Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 164. (Read 2032248 times)

Because they need to frenetically keep mining to cover investments and cost. They have to start mining before they have a list of transactions, and sometimes they find a block in that time interval. A miner could easily confirm or refute this, if one is in the room.

nothing special actually, borrowing from here http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/25292


emph on standard is mine. not standard != invalid.

so there's not a direct limit to tx max size. I'm not expert enough to get all the details, though.

if memory serves in ptodd's git hub repo there's a python script that let you leverage those weak limits to fill the block chain with data (a lot of), maybe it even try to minimize the fee amount.

that said what I'm proposing is to increase the fee per KB progressively. e.g. the first 100 KB  will cost you X satoshi each, from 100 to 200 X*2 etc etc

you could use  whatever's monotonic increasing function you see fit.

but maybe I'm too naive and this is wishful thinking, maybe as soon as the block space will become more scarce the market will take care of the problem automatically

Very clear explanation, rocks. 

why would a small miner be any more likely to choke on a large block than a large miner?

Now that's a thought.

Let's take it farther, are they in fact being coerced against their will to take these positions. Given they fact that their arguments are obviously FUD and yet they supposedly understand Bitcoin, it might be their way of expressing there is a state gun to their head to weaken bitcoin. The full-RBF proposal is one such absurdity

"Secure" and "insecure" are not absolute adjectives.  Something can be more secure or less secure than something else.  Zero-confirm transactions are less secure than 1-confirm transactions, which are less secure than 2-confirm transactions.  It is up to the recipient to choose the level of security required for the exchange, based on network heuristics "like the current card companies" do, as pointed out by Erdogan.  

I often encounter this strange absolutism with a certain subset of the Bitcoin community; it's something that I rarely see in "meatspace."  It's like certain people can't deal with the idea that shades of gray exists, and instead work to color everything black or white.  

Retracing a bit here to comment on the bolded part.

A settlement backbone between service companies is really, really uncomplicated:

1. I guess you are ok with filling up a multiple fare ticket card using bitcoin.
2. Expand that ticket card to add-ons like food. If so, a unit of account is needed, that would be bitcoin. The value on the card is denoted in bitcoin
3 Expand that card to other transport companies. Plus other types of companies like shops.
4 Expand with the ability to use the card in shops who are customers of a competing and cooperating card company.

Now bitcoin is the settlement system.

Little stress test and nodes fail one after another. Bring us 20 MB block and 90% nodes go down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1xqh51/new_mycelium_wallet_feature_confirmations_within/

You fundamentally do not understand how distributed P2P networks work if you believe that.

If you broadcast two different transactions at the exact same time, then there will be disagreement among peers over which transaction was first. Some of your peers would say transaction a was first and some would say transaction b was first.

In which case you've just broken the 3rd property of well formed transactions that I listed above (i.e. accepted by all of your peers).

In your example, it is easy to see that this transaction is not well formed, is at risk of being a double spend, and is thus not accepted until it confirms in a block.

That is how zero confirm transactions are proceeded today in a "safe enough" manner.

The only method to attack a well formed zero confirm transaction is to collude with a mining pool that agrees to include a transaction double spend that was not announced to the P2P network. Your chance of success is only as good as the miner's chance of finding the next block.

Serious question: are certain developers trying to get pushed out of their position? Is this all an elaborate warrant canary?

Employing those kinds of tactics means they become the damage around which the rest of Bitcoin will route.

This with big hashing power will create rules. You .. small miner .. will have to accept all blocks they will create. If you are lucky then you found 1 block per month.  

Yes, it seems that increasing the blocksize limit is almost inevitable. No one can "centrally plan" bitcoin, at the end of the day anyone can run any software they want to interact with the network. It would be trivial for someone to branch off the source code using git, and release a version with Gavin's patch applied, or BIP 100, or some other change. Using git this version can easily track all the other developments, and all changes are well-defined and change history is cryptographically verified.

Since no one can apply top-down control over the network, we have to look at the incentives of the various participants. If miners, node operators, merchants, etc want larger blocks, then they would have an incentive to run software that allows a transition to larger blocks, and indicate that they are doing so.

The most overriding incentive is to stay in line with the network consensus. But if miners start mining blocks indicating that they implements BIP 100 or BIP 101, then network participants can indicate that they will accept larger blocks contingent on most others also accepting them.

In the longer term, it would also be good if this debate fosters a more diverse software ecosystem, which would allow other protocol changes to be decided by the market in this manner.

oh, how wonderful, Coinbase's node offline.  that's explains the flatline in the price i was seeing there.

"everything's just fine".

can't wait for the explanation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bo0bj/coinbase_not_processing_blocks_since_hours/

That is awesome, is this on the Android app, in which case how did I miss seeing that...

then why are you even still here?  you should be filthy rich by now.

This is the heuristics, you can add the experienced rate of non-confirmations. With Full-RBF they obviously have to adjust their heuristic formulas a bit, I am sure they (the market, really) can cope with it. (Still, I don't think it is needed).

of course, the sarcasm.

the point is, miners control the size of their blocks.  they will construct them to be profitable.

I'll broadcast 2 (or even 10) transactions to different nodes(and services) at same time  and you cannot know what transacion was FIRST.
I can make it harder if I'll brodcast transactions just after block is found ... or DDOS you during this time

don't forget wallets like Mycelium that shows you a realtime flooding graph displaying when your particularly tx has hit 90% of the full nodes across the network and then working out a very small probability that it will not confirm based on a double spend.