Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19444.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 30, 2010, 02:08:19 PM

Quote from: theymos on September 30, 2010, 02:01:29 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 30, 2010, 01:58:18 PM

I did a quick Google search on the topic, and discovered an old Visa press release that stated that during the peak hour for the year of 2005 (Dec 23rd) Visa processed an average of 6,363 transactions per second, or just shy of 3.82 million transactions within a ten minute span.

That's a lot. Bitcoin won't allow blocks over 1MB, so assuming a (rather small) average transaction size of 216 bytes, Bitcoin can only handle 4,629 transactions per 10 minutes.

That hard limit is going to have to be bumped up if/when Bitcoin takes off. 463 transactions per minute wouldn't be anywhere near viable for a worldwide online currency. We, at least, need to be able to handle the number of average transactions per minute that paypal claims they currently average.

______________________________________________________________________________

Quote from: jgarzik on September 30, 2010, 02:11:51 PM

Quote from: MoonShadow on September 30, 2010, 02:08:19 PM

That hard limit is going to have to be bumped up if/when Bitcoin takes off. 463 transactions per minute wouldn't be anywhere near viable for a worldwide online currency. We, at least, need to be able to handle the number of average transactions per minute that paypal claims they currently average.

+1

Scaling to high transaction rate has always been my main concern about viability of bitcoin. I'm much more concerned about scalability than government shutdown, for example.

A blast from the past. Cool

5 1/2 years should be enough to figure things out Grin

I understand necessity is the mother of invention.

Let's take inventory.........

What does core have besides SW?
What does classic have besides 2MB?

Can kickers, something about Rome...

I'm sure this post will please Elwar Grin

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

LFC_Bitcoin

legendary

Activity: 3556

Merit: 9709

#1 VIP Crypto Casino

385 is a nice area to hover around for a while I suppose. It's still cheap coins imo.

mymenace

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1061

Smile

Quote from: molecular on February 05, 2016, 04:32:42 PM

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on February 05, 2016, 11:47:19 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 05, 2016, 10:19:34 AM

I'm generally ok with the speed of payment. I truly take issue with some properties of the Fiat money, though. Especially with the fact that banks can lend it into existence out of thin air. I can see why someone from a bank would downplay the fact that I am probably not alone.

I don't think of it so much as that they can create it out of thin air. Rather, the deposits you hold at a bank are not real money, but a mix of loans, stock investments etc., with a small bit of cash reserves so they can pay out the few people who want some cash at any given time.

True. The smallest fraction of money is in the form of cash of course (the only form of legal tender in germany, for example). Banks are engaging in fractional reserve lending (no surprise). Point being: could they do it with bitcoin? Theoretically yes, if they can get everyone to deposit their bitcoins it could work just as well. Central bank would be replaced by bitcoin network. In practice it wouldn't work well at all though, because bitcoin is way easier (cheaper) to move / store / transact online than cash. It's digital cash.

Banks runs are just a mouse click away.

They can't let that happen so they'll divert the attention to "blockchain tech", do a little "embrace and extend" magic and hopefully be done with bitcoin.

why use bitcoin when you can create your own blockchain and determine the development from there

bitcoin is for the people as fiat is for the nation

why is it organisations are accepting bitcoin as payment, there is large economy in bitcoin where there is lots of buyers who are decentralised people wanting to spend their money their way and how they want , not dictated by national legislation, bank regulations and not determined by financial infrastructure (e.g. emerging blockchains)

molecular

donator

Activity: 2772

Merit: 1019

Quote from: Spaceman_Spiff on February 05, 2016, 11:47:19 AM

Quote from: molecular on February 05, 2016, 10:19:34 AM

I'm generally ok with the speed of payment. I truly take issue with some properties of the Fiat money, though. Especially with the fact that banks can lend it into existence out of thin air. I can see why someone from a bank would downplay the fact that I am probably not alone.

I don't think of it so much as that they can create it out of thin air. Rather, the deposits you hold at a bank are not real money, but a mix of loans, stock investments etc., with a small bit of cash reserves so they can pay out the few people who want some cash at any given time.

True. The smallest fraction of money is in the form of cash of course (the only form of legal tender in germany, for example). Banks are engaging in fractional reserve lending (no surprise). Point being: could they do it with bitcoin? Theoretically yes, if they can get everyone to deposit their bitcoins it could work just as well. Central bank would be replaced by bitcoin network. In practice it wouldn't work well at all though, because bitcoin is way easier (cheaper) to move / store / transact online than cash. It's digital cash.

Banks runs are just a mouse click away.

They can't let that happen so they'll divert the attention to "blockchain tech", do a little "embrace and extend" magic and hopefully be done with bitcoin.

mymenace

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1061

Smile

Quote from: tomothy on February 05, 2016, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: 8up on February 05, 2016, 03:52:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 03:48:20 PM

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

Quote

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

they are writing about bitcoin and call it 'blockchain' LMAO

I read it and I think they are calling blockchain technology blockchain technology. Cheesy

They did not mention bitcoin or even allude to bitcoin. IMHO.

they are talking about the consortium undertaking ethereum blockchain technology, the legacy linux hyperledger blockchain being tested by the ASX in australia and other emerging blockchains

as well every altcoin has its own blockchain

here is another one as well Dogecoin blockchain explorer check it https://dogechain.info/

yefi

legendary

Activity: 2842

Merit: 1511

Quote from: ?? on ??

Btw, if you already have core, then you can use the same blockchain, no need to download again.

Yeah, I assume you could just replace the core exe/libs with the classic exe/libs, and you'd be good.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 01:58:10 PM

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

but none of the others have the nuts/labias to draw the line.

Fatman, I'm glad to see you use the correct anatomical/developmental equivalence.

BMB, because I'm ignorant or an idiot or both, I feel like a donkey between 2 equally spaced piles of hay.

We ain't passing 400 anytime soon. All I be doing is hodling. Ain't selling and no money till spring.

tomothy

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Quote from: 8up on February 05, 2016, 03:52:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 03:48:20 PM

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

Quote

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

they are writing about bitcoin and call it 'blockchain' LMAO

I read it and I think they are calling blockchain technology blockchain technology. Cheesy

They did not mention bitcoin or even allude to bitcoin. IMHO.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

8up

hero member

Activity: 618

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 03:48:20 PM

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

Quote

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

they are writing about bitcoin and call it 'blockchain' LMAO

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

https://www.pwc.com/us/en/financial-services/publications/qa-whats-next-for-blockchain.html

Quote

We see three trends related to blockchain that we believe will be important in 2016: incumbents focus on protecting their intellectual property as they explore new collaborative opportunities with customers, suppliers, and competitors; large financial institutions will need strategic plans to set parameters for technology risk taking; and market participants will start to develop the processes that surround the transactional layer.

Wat??

tomothy

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Quote from: craked5 on February 05, 2016, 03:26:47 PM

Quote from: tomothy on February 05, 2016, 03:20:08 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 01:58:10 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 01:06:32 PM

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

Wow, this argument is both really crazy and really scary...

But I don't think btc draws enough attention so some people/industries put so much efforts in the battle.
And in a way, even if you crash the mining process, it's not so important. If you crash the mining, you limit the adoption but you also make it easier for everyone to mine no? So instead of crazy industrial instalation mining, we would have just normal instalation ran by some people. And everyone would mine a bit at home.

Am I wrong?

So, switching to a different algorithm supportive of GPUs and not asics, I would assume, would result in a decreased amount of hashpower. Like any new coin starting out, you would begin with decentralized hashing but then as those with money and power buy more equipment it would again become more centralized and mining would migrate to locations with cheap power. Resulting again in a highly centralized mining cartel. Except this time, you would have people maybe a little upset that they had previously invested in mining equipment that was made obsolete. So the question would be if whether the new non-asic coin is more secure than the asic coin.

dropt

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tomothy on February 05, 2016, 03:20:08 PM

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

My Classic node took ~48 hours to fully sync on a 100MB connecion.

Also, if Core switches PoW and goes back to GPU mining, maybe we should take a page out of Luke-Jr's book. We can create a mining pool called ELIGFUCKCOREIUS^{^TM} and then use all the hashpower to destroy their chain?

craked5

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 529

Quote from: tomothy on February 05, 2016, 03:20:08 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 01:58:10 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 01:06:32 PM

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are like a 1920's cheap parlor trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)

Wow, this argument is both really crazy and really scary...

But I don't think btc draws enough attention so some people/industries put so much efforts in the battle.
And in a way, even if you crash the mining process, it's not so important. If you crash the mining, you limit the adoption but you also make it easier for everyone to mine no? So instead of crazy industrial instalation mining, we would have just normal instalation ran by some people. And everyone would mine a bit at home.

Am I wrong?

tomothy

sr. member

Activity: 258

Merit: 250

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 02:35:02 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 01:58:10 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 01:06:32 PM

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Also launching a node, it takes so long to sync... I think they are purposefully limiting bitcoin with smaller blocks to show their control. I dont believe Maxwell, LukeJr, or Ptodd's lies anymore. I'd rather a known three letter agency operating bitcoin then let those three continue to destroy it. At least with gavnista and tor blacklisting, these were known entities, scaling is supported, and the network would still work. After reading gmaxwells explanation (if you can even call it that) of decentralization in relation to LN I can't see how SegWit & LN are not unlike a 1920's cheap parlor trick or magician sleight of hand trick. I for one welcome the 75% fork... Let's see them change POW to prevent asics from ruining their coin.

~~(Sorry, but that argument is crazy. Prevent decentralization by breaking asics so you have to gpu mine. He who has the most cash still rules with that regard, it changes nothing.)~~

Mining becomes centralized regardless based on equipment & utility costs when hashpower is used to secure the network

*See edits for clarity of thoughts.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 03:16:11 PM

Satoshi never used IRC, and he rarely explained his motivations for anything. In this case, he kept the change secret and told people who discovered it to keep it quiet until it was over with so that controversy or attackers wouldn’t cause havok with the ongoing rule change…

….I think that he was just trying to solve an obvious denial-of-service attack vector. He wasn’t thinking about the future of the network very much except to acknowledge that the limit could be raised if necessary. The network clearly couldn’t support larger blocks at that time, and nowadays we know that the software wasn’t even capable of handling 1 MB blocks properly. Satoshi once told me, “I think most P2P networks, and websites for that matter, are vulnerable to an endless number of DoS attacks. The best we can realistically do is limit the worst cases.” I think he viewed the 1 MB limit as just blocking yet another serious DoS attack….

…Satoshi is gone now, so it’ll be “the developers” who set the larger limit. But it has been determined by the majority of the Bitcoin Core developers (and the majority of Bitcoin experts in general) that the network cannot actually safely handle significantly larger blocks, so it won’t be done right now. And the economy has the final say, of course, not the developers.

Its a moot point really. We dont need bitcoins anyway...

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 05, 2016, 02:23:51 PM

You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Satoshi never used IRC, and he rarely explained his motivations for anything. In this case, he kept the change secret and told people who discovered it to keep it quiet until it was over with so that controversy or attackers wouldn’t cause havok with the ongoing rule change…

….I think that he was just trying to solve an obvious denial-of-service attack vector. He wasn’t thinking about the future of the network very much except to acknowledge that the limit could be raised if necessary. The network clearly couldn’t support larger blocks at that time, and nowadays we know that the software wasn’t even capable of handling 1 MB blocks properly. Satoshi once told me, “I think most P2P networks, and websites for that matter, are vulnerable to an endless number of DoS attacks. The best we can realistically do is limit the worst cases.” I think he viewed the 1 MB limit as just blocking yet another serious DoS attack….

…Satoshi is gone now, so it’ll be “the developers” who set the larger limit. But it has been determined by the majority of the Bitcoin Core developers (and the majority of Bitcoin experts in general) that the network cannot actually safely handle significantly larger blocks, so it won’t be done right now. And the economy has the final say, of course, not the developers.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 01:58:10 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on February 05, 2016, 01:06:32 PM

Fired up a new node with Bitcoin Classic.

Only 7 years and 4 weeks behind.

Do you really want this fork to find 75% of the hash, Fatty? I'm still torn.

It's just a node, it's not hashing.

I definitely am having trouble agreeing with the way Core is letting a small group of nutters set the tone and direction of their development. I've seen this before. Nobody thinks the rest will let the more shouty ones ruin the project, but none of the others have the nuts/labias to draw the line. They will keep compromizing and rationalizing until we have 0.5MB JeebusCoin. Maybe with HSBC or JPMorgan or similar running LN. It's an interesting model, but in order to maintain a fairly secure mining network the fees would have to be insane on the main blochchain. The problem then is: what will happen to the social capital? If the regular users are pushed off the main chain why would they run nodes to support what in essence is a distributed banking network? So financial actors would have to run the nodes. Is it decentralized then? What was the point of the block size limit then? Suddenly we are to imagine that the large financial actors want gimp-coin? It all kind of falls apart.

I don't think Gmaxwell or Luke-Jr are necessarily aiming for this. They seem to have an estethical idea of how the network technically should work. That can be a good thing in many cases, but it can also lead them astray.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19444. (Read 26708661 times)