Rupert Murdoch (OP)
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 44
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 04:56:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:01:40 PM |
|
they have an estimate for that already for july, with an extended time frame of one year if there is enough suport
for me it's yes, segwit should be added on top of it, to have even more room
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:03:08 PM |
|
I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:03:42 PM |
|
No. This doesn't leave us with enough time (grace period) in addition to there being uncertainty around the halving. This is not good. The HF should not happen near the halving(s). I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy.
Everyone is important.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:06:18 PM |
|
Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.
You can stop with this useless posts.
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:07:13 PM |
|
I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy.
Everyone is important. Yes, but not equally. Opinion of the person, who has collected 0.001 BTC from faucets for over six month, is not equally important to the person, who is holding 100 BTC for over six month. The later has more vested interest for the success of bitcoin, just like larger holder of hash power. Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.
There is no one in charge. I heard, it is decentralized. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:19:51 PM |
|
Your opinions are irrelevant, people in charge already decided and there's no hard fork and no block size increase.
There is no one in charge. I heard, it is decentralized. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) LOL, right...
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:22:41 PM |
|
The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough. Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:33:36 PM |
|
The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.
Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition. Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem
Satoshi solved it long ago. BlockStream is blocking it now to forcefully raise the Tx fee... It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:35:31 PM |
|
The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough.
Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition. Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem
Satoshi solved it long ago. BlockStream is blocking it now to forcefully raise the Tx fee... It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.
|
|
|
|
ATguy
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:38:02 PM |
|
I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.
True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me. The problem is not solve because we will increase temporarily the block size. Again we will se mining pool to create empty ro 60% empty blocks and again we will have spam attacks. The only good solution will be segwit patch but and this is not enough. Bitcoin because the most popular cryptocrurrency is and the first that need to solve this capacity and spam attack problem
I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.
Give miners ability to create unlimited blocks and no one will complain they just creating 1-5 MB blocks because the fees might be not enought for the risks for the increased orphan rate and losing the base 25 BTC. Increase the fees and they might mine ever slighly bigger blocks if it makes economic sence. True free market at work, you wont find more economically effecient method with artifical limits, central plannig is never more effecient over free market, economy 101.
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:38:39 PM |
|
I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.
I already answered your question, but did not understand that u read only the end and not the middle... Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:40:48 PM |
|
I like to ask how this increase solve the problem when pools will continue create the same block size and with maybe less because they will have less fees? Blocks create every 10 min and this is not a Blockstream evil decision.
I already answered your question, but did not understand that u read only the end and not the middle... Nopes. If one pool mines half filled blocks, while there are enough Tx in the mempool, then another pool will take away those. It is all about money. Pure competition.
Yes but how a pool will take this tx when even and them dont want to create full block because they will face then slow block propagation ? The problem is more complex than a simple increase block size
|
|
|
|
GermanGiant
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:49:19 PM |
|
I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.
True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me. Date Registered: September 17, 2015, 11:08:10 PM Bitcoin address: 16WZ1qpFt4YGwBBatSbrXqEEDcnVQD9mVS (Total Received: 0.05274 BTC) ^^Your currently available details do not qualify you as a true holder, but I assume you have hundreds of BTC in cold storage. In that case also, signing a message offline with your private key does not pose any risk to you. If u think it is, you do not understand cryptography.
|
|
|
|
helloeverybody
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000
★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 05:49:53 PM |
|
Id just rather the blocksize increase sooner rather than later. It seems that bitcoin has been crippled this last while. Certainly doesnt look good to anyone new to bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
ATguy
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 06:02:20 PM |
|
I'm also interested to know holder's opinion. I think, along with miners, holders are also a pillar of the bitcoin economy. Especially, this type of poll offers a chance to almost anyone in the bitcoin economy to participate.
True holders have Bitcoin in cold storage and will not take the risk asociated with this. At least not me. Date Registered: September 17, 2015, 11:08:10 PM Bitcoin address: 16WZ1qpFt4YGwBBatSbrXqEEDcnVQD9mVS (Total Received: 0.05274 BTC) ^^Your currently available details do not qualify you as a true holder, but I assume you have hundreds of BTC in cold storage. In that case also, signing a message offline with your private key does not pose any risk to you. If u think it is, you do not understand cryptography. I preffer not to reveal more financial info than I need to, and yes this is just my address where I receive Bitcoin from signature campaign. Not hundreds of Bitcoins though, not everyone can afford that ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Signing a message with my private key pose a risk for me because I use paper wallets and I dont have secure offline signing solution ready because I dont expect using Bitcoins from my paper wallets any time soon, Im long on these Bitcoins, so all I could is sign my hot walet containing much less ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
|
|
|
Sark
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 06:08:40 PM |
|
Yes.
Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 06:12:36 PM |
|
Yes.
Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.
A 2 MB block size limit does not solve anything. Please don't post nonsense. 1. Id just rather the blocksize increase sooner rather than later. 2. It seems that bitcoin has been crippled this last while. 3. Certainly doesnt look good to anyone new to bitcoin.
1) Your opinion is based on emotion not technical knowledge. 2) Bitcoin is not crippled and is working fine. 3) Stop reading media that tries to spread lies and FUD.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
pedrog
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 06:19:40 PM Last edit: March 01, 2016, 07:44:37 PM by pedrog |
|
Yes.
Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.
Nothing can be done and nothing will be done, we will see the following scenario happening, plan accordingly: WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF BITCOIN BLOCKS ARE AT FULL CAPACITY?
If the blocks reach full capacity before there is a functioning transaction fee market in place, Bitcoin investors will likely see the price drop and may experience difficulty withdrawing their coins from an exchange. Elsewhere in the Bitcoin economy, problems could be much graver: casinos that literally stop functioning, coin mixers screeching to a halt, and coin faucets that run dry.
Faced with these difficulties, entrepreneurs running these services would likely set up working alternatives by moving away from the Bitcoin blockchain. This in turn would make the average block size drop significantly, thus clearing up space for normal transaction confirmation times in the network.
The process of gambling and laundering services moving away from the Bitcoin blockchain could cause a series of rallies in the altcoins (of which we may already be seeing the start). Shared Coin, for example, includes any fees within their transactions so that users can get quick access to their laundered coins. If the block size limit is reached, transaction times will be slower, and these users may switch from Bitcoin to altcoins.
It’s likely that for gambling and mixing, the most liquid altcoins will be those highest in demand: Litecoin, actively traded in at least 17 markets, and Dogecoin, actively traded in at least 7 markets.3 Privacy-oriented coins such as Dash and Monero could see significant rallies. The short history of altcoins suggests that when the most liquid coins rally, the rest are lifted with the tide, resulting in short-lived but strong rallies.
http://adamantresearch.com/reports/sizing_up_the_blocksize_debate.pdf
|
|
|
|
chek2fire
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1142
Intergalactic Conciliator
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
March 01, 2016, 06:32:45 PM |
|
Yes.
Otherwise growth in Bitcoin is essentially capped and will move to other currencies. Speculators will also move on and the price will dip temporarily. This could possibly cause some spiraling issues... lower growth, lower price, higher fees, halved block reward. Bitcoin could lose their first mover and networking effect advantages in that type of situation.
and what is the problem to have many healthy with value blockchain systems? Why you think that one coin will rule them all in this new fintech era?
|
|
|
|
|