I am very honoured to accept this generous gifts. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. In returns, I give you first step to fully covered world map for our future century in new game interface: http://cryptokingdom.me/landIt looks pretty rudimentary for the moment, but will look like a shiny world very very soon  The Baroness Asenath grants to the Wizard an ancient and proven magical item. One of the few items of known and proven true magic, and the only such item that is not a weapon or piece of armor that remains fully intact. It is a Small beauty mirror, with magical properties, gained in the year 1404 and remains miraculously in perfect condition. It is unique in the Kingdom, and perhaps in the world. This mirror was gift from her grandmother, (who was reputed to have fairy blood), on Asenath's coming of age ceremony. There is some unreadable script engraved on the back that she was told means: "When held in fear or love, may give or take a life" This is the mirror Asenath used to distract the harem guards when Joseph of New Liberty Saved her from death at the time of their meeting. It has thus given life by allowing another to take life. It may have been used on other occasions, but if so this is shrouded in mystery. Items of such magical power belong in the hands of a great wizard, and so it shall be. This gift is given in the spirit of friendship with the hopes of great things to come for the Kingdom, and in gratitude for the wonders that have graced the realm since arrival. May it bring greatness to the Magus, wizard developer. |
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguishBitcoin does what it says on the tin. It does it reliably, and without fail continuously for more than half a decade. Maybe we will get to a point where it can do more, but this must not be at risk of failing to do what it does. Many risks are insidious, and not well understood until too late so it is incumbent upon us now to at least address all those that are understood.
|
|
|
|
It doesn't say Ripple Trade is not available to US citizens.
It says the gateway called "BTC2Ripple" will no longer be available to US citizens.
This is most likely necessary to be compliant with FINCEN regulations.
And FATCA, KYC sufficiency, and FCPA and Withholding Agents, and a bunch of other regulatory barriers to doing business with US victimscitizens. |
|
|
|
i think this proves that miners are perfectly capable of handling bigger blocks as evidenced by the "no delays" in confirmation intervals. if anything i find it interesting that they get sped up to <10 min during these attacks. with bigger blocks, we'd clear out that mempool in an instant:  Well, no. Bigger blocks just make the "attacks" marginally more expensive. Individually, I could also swamp the mempool at any of the proposed sizes. The "attacks" are providing some funding, so I don't really mind them all that much. This tragedy of the commons is not quite so tragic as the UTXO set growth and chain size would be with a similar attack on larger blocks, especially if combined with a validation time attack (TX with many inputs and outputs in a tangled array). Very large blocks would be a much more vulnerable environment in which to conduct such an attack. We'll get to the point of ameliorating these vulnerabilities, and the right people are working on it. Patience... Bitcoin is still in beta, its so young. Lets give it the chance to grow up without breaking it along the way. so looking at the peak of the last attack ~40BTC per day worth of tx fees were harvested. let's say we go to 20MB blocks tomorrow. since real tx's only amount to ~500kB per block worth of data, you'd have to essentially fill the 20MB all by yourself and spend 20MB*40BTC=800BTC per day give or take. at $290/BTC that would equal $232000 per day. and then you'd have to sustain that to even dent the network; say for a month. that would cost you $7,000,000 for one month. you sure you can do that all by yourself?  Why would you doubt it? But in your example of 20MB, there are much easier and cheaper ways to DoS the network, as mentioned. |
|
|
|
Did you know that 95% of people text things they could never say in person.
I know that this fact is true because every time I want to say something to someone but I find it difficult I do it with a text message.
Fun Fact: bojan92 is actually 95% of all people. |
|
|
|
notice how the extra fees paid by full blocks actually strengthened the mining hashrate during the last attacks. probably the extra revenue from tx fees encouraged miners to bring on more hashrate. that's a good thing and could actually be even better if they were allowed to harvest/clear all the additional fees in the bloated mempools:  Yes More "attacks" please. Just not really big blocks yet. 1-3mb are ok. 8mb is too much right now (yes the miners are wrong, there's bad stuff they haven't seen yet). Getting blocks that take >10mins to validate is not a good thing. Fortunately with better code optimization, we may get that validation time down even more, as well as the other advances to make this safer. We'll get there. |
|
|
|
i think this proves that miners are perfectly capable of handling bigger blocks as evidenced by the "no delays" in confirmation intervals. if anything i find it interesting that they get sped up to <10 min during these attacks. with bigger blocks, we'd clear out that mempool in an instant: Well, no. Bigger blocks just make the "attacks" marginally more expensive. Individually, I could also swamp the mempool at any of the proposed sizes. The "attacks" are providing some funding, so I don't really mind them all that much. This tragedy of the commons is not quite so tragic as the UTXO set growth and chain size would be with a similar attack on larger blocks, especially if combined with a validation time attack (TX with many inputs and outputs in a tangled array). Very large blocks would be a much more vulnerable environment in which to conduct such an attack. We'll get to the point of ameliorating these vulnerabilities, and the right people are working on it. Patience... Bitcoin is still in beta, its so young. Lets give it the chance to grow up without breaking it along the way. |
|
|
|
|
Most people do not understand the block size problem(s), and so discount the complexity.
Fundamentally, the block chain presents a classic Garrett Hardin "tragedy of the commons" problem. Each miner wins by getting their block accepted into the block chain, the bigger with more fees that can be accepted, the better.
Everyone else in "the commons" has costs commensurate with the block size except the winning miner. Thus ultimately only miners are incentivised to maintain nodes and to do validation against the full chain. This is all fine in the end game, where most are on board with Bitcoin.
We are no where near this today. Those hoping we fail vastly outnumber those hoping we succeed, and have far greater resources.
So some carefulness is not wasted. We will succeed simply by not failing. The seeds of success are sown into the fabric of the Bitcoin code and architecture.
|
|
|
|
Lightning network and sidechains are not magical things, they're orthorgonal and not alternatives to relay improvements. But since you bring them up: They're both at a _futher_ level of development than IBLT at the moment; though given the orthogonality it's irrelevant except to note how misdirected your argument is...
I appreciate the further detail that you describe regarding the relay situation. So it seems that you are not optimistic that block propagation efficiency can have a major benefit for all full-nodes in the near future. Yet block propagation overhead is probably the single biggest argument for retaining the 1MB as long as possible. To cap volume growth to a certain extent. I'm not sure about that. My opinion is that the biggest argument for retaining the cap (or, at least, not introducing a 20x plus exponential increase or something like that) is the burden on full nodes due to (cumulated) bandwidth, processing power and, last but not least, disk space required. Of course, for miners the situation may be different - but from my own point of view (running multiple full nodes for various things but not mining) the block relay issue is not so important. As gmaxwell pointed out, except for reducing latency when a block is found it does only "little" by, at best, halving the total bandwidth required. Compare this to the proposed 20x or 8x increase in the block size. Bandwidth is always a much bigger concern than blockchain usage on disk. TB disks are very cheap, v0.11 has pruning. Block (1) validation time as well as (2) propagation time are both issues for mining security and avoiding excessive forks/orphans which prolong effective confirmations. They are separate issues however, and you can have either problem without the other in different blocks, or both together. Both of these are exacerbated by block size. As eager as I am for a block size increase for scalability, I'm not convinced that it is yet warranted given the risks... The developers are aware of the issues. They aren't goofing off. It is just better to get it right than to get it done. |
|
|
|
A a community we're doing a poor job of getting this message out to the Western Union customer base.
It's easy to imagine that we'd have an significant conversion rate if they were made aware of the savings...
So how do we do this?
We could pick a "Western Union day" and show up near each of our local Western Union locations with some information and bitcoins? |
|
|
|
The topic has arisen before, so I'll just leave this here... Bitcoin would be convenient for people who don't have a credit card or don't want to use the cards they have, either don't want the spouse to see it on the bill or don't trust giving their number to "porn guys", or afraid of recurring billing.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is currently at the same stage you just hodl your long position until the market stops looking bullish
For a permabull the market always looks bullish. Only trolls can't see that the whole crash from ~1200 to ~160 is nothing more than a bull flag!  if you just look at the chart BTC is currently for the first time really in a bullish phase... The problem is there is nothing fundamental backing this Bull-trend up like Interest rate decision etc. pp. There's fundamentals backing up of long term bull trend: - fiat QE and the debt mess combined with BTC limited supply
- useful integrated payment network (uncensorable, hidable)
- people start to 'get that'
add some time to that mix and you'll have quotes like damn, I wish I was one of those early adopters buying bits in 2015 at 0.0003 USD/bit
QFT As an investment, it is anyone's guess... However if you want a transparent and international currency tailor made for use with the internet, that has a predictable and diminishing inflation along with the notable distinction that it doesn't have an army attached to it, then it would be very hard to find a better choice. |
|
|
|
PS: this hard fork "danger" overrated, like Y2K. We'll have tested moving across the limit over and over. And if for some reason TSHTF, the very centralized mining pools will simply get together and fall back to the old code (unwinding blocks > 1MB), just like they did during the accidental hard fork a few months ago.
This is one great property of Bitcoin, since every node validates (processes) every block, you can't have a bug lying latent in a block that's (say) 500 deep in the chain before someone suddenly triggers it. Half of the nodes will reject the new block RIGHT NOW and the other half will accept it.
Y2K was pretty easy, the problem was finite, scope driven, and easily prioritized. Lots of things were just turned off and replaced (though the replacements weren't necessarily better, just maintainable). There are a number of issues under development that will also reduce the hard fork risks, and block size increase risks. |
|
|
|
 It's obvious to anyone with grey matter and a long term vision: Western Union is the next Kodak. A company that charges ridiculously 30% fees just because they can get away with it DESERVES to be extinguished, and it will. Bitcoin will crush every single competitor in the business, it's unavoidable. The incumbents have a great deal of protectionism from most of the governments. It is not enough for Bitcoin to be better, it has to be massively better and this be apparent to everyone. |
|
|
|
If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size
This is exactly where reasonable people differ. That is a key word right there "reasonable". I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing. Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor. (MP argument). That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all. Is this your position too? No, I've already said I'm in favor of an immediate modest increase to 2-3 MB (and generally only keeping up with hardware technology unless there are other changes to the software that improve its ability to scale decentralized, which so far there have not been) Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them! The Monero scaling is somewhat similar to BIP100. I consider it very much an open question how that will work out (perhaps okay, perhaps quite poorly), and I wouldn't want to impose something so unproven on Bitcoin. This is pretty much where I am also. Either: - A 1 time increase, (without all this "I know the future and what will be needed and what we can do when" stuff). This could be 2-3mb without significant additional risk, and would give a bit of time for other developments to be ready for a more long term change.
- BIP 100, after some more testing. The monero method has been working for a good long while, but hasn't really had as much stress testing as would be nice to see.
Any hard fork presents an edge case where unusual risks are presented. This is especially true when these hard forks are so rare. There is no practiced resilience to the sorts of things that creative minds can cook up to exploit events. |
|
|
|
it is everywhere legal, nobody can shut down the internet,
so you can use it trough tor or other proxys everywhere.
Yeah neither the bitcoin nor the users have to worry or think about whether it is legal or not. If you think it is legal go for it and if you think it is not legal then its an individual decision whether to stay or just leave it and think of some other investment options. Lots of things were once illegal. freeing slaves, Women voting giving food to homeless people going on strike being gay owning gold Is it possible that some law is unjust? Is it possible that not all governments are perfect and without corruption? |
|
|
|
Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase
Hmmm where did that ever happen  I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org I know! It's only a valid vote if it's conducted under the rules as sanctioned by central control. Giveen our understand of the situation it could never happen. The major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase is just a prediction of the fork to a more distributed code base that supports the original vision of Bitcoin. It is yet to happen it's my opinion that it's a forgone conclusion, we'll have bigger blocks, the vote is just around the corner so you don't need to do much if you feel you have this one in the bag. Block size has topped this list for as long as.. well, since there was a list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_WishlistIf it were easy, it would have been done already. Patience people.... |
|
|
|
Why doesn't the miner chose the transactions to include judging from the satoshi per byte level? I mean there are miners that create 1 transaction blocks in order to get propagated fast. Then there are miners that include huge transactions only because they have a higher fee than other transactions but in fact these huge transactions make the block huge. And less fast to propagate.
So why doesn't they simply chose transactions from it's size proportionated to it's fee? Sounds like the more sane approach.
Miners get to include whatever TXs they want. I outlined the "reference implementation" that is already coded for them. If they code their own TX selection they are free to use whatever rules they want. I understood that. What i ask is why the miners doesn't include transactions based on the fee AND the size. I mean when they include a big transaction only because it has a bigger fee than others then they will lose either because they could have include many small transactions that in total could create more fees for him and because such a big block can be propagated through the nodes more slowly. They risk getting their block orphaned. That was what i was wondering about. Fees are per size in Bitcoin Core as follows: A transaction may be safely sent without fees if these conditions are met: - It is smaller than 1,000 bytes.
- All outputs are 0.01 BTC or larger.
- Its priority is large enough (see the Technical Info section below)
Otherwise, the reference implementation will round up the transaction size to the next thousand bytes and add a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) per thousand bytes. As an example, a fee of 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC) would be added to a 746 byte transaction, and a fee of 0.2 mBTC (0.0002 BTC) would be added to a 1001 byte transaction. Users may increase the default 0.0001 BTC/kB fee setting, but cannot control transaction fees for each transaction. Bitcoin-Qt does prompt the user to accept the fee before the transaction is sent (they may cancel the transaction if they are not willing to pay the fee). Note that a typical transaction is 500 bytes, so the typical transaction fee for low-priority transactions is 0.1 mBTC (0.0001 BTC), regardless of the number of bitcoins sent. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_fees |
|
|
|
Its almost as if they don't understand how much this market panic this state support causes. Especially given its temporary and sporadic nature, the pro move is to sell now and buy back after the even worse crash when it ends. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
