Many major players don't want this hardfork. Which part of my post do you disagree with?
MPOE-PR a major player, u serious?
Topic: 7 Transactions per second limit dragging down the price (Read 2368 times)
MPOE-PR a major player, u serious?
^How's it going thus far?
(...)
But you're just trolling, no?
But you're just trolling, no?
Nope, I believe that bitcoin will render both $ and € obsolete. Also Ripple a shit
The problems you indicated are no biggie.
^
Already mentioned the difficulty of getting it accepted. The obvious resultant blockchain bloat. The security repercussions of introducing new code. And, of course, the loss of confidence--hardfork is the hallmark of a poorly designed coin.
But you're just trolling, no?
Already mentioned the difficulty of getting it accepted. The obvious resultant blockchain bloat. The security repercussions of introducing new code. And, of course, the loss of confidence--hardfork is the hallmark of a poorly designed coin.
But you're just trolling, no?
^
I get it, the problem is this hardfork creates a slew of its own problems, not the least of which is getting people to accept said hardfork. Kindly follow the link above I was kind enough to provide for your edification.
I get it, the problem is this hardfork creates a slew of its own problems, not the least of which is getting people to accept said hardfork. Kindly follow the link above I was kind enough to provide for your edification.
Would you expand on that?
That's not why the price is down. We're nowhere near that limit at the moment. Let the market do its thing. Why can't you people realize that price moving down doesn't always have to indicate something "wrong" or negative... it's just simply the trend right now. Stop trying to fight the trend. Try this:
1. Establish a trend.
2. Make money off the trend.
3. Stop when you see a reversal.
4. Repeat.
If you want an explanation why the current trend is happening consider that the ATH price was bullshit, it was hyperinflated by all the shady business going on a Mt. Gox with the Willy trade bot and the China hype. The price never was supposed to be that high in the first place. What the hell do you people expect when you have a 100x increase in price in a single year...
Ok rant over. Yes we should consider fixing the 7 transaction per second limit, perhaps in time for when it's ACTUALLY a problem.
1. Establish a trend.
2. Make money off the trend.
3. Stop when you see a reversal.
4. Repeat.
If you want an explanation why the current trend is happening consider that the ATH price was bullshit, it was hyperinflated by all the shady business going on a Mt. Gox with the Willy trade bot and the China hype. The price never was supposed to be that high in the first place. What the hell do you people expect when you have a 100x increase in price in a single year...
Ok rant over. Yes we should consider fixing the 7 transaction per second limit, perhaps in time for when it's ACTUALLY a problem.
The peak is at 110k transactions per day. That's 1/8th of the capacity.
The very real threat of a hard fork and altcoins being so much more advanced and better is more likely dragging the price down.
*crumble* *crumble*
The very real threat of a hard fork and altcoins being so much more advanced and better is more likely dragging the price down.
*crumble* *crumble*
Meanwhile, these "advanced" alts are crumbling even harder.
The thing about alts is they can afford to experiment and innovate, to come up with trains, cars, planes, rockets (most, granted, laughable), while Bitcoin continues refining its oxcart.
The peak is at 110k transactions per day. That's 1/8th of the capacity.
The very real threat of a hard fork and altcoins being so much more advanced and better is more likely dragging the price down.
*crumble* *crumble*
The very real threat of a hard fork and altcoins being so much more advanced and better is more likely dragging the price down.
*crumble* *crumble*
Meanwhile, these "advanced" alts are crumbling even harder.
...
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Lol, how much coin do you hold, Rockefeller?
This is a proof of work coin. Who cares how many he holds?
By major player, I mean someone with vested interest in the success of Bitcoin. Pragmatic miners would aim their hashpower at any SHA256 coin that pays. <==another tragic flaw of POW
...
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Lol, how much coin do you hold, Rockefeller?
This is a proof of work coin. Who cares how many he holds?
...
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Lol, how much coin do you hold, Rockefeller?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Because there are almost no users. According to Bitcoin wiki, Visa alone "handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps)" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
Average doesn't mean maximum.
Visa is capable of handling 30,000 tps.
Thirty thousand transactions per second.
Bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second. Not seven thousand, just seven (7).
Good luck, new world currency
Comparing a nascent payment network with the largest payment gateway provider in the world is a great comparison!
7 transaction per second is hardcoded into Bitcoin. Adding more hashpower/infrastructure/whateveryoucallit won't change that. Nothing short of a hardfork (basically making a new coin) would.
P.S. Never use the word "nascent" unless to mock it--it's even gayer than "disruptive technology."
Bitcoin already had several hardforks. The next one to increase the blocksize limit will be no different.
A hard fork can be & do anything, it's basically making a new coin. Many major players don't want this hardfork. Which part of my post do you disagree with?
Considering Mircea Popescu as a major player. rofl
Sure. Sorta defeats the purpose of having
Nope, the block chain is there also to regulate money creation.
^
I get it, the problem is this hardfork creates a slew of its own problems, not the least of which is getting people to accept said hardfork. Kindly follow the link above I was kind enough to provide for your edification.
I get it, the problem is this hardfork creates a slew of its own problems, not the least of which is getting people to accept said hardfork. Kindly follow the link above I was kind enough to provide for your edification.
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Because there are almost no users. According to Bitcoin wiki, Visa alone "handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps)" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
Average doesn't mean maximum.
Visa is capable of handling 30,000 tps.
Thirty thousand transactions per second.
Bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second. Not seven thousand, just seven (7).
Good luck, new world currency
Comparing a nascent payment network with the largest payment gateway provider in the world is a great comparison!
7 transaction per second is hardcoded into Bitcoin. Adding more hashpower/infrastructure/whateveryoucallit won't change that. Nothing short of a hardfork (basically making a new coin) would.
P.S. Never use the word "nascent" unless to mock it--it's even gayer than "disruptive technology."
Bitcoin already had several hardforks. The next one to increase the blocksize limit will be no different.
A hard fork can be & do anything, it's basically making a new coin. Many major players don't want this hardfork. Which part of my post do you disagree with?
Yes and the proposed hardfork will increase the theoretical TPS and allow the block size to scale. Not sure why you don't get this.
Transactions don't all have to be on the blockchain...
Sure. Sorta defeats the purpose of having
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Because there are almost no users. According to Bitcoin wiki, Visa alone "handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps)" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
Average doesn't mean maximum.
Visa is capable of handling 30,000 tps.
Thirty thousand transactions per second.
Bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second. Not seven thousand, just seven (7).
Good luck, new world currency
Comparing a nascent payment network with the largest payment gateway provider in the world is a great comparison!
7 transaction per second is hardcoded into Bitcoin. Adding more hashpower/infrastructure/whateveryoucallit won't change that. Nothing short of a hardfork (basically making a new coin) would.
P.S. Never use the word "nascent" unless to mock it--it's even gayer than "disruptive technology."
Bitcoin already had several hardforks. The next one to increase the blocksize limit will be no different.
A hard fork can be & do anything, it's basically making a new coin. Many major players don't want this hardfork. Which part of my post do you disagree with?
Transactions don't all have to be on the blockchain...
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Because there are almost no users. According to Bitcoin wiki, Visa alone "handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps)" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
Average doesn't mean maximum.
Visa is capable of handling 30,000 tps.
Thirty thousand transactions per second.
Bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second. Not seven thousand, just seven (7).
Good luck, new world currency
Comparing a nascent payment network with the largest payment gateway provider in the world is a great comparison!
7 transaction per second is hardcoded into Bitcoin. Adding more hashpower/infrastructure/whateveryoucallit won't change that. Nothing short of a hardfork (basically making a new coin) would.
P.S. Never use the word "nascent" unless to mock it--it's even gayer than "disruptive technology."
Bitcoin already had several hardforks. The next one to increase the blocksize limit will be no different.
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Transaction times eh? You see a lot of complaints by the users do you?
...
Because there are almost no users. According to Bitcoin wiki, Visa alone "handles on average around 2,000 transactions per second (tps)" (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability)
Average doesn't mean maximum.
Visa is capable of handling 30,000 tps.
Thirty thousand transactions per second.
Bitcoin can only handle seven transactions per second. Not seven thousand, just seven (7).
Good luck, new world currency
Comparing a nascent payment network with the largest payment gateway provider in the world is a great comparison!
7 transaction per second is hardcoded into Bitcoin. Adding more hashpower/infrastructure/whateveryoucallit won't change that. Nothing short of a hardfork (basically making a new coin) would.
P.S. Never use the word "nascent" unless to mock it--it's even gayer than "disruptive technology."
Jump to: