Cool idea from Google, but what is that of chip from 21 inc, a solar miner? Mining with solar power would be a great idea indeed. 21 inc plans to give away free electric equipment with embedded mining chips. |
|
|
|
There has to be a maximum block size limit for bitcoin nodes to work. The limit is not just a program variable needed for block chain consensus, it has real world implications in terms of storage, processing and bandwidth resources. If a node doesn't have sufficient resources it will not be able to work as a properly functioning node. These resources have to be provisioned and managed by node operators who have to plan in advance to acquire the needed resources. That is the reason for BIP 101 having a schedule for changes to the limits. A dynamic algorithm can not magically instantiate the needed resources.
As I can see, the advantage of this algo proposed by OP is machine learning. It is dynamically determining the next max cap depending on the current full blocks. Only if more than 50% of blocks are more than 90% full, then only the max cap will double. This means more than 50% of the blocks stored by the nodes in last difficulty period are already already 90% filled and market is pushing for more. In this situation, node has two ways. Either increase its resource and stay in the network or close down. Keeping a node in a network is not network's responsibility. Network did not show any responsibility to keep CPU mining either. Miners who wanted to be in the network upgraded their miner to GPU, FPGA and ASIC for their own benefit. Similarly, nodes will be run by interested parties, who has to benefit for nodes, e.g. miners, online wallet provides, exchanges and individuals with big bitcoin holding and thereby having a need to secure the network. All of them will have to upgrade resource to be in the game, because the push is coming from free market need. The schedule in BIP 101 is based on technology forecasting. Like all forecasting, technology forecasting is inaccurate. If this schedule proves to be grossly in error then a new BIP can always be generated some years downstream, allowing for any needed "mid-course" corrections.
BIP 101 is a linear increment proposal, where the laid out path has not been derived from market demand. It does not have a way out to decrease block size and there is no basis of the technology forecasting for the long run. And another hard fork is just next to impossible after wide-spread adoption. Neither of BIP 101 (Gavin Andresen) or 103 (Pieter Wuille) are taking into account the actual network condition. Both are speculative on technology forecasting. |
|
|
|
its google maps for sunlight/sunduration if i understand correctly.
its helpful if you want to invest in solar power.
still have to buy the panels and live at the correct location
Is Google selling solar panels now ? |
|
|
|
Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.
If the market chooses bigger blocks, then the market can test whether or not that works out in practice. If yes, then Gavin's design solution actually was the best idea after all. If not, then the market retreating will cause the blocksize to retreat also (which wouldn't be possible under BIP100).
The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...
No sure if you have gone through OP's proposal. BIP 101 has no provision to decrease block size, instead it flat out increases without considering the network status. BIP 100 is employing some miner's voting system, which requires a separate activity from miner's end. The reason I feel OP's proposal is beautiful is because it requires users to fill up nodes with high Tx volumes and then miners to fill up blocks from mempool. So, it is not only the miner, but also the end users have a say in increasing or decreasing block size. |
|
|
|
|
This is one of the best proposal I have seen in recent times to solve the max block size problem. I hope, it does not get overlooked by the core & XT devs, because this could potentially stop the divide of bitcoin core & XT.
|
|
|
|
I refuse to upgrade just because Gavin says it should be so. Let the actual market decide, in terms of fees and such. I detest centralized decision making - and frankly have some suspicions about Gavin ever since he caved in to meet with the CIA.
I do kind of agree with you. I am in favor of the proposal Gavin & Hearn is pitching. But, Hearn's history, especially the claim to ignore the longest chain makes me suspicious about his future plan. It might be the case that he is winning the public support by backing a popular demand, but in future he might take the lead to kill the founding pillars of bitcoin, like ignoring the longest chain. It'd have been way better if the core devs could agree at some point and raised the block size a little, because we need to know how decentralized the lightning.network is... as well. I hope you read that and maybe you have also seen Hearn at Epicenter where he said.If so you should know better what actually said. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1150481.msg12140304#msg12140304I checked that video again and again to my utter disbelief to what I'm listening. But, no. Hearn actually said that. He is no one to decide the economic majority. If economic majority is against that would naturally push the miners to change their side. Why would he checkpoint them ? That is out & out dictatorship. |
|
|
|
I refuse to upgrade just because Gavin says it should be so. Let the actual market decide, in terms of fees and such. I detest centralized decision making - and frankly have some suspicions about Gavin ever since he caved in to meet with the CIA.
I do kind of agree with you. I am in favor of the proposal Gavin & Hearn is pitching. But, Hearn's history, especially the claim to ignore the longest chain makes me suspicious about his future plan. It might be the case that he is winning the public support by backing a popular demand, but in future he might take the lead to kill the founding pillars of bitcoin, like ignoring the longest chain. It'd have been way better if the core devs could agree at some point and raised the block size a little, because we need to know how decentralized the lightning.network is... as well. |
|
|
|
i am using blockchain.info but i want to switch to something else
If you don't want to run a full node I would recommend armory or electrum. Allowing you to be in control of your own keys and also restore from word seed back up. You control your keys in blockchain.info as well. |
|
|
|
...
I noticed a lot of transactions that look like SharedCoin (BTC mixing) transactions
what do SharedCoin transactions look like? and how do they differ to other mixing service transactions? This is what a SharedCoin transaction looks like: https://blockchain.info/tx/23c40266f92bf3d1a5ed5410321f41d5784b17a7e8ef50fafc634cef1b10ada2With other mixing services, you send your BTC to their address, goes into the pot, and they send the same amount (minus fees) back to another address you control. The BTC you get back, when reviewing its transaction history is broken from you, but might go back and show to be associated with prior criminal activity (Mt.Gox hack, bitstamp hack, etc). The major mixing services are really for people who need to cover tracks. For the average BTC user, SharedCoin is fine. what I meant was what are the characteristics of the transaction that identify it unequivocally as a SharedCoin transaction? Or is it just an educated guess that it is? Yes. It is an educated guess. Theoretically, an individual may create similar Tx using multiple addresses and broadcast themselves as well. I think, if someone is not involved in any illegal stuff and just want to mix coins for privacy purpose, then LocalBitcoins wallet does a pretty good job. |
|
|
|
It is a free service where they pay the transaction fees so I guess we can't complain. Blockcypher offers a similar service, but you pay the transaction fee, it might be worth checking out.
BlockCypher API is a bit complicated than BlockChain.info. BlockCypher, BlockTrail & BitGo are offering similar type of API, but they are somehow complicated for PHP implementation on shared hosting. |
|
|
|
Tired of waiting for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin transaction confirmations hitting F5 all the time?
Right now, I'm doing exactly this for last one hour. After block 369862, there is no block for last 80 minutes.  |
|
|
|
Hello all, Here is a new minesweeper inspired game where you can make some quick satoshis.... http://btcmines.cfTry it.... please comment and report bugs... Also this is a work in progress.. If anyone interested i buying the script then pm me..  Enjoy  .cf ? At least spend some money to secure a .xyz  |
|
|
|
I need etherium pool development. Full constraction. Geth support. User registration. Web interface. Automatic calculation of input mining power. Ubuntu + PHP + MySQL. ASAP.
Skype: yaminsky1
Has ethereum mining began ? |
|
|
|
Not for bitcoin, but for VanillaCoin. This post should go under AltCoin Discussion. |
|
|
|
Following this thinking, XT coin will worth a little because there is no demand on market, and after the XT fork you will immediately have 10+ million coins on that chain, I don't think that Mike can build a whole ecosystem to withstand that large amount of sell pressure. And when price crashed to cents, the whole mining infrastructure will become a pile of paperweight, they would switch to core chain
Gavin & company have convinced many. In fact, merchants supporting core is less in number... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37y8wm/list_of_bitcoin_services_that_supportoppose/I think, it would be ideal if merchants support both chains, so that the end user can decide which coin worth how much. |
|
|
|
That's a really cool explorer! I like how it labels multisig addresses with keyholes. Any other musicians in here?? They have the tones set to play within a scale, but it's random so it's driving me crazy waiting for it to resolve back to I when it plays I, III, V, I and then doesn't resolve  What does this I, III, V, I mean ? Why did not you write them as I, II, III, IV ? I think, it has something to do with music notes... |
|
|
|
You can use online PDF viewers so you do not have to open it with your pc
This will not save you if the PDF has inbuilt malicious code on it. It's irrelevant if you open it by downloading it on your PC or temporally on a website. If you are on Windows I wouldn't open dodgy ass PDFs. +1 PDF files can store whole directory structures and all sorts of code. I would not open a PDF in a windows computer at all. Then, how does one read this PDF safely on a windows computer/phone ? Is it safe to read it in Tor browser ? |
|
|
|
Where can I apply for the Bitcoin CEO job when the blockchain got hacked? I am confused now....
Not sure I'd want the job. According to the media, the last Bitcoin CEO committed suicide last year. And the one before that is missing (Satoshi). And now this one is in jail. So anyone who wants to be Bitcoin CEO now had best be careful.  So, in short, the Bitcoin CEO first went missing, then he committed suicide and now he is in jail. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
