Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 06:22:31 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 14622 times)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
January 23, 2016, 01:41:02 AM
 #81


Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.



Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.

Point taken.
1512973351
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512973351

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512973351
Reply with quote  #2

1512973351
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1512973351
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512973351

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512973351
Reply with quote  #2

1512973351
Report to moderator
1512973351
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512973351

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512973351
Reply with quote  #2

1512973351
Report to moderator
BitUsher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
January 23, 2016, 01:47:17 AM
 #82

Point taken.

If you look through my post history I have made critical remarks and clarified some weaknesses within cores proposals and praised some supporters of Classic.

I'm going to try a different approach going forward and not argue to clear up all this misleading information. I am simply going to try and provide educational posts clarifying technical matters regardless of the implementation as there is too much negativity and I don't want to get dragged down in it anymore. I do sincerely care about bitcoin and am really troubled about all the misinformation , coming from both sides on this matter.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
January 23, 2016, 01:58:17 AM
 #83


Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.



Ok... we have had this conversation many times before ... and I keep repeating how I am for decentralized development and how that animation is misleading and the idea that adopting bitcoin classic will make development more centralized. Instead of addressing my nuanced arguments , you ignore them or give a very generic soundbite.

This makes me worried that either you are spamming for political reasons without remembering our past conversations, a shill not remembering our conversations, just a brain dead idiot forgetting we just had this conversation multiple times. Either way you are hostile to the bitcoin ecosystem because you aren't here to make well reasoned arguments based upon evidence.

I still believe there are some real bitcoin supporters who believe in classic but now am more convinced that there may be some malicious agents and shills trying to divide bitcoin and create internal infighting to slow progress and possibly split our community.

Others take note of these tactics.... the evidence is all here on these forums.

  

I can assure you i'm not 'shilling' for anyone.  
Everyone becomes biased toward their own
positionalities and I don't believe you or I
are any different.

I appreciate the thought you put into your posts
and maybe I should take more time to dissect
them in detail, but I think the bottom line is
we have different biases and risk tolerances.

I think we agree on a lot of points.  You may
be correct that core has the best qualifications,
and I may be correct that Blockstream has
undo influence on core.  And there may be
no easy way to immediately get to decentralized
development -- although I think that that
Bitcoin unlimited has the right idea.

Perhaps we can sum our differences by saying
that I would rather have a revolution now and you
want to take a more conservative approach.  

EDIT: as far as the pic, focus on the right
side...the BEST scenario.  Several implementations
including Core, and no one group in control of
Bitcoin!



tl121
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 279


View Profile
January 23, 2016, 08:40:57 PM
 #84


OK, so this isn't principally  about 1.6-2.5MB vs 2MB or HF vs SF  but a change in governance?

To me it is.  I want decentralized development.
 

This doesn't make any sense ... Bitcoin Classic model of development is more centralized right now than cores. Their is no decentralized governance model established yet , and to assume there will be in the future is hopeful to put it kindly....

I just think its a bit premature to get behind something that is currently setup under the benevolent dictator model. Wouldn't it make sense to first draft a governance model , than promote it ?

I DON'T want Blockstream (a private company)

Consider.it and toom.im aren't private companies owned by 2 brothers as well? You don't find any conflict of interest there?

Decentralized development doesn't make sense to you ?

Not sure why.  Makes perfect sense to me.





Better than "best" would be completely separate implementations with separate code bases, preferably in separate programming languages.  Separate teams evolving a common code base continues the risks of monoculture.

calkob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
January 23, 2016, 08:45:15 PM
 #85

Can i ask, i keep hearing about bcklog of payments but any bitcoin i have sent or received or the last 2 weeks has got through on th efirst block, whats the problem?  is it because of no fees?
Karpeles
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078



View Profile
January 23, 2016, 09:32:45 PM
 #86

Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

Not an issue. For now



                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄███▀
 ▀███▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█████▀
  ▀██████▄▄█▀                ▄▄███████▀
   ▐█████████▄           ▄▄███████████
     ▀█████████▄▄      ▄█████████████
       ▀██████████    ███████████████
        ▐▀█████████  █████████████▀ ▐▌
        ▐▌ ▀▀██████ ▐███████████▀   ▐▌
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█████████▀     ▐▌
         █        ▀  ██████         █
         ▐█          ▐█████▄       █▌
          ▀█▄         ▀██████▄   ▄█▀
            ▀█▄         ▀█████▌▄█▀
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀
                ▀▀████████▀▀
T
....ANGEL TOKEN....


                                         ▄
                 ▄▄████████▄▄         ▄▄██
 ▄▄           ▄██▀▀        ▀▀██▄    ▄█▀█▀ 
 ▀█▀█▄▄     ▄█▀                ▀█▄▄█  ▄█▀ 
  ▀█  ▀▀█▄▄█▀                ▄▄██░   █▀   
   ▐▄▄  ░░░▀█▄           ▄▄█▀▀░░░   ▄█     
     ▀█▄ ░░░▒▒█▄▄      ▄██▒▒▒▒▒░    █     
       ▀▄▄ ░░▒▒▒▓█    ██▒▒▒▒▒▒░   ▄▄█     
        ▐▀█▄░░▒▒▓██  █▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░  ▄█▀ ▐▌     
        ▐▌ ▀▀█▒▓███░▐█▓▒▒▒▒░░ ▄█▀   ▐▌     
        ▐▌      ▀██ ▐█▓▓▒▒▄▄▄█▀     ▐▌     
         █        ▀  █▓█▀▀█         █     
         ▐█          ▐▄▓░ █▄       █▌     
          ▀█▄         ▀█▒░ ▀█▄   ▄█▀       
            ▀█▄         ▀█▄▄▄█▌▄█▀         
              ▀██▄▄       ▀▄▄██▀           
                 ▀▀████████▀▀             

AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2016, 03:05:04 AM
 #87

With the alleged backlog of transactions, how many of those have really small or absent tx fees? Because my transactions don't have to wait very long. I just use whatever fee bitcoin core calculates for me and it just works.

What is the common thread with transactions that are not making it into a block in a timely manner?

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
MyBTT
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 03:26:33 AM
 #88

I really didn't know that the blocks were that full that there is a back log. What are we going to do?


 
 
           ▄████▄
         ▄████████▄
       ▄████████████▄
     ▄████████████████▄
    ████████████████████      ▄█▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄███▄                 ▄████████████████▀   ▄██████████

  ▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄▄▀█████▀▄▄▄     ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀ ▀██▄             ▄██▀                   ██
▄█████▄▀▀▀▄██████▄▀▀▀▄█████▄     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀     ▀██▄         ▄██▀        ▄█▄          ▀██████████████▄
████████████████████████████       ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀         ▀██▄     ▄██▀          ▀█▀                        ██
 ▀████████████████████████▀          ▀██▄ ▄██▀             ▀██▄ ▄██▀     ▄█▄     ▀██▄ ▄██▀                                       ██
   ▀████████████████████▀              ▀███▀                 ▀███▀       ▀█▀       ▀███▀      ▄███████████████████████████████████▀
     ▀████████████████▀
       ▀████████████▀
         ▀████████▀
           ▀████▀
║║


║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
.

║║
██
║║
.
║║


║║
coinzat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


Young but I'm not that bold


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 08:04:35 AM
 #89

Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

Not an issue. For now

nowadays, it is very usual to have full blocks, it is not only in the rush hours ! I was thinking like you but It is a real issue, because even when you pay the proper fees you may wait two hours or more to get confirmed
Bitcoinpro
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218



View Profile
January 24, 2016, 08:14:01 AM
 #90

Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

Not an issue. For now

it is when the bankers want FREE

transactions, can you fkn believe it!!!!!!

they close our bank accounts block our money

transfers, but are soooo cooookeeddd

they think we wont see them blatantly

pushing mike and gavin around like
 
ladyboys calling for free transactions

ohhhh revenge is so sweet   Cheesy

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

CRYPTOCURRENCY CENTRAL BANK

LTC: LP7bcFENVL9vdmUVea1M6FMyjSmUfsMVYf
croTek4
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 340

fuck the meta


View Profile
January 24, 2016, 01:07:30 PM
 #91

Only at peak times, but the situation is corrected quickly and 99% of the times there is plenty of space in the blocks.

Not an issue. For now

Where did you pull that figure from? 99% of blocks are not full? I had a tx last week with more than adequate fee that took over 3 hours to confirm, and the tx i sent after that with an even higher fee took about an hour and a half.

         ▄███████████████▄
       ▄██▀             ▀██▄
    ▄▄██▀                 ▀██▄▄
█████▀▀       ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄    ▀▀█████
██          ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▄▀█▄▄      ██
▐█▌       ▄▀ ▄▀ ▄▄▄▀▀▀▄▀▀▀███   ▐█▌
 ██      ▄▀▄▀▄▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀█ ▄█▀   ██
 ▐█▌    █▄▀▄▀▄█▀▀▀ ▀█▀ ▄▀▄▀█   ▐█▌
  ██    █▄▀▄▀▄▄█▀ ▄▀ ▄▀▄▀▄▀█   ██
  ▐█▌ ▀▄█████▀▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀█  ▐█▌
   ██▌▀████▀██▄▄▀▀▄▄▀▄▀▄▀▄█▀ ▐██
    ██▌▀█▀▀█▄▀▀▄▀▀▄▄▀▄█▄▄█▀ ▐██
     ██▌ ▀  ▀███▄▄▄█████▀  ▐██
      ██▄      ▀▀▀▀▀      ▄██
       ▀██▄             ▄██▀
         ▀██▄         ▄██▀
           ▀██▄     ▄██▀
             ▀███▄███▀
               ▀███▀
DeepOnion 
★ ★ ★ ★ ★   ❱❱❱ JOIN AIRDROP NOW!
TOR INTEGRATED & SECURED
★  Your Anonymity Guaranteed
★  Your Assets Secured by TOR
★  Guard Your Privacy!
|Bitcointalk
Reddit
Telegram
|                        ▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▄▀▄▀▀
                    ▄▄██▀█▀▄▀▀▀
                  ▄██▄█▄██▀
                ▄██████▀
              ▄██████▀
  ▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
██████▀▀▀▀▀██████▀
 ▀█████  ▄███████
  ████████████▀██
  ██▀███████▀  ██
  ██ ▀████▀    ██
  ██   ▀▀      ██
  ▀█████████████▀
SebastianJu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


View Profile WWW
January 24, 2016, 11:52:53 PM
 #92

    Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
    you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
    So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

    1. 2MB Block size
    • doubles the theoretical tps
    • introduces a new attack vector
    • Simple change
    • Hard fork

    2. SegWit
    • Fixes transaction malleability
    • Fraud proofs
    • Simpler script upgrades
    • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
    • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
    • Soft fork



    I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  Roll Eyes I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.

    Well, if you want to be taken serious then you can't really add a new attack vector to the 2 mb block solution when you already know that it is no problem anymore with a fix existing. Roll Eyes

    You told me in the old, now closed thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333937.msg13634824#msg13634824

    that you did not get what i was asking. The question was, segwit blocks can't be verified by non-segwit nodes(miners) but the nodes are forced to accept them anyway to enforce that segway will be able to create the blockchain without having >50%. Right so far? You claim that in no way 10% can create a fork. But wasn't it said that the blocks have to be accepted by nonsegwit nodes even when they can't check if the transactions are valid?

    And miners need to check if the last block was valid by checking if all the transactions are valid and check if the hash for the block is valid. With segwit blocks only segwit miner nodes can check, non segwit nodes accept it even when the transactions would be bogus.

    So what is wrong? That non segwit nodes can not check if a segwit block is valid and so would accept corrupt segwit blocks too because it was built this time for this fork this way?

    You did not say what happens when someone spams the network with segway blocks that are not valid but have to be accepted by the non segwit nodes.

    Then you claimed that the 2mb attack vector is no danger to 1mb blocks. Because the validation time is quadratic. The same transaction on 2mb could mean a 10 minute solve time, on 1mb only 20-30 seconds. But wouldn't the risk be the same the when someone simply creates 20 to 30 of such transactions, maybe in different blocks? These blocks would have to be checked all. So why is it no problem with 1mb blocks?

    And again you claimed the internal movement of bitcoins inside of lightning network are real bitcoins. Guess you don't even get why people prefer to buy material gold instead owning a paper that gives you the right on gold. Theres a clear difference and since you seem to not even get to think over your claim when everyone else tells you that your view on the topic is wrong, i will stop here like i said i will. It seems to make no sense to discuss this with you.[/list]
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 12:05:31 AM
     #93

    I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

    If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

    If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

    This is not the $ and never it will be.

    If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.

    To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it.
    Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor.
    And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles.


    I always hear this comparision. The 21 million bitcoins was a core stone on the fundamental of the protocol. Mainly to ensure a protection against inflation. And now there really are a lot of people who dare to compare the 1mb temporary spam protection setting with this fundamental? And they even claim it's on the same level. Really unbelieveable.

    I see this fight, way too often fought with fears, the problem is nobody knows the future and only can guess about it. So everyone feels strongly he is right because his reality has come to realization for sure.

    Well, time will tell and i think the development of bitcoin will move on lastly based on the user bases wishes. And the past has shown that the users rarely want to adopt sidesystems beside of bitcoin. They want bitcoin, when bitcoin isn't working then they will take the fix offered. Well, that might be an alternative payment system where you have to bind your bitcoins into some payment channels or the promise of another bitcoin client who fixes the problem. I think it's not hard to guess what most users will chose.

    It's way too hard to argue what bitcoin was meant for. For me it's clear that satoshi wanted to empower the people to be freed from the power of banks. Which only makes sense with adoption. Even his plans on how miners will be rewarded make very sure what he thought should happen. Miners will be paid from the fees coming from a growing amount of transactions. The block reward will go down and slowly fees from the rising amount of transactions will take over the reward system.

    For me it's pretty much unthinkable that he implemented a temporary spam protection with the thought in mind to bring inflation to the transaction fees, blocking adoption, blocking not so wealthy people from bitcoin and finally make bitcoin a system used as a setting layer for another network which at the end can turn to be a system that makes that only big corporations will use bitcoin at all. Because the costs would be too high for the average user.

    It's so perverted to think that this could have been his plan. It's the full opposite of everything he claimed he wanted to achieve with bitcoin.

    But again... these points often enough are impossible to convince someone already having decided on a front. Well in fact not everyone is that way yet. There are way more users that only are wondering why bitcoin is not working anymore. Roll Eyes
    Anegg
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 378

    Hire Me To Manage Your Campaign!


    View Profile
    January 25, 2016, 12:06:42 AM
     #94

    The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 12:36:17 AM
     #95

    this is in order to encourage mining i guess. if less fees, then the miners would not wish to secure the bitcoin, you understand that the cost of mining in bitcoin is too high, and at least $0.3 every GH and at lease 2 cents is gone per GH to pay the electricity, that would be a bit fair.

    This is practically a non-issue since what we see is showing only that mining is still so profitable that we have too many miners. We have so many that the network is 100 times more secure than it would need to be. Even when 99% or the miners would drop out the network would still be safe enough. Though in turn this would mean that the remaining 1% of miners would earn around 100 times what they earned before. Which would make more miners switching their miners on.

    So in general, there is ZERO need to pay more to the miners now. There is no right on mining profitable. Everyone starting with mining has to know the risks involved. And the reward the miners receive is fully depending on the market laws. Enforcing higher fees for the miners simply would mean an intervention into the free market. The rules how the rewards should develop were laid out pretty clearly already. No need for intervention.
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 12:43:31 AM
     #96

    Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".
    Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

    Obviously that is true to any actual approach. At the end it is absolutely inevitable to raise the blocksize at some point in time.

    And yes, after implementing that arbitrary spam protection it was clear that a problem was solved but another born. Even LN or segwit are nothing more than kicking the can down the road a bit.
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 01:40:38 AM
     #97

       All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.

    Right.  Hence the "nothing is better than something".
    You're saying you'd rather do nothing (and wait for segwit, etc).

    I say something is definitely better than nothing,
    even if it does nothing else than promote unity
    in the community. 

    Dissension is stirring because nothing has been implemented.
    I guess core is cool with that.  they've "got everything under
    control"...right?



    So, does it mean that even if the block size gets upgraded with the hard fork, the transactions will still get confirmed in the same time as proposed by Satoshi, i.e.; 10 minutes or will the blocks take longer based on being bigger in capacity???

    The 10 minutes would stay the same after everything settled. The size of the blocks doesn't really matter for the confirmation time.

    The only problem on this topic that is time related is, when the blocksize ist NOT raised. Because that will mean that legit transactions will NEVER be included into a block because all blocks are always full and only the transactions with the highest fees get included. So if you included a lower fee then you have bad luck. Bitcoin won't work for you and you won't even know that it will be that way. You will wait only to find out that nothing happened. The fees will rise because everyone will fear that his transaction will not get included and so on.
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 01:54:29 AM
     #98

    The Core contributors are working on several improvements to the infrastructure that should enable the network to increase the block size. However, only off chain solutions such as LN solve this problem.

    Which makes it effectively no improvement on the bitcoin network anymore. It would be a solution besides the bitcoin network, using bitcoin transactions in some way. A crutch to make bitcoin work while it is held crippled intentionally.

    Well i guess you now will claim again that it's all bitcoin. Roll Eyes I won't answer if you do.
    lumeire
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1274



    View Profile
    January 25, 2016, 02:10:01 AM
     #99

    The backlog is just going to keep rising and there is nothing we can do about it. It is very unfortunate.

    That's why we need the lightning network, even as a temporary solution while Core devs patch up a perma fix.

    INVALID BBCODE: close of unopened tag in table (1)
    SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1974


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 25, 2016, 02:29:44 AM
     #100

    EDIT: as far as the pic, focus on the right
    side...the BEST scenario.  Several implementations
    including Core, and no one group in control of
    Bitcoin!

    Though that would only make sense when all clients would work on the same blockchain. For sure that will only be the case for a certain time. Though until a fork happens, depending on the setup of the clients, it might be a good idea. They would work on the same blockchain but clients are coded by different groups.
    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!