Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17878. (Read 26610925 times)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection


I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

Even though I sometimes get inklings about the short-term direction of price, I never feel very confident about my inklings until after I see it happen.

Therefore, I would not sell my bitcoins in the expectation to use that money to buy from someone who is 10% or so likely to flake (sure flakiness varies, but it is NOT a non-existent or even a low probable risk).

Oh, this is fire like the old days, keep it up!

I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards.

super node!

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.

I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.

No. Less than half that.


I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

do you have 200 peers?

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

Are you seriously trying to imply that 100MB are sustainable? Or just randomly stating propagation bandwidth of one 100MB block while ignoring all other effects on the network for no apparent reason and not trying to sway anyone?

Probably gold that's had no tax paid on it. If they have an inheritance tax in India I doubt anyone admits they inherited a shit load of gold to the government. They probably also use it to buy and sell things and don't bother declaring the transactions for tax.

It's highly expected that a certain percentage of people are going to flake, and maybe even folks that you have already developed a decent relationship (or a pattern of good business), so having the expectation that a certain number are going to flake would be why you have to wait until you either have the bitcoin's or the fiat in your grubby little hands before taking the next step... on the other hand, sometimes you could take certain preparations or hedge a bit regarding the expectation of an occurrence - but that hedge should not reasonably be 100%.. maybe 20% or some other comfortable amount, which would likely vary from situation to situation.



I was still referring to maintaining a personal float in order that he (Ibian) does not have to do the transaction on his end before getting confirmation (and the actual transaction) from folks who have a certain likelihood of flaking. If you do not have enough of a floating amount, then you are running the flake risk - and likely gambling with your own capital - unless you were going to cash out of BTC anyhow, which is not likely when the price has just been correcting downwards for several days and appears to be on the rebound.

By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?

I do. I uploaded over a terabyte of data to other nodes last month.

Obviously if blocks are bigger, the amount of data users need to share to keep the network running will increase.

I have very expensive, top tier internet from a major ISP that I recently purchased specifically for running a Bitcoin node. I had to gimp my maxconnections with more typical home user speeds or my internet was unusable for other tasks like surfing the web.