The stress was very weak, unfortunately. From this plot: Estimated network capacity: 85 kB/min Typical input tx rate before test: 30--50 kB/min Typical queue size before test: 300--600 kB Peak input tx rate during test: 126 kB/min (~3x normal, ~50% over capacity) Peak queue sizes during peak test: 12 MB (14:00), 14 MB (21:30) Sustained input tx rate for several hours after peak: 70-100 kB/min Methink the test was necessary for people to pay attention to the problem. The test showed that even a small player can create a large backlog with modest expense. It showed that when the input transaction rate is close to the network capacity, even a small increase in that rate can create a huge backlog. Between 18:00 and 21:30, when the input rate increased from ~75 kB/min to ~112 kB/min (a 50% increase), the queue grew from ~3 MB to ~14 MB (a 370% increase). The previous stress test (on a late friday night) used only free transactions, so the fee-paying transactions were delayed only slightly. This one used fee-paying transactions: it will be interesting to see how it affected the ordinary fee-paying transactions. Do you know if there's a way to see what fee they paid? Was it like normal fee of 0.0001 btc? (About 2 or 3 cents) If so, wouldn't a move to a minimum fee of say ten cents largely fix the problem? Also, do you know why Satoshi decided to limit the block size in the first place? I mean, I've heard it was to prevent some kind of spam attack, but now people are saying that increasing block size will prevent spam attack... I've never seen a good description of the attack they were trying to mitigate by limiting block size in the first place. Best guess is simply to prevent bloat? 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. |
|
|
|
|
1600 BTC sell and the walls are holding.
|
|
|
|
Its sad to see everyone so pumped for a 30$ spike.
I hope you get out before you catch a falling knife.
Short is what i would do.
- Mayer Amschel
So do it and stop talking about it. |
|
|
|
Yeah OKCoin is having trouble again.
It keeps having 522, 520 and 502 errors.
EDIT - It is back, but I am not convinced yet.
What does chartbuddy do when OKCoin keeps spitting out 522, 520 and 502 errors? Does he start showing error messages instead of charts, or is that one of the reasons we sometimes get an invalid image message instead of a chart? Chartbuddy started including OKCoin? When? I thought the chart on the far right hand side was OKcoin. I could be wrong but I can't think of any other exchange coin is an abbreviation for. It just says "coin" and I assumed chartbuddy hasn't got enough space to fit the full OKcoin in. Coin is Coinbase. |
|
|
|
|
Is this real or another pump and dump? Can't wait for a real spike to like $8000.
|
|
|
|
That looks bogus plus it's just one user. |
|
|
|
Now, if they would just use that $100 million to buy BTC on the open market, we would be at $32,000. |
|
|
|
Bullish.
Finally going back to 240s
Wake me when we're in the 2400s. zzz. You wouldn't even have the slightest poo poo of excitement if the ATH was ever broken? Nope. It will be broken easily. I don't understand why people give a shit about $10 moves or even $100 moves. When we hit the ATH, it will be for a few minutes on the way to much higher. Everyone knows it. The only difference between people at this point is how much fiat we have to spend on more coins. Some of us have loaded up heavily already so we are ready for launch. The "bears" are still loading up. |
|
|
|
Bullish.
Finally going back to 240s
Wake me when we're in the 2400s. zzz. |
|
|
|
|
If you're counting profits in fiat, you're not doing it right.
|
|
|
|
Nice trolling. I thought this was a serious discussion. You got me. |
|
|
|
I think I see where you're confused. You're blaming Bitcoin for people getting scammed out of their money rather than blaming the stupid people for sending cash to the scammer. Bitcoin is digital cash, it is not a complete replacement for credit cards and all of the consumer protection that credit cards offer. If you send cash to someone, you are taking that risk.
If you think sending cash through the mail is a stupid way to send money then you should find comfort in Bitcoin since it is a much safer way to send cash to a person. If you have a problem transacting with cash in any form, that is a bigger issue that has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
I'm blaming Bitcoin for lending itself so well to scamming, not sure how I can express it any simpler than I've already done. Your'e basically arguing that I shouldn't be blaming your rope ladder for people falling to their death. I should blame the people themselves for being clumsy. You'd have a point, if the skyscraper didn't already have excellent elevators that accomplish the same task you've built your flimsy rope ladder for. Only they do it faster & safer. Get it? People don't do major transactions in cash. They don't send crates of cash halfway around the world - not unless they're stupid. Bitcoin didn't invent sending money without putting it in a box - most financial transactions are done digitally, so comparing Bitcoin to putting cash in the mail is a bit forced. NO ONE MAILS CASH. There are many use cases for Bitcoin that didn't exist prior to Bitcoin so yeah, one of them is you can now send a crate full of cash instantly around the globe with no risk of it being intercepted. There are plenty of non-criminal reasons that this is a great new improvement to money. With all new discoveries, there will be misuses and criminal activity. Should we just stop progress then because of a few petty criminals? ...and I would view Bitcoin more like being beamed up to the top floor instantly instead of riding your antiquated elevator. |
|
|
|
[]
Are we talking about consumer protection now? Well yeah, that's what we're talking about, assumed that was clear from my first post. [] The problem with BTC is it has no mechanisms in place to deal with bad actors. That's Y it fails - right on the conceptual level. Real money has the might of the state to punish the con men, Bitcoin? Not so much. Thus far, the only repercussions felt by thieves & conmen in Bitcoin Equestria came from the hand of the nanny-state Bitcoiners so love to whine about  Yes, we agree. Bitcoin is just like cash and if you send somebody cash, you can't do a chargeback. If you want to have that protection, use your credit card. Nobody is saying Bitcoin has to replace credit cards or fiat.
The thing is, no one needs to send cash (through the mails?!) anymore. That's the dumbest way I've ever heard of for sending money. Real money has CC & checks, so stupid shit like stuffing bills in an envelope don't need to be done. And yeah, no one's saying BTC will replace CC - at least I'm not. I think I see where you're confused. You're blaming Bitcoin for people getting scammed out of their money rather than blaming the stupid people for sending cash to the scammer. Bitcoin is digital cash, it is not a complete replacement for credit cards and all of the consumer protection that credit cards offer. If you send cash to someone, you are taking that risk. If you think sending cash through the mail is a stupid way to send money then you should find comfort in Bitcoin since it is a much safer way to send cash to a person. If you have a problem transacting with cash in any form, that is a bigger issue that has nothing to do with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Trusting law enforcement is not required. Following the money is just one way to catch criminals and a relatively new one in the history of law enforcement.
You've just pointed out that Bitcoin removes one of the recent additions to LEO's crime-fighting arsenal. Now go ahead, keep believing their lies  I didn't say that and any criminal that thinks they can avoid being caught by using bitcoin should remember how that worked out for the silk road guy. Who's lies? The "silk road guy" was owned not to help Bitcoiners recover their money, but because the state didn't want him dealing dope & not even bothering to pay taxes. No one's coin was ever returned from SR, so not sure why you brought that up. Yes, the state will punish you when you try to go against it, my point is it won't hold your hand when shit goes wrong. It might chase down a few Bitcoin criminals for lel, but don't bank on them helping you get your interweb money back. Bitcoin's no CC - someone steals yours, it's gone. No chargeback, no fresh new plastic Are we talking about consumer protection now? Yes, we agree. Bitcoin is just like cash and if you send somebody cash, you can't do a chargeback. If you want to have that protection, use your credit card. Nobody is saying Bitcoin has to replace credit cards or fiat. |
|
|
|
Trusting law enforcement is not required. Following the money is just one way to catch criminals and a relatively new one in the history of law enforcement.
You've just pointed out that Bitcoin removes one of the recent additions to LEO's crime-fighting arsenal. Now go ahead, keep believing their lies I didn't say that and any criminal that thinks they can avoid being caught by using bitcoin should remember how that worked out for the silk road guy. Who's lies? |
|
|
|
I'll gladly explain. The state may have the power to go after the bad actors, but Bitcoin makes it far more difficult, because pseudonymity. Unlike fiat, Bitcoin transactions are not linked to identities - only addys. The state also has no real interest in maintaining a semblance of order & respectability in a pseudocurrency meant to unseat the state-backed money. It has great interest in maintaining the value of the currency it issues, but Bitcoin's value? Not so much TL;DR: No mechanism for self-governance; no incentive for state to help; more difficult to enforce even if the incentive was there. @Lardass: ur fat. Law enforcement testified at the NYDFS hearings last year and they repeatedly said bitcoin did not make their job any harder in regards to catching criminals. Since when did Bitcoiners start trusting LEO? Fiat is not linked to identities. Credit cards might be, bank transfers might be, but fiat itself is not linked to identities.
Semantics? Also, see edit: And, of course cash transactions are, by their nature, done face-to-face, so identity is established in tried & true meatspace mode. Trusting law enforcement is not required. Following the money is just one way to catch criminals and a relatively new one in the history of law enforcement. |
|
|
|
I'll gladly explain. The state may have the power to go after the bad actors, but Bitcoin makes it far more difficult, because pseudonymity. Unlike fiat, Bitcoin transactions are not linked to identities - only addys. The state also has no real interest in maintaining a semblance of order & respectability in a pseudocurrency meant to unseat the state-backed money. It has great interest in maintaining the value of the currency it issues, but Bitcoin's value? Not so much TL;DR: No mechanism for self-governance; no incentive for state to help; more difficult to enforce even if the incentive was there. @Lardass: ur fat. Law enforcement testified at the NYDFS hearings last year and they repeatedly said bitcoin did not make their job any harder in regards to catching criminals. Fiat is not linked to identities. Credit cards might be, bank transfers might be, but fiat itself is not linked to identities. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
