same here since ... 
... well, the crash of asia in august 2014. 
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19473. (Read 26686384 times)
January 30, 2016, 04:42:10 PM
same here since ... ... well, the crash of asia in august 2014. 
January 30, 2016, 04:41:02 PM
The only way people would pay fees is if miners started declining free or near-zero-fee txs for processing, (or fees were enforced by the protocol or something). But if that happened, you don't get to spam for near-zero cost or zero cost.
Gee, what a good idea. Amazing how its never been thought of before in Bitcoin.....
Code:
2016-01-30 21:35:33 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:42 receive version message: /bitnodes.21.co:0.1/: version 70002, blocks=395848, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=109
2016-01-30 21:35:51 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:04 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:07 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: nonstandard transaction: dust
2016-01-30 21:36:37 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:50 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:10 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:29 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:35 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:59 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:19 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.8.6/: version 70002, blocks=275686, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=110
2016-01-30 21:38:19 Added time data, samples 55, offset +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:19 nTimeOffset = +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:42 receive version message: /bitnodes.21.co:0.1/: version 70002, blocks=395848, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=109
2016-01-30 21:35:51 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:04 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:07 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: nonstandard transaction: dust
2016-01-30 21:36:37 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:50 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:10 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:29 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:35 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:59 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:19 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.8.6/: version 70002, blocks=275686, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=110
2016-01-30 21:38:19 Added time data, samples 55, offset +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:19 nTimeOffset = +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
January 30, 2016, 04:16:58 PM
...
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
The idea, for now, is to build up userbase. That's the point of block rewards.
We are not growing fast at the moment but the userbase is large enough so that the price could shoot up to thousands of dollars when the develop world's economy starts tanking again
January 30, 2016, 04:02:15 PM
January 30, 2016, 03:42:08 PM
January 30, 2016, 03:25:07 PM
on avg i guess poeple make 3 TX pre day
that would mean about 256,891TPS on earth
10GB blocks?
Possible solutions:that would mean about 256,891TPS on earth
10GB blocks?
1. People often buy more than once from the same store. Make stores run a tab for their customers, consolidate a year's worth of transactions into a single transaction, and validate that single transaction via blogchain.
2. Ever wonder why people breed so much? Do they *really* need that many kids? Really?
With that in mind, are we putting enough fluoride in our drinking water? Obamacare, work safety, governments keeping drunk drivers (Nature's own gardeners) off our streets? Just throwing it out there...
3. War (Nature's other gardener): Just how is it a bad thing? Is the negativity in the mainstream press really deserved?
Increasing tx rate is not the only way to solve our problem, there are *2 sides* to every equation. We just need to start thinking outside the box.
January 30, 2016, 03:03:05 PM
Fellow bitcoiners, bag holders, mother's, sons of bitches! glory is ours for the taking.
segwit is a banner, symbolizing our power and cunning, a techno cou de force! throught deep commitment to strong consensus we will achieve an infallible system in which will will sow the seed of disruption. We WILL destroy markets and assimilate nations! nothing can stop us. buy hold spend, spread. We need only be the change we want to see and we shall have it!
seize the day and buy ALL the bitcoins!
segwit is a banner, symbolizing our power and cunning, a techno cou de force! throught deep commitment to strong consensus we will achieve an infallible system in which will will sow the seed of disruption. We WILL destroy markets and assimilate nations! nothing can stop us. buy hold spend, spread. We need only be the change we want to see and we shall have it!
seize the day and buy ALL the bitcoins!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhebl9oD5Lc
January 30, 2016, 03:02:21 PM
January 30, 2016, 02:54:27 PM
on avg i guess poeple make 3 TX pre day
that would mean about 256,891TPS on earth
10GB blocks?
that would mean about 256,891TPS on earth
10GB blocks?
January 30, 2016, 02:47:59 PM
...
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.
3 * 100 * (at most) 2 = (at most) 600, not 1400
3-5 * 100 *2
well with god knows what further improvements
i think we can get a high enough TPS so that tiny fees support miners, and then eventually bitcoin will be able to handle all payments on earth.
January 30, 2016, 02:45:31 PM
...
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.
3 * 100 * (at most) 2 = (at most) 600, not 1400
January 30, 2016, 02:41:15 PM
Spam fills blocks => a "savior" comes along and says the solution is to increase block size to fill blocks with more spam under the pretext of scaling txs => you have both a power grab and more inefficiency to deal with.
is 100x 50cent bets spam?
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
If you have ample space (let's say 10mb blocks), why would anyone pay fees to get included? It's not like there's a shortage of space... so the fee would be more like ...a tip at that point.
The only way people would pay fees is if miners started declining free or near-zero-fee txs for processing, (or fees were enforced by the protocol or something). But if that happened, you don't get to spam for near-zero cost or zero cost.
no people have and always will pay the tiny fee.
blocks were never full and everyone paid the fee.
there is a supply / demand dynamic at play with or without a block limit. miners gain nothing from including a 0fee TX, it makes there block bigger for no reason, they will do like they do now and make 0fee TX wait at 0conf for a while.
January 30, 2016, 02:40:14 PM
I still look back at the initial transaction message that Satoshi sent with the press release about how badly the credit card industry is destroying us all. The goal first and foremost should be to beat the credit card companies. Using Bitcoin as a currency was never really part of the plan.
January 30, 2016, 02:36:12 PM
Spam fills blocks => a "savior" comes along and says the solution is to increase block size to fill blocks with more spam under the pretext of scaling txs => you have both a power grab and more inefficiency to deal with.
is 100x 50cent bets spam?
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
If you have ample space (let's say 10mb blocks), why would anyone pay fees to get included? It's not like there's a shortage of space... so the fee would be more like ...a tip at that point.
The only way people would pay fees is if miners started declining free or near-zero-fee txs for processing, (or fees were enforced by the protocol or something). But if that happened, you don't get to spam for near-zero cost or zero cost.
January 30, 2016, 02:25:25 PM
We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.
Do you think we should expect an exponetial decrease in full-nodes? And do you think that will be lame?
No.
soon when BIP??? is implemented miners will be able to communicate new blocks with a tiny header rather than send the entire contents of the block. at that point nodes need only be able to keep up with the networks TPS, a node behind a slow 2Mbps can keep up with 100MB blocks.
100MB blocks with segwit = ~2Mbps ~1400TPS capacity just about the same as Visa's avg TPS.
January 30, 2016, 02:22:06 PM
We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.
Solution: Once the network has grown to fill 50MB blocks, we up the block size. Til then, 1MB blocks. Sound good?
January 30, 2016, 02:18:36 PM
We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.
Do you think we should expect an exponetial decrease in full-nodes? And do you think that will be lame?
January 30, 2016, 02:13:23 PM
We need the network to fill ~50MB blocks ( or maybe like 20MB with segwit ) at that point it's going to be generating at least 12.5BTC in fees each block which is more than enough.
January 30, 2016, 02:09:33 PM
I'm confused. I thought you previously argued for small blocks and not worrying about scaling so much?
I'm in favor of the rational use of the blockchain, not necessarily pro-small blocks or big blocks. You can say I'm against block abuse. I wouldn't mind bigger blocks accompanied with a mandatory fee increase to prevent abuse and keep blockchain activity for transactions, instead of spamming or third-party storage.
------SNIP-----
By the time the subsidy goes down significantly (let's say the halving down to 900 or 450 BTC - which are 2-3 halvings ahead), 2 things will have happened
1) Higher tx capabilities - perhaps 10-20-50x or more, whether directly or with sidechains
2) Much higher BTC price to compensate for subsidy losses. As inflation lowers, BTC becomes stronger price-wise, thus mining 3600 BTCs at 400$ would give the miners less than say mining 900 BTCs at 10.000$.
I don't have time to for a proper reply right now, so I'll just settle for two points :
-If the miners decide transactions you call abuse make sense for them to include in blocks, why does this bother you?
-of your numbered points, #2 is obviously wrong. Security in this context is measured as cost to attack vs. potential profit, yes?It follows that as BTC valuation, and therefore the value stored on the network, goes up, you must correspondingly increase spending, in fiat terms, on mining to maintain the same level of security. By this view, it's the BTC cost of mining that is relevant.
Going to leapfrog off your quote as you already did the trimming for me but he forgot that another way to compensate for subsidy losses is for miners to stop mining. We are arguably over-secured at the moment. As the subsidy decreases, a true market arises.
January 30, 2016, 02:03:24 PM
...
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
the idea is to have enough TX on the network so that fee's replace block subsidy.
i say, let the BMO's blockchain app spam away!
The idea, for now, is to build up userbase. That's the point of block rewards.
Jump to: