Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 08:35:32 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 ... 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 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805683 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:07:37 PM
 #29221

these are really bad signs for the economy in general:







1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
1481142932
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481142932

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481142932
Reply with quote  #2

1481142932
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:08:59 PM
 #29222

all of them have that sick top left to bottom right long term year chart...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:12:41 PM
 #29223

I wonder if the continuing GLD downtrend (with no near or medium-term end in sight) will spur some goldbugs to jump into BTC as they see it rise while their beloved PM falls. Could be one of the many contributing factors in the inevitable coming BULL run.

you mean this POS?  well yeah, that's the whole thrust of this thread for 4y running...:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:14:32 PM
 #29224


Satoshi clearly didn't have a plan to manage the core devs, or even a code of conduct as it seems.  We need a Bitcoin-equivalent Hippocratic Oath for the core devs, as well as a way to tell them to buzz off.  Maybe the Foundation can get to work on that. Tongue 

They signed the Hippocratic Oath equivalent when they joined Blockstream - at least that is what was presented in the media, that they would never hurt bitcoin because of their work contracts.

how effective do you expect them to be when they depend on self determination?  how much does money & stock options affect their decision making?  what does talking with your VC investors everyday do to one's view of the world?  since bigger blocks is a no brainer even for SC's & LN, why the delay/stalling?

and yeah, i asked these very questions a year ago well before the block size debate was a "thing".
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:48:01 PM
 #29225

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 03:56:24 PM
 #29226

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?

It reeks of desperation when you are spinning every story, news and thoughts of yours in some low-level childish "diss".

It'd be nice if this news could get us out of this price funk though!

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:00:11 PM
 #29227

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:07:35 PM
 #29228

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:18:06 PM
 #29229

mining centralization?  what mining centralization?:

bucktotal
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 211


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:26:02 PM
 #29230

cypherdoc,

where are you getting those pool hashrate distribution graphs?

what about these?

https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days
http://blockinfo.org/pools

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:30:00 PM
 #29231

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

i heard a good argument the other day about this.  assuming that there are 1.1MB worth of real tx demand, that means not everyone can fit their tx into the next block and at minimum means 0.1MB worth of tx's have to wait until the next 10 min block to get thru no matter what fee they pay.  is Bitcoin a usable system at that point when some ppl may have to wait 20 min and even much longer if you start extrapolating out real use to say 100MB of real user demand?  also assume these ppl want max security of transacting on the MC.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 04:41:26 PM
 #29232

$DJT deepening it's losses.  $DJI getting dragged down:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:18:30 PM
 #29233

remember that CVX chart i kept putting up?  well, the entire index is now following it down:



world's largest mine:



mining capitol of the world:



Canada, no mining slouch:



cheap food. you'll need it:

Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:23:21 PM
 #29234

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

i heard a good argument the other day about this.  assuming that there are 1.1MB worth of real tx demand, that means not everyone can fit their tx into the next block and at minimum means 0.1MB worth of tx's have to wait until the next 10 min block to get thru no matter what fee they pay.  is Bitcoin a usable system at that point when some ppl may have to wait 20 min and even much longer if you start extrapolating out real use to say 100MB of real user demand?  also assume these ppl want max security of transacting on the MC.

Wouldn't a real 1.1MB transaction demand mean, that at some point fees would escalate an dsome people could not pay for their fee at all, thus locking them out of their own funds ? (Of course the demand will decrease when fees raise, but what happens if not ?)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:27:25 PM
 #29235

BlockCypher on board with bigger blocks.  their analysis corresponds with everything i've been saying (& concepts elucidated by awemany) in this thread about the attack:

Large mempools are awful

The truth is that “the” mempool is a misnomer; every miner and node has its own mempool, with different sizes, policies, and rules. Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Large mempools — relative to block size — are very bad.
Miners and nodes bore the cost

What most don’t realize is the attack was on the miners and nodes validating transactions. When a transaction has been received and validated by the network (but NOT INCLUDED in a block), the cost has already been incurred by the network in sending, validating, and relaying the transactions.
What Next?

Adapt. Upward fee pressure may be inevitable, but it’s important to note that this attack scales linearly with block size. If we had 8MB block size limits, for example, and assuming prior 1–2tps, then the attacker’s transactions would fill 7.5MB of extra transactions instead of 500KB, a full 15x more expensive, on the order of ~$60,000 a day. Still too cheap, but a higher price tag for a prospective malcontent.


https://medium.com/blockcypher-blog/a-bitcoin-spam-attack-post-mortem-s-la-ying-alive-654e914edcf4

Hmmm sorry but that's mischaracterizing the idea behind this article. They are in fact very neutral and make no mention of a preferred position on the matter.

Seems clear the culprit in this whole saga of "network disruption" was misconfigured architecture and apparently inadequate mempool implementations.

Quote
Mix with a Bitcoin core implementation ill-equipped for massive mempools, and you get chaos and uncertainty. A large mempool stresses Bitcoin’s distributed infrastructure and greatly increases the possibility of user confusion when their transactions are randomly dropped.

Evidently the core parameters were not optimized, something they suggest the core devs should concentrate and focus on maybe even before we think about block size. (I am aware there is already progress made toward alleviating this problem)

i heard a good argument the other day about this.  assuming that there are 1.1MB worth of real tx demand, that means not everyone can fit their tx into the next block and at minimum means 0.1MB worth of tx's have to wait until the next 10 min block to get thru no matter what fee they pay.  is Bitcoin a usable system at that point when some ppl may have to wait 20 min and even much longer if you start extrapolating out real use to say 100MB of real user demand?  also assume these ppl want max security of transacting on the MC.

Wouldn't a real 1.1MB transaction demand mean, that at some point fees would escalate an dsome people could not pay for their fee at all, thus locking them out of their own funds ? (Of course the demand will decrease when fees raise, but what happens if not ?)

yes, that's the pt.  it's unworkable for many.  and not just the poor.  i was annoyed the other day having to pay a 0.0002 tx fee to send to someone i did not want to get stuck in the backup of unconf tx's.  but it would get much worse with 1.1MB of real demand plus a spam attack.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:28:29 PM
 #29236

Dow -115
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:37:02 PM
 #29237

iCE, didn't you say you own Hecla?  geez man, you gotta get outta that thing.  once it breaks the red support line, it's lights out:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:42:43 PM
 #29238

oops, gold going negative again.

ah, that sweet smell of deflation.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 05:55:19 PM
 #29239

oops, gold going negative again.

ah, that sweet smell of deflation.

Next jobs claim is gonna be a doozy... lowest claims for unemployment insurance since '74. Look for mickey mouse game to continue with a 300pt rise
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
July 23, 2015, 06:33:35 PM
 #29240

this is an awesome quote:

The technology will be “of fundamental importance to Wall Street,” Nasdaq Chief Executive Officer Bob Greifeld said during a phone interview Thursday. “The benefits to the industry are immense and cannot be ignored.”


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-23/nasdaq-expects-to-be-first-exchange-to-use-bitcoin-technology

you know they're going to want cheap tx fees don't you?

Wall Street is also going to need a tad more than 3 tps as well.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 ... 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!