Blocks/hour 4.85 / 742 s
If it drops too low then all trust in the network vanishes and btc is rendered worthless and perceived as such by the world.
https://blockchain.info/stats11 mins/block is fine |
|
|
|
damn i must go to work in 10min but i donot know what to do  hold or sell? buy fiat ... lick the facist boots. Unfortunately we have to buy fiat and lick the facist boots each time we sell btc and re-buy lower. |
|
|
|
|
Indeed, lots of plates spinning which are banks trying to keep going.
Fed bailout money for banks is funneled through the FDIC, which has now been put on the hook for up to $100 trillion of derivatives (depending upon how many net off), thanks to Citi and a clause on page 1599 in the recent 1604 page Cronybus congressional spending bill.
I don't think Bitcoin will have significance in the coming banking crisis, but it will be a shining refuge in the wreckage.
|
|
|
|
QE3 has been terminated for more than 2 months, and we are already seeing crash in almost every commodity and other currency in the world. In 2007, FED stopped stimulant, then after a little over a year, a liquidity crisis finally hit housing market and brought financial crisis. It seems this time FED has much less time and room to maneuver.
What the Fed stops overtly it continues covertly:  $1.6 trillion of mortgage backed securities (yes sub-prime ninja loans) purchased in recent years by the Fed from TBTF banks and hedgies eager to unload their toxic garbage. All of it paid for via QE and finger down on Ctrl-P. The commodities (and EM currencies crash) is more to do with the world economy being jammed into first gear. |
|
|
|
I'm not calling for 100's, just that there is only fibo and trend line supports between here and there Both of which are from this recent declining price action, so there is very little in the way of support.
I like your summary, however, I think that $205 has massive support because that is where the whole $1150 move sprang from. The 3-day chart shows it well. |
|
|
|
I will vote with MP and tvbcof. I don't think the new fork will be economical to mine or use.
Lets say for example we set a Target, that the average Blocksize is always 80% of max. Blocksize and adjust the max. Blocksize by max. +-20% all 2016 Blocks to meet this Target.
This would ensure that Blockchain space always remains scarce, therefore ensuring TX fees for fast transaction, by at the same time ensuring that it will always be possible to make a transaction.
I'm looking forward to learn why this wouldn't work.
The problem with this is that some pools still mine blocks where the only transaction is the one that awards them their subsidy, and that can really poison averages. Than change it to The average of the biggest 50% of all Blocks mined every 2016 Blocks. That would also mean that at least 50% of all miner would have to agree that a increase of the max. blocksize is necessary and also ensuring no minority can keep an increase from happening. So (numbers changed a little): Target: Average Blocksize of the biggest 1008 Blocks is always 90% of max. Blocksize Adjustment: Max. Blocksize, max. +-20% all 2016 Blocks to meet this Target. Isn't it amazing the difference adding one small caveat makes. This is why I'd default to trusting Gavin's judgement, because everyone is trying to smash all of these ideas in his face and he has to make decisions that protect brilliant ideas from naive attacks. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/schneiers_law.htmlSo, what changed? |
|
|
|
This is what sidechains mean to me.
Side chains are not even the slightest bit needed to use BTC as a reserve currency. It's nearly prefect the way it is. 7 tps is plenty for that. Probably an order of magnitude or two overkill in fact. Unfortunately, the 7 tps is an old estimate, and the reality of large blocks is that 2400 tx is maximum, or 4 tps. However, even this is too large because some miners still turn out near empty blocks, and would do so even if the network had a severe backlog. So 3 tps is a more accurate working number. |
|
|
|
It seems like once a week I see a "where is J.R." question somewhere. Every time I poke my head in here I try to emphasize - it doesn't MATTER where I am. I could be dead, and project would see very little impact. I participate in many ways, but we have so many smart people my presence is no longer critical to the success of the project. People who keep asking where I am don't seem to be getting that message. What matters is the state of the project, not where J.R. is. I would argue that Satoshi's disappearance helped bitcoin more than hurt it. Too bad everybody knows my real name, or I could mysteriously disappear too!  The stuff with Counterparty is very . . . interesting. I didn't see it coming, but the distancing makes sense. It's too early to bet entirely on one horse (unless you are crazy like me). I doubt they are severing their relationship, but they probably did some more research and saw that there are a lot of projects which have a shot at becoming the next big thing, and didn't want to limit their options going forward. Thanks for the update JR. I think the real concern amongst MSC investors who want to see the tech succeed, but also gain from being an early source of financing for Bitcoin 2.0, is what is the future of MSC? Omni is a promising product, but hearing about factoids (and maybe other tokens) makes the MSC investor wonder whether MSC is playing any further part in the Omni plans. |
|
|
|
|
Forget the warning he made. This is the statement which will have most impact on the readership of the FT:
“in 20 years, would allow us to have enough capacity to handle every single electronic transaction in the world”.
|
|
|
|
If not, is it because you primarily use bitcoins for drugs/porn or other illicit activity? Or you use it to try to cloak your donations/transactions?
Before I answer your question, answer one for me. If you could do so without being charged any processing fees, would you be willing to contact your banks, credit card companies, and retirement savings investments to receive an export of your entire spending and savings history from all of you accounts for the past 3 years, and to then post that entire history here in this thread for the entire world to access? Before I answer that question, can't some (plural) three-letter agency do that already with the current get-up? Before I answer that question, can we be confident that this thread isn't full of three-letter agency sock-puppet accounts? |
|
|
|
This isn't worth talking much about. It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.
The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.
Yup. That's why I keep posting this: It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
I honestly believe that after Satoshi disappeared he later remembered this change was left out, and thought to himself "Damn. I should have done it when I had the chance. It'll get done .. I'm sure ... I hope I don't regret this." |
|
|
|
I think any of the alts could have made block sizes 100 times bigger at any point so unless all really have little understanding of the code, the argument that alts are merely waiting on software and that they would use it seems to ring hallow.
Most of them have probably accepted the code as is, because the block size limit is a long way off for any new coin. For an established coin the constant can't just be increased, the software needs a controlled switch-over. Doing it via majority block version number is best, although small communities can fork their code at a future block number. The problem with the limit all along is that, for years, its effect is just psychological, until suddenly volumes ramp into the limit and it becomes a very real physical constraint. From a user perspective everything starts grinding to a halt, people can't transact without massive delays, they get angry, the press pours scorn on the failure, and says it proves a decentralized community can't be relied upon to maintain a currency. Some businesses have to look for alternatives. In this climate all the alts which have a larger block limit trumpet their capability. One or two of them could gain traction and erode Bitcoin's first mover status. Serious erosion would result if nothing gets done. I am unconvinced that sidechains help because sidechain volume also needs to be handled. Unless the SC is centralized, which raises all the trust issues again. |
|
|
|
Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:
Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.
Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.
Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!
Good point. Very true. As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly. Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply? Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole. Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity. Realpra is right. Once the software is written for larger block sizes then any of the 1000 alts out there can incorporate it. Many will. Supply and demand then works against Bitcoin as demand will steadily weaken for a coin that cannot scale. Dogecoin has a large community backing it, but that is not saving it from relentless decline. |
|
|
|
From the Gold Collapsing thread... who knows how much further MC achievements might have been accomplished if BS core devs were spending all that time working on Bitcoin Core that they undoubtedly have been dedicating to the spvp for the last year and a half. forget that shit and get behind Gavin and increase blocksize. now is the time to do this.
A hard fork to increase blocksize may be needed, but the proposed exponential blocksize growth is both unnecessary and harmful to propagation of the sufficient bitcoin nodes desired for resilience. I'm curious to know what you (and others btw) make of Mircea Popescu and his crew's position that blocksize should not (arguably never) be increased People who argue that the block size limit should never be increased are arguing from a position of ideology, not practicality. They want as many nodes as possible, helped by low volume overhead, thinking that limiting transaction throughput can maintain Bitcoin as a guerrilla enterprise outside mainstream finance. They want it to be the financial system for the "Unsystem". Anyone who has read my posts for the last 2 years will know that I rail against the global corruption of central banks, their fiat FRB system, inflation targeting, interest rate manipulation, crony capitalism, asset bubbles, and stealth wealth transfers from the majority to the 0.1%. I see Bitcoin is a reset button for this 100-year mess, a river to flush out the Augean Stables of central banking. However, that river can never be diverted when it is a trickle, dammed upstream. Answer the question "Is blockchain PoW (or its variants, perhaps even PoS) a better basis for a monetary system than the existing debt-money of CB fiat?"If "yes", then the inexorable nature of science and technology will ensure that blockchain money prevails in the long run, 10, 20, 30 years from now. So the second question is "Will the future globally successful blockchain money be Bitcoin or some other alt coin?"The answer to the second question is "Bitcoin, unless its first mover advantage is thrown away by an unresolved fundamental failing." Failure to scale is a fundamental failing which can consign Bitcoin forever to the margins of world finance. But, why would a marginalized Bitcoin be used even by its unsystem adherents when Darkcoin or Monero offer better anonymity? Constraining the block size, therefore transaction volumes, ignores several important aspects of the situation: 1. The quality of nodes is much better than 5 years ago. There might have been 20,000 PCs and notebooks as nodes in 2010, cpu mining and supporting the network, but was that network better than the 6500 (known) nodes of today? Many of which are owned by companies now earning a living in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Corporate nodes are much more tolerant of volumes than hobbyist nodes. 2. Bandwidth is improving in many countries at up to 40% per year, so volume increases should be acceptable up to that level, or until another constraint is seen such as cpu signature verification. Limiting it at a 2010 baseline means it is being unnecessarily constrained as computing technology is still improving. 3. Block compression techniques exist to reduce propagation overhead. IBLT was only described in 2011, a year after Satoshi put the 1MB limit in place. 4. If Bitcoin fails to scale then I-Can-Scale-Coin will incorporate the necessary changes and the ecosystem will move across to that alt instead. Sidechains do not help with scaling because SC volume still needs to be handled somewhere. 5. Despite the long bearmarket of 2014, and price down at $290 right now, a large percentage of the price assumes that Bitcoin has future scalability. That it can grow to handle a reasonable percentage of world commerce. Its SoV is predicated upon being able to scale. Accepting the block size limit as it stands is to do the central banks a massive favor by crippling this new emerging monetary system, giving them more years to screw up the world economy, before a new alt coin can eventually prevail. |
|
|
|
Take the Bulltard's head and just...
<gif cut out as it's disgusting>
That's disgusting. How come the post is still there and this fucker keeps posting instead of having a permanent ban? I had reported the post to moderation earlier today and apparently the report was accepted as valid - I assume that from the "100% reporting accuracy" I've got afterwards, so why the hell has there been no effect? Could you please stop quoting this shit and instead report it as well and get this guy out of here? What does it take here to actually get the moderation to work? 95% of my ignores are from this thread. But the requotes are annoying. Compared to 2013 when there was a lot of useful debate, it is now necessary to sift through dirt to learn anything. |
|
|
|
And yes: we still need to increase the max blocksize (or do other more fancy stuff) if we want to handle more transactions. But: use of this scheme greatly reduces a problem (namely the cost/disincentive to mine large blocks) that would only grow more relevant with increasing transaction rate / block sizes.
Absolutely. And looking some years ahead, this scheme is make or break when competing head-on with the likes of MC and VISA. |
|
|
|
|
Good summary.
Bitstamp started in 2011 when coins were cheap. So they may well have been early investors and held more than 19k on their own account. So this hit is painful but not fatal to the business.
The hacker might get identified in the future, and regular policing chases him down. So the 19k is not a guaranteed loss, yet.
|
|
|
|
Bitfinex Bitstamp   Just testing. Does look better. |
|
|
|
bitcoin isn't dead, its dying...  Aha, the sound of a towel thrown into the ring. Must be the cycle low after all. |
|
|
|
- (2) You should not upgrade to Core 0.10 without this version!. In other words, this new version of Armory is required if you plan to use the new version of Bitcoin Core (headers-first). Luckily, they will probably both be officially released about the same time (end of Jan 2015).
Aha. Valuable information. Great work as usual! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
