|
Hi I have some questions that hopefully I can get help with,
I am using bitcoin core 0.11.2 on testnet, the blockchain is up-to-date.
1) When calling bitcoin-cli estimatefee I always get -1, what would be the problem?
3) Its possible to set the fee but is it possible to check what the current fee is is set to?
4) How does the client currently set the fees? I sent 2 standard transactions and the fees were 0.00001865 & 0.00001125. But most resources say the fee should be 0.0001 BTC per 1k/B. What am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
TL/DR: A transaction fee market exists without a block size limit assuming miners act rationally. Transaction fee's are bid to the minimum necessary to include them on the blockchain. This minimum does not magically include all miners, and would reach equilibrium, absent any artificial scarcity, at roughly the cheapest rate possible to achieve that end. That collection of rates would be enough to cover a single datacenter in an ideal location. The only artificial scarcity in the system is the block size limit. With it, fees can be bid above that equilibrium and thereby fund redundancy of both nodes as well as hashpower. Without it, nodes would atrophy toward that equilibrium (~1 node). Bitcoin would have failed long before that equilibrium would have been reached, not only because it would mean the goal of a decentralized currency would have failed, but also because hashpower would fall below what would be necessary to keep it secure. If you're saying that even in that outrageously broken scenario that it would still cost money to add transactions to the block chain, yes you are right. Are you planning on actually addressing the real problems with removing the block size limit? Yes, probably a better explanation then mine. If a fee market breaks down because miners are not acting rationally,
The orphan based fee-market brakes down when miners act rationally. The incentive is to always reduce orphan rate and that can be done with 2 datacenters with big pipe between them utilising the methods Greg describes for sending blocks. |
|
|
|
I have read and thought about what you are saying and first of all, thank you for reading and peer reviewing Peter's paper. Let's discuss. I would like to believe that Peter is correct but I'm open minded enough to consider that he may not be. I want to understand more clearly what you are saying and why. Peter says that a non-zero supply curve exists because increasing block size increases cost to miners due to higher orphan rate. I have also heard a variation of this argument with increasing block size being constrained by hardware resources, internet bandwidth etc.
Theoretically these arguments are correct, practically they are not.
The effect of block size on these costs is almost negligible I'm not sure why you say that. Can you support that point? Would would they be negligible? To me, it seems anything but negligible, and seems like common sense. The bigger block, the longer the time is required to process it, and the greater the the risk of orphaning. What am I missing here? Sorry for the late reply, Gmax and Peter R already mostly answered though. I guess what I did not make clear is that the fee market is supposed to be a long term solution and a stable equilibrium would need to exist long term. The blocksize supply curve (in Peter Rs speech) is only a function of its orphan rate. Ofcourse the market would place pressure to constantly increase the supply. The methods Gmax described would allow to greatly increase the supply in centralised environment to the point where block size is not an issue. |
|
|
|
|
Is my understanding of this correct: The aim would be to change to a different proof of work at the same time as classics hard fork. This would mean there would be a cleaner separation with two separate coins and two separate blockchains. I.e. transactions on one chain would not be valid on the other chain.
If that is correct then I think this is a good idea (if classic supporters insist on hard-fork).
One problem is that SPV clients would not be able to distinguish the difference right?
|
|
|
|
They want pro-regulation developers not cypherpunks in charge of the reference client.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do. So? I say Bitcoin will never gain widespread adoption without regulation. I don't think we'd be seeing $400 Bitcoins today if governments were more hostile to Bitcoin. Governments are a conglomerate of different interests. The harder Bitcoin is to control and regulate the less regulation will happen and better for us. The converse is true. We need to design a Bitcoin that is hard to regulate. Institutions will then be forced to accept the reality. There will always be some regulation but we want to minimize it. Satoshi did not go to regulators asking what features to implement so they are happy. If he did Bitcoin would not exist. He designed a system that minimizes their ability to control and influence it. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).
I'm not choosing sides. I'm completely neutral on the whole block size situation. But how does your statement above hold true if Gavin willfully gave up the CORE dev position to someone else? Gavin did not give up anything except a meaningless title. Essentially he stopped doing the coding work. The title changed to show the reality. Political work and blog posts is all I see coming from him now. Meanwhile core developers have been providing real scaling solutions. Pieter Wuille was fakin coding on new Years Eve!! Credit to Gavin though for his contribution earlier in the project. |
|
|
|
No, we don't need to increase the block size overnight. But I'd rather have it done in the next three month than in one year. Bitcoin will get a lot of publicity this summer and it will not offer sufficient space for the next breakthrough.
What about these empty blocks that are mined all the time now from 'rogue' pools, if this phenomenon increases it means the remaining miners must pick up the transactions. So if BTC hits it off even remotely with the general public, the problem will only escalate.
Ridiculous to call Classic a takeover attempt. It offers a solution to prevent the next crisis. Unless you believe - or rather want- Bitcoin to stay in a niche, Classic is the minimal consensus. So, stop whining unless you want to use this price depression to push down the price further with your FUD so you can load up at $250.
With the completely manufactured and unnecessary chaos caused by Classic and Gavin you will be lucky if we get above $400. Bitcoin has plenty of "capacity" and Segwit will ensure it will have plenty more. Opt-in RBF will be like y2k i.e. nothing will happen. All this is FUD to scare people to support the takeover attempt. Whats worse is the takeover attempt is backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance. They want pro-regulation developers not cypherpunks in charge of the reference client. A pro-regulation Bitcoin will be one of watered down potential and value. Paypal 2.0. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).
Do you want him as the overlord?
It isn't the code that is the issue - it is the hostile takeover that is.
Gavin has cleverly now gone with something that only changes the one thing (but more importantly puts him back in charge - after they take over who knows what will happen).
I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty what will happen. People will use the code they agree with. If developers of any client add code that users disagree with, they won't update to the new code. Ergo, there's no such thing as a dictator in Bitcoin, benevolent or otherwise. There's also no such thing as a takeover, hostile or otherwise. There is only code and users freely choosing what code to run. Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals. For the most part users are already not important, and are reduced to whining on forums and reddit trying to convince those that do have power i.e. a handfull of exchanges, wallets and miners. Thats why having decentralisation and small nodes is important. Gavin, Hearn, Coinbase and blockchain alliance would make this worse. |
|
|
|
Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
Get someone who knows English well to translate this for you. Your wording implies you are going to try to force everyone to accept a hard fork - which of course you are not in charge of bitcoin so making such a statement would be foolish. If instead you mean the standard miner voting for a change using the core rules, then that of course is appropriate. Instead of bashing me continuously, should you please consider to do something useful to end the debate? I want the stupid debate to come to an end. To put the debate to an end we need to support the core roadmap. It is more then good enough. Otherwise there will be a year of fighting, division and chaos with the attempted non-consensus hard-fork. Community needs to unite behind the scaling roadmap to put this mess to an end. The more support Gavin gets the more fuel is added to the fire. The price has been reflecting that. Each time he comes out with one of his 'announcements' division occurs and price crashes. |
|
|
|
I had no idea that Brian Armstrong was retarded. I guess it's nice that Coinbase hires the handicapped.
x2 What he says does not even make sense. Another of his tweets It's not about bitcoin Classic winning and Core losing, it's about moving to a world with many competing forks. Competition drives progress I thought this was some sort of act to rally the masses for his agenda, but maybe he is just that clueless about Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Coinbase and blockchain alliance (including its member Gavin) will take over the mantle (or at least try to). Bitpay has the marketshare on blacklisting. Yeah they are another card carrying member of blockchain alliance. They are not as determined in the takeover attempt as coinbase is tho. What will the blockchain alliance try to force onto the network once they have control? Shudder at the thought. These companies business model is based on being in the favour of regulators and government. |
|
|
|
Coinbase and blockchain alliance (including its member Gavin) will take over the mantle (or at least try to). |
|
|
|
To do that we must first break the monopoly/centrally planned economy/committee of core by moving to classic. https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/688395414525972480Brian leading the charge in the takeover attempt. Using lying propagandist language like centrally planned/committee, while the plan is simply to increase his control and influence. Yet his business gets promoted by bitcoin.org. It does not deserve to be there. He is a threat to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Segwit Softfork to 2mb >>>> hardfork to 2mb.
Even if its not the case (it can be debated) the details are not that important. Who cares if we do segwit through hardfork or softfork in grand scheme of things (which is what Gavin was concern trolling about).
Insignificant differences like this do not justify the chaos created in trying to have hard fork cirumventing all prior development processes and without consensus. This will mean dolldrums for bitcoin price over the next year.
Instead we could all unite under the roadmap which is certainly good enough. This would bring stability and the Bitcoin ecosystem can continue to move forward.
This is just a power grab backed by developers and companies from blockchain alliance trying to decrease the influence of cypherpunks.
Turing bitcoin into paypal 2.0 might be good for coinbase which needs to be on the good side of regulators, but its not good for Bitcoin users and its price. It lowers bitcoins potential.
SAY NO TO BLOCKCHAIN ALLIANCE TAKING OVER BITCOIN
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin Core development failed in refusing hard forks as valid way to make the code more effecient
Not true, hard forks will be done and core developers are not opposed to them if necessary, but core prefers other methods if they can be done. Segwit Softfork > hardfork to 2mb so that is the better plan for now. Sounds good. If there will be a need for a hardfork it will be done, right now there is no need. completly failing to protect Bitcoin from overfilled blocks (thus reducing good user experience with Bitcoin) Again, false, Bitcoin is functioning very well right now, and with the scaling roadmap I am confident it will go from strength to strength in the future (if it is not derailed by opponents). |
|
|
|
It's amazing... You have this guy who throws out good points and gives proof that what he's saying is true,
He smears Bitcoin with lies, and major exaggerations. Provides no proof, not that it is needed for me because it contradicts my real life experience. He also smears another major developer with a misleading half truth (i.e. lie). Its hard to be sympathetic to somebody who does not show that curtsey to others. We should be bigger people. Mike, like Greg did make many contributions and should be thanked for them. I think Mike needs to look critically at himself and learn from his mistakes. I think his ego is actually fragile and he was hurt that fellow developers and peers rejected many of his ideas. He took that personally as a rejection of himself and harboured resentment to his colleagues. That resentment showed up in his actions, communications and failure to be a team player. He could not accept people disagreeing with him so circumvented development process by trying to rally public opinion to his cause to 'prove himself right' and save his ago. When that did not work he rejected bitcoin and in a case of sour grapes declares it as a failure, and will probably resent its success as it shows his own failure and hurts his ego. His posts were often hyperbolic and indirectly or directly attacked the core development team. He was probably the biggest cause of the toxic atmosphere we have in Bitcoin now. His followers started going even more extreme then him with ridiculous venom towards block-stream and core devs. Theymos moderation policies then polarised the community further and gave the big blockers a feeling of victimhood that made them yet more extreme. Thats my take. |
|
|
|
It is pretty funny you believe the new Bitcoin will lead to more centralised direction, yet all your post has totalitarian view with a lot of censorship suggested to keep control in what you believe to be best for Bitcoin regardless of outside support - basically a tyran description. It is very surprising here are so many people with totalitarian view when Bitcoin is meant to be libertarian project instead...
Absolute nonsense. So how come you don't you criticise xtnodes.com ? They censor bitcoin core and do not provide choice. Why only links to bitcoinxt and classic? The most popular client is censored. The bitcoin.org site is also censored by 'your side'. The arguments of small-blockers are censored and only Mikes and Gavins side of the debate is shown by 'your' censors. /hyperbole Bitcoin.org choosing not to promote coinbase or XT is not censorship. Its free speech. They have a right to free speech and their speech should choose not to promote coinbase. This is because there are many better alternative wallets to coinbase that are not trying to launch a governance coup of bitcoin in a more pro-regulation direction. So you do not believe in bitcoin.org's right to free speech? --- Im being a bit of a troll with the last line but I am doing it to show the ridiculousness of the hyperbole and nonsense labels and terms being thrown around whenever centralised coin opponents do not do what centralised coiners want. (yes I did it again  ) |
|
|
|
“It’s likely that the current developers will get fired, and some other team will replace them because they are not listening to their customers,” he said in an interview last week. Well that other team is to be led by Gavin and backed by coinbase and similar companies. Reiterating what I said, I am suspicious that some people want to remove todays decentralised consensus development strongly influenced by cypherpunk ideology. They want to centralise development under a team that will play ball with regulators/gov and large centralised gov bootlicking companies. This will be a danger to Bitcoins value. It will allow easier coopting of Bitcoin and take away some of its benefits as an alternative financial system. This needs to be fought and companies like Coinbase should not be promoted. |
|
|
|
|
It was never banned.
Some politician on central banker gets a question about Bitcoin, stunned he answers it, then goes back to real work and never thinks about it again.
Then all the Bitcoin news sites play it up and everybody gets into a frenzy, rinse and repeat (in other countries too)...
I believe some politician was gonna propose it to the Russian duma/senate or something, and most likely it will not get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40v0dx/thank_you_mike_hearn/cyxmaweAgreed, Mike is awesome! I hope he returns some day once a new fork has taken over that is making good decisions. I dont understand why coinbase was reinstated on bitcoin.org website. There are many reasons it should not be there. Its CEO is actively pushing and promoting a contentious governance coup that would be bad for Bitcoin. It would lead it into a more centralised direction. Coinbase is a company that due to its business model has no choice but to slavishly follow the most influential and therefore the most threatening to bitcoin, government in the world. The people running bitcoin.org share that sentiment yet they choose to promote it. Its bad for Bitcoin. They need to act in what they believe are the best interests of Bitcoin. Removing it is acting in the best interest of Bitcoin. Bitcoin.org is giving Brian more influence while he encourages people not to use bitcoin.org and use alternative clients. Thats just stupid. Nobody has some god given, inherent right to be promoted on Bitcoin.org.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
