it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely
Prohibited entirely?  Please expand or point to a post where this is explained further... thnx  A 1 MB block size allows for about 250000 transactions per day. Suppose that today 260000 people wanted to create a transactions. At least 10000 of those transactions wouldn't happen. Maybe they'd be the 10000 transactions that paid the least in fees. Perhaps tomorrow if only 230000 people want to use Bitcoin, then the 10000 transactions from today that didn't make it in will get processed late. On the other hand, what if another 260000 people want to use Bitcoin tomorrow too? In that case there will be 10000 transactions that are prohibited tomorrow, as well as the same 10000 transactions that were prohibited today. Over the course of two days, 20000 people who wanted to use Bitcoin were not allowed to do so, and regardless how much everybody pays there will always be 20000 people who can't use Bitcoin. If all 260000 people were willing to pay a $1, $10, $1000, or $1000000 equivalent transaction fee, still 10000 transactions will be excluded. |
|
|
|
You'd have to be quite cynical to perceive any attack on Bitcoin There's more than one company included in the $250 million figure you quoted, right? Why would you assume my comment was directed at just one of them? |
|
|
|
Count is now around 250 milions $ in Bitcoin venture capital in a little over TWO months now in 2015..
Is there a hotter tech trend out there? I don't think so.. What are they building, though? How much of that 250 million represents an attack on Bitcoin rather than support of Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical". That's a bad way of describing the problem, because it's not just "microtransactions" that are affected, and the result is not making them "uneconomical" - it's making them impossible. An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely) |
|
|
|
you should be prepared to explain why Fortunately, this has already been explained, several times, by many different people. By now most of the people who are capable and willing to comprehend the reason already do. |
|
|
|
|
Seriously, how short is your attention span?
It's going to take years to set up the infrastructure that allows Bitcoin to be a viable replacement for central bank currencies.
Setting up merchants to accept Bitcoin today who just immediately sell for fiat is a long-term benefit that might not be show obvious results until 2020.
|
|
|
|
So, you are saying the exact same thing as I did?
The transaction will require a total of 5 out of 7 possible signatures. If we are saying the same thing, then you're playing really fast and lose with terminology. At least, I'd consider it misleading to talk about a "5-of-7 multisig" transaction where OP_5 and OP_7 never appear as arguments to an OP_CHECKMULTISIG. If you meant "1-of-1 AND 4-of-6" describing that as "5-of-7" is just a bit ambiguous. |
|
|
|
The companies (probably most companies who accept BTC) using payment processors to instantly convert to fiat and tank the markets by oversupply are not "the Bitcoin economy". They fucked the Bitcoin economy by putting everyone who bought at higher prices in the position of having to spend/sell at a loss, or hold so as not to lose money. Not spending BTC on fuckers.
The payment processors who are selling bitcoins are doing you a favor by keeping the prices low while you can still accumulate. They are also widening the liquidity channels that allows value to flow from the legacy economy into the Bitcoin economy. AFAIK, all the major payment processors give their customers the option to adjust the btc/fiat percentages of their payout. This means that once a merchant is set up, their sales volume becomes a potential source of liquidity in the future. Value flowing into Bitcoin via commerce (products and services) is much less subject to chokepoints than value flowing into Bitcoin via exchanges and the legacy banking system. In a world where many merchants are set up to accept btc, even if they immediately sell 100% of it, you should be able to envision a positive feedback loop in which some merchants start taking a greater percentage of their payouts in btc, which causes a positive change in the exchange rate, which causes more merchants to increase their btc percentage, which causes more positive change in the exchange rate... |
|
|
|
Make it a 5-of-7 instead of a 4-of-6 If the four parties are the payer, payee, and two mediators, then the redeem script could be a p2pkh script for an address controlled by the payee OP_AND a 3-of-3 multisig with the payer and the two mediators. Certainly, however the question specifically asked about: - snip -
where the two parties are not the signatories required to release the funds and any four of the six escrow could sign to release
- snip -
So that should have been four mediators. Still, the point is the two scripts connected with an OP_AND approach vs the "higher m and n" approach. |
|
|
|
Make it a 5-of-7 instead of a 4-of-6 If the four parties are the payer, payee, and two mediators, then the redeem script could be a p2pkh script for an address controlled by the payee OP_AND a 3-of-3 multisig with the payer and the two mediators. |
|
|
|
If BTC goes to $1000 or more, what would you do? Buy fewer of them each month. |
|
|
|
If you secure your coins properly, no one can access them without your permission. Bitcoin is very different from traditional assets (they just take it without your permission) in this regard.
Obviously an authority could threaten you with all kinds of stuff from imprisonment to torture in order to obtain your permission.
Bitcoin is a step in the right direction.
Actually, with the right precautions, you can secure your coins so well that that can't be extracted from you even via torture. Here's an example of one way to do it: - Create an offline Armory wallet
- Print an m-of-n paper backup of that wallet (including verifying, double-, and triple-checking that the wallet can be restored from the fragments!)
- Securely erase the digital copy of the wallet (except for the watching-only copy)
- Disperse the fragments among people you trust, ideally who live in diverse countries/continents
- Put your longest-term savings in that wallet
If you don't have a widely-dispersed network of friends who you'd trust with your life (savings), this strategy won't work and you'll need to use a different one. |
|
|
|
|
Politicians like to buy low, just like everybody else.
Unlike most other people, they have more options when it comes to creating news that lowers their entry point.
|
|
|
|
I think you're writing a chapter here.
The more articles I write, the longer my backlog of articles I need to write becomes. I'm not sure I like where this trend is going... you mean a 2wp that locks up your money for at least a 2d minimum, may also force you to post a bounty, & is at high risk of being stolen is considered friction? There's good news and bad news: They are right that increased adoption on sidechains would increase the exchange rate of Bitcoins via the network effect, but not as much as if that friction didn't exist (all transactions on one chain). Note that is a separate issue from the effect sidechains could have on mining incentives and the reliability of PoW itself. |
|
|
|
It's difficult to understand the exponential nature of the network effect without a visual aide, since humans don't intuitively understand exponential functions.  There's too much potential value to be realized by a universal monetary ledger to imagine that some kind of fragmented solution will successfully compete. |
|
|
|
Maybe define the interconnectedness of ledgers as the inverse of the cost to move money between them. But this cost function is not just exchange fees. It would ideally take into account the amortized cost to set up and maintain accounts in various exchanges, the time value of the money while it is inaccessible (presumably the inter-ledger exchange takes more time then intra-ledger exchange), and other such externalities. if i'm not mistaken, he's talking about other blockchains, like those of altcoins and sidechains. I think you could generalize to all ledgers including implicit ones like fiat currencies. I have worked out a way of discussing the network effect as it relates to the interaction between Bitcoin, other blockchains, sidechains, various off-chain systems, and fiat currencies, and conversion friction is the centrepiece of that method, and I'm saving it for a future article because nobody seems to read the 4500 word ones. |
|
|
|
Here's a more up-to-date version of the Metcalfe's Law chart you linked to in your post:  Thanks |
|
|
|
guys, the bitbeans shitcoin with 20MB blocks falls out of sync (no surprise for me)
conclusion: 20MB blocks will likely lead to bad sync and qt-clients falling out of sync.
This problem will almost certainly occure and make bitcoin a horror for the user.
Syncing problems for a majority of users can be expected.
#justsayin'
What you're saying is that just because the block size limit might suddenly jump to 20 MB, there's no good reason to assume the actual size of blocks will jump at the same time. Since 20 MB blocks aren't practical on the current network, nobody will mine them even though the protocol allows such. Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
