|
1242
|
Economy / Economics / Re: The current Bitcoin economic model doesn't work
|
on: June 03, 2011, 10:39:12 AM
|
Feel free to start your fork anytime. This experiment is ours.
+1 I don't particularly believe that this would be successful, but i will surely watch the development with interest. Perhaps even many forks should be created - inflata-coin, superdeflata-coin, stuff-coin, alter-coin - so we can experiment & test which one will be more successful than others. |
|
|
|
|
1243
|
Economy / Economics / Re: Bitcoin 50x parity. When will 1BTC=50 USD? Vote!
|
on: June 02, 2011, 04:30:10 PM
|
Bitcoin's rise so far is due mostly to small amounts of speculation and people who want to see the currency system replaced who are investing their spare change. We're probably only getting started.
Totally agreed. When the total economy size will break 1.000.000.000 (1 billion dollars), then it's going to get interesting. For now, modest 76 mil USD will have to suffice  |
|
|
|
|
1246
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why transaction fee is so big?
|
on: May 30, 2011, 10:37:57 PM
|
ok thanks PROBLEM SOLVED ... I misunderstand that mechanism  I don't think the problem is really solved... 0.3.21 calculates the (EDIT: necessity of) fees wrongly. I had the same problem (popup saying i need a fee when trying to send ~10 BTC received within last hour ), i downgraded to 0.3.20 and it let me send immediately. After that, i got 3 confirmations after about 45 minutes. So fee was not really neded at all. Sorry guys, but the new "newbie friendly" fee algorithm is totally crap to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
1248
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: bitcoin's impact on the computer industry
|
on: May 29, 2011, 06:59:01 PM
|
they use up four PCI-E slots too (AFAIK you can put three 5970s on a single MOBO, which is equivalent of six 5870s).
Of what i read, it seems that you can't. More than one 5970 do not work on single mainboard. It was tested on multiple mainboards & power supplies (it is not power supply problem) by somebody on this forum. But given the current video card market condition, using 5870s or 5850s may make more sense.
Yeah, its subject to change in the future. |
|
|
|
|
1249
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: bitcoin's impact on the computer industry
|
on: May 29, 2011, 04:21:50 PM
|
5970s are impossible to get unless you want to pay ransom amount money, 6990s are on waiting lists. Those are short term effects.
Well, who cares ? 5870's are the most cost-effective anyway. Also you can put four 5870s in a single motherboard and they will work. 5970's don't work this way, i don't know about 6990. |
|
|
|
|
1250
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Transaction fees magically appearing, how to account for them?
|
on: May 29, 2011, 04:18:06 PM
|
Should'nt we as the senders be able to decide what we're willing to pay for a transaction instead of it being taken from our wallets with nothing to be done about it after the fact?
That is why there is an option for this. 0.3.21 provides no way to override the transaction fee and send a free transaction (accepting the lengthy delay). Is this in 0.3.22? Should be the default behavior. I send free TX's with 0.3.21. TX fee is stored in wallet, so maybe you must explicitly -paytxfee=0, to reset it? Still, that won't work in the GUI, which is annoying. |
|
|
|
|
1251
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Transaction fees magically appearing, how to account for them?
|
on: May 29, 2011, 02:27:03 PM
|
Should'nt we as the senders be able to decide what we're willing to pay for a transaction instead of it being taken from our wallets with nothing to be done about it after the fact?
That is why there is an option for this. 0.3.21 provides no way to override the transaction fee and send a free transaction (accepting the lengthy delay). That's what I am talking about. I had to downgrade to 0.3.20 to get around this. |
|
|
|
|
1252
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Txn fee back to 0.01 in rc5?
|
on: May 29, 2011, 05:12:38 AM
|
When is "phase 2" expected to happen?
As soon as possible -- the very next bitcoin release. BTW. The fact that the transaction fee is forced annoys me. I am still using 0.3.20 because of that fact. Wouldn't it be wiser to leave the final decision to the user and allow sending a transaction without fees after one more "Are you sure ?" dialog option (or "force" rpc/cmdline command) ? If i want to wait for 10 hours for the 1st confirmation, why not let me ? Not leaving the choice to the user is so not libertarian. |
|
|
|
|
1253
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Transaction fees magically appearing, how to account for them?
|
on: May 29, 2011, 05:02:10 AM
|
Should'nt we as the senders be able to decide what we're willing to pay for a transaction instead of it being taken from our wallets with nothing to be done about it after the fact?
Exactly. This automatically turns on the red light for me. This is also the reason why i don't use 0.3.21 yet - because i don't like others to decide for me what i want to do with my money. I think that the fees should be automatically estimated based on by some king weighed average of transaction size OR on the current BTC prices comparing to other currencies. In either case, the decision if the fee should be paid or not, should be left to the users and miners, which make the market. If i want to send small amount without a fee and wait 10 hours for confirmation, then let me - that is my right because I am a free man - and Bitcoin is money of the free people. Perhaps the default client should have a " --force" parameter just like many GNU command line applications, which sends transaction even if it is probably not optimal. ---- EDIT: Also see my other post here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=6189.msg127007#msg127007 |
|
|
|
|
1254
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [RFC] New TX fee: 0.0005 BTC
|
on: May 29, 2011, 04:56:27 AM
|
This "consensus" talk gives a bad feeling. Prices should be set by markets.
Agreed; that is the longer-term goal. This is a short-term fix. Isn't it possible to introduce some automatic downloading & adjustment of current fees depending on BTC prices comparing to other currencies from bitcoinwatch, bitcoincharts or something ? Of course, if none of the servers respond quickly, then the default fee will be taken. I know this is not the best solution, but surely it has to be better than fixed fee. |
|
|
|
|
1255
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gavin will visit the CIA
|
on: May 27, 2011, 03:39:41 PM
|
Hey gavin, btw do you know the date of the conference?
or is that not to be disclosed?
June 14th at CIA HQ, Langley Virginia. It is not open to the public, conference is for the US intelligence community only. Sounds like fun. Can you disclose how many ninjas will be present on the conference (at least approximately) ? |
|
|
|
|
1258
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [FEATURE REQUEST/BUG REPORT] Limit maximum number of connections to X
|
on: May 24, 2011, 03:44:09 PM
|
Wow, wow wow. Hold on there. UPnP has nothing to do with this. First of all, to answer your original question, you can simply use -maxconnections=XX to limit max connections (default is 125), this has been in the client for quite some time.
Hmmm... Too bad that this doesn't show up when i do # bitcoin --help. Otherwise i wouldn't start this topic. -noupnp actually ends up working the same way as -nolisten in that with UPnP enabled (which it is not, by default, unless you built yourself with USE_UPNP=1)
Weird. I'm using the pre-built bitcoin binary version 0.3.20. Is it built with UPnP support then ? If not, then how disabling UPnP could have fixed it ? your router will forward your connections properly allowing you to get more than 8 by accepting incoming connections. -nolisten will end up doing the same thing by rejecting incoming connections.
Why should disabling UPnP make the client reject connections ? This is weird. Shouldn't this be considered a bug ? What you should do is leave UPnP on (and/or forward the ports manually)
I have forwarded the ports manually... I said i have DMZ set up. Also, UPnP is disabled on my router anyway (i consider it to be unnecessary security risk), so enabling or disabling UPnP should have no effect whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
1259
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [FEATURE REQUEST] Limit maximum number of connections to X
|
on: May 24, 2011, 02:16:46 PM
|
It will not make more than 8 outgoing connections, but unless you supply -nolisten, it will listen for incoming connections independently. Maybe you just want to use -nolisten?
But I do want it to listen. Without listening it is hard/slow for the client to make many external connections. With listening it is instant. But the actual problem is broken UPnP support, so the matter is clear now. The older versions weren't affected because there was no UPnP at all in them. |
|
|
|
|
1260
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: [FEATURE REQUEST] Limit maximum number of connections to X
|
on: May 24, 2011, 01:55:51 PM
|
Try running with -noupnp?
UPnP is offline on my router, i have DMZ set up though to the comp with Bitcoin currently. But why should UPnP affect number of connections with external hosts ? ---- I am trying running bitcoin with "-noupnp" now, i will give you update in few minutes. ---- EDIT:Yup, you were right -noupnp seems to have fixed it. So this should be more like [BUG REPORT] than [FEATURE REQUEST]. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
