Bitcoin Classic Roadmap annonced | Bitcointalksearch.org

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 01:23:06 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:04 AM

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?

You're being hyperbolic. I never said it would go down a lot, quickly, nor something similar. The average fee will go down, however there is a limit for everything.
...

> "nobody will pay 0.0001 when blocks aren't full!"
> vast majority of txs with 0.0001 or higher, blocks not full.
> failing to answer simple question twice.
K

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 01:23:06 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:04 AM

What are you on about? Where did I make any statement about 100 TPS? Or any other statement in this thread?

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:19:56 AM

Looks good, BIP 109 promises something like 100 TX/s and we really need that, that gives us something like 60000 transactions per block,

> quoting pedrog's statement, implying it's my own.
K

What was the last time you've been outside and breathed some fresh air?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: DooMAD on February 26, 2016, 04:02:15 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 26, 2016, 03:38:00 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:16:30 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 10:58:41 PM

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

That's pretty redundant.

1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

It might sound a little more neutral to use the phrasing:

1. Alternative Implementations (that propose a change to the consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that maintain the current consensus)

Sounds good to me.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 26, 2016, 03:38:00 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:16:30 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 10:58:41 PM

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

That's pretty redundant.

1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

It might sound a little more neutral to use the phrasing:

1. Alternative Implementations (that propose a change to the consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that maintain the current consensus)

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 04:16:30 AM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 10:58:41 PM

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

That's pretty redundant.

1. btcd, libbit
2. XT, Classic

How is that redundant?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:04 AM

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?

You're being hyperbolic. I never said it would go down a lot, quickly, nor something similar. The average fee will go down, however there is a limit for everything.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:04 AM

There's still room in the blocks.

These days, not that much.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 09:12:04 AM

I've noticed you have an ugly tendency of derailing subjects whenever you struggle with it (and then complaining about off-top replies you get)

Mentioning something != derailing thread. I don't waste more time that necessary on people who are unable to do their own research.

Quote from: Didcotam on February 26, 2016, 01:03:27 PM

I also prefer a different order. 2MB first as that involves less work and could be done faster. SegWit is too new, too risky.

Zero evidence that backs up this "too risky".

Quote from: shorena on February 26, 2016, 10:02:54 AM

I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

Gavin and Toomin have something else in mind, else one would not want to fork Bitcoin with a small group of 'developers' that were mostly inactive in the recent times.

Update: Strange, my bad. Removed this part.

Didcotam

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: shorena on February 26, 2016, 10:02:54 AM

I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

I also prefer a different order. 2MB first as that involves less work and could be done faster. SegWit is too new, too risky.

shorena

copper member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1528

No I dont escrow anymore.

I personally think its a shame that every single one of these threads end up like this. I found it very interesting to read that classic and core essentially have the same goals (2MB + SegWit) just prefer a different order.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:56:14 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:54:55 AM

Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?

When did I say that people were using 1 satoshi per transaction?

You didn't. I did. Let me try again. According to your logic, if the blocks aren't full, why do people pay anything more than 1 sat/tx, or why do they pay anything really?

If you (or anyone else reading) go to https://blockchain.info/ and click on a random tx on the left, you'll see that pretty much every tx you click includes at least default fee of 0.0001. Again, why do people bother to pay that? Are they stupid and don't know any better? Or maybe, just maybe, triviality of the default fee amount has something to do with that?

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:56:14 AM

Again, this data is neither relevant nor an accurate way of displaying. If you want to continue, then please use satoshi per byte. This shows you a more accurate picture of how fees are currently used. According to Blockchain.info the total amount of fees is quite higher right now, however one would have to compare the number of transactions per day as well.

21.co stats - only ~13% of txs are in 0-10 sat/byte brackets (note that larger sized txs with fee slightly below the default would also be included here). Again, why not 100%, or 90%, or at least 80%? There's still room in the blocks.
blockchain.info - tx fees on long-term uptrend. No comment here.

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:56:14 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:54:55 AM

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data.

I could say the same. Do not waste time and fix your statement. Classic will not have 100 TPS.

What are you on about? Where did I make any statement about 100 TPS? Or any other statement in this thread?

-------------------

I've noticed you have an ugly tendency of derailing subjects whenever you struggle with it (and then complaining about off-top replies you get). So just in case, we're talking about this statement of yours:

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:13:10 AM

Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:54:55 AM

Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?

When did I say that people were using 1 satoshi per transaction? Again, this data is neither relevant nor an accurate way of displaying. If you want to continue, then please use satoshi per byte. This shows you a more accurate picture of how fees are currently used. According to Blockchain.info the total amount of fees is quite higher right now, however one would have to compare the number of transactions per day as well.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:54:55 AM

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data.

I could say the same. ~~Do not waste time and fix your statement. Classic will not have 100 TPS.~~

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:50:51 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:32:44 AM

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?

You need to gather more data on the current fees and talk in satoshi/byte in order to get a cleared picture. There's no need to discuss 100 TPS right now as that was false information.

Nah, you made a statement so show me the data. Can you show any evidence of massive number of 1sat/tx (because why would anyone pay more, right?) in any period over the last 2 years? Anything?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 26, 2016, 07:32:44 AM

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?

You need to gather more data on the current fees and talk in satoshi/byte in order to get a cleared picture. There's no need to discuss 100 TPS right now as that was false information.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 07:13:10 AM

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:41:14 AM

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.

Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

Why do vast majority of txs include at least default fee of 0.0001 (for <1kb) since the blocks aren't full yet? Why would average user risk his tx being massively delayed just to save few cents worth? Why isn't this currently happening?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:41:14 AM

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.

Why would someone pay such a high fee when there is so much transaction space per block? That's not really how it is going to play out. If the blocks are mostly empty the average fee is going to go down.

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:41:14 AM

Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results?

Okay what you initially wrote is wrong. I've figured out where the confusion lies. There are currently two BIP109's (no idea why):
Gavin's BIP 109 - Two million byte size limit with sigop and sighash limits
John's BIP 109 - Efficient block relay format and mempool synchronization
Classic will implement Gavin's BIP109 which means that the TPS is going to be around 6-7 (currently it is around 3).

As far as John's BIP109 is concerned:

Quote

Luke-Jr: I don't follow the Specification section. It doesn't appear to be actually doing anything that would improve scaling, and looks to hugely increase node bandwidth requirements and use.

sadface

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

so is this an example on how to ruin a forum?

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Someone with more knowledge on BIP 109 could chip in, would be nice. Already on testnet? Results?

Quote from: Lauda on February 26, 2016, 06:29:44 AM

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:19:56 AM

..almost pays for mining when full.

It doesn't. You don't have data to back this up. However, BIP109 does look good but I'd like to see an implementation of it as soon as possible.

Oh, that would be something like 60000 tx per block with a minimum fee of 0,0001 BTC that's 6+ BTC, with increased bitcoin value that's probably enough.

Bear in mind, with the current situation 2000 tx give around 0,4 in mining fees, extrapolating that would be something like 12 bitcoins, which is what we are going to get in a few months.

Anyways, fees will probably go down with bitcoin price increasing, so we need even more on-chain transactions to finance mining.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:19:56 AM

So, when/if Bitcoin Classic is adopted by majority all Bitcoin Core discussions will be moved to Altcoins section?

This predefined majority as found in the older systems is not applicable here. You're asking very situation specific questions which can not be answered at this time. Only theymos could tell you that.

Quote from: pedrog on February 26, 2016, 06:19:56 AM

..almost pays for mining when full.

It doesn't. You don't have data to back this up. However, BIP109 does look good but I'd like to see an implementation of it as soon as possible.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Looks good, BIP 109 promises something like 100 TX/s and we really need that, that gives us something like 60000 transactions per block, which, probably, almost pays for mining when full, at this point other layers can be implemented for off-chain payments with on-chain settlements.

So, when/if Bitcoin Classic is adopted by majority all Bitcoin Core discussions will be moved to Altcoins section?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Proxiebuier on February 25, 2016, 10:55:58 PM

this is just altcoin ?
BItcoin Core, Bitcoin Clasic, Bitcoin XT Huh

Bitcoin Core is not comparable to Bitcoin Clasic and XT. The other two are different implementations, or altcoins (depending on who you ask).

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 25, 2016, 10:58:41 PM

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

That's pretty redundant.

Quote from: rdnkjdi on February 26, 2016, 12:23:48 AM

Did they move this from the bitcoin forum?

It was moved to the appropriate section.

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 25, 2016, 07:31:31 PM

HELLO altcoins

have you heard about bitcoin, and the war going on with classic vs core??? O_o?

42 million coins.

rdnkjdi

legendary

Activity: 1256

Merit: 1009

Did they move this from the bitcoin forum? Hahaha

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: gentlemand on February 25, 2016, 10:50:28 PM

Boy, that's a toughie. I'll let you know when it comes to me.

I suggest we add two new sections to the forum:

1. Alternative Implementations (that don't threaten to break consensus rules)
2. Alternative Implementations (that do)

?

Topic: Bitcoin Classic Roadmap annonced (Read 2642 times)