|
A good rough answer to that question would at least be what has historically happened to other currencies that have become worthless.
|
|
|
|
There should be NO transaction without a fee!
Reason 1:
Fees prevent or put a cost on spam.
Reason 2:
Fees provide income for miners.
Whoever wants their tx in the block should pay. Only that is fair!
Miners can do this now. Nothing is stoping them. No miner has to include free transactions. Exactly. The miner with the most hash power could charge a larger transaction fee for faster processing than the other miners. A smart miner would never forward transactions that included a large transaction fee To other nodes, so that they can earn the transaction fee when they finally find a block... I think trying to capitalize too early on transaction fees is just stupid. That's why we have The block reward for so many years. Don't forget, miners can force a smaller limit if they so choose. Thus, if the biggest miner has a large hash power, they may only include a few transactions in each of their blocks to increase fee they can charge. |
|
|
|
I think the price of Bitcoin will drop like a hot potato as soon as people can't spend them Due to the low transaction limit. There's absolutely no question that the transaction limit will go up , because Bitcoin will become practically worthless If people can never spend them At a reasonable cost and miners will Miss out on getting Small fees from many many many many more transactions.
If a lot of people is rushing to sell, due to transaction limit, they won't be able to sell, only one person per hour can sell his coin, so the price will stay stable And, if price dropped, the people's interest (and thus transaction volume) will decrease, then the system will become good again So the block size limit will function like a valve to stop the mass volume sell off and constantly lock the bitcoin price higher and higher. It is the most genius design in human history to stable the exchange price  The actual trading occurs at the exchange...not on the block chain. People might have trouble getting Bitcoin into their accounts, but, that's about it. I'm not in favor of an unspendable Bitcoin. Why not set the limit to 1 transaction per second? Or 1/10 that? Will that make Bitcoin better or stabilize the price? |
|
|
|
Sorry, but I can't sai this often enough. Long term, Mining wont be providable.
I don't necessarily agree. It's obvious if the state of bitcoin remains like it is now, when the reward drops to zero security by mining will drop ridiculously low. There are only two ways to make it work (keeping the same security), either increase the fees or increase the number of transactions (with fees) per block. There are currently about 0.5 btc of transaction fees per block, so if the transaction rate would increase 40-fold that would take care of things. I don't see any problem to begin with. Just like any other business, the amount of competition in the mining business automatically increases to the point where it is just barely profitable enough to keep the most efficient operators in business. It reaches an equilibrium, yes, but at that equilibrium point, the work still gets done and the surviving miners still make a living. I think the price of Bitcoin will drop like a hot potato as soon as people can't spend them Due to the low transaction limit. There's absolutely no question that the transaction limit will go up , because Bitcoin will become practically worthless If people can never spend them At a reasonable cost and miners will Miss out on getting Small fees from many many many many more transactions. |
|
|
|
i'll hop on the bandwagon too...more transactions per block means more fees for the miners While you're hopping on the bandwagon you might to...actually read the posts in the Development & Technical Discussion forum regarding block size instead of merely regurgitating your view that "hard coded limits are bad." More transactions per block means less fees for miners. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why. I wouldn't take it as a given that more transactions per block would mean fewer fees. If the network could've been processing 2000 transactions per second instead of seven, I bet the miners would make more In fees. |
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin does fork, does that mean we would all have coins on two Bitcoin networks?
You can imagine there being multiple different Bitcoin networks each with a higher number of transactions per second, and An associated exchange rate between them.
|
|
|
|
|
The current limit is to protect against transaction spam...at least According to the wiki. I don't think the intent was ever to leave the block size at seven transactions per second. Compared to approximately 10,000 transactions per second For a real payment processing network, seven is slightly anemic. We can't expect Bitcoin to be of any significant value if we limited to only seven transactions per second.
|
|
|
|
There seems to be a bit of a dilemma:
a) Block space needs to be sufficiently scarce in order to sustain a market for transaction-signing.
b) Block space needs to be sufficiently abundant in order to for Bitcoin to stay competitive against other protocols.
c) Trying to keep both sides happy by making ad-hoc changes to the protocol risks breaking everything.
So set a target in (recent mean) BTC tx fees per block and form an equilibrium around that. Over the target: max block size increases slightly. Under the target: max block size decreases slightly. My suggested target is 12 BTC per block because long term, this means transactors are paying 3% of the total monetary base for the service of securing the transaction log, which just seems about right. The key, though, is seeing that by setting this target (to whatever value) we resolve the dilemma you outline above. If you want to hit 12 btc in fees per block, you're gonna need a lot of transactions...big transactions Don't happen that often. You will need to _raise_ the limit to increase total fees... |
|
|
|
|
Miners will want to increase the block size eventually...false short supply of transaction space in a block might temporarily increase the fee paid per transaction...but a block chain that can't support many transactions won't be very useful...so people won't use it...whereas a high block limit would increase the total number of fee payers (and probably decrease the mega fees paid by a very small number of people).
|
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, one's ID number is derived from their location history. This should be unique as no two people travel the same places simultaneously...even people holding hands or driving in the same car don't share the exact same path. More simply though, no two people ever share the same space at the same time (with exceedingly rare biological exception). I suppose since there is no way to pinpoint location with great precision, having multiple rough estimates of position over a period of time is used to resolve ambiguities. I think my iPhone does this  |
|
|
|
|
I think the partly told backstory of why using the established channels is horrendously inconvenient was underplayed. This is precisely the application of Bitcoin that's gonna change the world.
|
|
|
|
Probably no surprise, but, it doesn't work on iOS.
What specifically doesn't work on iOS? Copying the private key to the clipboard or something else? The submit button wont respond to tapping. |
|
|
|
|
Probably no surprise, but, it doesn't work on iOS.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys
Just wanted to see why the price is justified with Bitcoin? Because its a very high price right now, $27.00
Bitcoin at the end of the day has no intrinsic value. Its not a tangible thing like gold. Its just some bits in a computer. If one day everyone decided that it was a total waste of time and had no value, the value of it would go to $0 and everyone who bought the coins would loose their money.
What do you think?
Uhhh....yeah....welcome to Bitcoin and to the forums. I'm afraid the rest is gonna hurt... |
|
|
|
|
I have a guess as to where he was on a particular weekend last millennium...
|
|
|
|
To drive the point home with my kids, they get paid their allowance by me updating a google doc spreadsheet.
Your kids doing well with this still? Have you paid them in a fixed btc or fixed usd amount? If the Number of coins per week decreased over time, how did they respond to that? If they noted value of their allowance going up with time, how do they respond to that? |
|
|
|
|
This might be off topic. My apologies.
We know the time of Satoshi's posts, right? With different sets of assumptions, this time distribution could be used to generate a set of activity profiles...ie, if we assume he posts during evening hours most often, and didn't move frequently, his post time stamps suggest his time zone was...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a huge proponent of electronic freedom...but I will likely ways own an apple phone. Why?
It works. It works well and doesn't require me spending time to make it work well. If I really need freedom on it, I jail break it until they come out with new features on the sanctioned platform. Right now, I have blockchain.info app on my phone. If they take it away, I'll give it back to myself via jail breaking. I'd jailbreak 10 times before buying a non-apple phone.
That's not to say I'm happy about their self- interested policing of the App Store. But having a a non-vetted crap store is worse than useless to me.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a non-starter. Amazing isn't going to use Bitcoin as a tax evasion mechanism. It's a real company.
|
|
|
|
Why is this is referred to as a bet? To me, I would view this as a contract of suretyship. I don't know all of the details involved with the specific individuals that contracted with this guy but there seems to be sufficient evidence that this guy created a contract Which meets all of the statute of frauds for most jurisdictions. When reading through these posts, I was literally shaking my head at his own postings since they could destroy him if someone sued him. He has noted that he is naive. Is he ever.
I believe the terms were something like "I'll double the money you didn't send me or accept a scammer tag". He met the terms...he took the tag. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
