You forget one problem for this mass adoption... It won't happen because bitcoin doesn't scale.
Is that why you bailed at $10? Are you "all in" when capacity doubles or quadruples? |
|
|
|
Technically, *unlimited*. You must also realize that I don't buy groceries with SWIFT. Few people do. I use cash or CC, of which Visa is but one. Visa has a peak capacity of around 56,000tps. That's roughly 19,000 times more than Bitcoin  Bitcoin wasn't meant for buying groceries. That it was based on Bit Gold gives a hint of its purpose. This mediocratization of the system to facilitate the transaction of individual corn nuts will end badly. Going to 6 tps from 3, and 12 tps from there, until 2019 at the earliest, is nothing like trying to replicate a visa or swift. This all or nothing crap is tiresome, on both sides. I really wish those 200k gox coins would drop before we get resolution on block sizes followed with the halving. That would be the perfect storm.
Yea but thats going to hit mainstream news on the ATH then even more of a rush towards bitcoin. Disagree, ideally, they would be returned to their owners at the lowest price possible, rewarding those who decide against dumping immediately. The possibility of 6 figures of coins being dumped is bearish, even in a bull market. |
|
|
|
Yeah, in may of 2014. Bitpay has since laid off a good chunk of their employees? (that isn't supposed to happen at startups before ipo or sale) |
|
|
|
|
I really wish those 200k gox coins would drop before we get resolution on block sizes followed with the halving. That would be the perfect storm.
|
|
|
|
Making memes out of the disabled is kinda in poor taste brah.
i agree ... but taste was buried a long time ago after lambchop and the shit-slinging brigade showed up to smear this place with their excrement, begin there? Peon might be able to take a hint. Lambie is lambie. Like I said, newbie jail is a possibility, but forum owners like more forum users. And when you think about it, this place would be boring as hell without a little shit-stirrin' |
|
|
|
|
Making memes out of the disabled is kinda in poor taste brah.
|
|
|
|
Wait, you expect to use your USD - overwhelmingly digital, or your Visa - intractibly dependent upon the Internet, after the apocalypse you've been prepping for? Because the comsats'll be comsatting and interweb providers'll be providing interwebs@groundzer0?
Maybe swap the $117.37 that your on-hand cash is limited to for tins of dog food, hmm?
You wacky, conventionally stupid old people! The nutty shit you imagine!
Us fiat-lovers ... The point is that the old saw about 'your bitcoin is useless when the interwebs go dark' is trotted out time after time by idiot detractors that don't even realize that they're in the exact same predicament. They ignorantly toss it about as if to make their case. Of course, when it comes to picking up the pieces afterwards, my money is on the prospect that the resourceful cryptonerds will get up a fully functional bitcoin packet radio network long before the merely resource-controlling overlords will restore access to the Internet-dependent monetary system to the mere peon subjects. Of course, if not, it's not as if its dollars before bitcoins -- it would be dollars concurrent with bitcoins. edit: s/their/they're/ if the lights go out quickly and the power stops working fiat cash is going to be in high demand ... less than 10% of all monetary reserves are in cash form, and it will be the most recognisable in the short term. Long term in a post-apocalyptic scenario bitcoin as a highly distributed network is well-placed (as long as blocksizes are small and resource requirement to run highly isolated nodes across severely untrusted, asynchronous networks is kept small). Post apocalyptic... you're gonna need water source, food, firewood, ammunition, guns, maybe silver rounds... and probably in that order. I doubt anyone's going to be waiting for transactions to be included in a block to sell any of the above in that situation. |
|
|
|
...so sick of the newbie shills! Maybe I'll come back someday soon... maybe that's there goal...I could care less...I haven't givin free coffee as much as free tips for the homeless retail investors on this thread! See you some sunny day  Say it ain't so Hyperjacked. Your tips have kept me solvent these last few weeks.  I never got the coffee thing, you want random internet anons to just give you money, that you'll surely spend on the homeless... why don't they just hand it themselves to some of their local homeless folk? As for the newbie shills? it's just lambie, who's been here almost forever, and will remain with us barring the prospect of newbie jail coming back and the stockpile of accounts running dry. |
|
|
|
Crawl back into your WWIII bunker filled with your useless filth you call fiat. Bathe in it, burn it for warmth, use it to wipe your disgusting arses, because soon that is all it will be useful for.
Wait, you expect to use your funbux after the apocalypse you've been prepping for? Because the comsats'll be comsatting and interweb providers'll be providing interwebs@groundzer0? Maybe swap some paper wallets for tins of dog food, hmm? You wacky, disruptively stupid young people! The nutty shit you imagine! I guess you've never heard of bartering or precious metals, eh, cabal filthmonger? Oh, that's right. You prefer PAPER FRACTIONAL RESERVE for your precious metals. Right, because that bunk representation will not be moot during an apocalyptic event. Keep it coming, scumbag sock shill(s). silver is old school money...slow and you can't eat it! Tell that to the alex jones listeners, they pop that colloidal stuff like candy. |
|
|
|
U guise, let's try to move from 3 tps to 6 tps before we get all hot and bothered about supplanting the global financial system.
How many tps is SWIFT? or FedWire? Yep, just waiting for central bank mass adoption. SWIFTNet Link: > 40 system transactions per second, per installationso eliminate all the spam transactions, blockchain graffiti and sundry freeloaders and raise slowly to 8MByte by 2025 and we're done? Each link to the SWIFT network can push more than 40 tps. For those that didn't see it... I'm leaning this way: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028." 4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.) Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market. Max Blocksize Block Reward Year(~) Native TPS(~)
1MB 50 2009 3
2MB 25 2013 6
4MB 12.5 2016 12
8MB 6.25 2019 24
16MB 3.125 2022 48
32MB 1.5625 2026 96
64MB 0.78125 2029 192
128MB 0.390625 2033 384
256MB 0.1953125 2037 768
512MB 0.09765625 2041 1536 There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut. I'm quite certain we'll have some nice hardware and fiber connections in 2026. |
|
|
|
BIP101 is not the only option of course. I'm looking forward to watching the conference and I'm hopeful that the community can coalesce around a reasonable compromise. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028." 4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.) Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market. Max Blocksize Block Reward Year(~) Native TPS(~)
1MB 50 2009 3
2MB 25 2013 6
4MB 12.5 2016 12
8MB 6.25 2019 24
16MB 3.125 2022 48
32MB 1.5625 2026 96
64MB 0.78125 2029 192
128MB 0.390625 2033 384
256MB 0.1953125 2037 768
512MB 0.09765625 2041 1536 There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut. |
|
|
|
U guise, let's try to move from 3 tps to 6 tps before we get all hot and bothered about supplanting the global financial system.
How many tps is SWIFT? or FedWire? Yep, just waiting for central bank mass adoption. I'll put a pot of coffee on. 1MB4EVA is going to(has) deter(ed) a huge amount of investment. “I think it is urgent, because the transaction volume is increasing on the blockchain, and if the price rises in near future, it will push the transaction volume to be even higher. I think the max block size should be raised as soon as possible, but it should not be raised too much. Two megabytes is preferred as the first step.” Wang Chun, operator of F2Pool, which comprises about 20% of global hash rate SWIFTNet Link: > 40 system transactions per second, per installation |
|
|
|
|
U guise, let's try to move from 3 tps to 6 tps before we get all hot and bothered about supplanting the global financial system.
|
|
|
|
Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously.
Not so much, in that the fee required to get into the mempool in the first place goes up as transactions are dropped out; at least with the limited mempool in 0.12. To the extent that a bigger block makes spam attacks more expensive it's only really through the action of making it much cheaper to inflict additional storage-in-perpetuity on the network. So far, the non-trivially funded spam attacks that we've seen have not been successful in driving the feel levels required to bypass them above negligible cents per transaction levels (e.g. significantly cheaper than what credit card networks charge merchants per transaction).... though obviously this has limits. Right now, measuring the differential time it takes for mining pools to switch the blocks they're working on vs block size suggests an effective transfer rate of 723kbit/sec (less shockingly slow when you consider how inefficient TCP is for bursty conditions across links with worldwide latency), This is the amount of time it took for a block to reach half the monitored public pool's stratum endpoints after reaching the first one vs blocksize: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/sp2.png (Matt more recently did a similar measurement of relay network behavior and reached a similar but somewhat lower throughput). If you take that offset (2.491s) and data rate, and drop it into formula for subsidy income loss cost for the last byte of a megabyte block, the break-even feerate is 0.00045054 BTC/KB. So that suggests that at least lower hashrate miners are accepting transactions at a price low enough to be a net-loss currently. (It may not be the case; e.g. if the low hashrate miners are all fast. and the high hashrate miners are all slow, or low hashrate doesn't process as many transactions; and the data is all over the map... etc.) Thanks for the response Greg. Looks like I have some reading to do wrt mempool changes. Any thoughts on Wang Chun's suggested schedule? |
|
|
|
4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.
This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage. People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads. I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do. Except we all know that it is the same charlatans that have been pressuring the miners to include more transactions and create max-block-size blocks on average. - Who are also pressuring to increase the same max-block-size limit. So the argument about max-size vs actual-size is a bit of a moot-point, really. Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously. The point is not moot, because as we see now, even when the incentive to bloat blocks does exist, we aren't seeing it. This change would make it a more expensive proposition for the potential spammer. |
|
|
|
GBTC continues to rise. $470 coin value. Is this the true value without exchange manipulation?
Nah, this is the laziness/ineptness/fear premium placed on exposure to btc without actually touching the stuff. |
|
|
|
4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.
This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage. People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads. I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do. |
|
|
|
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028." 4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.) Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market. Max Blocksize Block Reward Year(~) Native TPS(~)
1MB 50 2009 3
2MB 25 2013 6
4MB 12.5 2016 12
8MB 6.25 2019 24
16MB 3.125 2022 48
32MB 1.5625 2026 96
64MB 0.78125 2029 192
128MB 0.390625 2033 384
256MB 0.1953125 2037 768
512MB 0.09765625 2041 1536 There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut. This could cut either way and one is disastrous for security: 1) If the block space is being fully-utilised and the fee-market is producing optimal returns based on full blocks then doubling the block size at the same time as halving the reward would be a double whammy for miners as more blockspace will lead to a drop off in fees at the same time reward is halved. 2) the other way is speculative but what big-blockers use as an argument, block size doubles and miraculously fees do not drop but the number of transactions goes up so sweet nirvana, bigger blocks brings in more total fees. Lots more here to think about than simply making blocks bigger. Fees need to pay increasingly for security out into the future and blocks cannot grow faster than the technological progress that can accommodate them on a sufficiently decentralised network. It seems there is probably an optimum blocksize for bringing in the maximal total fees and another optimum blocksize that maximises network decentralisation. Those two criteria are not necessarily compatible and neither of those two criteria maybe fully observable variables given the input metric data internally available to the network (in a control theoretic system analysis). First the fee market. People already pay fees, and blocks are 60-70%(?) or so to capacity on avg. (fudging a bit for reward only blocks). They will continue to do so with blocks smaller than max, as seen today. More of them, more fees. It really comes down to whether we force the fee market artificially now (soon), or let the miners set the prices for their services. Doing nothing, staying at 1MB max, is doing something, implementing an artificial fee market at 25 or 12.5 btc per block. This is a change from the state of the network up until now. And too early imo. Impact on the decentralized node network is a valid concern, and I'm not dismissing it, that's why I'm liking this much more conservative proposal. It seems the reward schedule looks like it does, front loaded, in order to act as a sort of launching subsidy. This allows the network to grow faster than if all mining costs were placed directly on the user, ~$5 or more per tx. This can't have been an afterthought on satoshi's part, to me, it means grow as fast as possible (while maintaining a sufficiently wide attack surface) into the 2020's. 4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule. |
|
|
|
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767"On the Bitcoin development mailing list, Chun recently suggested raising the maximum block size in accordance with the block halving. As such, the block-size limit would be raised to 2 megabytes as soon as possible, followed by an increase to 4 megabytes halfway through 2016, up to 32 megabytes by 2028." 4MB max in 2016, doubling at the halvings. (2MB would/could/should have been the limit at the drop to 25btc block rewards.) Growth in the max could be halted or slowed by soft fork if alternative scaling solutions present themselves and are proven to be both functional and desired by the market. Max Blocksize Block Reward Year(~) Native TPS(~)
1MB 50 2009 3
2MB 25 2013 6
4MB 12.5 2016 12
8MB 6.25 2019 24
16MB 3.125 2022 48
32MB 1.5625 2026 96
64MB 0.78125 2029 192
128MB 0.390625 2033 384
256MB 0.1953125 2037 768
512MB 0.09765625 2041 1536 There's something nice about the available space in a block for fee paying txs doubling at the same time the reward is cut.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
