So a business which is willing to mine for free because their entire business depends on the success of bitcoin will CHOOSE to include massive quantities of spam which would damage the very network their are mining for free to protect?  We don't know. In 10 years Walmart might be operating their business via Bitcoin, and the transaction volume they will deal with might make any spam a regular person could generate look like a rounding error. A lot can change in 10 years. In which case the spam rules are meaningless as anyone can send tx directly to Walmart who will include them in a block. Note that can happen right now today. The mandatory fee rules are implemented ONLY at the client level. |
|
|
|
Every pool is different. The bitcoind has RPC calls which can be used to control which tx are included in the block creation. My understanding is that major pools use completely custom code to generate the block and merkle tree.
OK, one last Q and my curiosity will be satisfied. I know that if I pay fees the I get processed faster and the miners get the fees, but why does the miner care at all besides actually getting said fees. The benefit of only including transactions with fees include and ignoring others is what? Fast mining time for the miner? On principle alone? I ways always under the assumption that the bitcoin system had fees=faster hardcoded into it, which I now know is wrong. One reason is propagation delay. Larger blocks take longer to propagate the network and it could cause the miner/pool to lose a race condition. Thus making a giant block of free and nearly free tx is a losing proposition in the long run. (revenue increases by say 0.000001% but chance of getting an orphan and losing everything increases by 1%). Another reason is principal. Eventually the network will need to be supported by fees. Another reason is fairness. If space is limited it makes sense to include those who (by their action) indicate their tx are high priority. |
|
|
|
My question: Why does block 210935 which was found like 1.5 hours after the previous block only containing 13 transactions? That seems odd to me.
Miner's can include whatever transactions they like. They can choose to included no transactions in a block if they like, and there are plenty of 0 transaction blocks in the blockchain. How/when does a miner decide what to include in their block? Feel free to link me to another source that explains this clearly. Well there is no source because a miner can use whatever criteria they want. They could never include any transactions, they could include all transactions, they could include only paying transactions, they could only include transactions from their friends and/or prostitutes, they could only include tx who's has ends with a 6, etc. In the case of pools (with the exception of p2pool) the miner is just a dumb hasher. The block creation (and tx selection) is done at the pool level. Most pools include a mix of paying and free transactions and have their own internal rules on how many transactions they will accept. But how do they actually do it? Program into their miner a line saying "Only include X" which is used when they get a block? Or do they get the block and then pick and choose? Every pool is different. The bitcoind has RPC calls which can be used to control which tx are included in the block creation. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122079.msg1313405#msg1313405My understanding is that major pools use completely custom code to generate the block and merkle tree. |
|
|
|
So a business which is willing to mine for free because their entire business depends on the success of bitcoin will CHOOSE to include massive quantities of spam which would damage the very network their are mining for free to protect? If so there is nothing that can stop that. You do know that no node (even this free business mining node) is required to enforce the mandatory tx fee rules. They are simply rules as the client level. A block full of nothing but 0 fee, low priority transactions is still valid and will be seen as valid by the rest of the network (even those who implement mandatory tx fee rules). |
|
|
|
My question: Why does block 210935 which was found like 1.5 hours after the previous block only containing 13 transactions? That seems odd to me.
Miner's can include whatever transactions they like. They can choose to included no transactions in a block if they like, and there are plenty of 0 transaction blocks in the blockchain. How/when does a miner decide what to include in their block? Feel free to link me to another source that explains this clearly. Well there is no source because a miner can use whatever criteria they want. They could never include any transactions, they could include all transactions, they could include only paying transactions, they could only include transactions from their friends and/or prostitutes, they could only include tx who's has ends with a 6, etc. In the case of pools (with the exception of p2pool) the miner is just a dumb hasher. The block creation (and tx selection) is done at the pool level. Most pools include a mix of paying and free transactions and have their own internal rules on how many transactions they will accept. |
|
|
|
My question: Why does block 210935 which was found like 1.5 hours after the previous block only containing 13 transactions? That seems odd to me.
Miner's can include whatever transactions they like. They can choose to included no transactions in a block if they like, and there are plenty of 0 1 transaction blocks in the blockchain. FYPFY. |
|
|
|
|
I promises to not be part of the super secret cartel of banks. If you fear you may send your coins to black flag bitcoiners you can sell them to me (10% below market price) and I will keep them safe. Protect Bitcoin, sell me your coins!
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood what I was writing. In some future scenario where 99.9% of transaction pay a 0.001 BTC fee or more to get into the next block and the mandatory fee is 0.00005 BTC the mandatory fee is no longer serving a purpose. It can simply be removed completely. The purpose of the mandatory fee is to prevent a spam attack and if there is enough real competition for block space such that actual fees are higher than the mandatory fee it is redundant.
The minimum fees will still serve a purpose, otherwise spam attacks and zero-fee opportunists will ensure blocks are always full even during lulls or non-busy times. Not if a miner doens't include them. As miners get more and more sophisticated I doubt you will see many including giants numbers of spam-like free tx especially when the block subsidy is negligible and they are doing extra work to hurt the network for no profit. Still it doesn't really matter if it never gets dropped (remember it is just client level rule, the protocol doesn't care). Fast forward 10 years I predict most people won't even know/care about the so called min tx fees as most tx will need to pay a fee to have timely service and clients will be in good communication with pools of miners to educate users on what fee is necessary (mandatory or not) in order to ensure timely inclusion. |
|
|
|
My question: Why does block 210935 which was found like 1.5 hours after the previous block only containing 13 transactions? That seems odd to me.
It is up to the miner to include any or all transactions which are in the memory pool (unconfirmed transactions). Did you include a tx fee? Can't really complain about free service not being "next block". |
|
|
|
|
Lucky for me this isn't your property or I would be banned. Starting to understand how that whole property right's concept works now? In this case your definition of trolling is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so. 2015 or maybe 2014. The surges in prices are less extreme now. I don't think we will see any +100% years. $20 maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
210935 was created 3 minutes ago but at the time of your post the oldest block (210934) was over 1 hour old. Remember block generation is random so while the AVERAGE interval between blocks is 10 minutes it isn't that unusual to see a 1 minute or 60 minute block interval. 2 hour block intervals are pretty rare but still happen occasionally.
|
|
|
|
I think the opposite of above. We don't want to worry end-users about guessing what fee might work for them. Users will continued to be notified when their transaction will require the minimum fee, and in addition I see in the future Bitcoin prompting the user for a "recommended" fee if they need efficient processing, calculated when Bitcoin sees that that many blocks worth of pending fee-paying transactions are also waiting for blockchain inclusion. By such an "automatic bidding" process for quick inclusion (while still keeping blocksize small and inclusion scarce), transaction fee subsidies for miners may more rapidly replace the mining reward. The "size limit" message still confuses users about the purpose. I recommended better language long ago: The Bitcoin client is usually giving you an accurate message, but one that doesn't make sense unless you understand how Bitcoin works; that the fees are assessed based on how many kilobytes in size the transfer message is. It also will give this same message when it is not the size, but the newness of the coins or the smallness/spammyness of the payment or the sender's payment (receiving) history that requires a fee, so in that aspect it could be clearer to just remove the "size limit" part of the fee message.
A better catch-all English translation:
"Due to the use of recently received funds, the size of this transaction in KB, or the transaction amount, a fee of 0.0xxx is required to ensure your Bitcoin transfer is reliably processed. Proceed?"
I think you misunderstood what I was writing. In some future scenario where 99.9% of transaction pay a 0.001 BTC fee or more to get into the next block and the mandatory fee is 0.00005 BTC the mandatory fee is no longer serving a purpose. It can simply be removed completely. The purpose of the mandatory fee is to prevent a spam attack and if there is enough real competition for block space such that actual fees are higher than the mandatory fee it is redundant. |
|
|
|
So? He said that months ago, and I'm pretty sure he feels very differently now.
It goes to the credibility of the operation. Do you really want to be lending money to someone (no offense unclescrooge) that was so incredibly stupid that he couldn't see a ponzi staring him in the face (and yes Pirate's "business" was the most pathetically obvious ponzi you could imagine). Not only did he not see the ponzi but once it closed down (as all ponzi eventually do) he was so blinded by pure faith (or cronyism) that he was demanding people apologize to a ponzi scammer. It wasn't a rhetorical question. It reflects on the financial acumen of the investor who is seeking a long term deposit. Do you think that increases or decreases the risk of default? |
|
|
|
Given the limit of 21 million bitcoins and the world population is over 7 billion, I'd like you all to think if 0.005 is a penny when your monthly salary could one day be 0.0000001 bitcoins or less.
This isn't one of the rules that can't be changed— like the block validation rules— and it has been changed before— the base fee was lowered from 0.01 to 0.0005 about a year ago. What happens is that your peers (well, practically all nodes on the network) will just drop transactions that don't meet the rules and because your client knows this it will decline to generate any transactions that do. To change the rule an new version that has a lower limit is released and then after that version is widely deployed (so that it's likely that everyone has at least one or two peers running it) the next new version comes out that imposes the lower limit locally too. Also I would imagine at some point there won't be a need for any mandatory min fee. 3 or 4 subsidy reductions and the "fee marketplace" will ensure that to have any realistic chance of a confirmation any time soon you will need to pay a fee. The "min mandatory fee" will be a relic of the past. At some point in the future nodes may save CPU cycles and stop even performing the check. The need for a min fee is a side effect of the large block subsidy. Without a true free market on transactions (due to the distorting effect of the subsidy) there is a need to protect the network from spam (as most miners in the past included every single tx in a block). |
|
|
|
Banning people isn't violating free speech, don't be dense. I kicked some hunters off my property a couple weeks ago and told them not to return, is that violating their free speech?
Don't be ignorant, trespassing isn't in violation of speech. I'm stating trolling doesn't hurt anyone. Scammers do, but they don't get banned. If you were to ban one for trolling, ban them all, and please start with dank. Property doesn't only apply to physical property. You have no freedom of speech as it relates to other citizens and their private property. No forum can violate your freedom of speech because ... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Who can't abridge the freedom of speech? That's right Congress can't. Last time I checked the mods on this forum aren't Congress, aren't duly elected or appointed officials of any state. They aren't even the agents of the state. Rights start with ownership. The forum is OWNED by its owners. Those owners use admins and mods to (as they see fit) to maximize the value of their property. Property they own and have every right to control. There is no difference between kicking a hunter off your land and kicking a person off a forum. Both involve lawfully controlling one's property. You don't need a freedom of Speech from other citizens you know why? 1) Other citizens don't have a monopoly on violence. Other citizens can't under the law use force to silence your speech. 2) Sure maybe you can't speak on this forum without rules (much like you can't hunt on anyone's private property without permission) but until bitcointalk.org becomes the sole mechanism of speech for the human race you have other options. TL/DR: I hate "rights" hypocrits. I bet even now you fail to see that your demands of freedom of speech are a violation of the rights of others ... the rights of property owners to be free in the ownership of what is theirs. |
|
|
|
|
The "size" it is referring to is the physical size (in bytes) of the transaction. The size is dependent more on the # of inputs (and outputs) not the number of addresses. Your 1 BTC is likely made up of dozens (or maybe hundreds) of tiny unspent outputs making the size of the tx relatively large. So a tx sending 100,000 BTC to 4 addresses using 1 input is "smaller" than one sending 1 BTC to 1 address using 50 unspent input.
Honestly as FreeMoney said we are talking about a fraction of a penny here and it helps to fund a secure network.
|
|
|
|
|
So when the non-existent unified one world government makes mining illegal in all 208? countries on the planet ... how exactly would they enforce it?
Last time I checked growing certain herbs is illegal (in some parts of the world, sometimes, for some reasons) however I am pretty sure people still grow them.
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression this is a free democratic forums.
What gave you that crazy idea? A forum (any forum) is private property. Private property owners have a right to manage their property as they see fit. Of course nobody is forced to use the forum and if the forum owners act tyaranical people will simply leave but the idea that a forum is free and democratic is kinda silly. I mean when is the last time the forum voted.... on anything. When were elections for mod and admin held? You would think that would be a clue it isn't a democracy. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe you are just bad at trolling? Maybe take ban avoidance 101 at your local community college?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
