Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:19:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 [1391] 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805130 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:06:19 PM
 #27801

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:



Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.
1481041172
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041172

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041172
Reply with quote  #2

1481041172
Report to moderator
1481041172
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041172

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041172
Reply with quote  #2

1481041172
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:14:14 PM
 #27802

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:



any chances of an on going stress test ?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:16:18 PM
 #27803

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:18:05 PM
 #27804

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:



Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

So they switch back to working on a full block if they aren't able to solve the block header in the time it takes to fully process everything?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:21:33 PM
 #27805

dammit.  here we go again upon just checking.  unconf tx's over 7000:



any chances of an on going stress test ?

i doubt it as yesterday's scheduled test didn't conform to it's stated plan.  

and really, does it matter?  how can you tell in most circumstances unless spam tx's are coming from a single address?  and if the tx's are paying the regular fees, which they are, who cares?  the miners will make hay and be more profitable.  actually, i do care b/c that means ordinary users that might square the network effect (Metcalfe) wanting in from places like Greece might not be able to get in.  yes, the 1MB'ers will say that they're just coming in thru places like Coinbase, which they are, but i'd counter argue that in the medium to long run Coinbase has to buy supply from the mainchain to keep their reserves high.  so it does feed through.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:22:59 PM
 #27806

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:



Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

So they switch back to working on a full block if they aren't able to solve the block header in the time it takes to fully process everything?

yep.  and that makes sense b/c they want not only the reward but the fees if they can get them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:26:50 PM
 #27807

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:36:52 PM
 #27808

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:46:02 PM
 #27809

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner. 

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

well, let's hope so.

i believe the confliction runs deep with those guys.  i mean, their careers are on the line if they ever want any more investment money.  that's just the way these things work.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:46:42 PM
 #27810

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:49:22 PM
 #27811

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.

what pain?  the BS guys have withstood an onslaught of adverse community opinion and afaic they aren't backing down.  they have a fiduciary responsibility to make either or both of their products, SC's or LN, work.  and with gmax at the helm issuing orders, i don't see how any of the other guys break away.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 814


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:51:46 PM
 #27812

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

Indeed. Theory is theory, lips will flap endlessly while they can. First sign of pain, opinion will go way lopsided.

what pain?  the BS guys have withstood an onslaught of adverse community opinion and afaic they aren't backing down.  they have a fiduciary responsibility to make either or both of their products, SC's or LN, work.  and with gmax at the helm issuing orders, i don't see how any of the other guys break away.

We don't need them for every one else to realize what we need to do to fix the network immediately if it breaks. XT may get some very quick uptake.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 03:52:18 PM
 #27813

Pain = Actual major problems in the network, heavy complaints from users, use cases hindered, and most importantly a stalled rally where blocksize gets the blame.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:00:22 PM
 #27814

...
that shows us one other thing.  if blocks continue to get filled and inaccessible, then ordinary citizens at far ends of the Earth will not be able to buy Bitcoin when they need to.  sure, Greece isn't technically a 3rd world country but it's more towards that end of the spectrum nowadays than a developed country.

i spent all day watching blocks sizes and degree of fullness.  there was filling going on all day long with TPS bursting to 30TPS many times throughout the day as well as unconf tx's doubling even tripling.  2.3 TPS is the threshold for when the network starts having problems.

Ya, I told a Greek friend of mine that he might be able to preserve some of his lifes savings and transfer it in spite of the capital controls.  When I told him that the fees might be higher than about a penny, and he might have to wait for more than the next block, he said "No thanks.  I'll just kiss the 100k euro away.  The bankers need it more than I do."  Gosh foreigners are weird.

bottomline is, there will be much more demand coming from all over the world in quite near times to come.  Bitcoin has to be ready to scale.  Any forward looking person who understands business knows to look forward and prepare.  the fastest, simplest, most predictable, most easily understood way to do that is to increase the block size now.

Easiest to to let Google run Bitcoin as they do for email.  I'd probably still run my own mail server and have some modicum of privacy if it were not for the thousands of spams I get per day and the constant hassle of keeping my filters up-to-date and stuff.


rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:04:53 PM
 #27815

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner.  

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees).

Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:13:45 PM
 #27816

what's interesting to me is that all these full blocks that have been coming more frequently and consecutively have not caused any block delays.  that is good news b/c there are some who thought that as we filled the 1MB limit, there might be delays and have pointed to just this mechanism in the past when we've had such delays.  so we know 1MB blocks don't slow down the network.  so just how high can we push this limit w/o breaking it?

what's also really interesting is that currently, i'm not seeing any 0 tx defensive blocks being mined.  maybe the Chinese miners are figuring out that it's not necessary.  that's more good news b/c we want them munching as many tx's as possible in a consistent manner.  

and that's good news b/c they are probably figuring out that a block size increase can't hurt them if done in a "safe" way, whatever that means.

I think that if we see blocks fill up and the network starts functioning poorly, we are going to see a change pushed out far quicker then any of us ever imagined.

As of 12:03pm eastern time blockchain.info is reporting 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions and 1.95BTC in fees (mostly from minimum fees).

Is there another stress test going on? Or did a bunch of guys decide to flood the network to push for larger blocks...

or maybe Greeks, Europeans, gold, & stock mkt investors are running to Bitcoin?  we don't know.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:14:07 PM
 #27817

It remains to be seen whether people and wallets will start including additional fees to get quick confirmation during the ongoing stress tests, and whether miners will start posting fee schedules, etc. Despite being for a blocksize limit increase/removal, it's undeniable that there is still a lot of space in blocks at only slightly higher fees if the market rationalizes in time. There will be an interesting interplay as blockspace fills up, especially if these stress tests continue. If the fee market rationalizes, this could become a very protracted debate because the small-blockers will gain ground or at least stop the bleeding for long enough to regroup and launch some intellectual counterattack.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:20:04 PM
 #27818

this is beautiful.  i continue to NOT hear any news about a rush to gold:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/06/30/online-payments-halted-in-greece-citizens-eye-bitcoin-to-protect-savings/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:32:05 PM
 #27819

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing.  this is what we've theorized about for years.  the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it.  right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

also, gold can't possibly act fast enough to compete with Bitcoin.

Dow gone negative, uh oh.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
 #27820


I going to say the majority of Europeans have been successfully brainwashed, so as to not even consider Gold as an option. In the fiat we trust.
Pages: « 1 ... 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 [1391] 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!