|
Simple poll to find out just what most people think is a fair fee for sending a transaction on the Bitcoin network, long-term.
Paying a bill; buying a car, computer or coffee; making a donation, or whatever...
In 2014 US dollars please choose the amount that you think is closest to what the BTC equivalent mining fee should be for a standard transaction.
Assuming also that a standard transaction is on-chain, not a micro-transaction, it is for something that is usually paid for with fiat.
What is the fairest fee?
|
|
|
|
there is 0 reason to move the price down, at this point, the news has been good, china and gox are behind us, TAX has been paid
Well, not sure that the news have been good. For the public who is not committed to Bitcoin, ApplePay sounds like a formidable competitor. MtGOX is still not over, in several senses: [etc, etc, etc...] If China is still in control, then it is not surprising that there was no recovery after the October 15 tax deadline. You claim to have a learned background, but a fundamental of science is that you should not and can not pretend away evidence and retain credibility. When assessing the fundamental value of Bitcoin, this is the single most important basis to work from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_lawMt Gox, Oct deadlines, Apple Pay, Chinese speculation all serve simply to create blips in the Bitcoin megatrend, they are irrelevant long-term. In fact, Bitcoin should observe Metcalfe's Law in its purest form because it is not hampered by language differences. Money, like sex, is universally transacted. Metcalfe's and Gresham's Law are in effect when it comes to Bitcoin. For the second one we will just have to wait for one big economy to regulate it. What startled me back when I've first learned about it, was how on earth ONE person had the ability -and knowledge- to know EXACTLY how this will evolve. Turned out that I knew far less than what he did. For your consideration (even though I'm sure that most of the old farts here know this right from their heart): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_lawYes, indeed. Gresham's Law comes into play because all the central banks are debasing their fiat as a matter of policy, 2% inflation targeting. This keeps the FRB-ponzi going by stealth-taxing the fiat in everyone's pocket to save the banks whenever they overextend. Famously, Satoshi mentioned this in the genesis block. So the central banks are helping Bitcoin by coin-clipping their own fiat alternative. |
|
|
|
there is 0 reason to move the price down, at this point, the news has been good, china and gox are behind us, TAX has been paid
Well, not sure that the news have been good. For the public who is not committed to Bitcoin, ApplePay sounds like a formidable competitor. MtGOX is still not over, in several senses: [etc, etc, etc...] If China is still in control, then it is not surprising that there was no recovery after the October 15 tax deadline. You claim to have a learned background, but a fundamental of science is that you should not and can not pretend away evidence and retain credibility. When assessing the fundamental value of Bitcoin, this is the single most important basis to work from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_lawMt Gox, Oct deadlines, Apple Pay, Chinese speculation all serve simply to create blips in the Bitcoin megatrend, they are irrelevant long-term. In fact, Bitcoin should observe Metcalfe's Law in its purest form because it is not hampered by language differences. Money, like sex, is universally transacted. |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations CIYAM, early days, but now this is available to the community I expect we will see some phenomenal applications resulting from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this reported in SciAm, but not even with basic information as to how they are doing fusion. The only viable method in prototype is via concentrated laser heating and magnetic confinement, something with a far larger setup than they describe. Hope this isn't another "cold fusion" debacle.
|
|
|
|
Later this century it should be feasible to terraform Mars, using nanotechnology.  Then it would be a nice place to live  |
|
|
|
A miner can put as many transactions as they like in a block with no fees.
This is solved by implementing IBLT as the standard block transmission method, although this is not a short-term goal. A miner can get his or her IBLT blocks accepted only if the vast majority of the transactions in it are already known to, and accepted as sensible, by the majority of the network. It shifts the pendulum of power back towards all the non-mining nodes, because miners must treat the consensus tx mempool as work they are obliged to do. It also allows for huge efficiency gains, shifting the bottleneck from bandwidth to disk storage, RAM and cpu (which already have a much greater capacity). In theory, 100MB blocks which get written to the blockchain can be sent using only 1 or 2MB blocks on the network. I don't think many people appreciate how fantastic this idea is. The debate here is largely being conducted on the basis that the existing block transmission method is going to remain unimproved. This is not the case, and a different efficiency method, tx hashes in relayed blocks, is already live. Okey dokey. My latest straw-man proposal is 40% per year growth for 20 years. That seems like a reasonable compromise based on current conditions and trends.
Gavin, I hope you proceed with what you think is best. |
|
|
|
I agree that "Maths and Science" sometimes get thrown around like magical solutions by some pro-bitcoin people.
But ask yourself this:
How easy is it to change the money emission scheme for a central bank?
How easy is it to change the money emission scheme for the bitcoin network?
To come up with some other buzzwords: it's the combination of decentralisation, personal incentives and the enabling technology that makes bitcoin tick.
Which why it is going to be very interesting watching the emerging govcoins (Ecuador, Philippines). Because, if their coins languish in the alts, or are attacked and burned, then it will be obvious to everyone that riding the Bitcoin train is the only way to go. |
|
|
|
|
Coincidence that the hashrate dropped when marshals raided BFL, so perhaps their customer rig "testing" mining farm went offline?
|
|
|
|
What would happen if the blocksize were increased to 1 GB tomorrow? Pretty much nothing. Miners will always be able to create blocks less than the maximum blocksize.
What would happen if the blocksize were decreased to 1 KB tomorrow? Bitcoin would come grinding to a halt.
Too small blocksize = death to bitcoin.
Too big blocksize = non-issue.
I'd rather see the blocksize too big than too small.
IBLT makes it an issue because there would no longer be a risk/reward tradeoff on tx fees vs propagation delay in building the largest possible blocks. As a result the miner is incentivized to always build the largest possible block to collect maximum tx fees with no propagation risk. IBLT encourages good behaviour because you can't successfully publish an IBLT full of transactions which the rest of the network doesn't want, unlike now, when a block could be full of rubbish 1sat transactions from a secret spam generator. The whole point of IBLT is that each node knows (and accepts) most of the transactions in advance, and has them in its mempool. It is only a smallish set of differences which are required from the IBLT when processing it. So the fees market should be helped by this development. |
|
|
|
That bearwhale is probably super pissed right about now
Bearwhale has missed out on a cool $3 MILLION by selling a week too early. |
|
|
|
...
Because I knew this thing was going to crash and stablize at no more than $100, for a very very long time. I was here in 2011, and I knew bitcoin's potential was that it had potential. That was about it. Now that it has reached its potential, which is that it might have more potential, it is nothing more than just a dot com bubble and might be useful, the protocol, few hundred years down the line. And that is in very rare and extreme cases.
At any rate, this is my final warning. I will sit back and just watch the show with popcorn in hand. Good night folks.
HA HA HA. Just seen this. Final warning folks, say good night to any chance of $100 orders getting filled. |
|
|
|
Returning to AT and to last Sunday's flashcrash to 275, I think that the 30k whale intentionally drawed a high volume bottom at 275. Somehow showing that the accumulation phase had started. And accumulation phase could last for months...
Revisiting 275 by mid December is highly probable, in my opinion.
 maybe I'm missing something but I thought the accumulation phase was during the previous down trend now that wweak hands have been shaken out. whales will want it to go up That's far too logical and sensible. Conspiracy theory requires the whales to be eternally selling, trying to crash the price, so that they can somehow "own it all". |
|
|
|
the orderbook seems so nice, but no moon mission yet? Why? Monday is the moon mission day, because that is when fresh fiat arrives .  |
|
|
|
I remember this discussion, actually.
Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be. Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply. Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world's M1 money supply at that time was.
We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure.
21Million, times 10^8 subdivisions, meant that even if the whole word's money supply were replaced by the 21 million bitcoins the smallest unit (we weren't calling them Satoshis yet) would still be worth a bit less than a penny, so no matter what happened -- even if the entire economy of planet earth were measured in Bitcoin -- it would never inconvenience people by being too large a unit for convenience.
Very interesting background. Thanks for sharing! Unfortunately, the most important factor was missed: inertia to change, and observing the existing convention of 2dp in fiat currencies, and the vast majority of financial computer systems also supporting 2dp. So, the ideal would have been 21 million million bitcoins, with 100 sub-units each. It would have made for large numbers from early on, like dogecoin has today, but as the network and ecosystem grew, bitcoin amounts would rapidly look sensible in day-to-day transactions. The Italians did fine when it was 1500 lira to the dollar for many years. |
|
|
|
Couldn't take it anymore, had to make an account so I could ignore the ripple guy.
LOL. Best first post ever! |
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the next world financial crisis first before I even think of selling my coins.
When people run from fiat it will be epic...
We don't have to wait. I've got the popcorn out for Venezuela already, and Argentina is next on the timetable. Don't forget Ecuador in that region. They are outlawing Bitcoin altogether and releasing a state sponsored cryptocurrency. Their state currency today is at about 55% inflation per annum. >50% per month is consider hyperinflation, so the clock is running for them. With their weakening currency, and the strengthening dollar, they are on the path of currency failure, so this will be interesting. Either way if their state crypto works or fails it will be bullish for bitcoin. Bitcoin will be in Ecuador, it just won't be legal, which will allow the state to seize any they find as contraband. (much easier said than done) Just seen this, trialing it in November. Wonder how they wrote all the software so fast..  https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/worlds-first-national-digital-currency-trials-ecuador/ |
|
|
|
I'm waiting for the next world financial crisis first before I even think of selling my coins.
When people run from fiat it will be epic...
We don't have to wait. I've got the popcorn out for Venezuela already, and Argentina is next on the timetable. |
|
|
|
I understand that it's possible they get a bunch of banks aboard, but that's more like a slim chance, a gamble. How many they got now two, three tiny ones?
yep, 3 tiny one are officialy onboard but this means a lot. Rabbobank is also testing and national city bank too and they are not tiny. But this is true Ripple will attract first small banks. But I'm telling you 100banks the next 12months is really possible. The only way you can profit is by holding XRP, yet large amounts of it can be released onto the market, or created at any time. You can only profit if they let you, and they won't allow outsiders to reap huge profits for their hard work (assuming Ripple makes huge profits long term - which is very debatable). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
