I can get my miners to become more efficient by about fifty percent by down clocking my units.
TOGTFO. Gear you're running/links to credible writeups.
Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 48. (Read 46564 times)
January 11, 2016, 08:01:22 PM
TOGTFO. Gear you're running/links to credible writeups.
January 11, 2016, 07:54:00 PM
Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.
This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worseThe relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away
Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters
Even if one megabyte is the practical limit of the network today, which I do not think is the case, in the future this limit should still be increased in order to reflect the true technological capabilities of the time.
I can agree with the principle that we should not increase the blocksize limit more then our technology will allow, even if one megabyte currently represent this limit which I find hard to believe that this is the case. It does stand that this limit should be increased in the future if we want to see Bitcoin bring about as much utility and benefit as possible. This whole one megabyte forever idea really does not make any sense, I also doubt that Satoshi somehow magically choose this number which would reflect this technological limit now and for all time. Satoshi was actually quite clear on this subject, he thought that the blocksize should be increased when the need to do so arose.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.
January 11, 2016, 07:52:29 PM
VeritasSapere, so you figure what, about four months before shutdown, if no new gear? Not following mining hardware, what sort of efficiency improvement do you get by downclocking (as in per hash)?
I can get my miners to become more efficient by about fifty percent by down clocking my units. I am really hoping we do see more hardware publicly available in the near future, my prediction is that we will. There are real threats to mining centralization by the way. These are more related to centralization of manufacturing and economies of scale. The recent increase in price I am hoping will improve this situation. Mining centralization has nothing to do with the blocksize however. I can tell you now that increasing the blocksize will have zero effect on my mining operation, since I am mining with a pool, and solo mining is only really feasible if you are running a huge industrial operation like Bitfury or KNC. 
January 11, 2016, 07:52:23 PM
Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.
This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worseThe relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away
Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters
Even if one megabyte is the practical limit of the network today, which I do not think is the case, in the future this limit should still be increased in order to reflect the true technological capabilities of the time.
I can agree with the principle that we should not increase the blocksize limit more then our technology will allow, even if one megabyte currently represent this limit which I find hard to believe that this is the case. It does stand that this limit should be increased in the future if we want to see Bitcoin bring about as much utility and benefit as possible. This whole one megabyte forever idea really does not make any sense, I also doubt that Satoshi somehow magically choose this number which would reflect this technological limit now and for all time. Satoshi was actually quite clear on this subject, he thought that the blocksize should be increased when the need to do so arose.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.
'1MB FOREVER' is just a slogan we don't really want to lock to max block size forever. Satoshi is human just like the rest of us. We have had over 9 years now to think and discuss these issues at great length. We go around and around looking for new insights. Are we not better prepared then Satoshi was over 10 years ago to predict the outcome of the Bitcoin network in its current configuration and level of demand/usage?
January 11, 2016, 07:36:34 PM
Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.
This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worseThe relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away
Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters
Even if one megabyte is the practical limit of the network today, which I do not think is the case, in the future this limit should still be increased in order to reflect the true technological capabilities of the time.
I can agree with the principle that we should not increase the blocksize limit more then our technology will allow, even if one megabyte currently represent this limit which I find hard to believe that this is the case. It does stand that this limit should be increased in the future if we want to see Bitcoin bring about as much utility and benefit as possible. This whole one megabyte forever idea really does not make any sense, I also doubt that Satoshi somehow magically choose this number which would reflect this technological limit now and for all time. Satoshi was actually quite clear on this subject, he thought that the blocksize should be increased when the need to do so arose.
Quote from: Konrad S Graf
The protocol block size limit was added as a temporary anti-spam measure, not a technocratic market-manipulation measure.
January 11, 2016, 07:34:03 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?
I need to start a new poll "are you reinvesting less often and to a lesser extent?"
January 11, 2016, 07:33:57 PM
Mining nodes are all already in data centres. We are already far past this point, so I would not consider that to be a good reason not to increase the blocksize. Miners can not "raise the fee" they simply just choose what transactions to include and not to include, collectively this creates a free market for fees. With an arbitrarily small block size limit it has more in common with a centrally planned economy.
This is back to Peter Todd's famous question: If it is already centralized then why make it worse
The relay network that miners are using right now are a perfect example of now we are relying on private company to provide the bitcoin network necessary service. Following this route, in future all the mining nodes will operate on a private company's network, so that a couple of phone call can shut them down right away
Small block size does not preventing you from inventing fee-free transaction services off-chain. In fact, limited at 1MB or limited at 8MB is the same effect
because bitcoin is never going to scale indefinitely. So, if you sooner or later have to limit the block size, then why not do it now when bitcoin core software is still relatively light weight. It is the direction that matters, not parameters
January 11, 2016, 07:33:36 PM
VeritasSapere, so you figure what, about four months before shutdown, if no new gear? Not following mining hardware, what sort of efficiency improvement do you get by downclocking (as in per hash)?
January 11, 2016, 07:32:48 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?I need to start a new poll "are you reinvesting less often and to a lesser extent?"
It sounds like your more of an investor then a user. More like your using it as a Long term wealth storage system
January 11, 2016, 07:29:52 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?I need to start a new poll "are you reinvesting less often and to a lesser extent?"
January 11, 2016, 07:28:08 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?Would you say your reinvesting less often?
Maybe Mom raised the data center fees down in the basement.
January 11, 2016, 07:25:27 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?Would you say your reinvesting less often?
I need to start a new poll "are you reinvesting less often and to a lesser extent?"
January 11, 2016, 07:20:35 PM
If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts.
If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.
As I explained HERE, as long as the blocks are not full, the fee income will always be a small percentage of the block reward, and it shrinks every 4 years. A reduced block reward + fee will make future miners only be able to mine a fraction of a bitcoin per each block (even fiat wise that means lots of money), greatly reduce the mining incentive, especially when most of the coins were minedIf we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.
25-50 BTC per block fee is a much better incentive, and maybe the best incentive for the miners to continuously expand their operation, since it keeps every miner feels like an early adopter. But that is impossible to reach if we don't have block size limit
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
Peter_R's paper made the same mistake as mainstream economists that they tried to use a simple formula to describe the complex real world that have millions of different actors, thus lost focus on the most important aspects. The supply and demand curve in his paper are all different for different miners since their cost structure are different
If there is no block size limit, when facing a rising orphan rate (e.g. large number of transactions), a miner's best approach is not to raise the fee, because that will make his node receive less and less transactions in a free block relay market, he would just move to large data centers to benefit from increased performance, and this is exactly the centralization we don't want to see
January 11, 2016, 07:19:07 PM
So basically we need all sorts of users doing all sorts of things. As many as possible. I'm beginning to see.
January 11, 2016, 07:16:33 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)? January 11, 2016, 07:15:42 PM
If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts.
If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.
As I explained HERE, as long as the blocks are not full, the fee income will always be a small percentage of the block reward, and it shrinks every 4 years. A reduced block reward + fee will make future miners only be able to mine a fraction of a bitcoin per each block (even fiat wise that means lots of money), greatly reduce the mining incentive, especially when most of the coins were minedIf we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.
25-50 BTC per block fee is a much better incentive, and maybe the best incentive for the miners to continuously expand their operation, since it keeps every miner feels like an early adopter. But that is impossible to reach if we don't have block size limit
https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
Peter_R's paper made the same mistake as mainstream economists that they tried to use a simple formula to describe the complex real world that have millions of different actors, thus lost focus on the most important aspects. The supply and demand curve in his paper are all different for different miners since their cost structure are different
If there is no block size limit, when facing a rising orphan rate (e.g. large number of transactions), a miner's best approach is not to raise the fee, because that will make his node receive less and less transactions in a free block relay market, he would just move to large data centers to benefit from increased performance, thus he can use a low fee to attract more transactions, and this is exactly the centralization we don't want to see
January 11, 2016, 07:14:24 PM
@
So what's the plan here exactly? Was the block reward intended to just bootstrap the network? Fees are supposed to suddently up and kick everybody in the face? That seems odd.
Bootstrap the network and distribute coins. For there to be fees there has to be users. For there to be users Bitcoin needs to be useful. Right now it's useful for speculation. Sort of hard for the network to make money from fees when this is the case. So basically, the people who's supposed to pay the fees haven't arrived yet.
Oh dear.
We need this guy to repackage it and talk about it in a slow and intense way in a charcoal shirt against a white backdrop.
I guess I just assumed victims of ransomware attacks would be enough?
January 11, 2016, 07:08:56 PM
I am presently running the last generation of equipment, mostly S5's and SP31's.
So you're currently not scaling up? How much can the difficulty rise (in %) before you're mining at a loss (power/misc costs only, not talking about 'ROI' on gear)?
January 11, 2016, 07:03:11 PM
...
That depends on the price, most likely scenario is that I will have to down clock or turn off my older equipment while I should be able to keep all of the newer equipment running, especially if I buy into the next generation of equipment closer to the next halving.
"That depends on the price"? You don't know that, no more than any other miners (well, at least those not swapping spit with big exchange owners).That depends on the price, most likely scenario is that I will have to down clock or turn off my older equipment while I should be able to keep all of the newer equipment running, especially if I buy into the next generation of equipment closer to the next halving.
I mean what YOU yourself are doing, right now. Are you expanding? Or 'retracting'? Is downclocking what you mean by 'retracting'?
January 11, 2016, 07:02:57 PM
@
So what's the plan here exactly? Was the block reward intended to just bootstrap the network? Fees are supposed to suddently up and kick everybody in the face? That seems odd.
Bootstrap the network and distribute coins. For there to be fees there has to be users. For there to be users Bitcoin needs to be useful. Right now it's useful for speculation. Sort of hard for the network to make money from fees when this is the case. So basically, the people who's supposed to pay the fees haven't arrived yet.
Oh dear.
We need this guy to repackage it and talk about it in a slow and intense way in a charcoal shirt against a white backdrop.
Jump to: