hmmm... New York might be a problem as long as they only use OKPay:   Although there is an easy workaround, especially since you can do up to $300 without verifying or providing PoA... still, not optimal. Hopefully they will add more payment processors soon. |
|
|
|
hmmm... New York might be a problem as long as they only use OKPay: |
|
|
|
Localbitcoins, Kraken, Bitfinex, Paxful... all have left New York because of the dreaded BitLicense. At the same time, the guys at Coinffeine a P2P exchange that is uncensorable and works like Bittorrent, complain that they do not have enough beta testers and that there is tiny liquidity on their market because they don't know how to get traders to try it out. So here I am making a call to any Bitcoin trader from New York, Germany, China or any of the other jurisdictions that have restricted access to download the Coinffeine Beta and place a limit order on the market, even if it is at a price that will not be executed. For maximum effect let's all do so at the same time: Thursday 13th August at 11 am New York Time. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gquau/bitcoin_has_no_borders_neither_should_a_bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
Interesting summary of the often mentioned accusation against devs that oppose any block size increase: The Blockstream Business Plan https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service. |
|
|
|
This is called appeal to authority. Gavin has been arguing for the increase, but it's far from being proven safe I agree, we should not fall into this fallacy. If there's anything that Satoshi's example has taught us is that we should judge ideas based on their merits and not on who their proponents are. Irony intended!  |
|
|
|
Hmmm.. I was just told that OKPay does not work for US citizens... Dear Client! We are currently not able to process financial operation in favor of individuals or companies based in the United States of America. This includes US citizens residing overseas. Can anybody from the US confirm this? |
|
|
|
Yo utilizaría Coinffeine con preferencia a cualquier otro sistema para comprar y vender Bitcoins pero he observado que no hay liquidez suficiente. La mayor parte de las veces en que he conectado el programa ni tan siquiera se solapan las ordenes de compra y venta. Por mucho que me guste el sistema no me apetece comprar más caro (o vender a menos precio) de lo que puedo obtener en otros exchanges. Esto sólo va a funcionar si el precio real de Coinffeine coincide con el de otros sitios de intercambio.
Hombre.. están en beta. Pero sí, está claro que la primera prioridad pasados los primeros meses de prueba será aumentar la liquidez. Hacen falta traders profesionales como los que hay en otros mercados que aporten profundidad. |
|
|
|
So far I've done about 10 transactions on Coinffeine. The system seems to work really well, especially with the update to v. 0.11. http://www.coinffeine.com/download.htmlObviously the one problem right now is that liquidity is tiny. You can buy or sell BTC0.10 , but there isn't enough of a bid-ask that you can easily buy or sell BTC1.00. Hopefully that will change as more traders start trying it. It is definitely faster, easier and safer than other P2P exchanges like localbitcoins... with none of the hassle of having to worry about a trader's reputation or wait hours for the funds to clear. Plus it's really amazing that Coinffeine does not ask you for a single piece of personal information. They don't hold your funds and cannot block them, nor do they have access to your private keys. So it is impossible to be "Goxxed" by Coinffeine. (You still have to trust your payment processor.... ) |
|
|
|
If 8Mb blocks increase orphan rates for non-Chinese miners, then we should assume that Chinese miners will use this to their profit. Have you considered that maybe the exact opposite will be true? Maybe larger blocks will actually work to the detriment of high latency regions like China, especially if mining pools have members from all over the world. Regardless of whether Chinese miners are helped or hindered by larger blocks, it is the good of the network that we should be concerned with. |
|
|
|
If we have an 8Mb limit, then no way we should assume that "it will be a while before we hit 8mb block sizes filled". If there are any incentives linked to larger blocks, we must assume that they will be used. If 8Mb blocks increase orphan rates for non-Chinese miners, then we should assume that Chinese miners will use this to their profit. My point before about the miner propagation trade-off was precisely this: If a miner sees that a 500k block has a 30% lower orphan rate than a 1MB block, but the 1MB block has only 10% more in BTC value for the miner (reward +fees), he will try to validate smaller blocks. Even if the limit is 1MB. That is what is happening now: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-sizeSo it is reasonable to assume that 8MB blocks will not start appearing until: -bandwidth improves so that propagation speed is not significantly affected -Fees become a larger part of the miner reward |
|
|
|
Also, remember that maxblocksize is not the only thing keeping blocks small. Propagating blocks is harder the larger they are.. and in the ultra-competitive Bitcoin mining industry, miners don't want larger blocks if they don't have the bandwidth to propagate them fast enough. (A few milliseconds can mean that another miner propagates a confirmed block first). Therefore increasing maxblocksize to 8MB does not mean that blocks will be 8MB. Right now most confirmed blocks are not 1MB, even when they could be. Actual block size will be the result of a miner trade-off between propagation speed and fees. Right now, because fees are small compared to coinbase reward, miners have a strong incentive to go for small blocks, especially in high latency countries (ie: China). The 1MB maxblocksize is an arbitrary, temporary limit. It should be removed or increased substantially. However that does not mean that we will get larger blocks unless the tech infrastructure improves. The current constraint is not storage. It's bandwidth. (As @rogerkver recently tweeted "If every 1MB block were always full, it would take over 55 years to fill my new HD." https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/628596027965083648) |
|
|
|
it's not a discrete choice. I agree completely. It is not and will never be all or nothing. We both want the same thing: scalability + decentralisation. My argument is that 8MB maxblocksize next year will not have a significant effect in increasing centralisation, compared to 1MB maxblocksize. However it will have a major positive impact on scalability and tx fees. Keeping Bitcoin decentralised is important. But how much and at what cost? How many independent nodes do you need to make sure that the network is censorship resistant? 1000? 2000? 5000? 20000? Will a Bitcoin that is used by 100 million people have more active nodes than one that is used by 1 million? I think so. Therefore IMHO at this point growth has to be the priority. Reaching critical mass. Just as there are technical solutions for scalability (Lightning Network, payment channels, off-chain txs...), there may be technical solutions for decentralisation (auto node-running hardware, bots, mining chips in toasters.....). But none of those solutions will be developed if Bitcoin remains small. |
|
|
|
Gavin: I understand you want to build an extremely decentralized system, where
everybody participating trusts nothing except the genesis block hash.
I think it is more interesting to build a system that works for hundreds of
millions of people, with no central point of control and the opportunity
for ANYBODY to participate at any level. Permission-less innovation is what
I find interesting. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009902.html |
|
|
|
|
Right now miners are rewarded on average with 6 x 24 x 25 = 3600 BTC per day.
For 604.800 daily txs to equal that reward, fees would have to be 3600 / 604.800 = 0.006 BTC per tx.
However with bigger blocks... say at 100tps (14MB blocks): 3600/ 8.640.000 = 0.0004 BTC per tx.
Right now that's about $0.12 per tx. Too expensive for micropayments, but still competitive for almost anything else.
If the Bitcoin network wanted to be as popular as VISA, say in 10 years time... 4000 tps would mean 345 million txs per day capacity. That would mean 571MB blocks.
Even BIP101 would not get to 512MB blocks until 2028.
(On the plus side at 4000tps, even without full blocks, fees per tx would be tiny, smaller than $0.01 or BTC0.0000104).
|
|
|
|
With regards to too many txns for 1MB, they can all still work via offchain DBs like coinbase/changetip (just as much of the financial system functions today, only inter-bank settlements are cleared with the central bank) or more promisingly Lightning which has the added benefit of being trustless and instant confirmation.
In short, their view is that bitcoin should not risk decentralization to allow onchain txns for everyone and everything. All of that can be done on higher layers.
I agree that decentralisation is important. I agree that not all transactions need to be on-chain. There are other solutions. (Although off-chain txs just move the centralisation elsewhere) However there has to be a meaningful percentage of on-chain txs. Otherwise you lose all the advantages of keeping Bitcoin decentralised and the Blockchain secure. Also, once coin creation diminishes and miners need to be paid fees... the number of tx makes a huge difference on whether the fees remain competitive. 7 tps is ridiculously small. Only 604.800 txs per day. It was always a temporary limit. If Bitcoin is to be used by millions of people, maybe not for paying coffee, but at least for online shopping.... we are going to need at least 10 million tx per day (115 tps). VISA peak rate is 4.000 tps. |
|
|
|
Consensus is WAY more important than whatever particular solution it's gonna be.
Increasing blocksize now, increasing blocksize gradually over time in the near future, lowering the average block time, all fine with me. Bitcoin should remain functional like it has been the past 6.5 years.
Agree completely. Any change must have overwhelming consensus. But consensus can be built over time, and the way to do so is to have an extended and very public discussion of the issue. We still have at least 6 months before the problems become urgent. We should make the most of that time to get each dev to explain their position very clearly, including its consequences and meaning for the future of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
