In order for the cryptocurrency space to thrive, it would be most suitable if there were multiple coins at the top and not just one (as currently Bitcoin is).
Oh thanks staff. Knock bitcoin users again. I thought bitcoin was divisible enough to cope. I think its rather excuse why not try to scale Bitcoin onchain a bit instead. But I think there is not reason for several coins, because you add unnecessary ineffectiveness when you have to convert from one coin to another and pay exchange fees (and you have to use centralized exchange service). Plus it is more complex for average person when he has to choose from more cryptocoins what to pay with. I think your probably right. there is no reason - to a bitcoiner - for "multiple" coins. No other alt has integrity, as far as I can see. Tech can be copied in the gold rush to the next alt. Security and reliability cannot be copied. (dont adopt segwit) |
|
|
|
I have asked Greg if he knows the average transaction size as that figure would indeed be more relevant here.
Sorry guys, Greg not interested. Just waffle these days.
easy maths average blocksize https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30daysdivided by average transactions per block https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=30days10th may: 721,200byte / 1543tx = 467byte/tx 11th may: 772,400byte / 1725tx = 447byte/tx 12th may: 792,500byte / 1642tx = 482byte/tx then ill skip a few to highlight the high of that data 19th may: 951,900byte / 1728tx = 550byte/tx and the low of that data 23rd may: 587,600byte / 1095tx = 536byte/tx on a previous post i also done some maths on 10 blocks based purely on the time of posting.. rather than the generalised numbers of blockstreams daily stats nowhere was i seeing any pattern that related to 226-250 transaction averages. and no where in the reality of real people making real transactions does 226-250 have any big correlation I think your right. But when you tell us Greg laugh's. Then Icebreaker mock's. Carlton mock's and finally Lauda mock's. I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you. |
|
|
|
as for the proposal of just 1.05mb or 1.25mb.. that is also a short term thing that wont deter the oliver twist scenario for as long
It would put bitcoin on a different path, maybe. segwit is dangerous and unnecessary at this point. They don't want to do both. It's Blockstream's way or the highway. If something goes wrong, they will just declare "Bitcoin can't scale" and blame it all on bitcoin. Wow. Amazing leadership guys!
It doesn't matter. It is not eternal. The sudden hard fork option is always waiting. A hard fork should not be taken lightly, ergo will take time but is unstoppable and sudden(ish) when achieved. (predictably out of desperation) |
|
|
|
I have asked Greg if he knows the average transaction size as that figure would indeed be more relevant here.
Sorry guys, Greg not interested. Just waffle these days.
|
|
|
|
The general public would have no interest in withdrawing the bitcoin though, just the profits in cash.
Therefore the hard limit of bitcoin is irrelevant.
What are you talking about  you can move, store and take control of your coins anywhere there's a connection and some modest hardware.
You'll instantly know it's the real deal and it's a piece of piss to secure and just as easy to sell should the need arise. That's kind of the entire point of the whole thing.
Snipped for simplicity.  |
|
|
|
If you are shorting bitcoin with a 10X margin, would you expect to control the private keys?
Nope. But I'm shorting with the expectation of withdrawing the spoils from the exchange to a place where I do control the private keys. If they can't supply that then they're not going to last very long. But probably long enough to part xhomerx10 from his bitcoin. Another Hero member asking noob questions. Like you might hold the priv key if you 10x margin. Sorry if i'm missing the humour? |
|
|
|
In order for the cryptocurrency space to thrive, it would be most suitable if there were multiple coins at the top and not just one (as currently Bitcoin is).
Oh thanks staff. Knock bitcoin users again. I thought bitcoin was divisible enough to cope. Is this the core altcoin section? |
|
|
|
What are you talking about you can move, store and take control of your coins anywhere there's a connection and some modest hardware.
You'll instantly know it's the real deal and it's a piece of piss to secure and just as easy to sell should the need arise. That's kind of the entire point of the whole thing.
Snipped for simplicity. |
|
|
|
If I find someone performing for Bitcoins on the street, I'd definitely donate some. Haha. I'd palm him off with fiat. American Street Person Accepts Crack. Banksters worried.
Ah, bit more realistic, I'd palm him off with a sandwich. (didn't watch vid. what street you living on cryptoheadd? how many confirmations did this performer require?) |
|
|
|
I mostly said segwit will take a long time to have any effect on block space. but I did also say segwit will have no effect in the event it never gets adopted. That is a possibility. It is not logically wrong. It maybe against your opinion.
Well then that is something else entirely. Posts that have weird formatting and/or punctuation can end up being interpreted wrongly. Are you talking about adoption (i.e. users) or activation (as in the Soft fork itself)? Because in the first case that assumption will never become true. In order for zero adoption everyone would have to move away from wallets that incorporate Segwit. What are the odds of that happening? Oh yes, sorry for the shabby punctuation. It made you read it wrong, which in turn caused you to dismiss me as irrelevant and illogical. My fault. Re read to understand my points, now you see it is logical. But with no activation there is no adoption.Is that correct? (bitcoinfees.21.co also quote this 226 "median" number?) |
|
|
|
"Hyperbolic nonsense", yeah maybe, we all got an opinion. Some more credible than others. (ftr not a dig at Lauda)
It doesn't matter whether you have a opinion or not when it is logically wrong. Saying that Segwit will never make a difference is wrong. As soon as we start seeing Segwit transactions (i.e. we reach any kind of improvement, e.g. 1.05MB), we will notice the improvement. I'm sure you just read it wrong. I mostly said segwit will take a long time to have any effect on block space. but I did also say segwit will have no effect in the event it never gets adopted. That is a possibility. It is not logically wrong. It maybe against your opinion. |
|
|
|
"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.
Nobody said that it wasn't. translation "Q:guys how do we hide the fact that transaction sizes will bloat when people do calculations of the average blocksize vs average transactions per block after all the proposed features are included..? "A:dont talk about averages, dont use 'mean', we can manipulate numbskull opinion by talking as if we are suggesting average but actually quote a median number. "Q:how does that work "A: well if we had 0,1,2,226,227,228,229 the median is 226.. if we have 0,0,0,226,5000,10000,500000 the median is still 226... if we have 0,226,1023435453 the median is still 226 "Q:so why should we pick 226 as a special number.. "A:because that is a safe minimum transaction size, its not the absolute minimum, but its a safe minimum people expect to see.. and if we try to talk about this minimum in a way that makes people presume 226 is expected atleast 50% of the time. or the majority of the time.. we dont have to explain real data because then it is revealed that us blockstreamers are actually the "bigblockers".. where we offer less transactions per megabyte then the simple blocksize increase alone" Yup, "I don't see blocks with 4000+ transactions as the median 226 would imply." But, as pointed out it does appear to be the median. I have asked Greg if he knows the average transaction size as that figure would indeed be more relevant here. So Core claim 7200(?) median, mean or maximum transaction per block with segwit? (compared to 4000(?) today, median?~) |
|
|
|
"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.
Nobody said that it wasn't. Are we all supposed to wait as long as segwit takes to make a difference. (which will be ages or never)
Hyperbolic nonsense, nothing surprising there. If you want additional capacity, you will try to use Segwit as soon as possible, otherwise you are indirectly stating that you don't need/want it. It is as simple as that. The calculations have been done and we can expect a realistic ~180% capacity after some time (certainly not "ages or never"). segwit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by core.
2 MB block size limit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by Hearnia & co. "Hyperbolic nonsense", yeah maybe, we all got an opinion. Some more credible than others. (ftr not a dig at Lauda) A realistic 180% "after some time"? if every transaction, paying less fees to miners, was segwit? (Miners do more work for less fees. full nodes need more bandwidth than 1.8mb, think that is part of what Franky is saying?) I am saying I don't want segwit. At least not yet, untill it can be more tested and proven. Correct, 2 mb is not actually needed today. 1.25 would suffice. (oh, just noticed the "hernia & co" comment. If we don't say the same thing as "staff" we are abused? shocking and ridiculous considering no thread here, discussion, goes without Laudas staff "opinion") |
|
|
|
Correct. While I might have wrongly used 'average' instead of median somewhere (I don't recall all of the times that I've written about this), Maxwell never did.
but gmaxwel has median transaction size of 226byte??
i think u meant minimum not median
That is the median size. again the 226byte is MINIMUM.. not median, not average.. the median is about 500.. the average is similar median means middle number. and is usually close to an average, well atleast in the same ball park.. its definetly not the minimum or the maximum.. but the amount between the two.. No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.
In [46]: pp = AuthServiceProxy("http://bitcoinrpc:password@127.0.0.1:8332")
In [47]: txa=[pp.getrawtransaction(x,1) for x in pp.getblock(pp.getblockhash(415093),True)['tx'][1:]]
In [48]: sum([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[48]: 999724
In [49]: numpy.median([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[49]: 226.0
Same story for pretty much every block. (Minimum is 189 in that block FWIW). Franky1, in this case you were just confused-- but you've got a number of other claims like saying CT is part of core's published roadmap, that are outright lies. I think you need to stop wasting everyone's time. 226 is the median transaction size. I'm not surprised the confusion here. There are no big outright lies here, just confusion (of official and officially implied?) Franky is not wasting my time. If clear answers as above were more commonplace... I don't see blocks with 4000+ transactions as the median 226 would imply. Is the mean transaction size very similar to the median do you know? segwit will have little to no effect on Block space for some fairly considerable time after any soft fork, and that soft fork will likely take some fairly considerable time from now. Segwit release/adoption/bugs are all of an unpredictable nature. Are we all supposed to wait as long as segwit takes to make a difference. (which will be ages or never) Is bitcoin adoption on hold from now till then? Or is this your idea of a fee market? segwit maybe for the future, when it is needed, (or not) and properly tested. segwit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by core. Obviously. |
|
|
|
Another thread by the big block Gavinista fan club...
ya.ya.yo!
Straight from the closed minded #REKT thread of funny spelling and composition competitions. Its still a problem and just getting worse.
But only just becoming noticeable to the punters. Concerns about hardforks and removal of blocksize limits stem back many years
Yeah, Core and #REKT fans always go off on this tangent. 1mb or infinity. 1.25mb will destroy bitcoin? Every one that not understand this is simple not understand how bitcoin works. This is a fact. Everything else is a childish playground for morons...  Completely not a fact that the block size can not be raised. Should Ιntergalactic Conciliator's be calling people morons? The community has thus far been complacent enough to
accept by default the leadership of core, but in the face of continued
stagnation, one has to wonder: "but for how much longer?"
Just for a bit longer. Core will have had their chance, and will be the next hearn. A rapid hardfork to increase block size will likely come when the segwit reality becomes clearer, and when blocks really are at capacity and beyond. so no actual numbers then?
Just waffle these days. The irony here is that a increase of the block size limit is no solution at all.
It is a solution to processing more transactions. lol How old are you?
Old enough not to think i'm a Ιntergalactic Conciliator, represented by action men avitar. lauda thinks MEDIAN means minimum.. wrong
We all f*** up sometime. I got the math point you were making. It's incredible how skewed your perspective is
Shitty OP. All outdated links. I was gonna let this thread pass by like that other, now very popular sig thread "My life has all been a lie" cos the twat thought he had 1000 satoshi, not 10 he really had or something like that.. |
|
|
|
I am having a little fun with about 5 dollars. 5 fucking dollars.
trailer cash How skint is Sandrine she needs to keep on taking 5 fucking dollars from people. Our admins - Sandrine ayril (click on) http://forum.neucoin.org/aboutLast seen 2 min. that's more an issue of the forum. It shows: Last post 31 mins ago .....but the last post was from november 15. My bad, I meant to say last "post" 2 minute, not last "seen". (and i should have said last "private admin" post) for ref. rizz, "Also, their ineptitude continues this week as I found these private posts, (these are a few of them)..." May 26, 2015, 12:10:06 PM rizz "BTW, Has Sandrine had enough? Has she heeded Gekkos warning of prison? Is she the latest team member to quit? She has not posted in over a week. (only in private threads)..." May 27, 2015, 10:27:48 PM rizz, "Or at least Sandrine is pretending she has already left. Last (private, er, "team") post 13 hours Last seen Nov 25th Last (public) post Nov 8th ("Hi everyone I'm leaving")" December 06, 2015, 02:22:46 PM So, it is not a glitch. It has always been this way. Sandrine is still active neucoin admin. |
|
|
|
|
Ah, no.
It was a "hidden" internal post between admin.
|
|
|
|
I am having a little fun with about 5 dollars. 5 fucking dollars.
trailer cash How skint is Sandrine she needs to keep on taking 5 fucking dollars from people. Our admins - Sandrine ayril (click on) http://forum.neucoin.org/aboutLast seen 2 min. |
|
|
|
I am having a little fun with about 5 dollars. 5 fucking dollars.
trailer cash How skint is Sandrine she needs to keep on taking 5 fucking dollars from people. |
|
|
|
It's like walking up to some aircraft engineers and demanding that the next design be exactly the same but have a wingspan twice as long, when really your goal was to double the number of pounds of cargo it could carry. Maybe the change lets it carry more cargo, or maybe it just makes the plane unstable. Regardless, ...
Of course, there is always someone out there that will tell you that you can solve any complex problem with this one weird trick. But there is a word for them: Scammers and their patsies.
Why is making wings a bit longer such a weird "trick" for an aircraft engineer? Your saying any aircraft engineer who looks at making longer wings is a scammer? You want to reinvent travel via wormholes instead? (may take a while, and meet unforeseen problems) But hey, how could anyone want bigger wings. scammers. Just another unconstructive info-less nonsensical post. Expecting more reality, disappointed again. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
