|
Parallel computers are often used to analyze complex systems in supercomputers. It seems that blockchain analysis has similar complexity that would benefit from supercomputers. They could be used to track outputs for metacoins and optimize wallets to minimize transaction size. If SHA256 ASIC coprocessors were added to a conventional parallel computer, it could be optimized for blockchain analysis.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining vastly outpaces gold mining while price continues to grow (on average). Gold collapsing. Bitcoin up.
Time frame of reference. Bitcoin is up in the last 5 years, but gold has definitely outperformed bitcoin in the past year. As far as stability, neither are. They're both subject to 5%+ price swings daily, which is far from stable. Just because bitcoin has temporarily found a price range in the low 2xx's doesn't mean jack. It has been following the same pattern of holding a price for a month or so then falling hard all the way from $700 and below. Until it shows a strong and maintained uptrend, the free fall remains. The 30 day chart shows a +0.04% change. That is more stable than fiat. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin mining vastly outpaces gold mining while price continues to grow (on average). Gold collapsing. Bitcoin up.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoins man...they keep getting cheaper and I keep getting richer.
Any logic behind it? Can you share it through PM? I also want to become richer, who else doesn't...  If you have to ask, you don't get Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yes, more hardware requirement==more centralisation. But if the devs don't forget to implement the optimizations part of the plans (i.e. "The Future Looks Bright" in https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/) then everyone can run a full peer node in the future just as easy as now. O look. The pruning bullshit. If everyones prunes the spent outputs, how does a full node synchronize from scratch? From 'trusted' archive nodes? Gimme a break. The Gavincoiners use at least three canards to justify their attack on Bitcoin: pruning, disk space, and scale. The pruning canard relies on experimental yet-to-be-invented vaporware and excludes synching from scratch, necessitating trust in archive nodes. The entire point of BTC is to replace trust with proof. When you want a prunable mini-blockchain, use Cryptonite instead of BTC. The disk space canard overemphasizes the undisputed high density and availability of economical storage, in order to distract from the far more important bandwidth constraints under which much of the world (and hardened TOR-like networks) operate. The scale canard is the same used by those opposing a gold standard. Low TPS isn't an obstacle to scaling any more than a limited supply of gold. The price of each simply increases and scaling is provided by quality (magnitude), not quantity, of transactions. Substitution also plays a key role, as the more numerous but less important transactions migrate to secondary networks like silver/copper or Litecoin/Primecoin. Bitcoin is no stronger than its ability to deal with an attack such as was undertaken against Kim Dotcom.
^This^ is why we must keep Bitcoin small, nimble, diffuse, and defensible. You mean small blocks can stop US Marshals from breaking down your doors and taking your stuff? |
|
|
|
OP's so short he got rejected at the rollercoaster entrance. OP's so short only satoshi's fit in his wallet. |
|
|
|
What the heck is going on with BTC? Who the hell is dumping 'em and why?
The spring is being wound up tighter. |
|
|
|
So we get to 140 tps...
What happens if we reach that in say 5 years... Another hard fork?
I just don't think changing it like this is a smart way of dealing with the issue, why not a dynamic size that scales with the network as some other coins do...?
Now I think the hardfork isn't necessary (I've read a lot of article,topics). The 1 MB blocksize is necessary to keep the coin decentralized (more & more people save the blockchain on their PC) and bitcoin will stay a valid an great alternative to the current economy system in the next few years. For example if someone want to send money to his relatives in another country/nation, in this case bitcoin can help (because the fees are lower than moneygram,western union, bank transfer, etc...) and the 7 tps aren't a real problem. Your first wrongfully point assumes in five years people will still be using 500GB hard drives. Your second point wrongfully assumes miners won't keep fees low facing higher demand. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is allowed to become universally accepted, there is nothing to stop network professionals from building a new internet based on Bitcoin. Bitpay is researching this as are others, I am sure. So while 20MB willl get things moving again, exponential growth is very likely by simply rebuilding what needs to be done anyway. |
|
|
|
Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed? Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks? I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so.
The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem. It's not an economic problem. Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited. ... Neither Gavin nor you nor any of the hard-fork crowd seem anxious to answer this. " We are targeting the top {n}% of world population by gross income being able to perform {n} native Bitcoin transactions per year and pay {x}% of their transaction values to miners as fees. Here is our roadmap." It seems unrealistic to complain about a lack of decent analysis without such a basic goal being stated. It's interesting you use "roadmap" as your analogy. You are thinking in two dimensions. Bitcoin isn't about money management. Bitcoin will open transit systems (to extend your analogy) never thought possible. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace coinage because I imagine material scientists will design very difficult to counterfeit physical bills and tokens. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace lending or credit, because trust is how people help each other. Instead it will create trustless contracts between normally unreliable and even hostile producers and consumers. It will be a tool for economic expansion, not bean counting. So to answer your fast-food managerial level question about who gets paid: it isn't how big the block reward or fees are, it's how much you save and allow to deflate that will pay the biggest dividends. You are making things far more complex than they need to be. I think you are trying to elevate the solution so some sort of a metaphysical level and this is subconsciously because you don't want to consider the engineering problems. At the end of the day, when the parts of the ecosystem are broken down into their constituent components (and sub-components) we are looking at things that are not all that complex by the standards of other engineering problems we humans have solved. It is literally 'not rocket science'. It's not trivial either of course, but for better or worse, what Satoshi came up with was actually rather primitive in some ways. An engineer who cannot or will not define and end-goal to some level of specificity is basically planning to fail. That is exactly what Gavin is doing whether by accident or design. Anyway, it's a simple fill-in-the-blank type question that I asked. Wanna have a go at it? Nobody else seems to. That's not what I mean at all. Bitcoin will create entirely new industries that don't currently exist like the internet has only begun to do. There will be plenty of incentives for operating nodes and resourceful ways to expand Bitcoin's pipelines. It's not just about Moore's Law, it's about a New Industrial Revolution, not some armchair philosophy. Your x-y financial charts will require a z-axis with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
If some miners don't fork, will those miners be able to send messages through the alert system? If not, then merchants need to be aware that only the authentic Bitcoin blockchain has the keys to send alert messages.
|
|
|
|
We need to bring back Kubrik to life so he can make a movie about all of this.
"Room 237 - to the Moon" |
|
|
|
Good paper.. The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static partial
equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security is directly linked to
the total computational power of miners. We show that any situation with a fixed
fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size. In both cases, we
give the optimal value of the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that
making the block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the fee
be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot guarantee the
very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term... A myopic dissertation of double-entry accounting era thinking. He's criticizing a startup company, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about breaking paradigms in economics. At least he admits using simple statistics, but his conclusion has been debunked. Then I noticed this paper was written a year ago when the FUD machine was on overdrive. hmmokee... Maybe I am a little rough as it appears to be an undergraduate paper. I just get tired of seeing limited thinking like the "scarce resources of blocks" and ignoring the fact that this is a developing technology. Perhaps I wouldn't be as offended if the paper was titled The Economics of Litecoin. |
|
|
|
Good paper.. The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519We study the economics of Bitcoin transaction fees in a simple static partial
equilibrium model with the specificity that the system security is directly linked to
the total computational power of miners. We show that any situation with a fixed
fee is equivalent to another situation with a limited block size. In both cases, we
give the optimal value of the transaction fee or of the block size. We also show that
making the block size a non binding constraint and, in the same time, letting the fee
be fixed as the outcome of a decentralized competitive market cannot guarantee the
very existence of Bitcoin in the long-term... A myopic dissertation of double-entry accounting era thinking. He's criticizing a startup company, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about breaking paradigms in economics. At least he admits using simple statistics, but his conclusion has been debunked. Then I noticed this paper was written a year ago when the FUD machine was on overdrive. |
|
|
|
Guys i am trying to understand the whole thing, but please ELI5 how will be my coins, stored in paper wallets affected??? I will have to sell them and buy new coins on the new fork or i will be able to use my coins on both blockchains....? I don't get it  If this is the case, that we will have to sell our coins and buy new ones, i don't want that.... Bitcoin will always remain backwards compatible to cold storage. This change will only affect miners and nodes. |
|
|
|
Wow 56 pages and 500ish votes laters.. Still no clear view about the issue. Good.. i'm sure bitcoin's anti-fragility will empower US even more.  PS: but try to keep it civilized and healthy debate folks  This is a designated troll thread. The original debate thread was over and closed. |
|
|
|
Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed? Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks? I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so.
The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem. It's not an economic problem. Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited. ... Neither Gavin nor you nor any of the hard-fork crowd seem anxious to answer this. " We are targeting the top {n}% of world population by gross income being able to perform {n} native Bitcoin transactions per year and pay {x}% of their transaction values to miners as fees. Here is our roadmap." It seems unrealistic to complain about a lack of decent analysis without such a basic goal being stated. It's interesting you use "roadmap" as your analogy. You are thinking in two dimensions. Bitcoin isn't about money management. Bitcoin will open transit systems (to extend your analogy) never thought possible. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace coinage because I imagine material scientists will design very difficult to counterfeit physical bills and tokens. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace lending or credit, because trust is how people help each other. Instead it will create trustless contracts between normally unreliable and even hostile producers and consumers. It will be a tool for economic expansion, not bean counting. So to answer your fast-food managerial level question about who gets paid: it isn't how big the block reward or fees are, it's how much you save and allow to deflate that will pay the biggest dividends. |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget, there are altcoins with 1MB blocks every minute. They don't seem to be complaining about bandwidth problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
