looks like a buy:  Treated like real money = you can deposit them on a bank so that they can give you negative interest on your bitcoins  |
|
|
|
Ouch! That was a heavy dump! Finex and stamp had been down to 416!  could you imagine some internet token being actually worth more than 400$? either the dollar has deeply depreciate, or people have just gone mad. Dollars in circulation: >1 trillion (M0 - cash) / >10 trillion (M3 - incl. bank deposits and cash equivalent) Ounces of silver above ground: ~30 billion Ounces of gold above ground: 6 billion Bitcoins in circulation: 15 million Scarcity is a factor. DOGE is also an internet token but it can't cost 400$ as it is issued in the billions. DOGE price: $ 0.000278 DOGE in circulation: 103 billion |
|
|
|
There is highly likely an X11 ASIC miner, and there probably has been for some time. DASH will still use X11, however - Evan himself stated he WANTED ASIC miners, just not early in the coin's life.
Wolf, since you deal with GPU optimization, how far do you think GPUs can go in terms of x11 hashpower, in a very optimized scenario? Are there serious gains that can be expected if software is written differently? |
|
|
|
fpga are back on track!
They say it is ASIC, not FPGA. So the efficiency will be higher. GPU mining for X11 coins are finished now. Not until ASICs totally dominate the hashpower, AND do so economically in terms of return of investment. If it takes two years of mining just to break even your ASIC purchase => yeah, well... why are you mining? Just to break even or mine at a loss at a high hashrate? And then you can't resell it because by that time it is crap/obsolete. GPUs on the other hand are very ...reusable and easily sold on the market. Demand is always high. |
|
|
|
that same spam attack today with limited block space will crash nodes and block the mem pool for hours if not days, and cost the spammer nothing as his fees are returned to him.
0.12 (to be released tomorrow I think - still one can build from source right now) can be tuned in terms of mempool size to avoid problems. Memory pool limiting Previous versions of Bitcoin Core had their mempool limited by checking a transaction's fees against the node's minimum relay fee. There was no upper bound on the size of the mempool and attackers could send a large number of transactions paying just slighly more than the default minimum relay fee to crash nodes with relatively low RAM. A temporary workaround for previous versions of Bitcoin Core was to raise the default minimum relay fee. Bitcoin Core 0.12 will have a strict maximum size on the mempool. The default value is 300 MB and can be configured with the -maxmempool parameter. Whenever a transaction would cause the mempool to exceed its maximum size, the transaction that (along with in-mempool descendants) has the lowest total feerate (as a package) will be evicted and the node's effective minimum relay feerate will be increased to match this feerate plus the initial minimum relay feerate. The initial minimum relay feerate is set to 1000 satoshis per kB. Bitcoin Core 0.12 also introduces new default policy limits on the length and size of unconfirmed transaction chains that are allowed in the mempool (generally limiting the length of unconfirmed chains to 25 transactions, with a total size of 101 KB). These limits can be overriden using command line arguments; see the extended help (--help -help-debug) for more information. .... https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/0.12/doc/release-notes.mdFor non-technical guys, this means Bitcoin becomes much more hardened against possible issues that arise from spam/stress situations, despite "blocks are full". |
|
|
|
There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages. The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double.
With fees like the current ones, it is actually a miracle that 1MB (or 1.7+) that blocks aren't fuller than 800kb on average. It's every spammers dream. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc.
You are counting spam txs, dice / microgambling, etc as transactions that are willing to pay 2x/4x/8x, thus there's the first error of your reasoning. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.
We've been hearing this crap since last summer. Fees don't go up because legit txs are way below the 1mb average and the rest is always topped off with spam that goes in by paying as low as it can. we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?
and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?
You are on a FUD-roll there, aren't you? 1. You are totally overlooking the Bitcoin-store-of-value aspect, relating marketcap with tx capacity. How many online tx/sec can gold do? Yes, that's precisely ZERO. 2. How many RL gold txs occur daily and where? There is no country with gold as its currency. The only places where gold is traded for money are failed states, countries with huge devaluation or hyperinflation, or, mining cities (take 300oz gold, give me the bulldozer). The vast amount of gold trading takes place in electronic platforms that are trading fictional amounts of gold. I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.
The problem as I see it is that "...if I say that I sold, how can I continue selling FUD on the forum?" As others posters said, sell and move on - if you have anything that is. You were threatening to sell in the 200's, 300's, 400's, etc. What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ.
Again zero consideration for the impact of competitive money (devaluating FIAT vs scarce bitcoin with diminishing inflation). This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.
1. Forgive BTC for going from 10$ to 1000$+ and needing to catch its breath. 2. Scaling is insured in terms of money transacted, even if tx/s remain constant ( which they won't - due to the roadmap). If you replace 100 transactions of 0.1$ with 100 transactions of 1$, you've scaled the transaction volume of money 10 times. If you replace them again with 10$ txs, you've gone upwards by 100x. At something like 2000 txs/block, right now, you can choose to buy 2000 boxes of chewing gums for practically zero savings over traditional payment means, or you can choose to make high value payments, that will save you tens/hundreds/thousands of dollars in bank fees per transaction - and at which point a fee like even 1$ may be ridiculously low. The other day I got something like 250$ in paypal and from my paypal account to my hand I had already lost >20$ due to paypal fees, currency exchange fees, wire fees etc. Again: 20 fucking dollars. And people (from the FUD camp) are like "ohhhhh no, fees are expensive in Bitcoin because... it ain't totally free, I still need to pay 2-3 cents... the world will end and adoption will come to a halt if we have to pay more". Seriously? You mean people would prefer to lose 20-50-100$ in fees instead of losing ...0.something$ in Bitcoin? For real? Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking You are welcome. |
|
|
|
i think this weekends pump causing the blocks to fill up proves that bitcoin is without a doubt #paralyzed... and i'm going to laugh at it! .. that is some funny shiat! without the ability to scale bitcoin cant win. lol. too funny.... i doubt bitcoin can withstand much more pumping without completely freezing up . that really is hilarious.. #GimpedCoin
11-20 satoshis per byte / 0-12 blocks to confirm 21-30 satoshis per byte / 0-3 blocks to confirm 31-40 satoshis per byte / 0-2 blocks to confirm 41-50 satoshis per byte / 0-1 blocks to confirm For a 250byte ordinary tx this is: 1-2 cents / 0-12 blocks to confirm 2-3 cents / 0-3 blocks to confirm 3-4 cents / 0-2 blocks to confirm 4-5 cents / 0-1 blocks to confirm Paralyzed? Freezing up? Fees still a few cents despite the "clogging"? How did that happen? LOL I wonder if there are people out there that take this kind of fullblockalypse FUD and take it seriously. I read Armstrong the other day, he said "too little too late". Too late for what? Was anyone excluded from transacting at these ridiculously low fees? |
|
|
|
@marcus_of_augustus, saying that these TX do "crap" for fees doesn't sound right seeing how they account for ~90% of the total fees miners collect on each block.
Still the fees per block are so low that miners can actually do without them. A 0.25btc per block is just 1% of the block. It's so irrelevant that some miners prefer to mine empty blocks and broadcast faster than their competitors / reducing orphan risk or uncertainty - and others don't even bother to change default mining values in their mining blocks (max=750kb). In any case, between "blocks are full" and "fees", fees are the better indicator about the status of the network. Right now the bulk of transactions are conducted at near zero cost (0 to 3-5 cents). This situation where everybody is transacting for practically zero cost, would not be possible if there was a true "blocks are full" problem. If fees rise sharply to much, much higher levels that are not considered practically-free txs, then that's the indicator that blocks are getting fuller by people who actually want to transact instead of just putting in there txs for the lolz. |
|
|
|
DASH was billed as ASIC resistant. So that has to be taken into consideration.
"resistant" means that somebody would have to invest a lot of time and trouble to pull it off. In this case, somebody cared enough to do it. @oaxaca made this point on Slack. If you are a Dash investor, would you like to know that the network is secured by this:  or this:  So there's that... What type of max performance is being pulled out of a single GPU these days? Does it have room for serious improvement? |
|
|
|
|
I just built a 0.12 (Bitcoin Core version v0.12.0.0-g188ca9c (64-bit) for a qt-wallet in a linux x64 system...
I'm lagging 4 days behind and I'm evaluating the performance on a quad core q8200 / 2.33ghz, 4gb ram / samsung 850evo. Validation threads are set manually to 4.
So, there are some points during the sync process where
- either network is downloading and cpu doing almost nothing
- network is not downloading much or at all and cpu is doing nothing (2-3% cpu use)
I use to think it was mechanical I/O lag as long as I had it in the mechanical disk, back in the 11.2 version, but now even that is excluded (due to SSD use / I'm also monitoring write/read/IO data and it's pretty low).
There are simply some points in which time is wasted for whatever reason and it's just plain faster to shut bitcoin-qt down, restart the wallet, and it immediately starts syncing faster again - chewing blocks fast instead of being stuck or doing them slowly.
11.1 used to be good, 11.2 I think had this type of performance regression / inconsistent syncing, 12 is similar - at least in my experience.
|
|
|
|
but in this particular issue its just the other way around! the community, the exchanges, the economy, some devs, some core devs AND the miners agree pretty much on a way forward. its just a small group of core-devs (even a minority INSIDE of core) that wants to force its will onto millions of others.
its ridiculous!
The vast majority are ok with the compromise. A few insist on classic HF or a 1MB4evah. So if we have like 90 (segwit+hf later as long as there is a time schedule for it) 5 (only hf2mb) 5 (only segwit) The "5"s, won't matter that much. |
|
|
|
μου αρέσει τα παρακάτω σημεία που με βρίσκουν απόλυτα σύμφωνο. Δεν είναι τυχαίο ότι στο πάνελ βρισκόταν και ο Adam Back, μέλος της κρυπτοαναρχικής κοινότητας και ένας που το όνομα του βρίσκεται στο white paper του Satoshi Nakamoto. Και ναι ο Satoshi αυτούς είχε στο white paper του και όχι τον Hearn ούτε τον Πάπα ούτε τον κεντρικό τραπεζική της Αμερικής..
Καθε φορα που βλεπω τον Adam Back σε photos, αναρωτιεμαι ποσο ηλιθιοι πρεπει να ειναι καποιοι ανθρωποι οταν φτιαχνουν θεωριες συνωμοσιας για τη κακη blockstream του back που θελει το ...κακο του bitcoin. Ο ανθρωπος ειναι ο ορισμος του αγαθουλη σπασικλοκαθηγητακου... you can't go wrong με τον Back. Αντιθετα, ακουγοντας τη συνεντευξη του gavin andersen τις προαλλες τη βρηκα εξαιρετικα unsettling σε σχεση με το χαρακτηρα του αλλά και το περιεχομενο αυτων που ελεγε αλλα και οσων απεκρυπτε. Οχι επειδη εχω καποιο ιδιαιτερο bias υπερ των μικρων ή των μεγαλων μπλοκς (προσωπικα προτιμω μεγαλα block που συνοδευονται απο πολυ υψηλοτερα fees ωστε να γινεται ορθη χρηση) αλλα επειδη αυτο μου βγαζει σαν ανθρωπος. |
|
|
|
fork off already.
This is a good example of what I am talking about. This is something a consensus builder would not say. there is no consensus to be found whatsoever with socialist freeshit spammers. so you are free to fork off to whatever bloated corpcoin, gavincoin, usgcoin.. bitcoin will still exist as is and prevail in value with its conservative original parameters. Facebook went years without ads to grow it's user base. Is Zuckerberg a socialist? Youtube did the same thing. So did Google, Microsoft, IBM, Yahoo!...are all these companies charities? How many years? BTC is on it's 7th year, approaching the second halving, and already having distributed nearly 75% of the total monetary base (leaving just 25% for subsidy). Fees are currently at 0.01 - 0.04$ = peanuts, despite "Blocks are full". For as many years as it takes to reach a critical mass of users. Businesses and investors are forward thinking. If fees double every year, in a decade they could be over $10,000 per transaction! In a parallel universe where maths works differently, maybe we'd get to 10.000$. In this universe it would work like this: Year 1: 0.03$ Year 2: 0.06$ Year 3: 0.12$ Year 4: 0.24$ Year 5: 0.48$ Year 6: 0.96$ Year 7: 1.92$ Year 8: 3.84$ Year 9: 7.68$ Year 10: 15.36$ For the time being we have something like Year 1 to Year 7 = peanuts. What you propose about consistently low fees can only have 2 outcomes: 1) Miners cutting every low fee tx by themselves and imposing a fee market, which can trigger "riots" and new fork attempts to stop the evil miners from not processing our txs. 2) Idiots pushing for >21mn coins and more inflation "to keep fees low so that more adoption can take place". |
|
|
|
fork off already.
This is a good example of what I am talking about. This is something a consensus builder would not say. there is no consensus to be found whatsoever with socialist freeshit spammers. so you are free to fork off to whatever bloated corpcoin, gavincoin, usgcoin.. bitcoin will still exist as is and prevail in value with its conservative original parameters. Facebook went years without ads to grow it's user base. Is Zuckerberg a socialist? Youtube did the same thing. So did Google, Microsoft, IBM, Yahoo!...are all these companies charities? How many years? BTC is on it's 7th year, approaching the second halving, and already having distributed nearly 75% of the total monetary base (leaving just 25% for subsidy). Fees are currently at 0.01 - 0.04$ = peanuts, despite "Blocks are full". |
|
|
|
Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then. You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20.
How can I put it mildly? This is way too ...ignorant... just stop this madness. Just because you bought some coins at 10$, doesn't mean you know what's best for bitcoin, technically speaking. Let those who understand these things make the right choices. Your rationale is so simplistic that it's not even funny. If you go from 1 to 2, it doesn't automatically mean you can go to 4-8-20 without consequences. This is truly idiotic to even contemplate. The propagation data is vastly different for blocks of 2 / 4 / 8 / 20MB. In simple terms, it takes a few seconds for a 1MB block while it takes several MINUTES for a 20MB block - and if that block is crafted to fuck up CPU resources of others validating it, it could take half an hour or more to get both propagated + validated. By that time, an average of 3 new blocks will have been issued. I am not sure why you are complaining about validation times for 20mb blocks when what is proposed is a rise to 2mb which is safe. Please re-read what I'm criticizing => What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Epic fail. You seem to be under the gross misapprehension that those of us (the economic majority) who want bitcoin to scale on chain as far as is technically feasible also want to see it damaged in some way.
Some do, most don't. They are just plain ignorant and they want to run things based on their ignorance - which is a recipe for disaster. Saying that if we can upgrade to 2MB and nothing bad happens, is proof that we could go to 4, 8 or 20 => is ignorant. If people actually made BTC code with this rationale, BTC would already be dead. The absolute reverse is true. We want bitcoin to succeed and are in the main heavily invested financially in that successful outcome.
And what is stopping this "success"? The 300kb difference between segwit (1.7mb) and the 2mb hf, when the avg block size is running at 0.6mb? Btw, success IS NOT the artificial bloating of the blockchain with CRAP and then saying "oh we have so many transactions". And those people with more than a tiny grasp of economics can see clearly that artificially capping the number of transactions which the bitcoin network can process whilst the userbase and transaction volume is relentlessly rising is a terrible, terrible idea.
Allow me to disagree on who has any grasp on economics whatsoever. Visa, Paypal and the Banks, charge ridiculously high amount of money for fees, in what actually cost them peanuts due to the efficiency of centralized databases. For example Paypal charges 0.35 fixed plus 2-3% of the amount. Their cost for making the tx happen is ridiculously low because they have a centralized database, not an inefficient P2P / Decentralized implementation. Those people who, you say, have "more than a tiny grasp of economics", find it "reasonable" for something that is *actually* scarce (max transactions per second for Bitcoin are <50, even if you lift the 1MB), and *actually* very costly method (6$ per tx in susbidy), to cost something ridiculous like 1-3 cents in fees. They say the fees should remain at near-zero levels and that the 'fee market', that would crowd out the spammers, is a bad idea - and instead, we should be giving this very expensive block size / tx capacity, to free riders who spam away. You can't be selling something (tx capacity in a decentralized system) that costs A LOT of money for near-zero, and find it OK to pay A LOT for things that actually cost next to nothing (centralized systems). More specifically in what you are saying about being "a bad idea": It would be a bad idea if we had fees exceeding, say, 1$ per tx. At 0.01$ or 0.02$, it is a veeeeery good idea, because the spammers will have to get crowded out eventually. |
|
|
|
Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then. You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20.
How can I put it mildly? This is way too ...ignorant... just stop this madness. Just because you bought some coins at 10$, doesn't mean you know what's best for bitcoin, technically speaking. Let those who understand these things make the right choices. Your rationale is so simplistic that it's not even funny. If you go from 1 to 2, it doesn't automatically mean you can go to 4-8-20 without consequences. This is truly idiotic to even contemplate. The propagation data is vastly different for blocks of 2 / 4 / 8 / 20MB. In simple terms, it takes a few seconds for a 1MB block while it takes several MINUTES for a 20MB block - and if that block is crafted to fuck up CPU resources of others validating it, it could take half an hour or more to get both propagated + validated. By that time, an average of 3 new blocks will have been issued. |
|
|
|
Where are you getting your data that we have seem a 1000x increase in bandwidth and network propagation times between 95 and 2015?
I was actually using the internet back in '95 so my personal first hand experience is the data. To give you an idea, back in '95, my entire country was connected to the Internet through 2 major ISPs. Their total connectivity added up to ....512 KBPS, which had to be shared to >5000 users who were using dialup (typically 14.4 to 28.8 kbps - although a bad phone line could drop that rate dramatically) or leased lines (64kbps). Today total connectivity is in line with the 1000x figure (at least 500 gbps). My home connection exceeds x1000 gains if I connect to a VDSL and is at 500x-1000x with ADSL. The exception that breaks the rule. Ok, well you were under a very specific circumstance of a country that didn't adopt the internet as quickly. Keep in mind that in other parts of the world things were much different. Actually I was far better (in Europe) than most parts of the world. The only place where speeds were better than Europe was the US. But that didn't involve international traffic (which is what the Internet is about), only domestic traffic - because, in a sense, the majority of Internet content, websites, etc were mostly US-based so the traffic was local to the US. Still, back in '95, dialup modems were pretty regular for home use in the USA too. There was no ...FTTH and ADSL was on the ...horizon: http://s29.postimg.org/q0hlsbb8n/DSC00023.jpg (Byte / Jan 1996) so If we were to use just fixed bandwidth the numbers would be close to 50% per year... so would you be ok with a 50% a year blocksize increase? Of course , IMHO , we should be much more conservative than that because propagation time and network latency isn't also increasing at the same rates and really important networks like TOR are also not increasing at the same rates.
You have to remember that user adoption is on a curve which is much faster than technological progression, so less than what the technology is able to give you won't cut it. But allowing spam won't cut it either. So I'd like to have as much as possible, the sooner it becomes technologically feasible, with one slight twist: Serious minimum fees that prevent network abuse for the lolz. As for latency, latency of miliseconds in a network that operates in 10m windows, is relatively ok. If we are talking about propagation delay, then transmission speed (which has the tendency to scale) plays a huge role. If you have networks that transfer files 10x as fast, you get the job done quicker, thus lowering the propagation time singificantly. |
|
|
|
The difficult thing about this conversation is that we are repeatedly being misrepresented or misunderstood. Core has already agreed to compromise and kick the can by increasing capacity.... which means that you really aren't interested in 2MB, but something much bigger... which at this point in time(remember we want bigger blocks too) would be disastrous for bitcoin. Even by Gavin's own calculations Classic could cause a 40% node drop off (worse case scenario) , this is absolutely unacceptable and we need to start reversing this trend immediately.
segwit is huge, it makes any blocksize effectively double the size but core is still not budging from 1MB will they ever? todd need to come clean, and literally say " we will not increase block size no matter what happens, because we believe in lighting " 1. You go into the airport and you are only allowed 1 bag that weighs a max of 100 pounds. (1MB limit - current scheme) 2. You go into the airport and you are only allowed 1 bag that weighs a max of 200 pounds. (2MB hard fork - proposed scheme of classic) 3. You go into the airport and you are allowed 2 bags that weigh a combined 170-300 pounds depending the items (multisig txs) you carry (segwit scheme by core) Why would you insist on whether it's one bag or two bags? Does it matter to you? Similarly, segwit allows 1.7MB to 3MB+ of data. Just because it is in two separate data structures, doesn't mean it's less data or that it's ...still 1MB. It isn't. If one file in your PC saves 1MB and the other saves another 700kb, it's still 1.7MB of data in txs (and not 1MB). And you also solve the malleability problem that is there for years. segwit effectively doubles capacity for any block limit, double capacity of 2MB is better then double capacity 1MB. i feel we aren't fully taking adv of what segwit dose if we don't also increase block size Think of segwit as follows (simplistically): It's a 1.7mb block, where the data are split in two files. You don't need to make it 3.4mb - that's like 5x our current 0.6mb avg block size. It's just free room for spamming and bloating. Satoshi gave the spammers 1MB (minus legit transactions) of room to play with. I don't see why any of the next devs should give them 3. That would be gross incompetence / criminal intent. If actual demand for txs rise, you give them more room etc. |
|
|
|
Where are you getting your data that we have seem a 1000x increase in bandwidth and network propagation times between 95 and 2015?
I was actually using the internet back in '95 so my personal first hand experience is the data. To give you an idea, back in '95, my entire country was connected to the Internet through 2 major ISPs. Their total connectivity added up to ....512 KBPS, which had to be shared to >5000 users who were using dialup (typically 14.4 to 28.8 kbps - although a bad phone line could drop that rate dramatically) or leased lines (64kbps). Today total connectivity is in line with the 1000x figure (at least 500 gbps). My home connection exceeds x1000 gains if I connect to a VDSL and is at 500x-1000x with ADSL. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
