Yeah, i don't get why all this trolling about the fork problem.
Just make the new client with an algorithm wich will activate the new blocksize only once like 90% of the clients are upgraded. So before 90% of clients are upgraded we do not change, once we reach the 90%, the change kick in and ta-dah, done without problems.
It is not a technical problem, but a direction one. Currently the split is that some people do not believe that bitcoin should EVER lift the transaction capacity Bitcoin's limited supply nature decided that its price will always keep rising against other currency. And people will prefer spend inflative currency and save the deflative currency, that means bitcoin will mainly be used as a saving currency, not a transaction currency, so the amount of user initiated transactions will increase very slow, most of them are one time thing Imagine 2 scenario: 1. Bitcoin is very difficult to transfer, you need 3 days to get 2 confirmation, and pay a high fee, almost as worse as wire transfer, but its price doubles every 6 month 2. Bitcoin is very easy to transfer, you can get 2 confirmations in 20 minutes, but it worth a little, since there are several different bitcoin variants and you never know when will the next variant pop up Which case do you think have the fastest adoption rate? |
|
|
|
|
Like satoshi suggested, technically the best approach is to phase-in the change, so that after several iterations of nodes upgrade, this change get implemented. But I think he also mentioned that this limit is to prevent transaction flooding, and current situation is more like transaction flooding caused by automatic trading program
At least a small part of the community include some core devs do not think we should lift this limit until definitely necessary
|
|
|
|
|
I have not received any info/response regarding my order 200000198, but now I'm confident that Avalon team really can DELIVER
|
|
|
|
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
are you retarded? Have you done your homework?  |
|
|
|
|
Raise the hard block size limit, and you have doubled the total amount of cion from 21M to 42M. And once this happened, no one can guarantee that it will never double again
Of course from economy point of view this is not necessary bad, it will reduce the bitcoin value so that it won't rise so quickly. But from technical point of view, it is a disaster, since now there are two or more blockchain and users have to manage which coin is spent on which chain, this might destroy the credit of bitcoin alltogether
|
|
|
|
Repeat... Let's keep the soft block size limit at 250KB and see what will happen  I don't think people are so stupid that without that added transaction capacity they will leave bitcoin |
|
|
|
But in bitcoin's case, they are connected together, a higher transaction capacity cause centralization and decrease the value of bitcoin The exact opposite is the case. Higher transaction capacity means higher transaction fee revenue. If you don't believe this, just look at the data: http://blockchain.info/charts. Anyone who wants to argue that higher limits results in declining fees needs to explain exactly what will cause the observed relationship to reverse. Higher total transaction fee revenue means more bitcoins for miners to compete for, which means more miners will compete for them. Shortly after Bitcoin reaches the transaction rate of PayPal transaction fees will equal the block reward. It will be like going back to 50 BTC/block as far as miner revenue is concerned. More people are willing to invest the necessary capital to compete for 50 BTC/block than are willing to invest for 25 BTC/block. This is the same logic as to say more money will create more GDP, so remove the 21M coin limit so that there will be even more block reward If there is no transaction limit, the majority of transactions will be generated by automated trading program, not human user. If there is a limit, the price of each transaction will go higher so that each one will plan their transaction more carefully, or create off chain transaction (which is the best solution IMO) |
|
|
|
Increasing the block size increases the maximum number of transactions that Bitcoin can support, which increases the amount of economic activity that can be conducted in bitcoins, which increases the value of a bitcoin. Increasing the 21M limit decreases the value of a bitcoin. One decision helps Bitcoin, the other undermines it. All "forks" are not equal.
Do you understand that when you increase the hard block size limit, you create another 21M of bitcoin? |
|
|
|
You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin Transaction processing is a service whose value is proportional to it's speed, low cost, and Metcalfe's law. Bitcoins are virtual objects whose value is depends on the inability of any entity to create more of them arbitrarily. From transaction service sector point of view, what you said is true, because they do not need to worry about the value of currency it transfer But in bitcoin's case, they are connected together, a higher transaction capacity cause centralization and decrease the value of bitcoin |
|
|
|
Enough with these threads. There is no spam. The network is super healthy. SDice is using something cheap and they're paying for it. Delete these threads! You don't get to pick who uses bitcoin for what. If you don't like it, go print your own fiat and regulate it however you want. If you don't trust the design of bitcoin to sort this stuff out then don't use bitcoin. I don't like how YOU use bitcoins but nobody gives a shit. Also, abolish the dumb max block size limit and the "problem" is solved. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149745.0You should also abolish the 21 million coin limit, so that you can get more coin |
|
|
|
|
So far, it is still an experiment, both technically and politically
Centralization is the natural end of any profit driven system, so how to limit the centralization tendency is the core question
At the begining, when resource is aboundant, bitcoin is quite distributed, this might be the best time, but that period is almost coming to an end, mining operations will be more and more specialized and centralized to several large pool, bandwidth and storage limitation will put most of people out of the mining, and satoshi dice like automated trading bots will abuse most of the transaction capacity...
|
|
|
|
If the network can't handle the load from SD then we should all just pack it in and go home. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
I'm quite sure the paypal network won't even stand a chance to handle the 1/10 load from Nasdaq exchange I never understand why a game with lot's of bot's transaction should use the world bank's transaction network |
|
|
|
By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough. What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things: - Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.
- Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.
- Do nothing.
If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal. If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool. I suggest that all the pools and miners take this chance and DO NOTHING, and we will see if bitcoin really end up being driven out by PayPal  I think they are totally two different network and surve different purpose. I use paypal mainly because I want to spend inflative fiat money as quick as possible, and it can guarantee a charge back and give me invoice. But bitcoin just can't do that no matter how low the fee is. Bitcoin protect merchant but not consumer, so it will not be used by mass scale of consumers, maybe mostly gamblers |
|
|
|
BTC Guild started setting up a new server this morning running modified block rules. Currently trying out a 500,000 byte maxblocksize. The problem is with larger blocks, you increase the chance of orphans since it will take at least twice as long to propagate, if not more. I've modified the fee settings to prefer fee based transactions when increasing the block size past 50 KB, so hopefully the increase in fees per block offset the orphan rate increase.
The old settings were default, with the 250,000 byte limit, 27k for high-priority (regardless of fee). The new settings we're trying (subject to change, and not on all servers yet) is 500kB block max size, no reserved space for no-fee transactions with high priority, and a minimum size set to 50 kB to grab high priority/no-fee transactions if there aren't that many unconfirmed paid transactions.
I do not really understand why did you change the soft limit on max blocksize? The purpose of this limit is to simulate what will happen when a hard limit is hit, do you already forced to lift the soft limit due to some severe problem? |
|
|
|
I had a feeling that many people's mindset are still stayed in the fiat currency world, which is a world with unlimited money supply and endless chasing of exponential growth Why can't they think like Austrian economists? It seems that FED's brainwash is quite effective  Like the limitation in total amount of coins, let's make a schedule to increase the soft block size limit every 4 year by 256k, 128k, 64k, 32k etc... and see what that brings IMO this will make bitcoin concept more consistent: Limited supply and limited transaction capacity |
|
|
|
This topic always as hot as fire The scalability strategy should be distributed, not centralized, to centralize all the transaction in a single network is the sure step towards centralization Bitcoin network is not designed to be a trading platform, high-frequency trading should be handled by brokers with dedicated data center, outside of block chain. If VISA network were used to handle stock trading, they will crash immediately (Nasdaq can do 1 million tx/s while VISA barely can 10k tx/s) And bitcoin should not become a duplication of existing services like paypal or VISA , let them handle the daily transctions, and let bitcoin handle the more important low frequency transaction, like salary/saving and pension |
|
|
|
So the misallocation of resources and its consequences does not affect you just because you dont use dollars?
For example, for those people who bought a house, the house price should fall sharply due to over supply, but now FED is supporing mortgage market with monthly buy, so actually many people have benefited from this resource misallocation |
|
|
|
Yes, but the lack of jobs affects everybody. The lack of optimal production and development affects everybody. He will not get the technological developments that would have been posible without government regulations. He will not get the cheaper prices that would have been posible without government regulations. He will not get a less desperate and more mentally sane society that would have been posible... etc... How the government discoordinates the market and throws away resources affects everybody.
You can make the best of it since thats what you get, thats fine, but saying that it does not affect you is false.
Job is another topic. Imagine in a society where only robot works, what will people do to make a living? Computer, automation and globalization have concentrated production to a few companies, and these companies have started to use robots to replace workers. Sooner or later majority of people will have nothing to do, no matter how much money FED print I don't think that economy will reach a balance by itself, it always performed best when the power of market participants are evenly distributed, but eventually it will become more and more centralized, small players squeezed out, several large guys make their club. Fight this centralization tendency is the most difficult task, require some kind of self-regulating mechanism to discourage the centralization effort and reward the distributed effort And maybe the centralization itself is caused by human nature. Human can only handle five different things at the same time, so eventually they will only remember a few biggest companies and ignore the rest. And maybe they will only remember five things to consume  They must have more time to consume, I think continuously reduce working time is necessary, 6 hour working days or 4 days working week should solve the jobless problem |
|
|
|
|
In my past experience, a small PC shop with 5 workers assembling standard PC, the maximum number of pieces they can dispatch is about 20 per day, so I guess the delivery will well extend beyond March
|
|
|
|
How long do you think this game is going to last?
As long as everyone of us is happy to have some of those (100$ notes). As long as our bosses give us a couple of those at the end of the month. As long as we can buy booze and hookers with it. All of those we can't with Bitcoins. Therefore: All we do with Bitcoins is go to MtGox and change into $$$ to do the above. I agree, if bitcoin will only be used to buy booze and hookers, then its price won't rise above $1000 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
