The OP is right the fees are ridiculous, it essentially makes microtransactions impossible
Since bitcoin's entire purpose was to make microtransactions possible... Not true. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto satoshin@gmx.comwww.bitcoin.orgAbstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. ... I see payments (transactions) but not micro. Also it depends on the definition of microtransactions. If you mean sub $1 tx Bitcoin works fine. If you sub $0.01 tx then Bitcoin will never be viable. No public ledger system will. Any system has a per transaction cost and it is somewhat dubious to try and build a global model which works for sub cent transactions. Current fee is 0.1 mBTC or about 1.5 US cents. A company selling a $1 digital good generally finds current payment systems to be incompatible. Credit card: $0.30 + 3% = $0.33 fee or 33% of gross. Bitcoin: $0.015 fee or 1.5% of gross. Yeah looks pretty good for micro transactions. I think your sarcasm detector is off. |
|
|
|
Have you heard about Zerocoin?
Yes, but do we have any idea when/if this will be implemented in bitcoin? I remember reading about zerocoin at some point and being excited about it, but it seems so long ago. I don't know if there are any plans to implement it in Bitcoin at this point in time, but I would bet that somebody is ramping up to implement it in an altcoin. Then anonymity would be a simple matter of obtaining Bitcoins and exchanging them for that altcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Will cash deposits and withdrawals be possible again at some point?
Why does bitcoincharts.com list Vircurex as an "inactive" market?
|
|
|
|
|
Have you heard about Zerocoin?
|
|
|
|
|
With the zerocoin library available, what obstacles are preventing someone from making an altcoin that incorporates zerocoin?
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the reduction in withdrawal fees.  Looking forward to seeing an option for USD deposit/withdrawal again. |
|
|
|
What if we could rig the market forces in the network to provide all of the security benefits of Bitcoin while simultaneously minimizing the computing resources required to reach network consensus? The point is to maximize the resources required to perform a double spend or other attack. |
|
|
|
|
I much prefer the way Vircurex does it.
|
|
|
|
|
dw, this is probably answered elsewhere, but is there an IP address the public can use if we want to add cryptocoin explorer as a peer to our own wallets, i.e., in an addnode= line in the .conf file?
|
|
|
|
You can always add CCE to your list of nodes. addnode=69.164.204.19 Right now, it has 45 Bytecoin connections: {
"version" : 80101,
"protocolversion" : 70001,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 18354,
"connections" : 45,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 35794.12912850,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1366994491,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
I did so but the blockchain still won't download. Or is it just a client glitch causing the Out of Sync thing to appear? By adding addnode=69.164.204.19 I only get 3 connections too. The client reports out of sync if the most recent received block is older than a certain age (3 hours, I believe). If you put the client up and leave it up, the out of sync goes away next time a block is generated. |
|
|
|
|
Is there any chance of adding Bitcoin testnet? The main block explorer has frozen at block 80805 (2013-05-21) and shows no signs of coming back to life, and the person who took that site over from theymos has not responded.
|
|
|
|
|
What rules need to change to make merged mining possible? Why is it not possible with plain Bitcoin code?
|
|
|
|
Honestly as a non developer why do you care? You'll never understand it. I don't either. I care deeply about the issue and want to continue with a pristine fork of Bitcoin like Bytecoin. Like many Bitcoin users, I don't want the rules changed out from under me. If you would like me to come along with you on a rules change, I'll need to understand it. And I am a developer and quite capable of understanding if I get information. But you need to grow up and stop being scared of things just because you don't know how they work. I don't like being talked to like that. |
|
|
|
If anyone at the Bitcoin Foundation sees this post, I would be willing to serve with such an organization. Please don't refer to regulating me as "serving" me. |
|
|
|
|
I can't find it either, but Vircurex has suspended all VouchX deposits and withdrawals.
Bitinstant will still accept VouchX in payment. Not currently offering VouchX output, but that is pretty common.
|
|
|
|
I understand the basics of how merged mining works. The detail I am missing is what has to change in the code to make merged mining possible, and why does that preclude continuing with the existing block chain?
In order to change the way the code works, the blockchain needs to be forked. It seems you don't know entirely what the purpose of the blockchain is. Not only is the blockchain a ledger, but it is also a reflection of the bytecoin daemon that we all run (bytecoind). When we change bytecoind, we no longer comply to the set of instructions and rules that the current blockchain is on, so when we mine our own blocks, they are mined with new code in a new bytecoind, and since other people don't have that bytecoind, they will continue along with their own blockchain. Until most of the network switches over, there would be two different blockchains. Do you understand? Tl;dr to change the coin, we need to change our software (bytecoind file specifically), which would change the blockchain. I understand what the blockchain is. I don't understand what rules need to change to make merged mining possible. |
|
|
|
Well, you sure make the case for BT3 in your first couple of sentences about Terracoin, don't you? |
|
|
|
If there is merged mining support in the main Bitcoin source that is not in Bytecoin I am in favor of pulling that in. What I am not in favor of is any code changes that make Bytecoin distinguised from Bitcoin other than the basic name, cosmetic, and new blockchain changes.
Can somebody explain to me in layman's terms why merged mining needs a blockchain fork? Will mining Bytecoin alone be possible on the new fork?
I asked about merged mining on #bitcoin-dev yesterday. They provided this link to help explain merged mining: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-workThey say that both merged mining implementations, p2pool and another, have some problems. They say that merged mining does provide a way to bring lots of hashpower to a new coin. They have the view that alt-coins only have legitimacy in the context of expanding bitcoin. They are deeply suspicious of most alt-coins as a scam to get noobs to buy snake oil. I understand the basics of how merged mining works. The detail I am missing is what has to change in the code to make merged mining possible, and why does that preclude continuing with the existing block chain? |
|
|
|
|
If there is merged mining support in the main Bitcoin source that is not in Bytecoin I am in favor of pulling that in. What I am not in favor of is any code changes that make Bytecoin distinguised from Bitcoin other than the basic name, cosmetic, and new blockchain changes.
Can somebody explain to me in layman's terms why merged mining needs a blockchain fork? Will mining Bytecoin alone be possible on the new fork?
|
|
|
|
I will be sticking with original Bytecoin and will not go to any forks of the code; the only code changes I will accept are updates from the main Bitcoin source.
Do you mine? I will be mining at some point in the future. I don't have all the hardware I need yet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
