A lot of the motivation for the 1MB limit was a fear that if it weren't limited we'd have people building gigantic blocks just to clog up the system. If someone with major hashing power started building giant blocks every time he got a block, he could DoS the system just by making the block chain too large for most people to store.
How exactly would this be done? Where are these transactions coming from? Could this "bloating" attack be detected and these blocks rejected? It would be better to prevent this some other way and remove the limit entirely. This has already been addressed by Gavins original post. Maximum Block size would for example grow 50% per year to allow for more transactions in each block, per year, while still keeping storage costs relatively low. A totally unrestricted block size has never been spoken about. I meant how would the attack be done... |
|
|
|
A lot of the motivation for the 1MB limit was a fear that if it weren't limited we'd have people building gigantic blocks just to clog up the system. If someone with major hashing power started building giant blocks every time he got a block, he could DoS the system just by making the block chain too large for most people to store.
How exactly would this be done? Where are these transactions coming from? Could this "bloating" attack be detected and these blocks rejected? It would be better to prevent this some other way and remove the limit entirely. |
|
|
|
|
Well the bitcoin economy is growing and there are more merchants, goods to buy, services, etc. Maybe hoarders are actually starting to spend their bitcoins.
This is bringing coins, previous out of circulation, back into circulation. Effectively the market is being flooded with extra coins.
Just a theory.
|
|
|
|
This is why personally (unless someone convinces me otherwise) I think the best route is a one time fixed increase to the cap (say 5 to 10 MB block size), combined with a plan to have in place a deterministic algorithm before rising volume necessitates the need for another manual increase.
I completely agree here. Increase the cap once to 5 - 10 MB, and then later implement floating caps using a deterministic algorithm. Orphan costs can be reduced ~90% by changing the new block message format to include tx hashes instead of full transactions.
I've read a bit about this idea. A 90% reduction in block propagation time would be very helpful for reducing orphans. In your opinion, is there much risk in making this change? Also, I understand that someone derived an equation that describes the impact of block propagation times on expected mining revenue. I've done a couple of searches, but I've never found the original thread. You wouldn't happen to know where this is, would you? |
|
|
|
So it hit $0.10. How's that fixed fee working out for you?
I don't see how it's going to the moon when the fees are prohibitively high. Yeah, yeah, I know "they can change the fee". Right, so how's that supposed to work? The devs just lower the fee whenever they feel like it? Is there some consensus, some protocol?
I've never go a straight answer to this. Anyone?
The idea is to let forgers choose which fees suites their need. If they need a higher fee to cover their costs, they will announce it. If they can forge for a lower fee, they will change it. Different forgers will have different fee limits. Interesting... This wasn't the case last time I checked. I'll have to do some more research. Thanks :-) |
|
|
|
So it hit $0.10. How's that fixed fee working out for you?
I don't see how it's going to the moon when the fees are prohibitively high. Yeah, yeah, I know "they can change the fee". Right, so how's that supposed to work? The devs just lower the fee whenever they feel like it? Is there some consensus, some protocol?
I've never go a straight answer to this. Anyone?
OK here's a straight answer for you: No there is currently no protocol for dynamic fees (which I think would be a great thing for Nxt). But Nxt is developing a voting system within protocol that could be used as an alternative to centralized decisions about fee changes. Anyway this is not a major issue. Thanks. So users will may able to vote for fee changes in the future. At least that's some answer. Now the question is about the incentives of the voters and the economic viability of such a solution. I don't see how this isn't a major issue. The fixed fee puts a cap on the price. If NXT is worth $10, that means each transactions costs $10! Clearly NXT will never reach $10 per coin. In fact, it's probably never going to go much higher than it is now, unless the fee is lowered (somehow). |
|
|
|
|
So it hit $0.10. How's that fixed fee working out for you?
I don't see how it's going to the moon when the fees are prohibitively high. Yeah, yeah, I know "they can change the fee". Right, so how's that supposed to work? The devs just lower the fee whenever they feel like it? Is there some consensus, some protocol?
I've never go a straight answer to this. Anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
That's the whole point of government. It's not an accident.
Bitcoin will be their undoing.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin obviously isnt going to take over national currencies.
Yeah, there will always be some people who will want to use a currency with high fees, limits, charge-backs, suspensions, confiscation and delays; which loses value over time and depends on trusting third parties. Obviously, these people will not use bitcoin  |
|
|
|
|
you can't prove atheism doesn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Well looks like NXT will be trying to get the balance right to make it a transactional currency unlike Peercoin which aims to be a 'back-bone' currency. Nxt is still in it's infancy. There aren't a lot of users yet, and features are still being implemented. So the number of transactions per day is still low, but growing. As transactions, and the price of Nxt grows, transaction fees will be adjusted downwards to keep transaction costs reasonable while still sufficiently rewarding forgers.[/u] http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/FAQ#Why_are_transaction_fees_so_high.3FLooks like they will also be implementing a voting system and dev fund which is critical too. So NXT 'potentially' solves Centralisation of mining_____ - Using POS Centralisation of developers_ - Using voting and independent fund to attract new developers and avoid key people getting compromised Centralisation of merchants_ - Because of slow confirm times, Bitcoin will always require Bitpay weak-points even when it's less volatile, but NXT confirms super fast. Personally I'm not selling any BTC for NXT but I can't see any point holding alt-coins that are just clones of BTC in one way or another, they will never compete with BTC, at least NXT has a shot. I appreciate all the things that NXT "potentially" solves and I think PoS is very interesting, but if the fee stays at 1NTX it will be completely useless. The market cap will never rise above $100 million. It's fine to say it will have a voting system to determine fees, but the implementation details are kind of critical. How will it actually work? What are the economic/incentive implications? Will it be sustainable? will it lead to centralisation? It's all to vague. It reminds me of the RBE guys saying "well just get a computer to allocate resources", without ever mentioning how this magic algorithm will work. Do you happen to have a link for the voting system? I find it curious that BOTH the major implementations of PoS insist on a fixed fee. Am I missing something about PoS where it necessitates a fixed fee? Why can't we have PoS with voluntary fee like bitcoin? Ideas anyone? ... and about this "backbone currency" wft does that even mean? Why would it even be necessary? What is a "backbone currency" that bitcoin isn't? |
|
|
|
Nxt looks cool and all, but I just don't get how it's going to work with the fixed transaction fee. If the value of Nxt rises to, say $1, That means the minimum fee for a transaction is $1! This implies a market cap of only 1 billion. How can Nxt be competitive vs other coins with such a high fee?
Otherwise, the PoS system looks really interesting. Can't we have PoS without fixed fess, or are fixed fees somehow fundamental to the PoS implementation (P2PCoin has the same issue)?
The transaction fee isn't set in stone. Here's a thread (including a poll) discussing various options for dealing with it in future: https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,2075.0.htmlUltimately, the community will decide how transaction fees are handled. Right now it's set at 1 Nxt for simplicity, and this is ok for the moment because of Nxt's current low value. The only solution in that thread that made any sense was the one about leaving the fee at 1 and using NXT as a "backbone" currency. I'm not sure how feasible this is. No one comes to a sensible conclusion about how the fee will actually be adjusted. |
|
|
|
This is very simple.
The more energy is used in the creation the higher the price. It is a store of wealth because u can not cheat at the creation and know x amount of energy has been used. It will never be a currency unlike XRP's but XRP's are like sand in your hand and will never be a store of wealth, the are just handy to be used daily.
Labor theory of value? The amount of energy used is determined by the price and block reward. |
|
|
|
So if someone tries to create an account for which the first 64bits collide with an existing account then this account will be rejected?
I finally found it! written by BCNext. I first thought it would simply extend one extra digit to be visible to label it as a completely different account. eg. The full 192bit = "123456789” First account created will be normal with first 64bit showing eg "123456" and collision account will have few extra bits visible to differentiate from the first account eg. showing "1234567" But then i don't know anything about programming so this was just my logical guess. Here is what BCNext said. There are 2^256 possible addresses, the rest 192 bits are not used at the moment. In future we may decide to use next 64 bits to extend visible part of an address, then all existing addresses that are 20 chars long now will become 40 chars long. Right now if someone finds an address with the same 64 bits they won't be able to send transactions.
From my understanding is that, what this mean if collision ever happened, the 2nd account created will become a mirrored version of the first account. You can see it but you can't touch it. Making it useless. Same meaning as a disabled account, so you can't do anything with it. Thanks for the clear answer :-) |
|
|
|
Please someone help me understand why can't they let the free market be free???
If the market is free, they have no power. They like power. |
|
|
|
Here's a great essay from Anon136 of this forum that explains the key innovations in Nxt's unique Proof-of-Stake/Transparent Forging implementation. Definitely worth the read. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E_ToOMG2l1XThx6YnyXEajXaf6H1k2yjq8XkAF0ScB4/mobilebasic?pli=1I think Nxt could challenge Bitcoin in time. Some of these ideas will be hard for Bitcoin to adapt to (would require changes at the fundamental level, which might necessitate a hard fork - difficult to do when so much money is at stake). Bitcoin could possibly come up with other ways to remain competitive though. I think this year will be very interesting. eMunie looks very interesting too. As does Zerocoin. From what I gather, Bitcoin could implement Zerocoin, but probably won't in order to cooperate with governments. It wouldn't be able to implement the Nxt or eMunie ideas without a significant rewrite though, as these have very different ways of doing things that are not based on Bitcoin. Nxt looks cool and all, but I just don't get how it's going to work with the fixed transaction fee. If the value of Nxt rises to, say $1, That means the minimum fee for a transaction is $1! This implies a market cap of only 1 billion. How can Nxt be competitive vs other coins with such a high fee? Otherwise, the PoS system looks really interesting. Can't we have PoS without fixed fess, or are fixed fees somehow fundamental to the PoS implementation (P2PCoin has the same issue)? |
|
|
|
Oh well, I'm talking about getting rid of all taxes  What system do you propose for paying for schools, roads, hospitals, emergency services etc? People can pay the service provider/producer. Same way you pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. It's called trade. And what happens if you can't afford any of these things? You grow up without an education, are homeless and starving and left without any prospects or future, and eventually you'll die when you have a minor injury that's left untreated. How do you pay the police? They come investigate a crime then bill you for it? I don't know, I guess entrepreneurs will solve these problems. Are you suggesting that institutionalised violence is the only way? We can't help the poor without theft? |
|
|
|
|
So if someone tries to create an account for which the first 64bits collide with an existing account then this account will be rejected?
|
|
|
|
Oh well, I'm talking about getting rid of all taxes What system do you propose for paying for schools, roads, hospitals, emergency services etc? People can pay the service provider/producer. Same way you pay for food, clothing, housing, etc. It's called trade. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
