Both are room air cooler  So how many BTC have you managed to scam until now? |
|
|
|
In the first paragraph you make a claim that requires you to know what will happen, and in the second you claim that you have never claimed such a thing. The fact that you can't even see this makes it obvious that trying to explain anything to you that contradicts what you want to believe is futile.
By not allowing bigger block than 1MB we close the door to many things that could happen. In my first paragraph I said that I think there will be services that will be paying nice miners fee for various reasons. I don't know the reasons, but I know that there can be some cases where someone is interested in paying a nice fee for miners. By not increasing the block size limit we simply close the door for all the things that could happen and I feel that is wrong. Having a 1MB block size limit only because the average Joe will not have money for a bigger HDD is simply retarded and useless since this is just a technical hiccup that can be fixed if the developers will dedicate their time for it. Now with the blockchain bloat issue out of discussion what is the next major argument against not raising the block limit? |
|
|
|
Is it really worth buying hashing power or its just a 100 percent loss ?
I just started using that site and I am lost.
Rent some power and point it to this solo pool https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763510.0 to have a chance to win 25BTC |
|
|
|
We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.
If there is no way to distinguish between them then everyone can just tell the miners that they want to use the free alternative. I already told you that there will be services that will be willing to pay some sort of fees for various reasons. If your only argument is that everyone will want to use the free alternative then I think we are done here. I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you. So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.
And neither do you. Well I never claimed that I do, but I am not trying to push things on what I think it will happen or not like you are trying to do. I just want Bitcoin to have endless possibilities for everyone, not only for those willing to pay a higher fee. |
|
|
|
Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too? Because it's distributed and anonymous. There's no way to distinguish between different kind of entities. Your free wifis are always severly limited. So much so that I've never bothered using it. They can be limited this way because they are controlled by central entities. There is really very little in the real world that can be used for analogies in the bitcoin world. We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all. that reward will not be there forever - you're not thinking it out. You think 2 weeks ahead and that's it. So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit. Is it already developed or do you only hope it will maybe in the future? You know as long it's not there you can't reference it as a real option. I thought that it is already in development. Am I wrong? Even if it's not, do you think it will take more than 2 years to fully deploy it? I am sure it will not. if you can't answer that yourself you got no business here So you can't answer. Ok we got that covered. Throw more shit please. That's all that you have! |
|
|
|
Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?
I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection. What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now? I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted.
That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way. [/quote] Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too?
nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin
Pruning! We only need to develop a method to not store all the blockchain and we got rid of that problem. We got a robot to Mars, I am sure that we can find a way around a bloated blockchain! What's the value delivered?
stupid question. GTFO I insist that you answer. What's in your view the value delivered by Bitcoin? Edit: Also nobody gives the slightest fuck about lighthouse.
You should give a fuck about services/projects that can't run to their full potential because of a block size limit (or because some people want it their way) if you care about bitcoin. |
|
|
|
a blockchain that isn't viable is a dead blockchain too - by definition
(we're running in circles here)
What's the reason that it wouldn't be viable after raising the block size limit? a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain.
Bitcoin is the fucking service. What's the value delivered? |
|
|
|
Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?
We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects. No, we are not. That's a different topic. Does the availability of the blockchain to support services have priority over the viability of the chain? That Then you are missing the point from the start because a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain. Bitcoin is a protocol that people must abuse for different kinds of stuff. Just like we abuse the Internet for whatever we want! |
|
|
|
Are we discussing lighthouse or the viability of gavincoin?
We are discussing the availability of the blockchain to support services/projects. Using the block chain can't be free if Bitcoin is to survive in the long run. Lighthouse does not even use the space that is currently available so it's not what's stopping it.
Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free? I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted. |
|
|
|
Even if it takes time: the blockchain is already very big - if you make it bigger normal people will need to upgrade their hardware to use it and people won't do that.
Right now there isn't even an immediate need to fork so the proposale doesn't make sense at this point in time.
As noted before: reaching the blocklimit will at first result in microtransactions being pushed off the chain and that won't be an issue for most users.
Fork to a bigger chain isn't rational at this point in time. Period.
Do you know how many viable blockchains are out there with almost only empty blocks and very small chanis (below 1bg storage)? Dozens!
Blockchains aren't scarce. So why would i use one blockchain that requires hundreds of GB storage when i can use one almost as secure with much less HD-use? I personally will leave btc behind for good with a larger chain (just refuse using Gavincoin - it isn't even 'bitcoin' - it is really 'gavincoin') or stick to the old fork in case it can survive.
Microtransactions aren't the only thing that will get pushed off the chain. I already mentioned about the Lighthouse project being hindered by a 1MB block limit. Why not discuss that? Stop with the microtransactions already. Those will be free and not relevant. What is relevant is to allow services to run on the blockchain! Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!
There is currently room for up to 500 KB, which is enough for most kind of contracts. As long as the current usage does not even fill the blocks it's unlikely that increasing the available space by 20x is going to increase the use by more than 20x. This has not been Gavin's argument for increasing the size either. Increasing the size may be a good idea some time in the future but, until the usage actually increases, it's a bad idea. I read everywhere that Bitcoin is programmable money. 500KB doesn't seem to leave a lot of space for complex scripts. Thanks to the great analysis posted by D&T we can see that a 15-of-15 P2SH transaction needs 1.5KB which means that only ~300 transactions of this type has room in one single block without without counting the rest of the transactions. P2PkH: 131 bytes per script round trip (25 byte scriptPubKey + 106 byte scriptSig)
2-of-3 P2SH: 253 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey + 231 byte scriptSig)
3-of-5 P2SH: 383 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey + 361 byte scriptSig)
15-of-15 P2SH: 1,481 bytes per script round trip (22 byte scriptPubKey + 1,459 byte scriptSig)
If you have 300 corporations willing to do a 15-of-15 P2SH transaction then you have already filled all the blocks leaving no space for the free transactions. Nobody said that increasing the available space by 20x will increase the use by more than 20x, but at least we have the possibility of increasing the usage compared to being blocked. I have no idea what services are the smart minds preparing for the blockchain, but increasing the block limit allows development! Also don't forget about the Lighthouse project! I don't understand why is everyone ignoring it. |
|
|
|
A limit with thousands of tps will undoubtedly produce more fees for miners than a limit capping the network at 3 tps.
This is only true if the per transaction fee is not zero. In absence of a block size limit, there is no incentive to pay fee. Any positive fee would have to be enforced by a cartel of miner. There will be lots of services/people that will want to include fees for various reasons. |
|
|
|
the point is: the chain is already pretty big. If it becomes 20 fold as big i will be forced to stop using bitcoin because i don't want a lite-client or rely on 3rd parties with my coins but on the other hand can't afford upgrading harddrive all the time (especially not with these bad btc prices).
If you raise blocklimit 20-fold it will become unaffordable for normal people to store the blockchain on their computers and because of that people loose access.
No need to post the same thing in 2 separate threads. Here is my answer: my point is: the chain is already pretty big. If it becomes 20 fold as big i will be forced to stop using bitcoin because i don't want a lite-client or rely on 3rd parties with my coins but on the other hand can't afford upgrading harddrive all the time (especially not with these bad btc prices).
If you raise blocklimit 20-fold it will become unaffordable for normal people to store the blockchain on their computers and because of that people loose access.
Why does everyone believe that raising the block limit will instantly raise the blockchain too? It will not. It will take time until that will happen! |
|
|
|
my point is: the chain is already pretty big. If it becomes 20 fold as big i will be forced to stop using bitcoin because i don't want a lite-client or rely on 3rd parties with my coins but on the other hand can't afford upgrading harddrive all the time (especially not with these bad btc prices).
If you raise blocklimit 20-fold it will become unaffordable for normal people to store the blockchain on their computers and because of that people loose access.
Why does everyone believe that raising the block limit will instantly raise the blockchain too? It will not. It will take time until that will happen! |
|
|
|
|
Great post D&T. As a miner raising the block limit is the next best thing that can happen after a moonish exchange rate.
|
|
|
|
I don't give a fuck about the "perfect app" I just want my bitcoin the way it is now. We should push it till it breaks then pick up the peaces and then and only then fix what ever broke.
bitcoin is in an evolving and developing stage. It will not stay the way it is now just because you like it this way. |
|
|
|
I don't see it as off topic spam. It's an ontopic discussion about your useless and biased Guide backed by proofs. Provide zero evidence? I see a full page of screenshots.[/guide]
You also carefully omitted my screenshot and explanation of why what he posted was complete bullshit. There is not one mention of this thread in that screenshot or the discussion, it is entirely off topic. I won't say it again, I will not tolerate off topic discussion.
You also carefully omitted my screenshot and explanation of why what he posted was complete bullshit. There is not one mention of this thread in that screenshot or the discussion, it is entirely off topic. I won't say it again, I will not tolerate off topic discussion. I haven't omitted your screenshot, but there was nothing to common regarding it. But since you request it here it goes: This is what the forums looks like normally:
... This is how the forum looks now for me:  The main point was that you are obviously bumping all BITMAIN threads at once just to gain visibility. In reply you posted a random situation. You only caught a good moment to take a screenshot just like PatMan did. The situation which you posted in your screenshot was just temporary and it's not something that's happening normally. Stating that the picture posted by you with 4 BITMAIN threads on top is simply retarded because that's not how the forum looks normally. That's a big fat lie. |
|
|
|
Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not!
Also what you don't seem to understand is that there will be services/project that will gladly pay for some fees for their transactions and maybe there will be people that will gladly pay a fee for having their transaction confirmed in the next block. Don't assume that if you don't do it then nobody else will do it. The current system limits a lot the development and the free access to anyone. Gavin is trying to open the gates for everyone to have access and you people want to keep them shut down and to only open them to the highest bidder.
Finally something good. Please provide a link to the project, I've missed out. The problem with waiting too long however is that it will stunt decentralized projects like Lighthouse and open bazaar which are limited to 1MB. https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges684 to 1k (with further optimizations) max participants cannot compete with kickstarter or indiegogo and will make many fundraisers unusable in a decentralized fashion. |
|
|
|
Will this be a regular behavior from now on? Just shut up everyone that is pointing out your moves?
I'm simply not going to tolerate off topic spam. They contribute nothing to the discussion, provide zero evidence and simply tagteam accounts to backup themselves. As per their meta thread which fell flat on their face. It wouldn't make sense to allow a few bad apples to ruin any serious discussion. I don't see it as off topic spam. It's an ontopic discussion about your useless and biased Guide backed by proofs. Provide zero evidence? I see a full page of screenshots. I call this a statement backed by proof. What do you mean by provide zero evidence? I'm not sure you understand how forums work or what bumping is. Those threads are at the top regardless of when I wake up and answer customer questions and provide support. Pretending to be stupid isn't going to help you. PatMan posted a screenshot where it's clearly that you saved replies for all BITMAIN threads and you posted them just a few minutes apart just to bump all the threads to the top at once. Feel free to deny it, but obvious move is obvious. |
|
|
|
Gavin does not seem to understand the economics of the block fee. He says that it doesn't matter if there are room for many or few transactions, but in reality it's the equivalent of a Dutch auction. Nobody has to pay more than the lowest winning bid to enter the block, so nobody really has to pay as long as there is room for all the transactions. Even if there is a cost, the cut off price will most likely be less than 1/20 if there is room for 20x more transactions. Personally I never pay unless I'm in a hurry. Unfortunately this means that a 50% attack will become dirt cheap if the price of Bitcoins continues to go down, and/or the block reward has halved a few more times.
Regarding the previous forks they made the whole community scramble in panic to fix it and get everybody to use the same branch. I really don't understand how they can be used as proof that forks are ok.
Gavin perfectly understand the economics of the block fee. You do not seem to understand that a block size of 1MB hinders and blocks services from running on top of blockchain. I have already pointed out that project Lighthouse is having issue because of the 1MB block size limit. Nobody seems to talk about the subject and I don't understand why. Are you happy that the Lighthouse project is hindered? I'm definitely not! Also what you don't seem to understand is that there will be services/project that will gladly pay for some fees for their transactions and maybe there will be people that will gladly pay a fee for having their transaction confirmed in the next block. Don't assume that if you don't do it then nobody else will do it. The current system limits a lot the development and the free access to anyone. Gavin is trying to open the gates for everyone to have access and you people want to keep them shut down and to only open them to the highest bidder. |
|
|
|
Here's the deal - neither of you are allowed to post in any of my threads from now on. You are combative, abusive, off topic and contribute nothing to anyone or anything. Do not post again. Will this be a regular behavior from now on? Just shut up everyone that is pointing out your moves? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
