wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans

[Labumi]

I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...

How come really?

Either I am writing unclearly, or ...

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

You don't get it, absolutely

You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time, you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about even if SegWit activation is still undecided?

Everything he said is indeed really confusing, because all the existing technologies in the bitcoin only sourced in the mines, so for the issue of the confirmation late because there are indeed some cause they do. and most often done fee that does not fit by the standards that have been recommended or prescribed. So this is all because of human error and not because of technology that works in the bitcoin, if you don't believe then it could prove in the way that suits you

[jbreher]

If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.

Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.

[Carlton Banks]

If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.

Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.

Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?

[jbreher]

If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.

Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.

Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?

What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.

[deisik]

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about

You still don't get it

I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that, really. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?

[jbreher]

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.

Yeah j, exactly what I said, verbatim. As we can all see, lol

100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.

Seeing as you are unable to keep focus for more than a page, allow me to complete the (obvious by implication) thought:

I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately if we are to support continued adoption by direct modification of maxblocksize.

[Carlton Banks]

What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.

I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.

[jbreher]

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about

You still don't get it

I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?

Well, you are the person who initially tied my conversation with Carlton Banks into my conversation with you. You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

[jbreher]

What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.

I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.

Ad hominem, followed by refusal to support, is duly noted.

[Carlton Banks]

What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.

I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.

Ad hominem, followed by refusal to support, is duly noted.

Your trolling is a well known fact. It's not ad hom, when it's the truth.

And answer my question: Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?

[QuestionAuthority]

Don't worry about it jbreher. All he ever does when he's losing an argument is call someone a troll. That's like the pot calling the kettle black (no racial pun intended).





The fact is the unconfirmed transactions just prove Bitcoin is not ready for prime time. That's why it's still in beta after all these years. I suspect the same group of devs are working on Bitcoin that are working on the new forum. They will probably be released from beta at the same time. LOL

[Pattberry]

The fact is the unconfirmed transactions just prove Bitcoin is not ready for prime time. That's why it's still in beta after all these years. I suspect the same group of devs are working on Bitcoin that are working on the new forum. They will probably be released from beta at the same time. LOL

i didnt know that the core software is still in beta phase and i have found no details regarding that even while searching,i thought unconfirmed transactions are present because there is an attack on the network or the miners are avoiding low fees to pass through

[jbreher]

i didnt know that the core software is still in beta phase

0.13.1

I've not seen a recent official declaration (maybe since Gavin's exit?), but FOSS conventions being what they are...

[kiklo]

Small Snip-bit of CB,
broken record. 

Your trolling is a well known fact. It's not ad hom, when it's the truth.

I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.

Kano, your trolling is terrible. You're a disgrace to the technical community for posting this claim.

kiklo is currently trolling Bitcoin every chance there is

Your behaviour only ever has the effect of multiplying the efforts of the trolls that spend all-day every-day trying to ram this nonsense down our throats.

Media needs to troll harder, lol

 

FYI:
CB sees Trolls Everywhere, thinks it normal.  

[babyjesusftw1]

This might just mean a lot more people are using bitcoins and creating transactions, which is a good sign. More people are adopting bitcoin and using it in transactions. Yeah, it's a problem right now, but it's a good problem to have.

[deisik]

I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about

You still don't get it

I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?

Well, you are the person who initially tied my conversation with Carlton Banks into my conversation with you. You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

To begin with, it was not your conversation with Carlton Banks since it was not you (nor was it Carlton Banks) who started this topic on increasing block size to increase the transaction rates. You joined this discussion in pretty much the same way as I did, and in fact, you did it after me, so there is hardly any reason to make it look as if I intervened in your conversation with Carlton Banks. Further, my assumption of the Chinese miners artificially ignoring transactions is in no way relevant to this discussion, nor has it been proven wrong itself (just in case)...

So what's your point really?

[rajasumi2]

maybe it is because of the low minor fee that the people are being able to give .or the miners have being able to solve the issue t all .or it would be difficult for others .kudoos

[QuestionAuthority]

The fact is the unconfirmed transactions just prove Bitcoin is not ready for prime time. That's why it's still in beta after all these years. I suspect the same group of devs are working on Bitcoin that are working on the new forum. They will probably be released from beta at the same time. LOL

i didnt know that the core software is still in beta phase and i have found no details regarding that even while searching,i thought unconfirmed transactions are present because there is an attack on the network or the miners are avoiding low fees to pass through

Yes, it is still listed in Github as in beta. I actually have to give them props for that. They know it's not ready and they list it as such. Gavin Andresen, wherever he is, has said over and over again,  "Bitcoin is an experiment and you shouldn’t invest your life’s savings. You should use it at your own risk.”

Another famous quote from Andresen, "The currency’s value is built almost entirely on speculation, so any indication that the system is less than bulletproof can cause a major price shock".

I am a Bitcoin user. I've mined more Bitcoin in the beginning than most of you will probably ever own. I come off as "Debbie Downer" all the time because I tell the truth. I want people to see what Bitcoin is right now, not what it has the potential to be 40 years from now. I've had lots of friends on this forum and personally that lost lots of money using Bitcoin. It's easy to say "it's not bitcoins fault Mark Karpeles was a crook". While that's technically true, it's also true that he was the only exchange in town for a long time. Bitcoin gave him the opportunity to steal from all of us. While computer security is the individuals fault, Bitcoin having no big bank fraud protections and being used from insecure computers allows stupid people to be ripped off (not that I considered Allinvain stupid).

I just want everyone to know what they're dealing with and accept the risk. That way when you lose your money and go running to mommy government to fix it I can laugh at you. LOL

[jbreher]

So what's your point really?

You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.

[CoinCidental]

I get the feeling segwit will not activate

There is a Chinese pool operator who wanted to bet Greg maxwell 1000 btc yesterday that segwit will not even reach 51% and Greg refused the bet.....

https://m.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5f07m2/gambling_of_1000_bitcoin_segwit_soft_fork_wont/