Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19687. (Read 26608261 times)

Endless blocksize debate...could we just break €400 and go on now?

Coin



Explanation

+1  The existence of empty blocks is more a result of the gaming inherent in bitcoin than any explicit aim on the part of miners. As Richy said, empty blocks are allowed, but they will only succeed where no better block is found in the interim. A chain with a non empty block at its tip will always have more work than one with an empty block.  A chain with the most valid work is by definition the longest chain. But if the fuller block isnt found quickly enough, the empty one will be built upon next.

So I see no issue with including them.

If the current formula accurately reflects the percentage of total potential used block space that had actually been filled, I would advocate no change. To do otherwise turns it into a meaningless statistic. Better to have the simple unvarnished truth, rather than some manipulated figure meant to illuminate some vague outcome.

Yes. A 'spammer' with sufficient resources can clog the system, no matter how high the maxblocksize is. So what? That is not the relevant point.

The relevant point is that, at the current maxblocksize, the system supports only a half-million transactions per day (+/-). Period. No more may be processed, even if every such attempted transaction was accompanied by 0.01, 0.1, 1, 10, or more BTC. This is a hard limit currently, and this is an absolute fact. I don't know why you keep trying to deflect the conversation to the less-important 'amount of fees issue'.

In and of itself, the half-million per day limit would be no issue, but only as long as no more than a half-million 'valid' transactions are attempted per day. However, we are currently trending towards saturation. On average, blocks are currently approximately half-full. And in the last year, actual block size has increased 136%. On current trend, we don't have a year to raise this limit before user frustration. We don't have a half-year. If we get a surge in adoption this month (not an unlikely prospect, given the widely-media-discussed doubling in price over the last quarter), we could easily saturate within weeks of today.

When new interested parties arrive, money in hand, but are thwarted by not being able to acquire Bitcoin due to there being no room in any block for their transaction, what do you think the result will be?

No, that must be wrong!! According to well known crypto-expert conspiro that can only happen if smelly big blockers get their way!!

Coin



Explanation

It iterates over all blocks since the last check, totals the block space used and the block space available (by adding 1000000 for each block) and calculates the percentage from that.

In theory, empty blocks *could* be valid but in practice, I think it's fair to say that 100% are from early mining empty blocks (which is a valid miner activity according to the rules but skews calculations and causes the difficulty higher than it should be, causing a lower tps availability)

How is it calculated right now?

(Btw, last block was also a 1-transaction block https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000011bcf42f3520787eb3172c9d3dc42b2379be12cf43f3567 )

Coin



Explanation

Shill? The desperation is showing.  

I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.

Coin



Explanation

The incentive to prevent people from spamming the blockchain is minimum transaction fee.  If people are spamming the blockchain for no reason as an attack vector, it means minimum transaction fee should be higher.  Zero fee transactions never should have existed.  Since finite block size is an open, readily available attack vector, the one thing the small blockers have going for them is, it's inevitable you'll reach a fee market no matter what you set block size to.  I still think Bitcoin needs to scale to around 8-10MB blocks to not have a glass ceiling on price, but it should be able to do that with time.

Also, even though I want block size increased, since the blocks will become full no matter what you set them to, it's probably better to let them fill first to test how the system works and create solutions for whatever problems occur rather than dealing with the same problem at 10 or 20MB blocks later.  So yea, raising the block size isn't really that urgent yet as some people say.

lol so now chartbuddy gone total shill and advertise yet another dead on arrival altcoin.

mods? banhammer time?

Yes. This is really my point. I'm not saying that we should increase it because Satoshi said we should, I'm just saying that it is an arbitrary limit with no meaning and was chosen to be so high that it would not interfere with regular transactions (which will no longer be the case shortly). Something like doubling the limit would have zero effect in the immediate term but will avoid us running head-first into a wall in 3 months or so.

Coin



Explanation

If there were ever a 4 Step Plan to eradicate bitcoin, then this would be it. Congratulations, bankster! 

Regarding point 3 - How does that incentive work, and why isnt it happening now?

 

1. No, until he keeps paying fees high enough to let his tx included, given the traffic of the moment. Which means: at the rising of demand (blocks getting full), tx fees have to go up, because TANSTAAFL.

2. of course. For the very retarded I might use that.

3. and making them bigger they are incentivized to mine empty blocks.

4 on the market value has a price. and free shit is still shit.  I don't care at all about Blockstream and whatever, until the hard core remains hard.

Coin



Explanation