8 MiB sounds a lot more reasonable. Also, as a programmer, I prefer powers of two in all constants.

If this was the last time we are going to increase block size then I would vote for 8 MiB max size. It gives us 4 extra years to work out the lightning network or a similar solution which I think is enough.

Then TX fees will rise and those who cannot afford to pay the fee for their legitimate tx will switch to another block chain.

It's the curse of bitcoin, it really isn't as good as it should have been. Let god sort them out.

I think bitcoin should have a circular block chain so that it will automatically delete the blocks from the beginning when the chain gets too long. UTXOs will simply get deleted in process so that one has to refresh their coins in every 5 years for example in order to prevent them from being deleted. A coin that wishes to be able to handle all the txs of the world should not have a max block size at all.

I changed my vote to core because it's the lesser evil.

This is what I propose: double the max block size as a "quick bad fix" until a better solution such as lightning TXs are implemented and proven to be working.

however, because 2 MiB block sizes are not an option here but instead gaving pushes 20 MiB I cannot vote for XT.

Gavin must understand that 20 MiB won't solve the problem. If you need your TX confirmed fast, use some dogecoin or other shitcoins. I see cryptocurrencies as a whole and in that sense we already have solved the scaling issue: there are hundreds of coins/bitcoin forks already existing, just use the one that satisfies your needs. bitcoin alone with its sole block chain will never scale up to supporting dust txs for all the people over the world. That's why 20 MiB size limit is just delaying the inevitable and thus a naive and lazy fix.

Under the assumption that voting for XT is voting for block size increase to 20 MiB (nothing more, nothing less).
Under the assumption that voting for core is voting for doing nothing at all.

I voted for XT.

edit: changed my vote to core, see comment below

I was wondering that perhaps they offered him lesser punishment if he gave them the keys but then didn't keep their word.

Does anyone know how on earth did the LEs get that many bitcoins out from ross? Was ross seriously such an imbecile that he used some super weak password or had his coins unencrypted?

Newbies should have some restrictions such as not being allowed to create topics in speculation subforums. However, there should be some other places where they are allowed to create new topics because total ban is a bit too much.

I didn't mean you personally. In your signature you say alan watts is all you need but he might be a bit too hard core for rookies. thus, I wouldn't fully rely on alan.

Just noticed your signature. Alan Watts indeed gave very good lectures and it's our fortune that those are available on youtube for everyone to listen. However, I recall the time when I was kind of ignorant and I hated Alan's lectures because he never gave direct answers to how to beat the game of life. He only made jokes about it and constructed weird recursive spiritual sentences that were impossible to understand. It was only later when I started to comprehend what he was saying. That said, I'd recommend starting from Terence McKenna and then moving on to Alan Watts since Terence's lectures are somehow easier to understand.

About the topic, there are a couple of big things coming in the next months. NY BitLicense will be finalized and BIT will start trading soon (was it 18th of May?). Also, the block size changing debate is gathering some heat so there is a lot of uncertainty in the air. That's probably why the market has been unable to decide whether to go below 200 or above 250. The good thing is that in the mean time the weekly parabolic SAR is getting lower and lower every week. Next week the target price is 250$ for the Bitstamp's weekly pSAR to flip. It perfectly aligns with other big things looming above us. I would be surprised if nothing spectacular happens to the price during this time period.

What browser (and its version) are you using?

+1
That's exactly what I meant and why I deliberately referred to the "incompetent eyes". I also think that now the B&C investors will get a slightly worse deal because NuShares and B&C will be working in symbiosis so it would make sense to own the shares of both systems. Looking at the market liquidity of nushares, it would be more expensive to buy the nushares from the open market than by getting them as a part of B&C investment.

Word! Being educated a lot on the matter of computer (system) security, I can say that we must design a system for the worst case scenarios from the ground up. This is how software gets quenched.

If it was possible to anonymously and repeatedly poop on the street then I would indeed encourage you to do it because it would urge the community to solve that problem systematically. However, you can't poop on the street because we can find you and punish you for that. Having said that, pooping on the street is not comparable to creating UTXOs, which effectively renders your arguments invalid.

Yes, that's exactly what they should do because even though they are voluntary they are still developers and developers should solve problems like that. Otherwise they wouldn't be much of developers.

Before accusing me of being the cause of this problem, go ahead and build a script that would calculate the percentage of UTXOs created with CryptoGraffiti.info. You would see that the number is so small that it becomes a joke.

You like poop comparisons. Let me give you a poop comparison: you are accusing a single bear (cryptograffiti.info) pooping in the woods for toxic behaviour to the mother Earth. So you want to slaughter that bear. Guess what, another bear will come and start pooping in the woods so you would just make a fool out of yourself.

Life's hard and then you die.

My work encourages people to buy and use bitcoin. It is not an abuse because it actually gives bitcoins an intrinsic value. You cannot save messages forever with gold but you can do it with bitcoin. Awesome! That's truly free speech.

If you haven't noticed then my service can be used without paying a dime to me. It's free. Including a donation is optional.
Also, there's a big difference between boasting and showing gratitude.



The demand cannot be fulfilled by using OP_RETURN because anything after OP_RETURN can be pruned, so the messages saved that way are not forever.

If bitcoin dies then other means could be adapted to store data forever. Perhaps paypal will start using the block chain technology so I could build cryptograffiti around paypal's block chain.


If it matters so much to you then make a donation with a feature request to cryptograffiti.info and I will implement OP_RETURN as a high priority task. However, UTXOs will forever remain a part of cryptograffiti's functionality because this is the only way you can craft your message completely yourself without paying to any middle men such as myself and using solely your wallet software. OP_RETURN will require the user to use a proxy such as the paystamper that would actually save your message in the block chain, appending your message behind OP_RETURN for you.

Perhaps the non-bidders were afraid that they wouldn't be able to sell their nushares for a fair price once the B&C exchange goes live? Looking at the charts, nushares seem like a dying asset, very similar to PayCoin to the incompetent eye.

Because the B&C shares would now be received immediately after the purchase it complicates things for B&C developers a lot since they would have to have some sort of working block chain right away. How does it impact the development of B&C and the selling of shares? I guess you won't be able to start selling before you have the B&C block chain ready, so there would be development needed prior to receiving any funds at all.

First of all, thank you for the reply. This project gets a rather small amount of attention, so I am glad to have some discussion going.

Unspent TX outputs shouldn't be held in RAM in the first place. Perhaps this motivates the devs to do something about it. Bitcoin-core already takes 1.4 GiB of RAM on my PC, this is crazy, the whole system almost freezes until Bitcoin-core loads up, I don't tolerate this. There has to be a better way. Blaming cryptograffiti is fighting with the symptoms, I can't stress this enough. You are overreacting. You think bitcoin doesn't have enemies? Try to convince Bitcoin's enemies not to generate huge amounts of UTXOs to damage the network.

So let's say I stop developing CGD because I don't want to hurt the network. Guess what, the demand for such services remains and probably even grows. Heck, even I myself would manually craft transactions now and then to include Proof-of-Existence data or some other important messages to the mankind that I don't want anyone to be able to delete, ever.

Perhaps I should add a warning to the site saying that bloating the block chain with UTXOs is harmful for the network and shouldn't be done? I like the idea of including OP_RETURN functionality to the service but our resources are limited and changes take time since we're doing it from our free time and we are poor Eastern European dudes busy with other things too. I can assure you that eventually there will be a possibility to read and write OP_RETURN messages as an alternative to UTXO messages.

By the way, I am currently thinking of writing a small module to cryptograffiti - Bitcoin Motion Voting or something.  There is this huge debate going on whether we should increase the block size or not. I think the only good way to decide this important question is by voting with the bitcoins you own. I would develop a block chain voting mechanism so that everyone could create motions and then vote for or against motions with the bitcoins they hold. This would be done by signing your vote with the private key to your bitcoins. The service would automatically calculate votes and display how many bitcoins are used to vote for block size increasing and how many are against it. This the only cryptographically provable and fair method to reach consensus. Any takers?

And you're not tired of the ads spam and paid articles that many other coins use?

I checked paystamper.com today and it was online. however, the person running that site has not responded for long time so I'm having some communication issues with him.


dscotese answered it pretty well. There is currently no way to pay directly with the qr code since the qr code is actually for the people asking for donations so they could embed their donation message in the qr code. Adding a payment qr code is actually a good idea and we will probably implement it at some point.

I don't use smartphone myself so I don't know how useful qr code is. is it really that useful? There is this wallet button that should open your wallet so the qr code that I have included in paystamper is actually usable with a smartphone anyway.

Just scan in the QR code with your phone, open the web page, click next and click on the wallet button. your wallet should open automatically in your smartphone.

We received a 0.22 BTC donation today to support the development of the WYSIWYG text editor for cryptograffiti.info. For that reason I feel the urge to report that we have been working on the new version of the user interface for some time now and that most of the hard work (adding functionality) is done now. There are yet some minor bugs left and the visual appearance of the new version needs some enhancements but if everything goes smoothly then we might have the new version released at the end of May.

Here's a screenshot of the new write tab functionality:

Yeah I might have exaggerated there a bit but the fact is that we have a very interesting situation here.


If the price doesn't go any lower soon then the weekly parabolic SAR is forced to flip (probably once and for all). Considering that 18th of May is the 3rd week from now and is also a bullish date then I think we have a realistic basis to speculate that the end of bear market is near.