ewibit
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2955
Merit: 1049
|
 |
March 12, 2013, 01:25:18 PM |
|
EDIT: NVM- rally back on track. Good move.
what is NVM? do you mean NVC? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
elux
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1458
Merit: 1006
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:45:17 PM |
|
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.) To quote Mike Hearn: Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
Nonsense, of course. Now we know that the transition between versions should be done slightly differently. That is really all we know now. The blocksize issue is quite trivial to resolve, as long as everyone is on the same page. But don't let me stand in the way of your desire for lower prices  All you know != all that is known. The blocksize issue is not entirely trivial. We're now back to the old 250KB cap on blocks. There are more transactions than there is room to verify so we either get a congestion of unconfirmed transactions, or an escalation of fees. (In practice, both.) Importantly, If you don't pay a fee, your transaction won't confirm, and your money is lost until you "double spend" the money with a fee, which is possible in the protocol, but not supported by the clients. Or a "good-samaritan" pool picks it up for free. I have had the displeasure of "losing" a transaction to this problem. It was not fun, and the mistake cost me a good bit of time and money. Make sure to pay a fee on every transaction going forward. I suppose you forgot already why this thread started - we ran out of block space and transactions started stacking up, unconfirmed. This almost immediately caused lots of user complaints.
Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.
Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.
|
|
|
|
|
crazy_rabbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001
RUM AND CARROTS: A PIRATE LIFE FOR ME
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:53:17 PM |
|
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.) To quote Mike Hearn: Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
Nonsense, of course. Now we know that the transition between versions should be done slightly differently. That is really all we know now. The blocksize issue is quite trivial to resolve, as long as everyone is on the same page. But don't let me stand in the way of your desire for lower prices All you know != all that is known. The blocksize issue is not entirely trivial. We're now back to the old 250KB cap on blocks. There are more transactions than there is room to verify so we either get a congestion of unconfirmed transactions, or an escalation of fees. (In practice, both.) Importantly, If you don't pay a fee, your transaction won't confirm, and your money is lost until you "double spend" the money with a fee, which is possible in the protocol, but not supported by the clients. Or a "good-samaritan" pool picks it up for free. I have had the displeasure of "losing" a transaction to this problem. It was not fun, and the mistake cost me a good bit of time and money. Make sure to pay a fee on every transaction going forward. I suppose you forgot already why this thread started - we ran out of block space and transactions started stacking up, unconfirmed. This almost immediately caused lots of user complaints.
Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.
Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.
Well, so then people have to pay for transactions I guess. |
more or less retired.
|
|
|
|
Severian
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:57:03 PM |
|
I don't think anything is fixed. The network is resilient, though. Gotta give it that. |
|
|
|
|
Piper67
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 12, 2013, 02:58:22 PM |
|
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.) To quote Mike Hearn: Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
Nonsense, of course. Now we know that the transition between versions should be done slightly differently. That is really all we know now. The blocksize issue is quite trivial to resolve, as long as everyone is on the same page. But don't let me stand in the way of your desire for lower prices All you know != all that is known. The blocksize issue is not entirely trivial. We're now back to the old 250KB cap on blocks. There are more transactions than there is room to verify so we either get a congestion of unconfirmed transactions, or an escalation of fees. (In practice, both.) Importantly, If you don't pay a fee, your transaction won't confirm, and your money is lost until you "double spend" the money with a fee, which is possible in the protocol, but not supported by the clients. Or a "good-samaritan" pool picks it up for free. I have had the displeasure of "losing" a transaction to this problem. It was not fun, and the mistake cost me a good bit of time and money. Make sure to pay a fee on every transaction going forward. I suppose you forgot already why this thread started - we ran out of block space and transactions started stacking up, unconfirmed. This almost immediately caused lots of user complaints.
Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.
Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.
Well, so then people have to pay for transactions I guess. Not even, everyone just has to agree to switch to 0.8, or, more likely, the upcoming 0.8.1. Once the majority of miners have switched over, the 250k limit will be lifted. But again, let's not get in the way of gold old FUD. |
|
|
|
|
Hauk
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 17
Merit: 0
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:09:17 PM |
|
We pay a small fee, or just kill off s.dice until we can get a better fix.
A small fee will more or less kill off 90% of s.dice transactions anyway.
s.dice pays fees from what I've heard. |
|
|
|
|
Technomage
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1056
Affordable Physical Bitcoins - Denarium.com
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:12:21 PM |
|
There has been far less FUD than I anticipated. Bitcoin faced a serious bug and faced it successfully. It was handled as professionally as efficiently as it could've been handled under the circumstances. The net effect for me is that I have increased trust in Bitcoin now. Bugs are always a possibility in any software project, even if it is serious and well tested software.
Not sure how the average Bitcoiner will react but I'm starting to think the effect of this won't be so massively negative as I thought at first. I was panicking for a while like many others, but the situation is much clearer now.
|
Denarium closing sale discounts now up to 43%! Check out our products from here! |
|
|
Piper67
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1001
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:14:32 PM |
|
There has been far less FUD than I anticipated. Bitcoin faced a serious bug and faced it successfully. It was handled as professionally as efficiently as it could've been handled under the circumstances. The net effect for me is that I have increased trust in Bitcoin now. Bugs are always a possibility in any software project, even if it is serious and well tested software.
Not sure how the average Bitcoiner will react but I'm starting to think the effect of this won't be so massively negative as I thought at first. I was panicking for a while like many others, but the situation is much clearer now.
I agree... next time you panic, though, do it inwardly |
|
|
|
|
|
mccorvic
|
|
March 12, 2013, 03:42:02 PM |
|
There has been far less FUD than I anticipated. Bitcoin faced a serious bug and faced it successfully. It was handled as professionally as efficiently as it could've been handled under the circumstances. The net effect for me is that I have increased trust in Bitcoin now. Bugs are always a possibility in any software project, even if it is serious and well tested software.
Not sure how the average Bitcoiner will react but I'm starting to think the effect of this won't be so massively negative as I thought at first. I was panicking for a while like many others, but the situation is much clearer now.
+1 Hear hear and cheers! Also, another benefit may turn out to be "real" increases in price. I mean by this that the price will go up and actually bring buy volume with it instead of having the price bounce around an entire $1 range. The sort-of reset the incident caused yesterday may improve this an, thus, increase demand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
labestiol
|
|
March 12, 2013, 04:25:02 PM |
|
I mean by this that the price will go up and actually bring buy volume with it instead of having the price bounce around an entire $1 range.
 Not real enough buy volume to you ? btw, we already beat the daily record volume today |
1BestioLC7YBVh8Q5LfH6RYURD6MrpP8y6
|
|
|
|
mccorvic
|
|
March 12, 2013, 04:36:03 PM |
|
I mean by this that the price will go up and actually bring buy volume with it instead of having the price bounce around an entire $1 range.
Not real enough buy volume to you ? btw, we already beat the daily record volume today Sorry, what I meant was that the buy orders would start at $47 and not really gain any depth until $46 somewhere while the sells were at $48 or so. This caused huge price swings anytime more than 5 BTC at a time were moved. |
|
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
March 12, 2013, 04:39:20 PM |
|
I thought about the exact same thing, when the "software update" went wrong, RBS were screwed for more than a couple of weeks |
(1470) <KLYE> But I was far too drunk to fuck a midget
(1470) <KLYE> I will fuck a chicken for 250 btc
|
|
|
BitcoinTate
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
DigiByte Founder
|
|
March 12, 2013, 04:51:39 PM |
|
Lol! Max Keiser is hilarious! Watch his video interview http://maxkeiser.com/ "Bitcoin Millionare vs Paper Millionare".... skip forward to 7:47 "The clouds are opening up for Satoshi... cyber christ.... christ is back and he has got bitcoin" LMFAO! |
- aka The "DigiMan"
|
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
March 12, 2013, 05:03:27 PM |
|
Lol! Max Keiser is hilarious! Watch his video interview http://maxkeiser.com/ "Bitcoin Millionare vs Paper Millionare".... skip forward to 7:47 "The clouds are opening up for Satoshi... cyber christ.... christ is back and he has got bitcoin" LMFAO! LOL, thanks for that, the guys great  10min 40 is also great i love the guy lmao |
(1470) <KLYE> But I was far too drunk to fuck a midget
(1470) <KLYE> I will fuck a chicken for 250 btc
|
|
|
|
|
myself
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
chaos is fun...…damental :)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:27:53 PM |
|
|
Los desesperados publican que lo inventó el rey que rabió, porque todo son en el rabias y mas rabias, disgustos y mas disgustos, pezares y mas pezares; si el que compra algunas partidas vé que baxan, rabia de haver comprado; si suben, rabia de que no compró mas; si compra, suben, vende, gana y buelan aun á mas alto precio del que ha vendido; rabia de que vendió por menor precio: si no compra ni vende y ván subiendo, rabia de que haviendo tenido impulsos de comprar, no llegó á lograr los impulsos; si van baxando, rabia de que, haviendo tenido amagos de vender, no se resolvió á gozar los amagos; si le dan algun consejo y acierta, rabia de que no se lo dieron antes; si yerra, rabia de que se lo dieron; con que todo son inquietudes, todo arrepentimientos, tododelirios, luchando siempre lo insufrible con lo feliz, lo indomito con lo tranquilo y lo rabioso con lo deleytable.
|
|
|
GeoRW
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 257
Trust No One
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:34:17 PM |
|
We pay a small fee, or just kill off s.dice until we can get a better fix.
A small fee will more or less kill off 90% of s.dice transactions anyway.
If you kill S.DICE, you will kill bitcoin. S.DICE has attracted many new and wealthy users to bitcoin. We don't have much else in bitcoin economy (just miners and hoarders speculators). |
|
|
|
|
bitcoinBull
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:59:47 PM |
|
We pay a small fee, or just kill off s.dice until we can get a better fix.
A small fee will more or less kill off 90% of s.dice transactions anyway.
If you kill S.DICE, you will kill bitcoin. S.DICE has attracted many new and wealthy users to bitcoin. We don't have much else in bitcoin economy (just miners and hoarders speculators). Bull. Various company/stock "share" scams are not the bitcoin economy. That's just what the pirate investor and pass-through operators wanted people to believe. GLBSE is now gone and was barely a blip. I would be extremely careful with S.DICE and other "shares". IMO, shares are worth about as much as the paper you could print them on. Hoarding, speculating, and operating services are the main activities which add value to the bitcoin economy. But every attempt so far to do deposits-for-interest has resulted in either lost or stolen coins. |
College of Bucking Bulls Knowledge
|
|
|
GeoRW
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 350
Merit: 257
Trust No One
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:13:46 PM |
|
We pay a small fee, or just kill off s.dice until we can get a better fix.
A small fee will more or less kill off 90% of s.dice transactions anyway.
If you kill S.DICE, you will kill bitcoin. S.DICE has attracted many new and wealthy users to bitcoin. We don't have much else in bitcoin economy (just miners and hoarders speculators). Bull. Various company/stock "share" scams are not the bitcoin economy. That's just what the pirate investor and pass-through operators wanted people to believe. GLBSE is now gone and was barely a blip. I would be extremely careful with S.DICE and other "shares". IMO, shares are worth about as much as the paper you could print them on. Hoarding, speculating, and operating services are the main activities which add value to the bitcoin economy. But every attempt so far to do deposits-for-interest has resulted in either lost or stolen coins. I'm not talking about any shares  I'm talking about gambling industry that is a important part of bitcoin economy. Lots of people are playing Satoshi Dice and gambling industry as a whole is interested in bitcoin thanks to S.DICE. If some people want to kill Satoshi Dice because bitcoin is unable to cope with high transaction volumes than bitcoin has no future as a currency; it's technically inapt. |
|
|
|
|
|
