Thst is very good but where did you get this information from ? Its great they going to do that. We better stock up on bitcoin before then.
I don't know who you addressed in you question. I happen to live in Chiyoda-ku which is basically called the heart of Tokyo. |
|
|
|
Well it seems like it pushed through. That is great to see that there is one country that adopted it in a nation wide scale. This could be a good precedent for other countries to accept bitcoins too in their economy. This could really be the best news for bitcoins right now. I just want the issues with BU and segwit to be done with so we can all move on. A little caution ... 4500 retailers is a good start but it is hardly nationwide. However I do think the issues with BU and SegWit could cause a lot of harm if they aren't resolved soon. Where I live in Tokyo, I can probably walk past 1000 shops in less than a day. I have walked over to the Yurakucho BitCamera before, although normally I would use a train or bicycle to go that far. (~3km each way) |
|
|
|
|
BicCamera just announced they will start accepting Bitcoin on a trail basis at the Yurakucho and Shinjuku stores. These are very large multistory stores. One can buy cameras, phones, computers or even 3D printers and a great deal of other consumer items. Personally I'm not a fan of the Yurakucho shore. It is a bit over stimulating. BicCamera has a long history of trying to attract tourist and will even allow one to avoid the Japanese sales tax if they bring in a passport and aren't a Japanese resident.
|
|
|
|
(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")
But this is not how things should be There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changed Whoa you got it backwards! Fees were always meant to replace mining rewards at some point. What is the point of mining if you can't cover your costs and make a profit? Early on block rewards were high to allow for the network to get going. Now it is going and people need to stop expecting free transactions to work quickly. |
|
|
|
If you think it is a sin to gamble, so just quit gambling as a virtue.
That is it, what better advice can you give to this people who don`t like to gamble and think that gambling is a sin. But people like to stick nose in other people's business, here that is more obvious then in real life, hidden behind all this nicknames, people are free to wrote and reveal things about themselves more. For people sin is something that they don`t like, and cause they don`t like it they call it a sin and talk other people how that is bad, and other shitty things. I don`t pay attention too much on all the people, you can go crazy if you get bothered what will people think. People replying to this thread aren't sticking their nose in other people's business. |
|
|
|
Maybe his computer went to the future for a few seconds and when he search the value of bitcoin it is too high. Hope google says the truth about bitcoin price in the future.  I hope so ... I need about USD $11500 /BTC to break even. (Sigh ... cloud mining ...) Lol good luck with that. Why dont you just buy bitoins with fiat money and hodl? Much higher ROI man, and no high investment risks. Only the volatility risk what is high enough in my opinion. Well basically I did end up holding my few BTC until they were worth something. Although I've spent some in a lawsuit against LTCgear, which is also likely a lost cause. Most of it I have to blame myself. I let greed control my decisions. If I learn not to do that, then the education will have been cheap. Anyway, who knows ... ten years down the rode we might see those $11500 / BTC. Maybe even sooner. |
|
|
|
As you can guess from the title, I've made a benchmark list for Equihash. I've gathered info from bitcointalk and the Zcash/Zclassic chats/forums. The list is not yet complete (it will most likely never be since the miners get updated so often and plenty of new cards are coming up this year). Much of the data is being hard to get without first hand experience but I managed to gather some, this is the list at the moment: https://zdeveloper.org/wiki:zcash_mining_benchmarks I'm waiting for corrections and updates. Maybe it will helps some people decide which cards to get next time they assemble a rig.  Most power efficient (Sol/Joule) cards: AMD RX480 Sapphire Nitro+ OC 8GB 305/140 = 2.2 NVIDIA GTX 1070 - 8GB 450/100 = 4.5 Shockingly, Nvidia is more than twice as efficient... Nvidia truly beats AMD when it comes to mining Zcash, but lacks efficiency in Monero and Ethereum (except for those special cases where people have developed some very efficient but private Nvidia miners). With these settings it's more like 140-150W. I have 2 x 1070GTX and with -150 CORE and 70% POWER LIMIT I have about 110W/card @ 385sols/s. Even 385/110 = 3.5 J/W. That is still more efficient than the AMD cards. Is that power number from the wall? You can get about 420 sols @ 105W from the wall (i have couple of brands of 1070 and this applies to all of them, do not have 8+6pins though). Both of these comments are innacurate. Firstly you cannot get 450 sols at 100w with ANY 1070. Secondly it is bad underclocking the core for equihash algos. I'm getting around 140 sols @ 65W on 1050ti. However if you include the computer it is running closer to 75W. 140 sols / 75W ==> 1.87 sols / W ... not that great. It can probably be optimized a bit more but for equihash the 1070 is beating it hands down, more the double the efficiency. |
|
|
|
 i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science. However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block. this is correct! optimal block size is dependent on TX demand, which is known to be going up, in a crazy unpredictable manner. and so your right every single block would have a different "optimal size" but thats not the point... the point is there is an optimal size given X amount of demand. Miners ( and Non-mining nodes too , mine is set for 1.5MB right now  ) will need to smooth out the day to day ups and downs and approximate TX demand for that period of bitcoins history, and set their EB appropriately, each of them will do this individually, and collectively a blocksize limit will be determined through EC. i think we'll see nodes always kinda lagging behind, and we'll mostly always have blocks that are slightly smaller than what the optimal size should be for that time. but thats a hell of alot better then being 2-4x above or below optimal size as a 1MB or 8MB static limit is sure to produce. So that is what BU allows but SegWit wouldn't? If that is the case it makes SetWit a really hard sell. |
|
|
|
Maybe his computer went to the future for a few seconds and when he search the value of bitcoin it is too high. Hope google says the truth about bitcoin price in the future. I hope so ... I need about USD $11500 /BTC to break even. (Sigh ... cloud mining ...) |
|
|
|
i made a few edits to the stock graph to better illustrate what i'm saying as block size goes up fees go down, but fee revenue is at its highest at 2MB, because science. However as the number of transactions changes the size of the blocks would need to change to keep the price optimal. In effect you are just determining what optimal block size is for the current number of transactions. The only way something like this would work is if the block size was changing almost every block. |
|
|
|
as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.
best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money) pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper? the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101 making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total. even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market. 1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX 50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free. both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin. we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0. Seems like there could be an enforced minimal fee to prevent spam and past that a sliding schedule that controls how soon the transaction gets put in a block. While it would be artificial it could increase fee revenue. After all why should buying a car and driving it off the lot be the same as buying a cup of coffee? If you needed quicker confirmation you should pay a higher fee for that. There are several dynamics that can be played around with: 1) Size of transaction --- basically what we have now ... if you use a lot of data it costs more 2) Speed of the transaction --- Seems logically that there should be a fee schedule and low fee payers simply wait longer even if the wait is artificial. 3) Amount of the transaction --- Maybe it does make sense to have some very small fee the scales on on transaction size. Say something like 0.01% <== Okay I know this is evil |
|
|
|
Miners and whales have aligned to take the price of bitcoin down so they can buy more cheap bitcoin WHILE pumping and dumping alts.
I agree the power brokers are blocking, but your guess is not the likely reason. Follow my link as to why SegWit can't ever be activated for Bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1663070.msg18459085#msg18459085I think the math there will enlighten you. I think the logic is flawed. A "power broker" could always choose to send their transaction to their node and get refunded for the fees when their code gets a block. However that isn't really how transactions work. Transactions often get broadcast to other nodes, so a "power broker" can't really control who gets the fee. |
|
|
|
I will appreciate it (I am sure anyone with large savings in Bitcoin will too) if someone can explain how + why Clif High's solution can/cannot work, instead of outright saying it can/cannot.
At least I would like to see the details of how and why it can/cannot work, instead of an opinion.
Clif High developed his own spider to scout the entire web universe for collective human sentiments for prediction and many of his predictions came true so I don't assume him to make flimsy suggestion on solving Bitcoin scaling issue.
I assume he knows what he is talking about.
The only thing left is if he's right, then we need to lay out a plan on how to make it possible with his concept.
His solution has nothing to do with perpetual motion machine or free energy for nothing (so please don't make the stuff up or make accusation).
I think his solution has to do with parallel programming or multithreading on the block chain numbers to solve the next block, but this is just my interpretation.
Ok, I actually watched the vid (at least the part you referenced) He is misunderstanding the problem. The problem is not how to organize the data structure. If that were the issue, then what he is saying would be fine -- you could have 'slave blocks' or 'ancillary blocks' that are pointed to by the main block. You still have to process all those blocks. When people talk about scalability challenges in Bitcoin, they mean: How do we deal with all the storage requirements, the bandwidth requirements, the propogation requirements, etc. As the network grows to accomodate greater transaction volume and a bigger blockchain, these requirements also grow. So whether its all in one big block or in a master block with a bunch of slave blocks, well you still have to propogate that data, you still have to process that data, you still have to store that data. There are more efficient ways and less efficient ways to do those things, but nothing he is saying is providing a way to "scale to infinity", or give a huge increase in efficiency. The lightening network is a huge increase in efficiency because it moves things off the main chain into bidirectional payment channels on a different network. Aside from something radical like that, the main scaling improvements will come as technology gives us faster internet and cheaper hard drives, stuff like that. Hope that helps and makes sense. Very clear explanation! Now if only people will listen to what you are saying. |
|
|
|
Japan declares sale of Bitcoin exempt from consumption tax in April 1,at least it is a good News from Japan side.Japan now recognizes Bitcoin as an asset class or currency.It's healthy for the overall btc ecosystem but the gvment is also smart in tkng advantage via other form of gains tax. It's ok i guess as its a win-win for both sides.
For the Japanese National taxes, long-term capital gains requires you own it for 5 years. Incremental income tax rates in Japan really get up there, mine hit 40% last year. Another 10.5% on top of that for local taxes. |
|
|
|
Now everything makes sense! I bet it was also Donald Trump that paid the USSR to get involved. Bitcoin is just a ploy to make the rich even richer ... Agggggggggh
Bitcoin is the sworn enemy of the centralized banking cartel. This extraterrestrial group sabotaged Bitcoin by inserting the blocksize limit malware. So Trump is an extraterrestrial? Oh that does make sense ...  It totally explains his hair. |
|
|
|
|
On the surface this seems like a sane approach compared to the core Segwit or a hard fork.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is just a digital currency and to access with it you need a gadget and internet, so not all people have that requirements but in the fiat you just need to have a fiat itself to use it, So bitcoin can not replace fiat because of that, because some people cannot use bitcoin because of its requirement.
Actually that isn't really true ... with cash you still need something to carry it in. Pretty hard to live while holding all your cash in your hand. So you need some gadget like a pocket, or wallet or purse or ... Then there is the virtual cash, the point cards the debit cards and credit cards. There all also bank vaults, ATM network and ATM machines. Then there are the vast hordes of cash resisters, coin boxes, safes, armored trucks and armies of guards and police. Maybe cyber-currently isn't that complex. |
|
|
|
|
Now everything makes sense! I bet it was also Donald Trump that paid the USSR to get involved. Bitcoin is just a ploy to make the rich even richer ... Agggggggggh
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
This is what you are calling a roadmap? 
