Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 842. (Read 3058816 times)

Very interesting read starting here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=895020.700

Going either backwards or forwards. 

Yes indeed, I think I understand the connection you're trying to draw here.

Pool difficulty / share difficulty does indeed cause a different amount of magic numbers to be sent, in theory it does not change the amount of shares generated across time which is always a function of difficulty.
Nonetheless, changing diff does not generate new work and indeed block size does not affect the size of the results.

Perhaps I put it a bit badly ... I was referring to the pool difficulty setting and not the coin difficulty.  As I understand it, setting your miner to a specific pool difficulty has subtle impacts on the variance of the number of submitted shares.  Obviously, the miner's hashrate has a more direct impact on number of shares submitted (higher hashrate higher number of shares, lower hashrate lower number of shares).  But I am under the impression that pool difficulty setting impacts the number of shares submitted per time period to address variance. 

   DigiByte Google+ community! https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities/104239346181625643649   

I'd like you to elaborate. As far as I know they just send some new work every time they hook up a new header/block or a new transaction / merkle tree. I cannot see any connection with difficulty.

Increasing block size would not increase bandwidth for people mining in pools.  Pools distribute work based on the worker hashrate and difficulty - the blocksize has nothing to do with the distribution of work in the pool.

Actual block size entirely depends on the number of transactions that a block generating node includes in the block.  It could be 20GB.  It could be 0.   In fact, block generation is an issue because badly coded pools will sometimes generate blocks without any transactions.  Currently BTC uses about 40% of the capacity (the capacity is 7 transactions per second - they process about 40% of that).  I'm actually not sure about what percent of the capacity DGB uses?  Our capacity is currently 140 tps.  After the DigiSpeed hardfork the capacity will rise to 5800 tps.  However, neither DGB nor BTC would want the average transactions per second to approach the network capacity.  Evidently that is a very bad thing ... although I'm not smart enough to explain why.  It could hypothetically leave transactions out of blocks.

In theory, increasing the block size could increase the transaction rewards per block - assuming that bigger blocks included more transactions.  However, there is some concern that bigger blocks will lead to certain mining nodes that only include high fee transactions because they want to recoup the necessary bandwidth of hosting the fully validating node.  All that is just sort of hypothetical, lots of people have different theories.  

Increasing block size would impact bandwidth for fully validating nodes (but not SPV nodes) - and, that impact assumes that more transactions are actually included in each block.  

Increasing block size increases transaction capacity.  It does not technically increase transaction speed.  And, transaction capacity is only one variable in network capacity.  The network capacity (transactions per second), is the result of "number of transactions per block" and "average block time."  Some block take longer to solve than other blocks, hence the difficulty retargeting to adjust for block time generation.

Keep in mind that BTC implemented the current blocksize to avoid DOS attacks on the network.  There are security issues that need to be understood as part and parcel of the speed and blocksize.  Because transactions in digital currency use a system of block confirmation and proof of work, faster block times raise issues related to transaction security and orphaned blocks.  I believe that DGB has done a good job with developing security simultaneously with transaction speed.  And, the current work on DigiSpeed - and the fact that Jared and the DGB development team are taking their time to get it right - makes me believe that they continue to work toward ensuring network and transaction security while increasing the capacity and speed.

Also, here are a couple of threads that people should read ...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/question-re-block-size-and-time-1049340
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7626485

Went looking for the horses mouth on this issue and found this for anyone that is interested.
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion
https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/epicenter-bitcoin-82-mike-hearn-blocksize-debate-at-the-breaking-point

Totally missed your post

yes thanks 24.  That's what I was thinking.

^^ This might shine some light on the subject?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11575742

I like the way GigaBit puts the shits up em but I think you hit the point here, it's a block size limit or that is what I take it to mean or quite frankly it really would be the straw that broke the camels back.  I think transaction fees would probably have to increase considerably with DGB too if it approached this limit so I'm not sure if GigaBit is right or at least I think transaction fees would make up for the additional cost to miners. See this stuff is confusing to nearly everyone, including the oldies. Glad he mentioned DigiByte though!

Reported,Will check out.

Just downloaded it for my iphone
looks good thx !

ShapeShift.io has released the first-ever cryptocurrency exchange app for iPhone. Buy or sell Digibyte instantly and on-the-go with the ShapeShift App.

Download the app: http://apple.co/1FU6Njm

Learn about the app in this Forbes article: http://onforb.es/1dtZqVX

NOTE: ShapeShift will be adding their Android app soon. Stay tuned!

Well, it depends . . . on whether the 10MB is an upper limit size, or a static block size, but if the big miners were to drop DGB in some unknown future, a 51% attack is not the potential risk like it is with BTC, and, of course, with a potential appreciation target of well over 460,000%, I suspect profitability prospects for DGB will remain solid over the long term and that any increased costs would be seen as acceptable, should there be any (my understanding is that the 10MB is an upper limit that would be reached gradually, just like the 20MB BTC proposal, with the major difference being that the upper limits just might come very fast with BTC, and that with DGB they might come much more slowly since those huge corporate "farmers" might not be as inclined to repeat the process with DGB . . . multi-algo disincentives to go along with things . . .).

@yoyoamigo,

Great link you posted earlier! Lots of great, reliable, and trustworthy information. Between that and the rest that we've posted here, anyone who wants to take the time to read a bit has got a fantastic start at truly understanding just what's involved. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/394fn1/mike_hearn_in_about_1_week_bitcoin_xt_will/

Link to the podcast linked in that reddit article (well worth the time and reposted here just in case anyone missed it).
https://epicenterbitcoin.com/podcast/082/

well,i'm not a tech guy but if this statement is true..is that the same problem if DGB hard fork to 10MB blockchain?

A nice post by GigaBit on another thread - note the reference to DGB (not surprising as he has said so much here on this thread from time to time in the past).

DGB Devs take note: please keep up your great work in setting Best Practice standards - you have a wonderful opportunity here to further move DGB into an even more consolidated leadership role.

One is a multi-coin wallet that makes the seamless conversion with Shapeshift, and the other is the exchange itself (Shapeshift).

The difference is that you still need to do the operation manually and maintain separate wallets with Shapeshift, and you have one wallet that does the rest automatically with coinomi.



What's also really interesting is the fact that DGB is one of 15 coins currently supported by coinomi. Now, whether or not they continue to be relatively exclusive or not remains to be seen . . .

Article about those two exchanges: http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase