Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19072. (Read 26609142 times)

some bankers are getting that BTC is a settlement system, not a toy for (doge)shit and giggles:

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/will-the-blockchain-replace-swift-1079740-1.html

http://www.coindesk.com/mizuho-post-trade-blockchain-trial/

credit where credit is due.

I may be being thick. But anyone know how to perform a market order (buy or sell) in poloniex? As in chew through the bids or asks sequentially with an immediate order.

...
credit where credit is due.

some bankers are getting that BTC is a settlement system, not a toy for (doge)shit and giggles:

http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/will-the-blockchain-replace-swift-1079740-1.html

http://www.coindesk.com/mizuho-post-trade-blockchain-trial/

credit where credit is due.

No. Was gobbledygook, I turned it into edifying gobbledygook.

Yes.

A few concerns with this token -

1) Vitalik organization is running out of fiat money as he admitted himself and he will need to start dumping his large bag to pay expenses

2) You think Bitcoin has scaling problems , Ethereum's blocksize is already over 10GB and no one is using it. Even if they "sharded up" and pruned the blocksize they are going to have much larger problems because there currency isn't a currency but fuel for cpu cycles, thus a popular DAPP would both drive up the cost of cpu cycles and clog the network

3) 12 sec blocktimes is absurdly small and leads to too many orphans or forks. This is why Monero devs are increasing from 1 minute block times to 2 or more

4) Lack of practical use case of any Dapps , mainly a novelty right now.

5) Once ethereum switches to PoS, there will be strong incentives to simply fork the coin to either create a sidechain or clone with the same properties but better security because the fuel distribution can be bootstrapped like clams as proposed by æthereum. Losing PoW will remove any advantage ethereum has over other ethereum forks/clones. Why would anyone want to pay for ethereum fuel when they are given free æthereum DAPP fuel and than subsequent fuel purchases are both more secure and less expensive?

...
Your attempted break down, analysis and parsing of my post makes gobbledy gook out of the whole matter, no?
...

1. You asked "If someone makes a better mouse trap, then why should we give a fuck?"
2. I explained to you why you should.

Instead of thanking me for setting  you straight, you:

1. Tell me I "can move over to the better mousetrap," apropos of nothing.

2. Redundantly doubt the existence of a better mousetrap ("if there is such a thing"). So that's why you wrote "If someone makes a better mouse trap," not "THERE IS a better mousetrap"? Well I'll be...

3. Issue a confusing non sequitur: "and whether [my] worse mousetraps retain any value whatsoever is another part of the story and preparation."

4. Restate your faith in Bitcoin: "I personally believe that bitcoin is not a worse mousetrap," see (2).

5. Show what an open-minded bro you are by stating the obvious: "but it could be possible for some better mousetrap to emerge over time," stressing the temporal aspect of being with "emerge over time."

6. Share a platitude re. investing: "and each of us needs to decide for himself whether and how much to invest in that better mousetrap and the timing for such..."

7. And warn us to be prepared for [partial] failure, even if we choose to follow your sound financial advice: "which we may get wrong, in part."

...which is all good and well, and evaluates mostly to "true," but did you know that giraffes have special valves in their necks to prevent their brains from exploding when they bend down? And also a little snubber choke at 807 plate caps goes a long way for killing parasitics when you run a bunch in parallel?

The bloat cost creates

1) storage costs
2) bandwidth costs (as this 1gb or 10gb or 100gb must be downloaded and served over and over in the network - for decades)
3) processing costs / power costs (for decades)
4) I/O slowdowns (if the blockchain can't fit anymore in an affordable SSD you'll have to rely on a mechanical disk which is slow)
5) centralization cost as nodes have to drop out, increasing costs to the fewer nodes that remain. It's a vicious cycle where the less you have, the more the costs, plus you now become an easier target for DDOSing (more costs)

As for the problems that we may need to worry, these are what exactly? That txs without a few cents in fees won't go in in the next block? That's all there is to it.

I did not forget the bloat cost. I addressed that.  Hard drive space is so cheap and getting cheaper that any damage caused by bloat will cost the attacker more than the network.  It currently costs ~ $5,000 in fees to bloat the blockchain by 1 GB.  Harddrive space is about 30 cents a GB (and getting cheaper), so with 10,000 nodes, it costs $3,000.  It costs 5 grand to cause less than 3 grand worth of damage. This may not be satisfactory to some, but it makes this kind of attack a much smaller worry than other problems that we need to be dealing with.

... biggest block i have ever seen ...

...we talk and talk...

For some reason, you seem to be twisting my point.  Yes, you can move over to the better mousetrap, if there is such a thing, and whether your worse mousetraps retain any value whatsoever is another part of the story and preparation.  I personally believe that bitcoin is not a worse mousetrap, but it could be possible for some better mousetrap to emerge over time.. and each of us needs to decide for himself whether and how much to invest in that better mousetrap and the timing for such... which we may get wrong, in part.

These smallblocker arguments are demostrably stupid. If You were a malicious spammer, your goal would be to cause the most amount of damage, to achieve the most amount of service disruption for your buck, right?
So why the hell would it matter if you paid 10,000 1 cent fees or 5,000 two cent fees?  If anything 5,000 two cent fees would be slightly easier and that's what you need to do with small blocks.  Effectively there is no difference in the cost to disrupt service.  

The simple fact is that it's easier to disrupt a network that is already running close to capacity than one that has more excess capacity. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone without a mental handicap. Think about it: would it be easier to cause a traffic jam during rush hour or at 3 AM?

If your goal is to make the chain so bloated that nodes drop off, your challenge is to cause more damage than it cost to do it, but hard drive space is really cheap and getting cheaper, so it's always gonna cost you more to harm the network than the damage you produce.  So bloat the chain, morons. You're making us money.

So what WOULD discourage a malicious spammer? Only one thing I can think of: make the network so shitty and unreliable, so pathetic that it's not worth the effort to harm.  This is apparently the Core dev's strategy.

There is no cryptographically sound way to distinguish between spam and legitimate transactions. You cannot discourage one without also discouraging the other. Spam is just a cost of doing business.  The sooner we learn to live with it, the sooner we can get on to real problems that need to be addressed and CAN be fixed.

Problems like:
1.Mining being overwhelmingly concentrated in a single communist country.
2.Faulty code that actually gives those miners a selfish mining advantage for having limited bandwidth behind the Great Firewall.
3.Developer governance rules that give any small group effective veto power over any upgrades
4.Emerging altcoin competition that has applied the lessons learned from Bitcoin's problems to develop superior cryptocurrencies.