|
This pump has legs! $296 on OKCoin.
|
|
|
|
I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.
Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors. True and some independent miner will no doubt build those huge blocks that everyone else has to deal with but the big boys aren't going to do it for free. |
|
|
|
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense. The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction. Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain. Why can't we have both a fee market and higher throughput? Seems a bit early to say 2.7 tx per second should be set in stone. Shouldn't it be allowed to grow in the early stages? Within reason, wrt current hardware and avg bandwidth capabilities. This still requires adequate time to be studied, and shouldn't be rushed, nor needlessly delayed. Even the bandwidth constrained majority of chinese hash power said they would be open to 8MB. It seems like a somewhat artificial handicap when btc is competing with an entire universe of alts, many with much higher throughput. The fee market should grow in proportion to the diminishing of the block reward over time. Early=big inflation/no or tiny fees, Later= exponentially smaller inflation/higher demand for limited blocksize (speed incentivized by non-trivial fees eventually). I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it. |
|
|
|
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense. The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction. Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain. I haven't had much experience, so I ask: is it common for services to let you determine the transaction fee when withdrawing? Because I've only seen that option in one of the... three bitcoin-related services I've used. No, but they really should let users decide if they want to add an additional fee in case it is a high priority transaction. This is going to be a bigger and bigger issue as time goes by and the block halving occurs. The days of free (or nearly free) transactions are numbered. |
|
|
|
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense. The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction. Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain. |
|
|
|
Can someone with a US based brokerage account or Chinese brokerage account buy from Nasdaq Stockholm? Doesn't seem likely.
As far as I know, they can. I really don't think that's true. It would have been huge news. There is very little of the worlds wealth that can trade on Nasdaq Stockholm. |
|
|
|
Man, the global economic meltdown is happening too suddenly. I wasn't ready yet. Also.... what's taking so long for everyone to go all in bitcoin?
They still can't buy it in their brokerage accounts. Why ? The ETF hasn't been approved. You have ETN on Nasdaq Stockholm... Can someone with a US based brokerage account or Chinese brokerage account buy from Nasdaq Stockholm? Doesn't seem likely. |
|
|
|
Man, the global economic meltdown is happening too suddenly. I wasn't ready yet. Also.... what's taking so long for everyone to go all in bitcoin?
They still can't buy it in their brokerage accounts. Why ? The ETF hasn't been approved. |
|
|
|
Man, the global economic meltdown is happening too suddenly. I wasn't ready yet. Also.... what's taking so long for everyone to go all in bitcoin?
They still can't buy it in their brokerage accounts. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not here to compete with visa. It's not here to make banking better, it's not about buying coffee or micro payments or any of that crap. It's not about mass adoption.
It's about monetary freedom.
If three transactions per second is not enough, then there will grow an ecosystem of alt coins to pick up the slack. We will see exchanges grow that allow for easy transfer of value from one coin to the next and through this multi-coin environment, we can scale without limit.
There is no solution for one chain to hold all the transactions. Any proposal that suggests compromising the security, integrity, or distributed nature of bitcoin in order to gain some kind of imaginary "adoption" is an attack and should be treated as such.
Can someone please explain this to Gavin and the other "Scientists"? I have a sense that Gavin and some of the other like minded scientist are attempting to discuss bitcoin by use of less disruptive terms in order that BTC seems less threatening to the status quo. Not the monetary freedom part but they have to realize that every cup of coffee and micro transaction on the planet can't possibly and shouldn't be kept in the blockchain. What about all other types of transactions and apps to be built on the blockchain? It can be used in many other ways; security and validity of transactions is a function of the network size. It would be better to have a larger consensus. At the other end of the spectrum, we could have a million different blockchains, each so weak that they could be subverted by a planned attack. Eventually there is a sweet spot we will find, but in the mean time scaling to accommodate higher TPS at an early stage helps. No problem with the other types of transactions. Let the fees determine which make it on to the blockchain. If the fee for a transaction is $10 then you might use it for a 1 satoshi smart contract but not for a $3 cup of coffee. |
|
|
|
Anybody worried about this yet?  Thanks flat earth 1MB maxblocksize aficionados! Nah...  A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System* * A limit of less than three transactions per second occurring on planet earth may apply.
It's about monetary freedom.
If three transactions per second is not enough, then there will grow an ecosystem of alt coins to pick up the slack. We will see exchanges grow that allow for easy transfer of value from one coin to the next and through this multi-coin environment, we can scale without limit.
There is no solution for one chain to hold all the transactions. Any proposal that suggests compromising the security, integrity, or distributed nature of bitcoin in order to gain some kind of imaginary "adoption" is an attack and should be treated as such.
Can someone please explain this to Gavin and the other "Scientists"? I have a sense that Gavin and some of the other like minded scientist are attempting to discuss bitcoin by use of less disruptive terms in order that BTC seems less threatening to the status quo. Not the monetary freedom part but they have to realize that every cup of coffee and micro transaction on the planet can't possibly and shouldn't be kept in the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Anybody worried about this yet? Thanks flat earth 1MB maxblocksize aficionados! Nah... A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System* * A limit of less than three transactions per second occurring on planet earth may apply.
It's about monetary freedom.
If three transactions per second is not enough, then there will grow an ecosystem of alt coins to pick up the slack. We will see exchanges grow that allow for easy transfer of value from one coin to the next and through this multi-coin environment, we can scale without limit.
There is no solution for one chain to hold all the transactions. Any proposal that suggests compromising the security, integrity, or distributed nature of bitcoin in order to gain some kind of imaginary "adoption" is an attack and should be treated as such.
Can someone please explain this to Gavin and the other "Scientists"? |
|
|
|
What happens if Greek banks don't reopen tomorrow? I'm giving them only a 15% chance of opening.
Those banks can't handle even one full day of withdrawals. depositor's haircuts?
What happens after banks are closed for two weeks? Civil unrest? riots?
"OXI" on the referendum is not the end of the story. It's just getting started.
Greek banks will be closed tomorrow. And in the mean time idiot dumpers keeps dumping. Hello idiot dumpers buying back above. Can you believe there are still people dumping?  , buddy. There is no profit when selling bitcoin. You're looking at it backwards. The only profit is more bitcoin. If you keep selling and buying back in higher, you are losing money. |
|
|
|
Something has got to be done about BTC-e
Yeah, it has always been a drag on rapid price increases. |
|
|
|
What the hell is going on at BTC-e?
LTC is more profitable (in the very short term) so people are selling BTC for LTC causing the BTC price to fall. |
|
|
|
|
Wow, crazy action on Finex!
|
|
|
|
Slow and steady up to $600 300 $3600 over the next 3 months.
Confirmed!
Fixed!  Fixed! |
|
|
|
|
Only 4k on Finex to $300.
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that there was no block size limit in Satoshi's software. They added it later. He believed in game theory where things sort themselves out through risk and reward.
Not sure, but I found this? "Andresen never mentions the actual reason that Satoshi imposed a block limit. Oleg Andreev, however, does: Huge blocks could lead to excessive use of bandwidth which could lead to higher percentage of orphaned blocks due to higher synchronization delays." From: http://cascadianhacker.com/blog/2014/10/25_notes-on-increasing-the-maximum-bitcoin-block-size-or-why-it-aint-happenin.htmlIf bandwidth is really the only issue then you would think the 8mb compromise will likely gain enough traction to get implemented. After all, even with a 8mb limit, most miners will still be sticking to 750 k - until you provide sufficient incentive to change. Yeah, exactly. You can have a higher limit or no limit at all and it's still a risk for a miner to build a block that big. It's going to take a longer time to propagate over the internet which means more time for another miner to find another (smaller/faster) block and possibly orphan yours. I'm sure the limit was created to prevent some kind of "large block attack" (to disrupt miners with slow internet?) but in reality, risk and reward will prevent most miners from increasing their block size very much even when the limit is officially increased. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
