Offtopic sort of but I find it neccessary to be said:
Anyone having Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Google+ or similar account or is using any of services provided by (major) corporations or other service providers who are heavily backed
by the system and is involved with cryptocoins at the same time is an idiot, period.
You really think so? What sets crypto apart? Is it just the ease of fraud? |
|
|
|
Bots?
Definitely bots. I was playing with one last night. I kept putting in top buy bids for ฿20 and it would shortly follow with a small order just a hair above mine. I'd cancel as soon as his started to fill. |
|
|
|
I think the content on there is great but could use some work visually. I just graduated and have some free time before I start working full-time, so I want to design the entire site and maybe code it (it'll need to be responsive) and hopefully get it live. Any feedback would definitely be appreciated. Do you think the Bitcoin foundation would be supportive? Here is my attempt at the home page: ( I've also posted this on /r/bitcoin)  Welcome. Your design looks great. The site just got overhauled very recently. A big visual challenge that hasn't been well met, IMHO, is how to graphically depict the block chain... I'm also all for a new Bitcoin logo |
|
|
|
|
I get this error at least once a week...I'm on a Mac Mini with an internal 2-disk SSD RAiD. I thought maybe it was on account of the RAID...which would be really weird, but, guess not. I'm not the only one...
|
|
|
|
So any theories on what those outliers represent?
Rich dudes putting all their eggs in one basket. |
|
|
|
Can the client not be updated now (or soon) to handle more TPS and larger block sizes but not yet create them? Leave this change in place until needed - 1 or 2 years. Then when miners actually implement larger block sizes most people will already have a client that can deal with it.
Yes...that's more or less what satoshi suggested. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin is to achieve mass adoption, the protocol will need to be handle way more than 7 tps. This change would be better performed sooner rather than later. The userbase is growing, and it will only become increasingly difficult to get everyone to update to the latest client with time.
You can't simply change the client. The existing protocol is incompatible with a larger blocksize. Period. You can't force that protocol to cease to exist. Today we call that protocol Bitcoin. The only option is a hard fork, an incompatible version of the protocol but that means the existing protocol still exists as well. Essentially two incompatible Bitcoins. The only viable solution is before making a hard fork you have such overwhelming support that a super super super majority of all users (not just miners but merchants, exchanges, service providers, full nodes, and active users) switch that the old fork dies off. If you don't one of two things will happen: a) most people won't leave and your forked Bitcoin will just die off OR b) both forks gain significant backing and people end up with differing wealth of both chains. Both "camps" have a vested interest in their chain surviving so you end up with chaos. Two Bitcoins both calling themselves Bitcoin but completely incompatible to each other. (Yes this is the bad news scenario which is why hard forks should never be considered trivial changes). We did just hard fork a few days ago...not sure many noticed  It _can_ be done relatively seamlessly. |
|
|
|
|
I'm still vetting the history on this, but, I believe the 1 MB limit was originally set arbitrarily as a way of protecting the block chain from attack. It was never intended to be a limit on real economic activity.
That said, from a technical perspective, it's easier for the network to deal with 7 tps (transactions per second) than 7000 tps. With the way the block chain is stored now, 7000 tps would make for some rather big blocks and rapid block chain growth. I'm uncertain how much magic can be invented by our mostly unpaid devs to implement the technically challenging pruning and compression that's oft written about (but it's a boat load of work and would cost a fortune in the real world).
Anyhow, I view Bitcoin's value as paralleling the total # of tps. It's a relationship that's held generally true. Those who have bitcoins stand more to gain than those who don't by raising the max block size, IMHO. Those with no or few Bitcoins can make more money by devaluing Bitcoin by limiting the max block size and creating their own Bitcoin-like network for off chain transactions.
To me, it's just a question of what do you want to be more valuable, Bitcoin or off-chain-processors. I also believe the limited resource argument is FUD. Miners set the real limit no matter what the max block size is (well, not above it!).
|
|
|
|
I am using China Telecom's network, until now at least network traffic related to Bitcoin is OK.
Keep in mind that law in China works differently from that of West, in two ways:
1.Anything not explicitly permitted by law is technically prohibited;
2.No one will enforce the "not permitted yet not explicitly prohibited" part of the law until someone sees a chance to make money or directives are received from "relevant organs".(so yes we break laws everyday)
In this case, I guess it's China Telecom's management's own idea, not sure at which level the decision is made, but there must be some interest groups related to CT already feeling the threat of Bitcoin.
Wow. Thank you for sharing that cultural insight. I'm rather sheltered as an American, and I know I take a fair amount for granted, but wow. I'm surprised how arbitrary the government can be and the people put up with it. |
|
|
|
|
I don't think non-humans or anonymous humans can win the prize.
|
|
|
|
what if you could lock your bitcoins from being withdrawn. say for example on mtgox, you know you will not be withdrawing your bitcoins for a period of time, say 10 days as an example. you then lock the account (cannot be reversed) from being able to withdraw, just so you can have that piece of mind. and other sites having this feature would be nice too, not just mtgox
If you could do this with your coins at the blockchain level, yes, you could have piece of mind...but, telling your exchange you don't intend to withdraw and hoping a malicious hacker also obeys your wishes doesn't seem likely to help |
|
|
|
Why did they make people pay? That doesn't make sense.
$300 attendance fee was probably just about right. A conference of this type is intended to build up the network of the bitcoiner community, get business people talking to each other about ideas and projects, problems and solutions in bit-commerce. Concrete business deals would get struck. A cheap event would allow in many people who are interested but never plan to do anything constructive. They would learn, but that can be done remotely, online. Signal not noise! I think free and VIP options would be best. Maybe brochures and stuff like that at stalls for free people, then VIP gets the seminars and a VIP room or something. Then you get the best of both worlds. Some people can come by just to see what bitcoin is, while some come to collaborate with others and learn deeper concepts. Too many non-movers undermines the point of the conference. You need the right number of the right kind of people for the conference to be a success...and success is not measured in # of attendees or ฿ collected in conference fees. The goal of the Bitcoin Foundation holding the conference is to advance Bitcoin and hopefully not lose money on the event. In fact, if I recall correctly, in the early days there was talk of "hoping to break even." |
|
|
|
misterbigg,
Are you affiliated with OpenCoin or any of their affiliates/subsidiaries?
No. I don't work for OpenCoin, they don't pay me, and I haven't received any compensation for my views (nor would I want to, for then I could not claim objectivity). I do, however, hold a substantial quantity of both XRPs and Bitcoins. I'm equally bullish on both. OpenCoin doesn't recommend using XRP as an investment...but that's what they're doing, right? I sold most of my free 35 kXRP for ฿2.5. Perhaps I'll regret that someday, but, OpenCoin won't get rich if we all invest in (and hoard) XRP! |
|
|
|
He should start donating BTC to charity, it would be great for the image of BTC to have its wealthy founder be an anonymous philanthropist.
Well, donating to people who perform work to continue making Bitcoin would be wise...and in his (and our) self interest. |
|
|
|
|
Good luck getting your $300 back...well, $300 presuming you joined before the ฿ fee grew way put of sync with the $ fee. I just used $ to immediately buy and spend ฿ right after an adjustment, so it cost me the intended low $ amount.
|
|
|
|
|
We have a lawyer for the foundation? Oh yeah, that guy. He don't post much.
|
|
|
|
i think developing off-chain transaction technology is very important to bitcoin in the long run. however, until that is done, increasing the block size limit is still the only way to move forward. current consumer hardware can handle a lot more than just 1mb.
so encouraging users to support a 1mb limit is imho the wrong way. if we should go beyond 5, 10 or 20mb in the next few years is up to discussion. but staying at 1mb is just not an option. it will massively hamper short-term growth and thats too high a price to pay just to have every c64 be able to run a full node.
A testnet mega workout would be helpful. I'm running a testnet node on consumer level (but decent) hardware on a decent (but home based) internet connection. Perhaps we could all offer our computers to the devs to run a stress test on testnet? We could try block sizes of 1-100 mb and see how it goes. |
|
|
|
|
The video is really well done. I'm not sure where the tipping point is for the block size to push the little guy out of running a node, but surely it's a lot more than 1MB.
I love the idea of off chain transactions. Is it anything more than an idea at this point though?
|
|
|
|
|
Are all banks registered as money transmitters? It seems to me that a money transmitter should be transmitting money between _different_ people.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
