Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2022, 06:56:24 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
1  Other / Archival / Re: How (and why) to use the Relay Network on: March 16, 2016, 04:28:41 PM
I didn't want to wade through 19 pages of text and I know this has been answered before, but why would it be a bad idea to integrate this into the P2P network on a bilateral basis? Wouldn't it still help a bit?
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is the following idea possible in Bitcoin's Script? on: January 12, 2016, 05:39:41 PM
You can't check signatures against arbitrary data. Blockstream has a new opcode CHECKSIGFROMSTACK that allows it in Elements alpha, and that might find its way into Core reasonably soon.
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Coalition For 8MB on: September 09, 2015, 04:03:11 PM
I like Adam Back's 2-4-8 proposal better, as it provides a gradual transition. Note that Bitfury's support for BIP 100 was based on their assessment that increasing the limit to 8MB right now is too fast. Mark Friedenbach has also warned that while 8MB is likely safe with current networking hardware, it hasn't been sufficiently tested.

I wouldn't mind accelerating Adam's schedule so that 8MB is reached in 3 years, not 6.
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Complete dezentralisation of mining possible ? on: August 23, 2015, 10:04:25 AM
You astutely describe my design for eliminating commercial mining. But I don't rely on them caring about decentralization.

So what incentive do you have in mind?
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Complete dezentralisation of mining possible ? on: August 22, 2015, 10:52:28 PM
It's not completely pointless at all! If sufficiently many users are willing to run a microminer at a small monetary loss, then it becomes practically impossible to run a commercial mining farm. I think we're quite far away from that scenario, but it's a theoretical possibility. I hope that eventually a hundred million people will care enough about decentralisation, and in that case it might happen.
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Block size limit proposal: bounded hash power mediated block size limit on: August 18, 2015, 10:45:41 AM
As has been witnessed over the last year in the debate over replacing the 1 MB limit, hard forks that deal with the block size limit are highly contentious, due to their far-reaching consequences.

Then we should have multiple much smaller increases. Start with BIP102, then commit to yearly evaluations of whether it is technically safe and economically necessary to increase the block size limit. Each year the limit could be doubled or kept the same.
7  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Would this be a reasonable compromise between Core and XT? on: August 14, 2015, 11:00:17 AM
What I don't get with this whole topic about block sizes is why there's not a solution out there to dynamically increase or decrease block size based on usage.

What is and isn't safe technically is determined in large part by the sort of connectivity people all around the world have in their homes. What is and isn't safe from an economic point of view depends in large part on how many people want to use Bitcoin. Neither of these things can be measured directly from the blockchain.
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Block size increase on: August 12, 2015, 02:57:08 PM
Counting the number of full blocks in a row is a bit restrictive. Why not look at something like what percentage of all blocks in a month was full?
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Would this be a reasonable compromise between Core and XT? on: August 12, 2015, 02:53:00 PM
My purely personal opinion: 50% per year is way too much, and there needs to be a sunset clause. It's very difficult to foresee how fast bandwidth will grow more than five years out and we also don't know what bandwidth is safe as a percentage of average domestic bandwidth or median domestic bandwidth or whatever.

I think you'll easily get a consensus based on actual, realised bandwidth data supplied by reliable sources combined with observation of the network to see if there is any evidence of either increased centralisation or of the limit hampering growth.
10  Bitcoin / Hardware / Re: A bitcoin miner in every hand on: July 11, 2015, 08:57:47 PM
Clearly the point of owning a 21-enabled device is not to make money mining, as several others have already pointed out. The idea is that at a sufficiently low power draw people might not object to the miner being there, provided the device offers enough value for money in other departments. The trick is to find an application that is synergistic with Bitcoin mining.

How about this, a device that combines the following features:

- Full Bitcoin node like Bitnodes Hardware.
- Tor router like Portal to provide high anonymity with fewer possibilities for exploits than running Tor on your own computer. Mainly interesting for those who have political motivations or are doing naughty things, but also a noble-sounding pretext ("helping dissidents in Iran").
- I2P router that does something similar for bandwidth-intensive applications that do not need to leave the darknet, such as file sharing or naughty Streamium streams that could benefit from increased privacy for both sender and receiver. Potentially attractive to a much larger group of people.
- Meshnet router.
- Access point for selling bandwidth to strangers with phones with expensive data bundles using Bitcoin micropayments channels, as proposed by Mike Hearn.

There is synergy between several of these functions.

For example, if you want to sell bandwidth and want to avoid liability for what people are doing over your connection, Tor helps. Paid applications that rely on stealth Bitcoin micropayments would benefit from decentralisation and might be more willing to contribute financially, especially if it costs very little. People running such a node could still be seeking a profit, such as getting paid anonymously for hosting files. The mining costs could then be seen as an expense and overall the operation could still be profitable.
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Numerically finding an optimal block size using decentralisation-utility on: July 05, 2015, 07:58:22 AM
I haven't personally chased this kind of approach because there will be so many judgements that the result won't really be interesting to anyone but the person who created it... but perhaps I'm wrong.

Making an interactive tool out of this could be very useful, because then it could be interesting to anyone who played with it. It will remain somewhat subjective, but at least it could inject some rational analysis into the debate, and has the potential to make some people change / refine their opinions.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A scaled up spam experiment : #SpamTheBlockchain As A Service on: May 31, 2015, 02:51:21 PM
Why should anyone be in agree with others in every question for infinite time?

The problem is the risk of a disastrous split, not a general principle that everyone should agree for all time. Regardless of which side wins, the split itself may be disastrous for both sides.
13  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Improving the consensus-sensing mechanism for protocol upgrades on: May 31, 2015, 11:07:47 AM
Bumping this as it seems relevant to the current discussion about a block size increase.
14  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: BitcoinAverage.com - bitcoin price index on: May 05, 2015, 01:02:32 PM
The website has listed okcoin as ignored because of a 0% fee model, but it isn't ignored at all, it is currently listed as the number 2 usd exchange, at 24% of volume. What's up with that?
15  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Project OtherCoin - off-chain payment system using tamperproof chips on: April 21, 2015, 04:13:43 PM
That's good news! As for funding, have you considered using Lighthouse?
16  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Project OtherCoin - off-chain payment system using tamperproof chips on: April 20, 2015, 08:12:27 PM
Any updates on this?
17  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: New diff thread Jan 27th to Feb 11 (-5.73%) to (+0.09%) on: January 28, 2015, 08:57:22 PM
What's the Bitfury news in Finland? I heard about their plans to buy Allied Control, but nothing specifically about Finland.
18  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: BitcoinAverage.com - bitcoin price index on: January 13, 2015, 06:48:38 PM
We are aware they are offline and not ignored, however their volume is 0 so have no effect on our average whatsoever. We will continue to monitor the situation

Volume is still showing as 0, even though they are back online.
19  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Bitcoin mining is doomed ! on: January 08, 2015, 06:27:33 PM
That's true, but you don't need to mine if you want to speculate and you don't need to speculate if you want to mine. They're really two independent processes.
20  Bitcoin / Mining speculation / Re: Bitcoin mining is doomed ! on: January 03, 2015, 10:52:34 PM
Bitcoin mining isn't doomed at all, but lots of small players will be driven out of the market.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!