Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand?
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20990. (Read 26619980 times)
August 20, 2015, 08:21:41 AM
August 20, 2015, 08:20:22 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
go litecoin if you want more tx/s. hell no just go all in ripple you moron.
i dont mind paying even a huge fee just to have the full control of my funds, being able to send when i want, where i want.
August 20, 2015, 08:09:23 AM
After the sell off support for XT fork has evaporated. XT alcoin is basically dead. Mike and Gavin have lost their credibility and will not be accepted as core devs anymore. Question is: can they harm bitcoin in any other way?
August 20, 2015, 08:02:28 AM
August 20, 2015, 08:00:33 AM
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand? 
August 20, 2015, 07:58:30 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
go litecoin if you want more tx/s. hell no just go all in ripple you moron.
i dont mind paying even a huge fee just to have the full control of my funds, being able to send when i want, where i want.
August 20, 2015, 07:58:13 AM
stop with the FUD and sloganeering ... bitcoin can scale just fine without the induced faux panic and manufactured fork missile crises circus (as much fun as the drama is).
No kidding.
Garzik's original proposal http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is a far superior solution compared to XT. These kind of proposals are the way bitcoin is supposed to evolve. You make proposal, everyone checks it out and makes suggestions and changes, you iterate this process several times until you've got something everyone agrees on.
But no, instead people want to push through an ill-conceived idea that involves 8GB blocks in twenty years along with whatever else is packaged into the XT client because Hearn says the sky is falling.
We've had sustained spam attacks for extended periods and as long as you're not an idiot and attach an appropriate fee, they don't affect you.
Bitcoin doesn't need to be dumbed down or compromised to achieve its primary goal; money that is outside the control of governments and central banks.
NOBODY is forcing you to use bitcoinXT, you can choose whatever you like.
Do you also go complain by every Linux Distro which isn't the one you currently have installed, to stop releasing those because you feel threatend that those distros are forced upon you? NO, you pick the one you like. If after a while none of the apps work on your distro, too bad, you picked the wrong one.
August 20, 2015, 07:54:30 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
August 20, 2015, 07:38:27 AM
Every thread on this site is now the same. The thread titles do not matter.
Obligatory: XT, blocksize
Obligatory: XT, blocksize
August 20, 2015, 07:33:50 AM
Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
Quote
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
This argument is antiquated. With pool mining the individual miner doesn't have to deal with the blocks at all. All that matters is that the pool has sufficient bandwith. I ran 84 machines through 3G with my phone as a wifi hotspot in a remote area just to check with a different cellular network. Worked like a charm.
August 20, 2015, 07:02:28 AM
August 20, 2015, 06:25:24 AM
Bitcoin will not scale to the level you want it to and definitely not by simply increasing the block size. It needs smart methods to do so.
Everyone has always said that bitcoin scales very well. Were they all lying?
In theory it scales as much as you want it too, but in practice it creates problems. There are tradeoffs for making a trust-less and decentralized system that consumes a lot of bandwidth and disk space to scale.
In anonymous/private coins, the scaling debate was much further ahead because their mixing or zero proof systems create much more bloat that have the potential to render their blockchain DOA - even while having tx volume like 1% of BTC.
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
August 20, 2015, 06:22:54 AM
Garzik's original proposal http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is a far superior solution compared to XT. These kind of proposals are the way bitcoin is supposed to evolve. You make proposal, everyone checks it out and makes suggestions and changes, you iterate this process several times until you've got something everyone agrees on.
But no, instead people want to push through an ill-conceived idea that involves 8GB blocks in twenty years along with whatever else is packaged into the XT client because Hearn says the sky is falling.
But no, instead people want to push through an ill-conceived idea that involves 8GB blocks in twenty years along with whatever else is packaged into the XT client because Hearn says the sky is falling.
Garzik's proposal, BitcoinCore and BitcoinXT will be the equivalent for a while; the last two wil be equivalent until 2016. After the first 1.2 MB block gets mined, it may be that Garzik and XT still agree. Even BitcoinCore could be patched to retroactively accept that block and the branch built on top of it, orphaning any small-blockian branch that may have been mined after the fork.
That's because there is no way to tell, looking at a block, what was the block size LIMIT adopted by the progam that generated it. One can only see the block's SIZE; if it 0.75 MB, it will be valid for both versions, and for any other custom version out there that did not reject it for its reasons.
indeed, if you don't trust Mike and Gavin's XT code, but (for some unfathomable reason) you do trust Adam and Greg's Core, you can make a copy of the latter and apply to it the patch of XT that implements 8 MB blocks after bla bla bla. Then you can use that version (just as you could use XT) whether XT gains 75% acceptance or not. You will be in trouble (as if you used XT) only if XT gains 75% majority, some jerk solves a 1.5 MB block, and then there is massive switch back to Core (or to some other small-block version). But if that happens you are better investing in lottery tickets than in bitcoin anyway.
Indeed, if you are not a miner, you can take a copy of Core and change the line "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000" to "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 32000000", start using that modified version anytime before 2016, and never worry about the issue again until 2022. Your transactions will be fine, and no one will be able to tell that you are using an heretical Core. You will run a small risk of some mining jerk solving an oversize block before the due time, that will be accepted by you but rejected by all other players; but that block will be quickly orphaned, so that event will not be different from the ordinary orphaning that has been happening 2-3 times every day since forever. (And that is why you should wait for 6 confirmations to be reasonably safe.)
August 20, 2015, 06:14:19 AM
Bitcoin will not scale to the level you want it to and definitely not by simply increasing the block size. It needs smart methods to do so.
Everyone has always said that bitcoin scales very well. Were they all lying?
August 20, 2015, 06:08:28 AM
So which is it? You want smaller block size so we only use bitcoin for settlements or you want people to be their own banks? You can't have both.
I'm just pointing out that even with not so many transactions, you don't simply "die" - and evidence of that is the marketcap and mobility of gold, because bitcoin is not simply a payment system, but also a store-of-wealth system.
BTC's transaction capacity was always small, and even with 8 or 32mb blocks, it's still small.
If just 10% of the global population used BTC, and they did an average of just 1 transaction per day, we'd need blocks larger than 1 GB.
Suppose we make it 1GB per block, to "scale". What will happen then? Will it "scale", or will it simply become unusable? It's a bullshit argument that "bigger is better" in this case. It isn't.
And what if we take the scenario of the entire population using it, with an avg of 2 tx per day, which requires >20gb per block?
Bitcoin will not scale to the level you want it to and definitely not by simply increasing the block size. It needs smart methods to do so.
The fact that BTC requires a lot of resources to scale, should make it expensive to use those resources. Seeing dust transactions that take up space for minimum fees, is already too painful to watch.
Quote
This is like the people who worried that browsers would clog up internet traffic back in the early nineties. or worries about picture files. or sound files. or video. 1TB hard drives are cheaper than a carton of cigarettes. Next year 10 TB drives will be. It's a bullshit argument.
Nobody in the Elite would benefit from abusing network resources back then. However, the situation is different with the blockchain which, if you supply the tools to abuse it, it will be abused and bloated and rendered unusable.
Have you asked potential bitcoin users, whether they are interested in downloading TBs of blockchain before using it?
We'll send all these potential guys to use online wallets or online-based wallets, meaning a centralized ecosystem?
Besides, the cartel in the HDD industry, reminds me of the stagnation in the CPU industry after AMD lost the plot and Intel didn't rush things much in terms of evolution.
I think it was early 2011 when I bought my WD 1TB for like 60 euros, and it still costs nearly the same: I'm not seeing any serious price reduction. So HD prices don't scale as much as we'd like.
Quote
The urgency isn't even in block size or scalability. The urgency is in fixing the goddamn decision-making process among the core devs. You think Hearn was wrong about that?
Yes he was. There wasn't any urgency or crisis that demonstrated a breakdown of the decision-making process. The dev team acknowledged that scaling improvements can be done, they issued BIPs and were debating what's the best.
Is it some kind of best practices when someone comes along and says, yes, we'll do this, and if we don't, we'll fork it?
If Hearn's dictatorship plan passes, there will be no core devs remaining to even have a decision process. I doubt any will stay to be ordered by the "dictatorship" of Andersen/Hearn. Who will maintain bitcoin then? Hearn -who isn't very active- and Andersen? That's not going to work and it's extremely bad for the future of Bitcoin.
In the end of the day, if you ask me what Bitcoin-dev-team will do the best for the currency, it's a no brainer that current core-devs are far better, active and responsible than XT's devs.
August 20, 2015, 06:04:04 AM
No doubt the XT stuff is crashing the price, but could the worries that Agora has pulled an exit scam also be contributing to the price crash? It's been offline for a while now and some reddit threads are full of posts saying it's an exit scam. Agora must have a shit load of Bitcoins under its control.
each time the site is disconnected reddit is flooded with new accounts that claim the exit scam, but until now has always re opened.I do not believe it until you see it
August 20, 2015, 06:02:28 AM
August 20, 2015, 06:01:47 AM
No doubt the XT stuff is crashing the price, but could the worries that Agora has pulled an exit scam also be contributing to the price crash? It's been offline for a while now and some reddit threads are full of posts saying it's an exit scam. Agora must have a shit load of Bitcoins under its control.
That really sucks. I had some coins there a while back, I didn't purchase anything so I sent them back to myself. Was recently thinking of maybe sending some funds over that way. Glad I didn't. Still, I hope it's not an exit scam.
August 20, 2015, 05:48:14 AM
Someone wanted to sell his coins above 240$ in China so he set few buy walls in front of the books and bots went crazy... Wouldn't be surprised to see a mini crash to 225$ now.
it is never too late to dump
August 20, 2015, 05:45:11 AM
This is an attempted coup alright, but it's from idiot miners who want a bigger slice of a smaller pie. If we cave on this, they will never allow our network to become competitive enough to disrupt the banksters.
Bloating the blockchain to DOA levels will disrupt bitcoin, not the banksters.
Besides, 8mb blocks, or even 80mb blocks, aren't enough to scale to such levels. You'd need enormous storage (and bandwidth) per day to compete with the volume of banks and credit cards.
Visa does 2000 tx/s. Bitcoin needs 300-700mb/blocks to do that, not accounting for spam.
If you add mastercard, bank transfers, swift, paypal, and, finally, cash transactions from person to person that could be digitized with btc, not even 1gb blocks would scale.
Exactly. And BitcoinXT looks like an altcoin IMHO.
All Gavin fanboys are screaming: Scale or die. They just don't understand that increasing the block size is not a permanent solution. It's a quick fix.
And like every quick fix in your life, its consequence is always bad.
Quick fix to survive ? It's the most hilarious thing I ever heard. It might make you survive for a few months more, but then kills you much faster and more painful.
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
Jump to: