Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
|
|
April 22, 2016, 05:42:06 AM Last edit: April 30, 2016, 02:17:21 PM by Amph |
|
Is there a risk that only large corporations will be able to process BTC blockchain meaning that they will be the only mining facilities and thus imposing their transaction fee price?
imposing high fee would also ruin merchants business, because they will pay more for their transaction, and since merchants have a great position, i would say the chances are slim
|
|
|
|
fred21 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 29
|
|
April 22, 2016, 05:57:04 PM |
|
what is LN to solve blockchain capacity issue?
|
|
|
|
luciann
|
|
April 22, 2016, 07:06:45 PM |
|
Just know eventually, the 1 MB model scale is going to be forced to be bumped up.
If bitcoin wants daily transactions to happen when there are growing pains, its forced to be more then 1mb.
|
|
|
|
|
fred21 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 29
|
|
April 24, 2016, 06:14:06 PM |
|
what I don't get is that if you receive 2 BTC and then 3 BTC on 2 different transactions, They won't merge into 5 BTC but will remain as 2 separate value in your wallet. (as explained here : http://bitcoinfees.com/) However, when I send 5 BTC and choose to send those 2 separate amounts (2BTC and 3 BTC) via a single transaction, THEN they will merge as a single amount of 5 BTC in the receiving wallet. is that right?
|
|
|
|
shorena
Copper Member
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1540
No I dont escrow anymore.
|
|
April 24, 2016, 08:36:34 PM |
|
what I don't get is that if you receive 2 BTC and then 3 BTC on 2 different transactions, They won't merge into 5 BTC but will remain as 2 separate value in your wallet. (as explained here : http://bitcoinfees.com/) However, when I send 5 BTC and choose to send those 2 separate amounts (2BTC and 3 BTC) via a single transaction, THEN they will merge as a single amount of 5 BTC in the receiving wallet. is that right? No, if you create two different outputs they are two different outputs even if they go to the same address. Its a bit of an arsehole move, you could even send someone 2 BTC in 0.001 BTC outputs each. Its a bit like paying a large bill in 1 cent pieces. Most wallets will not do this though, youd have to create a TX by hand or somehow force non-default behaviour for the wallet.
|
Im not really here, its just your imagination.
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 3402
|
|
April 24, 2016, 08:47:34 PM |
|
what I don't get is that if you receive 2 BTC and then 3 BTC on 2 different transactions, They won't merge into 5 BTC but will remain as 2 separate value in your wallet. (as explained here : http://bitcoinfees.com/) However, when I send 5 BTC and choose to send those 2 separate amounts (2BTC and 3 BTC) via a single transaction, THEN they will merge as a single amount of 5 BTC in the receiving wallet. is that right? The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally, but it is possible to do it differently, as Shorena pointed out.
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
fred21 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 29
|
|
April 29, 2016, 06:39:16 PM |
|
what I don't get is that if you receive 2 BTC and then 3 BTC on 2 different transactions, They won't merge into 5 BTC but will remain as 2 separate value in your wallet. (as explained here : http://bitcoinfees.com/) However, when I send 5 BTC and choose to send those 2 separate amounts (2BTC and 3 BTC) via a single transaction, THEN they will merge as a single amount of 5 BTC in the receiving wallet. is that right? The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally, but it is possible to do it differently, as Shorena pointed out. when odolvlobo says "The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally" does it mean that the 2 BTC and the 3 BTC sent together as 5 BTC will reach an other wallet as a single entity (5 BTC entity). right or not?
|
|
|
|
achow101
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3542
Merit: 6885
Just writing some code
|
|
April 29, 2016, 07:15:17 PM |
|
what I don't get is that if you receive 2 BTC and then 3 BTC on 2 different transactions, They won't merge into 5 BTC but will remain as 2 separate value in your wallet. (as explained here : http://bitcoinfees.com/) However, when I send 5 BTC and choose to send those 2 separate amounts (2BTC and 3 BTC) via a single transaction, THEN they will merge as a single amount of 5 BTC in the receiving wallet. is that right? The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally, but it is possible to do it differently, as Shorena pointed out. when odolvlobo says "The separate 2 and 3 BTC amounts would be combined when sent normally" does it mean that the 2 BTC and the 3 BTC sent together as 5 BTC will reach an other wallet as a single entity (5 BTC entity). right or not? Yes, if you create a transaction which spends from those two outputs to a single output, that output can have a value of at most 5 BTC.
|
|
|
|
garmerys
|
|
April 30, 2016, 01:02:34 PM |
|
Is there a risk that only large corporations will be able to process BTC blockchain meaning that they will be the only mining facilities and thus imposing their transaction fee price?
imposing high fee would also ruine merchants business, because they will pay more for their transaction, and since merchants have a great position, i would say the chances are slim More the fees, less popular the currecny
|
|
|
|
streazight
|
|
April 30, 2016, 04:49:56 PM |
|
Is there a risk that only large corporations will be able to process BTC blockchain meaning that they will be the only mining facilities and thus imposing their transaction fee price?
imposing high fee would also ruin merchants business, because they will pay more for their transaction, and since merchants have a great position, i would say the chances are slim imposing high fee would not help the bitcoins users. We have to come up with some other methods
|
|
|
|
fred21 (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 29
|
|
May 01, 2016, 10:25:37 PM |
|
I still have problem understanding how blocks build up.
At a time there is only one block generating. Then transactions are accumulating in that block. then when block reach 1 mb, block is attributed to one miner who gets the subsidies and the transaction fees related to that block. am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
achow101
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3542
Merit: 6885
Just writing some code
|
|
May 01, 2016, 10:43:56 PM |
|
I still have problem understanding how blocks build up.
At a time there is only one block generating. Then transactions are accumulating in that block. then when block reach 1 mb, block is attributed to one miner who gets the subsidies and the transaction fees related to that block. am I missing something?
No, that is not how blocks are generated. A miner creates a block, full of however many transactions they decide to include. This block, when sent to every other node on the network, must be checked for validity. Part of that check is the size. The block is currently not allowed to be larger than 1 Mb. If it is, a node running current consensus rules will reject the block.
|
|
|
|
odolvlobo
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4494
Merit: 3402
|
|
May 01, 2016, 11:13:27 PM |
|
I still have problem understanding how blocks build up.
At a time there is only one block generating. Then transactions are accumulating in that block. then when block reach 1 mb, block is attributed to one miner who gets the subsidies and the transaction fees related to that block. am I missing something?
Here is how it works: Each miner assembles some number of unconfirmed transactions into a block (up to 1 MB), and then tries to add that block to the block chain. While each miner is trying to add their block, more unconfirmed transactions come in and the miner may or may not include them in their block. Once a winning block is added, the losing miners throw out their unsuccessful attempt, plus the transactions that were in the winning block, and start over.
|
Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns. PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
|
|
|
|