Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2017, 07:29:39 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Blocks are full.  (Read 14672 times)
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 03, 2016, 07:24:26 PM
 #321

I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.
There are other benefits that come along with Segwit as well. It is not just about the transaction capacity.

Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.
Actually this is a good thing. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed.

Yes, not needed if you want to transfer more market cap to Ethereum every day.
Dumb - dumber - core developers.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513150179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513150179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513150179
Reply with quote  #2

1513150179
Report to moderator
1513150179
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513150179

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513150179
Reply with quote  #2

1513150179
Report to moderator
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


View Profile
March 03, 2016, 09:09:53 PM
 #322

Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed.

Yes, not needed if you want to transfer more market cap to Ethereum every day.
Dumb - dumber - core developers.

Actually there is nothing dumb by doing this, it is well working plan to get financial profit out of rising altcoins when you send Bitcoins users/speculators there because they see Bitcoin is not build on solid grounds anymore when they realizing not enought capacity for everyone.

Just to show there are selfish financial interests behind, the recent HK consensus deal was possible because F2Pool agreed when at least one participant went on long Bitcoin position right before the HK meeting and if the consensus deal failed, the participant would have huge financial loss. Also Alex insisted to not waste his time by such long negatioating without a result. F2Pool clearly stated he would not agree to such deal if not these two cases - the negatioating would continue the next day probably.


Quote
macbook-air  Bitcoin Miner - F2Pool

In HK, Alex asked me to “respect” his time by agree the consensus asap. Also someone else told me he had bought long position just before the roundtable, if we did not agree, he would lose huge financially. If it was not these two, I would probably have escaped away that night.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 12:37:30 AM
 #323

Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

nakedbitcoins
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 296


Nakedbitcoins.com !


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 12:39:05 AM
 #324

Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

No kidding right. Things need to shape up.

Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 12:42:02 AM
 #325

Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

You sure about that?

Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

I think the best idea would be to rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   Undecided



Bullish.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 12:53:48 AM
 #326

Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

You sure about that?

Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

I think the best idea would be to not? rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   Undecided



Bullish.

You mean to not rush it? I dont understand what you are saying.

If its bugged, then they better test it more, its not good to gamble with a 6 billion $ market.

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
March 04, 2016, 08:43:09 AM
 #327

Looks like it's over, only 10k transactions are unconfirmed now. The average fees are also a big high but can be tolerated for the greater good.

I hope the segwit gets deployed soon.

You sure about that?

Whell, the segwit testnet had a chain fork, we're not really sure why... It's much safer than changing a one to a two tho, and will give us (maybe) 75% of the capacity of the alternative while completely changing the fee economics (75% cheaper) for LN tx.

I think the best idea would be to not? rush it out as a capacity fix ASAP on a $6 billion monetary network.   Undecided



Bullish.

You mean to not rush it? I dont understand what you are saying.

If its bugged, then they better test it more, its not good to gamble with a 6 billion $ market.


That's what he's saying.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 09:29:53 AM
 #328


That's what he's saying.

He misspelled it, i corrected it in his quote



ITS OVER FOLKS, THE NETWORK IS RESTORED!

6160 UNCONFIRMED TX , ATTACK IS OVER!

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 10:31:19 AM
 #329

Lauda


I think SegWit is a good idea. It will have an effect and will bring bitcoin forward even in the future. It will cut down the space needed for transactions for a certain amount. Regardless of the amount of transactions and current blocksize. So even with 50MB blocks, Segwit might still be able to nearly double the amount. This is a good thing.
There are other benefits that come along with Segwit as well. It is not just about the transaction capacity.

Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?

Don't say LN, I don't see that as a benefit. Smiley

Though I doubt that Segwit will be able to solve the situation fast enough. You know yourself that even when Segwit gets implemented today, the effect would only slowly rise to an effect bringing down the situation. And in the meanwhile the situation can always grow higher than our heads.
Actually this is a good thing. Even if we had a 2 MB block size limit today there is no guarantee that the miners would not impose limits of their own. The sudden bump is not needed. Depending on how much transaction capacity is needed, people are going to adopt clients that already support Segwit. If they don't do so, they are technically saying that they don't need/want more TPS.

Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.

Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.



Cuidler


Quote
macbook-air  Bitcoin Miner - F2Pool

In HK, Alex asked me to “respect” his time by agree the consensus asap. Also someone else told me he had bought long position just before the roundtable, if we did not agree, he would lose huge financially. If it was not these two, I would probably have escaped away that night.


Wow, that's pretty sneaky. So to understand it correctly, the consensus is agreeing to the core devs steps of segwit-lightning network?

Well, as escrow I hear often sentences like "You waste mine and SebastianJu's time. Send the funds asap or he will give you red trust.". Sentences like that are written often by scammers to push time and to make people less able to check out the goods. Or if someone found a problem with the goods the seller might want to force him to pay that way.

If such sentences really are used in that topic then it has a bad sound.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 10:31:41 AM
 #330

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 10:49:30 AM
 #331

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

I hate closed threads. Especially when I want to answer and I can't anymore. Even worse when the last answer to me let it look like I was completely wrong and I can't explain why Iam right. It's like being forbidden to speak. Smiley
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 10:57:42 AM
 #332

Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?
Here is an article that should help you get started: Segwit benefits.

Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.
Why have they done so in the past? There is nothing that suggests that they wouldn't do so again.

Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.
No, it is not. It is just a logical statement. Once Segwit is implemented you have two options: 1) Use a client that supports it; 2) Use one that doesn't. If you opt for option two you are indirectly stating that you don't want the increased capacity or you don't need it.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:05:06 AM
 #333

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

I hate closed threads. Especially when I want to answer and I can't anymore. Even worse when the last answer to me let it look like I was completely wrong and I can't explain why Iam right. It's like being forbidden to speak. Smiley

Yea but the blocks are not full anymore, or atleast they are back to previous weeks levels, so everything is normal again, so technically this thread is pointless now.

But sure it can be kept open for discussing the general issue.

SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 11:08:38 AM
 #334

Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?
Here is an article that should help you get started: Segwit benefits.

Interesting read. Did not know all the points...

Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.
Why have they done so in the past? There is nothing that suggests that they wouldn't do so again.

The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB. Even with spam attacks there were often blocks with that size so the soft limit kicked in because those miners were not aware of that setting. That limit was set higher on default later, I believe, and the miners were informed to raise it.

But they did not set it down themselfes. Maybe some did but it was not the big mass.

Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.
No, it is not. It is just a logical statement. Once Segwit is implemented you have two options: 1) Use a client that supports it; 2) Use one that doesn't. If you opt for option two you are indirectly stating that you don't want the increased capacity or you don't need it.

Well I hope you are not one of the persons that live in a black and white world. I had tiring discussions on political topics with people like that and everyone who saw things a little bit different than they... were on the black side.

There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.

This is simply no black and white question.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
 #335

Interesting read. Did not know all the points...
Then it is time to stop acting like you do.

The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB.
The default setting in the client is still 750kB (IIRC), ergo you're wrong.

There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.
Which effectively does nothing. If you use Segwit then you are contributing to the more efficient use of transaction space (i.e. the effective block size will be higher). The users decide whether the added space is going to be e.g. 100kB or 500kB.

Yea but the blocks are not full anymore, or atleast they are back to previous weeks levels, so everything is normal again, so technically this thread is pointless now.
I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:16:11 AM
 #336

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.
RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:17:42 AM
 #337


I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.

Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.

The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.

I can now send a small transaction with 10k satoshi again so it should be ok.

RealBitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:18:48 AM
 #338

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.

Time to get diversified then brother.

Holding only bitcoins will make you stressed every time the price falls or stuff like this happens, but if you build an altcoin portfolio, you will sleep better at night.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
 #339


I would not be surprised if another attack occurred. However, the recommended fee is still higher than usual.

Looks like the attacker ran out of money, and probably ended up at net loss, next time they should think twice before attacking bitcoin.

The recommended fee is an average, so it needs more datapoints until it smoothens out and gets lowered.

I can now send a small transaction with 10k satoshi again so it should be ok.

The crazy cap is the reason why the network can be attacked without much money. With segwit it will be worse.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-394#post-13744
samsunk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 95


View Profile
March 04, 2016, 11:29:04 AM
 #340

Wow now there are only 4000 transactions.

Ok guys now the thread can be closed!  Grin

Yes, another wave of adoption stopped and transferred to the alt market cap. Great job.

Time to get diversified then brother.

Holding only bitcoins will make you stressed every time the price falls or stuff like this happens, but if you build an altcoin portfolio, you will sleep better at night.

agreed - keep money moving in altcoins requires time but more chance of proofit

-samsunk
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!