the answer is they wouldn't
miners would find a good balance so that bitcoin TX remain low cost, because in the end the fee they collect aren't valuable if bitcoin isn't valuable, and bitcoin isn't valuable if it's expensive to use it, or less valuable. miners would bump the limit up to what the avg miner can comfortably handle probably ~8MB, and then maybe they would collectively refuse to bump the limit any future, and fee would start going up because 8MB blocks are being filled ( wouldn't that be nice if bitcoin had 8X more traffic then it has today) and then because 8MB of tx with a 0.0005BTC fee = 16BTC in fees pre block ( 8MB / avg tx size 250 bytes *0.001BTC fee) suddenly mining is very profitable, more poeple join, poeple that can comfortably handle 8MB block get knocked out and the limit rises again. or something!?
you can't argue that bitcoin is somehow more valuable if it can't do micropayment so dont try brg444
So Basically all of those arguments saying that the miners would drive up the fees to be ridiculously high are unfounded. So is this actually your solution for the block size debate? Let's leave the 1MB cap for the moment and let's play with the fees, or to say, let's increase the fees as needed. And this is fine with me, I think that even a fee of 0.0005 or even a fee of 0.001 BTC isn't amazingly big, if you send let's say $1,000 worth of Bitcoin, it's nothing to pay 0.001 or $0.23.
But what happens then if we get so many users on board that they are all ready to pay 0.0005 but there is no room for 1MB block? I guess everybody will agree and raise block size at this moment, like you said to 8MB. But what happens when even this 8MB becomes too small?
Or are we really far, far away from this point?
The cap would go up again. I thought that he meant something like BIP 100 where miners could vote to increase or decrease the block size limit. They would just keep the limit at a point that the fees go up enough to be profitable, but then they can vote to increase the size so that people still use Bitcoin. Fck altcoins. If you don't wanna pay the high fees required to maintain the Bitcoin network the alternatives are lightning, other payment channels or off-chain methods. In fact if you can't pay for it you most likely don't actually need it that bad enough  Clearly you don't know much about economics. Sure there will be those hardcore fanatics that will stick with Bitcoin no matter what, but for the general populace, if fees go to high, they will go with the next best alternative. While Bitcoin dominates the market, there is still competition, and with just one screw up like ridiculously high fees, people will most likely ditch Bitcoin for an altcoin because it is in their self-interest to pay lower fees. |
|
|
|
|
So I have been following the recent block size limit discussions going on and one thing I noticed is that people say we shouldn't raise blocks to allow a fee market to develop. Another is that BIP 100 allows miners to continue to lower the block size limit in order to force a fee market.
From what I understand, the idea is that once there are enough transactions to fill blocks up completely and have a backlog, resulting in some transactions not being confirmed in the next block. Then, in order to get into the next block, transactions will begin to have higher fees.
While this might be good to increase fees slightly, I don't understand why people say that small block sizes will force a super competitive fee market. Wouldn't people just ditch Bitcoin and go to some other altcoin (like litecoin) instead of paying ridiculous fees? Why would miners (in the case of BIP 100) lower the block size limit to increase fees if it drives away people thus decreasing their earnings?
|
|
|
|
If you want i can host in my paid host, i think it should work faster in two websites(hosts) with different IPs isn't it ?
The problem is that the program isn't designed to have two servers as backend. I can probably modify it to do that, but it will take some time. The site is back up. |
|
|
|
|
There was an error with the database, caused by it during down incorrectly. It will reindex the database which can take a while. Your bitcoin is safe.
|
|
|
|
this is what I get when I try to open the site
"This webpage is not available
ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED"
site maintenance or updating or site is down?
it's seems same on me, Looks like the site is not available to access. Maybe the site is going to update. Maybe he is moving to another server because lots of request maybe or problem with the host. There is a problem with the server, but I can't fix it right now since I'm not at my computer that can ssh into the server. |
|
|
|
See that little metal square with the blue plastic square in it? You need to pop that metal up so that the plastic is no longer inside and catching it. Do that on both sides. Then the cooler should be able to be pulled straight off.
It's still not wanting to come off... And take a closer look at the lever the locked and unlock symbols don't make sense... You might have actually just locked the lever. Perhaps it never was locked? |
|
|
|
Well you pull the lever to the left (in the orientation of the picture) and it looks like there might be a tab that you need to push or pull to release the lever. The tab would be beneath the lever by the lever's hinge.
Got the lever pulled with some brute force... Now what?  See that little metal square with the blue plastic square in it? You need to pop that metal up so that the plastic is no longer inside and catching it. Do that on both sides. Then the cooler should be able to be pulled straight off. |
|
|
|
Yep, I understand. even if your tx gets in the block being mined when you send the tx, you still have 20 min wait to get 2 confirmations (well maybe 20>2x confirmation>10)
making block size bigger really does nothing significant. it would be fairly easy to calculate a new diff and reward for 24 sec blocks based upon one point in time.
so is 24 sec block time less secure than 600 sec block time? (with 400 ph network?)
What is downside to shorter block times?
Well shorter block times means that the network is more likely to produce orphans and fork, creating longer and harder blockchain reorgs. Since it would be easier to pull off a double spend (need less hash power to produce a block), the amount of confirmations required to guarantee that a double spend had not occurred would increase, so you may still end up waiting 20 minutes for X number of confirmations to guarantee that a double spend did not occur. |
|
|
|
For fun, I decided to see the value of my account. However, it was taking a really long time to pop up so I closed the tab. That was yesterday.
Today I had more time to just let it sit so I thought I'd give it another go, but it keeps popping up with this error:
"Please wait for your previous request to finish and try again"
Any idea how to reset this?
I need to go in and reboot the server. Give me a couple minutes to do that. That should fix the problem that most people are having. Do you know if that will reset the queue and it will start working again? I'd like to look at my account again  It will reset the queue and everything should work again. I think the problem is that there may be too many requests to it at once which is breaking the program. It worked during my testing. I am working on a different fix which overhauls the whole thing. |
|
|
|
Thanks and the lever is just bending the whole thing and won't undo. Well you pull the lever to the left (in the orientation of the picture) and it looks like there might be a tab that you need to push or pull to release the lever. The tab would be beneath the lever by the lever's hinge. |
|
|
|
For fun, I decided to see the value of my account. However, it was taking a really long time to pop up so I closed the tab. That was yesterday.
Today I had more time to just let it sit so I thought I'd give it another go, but it keeps popping up with this error:
"Please wait for your previous request to finish and try again"
Any idea how to reset this?
I need to go in and reboot the server. Give me a couple minutes to do that. That should fix the problem that most people are having. |
|
|
|
OK, I get the idea about larger blocks = more transactions/block
more tx/second
Can someone please explain how this will help speed up a transaction requiring 2 confirmations? I cant ever imagine anyone swiping their bitcoin card at the gas pump and waiting 20 min for "authorization" Imagine fast food drive thru line or the checkout line in grocery store If everyone had to wait 10 min for "authorization/confirmation?
The idea is that it will speed up confirmation times because then the transaction won't be stuck in a backlog thus waiting even longer for two confirmations. It can pretty much guarantee that your transaction will be included in the next block, instead of say the 10th block from the time the transaction was created. So I have to ask, why do we have to have 10 min blocks? Is there more security having 10 min vs 10 sec blocks? Or just so the block reward is 25btc? If mining revenue is 150 btc/hr, then why would it matter if it is 25btc/10 min block or 1 btc/24 sec block?
So, would the block size increase from 1mb block to 8mb, be the exact same as keeping the block size the same 1 mb but reducing the time from 10 min to 75 sec? (10*60/8=75sec) (block reward = 25/8=3.125)
I think this would handle more transactions (or same as 8mb blocks) AND SPEED up confirmation times.
Why is bitcoin so married to 10 min blocks? Is it tied the same way to 1 mb block size?
And really, will this larger block size help take bitcoin mainstream?
I know my reasoning is missing something, so I write to ask What?
Yes shorter times would speed up confirmation times and handle more transactions, but people are generally against that idea. It would require more to change than increasing the block size does. In order to change the block time and still keep everything else the same, the block subsidy needs to be changed, the difficulty will need to be reset, and a whole bunch of other stuff as well. As for why 10 minutes was chosen by Satoshi, it was probably arbitrary, just like basically every other number in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
You can download it as a Torrent.  With the latest version of Bitcoin Core, the torrented bootstrap.dat is no longer faster. It is actually faster to let Bitcoin Core to sync through p2p than it is to download and use the bootstrap file. |
|
|
|
|
The only way for Bitcoin to go offline is for the internet to go offline. The only way that can happen nowadays is for a massive solar flare to hit the Earth. This would do much more damage than just shutting down Bitcoin, and Bitcoin being offline would be the least of our worries. Without any electricity, entire infrastructures would collapse and many people would probably die from lack of food and water (which both need electricity to produce).
16mT7jrpkjnJBD7a3TM2awyxHub58H6r6Z
|
|
|
|
What is wrong with getting refunded with Bitcoin? Technically it is still a refund, so the title and article is misleading.
No, technically (and non-technically) that is not a refund. Right. sorry. In this case, it is simply easier to credit the customer with more Bitcoin because they probably will buy more, and it can be easily exchanged back into fiat, more so than normal goods. Also, Coinbase does not hold your funds for a week, they aren't holding them at all and not crediting the accounts. The delay is because ACH takes several business days to settle and they can only credit the account after it has settled. |
|
|
|
|
What is wrong with getting refunded with Bitcoin? Technically it is still a refund, so the title and article is misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
