Bitcoin Forum
August 24, 2017, 08:56:16 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ... 344 »
1441  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: January 03, 2016, 12:59:55 AM
As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...

Nope. Because the reason for mining empty blocks is that the miner does not, at the time, have enough information to mine a valid block with transactions from the mempool. It's fiendishly clever.

So the miner is mining purely for the block reward because that is all that is available for that short period of time. Which incentive only goes away when the block reward does.

I think you are wrong but don't have time or inclination to go into the gory details of mining strategies and the reasons for empty blocks arising ... basically if the fee levels are "profitable enough", i.e. near to the level of reward/1MByte, then the miner who found the most recent block will most likely not mine an empty block, if there are such TX still queued in the mempool (this miner has all the information needed to build a valid block from mempool and is the one most likely to be mining empty blocks right now).
1442  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: January 02, 2016, 10:58:27 PM
As/when the blocks fill up with real demand then the empty blocks will start getting used because the fees will incentivise the miners to develop more efficient software that will queue profitable enough waiting transactions to be mined immediately into the next block. You need to leave them in for your analysis ...
1443  Economy / Economics / Re: The Switzerland of Bitcoin on: January 02, 2016, 08:59:23 PM
In a way you right, but also wrong.
Yes bitcoin, don't need a country to use it. But remember bitcoin is about transactoins too. And imagine how much governements can safe on fees while using bitcoin

Do you really think that any government can change their currency to some internet money which they can't have control over? Their central bank wouldn't print more money, they give their whole economy to the hands of Bitcoin speculators. That doesn't make sense at all.

Your premise for this grand claim is that the government control the people instead of the people controlling government, i.e. you're a priori assuming a facististic, communistic or other authoritarian system of governance to enforce fiat central bank currencies.
1444  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 07:35:20 AM
Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits
Upon what do you base this bald assertion?

Currently any block greater than 1MByte will be rejected as invalid by the vast majority of nodes.
1445  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 07:08:32 AM
I just want to point out that that the beginning of this move was set off by a 2K coin bid wall on OKcoin. So this still is some hope left for wall observation if you look closely.

I also noted a big uptick in bear trolling preceded the up move also, short squeeze might be a big part of it.

The usual bigblock whinging and complaining seems to be cat-to-kick go to for sold out bulls and poor-loser shorts.
1446  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 05:58:49 AM

You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.

Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing.

The fee market will develop because the node operators want it to. They will raise the limit when the fees they pay for THEIR OWN transactions naturally incentivises them to want to ... that is the in-built incentive mechanism to stop fees going to infinity as the doom-mongers and catastrophic-cliff screamers will try to scare you with.

This system has been designed very well, the built-in incentive structures will only become apparent as it fully ramps up and comes on-line. We are still in the commissioning phase, just relax and watch if you don't feel like you can understand everything that is happening.
1447  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 05:39:38 AM
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".


Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

Most people will not be aware that actual operational software in critical infrastructure changes very slowly, much slower than bitcoin Core (which is very high risk by comparison but it is still 'beta'). 90% of fortune 500 companies run RedHat operating systems on their back-office servers and they have very long term support for old versions for those reasons. Apparently the Banks still have some COBOL code running on old mainframes that still do the actual monetary-base and settlement calculations, so-called "green screen" functions because they are too scared to touch it.

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.
1448  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 05:08:42 AM
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".


Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.
1449  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 04:50:38 AM
Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Quote
Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!

You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them.

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee, so no, there is no 'buffer' as you are imagining.

And you are thinking all upside-down. Nobody wants "to get rid of" TX ... for the last 6 years free transactions (and yes, abundant spam) have been tolerated and given gold-plated security that only the bitcoin blockchain can provide. At some point, the network becomes saturated because the demand for gold-plated bitcoin TX will for the foreseeable future overcome the network's technological constraints and ability to supply it ... so now the question is "what price?", hence fees.

The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.
1450  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 04:32:19 AM
In other newz ... 15 million coin milestone arriving just in time for Christmas http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/
1451  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 04:27:30 AM
Nobody has responded to the most relevant part:

Quote
Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant.

only about 40% of current TX "need" the network to work. There's plenty of fat to chop away and the spam goes down and gets more costly as fees go up, gosh darn, think about that!
1452  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 04:14:18 AM

Governments and central banks could kill Bitcoin for weeks with pocket change, just to ensure it never provides a better value than SWIFT, ACH, Western Union or whatever. A tiny fraction of the War on Drugs Budget and the War on Terroism budget could make Bitcoin as unreliable as a third world power grid. 


... probably not a smart move for nation-state backed actors to get into protracted blockchain wars with a loose international coalition of anarchistic hackers .... just saying.

They want to paint a big, fat, ripe target on the current centralised bloated financial systems, well tit-for-tat may not look so pretty for centralised bloatware coming out the other side.

Run your "nash equilibrium" BS up that flag pole?
1453  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 03:27:53 AM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.msg169810#msg169810
While I share the belief that bitcoin or something very like it will play a major role in the future, I think the road there is going to be a lot rougher.

I imagine we will see a huge boom then a bust, after that those who stick around will build the meaning full economy that will allow bitcoin or its successor to dominate.

I don't care about the busts. I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. If it tanks, I'll have a helluva story to tell. I'm sick of half measures. I'm swinging for the fences and If I strike out, so be it.  I won't be some mediocre drone living a life of quiet desperation. I believe in bitcoin and I'm going for broke, knowing the risks.  

I wonder how much they paid him for his account? Or his soul?

Yeah, that was me. I had no idea there was a scaling problem back then.  The problem with economics isn't that some people are good and others are bad like physics. The problem is that those who are ignorant of economics are ignorant of their ignorance. Smart people are the worst because they think being smart at something like programming means they know economics better, but they don't.

I'm not leaving bitcoin. Bitcoin is leaving me.  No regrets. Thanks for buying my coins at 50X what I paid for them, suckers.

Not sure how you missed the scaling challenge bitcoin faces ... it was queried on the very first mailing list when it was announced.

Probably you missed it, like you have missed all the amazing work done so far to address it incrementally by people mostly working voluntarily over the years. Now they are actually getting paid for their hard efforts the knives come out and all the bludgers and wannabe governors pile on like the bunch of low-life, coward neer-do-wells they are. It is not really an economic problem in as much as it is a technical security problem, economists are totally lost with bitcoin, you wont even find one who thinks it is a meritorious idea, mostly they are just political philosophers who can sometimes do some maths.

Sell me all you got sucker, where we're going we don't need opportunistic pig-riders or innumerate idiots who can't count but feel the need to spout ignorance 24/7 on forums.
1454  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 03:05:22 AM
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12156.msg169810#msg169810
While I share the belief that bitcoin or something very like it will play a major role in the future, I think the road there is going to be a lot rougher.

I imagine we will see a huge boom then a bust, after that those who stick around will build the meaning full economy that will allow bitcoin or its successor to dominate.

I don't care about the busts. I am riding this pig wherever it takes me. If it tanks, I'll have a helluva story to tell. I'm sick of half measures. I'm swinging for the fences and If I strike out, so be it.  I won't be some mediocre drone living a life of quiet desperation. I believe in bitcoin and I'm going for broke, knowing the risks.  

I wonder how much they paid him for his account? Or his soul?
1455  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 24, 2015, 01:00:23 AM
I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channels??

.... do you even know what a payment channel is?

Do I know what a payment channel is? DO I KNOW WHAT A PAYMENT CHANNEL IS?!?

...

you know I had you with benefit of the doubt for the longest time, on the odd occasion you say something vaguely interesting but generally keep a low level of snark, just below the level of ignore radar ... too bad for you that you stuck your head up today ... ignored.
1456  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 24, 2015, 12:54:17 AM
I'm very upset with you people. Are we sticking all the unbanked in payment channel??

.... do you even know what a payment channel is?
1457  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Segregated witness - The solution to Scalability (short term)? on: December 24, 2015, 12:38:12 AM
I understand it and don't hate the core developers. Seg wit is a thoughtful solution, but not an elegant one. IMHO, it's just more spackle over the cracks and a further delay to increasing block size.  

Good observation

In change management, the first question is not about if a change is good or bad, it is why must we make this change. It is always the motivation behind the change worth looking

It seems SegWit is invented to temporary circumvent the hard coded 1MB limitation of the block size, so that the traffic can still grow without trigger a fee event

So the next question will be: Why are we so fear of a fee event?

Jeff gave some answer here:
Quote
*Key observation:   A Bitcoin Fee Event (see def. at top) is an Economic
Change Event.*

An Economic Change Event is a period of market chaos, where large changes
to prices and sets of economic actors occurs over a short time period.

A Fee Event is a notable Economic Change Event, where a realistic
projection forsees higher fee/KB on average, pricing some economic actors
(bitcoin projects and businesses) out of the system.

I don't think this so called "chaos" is convincing enough, so the next question: Who are these bitcoin projects and businesses, and is bitcoin's goal to benefit average people or serve these projects/businesses?

Although institutions have large capital and influence in the industry, I don't think bitcoin's purpose is to become banks' another payment network (Banks being the highest form of business, a business large enough will start to do banking)

In fact, businesses can always pass the fee cost to customer, and those customers are not fee sensitive (Statistics showed that majority of users come to bitcoin and use it for long term value store and high value international remittance, both are not very sensitive to fee and transaction frequency) So a higher fee will not affect business either. And large businesses can establish clearing channel to dramatically reduce the fee cost, this is a common practice in financial world, they don't need to change bitcoin architecture to do that

So I think the motivation behind the architecture change of bitcoin is still not enough convincing. Since no one have seen a fee event, it might not be the "chaos" that is predicted by Jeff, so people must see it with their own eyes to be convinced that it is a problem that really need to be solved. What if it is not a problem at all? Banks are still closed during weekends and holiday, is that a problem for our financial system?

Even a fee event negatively affect majority of the user experience, the way to future scaling should still follow Satoshi's vision as much as possible. Anyway this is his invention, no one except him have the right to change it to something totally different


Bitcoin itself is a huge "Economic Change Event" in the wider context of the existing monetary systems (i think this is where Jeff probably got the idea from) ... fees coming online for bitcoin TX is a storm in a teacup by comparison.
1458  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 24, 2015, 12:35:11 AM
sheesh ... trolls don't even get christmas off? ... you guys need to be paid more.
1459  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: December 22, 2015, 08:55:08 AM



People, get on this, it is a possible gamechanger for bitcoin and other digital assets! (therefore speculation is also a proper channel)

It's a professional HFT exchange for digital assets targeting the really large customers like Hedge funds and governments. It's almost ready for launch, and they want to make some buzz. You can support it and get your name on their dedicated backers thank you page while receiving free trade fees. It's not because they need the money, but because they want to spread the word. So please do.

Here is the support page on startjoin:https://www.startjoin.com/DAXP

An their web page: http://www.blockex.com/about/ - as you can see there are professinal bankers, and John Matonis (Bitcoin foundation leader) on the list of Advisors.


Have they got any good hackers on their side ... or will it just be a buggy DDOS crapped-up exchange?
1460  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 22, 2015, 08:34:12 AM
@brg444

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

I think that this topic is officially over.

Now may be a good time to close this thread, but what a fun ride it has been!

This could spawn further epic officially #rekt threads, Peter_R officially rekt and cypherdoc officially #rekt ... #rektage piling up all around.
Pages: « 1 ... 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 [73] 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ... 344 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!