What do you think about a dynamic block size based on the amount of transactions in the last blocks?
That's easily exploited. The limit shouldn't depend entirely on the block chain. Here's one idea: The block size limit doesn't need to be centrally-determined. Each node could automatically set its max block size to a calculated value based on disk space and bandwidth: "I have 100 GB disk space available, 10 MB per 10 minutes download speed and 1 MB per 10 minutes upload speed, so I'll stop relaying blocks [discouraging them] if they're near 1/8 MB [enough for each peer] and stop accepting them at all if they're over 2MB because I'd run out of disk space in less than a year at that rate". If Bitcoin ends up rejecting a long chain due to its max block size, it can ask the user whether he wants to switch to a lightweight mode.
Users could also specify target difficulty levels that they'd like the network to have and reduce their max block size when the network's actual difficulty level drops below that. A default target difficulty level could maybe be calculated based on how fast the user's computer is -- as users' computers get faster, you'd expect mining to also get faster.
i dont like that approach very much, because i think it gave to much influence to nodes. what about this one: blocksize is determined by median transaction fees? this is not very easy to game (except you are a big pool which should want to reduce the blocksize anyway so there is no incentive) |
|
|
|
Außerdem geht die Gefahr geht von Avalon/BFL aus, wenn denn, früher von AMD.
ich persönlich denke die amiland regierung mit den regierungseigenen fabs waren, sind und werden immer die größte gefahr sein  warum sollte eine firma wie amd sich für sowas interessieren? damit lässt sich kein geld verdienen... und die banken sind so eng am staat angeschlossen, das sie diesen einfach anbetteln können. |
|
|
|
Es ist und bleibt immer eine frage der Ressourcen die zu einem Zeitpunkt in der Hand einer Gruppe sind. Wenn es zb bei Avalon und eventuell BFL bleibt ist es möglich das eine Gruppe 51% sich holt.
Klar auf kosten anderer, darum geht es ja. Was kann ein Angreifer den mit den Avalon´s u. BFL´s machen? Nichts anderes wie wir auch: Bitcoin minen. Um Bitcoin zu zerstören oder zu ändern müsste der Angreifer selber veränderte ASCI´s entwickeln... das ist nicht wahr... er muss nur seinen bitcoin server umprogrammieren und seine asics auf ihn richten. die frage ist halt wieso das jemand tun sollte. |
|
|
|
|
What do you think about a dynamic block size based on the amount of transactions in the last blocks?
|
|
|
|
The first thing you need to understand that it's not just a matter of the majority of miners for a hard fork.... it's got to be pretty much everybody. Otherwise, you will have a blockchain split with two different user groups both wanting to call their blockchain "bitcoin". Unspent outputs at the time of the fork can be spent once on each new chain. Mass confusion.
+1 but i am sure that there is a need for a hardfork in the future (more digits or bigger blocks). the earlier the better....but its always hard to predict the future |
|
|
|
|
i guess most miners won't like this change.
they are speculating that if its harder to place a transaction in a block (eg because of size) people will pay more transaction fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Hallo,
ich wohne im Raum Freiburg. Du auch? Hast Du zuviele Bitcoins?
Dann lass uns treffen.. Ich möchte jeden Monat zwischen 100€ und 200€ in BitCoins investieren. Am liebsten persönlich und direkt.
Welchen Kurs wir nehmen können wir dann per PM im Detail klärten.
|
|
|
|
Nice, a thread that can't put you on anyones ignore list.  i dont need this thread to know that i want to ignore you! |
|
|
|
|
Sehr geehrte Kunden
Die GENEWO GmbH hat ihren Betrieb zum 31.12.2012 eingestellt.
?
|
|
|
|
hoqq ist ein netter kontakt und hat mir den redeem code vor meiner überweisung geschickt...dh das angebot ist vertrauenswürdig. falls ihr schnell euro zu mtgox haben wollt schlagt zu |
|
|
|
Find a couple of bums and have a friend take a video of these bums beating you black and blue with their fists and feet. Make sure your shirt is off so we can see the bruises form.
To the people owed money: do you feel that this would help?
i'd prefer to get no money over forcing him to make your idea happen. btw i think he is trying hard to fix this. and yes: he is an attention whore: but whats wrong about that? i enjoyed his posts in the past. lets see ... |
|
|
|
However I just thought of this - if it *remembered* that last way it chose to do the tx (in terms of which unspent output to use for the fees) then provided that that address has enough to cover all the fees it could solve it couldn't it?
imagine a wallet which contains ONLY of a few million transaction with a satoshi each. |
|
|
|
because the fee does also use unspent outputs.
Sorry edited after you replied - so it does matter which "unspent output" the fee is chosen from? only in case if you are emptying your wallet because this also implies that you send other outputs. my example above is a little easier but a similiar problem. - 0.995BTC to send fee was 0.001 - 0.999BTC to send: fee suddenly was 0.005 ^^ here is the problem that the biger tx uses more (very small) outputs which results in a higher fee. |
|
|
|
it depends which coins are selected - which appears to be random sometimes.
If I am "emptying" the wallet then how can it depend upon "which coins" (I presume you mean "unspent outputs") as I am spending them *all*? (perhaps you weren't completely emptying your wallet?) because the fee does also use unspent outputs. |
|
|
|
it depends which coins are selected - which appears to be random sometimes. as i tried to empty my wallet i had this case (example with easier numbers): 1BTC in wallet - 0.995BTC to send fee was 0.001 - 0.999BTC to send: fee suddenly was 0.005 so it was impossible to empty my wallet (i got around this by using to txn's) so i had a problem ,) |
|
|
|
Not a bad technique - of course I won't be throwing out any private keys (just effectively sweeping them all out to a new address) but I would think that if it's not too hard for the software to do this for the end user (who could be Gavin's Grandma after all) then why not have it do the work for them?
its not that easy because fee calculation is not deterministic. i've tried to that manually but i think importing the privkeys to mtgox is the easiest solution. |
|
|
|
but nearly no company would do this as their expenses are in usd (at least for now). to much risk for them. Simple. Such companies should not accept bitcoin payments and claim they are part of the bitcoin community! tell this bitpay... they offer exactly this service. and i think its a good thing because it does allow merchants to participate in bitcoins which otherwise dont have any chance. anyhow: i'll leave this thread. sometimes you should just realize that if anybody has another opinion than you that they could be right. |
|
|
|
As much as it sucks for the consumer, it's just how it is... I mean what if BTC had dropped... would there be any complaints about getting your USD refund? No.
maybe becoin could answer this and maybe we can stop having 100 threads about this topic. if BTC was 1$ today i bet you wanted your refund in $ not in BTC. i guess he means: if paid in btc only refunds in btc. if payed in usd refund only in usd. this has some merit. but nearly no company would do this as their expenses are in usd (at least for now). to much risk for them. |
|
|
|
You can get a $ refund, correct?
I guess I can get both US dollars and Zimbabwean dollars if I want to? But people didn't pay in $. They paid in bitcoins and want bitcoin refunds. that's not true. I payed in bitcoin and assumed they'd be "converted" to USD at the time of payment. no need to "assume". bitpay does print the usd amount on his invoice and does even update the btc value which need to be payed if you take to long to pay your invoice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
