BIP101. Gavin Andresen. Let us go.
(Jeffs idea is "just" a workaround.)
Sure, Jeff and Gavin are mostly in agreement anyway... |
|
|
|
|
Another reason to do the fork soon, is that after the next reward halving (est.2017) it will be much harder to convince miners to accept low tx fees. Right now fees are a tiny part of their income compared to the 25BTC reward... in effect all BTC holders are currently paying miners via inflation. As new money creation declines, fees will have to pay for the network.
...but it is better for everyone if fees become a major source of income for miners at 50 million users and 1M daily txs than earlier. Scale must come first.
Social media companies (like Twitter and Facebook) that delayed revenue generation until they reached massive scale and network effects are a good example.
|
|
|
|
I don't think that it will be possible to do another hard fork in 2017 and beyond. Once Bitcoin reaches 30-50 million users (of which 3-5 million will be frequent users) hard forks will be almost impossible and solutions will need to be built on layers above the main Bitcoin protocol. Because of this, I feel very strongly that any solution should be permanent. It should also be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing user growth. If Bitcoin adoption follows the Twitter pattern and goes from 30 to 300 million users in 4 years... the blocksize limit should automatically adjust. The way that the difficulty mechanism has been able to adjust to multiple scenarios (slow growth, exponential growth, decline, medium growth) is IMHO the ideal to aim for with maxblocksize. https://blockchain.info/charts/difficultyFailing that, I would be happy with BIP100 or BIP101. ...but whatever happens, a 90% consensus among miners, exchanges and wallet providers is an absolute must-have. I don't want to have 2 types of Bitcoin in my wallets for any extended period of time. |
|
|
|
Of course the devs don't have the final word... many other stakeholders will get to vote on what actually happens, especially in a hard fork where any holder of BTC will get to choose sides. Miners, nodes, wallet providers, investors... all will have their say.
Still, a broad consensus is very desirable as a contested hard fork will cause a great deal of turmoil. A 50-50 Bitcoin civil war would be a horrible scenario, causing volatility and uncertainty for many months or even years.
With a bit of leadership and consensus among developers, it should be much easier to reach a meaningful (90%?) consensus in the Bitcoin community which makes the hard fork as smooth as possible.
There's no civil war scenario, as long as the protocol works is all that matters, people can fight all they want. Maybe it will take a dead end scenario were we are pushed to do something to reach a consensus. Well... if we have a 50-50 split between Bitcoin and Bitcoin XT, or any other "small Bitcoin" vs "big Bitcoin"... and both currencies have enough traction there will be a period of time in which both coins fight for the Bitcoin name. Of course nobody is forced to choose sides... but keeping coins in the losing chain means a lot of lost value... also confusion among wallets, users and markets as to which Bitcoin they are using can lead to a lot of trouble. Much more than we have seen with soft forks in the past. Whereas if there is consensus... it is just a matter of "everybody update their software" and trauma can be kept to a minimum. |
|
|
|
|
Of course the devs don't have the final word... many other stakeholders will get to vote on what actually happens, especially in a hard fork where any holder of BTC will get to choose sides. Miners, nodes, wallet providers, investors... all will have their say.
Still, a broad consensus is very desirable as a contested hard fork will cause a great deal of turmoil. A 50-50 Bitcoin civil war would be a horrible scenario, causing volatility and uncertainty for many months or even years.
With a bit of leadership and consensus among developers, it should be much easier to reach a meaningful (90%?) consensus in the Bitcoin community which makes the hard fork as smooth as possible.
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin Network will probably reach the 7 tps level in 2016 at current growth rates. With a maximum block size of 1MB this will force an increase in fees and stress the network, unless the rules are changed to allow larger blocks. Here is a summary of several major proposals by the core developers on how to solve this issue: For near-term increase: Gavin Andresen: Currently favors "8MB very soon, then automatic double every two years till it hits 8GB in distant future", aka BIP101. Also finds Jeff Garzik's BIP100 (see below) acceptable. [INTERVIEW] https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJMMike Hearn: Agrees with Gavin on BIP101. Currently working on implementing the increase in an alternative client, Bitcoin XT, to provide full node operators with a real choice. [INTERVIEW] https://youtu.be/8JmvkyQyD8wJeff Garzik: Favors "8MB after miner negotiation and a delay period before enforcement, stepping up/down on maxblocksize possible after with similar miner voting, absolute upper limit for the hard fork at 32MB", aka BIP100. Also proposed "2MB immediately and nothing further", aka BIP102, as an emergency stopgap in case adoption takes off, fees ratchet up and the sudden ecosystem meltdown puts further growth in danger. For very conservative increase: Pieter Wuille: "First increase scheduled at 2017 (to ~1.04MB, I believe), then automatic increase some 17% per year till 2GB in distant future", aka "Draft BIP103" (nominally un-numbered). Luke-jr: Finds Pieter's proposal an acceptable compromise, though generally favors smaller blocks, occasionally expressing views that even 1MB blocks are too big. Against increase until "something X is implemented": Adam Back: Proposed "Extension blocks", aka a sidechain-lite, that allows migration to bigger blocks with only a soft fork. Also favors only migrating when sidechain tech is ready, against hard-forks in general. [PODCAST] http://a16z.com/2015/09/02/a16z-podcast-hard-forks-hard-choices-for-bitcoin/ [VID] https://youtu.be/wYHyR2E5PicAgainst increase in near-to-medium term future: Gregory Maxwell: Against hard-forks in general, also against bigger blocks in the short-to-medium term future. Mark Friedenbach: Against hard-forks in general, also against bigger blocks in the short-to-medium term future. Staying neutral: Wladimir J. van der Lann (Core lead dev): "You guys wake me up when you have a consensus, not gonna merge anything till then" (not actual words) =================================================================================================== Positions of major miners, companies: http://blocksize.org/Bitcoin Consensus Census https://bitcoin.consider.it/ |
|
|
|
Where are those "70 countries" listed? It must be easier to find, if there is one such list (I hope so).
It's just the list of countries where OKPay works. You'll probably have to dig into their TOS to find it: https://www.okpay.com/More countries should be added as other payment processors are... |
|
|
|
Its success will be based on the fiat options that are offered. OKPay alone won't cut it.
The Coinffeine devs have promised to add other payment processors soon. In theory this tech could be integrated with any system which allows irreversible transfers... including local bank wire settlement systems in some countries. Which payment processors would you most like to see added? |
|
|
|
|
Another important thing.. don't forget to set your OKPay "publicity level" to anonymous.. otherwise your Coinffeine counterparties will see your name in their activity log!
...and also set your options to not show your e-mail address!
|
|
|
|
|
I have bought a few bitcents and I have sold some. It seems to work fine, with a few delays. I have never waited so intently for block confirmations!
It seems that orders go from submitting --> in market --> matching --> processing --> completed
...but if my computer goes to sleep in the meantime, it seems that I have to start all over again. Once order is "matching" you have to wait for a block confirmation for it to go into "processing".
Can somebody from the @Coinffeine team please confirm what happens to orders if you drop off at any of these stages?
When do you lose the BTC escrow?
What happens if an order is only partially filled?
Why can't you cancel market orders like you can cancel limit orders?
|
|
|
|
OKpay balance is _.__EUR in Coinffeine but I have EUR in my OKpay wallet.
Changed wallet - deleted user-settings.conf went through setup wizard again.
Still no EUR
Same thing happened to me. Try this: Input your OKPay account ID and password manually. |
|
|
|
I've downloaded it for archlinux.. was trying to register for okpay but they require like 5 types of verification and they have really high withdrawal fees; (3% USD + 5 USD to visa/mastercard) thats 35 USD per 1000 usd
I think that you can do up to $300 without verification. |
|
|
|
 30 peers online |
|
|
|
|
Open Beta launching this week.
|
|
|
|
I think the issue with these companies and why they don't yet use Bitcoin to payout their workers is because of the exchange of Bitcoin - fiat. While you can fund your Fiverr account with Bitcoin the person doing the job might want or not to take bitcoin. If he/she did want BTC it wouldn't be a problem, but since they probably want dollars it becomes a headache for the intermediary (in this case Fiverr, Uber, ...) to deal with the exhcanges. It's possible. In fact, they could benefit from the exchange rates - but I suspect that that is the reason they don't offer it (yet).
They don't have to deal with exchanges.. that's what payment processors are for. If Uber wants to accept Bitcoin payments, all they have to do is activate their Coinbase connection so that when somebody sends them bitcoins, Coinbase automatically exchanges it and Uber gets dollars. Same thing with Bitpay. For payouts it is just the reverse: User wants bitcoins, Uber sends dollars to Coinbase, Coinbase exchanges and sends bitcoins to user's Bitcoin address. The technical issues are simple and have been resolved long ago. My guess on why they do not do this, yet, is the perceived lack of demand. Big companies like Uber and Airbnb see too few Bitcoin users to make it worth their while. That will change.... especially as they expand to 70+ countries where Paypal is unavailable and credit cards are not widespread. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
