ChartBuddy
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 2364
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 13, 2016, 09:01:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
becoin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3431
Merit: 1233
|
 |
January 13, 2016, 09:27:30 PM |
|
The number of transactions a day is increasing and the blocks are getting fuller.
Good. So, it is time to increase the minimum tx fees. People must understand that they have to compete for blockchain inclusion. The sooner the better! |
|
|
|
|
ErisDiscordia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
|
|
January 13, 2016, 09:36:49 PM |
|
Madness! Chaos! ANARCHY! … Indeed. And full blocks, too! The season of discord is upon us! Soon we shall behold how order arises out of chaos! When I was lead maintainer of Core I had the following top-three priorities:
1) Keep the system secure. 2) Keep the network reliably processing transactions. 3) Eliminate single points of failure. I like that, hehe. Single points of failure gonna get rekt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
pleaseexplainagain
Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
January 13, 2016, 09:45:06 PM |
|
The number of transactions a day is increasing and the blocks are getting fuller.
Good. So, it is time to increase the minimum tx fees. People must understand that they have to compete for blockchain inclusion. The sooner the better! yes I have always failed to understand why it seems to be blasphemous in the bitcoin world to say you should pay for it to work (or pay more for it to work faster for you etc). If I want to send bitcoin to someone i want it to get there reasonably quickly and am prepared to pay more for the time to be shortened. I am old enough to remember when you had a sea mail (overland) and airmail choice at the post office. It worked fine. If people who are running the system that makes the transfer work/secure etc should they not be rewarded? If there is a consensus? that the poor or some other group needs assistance to offset any costs then that should be done by grant/subsidy to them or some other way. It should not be through the system itself. It just creates secondary issues/problems for all |
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 2364
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:01:57 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
rokkyroad
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1090
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:06:07 PM |
|
This is priceless! XT failing should have been the writing on the wall but you gotta give this guy an "A" for asshole stubborn. Me thinks he's lost any and all credibility. |
|
|
|
|
bitebits
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2317
Merit: 3791
Flippin' burgers since 1163.
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:16:21 PM |
|
altcoin round 2...ding ding [https://i.imgur.com/shFV5lV.gif[/img] my altcoin buy walls  I don't understand how your altcoin buy walls supposedly relate to this thread? You said you would not spam the Bitcoin wall observer thread again with your altcoin? |
|
|
|
|
madmat
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:19:04 PM |
|
This is priceless! XT failing should have been the writing on the wall but you gotta give this guy an "A" for asshole stubborn. Me thinks he's lost any and all credibility. You think wrong. Classic is just Core with 2MB blocks and miners already love that. XT is 8MB and other stuff, this is too much for miners just now. |
|
|
|
|
|
a7mos
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:29:34 PM |
|
Why blocks are full today which is not normal !
Is there some kind of small transaction attack and someone wants to prove that block size is small now !!
|
|
|
|
|
JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4200
Merit: 12866
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:44:58 PM |
|
Will Bitcoin ever find a bottom? is crypto done??? Yep.... bitcoin's current situation is so horrible that it is preparing to CRASH..... UP!!!!!  |
|
|
|
|
BitUsher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:55:13 PM |
|
What are people getting behind? There is no BIP, no whitepaper and no code yet .... Why not be reasonable and wait for the details to be released before agreeing to it and supporting it? All I can say right now is I support the idea of multiple implementations and respect some of the people working on that one ... that being said I cannot give an opinion till details are forthcoming. If it doesn't include segwit it is a no starter as well. |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 13, 2016, 10:59:33 PM |
|
What are people getting behind? There is no BIP, no whitepaper and no code yet .... Why not be reasonable and wait for the details to be released before agreeing to it and supporting it? All I can say right now is I support the idea of multiple implementations and respect some of the people working on that one ... that being said I cannot give an opinion till details are forthcoming. If it doesn't include segwit it is a no starter as well. look at you forkers cherry picking one another. |
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2660
Merit: 2364
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:01:59 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitUsher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:03:03 PM |
|
look at you forkers cherry picking one another.
I'm undecided. Are you against Cores soft Fork proposal to increase capacity or are you a "forker" as well ? |
|
|
|
|
oda.krell
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1007
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:09:27 PM |
|
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days. |
|
|
|
|
BitUsher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:12:11 PM |
|
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet. |
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:28:27 PM |
|
Why blocks are full today which is not normal !
Is there some kind of small transaction attack and someone wants to prove that block size is small now !!
It doesn't look like there is any attack. Miners have been filling up blocks more than usual and transactions keep coming in. Mempool doesn't look swamped, nor is it empty. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:30:18 PM |
|
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days. oops I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends... |
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1765
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
January 13, 2016, 11:32:42 PM |
|
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet. How does that differ from the SegWit-based 'roadmap'? |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
