Flashcrash with little volume, I am not convinced. Still in fiat. It hurts to see bitcoin like this.  |
|
|
|
|
Well, it might be a mistake - but I am out of BTC and in fiat. Looking at the chart(also your PnF charts), I don't see a convincing bottom. (yet)
|
|
|
|
|
Rofl, i literally sold just minutes before the drop.
|
|
|
|
 Kraken orderbook, wtf. |
|
|
|
I believe congratulations are in order. We've been moved to the alt-coin section!
WTF is this!? Cypherdoc, something happened with your thrust rating. It shows a -32 now. o_O |
|
|
|
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design? Nope, I wanted to show that blockchains and mining networks which have the possibility of carrying more than 1MB of data per 10 minutes don't just collapse. Edit: Anyway, i guess we will find consensus with 8MB blocks in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
1/ It's just unbelievable 2/ that a company like twitter 3/ is worth 20 billion US$. 4/ Really a weird world 5/ that we live in. |
|
|
|
|
Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
|
|
|
|
I just want to post the full quote and not ripping a small part completely out of context like a paid shill: ...
People want to maximize the price paid to miners as fees when the block reward drops to zero-- or, at least, have some assurance that there is enough diverse mining to protect the chain against potential attackers.
And people believe the way to accomplish that is to artificially limit the number of transactions below the technical capabilities of the network.
But production quotas don't work. Limit the number of transactions that can happen on the Bitcoin blockchain, and instead of paying higher fees people will perform their transactions somewhere else. I have no idea whether that would be Western Union, an alt-coin, a sidechain, or good old fashioned SWIFT wire transfers, but I do know that nobody besides a central government can force people to use product with higher costs, if there is a lower-cost option available.
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?
I honestly don't know. I think it is possible blocks containing tens of thousands of transactions, each paying a few millibits in fees (maybe because wallets round up change amounts to avoid creating dust and improve privacy) will be enough to secure the chain.
It is also possible big merchants and exchanges, who have a collective interest in a secure, well-functioning blockchain, will get together and establish assurance contracts to reward honest miners.
I'm confident that if the Bitcoin system is valuable, then the participants in that market will make sure it keeps functioning securely and reliably.
And I'm very confident that the best way to make Bitcoin more valuable is to make it work well for both large and small value transactions. |
|
|
|
I guess your prefer a r/Bitcoin frontpage full of "WHERE IS MY BLOCKSIZE INCREASE? I WANT IT NOW. STOP CENSORSHIP"
That's what it's looked like all summer.  Time to swing the mighty banhammer and clean house. The sooner the Gavinistas are herded into /v/bitcoinxt to circlejerk themselves the better. And why are you still here, in cypher's world of free speech, instead of running with your soulmates, the supressors and illiberals?
This is theymos's world of free speech. Like us, Frap.doc is a guest here, even though he usually acts like he owns the place and gets to decide what's on the stereo, what we're eating for supper, and what color to paint the garage. You'd think someone as old and with as many BTC as him would be a Donator, but no... It looks to me, that the bigger blocksize group tries to find a consensus in an open debate, while the 1MB group is absolutely fine with censorship and dividing(splitting) the community in 2 camps. |
|
|
|
Everyone rushing to be the first XTcoin recipients are economically advantaging MP & Co by writing them free options: This is a fight which, BY DESIGN, you Gavinistas cannot win. Poor thing, no wonder it's "doing your head in." Just incredible how much crap an early adopter can write. He just writes like an angry internet troll. His posts contain mostly personal attacks. |
|
|
|
Go on smoothie. Go on evoorhees. Fuck off to greener, censorship-free pastures where may you attempt to attack Bitcoin all you want. Don't let me stop you. You're free now...move into the light...  iCEBLOW throwing his weapons. or, blowing his weapons. or, in medical terms, engaging in "projectile vomiting". You are also welcome to fuck to https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt, where your XT junta will not be "suppressed" by moderators enforcing rules. Why are you supporting theymos' "epitome of authoritarianism" and "censorship" by gracing his forum with your presence? What are you so afraid of, that you agree with all this censorship ? |
|
|
|
It costs them 1000 BTC because, according to the laws of statistics, they would have to attempt it 40 times before one "stuck." On average, a 1 GB block (at 2 sec/MB) will be orphaned 39 out of 40 times. Does that make sense?
This is still true with SPV mining. Say the other miners receive the header for my spam block slightly before they received a smaller block in full. As soon as they receive the smaller block in full, they'll switch to mining on this one [/i]because there's a 100% chance that that block is valid[/i] while my spam block is risky because it could include an invalid TX.
Thank you, that makes sense !  |
|
|
|
Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago.
Could this really cause problems in that scenario ?
Publishing a large block has a cost to the miner. I tried to illustrate this effect in Fig. 8:*skip* Even with a propagation impedance of 2 sec/MB (which I'm confident is faster than the present network average), it still costs 1,000 BTC to produce a single 1 GB spam block. Indeed, you get a small head start on the next block but it won't balance out the orphan cost. Furthermore, other miners can SPV mine on your block header (while downloading and verifying the rest of the block) to take away this advantage. Thank you Peter, it's always a great pleasure to read your posts. But I just don't understand the cost of 1000 BTC for a 1 GB spam block. In my example a mining pool could create the spam on their own and include the transactions in their own block, thus mining their own transaction fees. This action should cost them almost nothing. (But when mining just on the block header works without any disadvantages, then this is anyway a non issue.) |
|
|
|
Increasing the limit does not mean that blocks will be that size immediately. He doesnt really define the scales he is talking about. Satoshi's 1mb limit was an order of magnitude greater than the average block size of the time. 5 years later we are only getting near to it. Yet there has been no talk of security risk up to this? Without a hard block cap, a pool could send millions of small transactions(spam - with a transaction fee too low for other pools) and mine it in their own block. Thus increasing the propagation time and having a small edge on their own mining for the next block. Just a thought, that came to my head a minute ago. Could this really cause problems in that scenario ? Something else: it's unbelievable how much they are censoring /bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Yes. |
|
|
|
XT is currently only a voting mechanism, like a poll here. Maybe in half a year we will see the first bigblock, maybe in a year. Gavin has been extra patient.
another spam attack couldn't get the first big block ? or is there a time constraint on when the first > 1 MB block can be created? The first big block can only be mined in January of 2016 and after 2 weeks of >75% of xt mined blocks. At that point, we have already reached full consensus. Currently, running a XT node is just a mechanism so rise your voice. Because we, the regular user, can't mine or sign new blocks, we can only rise our voice through our client choice. |
|
|
|
Is the cup-and-handle still in play, or was that invalidated? I scrolled back a few pages, but may have missed it.
I stopped out when we broke $276 on Bitfinex..... now just waiting to get back in. I'm still bullish on the longer term, but wondering if we might be forming a range in the mid term, rather than going full on bull.
I don't think so. The most creative way to put a cup and handle is this imo: (and it doesn't really look like a cup and handle anymore)  |
|
|
|
 XT nodes are still rising ! It is not about that we, the XT nodes, want a XT fork. We use this node to show our vote for bigger blocks. Because that is the only way how you can vote in this ecosystem, through a majority of nodes (if you are not a (big) mining pool). At least that is my perspective. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
