Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 07:04:46 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: What happens first:
$65,000 - 59 (86.8%)
$48,000 - 9 (13.2%)
Total Voters: 68

Pages: « 1 ... 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 16337 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 16358 16359 16360 16361 16362 16363 [16364] 16365 16366 16367 16368 16369 16370 16371 16372 16373 16374 16375 16376 16377 16378 16379 16380 16381 16382 16383 16384 16385 16386 16387 16388 16389 16390 16391 16392 16393 16394 16395 16396 16397 16398 16399 16400 16401 16402 16403 16404 16405 16406 16407 16408 16409 16410 16411 16412 16413 16414 ... 33205 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 26336874 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (170 posts by 1 users with 9 merit deleted.)
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:22:50 PM

WoW, look at all those fake Nodes popping up at the same time.

Just for clarification - what is a 'fake node'?

Quote
To many Nodes running by a hand-full of people, BU will go bust. Segwitt will prevail!

At least one of those recent BU nodes is mine. I opened up my node to inbound connections last week.

Quote
Segwitt will prevail!

Doesn't appear that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will ever amass the 95% block requirement for activation. What's plan B?
1711695886
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711695886

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711695886
Reply with quote  #2

1711695886
Report to moderator
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711695886
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711695886

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711695886
Reply with quote  #2

1711695886
Report to moderator
1711695886
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711695886

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711695886
Reply with quote  #2

1711695886
Report to moderator
Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1009



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:28:06 PM

I opened up my node to inbound connections last week.

A few months of uploading 500-1000+ GB per month might start to convince you that drastically increasing the amount of data required to keep the network running might not be such a great idea.
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:39:45 PM

Doesn't appear that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will ever amass the 95% block requirement for activation. What's plan B?

Ted E. Bare
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 503


Bear with me


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:44:05 PM

The only question remaining: Do you buy bitcoin before or after $1100? New all time high seems inevitable.
GreekGeek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 577
Merit: 500


Jesus was a (Goddamn) hippy socialist


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:46:31 PM


It's okay to talk about politics, but maybe you guys could try to keep it a bit more directly related to bitcoin?

you mean like this?
Bernie would have won !!!
CCMF

jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 08:53:02 PM

I opened up my node to inbound connections last week.

A few months of uploading 500-1000+ GB per month might start to convince you that drastically increasing the amount of data required to keep the network running might not be such a great idea.

Perhaps. For the last several years, however, I've hardly noticed the presence. Typically fully opened, sometimes outbound only, sometimes running multiple nodes (production, development, test, core, classic, xt, bu)- not an issue. If it ever gets to be a strain, I'll throttle back from fully promiscuous (at the moment, I have 63 inbound connections) to something lower.

IOW: I can keep it up longer than you can hold your breath. Certainly long enough to resolve the current scaling solution impasse, AAR.
HanvanBitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 09:01:54 PM

The only question remaining: Do you buy bitcoin before or after $1100? New all time high seems inevitable.

I was Lucky enough to get in the bitcoin train again at the last dip @ 971$ a week ago  Grin
r0ach
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 09:24:06 PM

I was Lucky enough to get in the bitcoin train again at the last dip @ 971$ a week ago  Grin

Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1009



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 09:30:35 PM

Perhaps. For the last several years, however, I've hardly noticed the presence. Typically fully opened, sometimes outbound only, sometimes running multiple nodes (production, development, test, core, classic, xt, bu)- not an issue. If it ever gets to be a strain, I'll throttle back from fully promiscuous (at the moment, I have 63 inbound connections) to something lower.

I've had a different experience, possibly because I've been running a full node non-stop since 2011 (maybe more nodes have mine in their peers list)?

At some point last year (maybe 2 years ago) my node was saturating my upload to the point where normal web browsing would not function smoothly. I had to reduce max connections (to around 20) in order to continue supporting the network. I guess a gimped node is better than none at all.

Eventually, I upgraded my internet from top tier cable to top tier fiber. Now I'm back to non-gimped mode. I have the best possible home internet available in my area, and it's not cheap.

Yet, this is all with the 1 MB limit in place. Just recently, in a different thread, PeterR pointed out that he had his BU node set to accept 16 MB blocks today! I'm of the opinion that if you build it, they will come, meaning it will not take long for those blocks to be full of no-fee-paying transactions, for whatever purpose someone happens to come up with. If that would be the case, there is no way my home internet could possibly do much more than a few connections at a time. I, personally, believe this would lead to a lot of people to refuse incoming connections entirely. If a Bitcoin fanatic like myself can't afford to run a full (non-gimped) node, well there will probably be a steep drop in available nodes. I don't think this is the direction we want to be going at this point in the experiment.

We have r0ach telling us that governments are going to co-opt Bitcoin, and while I argue that Bitcoin will be able to survive such attempts, if we start eroding decentralization of the network from inside, he could be right.

I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm 100% correct and big blockers are 100% wrong. I always say that I simply prefer to err on the side of decentralization. It's obvious to me that increasing the traffic required to keep the network running does harm decentralization to some degree.

On a side note, I typically have over 100 connections, and I ban anything that isn't Core .12 or newer. Meaning, I'm feeding lots of block chain data to full nodes as opposed to whatever the countless bitcoinj connections are asking for.

IOW: I can keep it up longer than you can hold your breath. Certainly long enough to resolve the current scaling solution impasse, AAR.

You mean the impasse that is 3-4 years old now? Heh, a lot can happen in that amount of time.
JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 4355


You're never too old to think young.


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 10:00:08 PM

Just for clarification - what is a 'fake node'?

Kinda like a "so-called" president with a "fake" administration?

 Tongue
greenlion
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 667
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 17, 2017, 10:08:10 PM

At some point last year (maybe 2 years ago) my node was saturating my upload to the point where normal web browsing would not function smoothly. I had to reduce max connections (to around 20) in order to continue supporting the network. I guess a gimped node is better than none at all.

I'm not sure your concept of "gimped" makes any sense.

20 inbound connections is enough to broadcast to the entire network and then some in 3 hops.

Why is it "gimped" to not completely saturate your uplink 24/7 without any QoS measures in place?
Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1009



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 10:17:21 PM

At some point last year (maybe 2 years ago) my node was saturating my upload to the point where normal web browsing would not function smoothly. I had to reduce max connections (to around 20) in order to continue supporting the network. I guess a gimped node is better than none at all.

I'm not sure your concept of "gimped" makes any sense.

20 inbound connections is enough to broadcast to the entire network and then some in 3 hops.

Why is it "gimped" to not completely saturate your uplink 24/7 without any QoS measures in place?

There are people who want historical block chain data. My node is either available to provide it to them or it isn't.

I'm either doing more to strengthen the network or doing less to strengthen the network.

It may not seem important when there are thousands of other nodes capable of doing the job... but that's kind of my point.
abercrombie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1159
Merit: 1001



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 10:18:06 PM

are we rich yet??   Shocked

pinger
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1001


Bitcoin - Resistance is futile


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2017, 10:57:26 PM

are we rich yet??   Shocked



Still poor here. What about there?
spiderbrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 889
Merit: 1013



View Profile
February 17, 2017, 11:00:44 PM

I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm 100% correct and big blockers are 100% wrong. I always say that I simply prefer to err on the side of decentralization. It's obvious to me that increasing the traffic required to keep the network running does harm decentralization to some degree.
Just want to say it's great to see you active on here after a long break. All very reasonable, surprising in the block size debate Smiley
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
February 18, 2017, 12:19:25 AM

Just recently, in a different thread, PeterR pointed out that he had his BU node set to accept 16 MB blocks today!

I'm guessing he was referring to the EB parameter - Excessive Block - which is the limit at which your BU node will provisionally (i.e., up to the AD - Acceptance Depth) accept as a provisionally admissible blockchain tip. For reasons (heh), BU defaults that parameter to 16MB. However, it is just a GUI setting to change it. I have mine set to 2MB.

Quote
I'm of the opinion that if you build it, they will come, meaning it will not take long for those blocks to be full of no-fee-paying transactions, for whatever purpose someone happens to come up with. If that would be the case, there is no way my home internet could possibly do much more than a few connections at a time.

I understand that concern. However, I think we will never again see an era of miners accepting zero-fee transactions as they have done in the past. Bear in mind that each additional byte that a miner includes in a block is a real cost to that miner, in the form of a larger probability of his block (if indeed that miner solves that round) being orphaned. Bigger block, more likely to be orphaned. This is where some of us believe the proper market forces should operate to set block size - not some central planning edict from the devs.

Quote
I, personally, believe this would lead to a lot of people to refuse incoming connections entirely. If a Bitcoin fanatic like myself can't afford to run a full (non-gimped) node, well there will probably be a steep drop in available nodes. I don't think this is the direction we want to be going at this point in the experiment.

I understand that too. Indeed, all things being equal, more nodes is better than less nodes. Couple of points to consider:

- BU does not necessarily lead to larger blocks. I believe it likely will, but it may not. What it does is make it easy for each user to signal his preferences and set his limits. Inasmuch as Bitcoin operates _at_all_ because it harnesses the interests of its participants to 'do right', we believe the participants are the correct parties to determine the maxblocksize.

- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows 4MB blocks as well. Perhaps you do not support The SegWit Omnibus Changeset either, but it does bear mentioning.

- In the meantime, Bitcoin -- at 1MB blocks -- is hard-capped at ~250,000 transactions per day. Period. The consequences of this could rationally be argued to be constraining new entrants into the system. (Indeed, I would say it is obvious that it does, but grant that others may have a differing opinion.) The pool of node operators is a self-selected subset of Bitcoiners. If we prevent new Bitcoiners from entering the system, the potential population from which node operators are selected cannot grow. Many of us think it likely that some percentage of new entrants will start up nodes. So increasing block size may actually result in more operational full nodes.

Quote
It's obvious to me that increasing the traffic required to keep the network running does harm decentralization to some degree.

As stated immediately above, I don't believe that is a foregone conclusion.

Quote
IOW: I can keep it up longer than you can hold your breath. Certainly long enough to resolve the current scaling solution impasse, AAR.

You mean the impasse that is 3-4 years old now? Heh, a lot can happen in that amount of time.

Yes, that's the one. Years ago, I shouted down bitcoin disbelievers telling them that 'of course the block size will be increased by the time they get full'. I didn't dream that there would be others who would resist this idea. Mea culpa.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 18, 2017, 01:09:21 AM

- In the meantime, Bitcoin -- at 1MB blocks -- is hard-capped at ~250,000 transactions per day. Period. The consequences of this could rationally be argued to be constraining new entrants into the system. (Indeed, I would say it is obvious that it does, but grant that others may have a differing opinion.) The pool of node operators is a self-selected subset of Bitcoiners. If we prevent new Bitcoiners from entering the system, the potential population from which node operators are selected cannot grow. Many of us think it likely that some percentage of new entrants will start up nodes. So increasing block size may actually result in more operational full nodes.

This is a key point.  More people being able to use the bitcoin network will be a decentralizing force.  Really, the debate is about which force is stronger... nodes dropping out from extra bandwidth or new nodes because of new users.  If the percentage of users running a full node drops from 5% to 2.5%, but we double our user base, we have the same level of decentralization.  Since increase in bandwidth and storage are generally better than linear, I would expect that increasing usage and thus resource requirements would result in a sublinear increase in node operations costs.  If you can have X bandwidth for $Y, you can probably have 10X bandwidth for $2Y.

You might argue that increasing blocksize will result in more transactions of less value, but changing blocksize has 0 influence on the miners' cost to include the transaction in a block.  There is always a cost due to orphan risk, long term storage, and UTXO bloat.  Blocksize doesn't change any of that.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3668
Merit: 10064


Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"


View Profile
February 18, 2017, 01:54:30 AM

WoW, look at all those fake Nodes popping up at the same time.

Just for clarification - what is a 'fake node'?

Quote
To many Nodes running by a hand-full of people, BU will go bust. Segwitt will prevail!

At least one of those recent BU nodes is mine. I opened up my node to inbound connections last week.

Quote
Segwitt will prevail!

Doesn't appear that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will ever amass the 95% block requirement for activation. What's plan B?


Look at you provocative. 

Bitcoin is not broken, so even if segwit is not activated, bitcoin will be o.k.

Sure, seg wit is the better and the best solution, but if people do not want it and if they are not ready, then bitcoin just stays as is, no, which is also o.k... .. not as good as with seg wit, but better than no bitcoin at all.  hahahaha.
Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1009



View Profile
February 18, 2017, 02:49:00 AM

I'm guessing he was referring to the EB parameter - Excessive Block - which is the limit at which your BU node will provisionally (i.e., up to the AD - Acceptance Depth) accept as a provisionally admissible blockchain tip. For reasons (heh), BU defaults that parameter to 16MB. However, it is just a GUI setting to change it. I have mine set to 2MB.

Dunno, he just said "permits".

I understand that concern. However, I think we will never again see an era of miners accepting zero-fee transactions as they have done in the past. Bear in mind that each additional byte that a miner includes in a block is a real cost to that miner, in the form of a larger probability of his block (if indeed that miner solves that round) being orphaned. Bigger block, more likely to be orphaned. This is where some of us believe the proper market forces should operate to set block size - not some central planning edict from the devs.

It's certainly an optimistic view. I haven't mined in a while (never trusted pre-pay ASIC vendors), but when I did, miners were mostly morons who would happily pay a pool a fee in order to avoid variance while they could mine on a smaller, lower fee (or even no fee) pool and earn more. Maybe they've wised up since you actually have to shell out semi-serious money to be a miner these days. Wasn't it just recently (a year or so) when some large pool was having it's blocks orphaned from some SPV related mining method? Anyway, I'd assume miners to act in their rational self-interests, so there is that.

I would also argue that choosing to run software which limits the block size to 1 MB is not "central planning", but proper market forces choosing that parameter much in the same way they agree to the 21 million coin limit.

I understand that too. Indeed, all things being equal, more nodes is better than less nodes. Couple of points to consider:

- BU does not necessarily lead to larger blocks. I believe it likely will, but it may not. What it does is make it easy for each user to signal his preferences and set his limits. Inasmuch as Bitcoin operates _at_all_ because it harnesses the interests of its participants to 'do right', we believe the participants are the correct parties to determine the maxblocksize.

I'm fairly certain that BU would lead to larger blocks. It seems to be the primary reason for it's existence. As far as participants choosing the maxblocksize, ultimately they will, but with the only metric that matters, their wallet.

- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows 4MB blocks as well. Perhaps you do not support The SegWit Omnibus Changeset either, but it does bear mentioning.

4 MB seems huge to me and it might be a strong reason why SegWit isn't gaining acceptance as fast as it otherwise might.

- In the meantime, Bitcoin -- at 1MB blocks -- is hard-capped at ~250,000 transactions per day. Period. The consequences of this could rationally be argued to be constraining new entrants into the system. (Indeed, I would say it is obvious that it does, but grant that others may have a differing opinion.) The pool of node operators is a self-selected subset of Bitcoiners. If we prevent new Bitcoiners from entering the system, the potential population from which node operators are selected cannot grow. Many of us think it likely that some percentage of new entrants will start up nodes. So increasing block size may actually result in more operational full nodes.

When I read a new thread about "slow confirmation" or "expensive transaction fees", I see most people complaining about the inability to send low value transactions, with tiny fees, and have them confirm rapidly. If these are the kind of "new" users we hope to acquire by increasing the block size, I have my doubts that many of them would be interested in the extra expenses incurred from running a full node (especially if the bandwidth requirements are further increased). Maybe I'm wrong.

I run a full node because I am extremely interested in the freedom Bitcoin can provide and I want to do my part to support the health of the network. Censorship-proof transactions along with a seize-proof store of value is immensely important in today's world of ever increasing capital controls, not to mention the escalating war on cash. I don't transact with Bitcoin that often. I certainly don't think that "buying a coffee at Starbucks" is a brilliant use case for Bitcoin.

I say it all the time, but it bears repeating: Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

The people complaining about confirmation time or fees seem to want to use Bitcoin for common, everyday purchases and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Bitcoin is far too powerful a tool for our mundane, daily purchases, especially considering the real resources that are required for block chain upkeep and maintenance. Who is more interested in the basically altruistic act of running a full node, the guy who wants unfettered transfer of value between individuals, or the guy paying for his carrots at the grocery store? Maybe you are right and some of those new people will become fanatics like me, but I just don't see it.

I'm not arguing that we should artificially limit the transaction capacity of Bitcoin. I just think we should increase it intelligently, in a way that doesn't just cram more data into the permanent ledger which every full node must keep a copy of forever. Perhaps the reason an increase hasn't happened already is because there is no good solution yet.
orpington
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 512



View Profile
February 18, 2017, 02:58:33 AM

Just for clarification - what is a 'fake node'?

Kinda like a "so-called" president with a "fake" administration?

 Tongue

Isn't it CNN running FAKE Nodes?
Pages: « 1 ... 16314 16315 16316 16317 16318 16319 16320 16321 16322 16323 16324 16325 16326 16327 16328 16329 16330 16331 16332 16333 16334 16335 16336 16337 16338 16339 16340 16341 16342 16343 16344 16345 16346 16347 16348 16349 16350 16351 16352 16353 16354 16355 16356 16357 16358 16359 16360 16361 16362 16363 [16364] 16365 16366 16367 16368 16369 16370 16371 16372 16373 16374 16375 16376 16377 16378 16379 16380 16381 16382 16383 16384 16385 16386 16387 16388 16389 16390 16391 16392 16393 16394 16395 16396 16397 16398 16399 16400 16401 16402 16403 16404 16405 16406 16407 16408 16409 16410 16411 16412 16413 16414 ... 33205 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!