Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 08:25:42 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014124 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 10, 2015, 11:42:20 PM
 #28681

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


When 1/7th of all bitcoin is being bought at market and redistributed to miners each year, there is going to be some interesting price action.
They attacker is going to have to print a lot of money to keep up with this.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:23:04 AM
 #28682

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to do transaction add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.

what i'm saying is that even with no limit the pool operators have the ability to pick and choose what tx's go into blocks thus limiting size and they can adjust the minfee that determines the size of their mempools.  all this is based on their own internal proprietary data and analysis of the network along with the feedback they get from user fees.  this should allow them to protect themselves and the network which they have every reason to want to protect since it is their source of profitability and they're not about to screw it up for some spammer.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:32:54 AM
 #28683

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:37:08 AM
 #28684

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far.  there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses.  i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally.  this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards.  no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev.  they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run.  b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:40:36 AM
 #28685

Are you deaf? All they have to do is employ minfee.

Lol, this is how it is working now. If you want to do transaction add you transaction into block then increase fee.

Edit:
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.

My gawd, that one is easy: We want a lot transactional capacity, to make bitcoin useful for many many people. It will clearly work for a few people with 1 MB, proof: it works now, but we want many many-many many many many.

msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:53:54 AM
 #28686

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 03:40:21 AM
 #28687

The human aspect. What will happen (any blocksize really) if a powerful opponent fills the queue with spam transactions with high fee, like 0.01 BTC or even higher? A few million dollars could suffocate the functioning of bitcoin for months. My guess: As such situation is not advantageous for the miners despite the good fee money, they would find the spam transactions using heuristics, then fill blocks say half with spam transaction to take the good money, and half with normal transactions. The attack would be costly for the attacker, reduce the payment functionality to a degree, otherwise bitcoin would continue as always.



It will cost 40 BTC per block,  240 BTC per hour, 5 760 BTC/day,  40 320/week, 161 280/month and 1 935 360/year. ... I'll hold or just pay 0.0101 per transaction :-)


but can't you see that w/o a limit Bitcoin actually could inflict huge economic losses on an attacker that keeps trying or goes too far.  there's a dark, unknown ceiling there for him that could inflict serious losses.  i for one would love to see that happen as it would strengthen miners greatly as well as Bitcoin generally.  this is what we've always wanted for miners; fee income security to replace block rewards.  no amount of block heuristics, rules, limits, or sizes can predict the appropriate amount of "regulation" by core dev.  they need to open up the limit and let free mkt forces run.  b/c Bitcoin is open and honest, it will crush anyone wanting to damage it thru nefarious means.

You are right, but there will always be a limit to capacity somewhere. Even when the physical limit is approched, bitcoin payments will continue to function, due to the above.


yes, we agree.  and nobody knows where that physical limit exists.  but i do know, in a round about way; it is when the miner starts losing money.  and that might be when his orphan rate starts going up or his mempool starts expanding to the point that his users get disrupted. that's where he will back off on making large blocks or will raise his minfee to squelch the bloat of his mempool.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 04:45:28 AM
 #28688

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.


Currently we have a sort of default fee, and the only resource counted is TX size.  The spam consumes also a different resource, the UXTO data set.
To charge for that resource, it might take some sort of incremental fee increase for outputs > inputs?


FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 06:40:51 AM
 #28689

The speculation about "when it starts to hurt the users if fee is raised?" is as old as Bitcoin itself.

Personally I belong to the "not easily" camp. Of course low fee is better than high, but 0.001 would never hurt. 0.01 would be a nuisance and direct smaller amounts transfers to XMR but slowly. 0.1 is still less than international wire transfer fee, and I'd continue using BTC for large/needed transactions only. BTC1 per transfer is a lot, so I would only use it for major transfers.

Percentagewise, <0.1% of the value is insignificant, >1% is hefty.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 11:36:27 AM
 #28690

The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Agreed.  Justus hit it out of the park with that one.

Sigworthy quotes therein:

Quote


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 12:17:04 PM
 #28691

Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again.   Tongue

Quote
Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:



██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:19:23 PM
 #28692

Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again.   Tongue

Quote
Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:



lol, quoting Popescu?  what a joke:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cs3q8/bitcoin_price_rallies_sharply_as_robust/

also, look thru the comments of that link you put.  even large tx's got held up for 12h or so.

Bitcoin is working despite you Cripplecoiners.  we'll never realize Bitcoin's true growth potential until we lift the limit.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:23:04 PM
 #28693

Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again.   Tongue

Quote
Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:



the saddest part of that article is here:

"This is exactly the point and the intent of Bitcoin : to force the poor to yield to the rich, universally, as a matter of course."

Cripplecoiners are going to be worse than our current financial elite.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:24:00 PM
 #28694

i'll be offline for the next 3d camping.  have fun with your new Master "iCEBlow"  et al!
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 01:52:29 PM
 #28695

iCEBREAKER makes 2 posts IN A ROW without ever realizing they espouse mutually incompatible futures for bitcoin.  The first talks about how fees will increase given limited supply of transaction space (block size)  -- a fact that was never in doubt.  And it includes an awesomely honest quote from MP (which others have already commented on) which basically espouses plutocracy -- rule by the rich (although "rule" in this context may be more that the rich do whatever they want and everybody else sucks it up).  

The second post talks about the growth and value of the "underground economy" (of which the black markets are a subset) and how technologies should be focused on it.  However, the underground economy is characterized by lots of small transactions.  The underground economy isn't going to fit in 1 MB, and can't afford high txn fees (please read Hernando De Soto, The mystery of Capital).  The only thing that will fit the 1MB block limit profile are large settlements between banking institutions.

The recent spam was a technical test and succeeded, as far as it went (we did not see the sustained mempool growth we will see when demand is consistently above 100%).  But it was not a social test.  Recently on reddit we are hearing exciting reports of 1000s of new customers (likely operating in the underground economy) getting their first bitcoin ($5 to $10 worth) for backpage advertisements.  

What if the message coming from them had been different?  What if it had been: "This is unusable.  I don't want to pay this $1 (aggregate of a minimum of 3 txns, 1 xfer to wallet, 1 to plausible deniability address, 1 to backpage) fee to get $5 of backpage ads.  And its taking forever to see the bitcoin actually show up in my phone!"



Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again.   Tongue

Quote
Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:



The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Agreed.  Justus hit it out of the park with that one.

Sigworthy quotes therein:

Quote
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 02:41:07 PM
 #28696

The only reason we have to talk about spam is because the resource allocation of network bandwidth and storage isn't handled very well.

Nobody is ever going to agree on what is or is not spam, so a more productive solution is to make whatever changes to the network are needed to ensure that everybody pays for what they use.

Once that condition is achieved, it doesn't matter how many resources people use.

Edit: Agree, and...
Someone just out of nowhere defined what is spam, and entered it into the code. But we have seen earlier, that not all miners care about that. It is really impossible to say, some people need small amounts. It is best that there is no agreement. Again, trust the market, don't fight it. It is natural, it comes from the human in each individual.


Currently we have a sort of default fee, and the only resource counted is TX size.  The spam consumes also a different resource, the UXTO data set.
To charge for that resource, it might take some sort of incremental fee increase for outputs > inputs?



I suppose miners will make up rules that possibly also are based on the amounts. Anyway, whether there is a single rule, or multiple rules among miners, there will always be an element of randomness.

Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
July 11, 2015, 02:41:56 PM
 #28697

Great points Zerg. Crippling bitcoin to 1 mb/10 minutes is insane. I can download 5mb/s and upload 2 mb/s with my casual internet connection. Leaving bitcoin this way, feels like using 3,5" floppy discs when your mother already uses 20gb usb sticks.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 11, 2015, 10:17:48 PM
 #28698

Great points Zerg. Crippling bitcoin to 1 mb/10 minutes is insane. I can download 5mb/s and upload 2 mb/s with my casual internet connection. Leaving bitcoin this way, feels like using 3,5" floppy discs when your mother already uses 20gb usb sticks.

Zerg mercilessly assaulted and battered two strawmen IN A ROW.

First, I never said "the underground economy IS going to fit in 1 MB."  And Zerg is incorrect to blanketly assert System D "can't afford high txn fees."  System D is vast, and while some parts of it are highly efficient, other parts (EG the darknet and off-line sex/drug markets) ALREADY thrive despite exceedingly high transactional friction.  EG, the state often locks System D participants in cages and disputes, having no recourse to law, are sometimes settled with (non-state) violence.

Second strawman: "the only thing that will fit the 1MB block limit profile are large settlements between banking institutions."

Zerg must have been asleep for the past year, enjoying pleasant dreams about 8MB (or 20MB, or 200MB) blocks magically scaling Bitcoin to Visa+gold+fiat TPS levels, while the rest of us learned about and grew to appreciate the potential of sidechains and Lightning.

As for the "honestly awesome" quote, MP is predicting and endorsing a meritocratic future where looters (both rich and poor) may not vote themselves plunder created by the efforts of rich industrialists.  That is completely different from the present plutocracy and crony capitalism Bitcoin was built to undermine and eventually consign to the dustbin of history.  If you don't want the Takers to be prevented from appropriating the economic rewards of the Makers, perhaps Bitcoin isn't as good a fit for you as good old BIS fiat.

The 1MB floppy (OLD, BUSTED, BOOO!1!!) vs 20GB usb (NEW, HAWTNESS, YAAAY!1!!) shtick is at this point itself old and busted.

Maybe Zerg disabled signatures and missed the opportunity to read the latest additions to my own artfully curated collection:

Quote
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralised, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015
Quote
The raison d'etre of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015

The 'stress test' DOS attempt was not a success.  Please, if you are able, cite a tx with a competitive fee that got stuck.

Until such a unicorn is produced, I will side with gmax and quote his scathing quip on the matter of actual reality vs herd-mind consensus:

Quote

Damn, I haven't seen someone get served like ^that^ since Pete Sampras retired!   Cool


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 11, 2015, 10:51:49 PM
 #28699

iCEBREAKER makes 2 posts IN A ROW without ever realizing they espouse mutually incompatible futures for bitcoin.  The first talks about how fees will increase given limited supply of transaction space (block size)  -- a fact that was never in doubt.  And it includes an awesomely honest quote from MP (which others have already commented on) which basically espouses plutocracy -- rule by the rich (although "rule" in this context may be more that the rich do whatever they want and everybody else sucks it up).  

The second post talks about the growth and value of the "underground economy" (of which the black markets are a subset) and how technologies should be focused on it.  However, the underground economy is characterized by lots of small transactions.  The underground economy isn't going to fit in 1 MB, and can't afford high txn fees (please read Hernando De Soto, The mystery of Capital).  The only thing that will fit the 1MB block limit profile are large settlements between banking institutions.

The recent spam was a technical test and succeeded, as far as it went (we did not see the sustained mempool growth we will see when demand is consistently above 100%).  But it was not a social test.  Recently on reddit we are hearing exciting reports of 1000s of new customers (likely operating in the underground economy) getting their first bitcoin ($5 to $10 worth) for backpage advertisements.  

What if the message coming from them had been different?  What if it had been: "This is unusable.  I don't want to pay this $1 (aggregate of a minimum of 3 txns, 1 xfer to wallet, 1 to plausible deniability address, 1 to backpage) fee to get $5 of backpage ads.  And its taking forever to see the bitcoin actually show up in my phone!"



Frappuccino_doc's car insurance is about to go up.

Because the Gavinmobile just got wr3cked, again.   Tongue

Quote
Transaction Fee Market Develops Amid Surge in Transaction Volume
http://qntra.net/2015/07/transaction-fee-market-develops-amid-surge-in-transaction-volume/

The illusion that every coffee might end up on the blockchain has faded [this] week to reveal the glory of a robust, attack and censorship resistant settlement network of actual value.

EDIT: Great minds think alike:



The recent surge in Backpage BTC use proves how spot on Justus was with his Black Market blog post.  Its obvious that BTC will change how we do commerce, no the other way around.

Agreed.  Justus hit it out of the park with that one.

Sigworthy quotes therein:

Quote

I admire how you care about poor africans who cannot afford to pay 0.001BTC for transaction while "you"(your white horse) stole 3,000 BTC into your pocket.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 12, 2015, 02:16:36 AM
 #28700

I admire how you care about poor africans who cannot afford to pay 0.001BTC for transaction while "you"(your white horse) stole 3,000 BTC into your pocket.

?? You're confusing me with Cypherdoc and claims on hashfast?


@iCEBREAKER:  while its true of course that black markets have a high margin and so therefore can handle high transaction fees, my honest hope for Bitcoin is that it allows every person to "be their own bank".  I hope that it is not solely useful as currency of choice for criminal activity due to high transaction fees.  That betrays the promise of crypto-currency (IMHO)

RE: sidechains and Lightning  -- these are vaporware right now, and I have seen too many 100million dollar startups fail due to a great vaporware story.  Products have failed because they promise V2 with all these features, so people choose to wait rather than buy V1.  But if you rewind this thread about 6 months you'll see that I was an avid supporter sidechains and lightning. 

Even if the technical details are a slam-dunk, the organizational details may be problematic.  We don't know if individual companies will be backing these functions and therefore be pressure points and behave just like CoinCafe has done for the completely legal action of posting an ad on Backpage -- that is, block it due to fear of litigation.  There is TREMENDOUS power in a 1-hop (no intermediary) peer to peer network with no "sponsoring" company.  The political pressure attack surface is basically zero.


Its unfortunate that certain people can't see the wisdom of reasonable scaling until we are certain that these issues work themselves out in a manner the protects an individual's inalienable right to property and the transactions that implies.

I'm agreeing with you that the stress test was in general a success.  I mean some people had 12-14 hour txn waits (according to reddit posts), but in theory wallets will now be changed to suggest fees dynamically.  But this was a very static situation -- the spammer was issuing txns at a well known fee so it was easy to outbid him (if you read reddit and knew what was going on, which you know most casual users won't do).  But the the point of the spammer was to fill blocks, NOT to get his txns IN a block.  However, the situation will be VERY different when there is sustained 110% demand by people who need their txns in a block.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 ... 1558 »
  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!