was it you accusing me a few weeks ago about using sockpuppets on Reddit? sorry i didn't make the list. but a couple of your BS core devs did.
:https://github.com/aehaynes/reddit_authorship/blob/master/sock_rankings.txt
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 108. (Read 2032266 times)
hey iCEBlow,
was it you accusing me a few weeks ago about using sockpuppets on Reddit? sorry i didn't make the list. but a couple of your BS core devs did.:
https://github.com/aehaynes/reddit_authorship/blob/master/sock_rankings.txt
was it you accusing me a few weeks ago about using sockpuppets on Reddit? sorry i didn't make the list. but a couple of your BS core devs did.
:https://github.com/aehaynes/reddit_authorship/blob/master/sock_rankings.txt
What goes up must come down?
or Damned lies and statistics? (squish the x-axis and truncate the y for dramatic effect)
To me spec interest in crypto is at all time high. we just dont see result as of yet. Devs and whales dumping i think depressed prices but not interest
The good news, re:groundbreaking study detailing scaling capability in the face of exploding demand, has yet to permeate down to the traders. Early bird gets the worm.
Looks a lot like
I'm not sure what to make of either graph, other than to say that speculative interest in cryptocurrencies has waned quite a bit over the past 12-18 months.
Interesting post by smooth on another thread, thanks to the last optimizations Monero can actually get near VISA-levels of TPS:
Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.
Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.
What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.
Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.
Speaking of block size...what's Monero's capacity in terms of txs per second?
Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.
Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.
What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.
Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.
The good news, re:groundbreaking study detailing scaling capability in the face of exploding demand, has yet to permeate down to the traders. Early bird gets the worm.
What is this thread, "gold collapsing, bitcoin up?" Yeah, that. Without commenting on stuff like vaultoro.com partnering with shapeshift.io (kind of interesting hybrid development), I'll just throw this out there and let you chew on it:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn3lqs
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn3lqs
Once again, Nick Szabo is spot on correct. Kudos!
Wait..for...it...
Later that day....
man is desperate
On the contrary, that is about the only thing I can think of where I agree with Hearn nearly 100%.
That said, it does seem to me that in terms of overall design (which is all I am even vaguely informed enough to critique) 'old school' in the way Hearn seems to have meant it and to me that is a very good thing. Back in the day, resources of many types were scarce and people had to, by necessity, expend a lot of energy thinking about how to make things efficient. From what I can tell Satoshi thought a fair bit about some of these things. In some cases it seems like he had some ideas which were abandoned half way through though. For instance, the idea of spending all your money and having change returned opens the door for some significant preening but the actually leveraging it to it's potential was something which really never happened.
It is worth note that when the dimension of time is introduced, modern resource availability is not nearly as much of a panacea as it is for someone just trying to get the next release out to a customer or deployment. Tight and well considered 'old school' designs have a place even in the 'modern' world in some corner-case efforts. Bitcoin is a classic example of one of these.
s/blast from the past/old school/g
Interesting post by smooth on another thread, thanks to the last optimizations Monero can actually get near VISA-levels of TPS:
Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.
Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.
What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.
Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.
Speaking of block size...what's Monero's capacity in terms of txs per second?
Monero has a very scalable block size solution. It is "adaptive" as it changes with the amount of information going through the Monero network.
Okay, thanks. I'd prefer a number, but what you wrote will do.
What he said was right. There is no hard limit in the protocol. Noodle Doodle's recent benchmarks on an i7-2600K show 2.5 ms average tx verification time (per core) so that would max out at 1600 tx/second.
Usage at that level would require a lot of bandwidth and CPUs slower than a 2011 quad core desktop would not be able to keep up and would need to drop off.
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.
The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small
No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?
I thought I told you already not to twist my or anyone's words
Wait..for...it...
Later that day....
man is desperate
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.
The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small
No one ever said ignore the possibility. But since you are so adamant about the need to worry about it, what do you propose we do?
Wait..for...it...
Wait..for...it...
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
I don't necessarily believe that is the case right now but certainly won't pretend this is not possible, see smooth's comment again for explanation.
The point is we have no way to know and it is a big enough risk that we shouldn't ignore its existence even if we are to pretend the odds for this to occur are small
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
So why haven't they attacked?
Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?
Why don't you explain it to us?
What is there to explain? Can you not imagine a scenario where an entity controls more than 51% of the network yet decides it is in their best interest not to attack it?
If that's what you think you should sell your coins now.
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
So why haven't they attacked?
Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?
Why don't you explain it to us?
What is there to explain? Can you not imagine a scenario where an entity controls more than 51% of the network yet decides it is in their best interest not to attack it?
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
So why haven't they attacked?
Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?
Why don't you explain it to us?
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
So why haven't they attacked?
Because they have no incentive to? You do know that's how the game works right?
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
So why haven't they attacked?
Occam's Razor applies perfectly well here to mining.
Sure it does, and the simplest explanation is simply that huge miners hide their scary network % by breaking them up. Anything else requires a convoluted and unlikely explanation to negate the natural economies of scale for industrial mining.
Jump to: