. I pay less, I wait in line behind those who have paid more. Oh my, the mayhem of getting what I pay for! People don't see the forest for the trees And you seem to be one of them. If we are to consider Bitcoin as money, Bitcoin should facilitate exchange, not hinder it. That's what essentially makes money money. In this way, money is purely utilitarian, and its utility depends on how well it facilitates the exchange (of goods or whatever). Unsurprisingly, the money which incurs less expenses associated with transactions would have more utility in comparison with the money which demands more costs for its use. Thereby, your assumption that you should pay more is against the very concept of money. There is basically nothing to argue with since that should be evident to anyone more or less familiar with economics Facilitating exchange is only one aspect of money, and one that first requires a store of value. Bitcoin's unique properties which enable a decentralized network to maintain an immutable ledger providing for censorship-proof transactions is what gives Bitcoin it's value. Ignoring those unique properties while trying to solely improve the ability to facilitate exchange will be cutting off your nose to spite your face. You also ignore real world resources and real world friction in your analysis. Free, instant transactions are pointless if I need to ask a third party for permission or assistance. That's real friction which hinders exchange. And let's be honest, there is no such thing as "free", you will pay one way or another. Then we have the block chain, the distributed network of nodes, and proof of work, you know, the combination of which creates the possibility of censorship-proof transactions. Maintaining and securing the network has costs, and those costs have been paid by the block subsidy since the dawn of Bitcoin, but that has to transition to fees. Simply put, appending the block chain has a cost, and that cost has to be paid. I prefer those costs be paid directly because it keeps the system honest. It's clear that the block subsidy has obscured the truth from many early adopters. So yes, all things equal, paying less is better than paying more. However, you haven't given any alternatives to transaction fees for the real costs which provide the very utility you desire. "Establish hubs" doesn't explain anything. If you mean building a layer on top of Bitcoin, which allows the underlying protocol to retain the very properties which give it value, fine, we are in agreement. |
|
|
|
BTC is getting disconnected with the real world. Ahh... the real world. Where you get unlimited, instant, censorship-proof transactions of any value with all the security of Bitcoin's decentralized ledger in exchange for nothing! Early block subsidies have spoiled most "Bitcoiners" and they are demonstrating it by turning into whiny brats when they face a tiny bit of competition for fast confirmations. |
|
|
|
|
Wut?
I don't make a lot of Bitcoin transactions (it's ridiculous to think it's well suited for mundane, daily purchases) but I made a few during the peak of this latest transaction spam. Every single one was confirmed in the next block and I used the same fee I was using since 2011.
This uproar is either bullshit from people who have an agenda or flailing from morons who think taking up a bunch of block space by combining tons of their ridiculous sig spam earnings so they can buy a coffee while not paying the miners for securing the network should have as much priority as high value, single input transactions with healthy fees. Give it a rest already.
L2Bitcoin...
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not an efficient enough platform to be utilized as a medium of exchange...It looks like it's main utility is more relevant as a means to store value as opposed to a means to conduct daily business.
Bingo! We have mediums of exchange for daily business. Tons of them. Bitcoin has unique properties which allow for censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. These two things, on the most secure decentralized ledger on the planet, give Bitcoin immense value. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists! Every tool can not do every job or you end up with shitty do-it-all tools which might be able to do a few things poorly, but really can do nothing well. Trying to turn Bitcoin into a do-it-all is certainly a recipe for disaster. |
|
|
|
|
Government should be voluntary and local.
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, you are using an outdated version of Armory.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been banning 12 or so of these connections every couple hours for the past several days. More pop up every time so far.
|
|
|
|
Look who shows up the day after Bitcoin makes a new ATH! Also, a couple months ago he offered-- unsolicited-- to sell me his moderation account on rbtc so that I could use it to clean things up.
That would have been a very bizarre way of "cleaning [your reputation] up"... a couple months ago he contacted me lamenting the lies and personal attacks on Reddit, it just didn't sound like me.
So I asked him if he was the original account owner. He insisted that I was and that he was insulted[...]
I could not fail to notice the bizarre typos -- "me" and "I" instead of "him" and "he". As if...  Thank goodness he invested so much time and effort protecting his fellow Brazilians from the dangers of Bitcoin!  Come on Stolfi, tell us how much you didn't lose 'cuz you didn't buy at the peak in 2013! Cherry pick some prices to make your arguments look as good as they possibly can. I guess cherry picking exchange rates to fit your narrative can bite you in the ass? |
|
|
|
These will put an end to miners' hegemony and mayhem in respect to which transactions should be included into the blockchain and at which price (i.e. fee).
Wut? The fee market is working perfectly. I pay more, I get a confirmation ahead of those who pay less. I pay less, I wait in line behind those who have paid more. Oh my, the mayhem of getting what I pay for! |
|
|
|
|
One of these days, one bitcoin will be worth more than an ounce of gold!
|
|
|
|
at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here
A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank. Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible. That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above. how can users simply swap to a different algorithm when it require an hard fork, and there will be never a consensu for this? if the 51% of nthe net decide for a 51% and the remaining not, i doubt those 49% are going to agree to lose all their asic sha256 for a new algorithm If someone pulls off a successful 51% attack, it means the network is vulnerable to a 51% attack. That means the coins are going to be worthless... for everyone. Of course there will be consensus for a mining algorithm hard fork. Even if there wasn't consensus, there will be a contentious hard fork, and the fork which can be 51% attacked over and over again is going to be worthless. |
|
|
|
market is speaking to me, its saying "recommending all in"  I'm not a speculator, so maybe I'm wrong, but I'd imagine the time to go all in was sometime in the past three years, probably right around when "Bitcoin is dead" was cool... |
|
|
|
lets pretend the miners are doing it.
they would not lose a penny
think about it.
the block they produce containing transactions THEY create. means they get their fee's back.
they dont even need to relay their own transactions to other pools. they just add them only to their own blocks that way other pools who solve blocks inbetween dont nab the fee's, because they dont get them pre block solution..
by having a pool fill its own blocks with its own tx's. when getting accepted/confirmed leaves other pools tx's left in their mempools. causing a back log.
along with blockstreams fee average mechanism then pushes the fee estimation up, which makes everyones tx's more expensive
Again, this "attack" benefits the pools/miners who aren't involved far, far more than those "mining their own fees". Non-colluding miners get blocks full of real, fee paying transactions. Wow, they love this "attack". Colluding miners get blocks composed of some real, fee paying transactions and some home brewed transactions with fees going back to themselves. Meaning, they get less real income from real, fee paying transactions. Do this "attack" long enough and the other miners will simply render your hash rate irrelevant as they have more profit to buy more hardware. I suggest you follow your own advice and "think about it". I won't even mention what happens when one of the colluding miner's blocks is orphaned and their "fee to themselves" transactions are known to the entire network. |
|
|
|
What does a form of government got to do with bitcoin as a form of currency.
Everything. Only a government has the power to prohibit certain transactions. This is known as capital controls. Bitcoin, thanks to it's decentralized nature, allows for censorship-proof transactions, regardless of what some "authority" says. It also allows users to protect their wealth with an asset that, secured properly, can not be seized without the explicit permission of the private key holder. |
|
|
|
This feels like 2013 all over again. But without all the Gox bullshit and Chinese fake volumes. In fact, this feels SO much better than 2013  I dunno, in 2013 a $1k bitcoin was insane, now it seems low to me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
