Topic: Core have been derelict in their duties. - page 4. (Read 5159 times)
Expect delayed tx's today.
Mempool backlog is building, higher fees will help speed your tx.
So do Core have a "safety net" plan?
I've not seen it.
1 week till tx gridlock?
Lauda,
Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.
I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread.
I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average")
I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue?
There is no need for apologies. The reason that I've pointed this out because it was both unexpected and incorrect (i.e. my number is not accurate enough for such a thread). Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.
I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread.
I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average")
I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue?
Of course 2mb without limitations is unsafe. But those limitations could be applied. Core could have solved this.
How exactly is adding more artificial limitations to the system helpful? If I wanted to create a TX of size X, I would not be able to do so (as in Classic's BIP).Segwit is not a done deal yet. Do core have a planned safety net option "if needed" before segwit is resolved? 
Segwit is close. IIRC there was talk of an emergency HF if things went the wrong way (not sure where I've read this though). Ok no probs. Your figure were accurate enough as a starting point. The end point is what I was trying to find.
ie. What average % full will blocks be when the system is at capacity. (it wont be !00% average)
By adding that 1 limitation, thousands more tx's could be handled.
The tx of size x you talk of is highly unlikely to occur through normal use.
A tx of size x could be split into smaller tx's.
No miner would choose to include such a tx anyway, except in an attack.
I would like to hear more about this emergency HF if things go the "wrong way".
Is that the fork to Classic I have mentioned here?
As exstasie asked,
Quote
A safety net for what? Higher fees?
I think this relates to the "if things go the wrong way" situation. Could you explain how things may go the wrong way?
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).
I dont argue against "the closer to capacity we are the better". I agree.
The danger is when we pass that point and become "over capacity"
More to the point of this thread,
Core will have no ability to get back to the ideal situation - "close to capacity".
Oh but wait,
"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-mine-segwit
It seems with core, miners get more tx fees. At 1mb AND 4 mb segwit?
The Segwit discount is a compromise to give users increased (cheap) capacity in the mid term. Personally, I'd prefer a lower discount and therefore a lower maximum capacity, but it is what it is. Since the increased throughput is segregated outside of the block, node operators who don't want to update don't need to suffer the increased bandwidth costs.
"Developing an active fee market has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size"
"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
"The Segwit discount is a compromise to give users increased (cheap) capacity in the mid term"
I'm not seeing how these all gel together.
Lauda,
Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.
I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread.
I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average")
I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue?
There is no need for apologies. The reason that I've pointed this out because it was both unexpected and incorrect (i.e. my number is not accurate enough for such a thread). Sorry, I wasn't trying to show your figures as inaccurate, just that 100% full blocks on average will not happen.
I have removed ref to you in OP. (I only used your name to show I hadn't "made up numbers".) I see it might have been misread.
I have also tried to clarify and edited my request for figures in OP. (i was not asking for "more accurate figures than Lauda's 70%" but "how many empty blocks will be produced on average")
I think it is clearer now and hope that resolve your issue?
Of course 2mb without limitations is unsafe. But those limitations could be applied. Core could have solved this.
How exactly is adding more artificial limitations to the system helpful? If I wanted to create a TX of size X, I would not be able to do so (as in Classic's BIP).Segwit is not a done deal yet. Do core have a planned safety net option "if needed" before segwit is resolved?
Segwit is close. IIRC there was talk of an emergency HF if things went the wrong way (not sure where I've read this though). Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).
I dont argue against "the closer to capacity we are the better". I agree.
The danger is when we pass that point and become "over capacity"
More to the point of this thread,
Core will have no ability to get back to the ideal situation - "close to capacity".
Oh but wait,
"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-mine-segwit
It seems with core, miners get more tx fees. At 1mb AND 4 mb segwit?
The Segwit discount is a compromise to give users increased (cheap) capacity in the mid term. Personally, I'd prefer a lower discount and therefore a lower maximum capacity, but it is what it is. Since the increased throughput is segregated outside of the block, node operators who don't want to update don't need to suffer the increased bandwidth costs.
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).
I dont argue against "the closer to capacity we are the better". I agree.
The danger is when we pass that point and become "over capacity"
More to the point of this thread,
Core will have no ability to get back to the ideal situation - "close to capacity".
Oh but wait,
"segwit allows miners to put more transactions in their blocks, which may allow them to increase their per-block revenue."
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/#why-mine-segwit
It seems with core, miners get more tx fees. At 1mb AND 4 mb segwit?
Adam, it's cool that you can admit your previous opinions on the scaling issue. But this really should be a wake-up call: you're shooting from the hip. I do that too, and maybe that's fairly obvious sometimes, but the reason why it works when I do it, is that I'm fairly good at it. You can be good in debates: when you know what you're talking about.
multi-billion part happened with classical scaling in mind.
ROFL Adam, that's exactly what was on your mind when you, the typical everyday investor, bought back in '11, '12, '13 and 2014. Come on, lie to me. We all know what it looks like when you talk shit (lips move, fingers type etc)
you've made me look back at my post history
it appears i use to be a small blocker!
...
To Conclude:
Bitcoin will continue to grow and with it the number of transactions every 10 minutes. Each block has maximum number of transactions it can record. I would speculate that in 30 years, transactions will exceed this limit. As a result people will pay higher fees in order to process their transactions faster. This competition for speedy transactions will create sizable rewards for miners processing the new blocks, Thus the bitcoin network will continue to thrive.
To Conclude:
Bitcoin will continue to grow and with it the number of transactions every 10 minutes. Each block has maximum number of transactions it can record. I would speculate that in 30 years, transactions will exceed this limit. As a result people will pay higher fees in order to process their transactions faster. This competition for speedy transactions will create sizable rewards for miners processing the new blocks, Thus the bitcoin network will continue to thrive.
lol
well maybe i thought 1MB wasn't crippling bitcoin to 3TPS... fuck i was probably not even aware of the exact limit.
wtv as a " typical everyday investor " i'll tell you this, if the LN is as shitty ( not user friendly / impractical ) as i think it will be and the blocklimit creates 1$+ fees, while banks dev there own blockchains, i'm out.
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).
I dont argue against "the closer to capacity we are the better". I agree.
The danger is when we pass that point and become "over capacity"
More to the point of this thread,
Core will have no ability to get back to the ideal situation - "close to capacity".
I await your "off-topic"ing lawsuit 
Lawsuit is in the post.
I look forward to a speedy settlement. thankyou in advance
(now i'm also guilty as charged. Let's just wipe the slate
) Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
They have. Developing an active fee market (to maintain proof of work security with low block subsidy or after end of block subsidy) has been one of the primary arguments against increasing block size any time there is perception that we are at "capacity." The closer to "capacity" we are, the more pressure on spam to drop off, the more fees for miners (who will receive less and less subsidy as time goes on).
multi-billion part happened with classical scaling in mind.
ROFL Adam, that's exactly what was on your mind when you, the typical everyday investor, bought BTC back in '11, '12, '13 and 2014. Come on, lie to me. We all know what it looks like when you talk shit (lips move, fingers type etc)
How many multi-billion dollar commodities have you built from your Wizard Treehouse? Less than one?
If we’re talking about Bitcoin… the multi-billion dollar commodity was invented/built by someone else. Dude left abruptly, key's under the mat.
Nope, he gave the key to the treehouse wizards before he left. And the multi-billion part happened after he left also. Bit of a crappy metaphor
To continue in the vein of nit picking, he gave the keys to Gavin, not Wizard's Treehouse.
Then Gavin became a CIA agent... and the rest is history.
How many multi-billion dollar commodities have you built from your Wizard Treehouse? Less than one?
If we’re talking about Bitcoin… the multi-billion dollar commodity was invented/built by someone else. Dude left abruptly, key's under the mat.
Nope, he gave the key to the treehouse wizards before he left. And the multi-billion part happened after he left also. Bit of a crappy metaphor
multi-billion part happened with classical scaling in mind.
I await your "off-topic"ing lawsuit
Bit off topic guy's.
How many multi-billion dollar commodities have you built from your Wizard Treehouse? Less than one?
If we’re talking about Bitcoin… the multi-billion dollar commodity was invented/built by someone else. Dude left abruptly, key's under the mat.
Nope, he gave the key to the treehouse wizards before he left. And the multi-billion part happened after he left also. Bit of a crappy metaphor
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
Ok, why don't Core just say that?
Does Core have a "safety net" option planned and tested?
A safety net for what? Higher fees? Higher fees are welcome and very much necessary in the future as block subsidy drops. The solution? Don't endlessly plan on using bitcoin transactions for latte purchases until cheap (non-blockchain-committing) methods are fully developed and implemented.
In the meantime, just be glad you're holding p2p digital gold. All signs point to a very bright future ahead.
How many multi-billion dollar commodities have you built from your Wizard Treehouse? Less than one?
If we’re talking about Bitcoin… the multi-billion dollar commodity was invented/built by someone else. Dude left abruptly, key's under the mat.
Wizard Treehouse has adopted the task of centrally planning the economics of said (extant) commodity… keeping the potential market cap, capacity, and associated user base to a manageable size.
So, your question becomes… How many currently successful endeavors have I discovered, aggregated some power to myself via an IRC social club, power which I subsequently used to improve the possibility of profitability for my other, more privately held, endeavor? All while running a fear campaign, buttressed by a censorship machine running on all major communication outlets, that convinces an adequate portion of the sheep that my benevolent power and control is all for their own benefit?
I don’t have a treehouse.
Jump to: