i have a dream! i dream of large corporations/governments competing for blocks with 100,000's of 0.00001BTC fees
I have a dream where a bitcoin is worth $400,000 each three halvings from now so the blockreward is over a million bucks and miners still won't care about fees. If BTC value doubles more frequently than the blockreward halves, fees will never be needed to sustain miners. awesome, peter todd can use reasoning to get poeple believing we don't actually need to grow the amount of fees generated on each block. wait that might conflict with his idea that, the best way to get more fees is to artificially cap number TX pre block so fee rise. this is a classic eco. problem, it's like "what is the best price for my product" to expensive and no one will buy to cheep and EVERYONE buys, but then your losing profit ( you could have been selling more expensive) turns out the best price is one that a small % feel is to expensive. |
|
|
|
(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter). ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.
you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.
Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total. Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can? we could have GB blocks i can still point my cpu mining power at a pool. and yes we want these pools to be as big as possible, no pools do not centralized bitcoin, at any point in time poeple can switch pool or create a new one, if they don't like how a pool operates. no miner will be adversely affected by a block size increase. your best argument would be to focus on full node count, but i'm ready for that one too. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanations. I was thinking that if the block creation time was reduced to 5 minutes at the same time as rewards were halved, then the new coin creation rate would still be roughly the same. Obviously this would allow for the processing of more transactions per minute, and I thought it might allow for a reduction in the size of the UTXO pool. I didn't appreciate the orphan creation problem though. Also, I wasn't aware of the need to change the difficulty in finding hash targets. I assumed that hardware improvements had made target discovery much faster, and the 10 minute limit was a policy restriction. I guess I need to read up on the hashing logic.
If you are properly set up, most transactions can be accepted with 0 confirmations. Just make sure your client uses several well connected nodes for where it gets its transactions from, and do not accept incoming connections. That makes the race attack very difficult because the transaction you see for a given input then likely becomes the same transaction the miners see and any double spend attempt will be rejected. Most of the other double spend attacks require that the attacker be someone who has the hash rate to create blocks, and are very very hard to pull off - as in not worth trying for relatively small amounts of money. The transaction confirmation problem really isn't one. Sure it may take hours sometimes for a given TX with a low fee to make it into the blockchain, but double spending on that TX is really hard unless you are a miner yourself. Even then it is hard. you can send your TX with a fee so small it won't get included in a block you'll see it come up as a 0 conf. and never get confirmed. then you resend the same bitcoin 12 days later with a fee that will get accepted. conclusion, you'll also need to make sure you check the fee is appropriate if your going to accept 0 conf. |
|
|
|
|
i have a dream! i dream of large corporations/governments competing for blocks with 100,000's of 0.00001BTC fees
|
|
|
|
|
for the record i was on the small blockers side for about 12 hours at one point.
|
|
|
|
|
please someone say somthing about full node count.
|
|
|
|
~50% are pissed
There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0  Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people. I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil. Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really what's stopping consensus from forming at this point? its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB! https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tjhttps://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848On the other hand there have proposed SegWit. They have a very valid counter-argument about the blocksize increase, that is the loss of decentralization. Of course they appear to be unyielding if the core of the question is for you about how much we should increase the block size, because obviously they don't want to increase it. But increasing the blocksize or not has never been the real question. The real question has always been about finding ways to improve bitcoin by allowing new investors to join in without giving up on the qualities that bitcoin has at the moment (such as low fees and decentralization). The debate started because fees were getting higher (which is not good) and some people (Gavin's clan) said "ok that's easy, let's just increase the blocksize" and others (Core's clan) said "hell no, this solution is gonna kill decentralization". We're looking for "a way to keep fees at a minimum", not for "a way to increase the blocksize". As of now Core has done a pretty good job working on SegWit since it keeps the fees at a minimum while a the same time preserving decentralization. ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off. you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead. |
|
|
|
It is fascinating, that anyone seriously thinking we are going to stay at 1/2/4 etc MB blockchain size.
The arguments fearing node centralization are laughable (like everyone back in 2010 - incl. Satoshi - knew). Bitcoin has like minimum a million users with PCs capable to run a node today, yet, less than 1% choose to run a node (the numbers may be waaay worse than that, like 5k "node runners" out of 5million users/holders).
Increasing the blocksize, lets say to 20 MB won't matter regarding the broadcast speed, mempool load, HDD space for the average user to run/not run a node - because they do not do it today, not even with 1MB/ avg. 10 min. They won't change a thing.
Today, if someone runs a node (or more than one) would do it even with 20 MB limits (many would do with way more hardware constrains, would even pay for it - like i do - just out of principle).
It is not technical properties, which are constrain node running, it is knowledge/care.
Does anyone with "smalblock" sentiment really thinks Bitcoin can growth even to 1% of today's financial network transaction volume without scaling the blockchain size to terrabytes in the next 5 years?
"The Blockchain" can bring so much utility besides money transactions! And that is exactly what it needs to be - and what most of us were fascinated about, land/property registry, ownership titles, escrow in an uncheatable global ledger, so no, not a settlement layer. "IT IS ON THE BLOCKCHAIN" should be a proverb for "as final as set in stone"- in the 10/100k$ area, because the account units can do more than coffee buys, yet, those daily 100,000 "coffee buys" will be the big thing to bring the first 1 billionth user. The average Joes, who so many look down here, yet, they are 95% of the population. Bitcoin needs them, we can not have a global financial system without the global....
I can not grasp, how experienced - and certainly well meaning, and i am saying this honestly and respectuflly - bitcoiners miss this point, which is: if blockchain can satisfy more than pure value transaction in its p2p concept, it will magnify in value/unit wise, which is all what WE want.
I think I disagree with this. Bitcoin is an incentives machine. Nobody should be expected to do anything on principle. there is a huge incentive imagine tomorrow you wake up and the news is there are only 100nodes up on the network and altho you dont understand everything your read you get that this is NOT GOOD what do you do next? thats right you ( and the first 5000 others to read the news ) make a free AWS account and fire up a Bitcoin Node. basically all reasons for not bumping the limit is pure speculation, terrible speculation. |
|
|
|
~50% are pissed
There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people. I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil. Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really what's stopping consensus from forming at this point? its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB! https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tjhttps://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848 |
|
|
|
I'll call my grandmother.  |
|
|
|
How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,
many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.
They said it themselves segwits capacity increase is a side effect, the segwit SOFT-FORK is so complex they couldn't anticipate this side effect until someone spent weeks implementing it. the point here isnt so much 1MB limit, its the idea that Core has no intention, infact intent NOT to scale the main chain. |
|
|
|
i think this is it!
>440 in a few hours!
I CAN FEEL IT!
So?  That means you did not go as short as you were planning, yesterday? Hopefully, you are a little more balanced than 99% BTC and only 1% fiat..... The proportion of my BTC/fiat allocation in my trading accounts changes kind of slowly when the price is not moving too much... Currently I am about 94.35% BTC and 5.65% fiat. if i sold a satoshi every time i threw a hissy fit on the forum .... i'd have no reason to throw a hissy fit on the forum anymore. i didnt sell anything, and i wont till 750. |
|
|
|
i think this is it!
>440 in a few hours!
I CAN FEEL IT!
Can you feeeeeel it? Can you feeeheheheheheeel it? Can you feeeeeeeeeeeeeheheel it? Can you feeeeeeeeel it? Raw paaaawar! raw pahahawhar! Raw power! raw pahahawhar! Can you feeeeeeeeeeeehhhl it? |
|
|
|
voted the only issue with core is that the lightning network is not yet finished. otherwise the segwit stuff is only a tiny increase... but apparently the change is needed for the possibility of the lightning network being implemented. AND EVEN THEN, a block increase will be needed. it does verily seem that the core developers are just trying to go against gavin/jeff garzik. I guess we will ultimately see where core developers stand. Because despite all the additions 1mb blocks arent enough. If blocks start to get full and they (core developers) still deny max blocksize increases then they will create a fork, and youll have a bunch of more mature and/or less dependent on blockstreams ability to make profit who will jump over to classic and add all the goodies there. so did you vote yes or no? your not pissed yet? |
|
|
|
|
i think this is it!
>440 in a few hours!
I CAN FEEL IT!
|
|
|
|
fork off already.
This is a good example of what I am talking about. This is something a consensus builder would not say. BJA: I hope that you are not suggesting that deep down inside that you possibly could be a consensus builder. There is no "I" in "consensus", but there is an "us". OF FUCKING A!!!! Ok, I'm new to this. Who do we invade? Fry's Electronics. We will need to build enough supermines by the Grand Coulee Dam to prevent a 51% attack by the ChiComs. are we blowing somthing up? i'm in! |
|
|
|
~50% are pissed  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
