Happy New Year,  You filthy animals. |
|
|
|
I don't understand. Somebody must tell me what a Bitcoin Christmas is.
It's Christmas... but with Bitcoin! Don't ask me, I'm just an ideas guy. |
|
|
|
Jorge is the troll we need, but not the one we deserve. May your "academic interest only" continue through 2016.  |
|
|
|
Some miners might process junk for free* or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends".
* I recently consolidated some of my dust into one address for free.
Those zero-cost transactions are heavily subsidized by the block reward currently. Which is going away in time. Fees are an afterthought at the moment. For the time being... there's also something called priority, calculated from age and size of inputs. This should be about planning for the future, a happy future where demand for cheap frictionless bitcoin payments continues to grow. If we're happy about today's # of uses, users, and transactions... 1.75MB equiv will be plenty. |
|
|
|
Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other.
Some miners might process junk for free or near-zero cost. Others won't even process higher fee txs. As it stands, the answer is "it depends". Bloating up a block with free transactions does have a cost to a miner in terms of propagation and verification time. By bloating a block they risk being orphaned by a longer chain of smaller blocks, costing them 25BTC. A very strong natural incentive to keep blocks at a reasonable size. I'd expect that if the hardcoded max is increased, you'd see blocks largely the same size that they are now, perhaps at times of peak use and increasing fees they'd be slightly bigger. A higher limit makes it harder/more expensive for a spammer to price out all legitimate transactions. |
|
|
|
...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.
Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument. A very simple or simplistic explanation: If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus. Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there. do you need to pay? The miner. I meant the seller I'm not talking about fees here. Does sending dust between wallets in thousands of transactions require fees? There is no distinction for the miner, pay the fee they require and your transaction is just as legitimate as any other. |
|
|
|
...even if the blocks are full with bogus transactions.
Please provide a definition of 'bogus transaction'. Without such, I am unable to understand your argument. A very simple or simplistic explanation: If I want to buy something, I need to pay. That's a valid reason for making a transaction so that transaction isn't bogus. Now, if I start sending dust between my wallets, in thousands of transactions, in a meaningless way (as far as real-life transactions go), just to generate spam, clog the network etc => that's plenty of bogus transactions right there. do you need to pay? The miner. Who should decide how much you need to pay them? The miner. Who is attempting to centrally plan production quotas? Core developers with a conflict of interest that is glaring you in the face. |
|
|
|
Actual businesses are telling them they’re being prematurely priced out of the economy. How is that a trivial detail??
Do you even code? No? Well, just lie back and it will all be over soon. We have consensus and you're not part of it. |
|
|
|
He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project.
Rather than wasting time bikeshedding, infighting , or assuming intentions we should simply do our best to support all implementations to raise the bar of the whole ecosystem. On that note ... I am off for today ... Happy New Year to everyone.  Don't drink and drive and if you can avoid the roads by sleeping with the host/hostess of the party than take the opportunity. Good to hear the talking points are out, and the matter is all settled folks. Nothing to see here.  Meanwhile, the COO of a company controlling 11% of the hashrate is not being shy...  And is apparently bothered with the censoring and steering.    |
|
|
|
Rusty is a talented and competent developer and I am grateful that he can contribute to our ecosystem. I really appreciate all the testing and data he has provided our community.
He certainly is. That doesn't stop me from wondering how much is a conclusion in search of evidence vs evidence in search of a conclusion. Blockstream™ has an unhealthy amount of influence on an open and distributed project. |
|
|
|
Color me surprised.   |
|
|
|
-snip-
If you make a free, or almost free crypto, that can do tens of millions of TXs per day, what's stopping someone from abusing it and getting the network to its capacity limits, triggering a priority queue through fees?
-snip-
The same thing that's stopped it from 2009 until today... miner's dust and spam limits. They are incentivized to make small enough blocks to avoid orphaning, unless the fees offered shift them along that supply curve. It really comes down to whether you trust the free market and the system's built in incentives... or you trust a small cadre of dudes that all happen to work for a certain company that plans to produce the medicine for your disease. |
|
|
|
|
Going from 2.7 tps to 5.4 tps isn't trying to make a VISA competitor where the world's cups of coffee will be forever on the blockchain. It's simply growing in line with (actually more conservatively than) hardware/bandwidth improvement. With current number of tx, and no block subsidy... this thing is as good as dead.
That's why the block reward exists, to provide cheapish transactions while we grow the base number of transactions that will eventually cover the cost of mining security.
That's the baffling/infuriating part with small blockers, they assume that if we hard fork to 2MB once, 256MB is right around the corner... it's not. It's also completely different from changing the reward schedule, which is often raised in the next sentence.
If Bitcoin is artificially crippled at 1MB4EVA, or even 1.75MB with segwit through 2018, competitors will be picking away at that first mover advantage like a vulture on a corpse. This is not gold, it's not on the periodic table, it's open source software. It's value is derived from utility, and expected utility. Kill the utility, kill the coin... or at least relegate it to rpietila's new castle game.
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see a business start to pay people for running nodes. Maybe they can get advertisers to pay them money to cover the cost. I end up running a node for a few weeks then stop since I get nothing.
Sounds more like a charity than a business. Also, a bunch of nodes under the control of one person or in one place isn't all that helpful. It would also be rife with dbags trying to game the system with pseudo nodes and such. I think the expense/hassle makes sense for someone with a decent amount of coin. If you are interested in the long term success of your investment, you may want to contribute to the health of the network behind that investment, and have your own copy of the blockchain with the means to verify that it's accurate. |
|
|
|
Home. My entire bitcoin folder tree amounts to less than 64 GiB - or less than USD $10 of disk space. Bandwidth is such that I don't even notice any degradation to other apps. I admit that my ISP is better than many. I've never thought to measure it with any finer resolution than 'computing demands are irrelevant'.
Care to share how many peers you're connected to? Hmm... just a sec... checking.... OK, back. 8. I'm guessing that's a default. I've not modified that part of bitcoin.conf. As long as we're nitpicking my particular node, it may be worth pointing out that I am running it over Tor. If you have exactly 8 connections, it almost certainly means you have no incoming connections at all. This usually indicates a network misconfiguration, such as port 8333 blocked by your firewall, or maybe in your case, it's a Tor issue. The default is 8 outgoing, unlimited incoming. If you open the Help->Debug Window menu item, it will show the relevant information. Running a full node over tor requires setting up a tor hidden service first. I found this tutorial but don't have personal experience with it: https://www.sky-ip.org/configure-bitcoin-node-debian-ubuntu.htmlIf you just want to run from your home IP, it's as simple as forwarding port 8333 in your router to your machine running bitcoind. Once you see more than 8 connections, you will be contributing to the network. Be advised that XT nodes have had their broadcasted IP's DDoS'd in the past, although that seems to have subsided vs the days when it was quickly gaining share. I imagine it will happen again to XT and Unlimited nodes if they continue growing. |
|
|
|
-snip-
If you must receive or sent transactions involved segwit than you upgrade.
The security model is exactly the same for full nodes who don't upgrade
These two sentences are contradictory. |
|
|
|
Today's edition: Political Contributor to the Central Committee of the Inhibit Party of the Technical Consensus Union. [00:08] <petertodd> bramc: but today we have a blocksize limit low enough that everyone has access to reasonably low orphan rates [00:08] <petertodd> bramc: (remember that the networking code we have right now on the p2p network is *really* inefficient) [00:09] <bramc> petertodd, And the blocksize limit is staying down there, by design[00:09] <petertodd> bramc: what do you mean? [00:10] <bramc> petertodd, The current 'plan of record' is for the block size to de facto go up by less than 2x with segwit and otherwise stay put, at least for now [00:10] <bramc> For exactly that reason [00:10] <petertodd> bramc: sure Always cute. |
|
|
|
[00:08] <petertodd> bramc: but today we have a blocksize limit low enough that everyone has access to reasonably low orphan rates [00:08] <petertodd> bramc: (remember that the networking code we have right now on the p2p network is *really* inefficient) [00:09] <bramc> petertodd, And the blocksize limit is staying down there, by design[00:09] <petertodd> bramc: what do you mean? [00:10] <bramc> petertodd, The current 'plan of record' is for the block size to de facto go up by less than 2x with segwit and otherwise stay put, at least for now [00:10] <bramc> For exactly that reason [00:10] <petertodd> bramc: sure Always cute. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
