Weekly is always better, of course, and if it stays automated it shouldn't have any negative impact. I definitely vote for weekly, .

I see the issue now. You quit reading before you actually read the statement, and instead resort to a false implication of what I was saying rather than taking the extra 2-3 seconds and just reading it. To help spell it out for you:

"(by not having transactions that should be in the first block have to wait 2-3-4 blocks to be added)."

If the current block size can hold 100 transactions and there are 101, they will be put into two blocks. The second one has to come after the first (right? Bitcoin won't let two blocks be filled at the exact same time). The time for a block is 10 minutes. Therefore, one transaction will be forced to wait 10 minutes AFTER the current block.

Increasing block size allows all 101 to enter the first block. Basic math tells us that with an average block time of 10 minutes, the first scenario would result in 20 minutes (avg.) used, while the second would only require 10. To break this down:

Block 1: 10* minutes, 100 transactions
Block 2: 20* minutes, 1 transaction

*time from last block.

According to WolframAlpha, 10 minutes is less than 20 minutes (click the link, and it will calculate it for you).

Therefore, it has just concluded that increasing the block size will speed up transactions (once the blocks are getting to the point where they are full/overfilled, which is what the increase is in relation to). Because, again, having them all in one block is faster than having them in two blocks. Simple math.

As per my original question, which nobody has really been able to explain (and has nothing to do with any of your replies since you were caught up trying to avoid reading my statement and just making false inferences) is how this is different than halving the block time/rewards and leaving the maximum block size at 1/2 whatever they're going for (10Mb instead of 20), which would ALSO benefit in giving faster transactions while at the same time fixing the original problem.

So far, the reason has been that "Satoshi" didn't make it that way. We've made multiple changes away from how it was originally created, so that's not a reason. It was made as an alpha (which has been stressed over and over for years) and is designed to be altered as needed and as experimenting shows changes are needed. Guess what: Satoshi also didn't set the maximum block size as 20Mb, so maybe we shouldn't do that either, since it wasn't like that in the beginning.


Edit: I also want to state that I'm not necessarily advocating for major changes to the way things work. I'm really just curious as to why what seems like the best solution (and should result in the same thing they're going for BUT also bring more usable applications) isn't the target. There's obviously something I'm missing here.

So it is literally what I said. Re-read the statement.

Then what does it do?

By increasing the block size, they are attempting to make transactions faster (by not having transactions that should be in the first block have to wait 2-3-4 blocks to be added).

You have to go to your land, then collect taxes. Then go back into the tax system again and withdraw it.

Also note that while it pays x per hour, it will NOT stack. i.e. if you get 10g per hour and you wait 3 hours, you still just get that 10g when you collect.

5m shouldn't make a huge difference on orphans though. Even some coins with 1m blocks don't suffer from high orphan rates. And usually block time is seen as a security flaw when there is little hash power. BTC has so much that at this point, those who would be able to exploit it with a faster block could do it even with the slower one since they'd be the majority of the mining power.

I just feel like we're tackling the wrong issue here.

Does have me curious. "There are not fees for the text based service" is interesting. I think having a viable option for paying cash through BTC as medium would be nice. The only debit card I'm aware of has fees of like 0.01 BTC per transaction (which is ridiculous for small amounts).

Question for you guys. I've played on BitPoker a bit but... what are you doing to try and capture the poker players? You're basically in competition with both SWC (https://swcpoker.eu/) and BitCasino for market share.

Pay does play a huge role, but it also causes loss of funds quicker. This is why, again, it needs to be run as a business. NOBODY here is making much profit off of faucets. But there are people who make $10k+ a month from theirs by using it to fuel traffic for their real business.

We keep having discussions about increasing the maximum block size to speed up transactions when we have a congested network. Why don't we just:

Leave block size the same
Decrease block rate to 5m
Decrease block finder reward by half to 12.5

Would this not help solve the same problem, while at the same time speeding up transactions as a whole?

There must be something I'm missing. I know block time affects security but can't we assume the network is secure with the current hash rate?

Should be less as that isn't bill pay. Bill pay is like paying rent, electric, water, etc.

That's what every other webminer has done, so we always assume people are going to take the same path.

I don't even think any CPU coins are going to make a profit, but you might find one somewhere.

+1. I'll say the same thing I tell everyone that wants to run a faucet. It's a business. If you're just replicating the same thing everyone else has done, you won't earn anything. You have to come up with a unique angle and target market. Just like any other business.

Please don't do this. You're wasting your time, their money, and contributing to wasted electricity and won't even benefit from it. If you could a CPU-viable coin and altered the miner, maybe. But don't go after BTC like this.

You're going to have to share a lot more information, especially concerning your identity and business information. People aren't going to just blindly send money/bitcoins to some stranger.

I'd love to see rakeback brought in. While people are focused on "active players," rakeback also gives incentive to playing higher stakes. Pretty much every big site has a reward system like this in some way or another.

The issue is if it's easy to get them going with barely any players, the admins are just paying people to play freerolls. That's not profitable for the site...

FWIW, I sent him a PM and I'm accepted. He needs to re-add though (earlier today he tried and couldn't because I forgot to add the Bit-X address in my "Other info" box).

NP! Thanks for the kind words, .