At the bottom left corner of the page you will see this: https://i.snag.gy/qrRTQl.jpg
As to your idea, the same thing has already been suggested countless times already. It would defeat the whole object of the merit system as account farmers would just use it to rank up their alts. The system works like this so that making useful posts is the only way to get sMerit to give and that will improve the quality of the whole forum. |
|
|
|
That's not a fix, but a pure form of usage exclusion, which is not what Bitcoin is about.
I can't emphasise this point enough. We all want to prevent spam but centralised control of what can and cannot be transacted is the antithesis of what Bitcoin is for.
Has anyone got any evidence that a spam attack actually happened? Back in July last year I saw transactions like this one: https://btc.com/70aea3503f5a636ff244a86f6be70a3520ec344d0a4e1c8bad60983778e8b1911 input and 749 outputs of 1 sat each. That's clearly spam as the recipient can't spend the dust. Has anyone seen anything like this from last November to December? |
|
|
|
Jochen very specifically only includes unconfirmed transactions while earn includes both confirmed and unconfirmed transactions in each of their relevant time periods. Those websites give very different information.
The earn.com website also is only showing unconfirmed transactions in the higher (green bars). The discrepancy between this and what Jochen shows and what is getting included in blocks is what I'm pointing out. The legend above could be clearer as to what the two bars are: https://i.snag.gy/FSAYyn.jpg "Unconfirmed transactions / Transactions today" makes sense but "# OF TRANSACTIONS IN MEMPOOL IN LAST 336 HOURS" is misleading. If it was really that then the number would HAVE to be much higher than "Transaction Today". They just mean their mempool has a 336hr expiry on unconfirmed transactions. If I broadcast a valid transaction with a transaction fee of 350 sat/byte, my transaction will remain on Jochen until the following block when, as of now, it is almost certain to get confirmed, while it will remain on earn for two weeks.
No, it will move from the higher bar to the lower bar as it is now confirmed. If you don't believe me then spend some time watching it and see what happens after a block is found. Also, just because the miners cannot find sufficient transactions to fill up a block in its entirety does not mean there are no remaining paying transactions out there. If a transaction will have a cost to the miner in the risk that including that additional transaction will incrementally increase the risk the block getting orphaned is greater than the transaction fee (both within the transaction, and out of band), then the transaction will not confirm, even if there are no other paying transactions.
That's the heart of the issue here. Every node on the network has its own version of the mempool. In order to make a realistic fee estimation it would be logical to try and have a mempool as similar to the ones the mining pools are using as possible. The fact the earn.com's mempool contains many more transactions than the mining pools mempools is causing them to overestimate fees. The -mempoolexpiry parameter is the only explanation I can come up with, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has another possible technical explanation for the discrepancy. |
|
|
|
Perhaps I give this a shot. I'm not confident, though  With regards to the neutral rating thing, can I counter that with this? - Do not rate people based on the quality of their posts.
You cant since. However. if I heavily disagree I will add a neutral feedback to your account indicating that you are a spammer. Game on. This is for those that complain about not being rewarded for quality content.
Its clear that you are agreeing with OP`s terms and conditions in regard of your post being reviewed. By that being said, no matter what the out come is, you just have to deal with it. As well as having accepted the T&C in the offer it is also a selective quote. A few lines above the quote it falls under this heading. On feedback pages, you can leave trade feedback. There are no rules for this, but here are some guidelines:
It's only a guideline. |
|
|
|
Bcash shills. banning the opposition is not right. we should hear everybody and respond with reason and logic, why I'd picked some of their posts when I was applying for becoming a merit source, if a real conversation has to be silenced because we don't agree with them, we deserve to have street beggars and unemployed illiterates turning this forum into what it has become.
~...trimmed...~
Do you find any comments like the quoted ones on the post history of these shills? they are discussing Bitcoin itself. if I could see them as what they really are, others would see them too. if they all are banned, nobody would discuss about Bitcoin.
I do agree with you that we shouldn't ban people because we disagree with them but they do have to stick to the forum rules like everyone else. The purpose of a forum is indeed to debate and you need opposing opinions to make that happen. But it comes down to how they go about it. If they go around necrobumping old threads, trying to derail all discussion on to their topic of choice and, just generally trolling, then banning them is probably the only option. I had a run in with RNC a couple of days ago when they tried to turn my thread about the inaccuracy of fee estimators into a debate about fees being too high. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2990283.msg31346481#msg31346481 |
|
|
|
There are currently - at the time of this post - 57 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 11975 sMerit per 30 days. Those are the merits generated by sources only, and given that a member can send half the merits he receives and imagining the best case scenario where every member sends all the merits he receives, the total amount of merits generated by the system would double to 23950 sMerit per 30 days. So, roughly 24k sMerit per month.
I don't know if it is as a result of this thread or not but it looks like theymos agreed that there wasn't enough Merit. There has been an update to the Merit Sources. Merit sources
There are 57 merit sources with a total merit generation of up to 14750 sMerit per 30 days
The same number of sources but more sMerit. |
|
|
|
I think ETFs will happen eventually but the Bitcoin market will have to mature a lot and become less volatile first.
ETF's are nothing more than price trackers, really. It makes no difference that the market becomes stable or not. It's just that the SEC needs to stop acting like a complete hypocrite and allow this market to develop naturally. Everything tethering the price of Bitcoin or other coins has a certain level of risk involved, nothing will be able to change that in the coming years. If volatility was a real concern, the future markets wouldn't even be allowed to operate. On top of that, platforms such as CBOE and CME have various security triggers in place to halt the market at the time Bitcoin's swings become too wild -- on the first day CBOE halted trading several times. You snipped out the answer. Futures are mainly traded by professionals whereas ETFs are often held by retail investors so they are very different products with different markets.
The market circuit breakers are in place to help reduce the impact of flash crashes that can be instigated by fat finger errors triggering algorithmic trading systems. Without the circuit breakers, the algos can run wild and make things much worse. This is about volatility that occurs in minutes or seconds. The volatility the SEC is concerned about on ETFs is that occurs over days and weeks that will affect your average retail investor who has sunk their life savings into a fund and only checks the statement once a month. They think it is stable enough to be a trading product, but not yet stable enough to be an investment vehicle. BTW ETF's are a lot more than just a price tracker as they have to be backed by something, either actual Bitcoins or futures contracts. https://i.snag.gy/Qzf8D1.jpg Src: http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/bitcoin-etf-could-launch-6-months?nopaging=1 |
|
|
|
niknik1966 has made it onto the top merit earners page with 151 merit received, one more than enough to rank the account up to Sr. Member. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1013524Merit summary for niknik1966 Merit: 251 Sent in the last 120 days Received in the last 120 days February 18, 2018, 12:38:21 PM: 11 from dzkrb for Re: [ANN][ICO] BAAPPAY - The Evolution of the Payment Platform is Here February 17, 2018, 10:21:52 PM: 9 from dzkrb for Re: [ANN][ICO] Devnetwork - The First Decentralized Tech Professional Platform February 17, 2018, 10:16:17 PM: 11 from Krezz2017 for Re: Do you Know FALCON COIN February 17, 2018, 07:56:16 AM: 5 from Boing7898 for Re: So many new ICO, how to check if it's scam? February 17, 2018, 07:00:58 AM: 3 from cryptohype for Re: [ANN][ICO] FLASH Token: Мы уже делаем бизнес February 16, 2018, 07:34:36 PM: 9 from Praetorian.1legion for Re: Crypto Capital Bank release - ICO coins Bi2Coin February 16, 2018, 07:17:18 PM: 9 from Krezz2017 for Re: [ANN][ICO] Devnetwork - The First Decentralized Tech Professional Platform February 16, 2018, 01:49:07 PM: 3 from HopeCrypto for Re: Криптовалюта мавро February 16, 2018, 12:14:00 AM: 3 from termion for Re: Wallets for altcoins February 15, 2018, 03:41:59 AM: 3 from termion for Re: [ANN] [PRE-ICO] SuperStock - Memes, Crypto Finance and App Development February 14, 2018, 03:03:17 PM: 7 from Fu.Sin for Re: [PRE-ANN] BoldGold - Anonymous, Fast, Secure February 12, 2018, 02:14:25 AM: 5 from kusumadewi for Re: ⚡⚡[ANN]⚡⚡[Pre-ICO]⚡⚡СИНТЕЗТЕХ Технология Холодной February 11, 2018, 06:29:16 AM: 2 from tarolog for Re: 150$ to trade February 11, 2018, 04:48:33 AM: 10 from Varyg for Re: TRON (TRX) Scam February 11, 2018, 01:44:31 AM: 3 from LoveCryptoAll for Re: FruoCoin -Incognito Mode Of Payments -Anonymous Coin With Useful Extra Features February 11, 2018, 12:01:47 AM: 3 from AndrewBUD for Re: QuasarCoin Get Ready for Mining - Will be upgraded to MN February 08, 2018, 08:40:42 PM: 10 from HopeCrypto for Re: [ANN]EQUI - Bridging Crypto with traditional Venture Capital. Presale 01.03 February 05, 2018, 07:06:24 PM: 10 from AndrewBUD for Re: Article About Why People Use Crypto February 05, 2018, 06:57:58 PM: 10 from termion for Re: [ANN] [ICO] Banana Papa on KICKICO February 05, 2018, 06:52:31 PM: 5 from LoveCryptoAll for Re: [ANN][NKA] INCAKOIN l Perú l Launched Aug 2013 | 24hr price $0.001043 USD February 05, 2018, 06:27:52 PM: 20 from termion for Re: [TOKEN SALE-$9 mln] Budbo 2.0-supply chain management on a LEGAL global CANNABIS Accounts niknik1966, Fu.Sin, dzkrb, Krezz2017 and Praetorian.1legion all share the same ETH address in their profile. 0x045751788Cb35f100466EC13193bF46DBa9Ba152 (I wasn't able to link the other accounts.) http://archive.is/Wamg0http://archive.is/g47q4http://archive.is/qs4xjhttp://archive.is/D1FGkhttp://archive.is/CnywV
|
|
|
|
Block being mined with 65% of its transaction using segwit.  I would say it is a successful advancement in bitcoin being viable in sending quick and just as affordable as any other crypto out there. There's been a big increase this week already since 0.16.0 was released. http://segwit.party/charts/#https://i.snag.gy/Wz3o8l.jpg |
|
|
|
For those users who send merit to their own post. Ther are punishments when you send merit in your own post? .
You can not give some merit to your own post because you do not know how wonderful it for the eyes of others. Let them to decide or examine our posts because they have better understanding to know which the impressive to our posts.
Hopefully in the next merit system update, remove this sign "+ merit" on the side of our own post. Because once you cheat, you are always a cheater.
You can't merit your own post you just get an error if you try. That was a bug fixed on the first day of implementation. |
|
|
|
It's weird that there are futures trading, but no ETF of the bitcoin, hope the ETFs will come soon.
It's not really that weird. Futures are mainly traded by professionals whereas ETFs are often held by retail investors so they are very different products with different markets. The regulatory bodies take a view on the need to protect these groups from risk based on their different levels of experience and knowledge. I think ETFs will happen eventually but the Bitcoin market will have to mature a lot and become less volatile first. |
|
|
|
There was significant work done on the CBOE Futures Exchange, including a latency reduction exceeding 80%. Transaction speed is extremely important for traders as a delay of even a couple seconds can have dramatic effects on the outcome of a trade.
This looks like a piece of bad journalism in that they have linked two unrelated things. There are rumours that now there are BTC futures then ETH and others may be introduced as well. But the upgrade clearly has nothing to do with that and is just being used as an excuse to print a story. When the exchange launches another contract it involves putting in new servers not upgrading the existing ones. The reasons for the upgrade are clearly stated in the story and nothing to do with new contracts. |
|
|
|
I don't understand why the server costs should be taken into account when withdrawing?
Because it is part of the cost of providing the service. It is both logical and fair that those that use that service the most pay the most for it. A business model is overall, and not aspect-wise. You can't charge people extra at bank of America for withdrawing funds from your own checking account through the teller because it costs them money to pay employees to do that and to update the servers and to pay the accountants?
Banks charge for some services based on how often people use them. Some of these fees are hidden, like every time you use a debit card the retailer pays the fee not the customer, but it has the same effect in making what you buy more expensive. When the bank provides a service like cash withdrawal for free it isn't really free as that means they have to recoup the cost by charging higher fees elsewhere. What the exchanges are doing is actually a far more transparent model where you can see what you are paying before deciding to use the service and fairer because customers pay for the services in proportion to how they use them. I don't know why you have sympathy for exchanges lol. They make millions of dollars every year. They make that off of the commissions from trades and maybe some coin listings and what not...
I mean it's so profitable you see new exchanges popping up everywhere... I have no sympathy for their costs whatsoever. Sorry.
It is not a question of me having sympathy it is a question of me understanding different business models and ways to pass on costs most fairly. |
|
|
|
Do you happen to know which exchanges have the lowest withdrawal fee? I think I'm going to switch to another one.
It really changes all the time so you need to have a look around and do a comparison from time to time. Some are using dynamic fees that change from day to day. From the ones I have tried Binance is the cheapest on withdrawls. Others like bitfinex are whale only clubs where you need to deposit 10k USD at least.
To me despite their issues recently Binance remains on top by far.
The 10k limit is for new accounts, they have many customers that are not whales but have had an account for some time. Now the that 'gold rush' of the end of last year is over they may well remove that restriction again. It's not actually as it's dynamic. I'm logged in right now and it is 0.0004BTC. That announcement means they changed the formula to be 25% lower when they started using Segwit. |
|
|
|
It's still pretty high given that you can send transactions for a few cents, but it is a step in the right direction.
You do have to take into account that the fee doesn't just cover the miner's fee on the transaction but also the cost of administrating the withdrawal system. They need to run servers, put security systems in place for the hot wallet, have a cold wallet, sweep deposits and answer support requests as well. Even so, they were all quick to put withdrawal fees up so it is good to some reducing them. It would be better if they used dynamic fees like for example Bitfinex (currently 0.0004BTC). |
|
|
|
Am i the only one who'se smart enough to understand this bull was made up by gambling sites, where's the actual proof of rolls not being rigged and 100% legitimate? are we supposed to trust the gambling sites words about how rolls cannot be rigged, of cousr they can? if not prove me wrong
You don't have to trust the gambling sites word... you just have to trust in Cryptography (and, to a certain extent, understand it). If you don't trust the cryptography behind "Provably Fair", then you shouldn't be trusting cryptocurrency either, as they generally use similar algorithms (SHA256, SHA512 etc). Plenty of people have made claims that gambling sites are "rigging" rolls and provably fair is "bull"... However, I'm not currently aware of any instance of a (properly and fairly implemented [1]) "Provably Fair" system having been shown to be rigged. The sites simply can't cheat the math... much like the players can't when they're playing against odds skewed in favour of the house (House Edge).  [1] There were accusations levelled at one particular site that involved having to click a button to show the server seed etc... which is a flawed design as it could potentially be used to allow the site to know if the user was checking the seed or not and therefore only "rig" rolls when the user hadn't click the button and could not check the fairness of the roll. The whole point of "Provably Fair" is that YOU can prove it to YOURSELF. As you just pointed out it is possible to have a flawed design where it doesn't really allow you to prove it. But that will always be spotted very quickly when some of the customers of these gambling sites are experts in cryptography. |
|
|
|
1 sat/byte is definitely on the lowest spectrum of the average fee for the last few months. This is why I added the URL : https://bitcoinfees.info/ for you to see what the average was over a longer period. Not to go too far off-topic but that chart is "Historic daily average Bitcoin transaction fees". Obviously, the average is a lot higher than the 'minimum required' as a lot of services pump out high fee transactions and pass the cost on to their customers regardless of the state of the mempool. Anyway, when I am consolidating inputs I wait until I can get 1 sat/byte before doing it. |
|
|
|
Thankyou @Thirdspace. I would have thought it obvious that the average fee paid has to be by definition higher than the minimum fee required. Back to bitcoinfees.earn.com and their mysteriously bloated mempool. All these screenshots were taken at the same time just after a block was found with not enough transactions to even fill it. https://i.snag.gy/lEHQzT.jpg earn.com showing 3,244 unconfirmed transactions that the mining pools don't see. Resulting in an estimated fee of 30 sats/byte. https://i.snag.gy/PQGBbz.jpg jochen-hoenicke.de shows only 67 unconfirmed transactions. https://i.snag.gy/lvgWM3.jpg coinb.in/#fees recommends a fee of 1 sat/byte. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
