|
It's time to get out of this forum, maybe we can coordinate to move en masse to somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
this looks good too:  Looking even better now, I have not seen the ask side look this thin in quite some time, it will be interesting to see how it fills in. |
|
|
|
Is that cup and hadle here 4 months long?  Wow, that's the most textbook cup and handle I've ever seen in a bitcoin chart. How long to resolve the handle? |
|
|
|
Interesting result. If that is truly reflective of the community as a whole then the anti-increase crown are quite disproportionately represented in this debate. Greg, Luke and Peter sure do know how to stir up some serious shit. |
|
|
|
I obviously don't agree to that, it has to be economically viable to exist. No, no no. A million times no. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com Are you suggesting a big con? It could be a good business plan, or a mistake, or a con. You're excluding the middle. I hate selective quoting. The con part, that is viable only on a small scale. Okay, I didn't follow it. What's the con? I was too quick, your comments were ok, I deleted my post, but too late. Somebody suggest that people would buy these phones for extra, use extra power, not knowing they earned money for the company only. That a con. Battery life, size, weight, efficiency are all competing qualities for phones and putting a bitcoin miner in your phone is not going to make it more competitive. (Secure enclave type wallet on the other hand = no brainer) i don't know. maybe for tracking purposes as hashing shares back to the pool requires a continuous connection? which admittedly isn't great for privacy but might enable the pool certain functionality. but that connection might be what's needed for this continuous negotiating interaction btwn phones not necessarily involving the phone owner that was talked about in the audio. I think the answer to this is pretty simple actually. It's because the networking chipset is in the phone. No one uses a smartphone without a network connection so it piggybacks that infrastructure. Otherwise you would have include networking in the otherwise standalone charger and connect it to a network which no one is going to do. |
|
|
|
we're fixing for a big move in the next 24 hours.
i say UP.
What's the indicator you're seeing that's tipping you off? |
|
|
|
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable? My mistake... could have phrased that more clearly, I guess: I don't suggest we "split up" Bitcoin. My question was, "what prevents the rest of the world from adopting Bitcoin, the distributed ledger, but (mostly) ignoring Bitcoin, the currency"? The usual argument goes "the two functions cannot be separated, so the above is impossible". I'm asking, why? To me it looks like a possibility, and the implications for total valuation in the long term would be drastic. I suppose that is possible if we were primarily using the Bitcoin blockchain for contracts and properties, a la colored-coins or Mastercoin. But it seems to me that the primary use of Bitcoins will still be as an object of value in and of itself, used for the purpose of wealth storage and transfer. If you wanted to use the blockchain as a contract or property ledger only, you would then have to transact the value portion of that contract outside of the Bitcoin system, which then removes the real advantages of using Bitcoin in the first place. |
|
|
|
Playing devil's advocate, for a moment (2nd time today, I just notice)
Not challenging the 'minimum valuation required to perform as medium of exchange' argument. But why can't the ledger be separated from the currency function? For a number of imaginable functions in the future, a minimal share of the supply would be enough to perform the ledger function (e.g. contracts).
In order not to gloss over this: there's still the valuation through required security. If contracts on blockchain have a certain total value, the network needs to be at least protected to make an attack economically unfeasible. Since miners are economically motivated as well, this will provide a security-based minimum valuation of Bitcoin in the process.
Still, the two values need not be the same, so the question remains: why can't the 'ledger' function not be separated from the 'currency/money' function?
You could separate the currency from the ledger, but to what end? Seems to me like that would be making the system and incentives needlessly complicated and would still require you to purchase tokens in order to pay your way into the ledger. In some ways, that is exactly what Ethereum has done. Either way the tokens are still required to make the ledger function, so why make them separate? Perhaps someone has an idea as to why this would be desirable? |
|
|
|
|
It's not just the longest chain that wins, it's the chain with the most amount of work behind it.
|
|
|
|
Huh, well there are some people who claim that the ETF is already priced in and people may even not be that interested in the ETF as much as everyone seems to think! If the ETF fizzles, the price will suffer even more. I for one am afraid of that ETF!
I don't know why people keep saying that the ETF is priced in, since that is logically impossible, the ETF itself is the mechanism by which that new money would be entering the bitcoin economy. On the other hand, the prevailing attitude that the ETF approval is a foregone conclusion, is certainly not the case. What happens if the ETF is not approved? |
|
|
|
|
I personally think that we are now past the tipping point based on the developments that have occurred this year, it just hasn't become obvious yet and the price has not caught up. We won't really know until we have put some more time in. Fun times though.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh Nagle, how we've missed you brand of trolling, so distinct. Where's Proudhon? Can he please dust off the old trolling hat and lay down some pure gold here.
|
|
|
|
Sure, I'm not actually in favor of no limits either, but I am in favor of increased block sizes.
Me too. ...right now there are minimum fees that all nodes enforce (not just miners) to prevent spamming….
This isn't quite right, and it's part of the worry. A miner could mine a block that is 100% non-standard spam transactions regardless of fees and it would still be accepted as valid since nodes accept non-standards blocks and miners build on top of them. Blocks #309657 and #309740 are proof of this. The spam filters are achieved with the isStandard() method call and only prevent nodes from relaying transactions without the requisite fees or those that include dust outputs. In case anyone's interested, currently about a third of the UTXO database is spam (a lot from SatoshiDice before the dust limits were implemented).  Yes, a valid correction, and these are the reasons why block limits are still important. |
|
|
|
Miners still get to decide which transactions that they want to include...
And some miners do stupid things. "BCPool" created 17,976 single-satoshi dust outputs from that "1Enjoy" address by mining a bunch of spam transactions in block #309657 and again in block #309740. Assuming each output is 50 bytes, that's 17,976 x 50 B = ~1 MB of garbage that will possibly forever sit in each node's RAM, as ouputs are not prunable if they never get spent (and these ones cost more to spend than they are worth!). I'm not saying the limit shouldn't be raised, I'm just trying to present some empirical data that illustrates some things that have gone wrong. BLOCK #309740: 10,486 DUST OUTPUTS
ADDRESS SENT FROM TX HASH N_OUTPUTS
===================================================================================================================
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z b2b6112e73cbe0937a1b60c9abfc4c2ca6e26b2612c90ec598b1cd28787a553e 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 5e5d17901378b8835861d8cc0df2b5f9bf3c86759c3821f96470cd852344d799 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z b2bf7525618ed5402024d5bff6f477a2093965d3f11ececbc2b6a9b5bbe1f5d5 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 3df8f4a7e06486bb3b0700935a16fc6d4fad397dcb6c88b9c4b6a7453301aa54 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z ae05ddfc8aa206b213c71ec0e96723dcd4ff03a71ca76b469d225d1c60d9e262 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z f75b455b4df94bcdcd54985b4aeea9948d2a1dca0f63c65b85ad2d941050c5cf 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z ee61b911610f66f539832699fbbf4ab3955c8bd5ad0cfa570ff500dedcde5bf8 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z a22186cbcf82cac66da17183209f20f76088934c931bec131fe71ad2f250e8f8 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 0469286403543b7d794fe52661135a80142c47ac541793c703fd637a4e9dc0bf 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z a71dc9abd8bae377b661b0c288222acf2ab62fc7bf96b0bab2dd5354fbc91643 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z f437d94c1cfe818c44f4505f3e6506839113ec747d815a867e953a4164276047 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z eb95d902eb841ce23c9c1466e010cbb05d43d1c248376440f9dd56ee1bc8b3e5 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z b62416ceb3453d6dcba95213e4e222915438a4b70eba37e09099110b20be0d52 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z f3aba1c064e9c9a1d49db3bce42c07c184a0b329366994000fa49f0bc8f3ba16 749
BLOCK #309657: 7,490 DUST OUTPUTS
ADDRESS SENT FROM TX HASH N_OUTPUTS
===================================================================================================================
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 2e7fdb43e2a0fe17cfe2d283a2da4d375204700aef4bf2c31056125f4383b121 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 3d1105d7c2cd36705b2163fa2d0f74973377467aefea72156a30444f330acf71 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 5c4e56943f3128629ebecb41f5916bd7bc1dceaccc37f29e59c385464f2bf558 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 536adfb745ffaa8c1fb698414475f5ca7d82846eadd912cfe0a76045d78c3198 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 45c7544374e88de47d9be2e3e100f4aa10aafd9469c4dba8d55a870f83c312ab 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z e7ae2378a44a940a8c872a63e43fa67c5a023df4df3f9ca8011611422fc2861c 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z d864e3cc07dc79f221bd91210b274e136159ccbb5c9eafad906d9d08c5558ce5 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 3dedbc086d5cfc81bd3614a1b3fab1bb4d73d8982d9552e811f84f0118a1fc12 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 7337d7ac353a9283c65a1ab99d28f97997784a0fb26d0dc0b59f2fa2556c4460 749
1Enjoy1C4bYBr3tN4sMKxvvJDqG8NkdR4Z 634a7fdcba3fe91da07f44e6b9bee1c659cbfca27076bd8b61984d062c071651 749
Sure, I'm not actually in favor of no limits either, but I am in favor of increased block sizes. |
|
|
|
If the transaction throughput was not limited in the original design the original design was flawed. Removing the transaction limit from Bitcoin could be it's undoing.
Miners still get to decide which transactions that they want to include, and bloating blocks with too many transactions limits propagation times, which is why we even now we are seeing block sizes artificially limited. Even if there were no limit, I don't believe that miners would choose to include every transaction if it were not in their interest or if it in any way imposed a penalty on them. Furthermore, we have only two choices moving forward, both of which are just different versions of the same beast, either a) block size is limited and by necessity most transactions are pushed off the blockchain and managed by large "centralized" transaction processing companies like BitPay and Coinbase; or b) Block limits are raised and transactions of any size can be transmitted to the blockchain directly, at the expense of large "centralized" mining companies like ghash.io. Personally, I prefer the option b. Mining is a marginal activity and always will be. As the network grows it will be in the best interest of all participants to have a functioning protocol, and large companies in the space will undoubtedly subsidize large mining operations in order to ensure that the network continues to support their other business needs. I am not worried about mining centralization. Sorry if some of this escapes me, but is there not some kind of "option c" wherein transaction fees scale dynamically to limit abuse? I guess this could make bitcoin unfriendly to microtransactions (one of it's finer points) and maybe easy to get around by scripting different origination addresses for each transaction if it were some kind of per-address limitation. Hmmm. But let me better understand the current situation; Miners are already excluding transactions that are not worth their while? I assume they are doing this on the basis of fees paid? If this is the case, it would seem that removing the limit wouldn't change anything.... right? I mean, spammy transactions can already be assigned low priority and pushed into other blocks, so wouldn't that mitigate the problem all on it's own? Or is the fear that this could be abused by one of these entities spamming high fee transactions to themselves, solving the block making it "free", and thus excluding legitimate transactions? If this were the case, I don't see how a block size limit is doing anything to prevent this.... Option c is really just option b. I think that what you have outlined is exactly right, miners DO decide what to include, and right now there are minimum fees that all nodes enforce (not just miners) to prevent spamming. The fear is that by raising the limit, you raise the burden of maintaining a "full node", which reduces the number of full nodes and thus the reduces the number of participants enforcing the network rules, and the other consensus mechanisms. Removing the limit would make no difference to the miners really, they make their own rules. |
|
|
|
If the transaction throughput was not limited in the original design the original design was flawed. Removing the transaction limit from Bitcoin could be it's undoing.
Miners still get to decide which transactions that they want to include, and bloating blocks with too many transactions limits propagation times, which is why we even now we are seeing block sizes artificially limited. Even if there were no limit, I don't believe that miners would choose to include every transaction if it were not in their interest or if it in any way imposed a penalty on them. Furthermore, we have only two choices moving forward, both of which are just different versions of the same beast, either a) block size is limited and by necessity most transactions are pushed off the blockchain and managed by large "centralized" transaction processing companies like BitPay and Coinbase; or b) Block limits are raised and transactions of any size can be transmitted to the blockchain directly, at the expense of large "centralized" mining companies like ghash.io. Personally, I prefer the option b. Mining is a marginal activity and always will be. As the network grows it will be in the best interest of all participants to have a functioning protocol, and large companies in the space will undoubtedly subsidize large mining operations in order to ensure that the network continues to support their other business needs. I am not worried about mining centralization. |
|
|
|
nice. ghash down to 27%. the Nash Equilibrium in full display. Yeah, I should have screen capped it but Discus Fish had briefly surpassed them earlier today. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
