|
Adding a fee will not make your transaction any faster right now. It will give it higher priority now, and in the future this will translate to faster.
It is misleading to suggest that you can pay some amount to have your transaction included any sooner than the next block.
|
|
|
|
|
MrBurns is probably just checking to see what happens before he buys 100,000 coins.
|
|
|
|
...
Oh, I agree. Well, I'm not going to praise him, we were already aware of the possibility. Apparently, "no incentive" isn't good enough and we need an actual cost of some sort. Well... actually there is some tiny cost to him, so I guess we need a little bit bigger cost. An increasing marginal cost really would be good. I mentioned a minimum required [age]*[size] could be required by miners in the other thread. Maybe with a portion (10-20 transactions?) with no requirement. |
|
|
|
I'm not so ready to blame this on MrBurns.
Oh, right he did it earlier for sure, same address I sent the coins to. I assume he split it up and is now using multiple computers. Go back about 1 day and you can see a bunch of .06 trades to and from the address MrBurns put in his thread. |
|
|
|
Interesting, perhaps his previous 'work' will be revisited now? |
|
|
|
Instead of saying there are no transaction fee, you should say "Transaction fee are OPTIONAL. Sending bitcoins can be as free as sending an email. If you want your transaction done faster, you can DETERMINE any price you're willing to pay. The higher the faster."
This sounds a little worse and doesn't even have the benefit of being correct right now. No fee = 100% fee in terms of speed right now. Maybe: "Transactions are free now, in the future free transactions may become slower as transactions with fees will be given priority." |
|
|
|
|
I hold coins because I believe a thriving economy will grow up around bitcoin. My actions are telegraphed to the via the market price for coins letting people know that there is a little more interest now and they can plan accordingly in choosing to offer goods or build sites or whatever.
If coins were unlimited I wouldn't want to hold them, I wouldn't expect anyone else to hold many either, I would just wait and get coins once there were more if I needed some, which I probably never would because people, knowing there will be more coins later will wait until they can trade their stuff for more coins, after all there is no hurry, just use the dollar for now. At least with the dollar there is a chance the printing will stop (hahaha, right)
Anyway, it should be really easy to set up BitFlatoCoin now that all the tech is available and open source. New genesis block, new generate rules, tada.
|
|
|
|
Maybe we need to make bitcoin more visible within the liberty community? I have been submitting bitcoin updates to the free talk live website whenever news such as the eff accepting donations comes out.
I vote them up, lol. What other sites should we hit? |
|
|
|
I'd still put seasteading before in this priority list.  You don't want child abusers on your oversized boat/undersized island  Or did you just mean in front of bitcoin? |
|
|
|
|
Very nice explanation, Theymos. Can you comment on "max block size" in the future? Is it likely to stay the same for all time? If not how will it be increased?
|
|
|
|
Here it is suggested that there shouldn't be arbitrary minimums, what is stopping some miner to impose a maximum fee that is essentially confiscatory? The issue cuts both ways here, and is essentially the same principle.
Other miners. And if it isn't clear, a miner can only say yes/no to a transactions previously attached fee, he can't take any bite he wants. |
|
|
|
|
As it stands now 3.15 has a lot of free transaction space and that space is given first to transactions with the highest [age]*[value]/[size] correct? Would it be reasonable to make some arbitrary portion of the free space require [age]*[value]/[size] > C ?
Maybe set C so that a standard 1BTC transaction can get into the main free area on the next block. And a .1 can get in after waiting about 10 blocks. And make the area which allows [age]*[value]/[size] < C to let in about a dozen transactions or so.
Hope that makes a little sense.
|
|
|
|
I'mnot sure, but wouldn't it be the same way we agree on the reward for a generate? By refusing to accept blocks that are too big?
Sure, but the reward sizes are set in stone in the protocol and follow a predetermined path. The maximum block size will have to adjust to balance security and transaction demand. I think the max block size is set so that the chain file will never be larger than [max block size]*[time since first block]/[10 minutes] If a generator could just increase it they could force a huge block on everyone. To avoid that, we all reject oversize blocks. I believe it would be a breaking change, but there are ways to get it done anyway. If file storage becomes absurdly cheap and many blocks are full we will organize the change by issuing all new versions for a while to trigger the rule change at some future block. This is my understanding, anyone please correct. |
|
|
|
When coin creation diminishes transaction fees are supposed to encourage people to keep generating blocks. But how does the transaction pricing work? The cost of hashing does not increase from including another transaction in a block. A generator will always benefit from including a transaction no matter how small the fee. So the fees will approach zero (as, indeed, they are now) making block creation very unrewarding which will reduce the computing power providing Bitcoin its security to almost nothing. The wiki only talks about how limited block sizes keeps transactions scarce and prices up. Is that it? I see no market mechanism connecting the demand for transactions to the block size limits. How will everyone agree on maximum block sizes? Am I missing something? I'm not sure, but wouldn't it be the same way we agree on the reward for a generate? By refusing to accept blocks that are too big? |
|
|
|
The above address has intermittently been flooding the real network with transfers of 0.06BTC to itself. A the time of posting there have been about 2350 such transactions in the block chain. See the following link for details http://theymos.ath.cx:64150/bbe/address/17yhRAYKJvVmBh14HMxYRHp2Z4erWgk1neThe transactions must be sized somewhere in the region of 210 bytes which means that half a megabyte of useless block chain has just been generated. At the risk of belabouring the point, I'd like to point out that clients using "balance sheets" to facilitate deletion of spent transactions would not have their storage requirements increased by the recent attack. An attack differently structured however would have a negative effect on both types of client but the effects on "balance sheet" clients would be limited by the finite divisibility of the coins. Both client types would suffer from an attack which padded the script instead but again the effect on "balance sheet" clients is considerably smaller. ByteCoin Without going all the way to a balance sheet setup, is it possible to use simple logic to delete "unnecessary to know" transactions? Ah, that's the merkle tree thing isn't it? Would it be difficult to manually cut them out in cases like this? Or at least compact them? I mean it is the exact same thing up to 270 times in a block or something. A "pruned chain" for people wanting to download the chain to run their own node seems like it should be a priority. And maybe a torrent of a chain updated monthly or something. I'd be a seed of course and if someone sets up a website with info and the torrent link I'd donate too. Oh, and I sent this dummy those .06 coins. |
|
|
|
It is naive
If they invest in bitcoin they will not even be able to understand how much money they have: only that they had 100 500 BTC, then 200 000, then again the 100 000 and all this for a few hours.
We must fight for the stability of exchange rates rather than coverage. Otherwise it will have a negative effect, how to give tantrum in the moving to a Jabber from other IMs (in Russia, at least)
Um, how do we fight for stability? And what is the "right" rate. Fixing exchange rates requires endless resources or a military. Rates want to be free! If small minded people are bothered just use the words they like. "Bitcoins are on sale now! Limited time!" and "Your investment is a success! <pat on back>" Simple. By speculation. haha, correct answer. I don't think it will result in the stability some are looking for though, but only stability in the sense of being as near "right" as the humans involved can get it (which changes all the time). |
|
|
|
In many areas of the world, there is not just limited connectivity, there is no Internet connectivity. But that does that mean those people would be shut out from using Bitcoin?
Is there a way that Bitcoin transaction can execute via sneakernet? (i.e., the villager and his wallet stay home, but the transaction to pay was transferred to an agent which is then taken to a location that has Internet connectivity)?
Theoretically we could all memorize the chain and shout transactions to each other, the computers are just here for our convenience. So, yes, possible for sure, and it shouldn't be that hard. |
|
|
|
People have a certain familiarity with two decimal places (by analogy with many fiat currencies) so I don't think the change should be made any earlier than necessary.
More decimal places will cause a certain amount of confusion, and will need to be handled carefully in the user interface.
Yes, would switching to 'BitMils' be clear enough? So .01BTC now would appear as 10BTM and then decimal places could be added from there as it became reasonable? I think this system can get us down 1000x from where we are now without any confusion. In the transition there can be a very clear toggle button in the software so that people have to switch it manually the first time and are therefore completely aware, the toggle switch would also change how the balance would be displayed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
