Bitcoin Forum
May 21, 2024, 12:11:05 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Is it just me, or does this chart look too uniform?  (Read 1730 times)
CoinDiver
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 778
Merit: 1002


View Profile
August 01, 2014, 05:44:44 PM
 #21

Crying about greed doesn't fix anything. The miners need some incentive. Your retail example is entirely bogus too. You're ignoring how the business is subsidised by the government just for having it's doors open, without regard for actually servicing customers. How many days of customers does it take to offset a missed handout from the govt?

http://mises.org/daily/3229
BTC:1PEyEKyVZgUvV4moXvCD5rQN21QETGPpLc
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079


Gerald Davis


View Profile
August 01, 2014, 06:05:04 PM
 #22

Crying about greed doesn't fix anything. The miners need some incentive. Your retail example is entirely bogus too. You're ignoring how the business is subsidised by the government just for having it's doors open, without regard for actually servicing customers. How many days of customers does it take to offset a missed handout from the govt?

Imagine there is a game called "miners choice" where the contestant can pick from one of three options:
a) Have a 99% chance of receiving 25 BTC and a 1% chance of receiving 0 BTC.
b) Have a 98% chance of receiving 25 BTC and a 2% chance of receiving 0 BTC.
c) Have a 98% chance of receiving 26 BTC and a 2% chance of receiving 0 BTC.
Which do you pick?

Instead of ranting there are three things which would encourage larger blocks
1) A lower subsidy. That will happen automatically in about two years
2) More paying txns (where the fee is greater than the miners anticipated orphan cost).
3) A shorter propagation delay (change message for blocks to send hashes of txns only to reduce the block transmission size).




jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
August 01, 2014, 10:00:07 PM
 #23

... mining pools block transactions.

Mining pools don't block transactions - they merely choose to include less than all the transactions available. All these transactions are still broadcast throughout the network.

Quote
some pools, due to the lying and stupid excuse of saying its to reduce orphaned blocks.

'Lying'? 'Stupid'? Can you cite such a lie? My understanding is that they are acting to maximize their profits, under the current rules of the system. In what way is this 'stupid'?

Perhaps you should get working on your alt that solves the bootstrapping problem in another manner - that satisfies your own personal sense of justice.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
Bitcoin Hitter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 01, 2014, 10:04:23 PM
 #24

thats normal from server for script give same . Maybe just different % at the moment
And the liat will show it. I will update later
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
August 02, 2014, 04:40:50 PM
Last edit: August 07, 2014, 02:58:19 AM by Peter R
 #25

7tps is just an estimate and probably an overly optimistic one*.   The only limit is 1MB per block.   Some transactions are >20KB some are less than 150 bytes.   So far in the last year the average txn has been ~500 bytes.

Quote
but when you have people demanding that people use multiple receive addresses so thatwhen you makea transaction you have to list more addresses where funds come from. to then send

That is also incorrect.   2 inputs from the same address are exactly the same size as 2 inputs from 2 addresses.  Bitcoin doesn't work on addresses and balances it works on inputs and outputs. Using new addresses for each transaction doesn't make transactions even a single byte larger.


* To hit 7 tps with 1MB blocks would require the average txn to be 238 bytes.  A P2PkH txn with compressed keys (and sadly more than 30% of txn today still use uncompressed keys making them much larger) is going to be 10 bytes + 147 bytes per input + 35 bytes per output.  So even a 2 in, 2 out txn with all compressed keys is 374 bytes.  To hit 7 tps (238 bytes per txn) would require 100% of txns to consist of nothing but 1 in, 2 out txns with compressed keys (227 bytes ea).  So realistically even not considering people who use uncompressed keys, OP_RETURN, using multisig, P2SH, etc the realistic limit is closer to 4 tps.  2015 will probably be the year of multisig and complex txns so I think planning for larger txn sizes makes sense.  The network is unlikely to reach 3 tps without a larger block limit.


Here's a chart that uses extrapolation to estimate the dates when the bitcoin network would reach 3 tps and 7 tps if historical growth rates continue to hold.  If we witness another "growth spurt," I expect we will approach 3 tps on several days and the discussions with regards to increasing the blocksize will become more focussed.  



Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  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!