Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 04:30:06 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin Classic Roadmap annonced  (Read 2282 times)
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
February 26, 2016, 11:41:14 AM
 #41

Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results?

..almost pays for mining when full.
It doesn't. You don't have data to back this up. However, BIP109 does look good but I'd like to see an implementation of it as soon as possible.

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.

Bear in mind, with the current situation 2000 tx give around 0,4 in mining fees, extrapolating that would be something like 12 bitcoins, which is what we are going to get in a few months.

Anyways, fees will probably go down with bitcoin price increasing, so we need even more on-chain transactions to finance mining.

1511281806
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281806

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281806
Reply with quote  #2

1511281806
Report to moderator
1511281806
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281806

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281806
Reply with quote  #2

1511281806
Report to moderator
1511281806
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281806

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281806
Reply with quote  #2

1511281806
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511281806
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281806

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281806
Reply with quote  #2

1511281806
Report to moderator
1511281806
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511281806

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511281806
Reply with quote  #2

1511281806
Report to moderator
sadface
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 435


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 11:48:32 AM
 #42

so is this an example on how to ruin a forum?
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 12:13:10 PM
 #43

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.
Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results?
Okay what you initially wrote is wrong. I've figured out where the confusion lies. There are currently two BIP109's (no idea why):
Gavin's BIP 109 - Two million byte size limit with sigop and sighash limits
John's BIP 109 -   Efficient block relay format and mempool synchronization
Classic will implement Gavin's BIP109 which means that the TPS is going to be around 6-7 (currently it is around 3).


As far as John's BIP109 is concerned:
Quote
Luke-Jr: I don't follow the Specification section. It doesn't appear to be actually doing anything that would improve scaling, and looks to hugely increase node bandwidth requirements and use.


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 12:32:44 PM
 #44

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.
Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.


Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 12:50:51 PM
 #45

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?
You need to gather more data on the current fees and talk in satoshi/byte in order to get a cleared picture. There's no need to discuss 100 TPS right now as that was false information.


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 12:54:55 PM
 #46

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?
You need to gather more data on the current fees and talk in satoshi/byte in order to get a cleared picture. There's no need to discuss 100 TPS right now as that was false information.

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data. Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 12:56:14 PM
 #47

Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?
When did I say that people were using 1 satoshi per transaction? Again, this data is neither relevant nor an accurate way of displaying. If you want to continue, then please use satoshi per byte. This shows you a more accurate picture of how fees are currently used. According to Blockchain.info the total amount of fees is quite higher right now, however one would have to compare the number of transactions per day as well.

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data.
I could say the same. Do not waste time and fix your statement. Classic will not have 100 TPS.


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 02:12:04 PM
 #48

Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?
When did I say that people were using 1 satoshi per transaction?
You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?

If you (or anyone else reading) go to https://blockchain.info/ and click on a random tx on the left, you'll see that pretty much every tx you click includes at least default fee of 0.0001. Again, why do people bother to pay that? Are they stupid and don't know any better? Or maybe, just maybe, triviality of the default fee amount has something to do with that?

Again, this data is neither relevant nor an accurate way of displaying. If you want to continue, then please use satoshi per byte. This shows you a more accurate picture of how fees are currently used. According to Blockchain.info the total amount of fees is quite higher right now, however one would have to compare the number of transactions per day as well.

21.co stats - only ~13% of txs are in 0-10 sat/byte brackets (note that larger sized txs with fee slightly below the default would also be included here). Again, why not 100%, or 90%, or at least 80%? There's still room in the blocks.
blockchain.info - tx fees on long-term uptrend. No comment here.

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data.
I could say the same. Do not waste time and fix your statement. Classic will not have 100 TPS.

What are you on about? Where did I make any statement about 100 TPS? Or any other statement in this thread?

-------------------

I've noticed you have an ugly tendency of derailing subjects whenever you struggle with it (and then complaining about off-top replies you get). So just in case, we're talking about this statement of yours:

Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

shorena
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


ALL escrow is signed! https://keybase.io/verify


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
 #49

I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

Didcotam
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 25


View Profile
February 26, 2016, 06:03:27 PM
 #50

I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

I also prefer a different order. 2MB first as that involves less work and could be done faster. SegWit is too new, too risky.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


GUNBOT Licenses -15% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 06:23:06 PM
 #51

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?
You're being hyperbolic. I never said it would go down a lot, quickly, nor something similar. The average fee will go down, however there is a limit for everything.

There's still room in the blocks.
These days, not that much.

I've noticed you have an ugly tendency of derailing subjects whenever you struggle with it (and then complaining about off-top replies you get)
Mentioning something != derailing thread. I don't waste more time that necessary on people who are unable to do their own research.  Smiley

I also prefer a different order. 2MB first as that involves less work and could be done faster. SegWit is too new, too risky.
Zero evidence that backs up this "too risky".

I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.
Gavin and Toomin have something else in mind, else one would not want to fork Bitcoin with a small group of 'developers' that were mostly inactive in the recent times.


Update: Strange, my bad. Removed this part.


▄██████████████████
███████████████████
███████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████
████████████████
████████████████
█████████████████
███████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀████████████████████
Bazista®
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██

██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
██ █  ██ ██
██   ██  ██
██  ██   ██
██ ██  █ ██
|||
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
February 26, 2016, 08:38:00 PM
 #52

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)
That's pretty redundant.


1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

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.
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428



View Profile WWW
February 26, 2016, 09:02:15 PM
 #53

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)
That's pretty redundant.


1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

It might sound a little more neutral to use the phrasing:

1. Alternative Implementations (that propose a change to the consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that maintain the current consensus)

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
February 26, 2016, 09:05:09 PM
 #54

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)
That's pretty redundant.


1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

It might sound a little more neutral to use the phrasing:

1. Alternative Implementations (that propose a change to the consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that maintain the current consensus)

Sounds good to me.

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.
pawel7777
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
February 28, 2016, 08:58:08 PM
 #55

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?
You're being hyperbolic. I never said it would go down a lot, quickly, nor something similar. The average fee will go down, however there is a limit for everything.
...

> "nobody will pay 0.0001 when blocks aren't full!"
> vast majority of txs with 0.0001 or higher, blocks not full.
> failing to answer simple question twice.
K

What are you on about? Where did I make any statement about 100 TPS? Or any other statement in this thread?
Looks good, BIP 109 promises something like 100 TX/s and we really need that, that gives us something like 60000 transactions per block,
Roll Eyes

> quoting pedrog's statement, implying it's my own.
K

What was the last time you've been outside and breathed some fresh air?

Pages: « 1 2 [3]  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!