|
Sorry, "impossible to scale" is factually incorrect, as has been pointed out in other threads.
|
|
|
|
Just reiterating my prediction so we can see how it plays out. We are currently on #2, a lot of unconfirmed transactions and starting to see #3. We should see transaction fees increase and also more and more blocks larger than 250kb as miners uncap the soft limit. The amount of unconfirmed transactions is not larger than average, over a 24 hour period. A snapshot of the mempool -- like the blockchain.info link above -- does not fit the thesis for two reasons: - Never-will-confirm transactions and low priority transactions bloat the mempool
- Some miners sweep far more than 250k worth of transactions, so some miners already sweep large swaths into blocks
This situation has been ongoing for months now. |
|
|
|
|
The "soft" limit is set by each miner.
When I mined using vanilla, unmodified bitcoind + p2pool, it was a simple configuration setting to change the limit to 900k.
My first block was over 400k.
Soft limit "maxing out" is a non-event.
|
|
|
|
These python releases would be much more useful to most of us if they were integrated with python included and gui'ed in windows/LINUX/mac
PyQt is a GUI API for python, so it would definitely be a GUI coin control app. Integrated releases should be easily possible with py2exe and similar tools, for those platforms that need it. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone know PyQt? That could provide the same functions, without patching bitcoind / Bitcoin-Qt, for coin control via python-bitcoinrpc.
|
|
|
|
|
Good stuff! Great new service. Now I need to find a good shape to print.
|
|
|
|
First Vessenes starts the Bitcoin Foundation, uniting the lead developers
One dev is paid by the Foundation. One. It's a little worrying when the primary exchange and the lead developers are controlled by the same people.
Who controls me? Please be specific as to how, and what evidence of this you have. |
|
|
|
I do understand what Mike is saying, however, what about those of us who don't want a google ID? For all I know google will be seen as the most draconian and destructive force ever created by humanity in 10 years. I would not want them to ID me then. In fact the future of the internet for me is centered on anonymity. I doubt i will use the internet much at all compared to the TOR network.
That is the reason for open standards. If you support Google logins in this way, it is easy to support other OAuth-like providers who are not named Google.  From a bitcoin website operator's standpoint, the biggest concern is not privacy, but giving a single entity a big fat "off switch" to your website. If Google decides you are malicious (unlikely) or receives a court order, 100% of the Google-login-based users cannot access your website. This problem is a general problem of interfacing with any large, 3rd party account system, and is not specific to Google. As long as you have account recovery procedures in place, creating a contingency for en masse account blocking, I would definitely endorse Mike's points here. |
|
|
|
Just to highlight some text from http://coinlab.com/transitionQ. What if I don't want to be a CoinLab customer? Can I stay with Mt. Gox if I'm in the US or Canada?
A. We'll miss you, but you can always leave us. If you are in the US/Canada, you can't stick with Mt. Gox, though. Part of our agreement with Mt. Gox is super-strict about locale: Mt. Gox really wants to be 100% out of the US/Canada market.
Presumably that is because foreign regulatory hassles are significant, and having a US partner to handle that is greatly preferred by MtGox. |
|
|
|
The system needs to be able to handle 1000x as many transactions as it does today, else the whole project is silly.
Prunable, spendable transactions, sure. 1/4 of SatoshiDICE's output is not that. |
|
|
|
|
My test order, the Game Of Thrones Season 2 blu-ray set, arrived quickly after ordering. No problems with the ordering and shipping process.
|
|
|
|
Nobody is forced to mine Satoshi Dice transaction. Miners can set any fee policy they want for transactions to and from those addresses. If it is causing so much damage they could just refuse to mine those transactional at all and make Satoshi Dice either pay more or mine directly.
Miners (and the network) will not see the impact as long as the block reward far exceeds other network costs, like unspent transaction output set (UTXO) storage. |
|
|
|
If a fork with 60% exists and one with 40% I would probably see bitcoin as a failed experiment.
Even at much smaller percentages, bitcoin's trust could evaporate. Consider not knowing whether or not a particular bitcoin node would accept your transaction. Or for merchants, the possibility exists of double-spending coins, one spend per fork. Any long lived chain fork could have a hugely negative impact. |
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that Bitcoin should be used as much as possible. It should be the monetary system of the world. And if the blockchain can't handle it, then the system needs to be upgraded or is doomed to failure because guess what,
Logical fallacy. That logic precludes incentives that encourage block chain efficiency. You cannot simply get stuck in the loop spam system -> demand system upgrades -> go to step 1 as that clearly lacks any amount of self-examination or dynamic feedback. |
|
|
|
Maybe testnet could be more prominently placed in the client, so people can play around (which is mostly the reason for 1 Satoshi transactions I guess), also with more meaningful amounts.
SatoshiDICE sends 0.00000001 back to you for some losing bets. Basically, they are using the permanent blockchain as an instant messaging protocol. |
|
|
|
tl;dr; Without a maximum block size, fees will trend towards zero.
And furthermore, create solutions that incentivize block chain spam, and discourage creation of alternative, more efficient solutions outside the block chain. |
|
|
|
|
Dust is by definition a transaction output (bitcoin) so small that it is economically worthless, and will probably sit around unspent.
The fee paid is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Avalon miner fan behavior is as follows:
- fans stay at ~0/840/840 until temp3 reaches ~55
- fans accelerate to much higher speed (0/3480/3240)
- fans never slow down, even though temp3 decreases to ~43
It would be nice if the fans slowed down. Much noise with new firmware!
|
|
|
|
|
The miner was power-cycled. (updated original note to indicate this)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
