★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[Jumbley]

A nice post by GigaBit on another thread - note the reference to DGB (not surprising as he has said so much here on this thread from time to time in the past).

DGB Devs take note: please keep up your great work in setting Best Practice standards - you have a wonderful opportunity here to further move DGB into an even more consolidated leadership role.

I voted core...

But I am old school.
I am also a professional miner.
If 20MB blocks go through, I will have to shut my node down entirely and go mine another coin.
In my world, it's the core or nothing at all... whilst I want to remain in Bitcoin, I won't be able to save my earnings and will be auto-sold.
Put more downwards selling pressure on the network... I'm just one miner, though not the only one.
I also never lost a satoshi and been in this business for 3-4 years now.
Then I will transfer the coin leftover to a savings coin... like DigiByte.
If anything, this fork will only hurt Bitcoin but Gavin's skin flute players won't hear anything else.

Not just me who pays for their bandwidth... the entire world is going towards a pay-per-bandwidth model.
At $75 for 20GB, I would need 3 separate internet connections minimum and pay around $400 a month on internet alone for blockchain upkeep.
More wasteful than the power used to power the network...
So instead of making power companies richer, now miners will make ISP's richer too.
Other coins don't force me into the red, why would Bitcoin?  #DestructionOfBitcoinViaFIAT

This means I'll go mine another coin and run THEIR core.
No fucking way I can afford $1,000 of internet when it costs me $75 right now.... just to upkeep the core, fuck that.
I'm, also Canadian, so trying to screw over Chinese miners you fuck over everyone who mines.

To me, the devs are nothing but power trippers looking for something to do, to establish their usefulness.
Gavin's just another thoughtless brain dead liberal trying to play follow the leader.
Just like union cock suckers, no one matters to them but themselves and their skin flute orchestra.

GO USE OTHER COINS!!!  BITCOIN IS TOO FUCKING SLOW!!!!
Then you will see that the Btcoin block size is fine the way it is and that Bitcoin really sucks as a crypto.

well,i'm not a tech guy but if this statement is true..is that the same problem if DGB hard fork to 10MB blockchain?

Well, it depends . . . on whether the 10MB is an upper limit size, or a static block size, but if the big miners were to drop DGB in some unknown future, a 51% attack is not the potential risk like it is with BTC, and, of course, with a potential appreciation target of well over 460,000%, I suspect profitability prospects for DGB will remain solid over the long term and that any increased costs would be seen as acceptable, should there be any (my understanding is that the 10MB is an upper limit that would be reached gradually, just like the 20MB BTC proposal, with the major difference being that the upper limits just might come very fast with BTC, and that with DGB they might come much more slowly since those huge corporate "farmers" might not be as inclined to repeat the process with DGB . . . multi-algo disincentives to go along with things . . .).

@yoyoamigo,

Great link you posted earlier! Lots of great, reliable, and trustworthy information. Between that and the rest that we've posted here, anyone who wants to take the time to read a bit has got a fantastic start at truly understanding just what's involved. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/

Link to the podcast linked in that reddit article (well worth the time and reposted here just in case anyone missed it).
https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/

I like the way GigaBit puts the shits up em but I think you hit the point here, it's a block size limit or that is what I take it to mean or quite frankly it really would be the straw that broke the camels back.  I think transaction fees would probably have to increase considerably with DGB too if it approached this limit so I'm not sure if GigaBit is right or at least I think transaction fees would make up for the additional cost to miners. See this stuff is confusing to nearly everyone, including the oldies. Glad he mentioned DigiByte though!

[24hralttrade]

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11575742#msg11575742

[Jumbley]

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11575742#msg11575742

yes thanks 24.  That's what I was thinking.

[24hralttrade]

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11575742#msg11575742

yes thanks 24.  That's what I was thinking.

Totally missed your post

[Jumbley]

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11575742#msg11575742

yes thanks 24.   That's what I was thinking.

Totally missed your post

Went looking for the horses mouth on this issue and found this for anyone that is interested.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-82-mike-hearn-blocksize-debate-at-the-breaking-point

[EPLDCC]

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11575742#msg11575742

yes thanks 24.   That's what I was thinking.

Totally missed your post

Went looking for the horses mouth on this issue and found this for anyone that is interested.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-82-mike-hearn-blocksize-debate-at-the-breaking-point

Also, here are a couple of threads that people should read ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049340.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7626485#msg7626485

[EPLDCC]

Increasing block size would not increase bandwidth for people mining in pools.  Pools distribute work based on the worker hashrate and difficulty - the blocksize has nothing to do with the distribution of work in the pool.

Actual block size entirely depends on the number of transactions that a block generating node includes in the block.  It could be 20GB.  It could be 0.   In fact, block generation is an issue because badly coded pools will sometimes generate blocks without any transactions.  Currently BTC uses about 40% of the capacity (the capacity is 7 transactions per second - they process about 40% of that).  I'm actually not sure about what percent of the capacity DGB uses?  Our capacity is currently 140 tps.  After the DigiSpeed hardfork the capacity will rise to 5800 tps.  However, neither DGB nor BTC would want the average transactions per second to approach the network capacity.  Evidently that is a very bad thing ... although I'm not smart enough to explain why.  It could hypothetically leave transactions out of blocks.

In theory, increasing the block size could increase the transaction rewards per block - assuming that bigger blocks included more transactions.  However, there is some concern that bigger blocks will lead to certain mining nodes that only include high fee transactions because they want to recoup the necessary bandwidth of hosting the fully validating node.  All that is just sort of hypothetical, lots of people have different theories.  

Increasing block size would impact bandwidth for fully validating nodes (but not SPV nodes) - and, that impact assumes that more transactions are actually included in each block.  

Increasing block size increases transaction capacity.  It does not technically increase transaction speed.  And, transaction capacity is only one variable in network capacity.  The network capacity (transactions per second), is the result of "number of transactions per block" and "average block time."  Some block take longer to solve than other blocks, hence the difficulty retargeting to adjust for block time generation.

Keep in mind that BTC implemented the current blocksize to avoid DOS attacks on the network.  There are security issues that need to be understood as part and parcel of the speed and blocksize.  Because transactions in digital currency use a system of block confirmation and proof of work, faster block times raise issues related to transaction security and orphaned blocks.  I believe that DGB has done a good job with developing security simultaneously with transaction speed.  And, the current work on DigiSpeed - and the fact that Jared and the DGB development team are taking their time to get it right - makes me believe that they continue to work toward ensuring network and transaction security while increasing the capacity and speed.

[MaxDZ8]

Increasing block size would not increase bandwidth for people mining in pools.  Pools distribute work based on the worker hashrate and difficulty - the blocksize has nothing to do with the distribution of work in the pool.

I'd like you to elaborate. As far as I know they just send some new work every time they hook up a new header/block or a new transaction / merkle tree. I cannot see any connection with difficulty.

[tmmapp]

   DigiByte Google+ community! https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/104239346181625643649   

[EPLDCC]

Increasing block size would not increase bandwidth for people mining in pools.  Pools distribute work based on the worker hashrate and difficulty - the blocksize has nothing to do with the distribution of work in the pool.

I'd like you to elaborate. As far as I know they just send some new work every time they hook up a new header/block or a new transaction / merkle tree. I cannot see any connection with difficulty.

Perhaps I put it a bit badly ... I was referring to the pool difficulty setting and not the coin difficulty.  As I understand it, setting your miner to a specific pool difficulty has subtle impacts on the variance of the number of submitted shares.  Obviously, the miner's hashrate has a more direct impact on number of shares submitted (higher hashrate higher number of shares, lower hashrate lower number of shares).  But I am under the impression that pool difficulty setting impacts the number of shares submitted per time period to address variance. 

[MaxDZ8]

Yes indeed, I think I understand the connection you're trying to draw here.

Pool difficulty / share difficulty does indeed cause a different amount of magic numbers to be sent, in theory it does not change the amount of shares generated across time which is always a function of difficulty.
Nonetheless, changing diff does not generate new work and indeed block size does not affect the size of the results.

[HR]

Very interesting read starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.700

Going either backwards or forwards. 

[Sharkzz1]

Tried the Coinomi wallet, it looks great!
But would be nice if it worked, tried to send 10 dgb to test it, it has 100+ confirmations now but still no dgb in the wallet...
http://digiexplorer.info/address/DLBokGjYmtNB97VBZT8dMU7QMA4JpWhNUw
And what does the Unconfirmed Txs balance even mean?

[Allforone]

How has this coin not hit the moon yet 

[yoyoamigo]

Very interesting read starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.700

Going either backwards or forwards.  

indeed. many are still wondering what is causing the MASSIVE PUMP. some say its because of Bushido logging in after not logging in for a long time. now they are suspecting its because of 'RyanPumper'. i have been following this thread for about 2 weeks now. i'm pretty shock and awe by how much it is risen. around May 7th 2015 it was about 2500 sat. now...its nearly x100 of that.  

How has this coin not hit the moon yet  

it hasn't *yet* because the Digibyte Team are in full force with developments and preparations for lift off for Digibyte. The market is getting competitive [i.e. vs other altcoins] and challenging [i.e. Bitcoin's Drama with all the rage about Block size, etc] and perhaps also ready for any 'whales' that tries to pump digibyte's price (not sure if the Digibyte Team has any plans for that). At this stage, we know that cryptocurrency is here to stay ($800 Million have already been invested into the Bitcoin Industry). We need to move out from all the 'S**tcoin', 'Pump & Dump', misconceptions and prove that DigiByte is a true coin to be reckon with.

[doremi]

how many DGB can be mine per day now?

[Ivanech]

how many DGB can be mine per day now?

About 6,600,000 per day.

Block target time is 30 sec., currect reward per block is about 2290 DGB.

[CryptoRaver]

Very interesting read starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.700

Going either backwards or forwards.  

Thanks HR,
Just read the whole thing,This just proves what I already knew,
but this is a pure good example of how it works in crypto unfortunately.



Edit: just removed. it was just free fud

[24hralttrade]

^^ And where did you get this from?

[24hralttrade]

Very interesting read starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.700

Going either backwards or forwards. 

Very intresting indeed but i just cannot figure out why it's pumping this big,Insiders pumping because of news? a x100 is just not natural and there will be allot of bagholders.
The pump is the only thing they talk about right?