What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.
But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second. You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. |
|
|
|
So increasing the blockchain (in size, per block) is not a solution and decreasing it isn't either?
I find this, illogical. What are you proposing?
What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second. Are you sure it's just that..? Increasing the block size and pruning would be a decent solution, for now. I'm not sure how advantageous pruning would be. That is probably covered in another thread. I would prefer a much larger block and a slightly larger OP_RETURN. |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? Hmm... I'd rather ask who can be deadliest, but greediest? I'm trying to fancy a Terminator in which the terminate function is changed to that of greed. An army of greedy Terminators running on banks and attacking the New York Stock Exchange. This surely beats me! They wouldn't need to be terminators. They could be holding companies. How would the authorities punish a program? Using decentralized record keeping they could be audited, but they couldn't be stopped or punished. Machine greed is limitless. |
|
|
|
Blockchain pruning is entirely do-able.
Cool story, but it doesn't really solve anything. So increasing the blockchain (in size, per block) is not a solution and decreasing it isn't either? I find this, illogical. What are you proposing? What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second. |
|
|
|
Human greed is limitless, human desires are insatiable, but just human envy alone would waste any machine in less than no time.
I guess it comes down to who can be greediest, man or machine? |
|
|
|
If computers take over they will create a virtual world where humans are not allowed. But the joke is on them, humans are not virtual.
It was Arthur C Clarke who said that like religion and labor, science will get rid of the economy as well.
Clarke was an old school when they didn't need teleportation and psychic power gimmicks. He kept up with scientific research. |
|
|
|
when the time comes, we will manage the balance between the robot and human. Now our focus should be developing Artificial intelligence. The scenario you mentioned should be in science fiction now.
I would also like to find such fiction. I have been working on a book about this for awhile now. Hopefully my take on the subject is unique. |
|
|
|
Artificial intelligence and the fridge http://on.ft.com/1zSz2twIn science fiction, this scenario — called “singularity” or “transcendence” — usually leads to robot versus human war and a contest for world domination.
But what if, rather than a physical battle, it was an economic one, with robots siphoning off our money or destroying the global economy with out-of-control algorithmic trading programmes? Perhaps it will not make for a great movie, but it seems the more likely outcome.
With Bitcoin, it's hard to see the downside. DACs (decentralize autonomous companies) are inevitable. This article is another vestige of irrational fear about money. |
|
|
|
More nonsense from Bill. Gold fluctuates drastically especially recently. Does that mean all gold based monetary systems are crap? No it fucking does not.
Well but it doesn'y fluctuate the way bitcoin does. and does not shows drops and increases the way bitcoin rolls Gold has no new properties to give it any great speculative value anymore. Still, gold isn't the steadfast dependable anchor it used to be. Bitcoin has the potential to make gold non-speculative. Gold will simply be a commodity baseline. Bitcoin will open new speculative channels with each new technology it enables. |
|
|
|
Ideal Money tells you what the optimal block size should be
What does it say it should be? Can you quote the relevant section? What kind of person thinks you can paraphrase genius? It was meant to be not paraphrased. In the context of this op. It's going to have to be paraphrased before it can be implemented. This isn't going to cut it: static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = #include "ideal_money.pdf"
Someone might fork it. static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = #include "ideal_money.txt"
|
|
|
|
|
When I carry large amounts of cash into NYC dark alleys, I always bring Chuck Norris.
|
|
|
|
Going up.
 |
|
|
|
Visa seems to get along fine with a peak tx volume that's about 12 times their average tx volume. STOP COMPARING BITCOIN TO VISA! THEY ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE SAME THING.I weary of this comparison. Bitcoin isn't about becoming the singularity of payments. Bitcoin is about Fair Money. Indebtedness should be a choice, not forced upon by governments. |
|
|
|
Speaking as an American here, ask yourself, reader, why are we as a society so terrified of disobedience, but not at all fearful of obedience?
I blame fluoridated water, high fructose corn syrup, chemtrails, and Obama. |
|
|
|
I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.
A dynamic proposal that allows the "anti-spam" limit to increase and decrease may allow us to continue to search for other solutions while we have the backstop in place so we don't hit a crisis may be a good idea. This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart. Translation: This is where I stopped thinking. He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit. His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.
It's one-sided because it's chosen by the miner that builds the block. It's the miner that chooses how big the bloc will be. That's partly why there have been empty blocks with no new transactions included. You, I and others, can see the fallacy of this in a moment, but he seems willing to ignore it.
We're mostly ignoring you. The fallacy is yours. Own it. I have good confidence in his programming. I like the way he codes, it is tight and clean. He is a great software engineer, and he has tested the software so that it works with large blocks.
As a protocol engineer he may be able to improve. He has set himself up as the curator of ideas, and decides which have merit and which do not. He was wise enough to revise this aspect of his proposal for the protocol once already, so he can hear some criticisms and respond.
This is why I hold some hope for him yet and have not given up on him.
The ever popular concern troll. |
|
|
|
It's free, it's online, so nothing to lose. You can just request a ticket, attend (if you have a time) and if it's not fun, just leave. It's apparently blockchain's 6th bithday party. I wonder how many of those who objected the "secret" Satoshi Roundtable meeting will show up and contribute. I guess it really was a Bilderberg style meeting. It got hushed up. |
|
|
|
|
There seems to have been nothing reported from this secret meeting. I wonder what they hoped to accomplish?
|
|
|
|
cooked to the upside cooked to the downside ... i wouldn't be at all surprised if the great majority of the volume and ask and offer orders conducted on these unregulated exchanges is being done by the exchanges themselves ... which has been repeatedly evidenced every time one of them goes down and shows the "actual" book ...
True, we need a regulated exchange or even better a decentralized one We need both. Regulated exchanges will satisfy the institutional traders and DEXs can serve as arbitrage. |
|
|
|
|
The trolls are less about casting aspersions and more about schadenfreude nowadays. It used to be they attacked Bitcoin with accusations of drug trafficking and terrorism. Now they attack investors personally as if they feel they can somehow hurt them. It's sad how the days of Something Awful raids have devolved into such petty cries for attention. The trolls here have nowhere else to go. They don't have a forum that wants them. Buttcoiner's don't want them because they they don't suffer fools either. Shibe's don't want them because they don't have the chops to keep up. The admins must pity them because they allow newbies to come directly into the forums with no forewarning. They become easy prey for the sociopaths lurking in the shadows. Fortunately experienced Bitcoiners, like the honey badger, don't care what they do because Bitcoin Abides.
|
|
|
|
As much as I want to, I can't hate the Winklevoss twins. I feel the same way about Libertarians. Bitcoin brings everyone together in spite of their differences. I guess it takes all kinds of ingredients to make a great recipe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
