Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21060.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ronald98 on August 16, 2015, 10:56:36 AM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 16, 2015, 10:34:14 AM

Sooo... a 6tb hdd from HGST (The most reliable brand) costs $169 at newegg.

Quote from: ronald98 on August 16, 2015, 10:03:12 AM

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

If you insist on running a full node then you'll have to run a full node. I don't see the problem. If it's a security issue then there are alternatives such as Trezor or other HW wallets. Or just load the private key into a client wallet on a clean device and send the remaining coins to a new cold wallet. If running a full node has to be as effortless as syncing your icloud account then Bitcoin is dead in the water.

I have never run a full node, the only knowledge I have of the experience is from posts by others here. Spider-Carnage said his computer took about 4 days to index the blockchain, and I have heard others complaining of longer durations. I have sometimes read posts by the operators of exchanges saying Bitcoin withdrawals will be delayed for hours while they reindex their Bitcoin wallet. If this problem is ignored such delays will get longer. It would be better to deal with the problem before things get any worse, and if it's possible to fix it and make running a full node as effortless as syncing your icloud account then more people will start running full nodes to help the network.

You don't have to wait for anything. Download, unpack, run. That's all.

ronald98

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 250

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 16, 2015, 10:34:14 AM

Sooo... a 6tb hdd from HGST (The most reliable brand) costs $169 at newegg.

Quote from: ronald98 on August 16, 2015, 10:03:12 AM

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

If you insist on running a full node then you'll have to run a full node. I don't see the problem. If it's a security issue then there are alternatives such as Trezor or other HW wallets. Or just load the private key into a client wallet on a clean device and send the remaining coins to a new cold wallet. If running a full node has to be as effortless as syncing your icloud account then Bitcoin is dead in the water.

I have never run a full node, the only knowledge I have of the experience is from posts by others here. Spider-Carnage said his computer took about 4 days to index the blockchain, and I have heard others complaining of longer durations. I have sometimes read posts by the operators of exchanges saying Bitcoin withdrawals will be delayed for hours while they reindex their Bitcoin wallet. If this problem is ignored such delays will get longer. It would be better to deal with the problem before things get any worse, and if it's possible to fix it and make running a full node as effortless as syncing your icloud account then more people will start running full nodes to help the network.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: lebing on August 16, 2015, 10:51:20 AM

Quote from: BitThink on August 16, 2015, 03:57:40 AM

Quote from: lebing on August 16, 2015, 02:59:03 AM

Quote from: cyclotronmajesty on August 16, 2015, 02:53:11 AM

Quote from: lebing on August 16, 2015, 02:47:18 AM

Quote from: cyclotronmajesty on August 16, 2015, 02:40:43 AM

OK finally...

Why did the market wait a whole week to dump 10K coins for 3 dollar discount?

Cheesy

Is this it? Or will we dump another 10k and get our $255 coin?

because the fork is actually happening now. This isnt going to be good for the price.

As I understand it the fork is a very slow process.

It is until it isnt. The writing is on the wall now. I am of the opinion this is going to be very bad for bitcoin.

This fork only makes difference when majority (75%) miners have switched to the new fork. Actually, since everyone can see the progress in the blockchain, once it is close to 75%, most of miners and nodes will switch already. So in my opinion, there will be no noticeable fork happen at all.

Depends on your perspective. From the perspective of a merchant or an exchange, it is very much going to affect them as there are going to be two copies of the blockchain and that means two copies of spendable coins. This is not going to be good.

The code fork is XT. The chain fork will look like just another random orphan. 5 blocks toppers.

lebing

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1000

Enabling the maximal migration

Quote from: BitThink on August 16, 2015, 03:57:40 AM

Quote from: lebing on August 16, 2015, 02:59:03 AM

Quote from: cyclotronmajesty on August 16, 2015, 02:53:11 AM

Quote from: lebing on August 16, 2015, 02:47:18 AM

Quote from: cyclotronmajesty on August 16, 2015, 02:40:43 AM

OK finally...

Why did the market wait a whole week to dump 10K coins for 3 dollar discount?

Cheesy

Is this it? Or will we dump another 10k and get our $255 coin?

because the fork is actually happening now. This isnt going to be good for the price.

As I understand it the fork is a very slow process.

It is until it isnt. The writing is on the wall now. I am of the opinion this is going to be very bad for bitcoin.

This fork only makes difference when majority (75%) miners have switched to the new fork. Actually, since everyone can see the progress in the blockchain, once it is close to 75%, most of miners and nodes will switch already. So in my opinion, there will be no noticeable fork happen at all.

Depends on your perspective. From the perspective of a merchant or an exchange, it is very much going to affect them as there are going to be two copies of the blockchain and that means two copies of spendable coins. This is not going to be good.

Erdogan

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Fatman3001 on August 16, 2015, 10:34:14 AM

Sooo... a 6tb hdd from HGST (The most reliable brand) costs $169 at newegg.

Quote from: ronald98 on August 16, 2015, 10:03:12 AM

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

If you insist on running a full node then you'll have to run a full node. I don't see the problem. If it's a security issue then there are alternatives such as Trezor or other HW wallets. Or just load the private key into a client wallet on a clean device and send the remaining coins to a new cold wallet. If running a full node has to be as effortless as syncing your icloud account then Bitcoin is dead in the water.

^^
Just ignore the wallet part of it, leave it empty and continue using your preferred wallet.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Sooo... a 6tb hdd from HGST (The most reliable brand) costs $169 at newegg.

Quote from: ronald98 on August 16, 2015, 10:03:12 AM

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

If you insist on running a full node then you'll have to run a full node. I don't see the problem. If it's a security issue then there are alternatives such as Trezor or other HW wallets. Or just load the private key into a client wallet on a clean device and send the remaining coins to a new cold wallet. If running a full node has to be as effortless as syncing your icloud account then Bitcoin is dead in the water.

fonsie

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: Spider-Carnage on August 16, 2015, 10:23:59 AM

I think the best solution is to make this whole ordeal automatic. Obviously, we're going to need larger blocks in the future, as bitcoin becomes accepted in more and more places. If we do not increase the limit, there will be no more bitcoin. An altcoin with a less stubborn dev team will take up the mantle of the face of cryptocurrency and pick up right where bitcoin left off.
The problem with leaving it up to the community is the same as leaving the halving up to the community, I think. Sorry to say, I dont trust people with that decision, be they node runners or not. There should be a set mathematical model based on community growth rates and estimated physical storage capacity. This is a fundamental issue that satoshi did did not seem to solve, this is about as important as the distribution of bitcoin and the 21 million limit. I also agree with ronald98, downloading and/or indexing the whole thing is a pain in the ass. I've recently had to reindex the blockchain and my computer has taken about 4 days doing so. What determines how long it takes, processing power?

Step 1) Buy better computer
Step 2) Start coding to fix any fundamental issue

Let us know when you are done.

Spider-Carnage

newbie

Activity: 37

Merit: 0

I think the best solution is to make this whole ordeal automatic. Obviously, we're going to need larger blocks in the future, as bitcoin becomes accepted in more and more places. If we do not increase the limit, there will be no more bitcoin. An altcoin with a less stubborn dev team will take up the mantle of the face of cryptocurrency and pick up right where bitcoin left off.
The problem with leaving it up to the community is the same as leaving the halving up to the community, I think. Sorry to say, I dont trust people with that decision, be they node runners or not. There should be a set mathematical model based on community growth rates and estimated physical storage capacity. This is a fundamental issue that satoshi did did not seem to solve, this is about as important as the distribution of bitcoin and the 21 million limit. I also agree with ronald98, downloading and/or indexing the whole thing is a pain in the ass. I've recently had to reindex the blockchain and my computer has taken about 4 days doing so. What determines how long it takes, processing power?

redsn0w

legendary

Activity: 1778

Merit: 1043

#Free market

Quote from: coinpr0n on August 16, 2015, 09:59:16 AM

Quote from: thefunkybits on August 16, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

Two chains can't co-exist for very long. If >75% have already chosen XT then the others will have to jump chain. Basically.

I personally lean towards XT because I find it a better solution than devs' deadlock, but I would have preferred BIP100 or some other solution.

Not exactly, they can also abandon bitcoin and move on (another project).

Andre#

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 500

Quote from: ImI on August 16, 2015, 07:55:22 AM

Quote from: Andre# on August 16, 2015, 05:01:00 AM

I woke up to see the mess in https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/. I agree with Gavin and Mike, let the community decide.

How? In the end its just the handful of pools who will decide.

No, the people running nodes decide. Pools just follow the market.

ronald98

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 250

Quote from: billyjoeallen on August 16, 2015, 09:48:46 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 16, 2015, 08:34:15 AM

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.

Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled.

It's not only the physical sizeof the hard drive needed to store the blockchain that's causing problems. The length of time it takes to index the blockchain is getting longer as the size of the blockchain increases. That creates problems for anyone running a full wallet that needs to use it in a hurry if it takes hours, days, or weeks to index.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

coinpr0n

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: thefunkybits on August 16, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

Two chains can't co-exist for very long. If >75% have already chosen XT then the others will have to jump chain. Basically.

I personally lean towards XT because I find it a better solution than devs' deadlock, but I would have preferred BIP100 or some other solution.

thefunkybits

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

So how do we know which exchanges and merchants are on which chain?

I support larger block sizes but this is a shitshow

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: AlexGR on August 16, 2015, 08:34:15 AM

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte.

Terabyte hard drives are standard now. A year from now 5 TB drives will be standard. That's a worst case scenario and could still be easily handled.

Patel

legendary

Activity: 1320

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Patel on August 09, 2015, 11:37:54 AM

I'd say August is going to be a slow, steady downtrend.

Price target for the end of August is 250..

Then I in September I think we will have another slow start, and it will pick up to 400 by the end of the year.

Still on track I see..

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

ronald98

sr. member

Activity: 314

Merit: 250

Quote from: dreamspark on August 16, 2015, 08:50:14 AM

Quote from: AlexGR on August 16, 2015, 08:34:15 AM

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

Good explanation.

Personally I'm still undecided.

Looking back at satoshis posts shows that he always expected the blockchain to get really big and for the vast majority of people to use 'client only mode'. Is this best path for Bitcoin? I'm not sure.

He talked about pruning the blockchain down to remove the bloat. Unfortunately nobody can agree on any major change and discussing any change that big would probably get all the devs arguing like cat and dog. The sheer size of the blockchain as it stands today does nothing but put people off installing the QT.

dreamspark

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Quote from: AlexGR on August 16, 2015, 08:34:15 AM

Can somebody explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old:

XT is supposed to make bitcoin futureproof, but how is it going to achieve that, when it can be spammed up to ~1.15gb / day, meaning that it'll take just 100 days for a determined attacker to increase the blockchain to +115gb, and around a year to take it up half a terabyte. Is this "futureproofing" or ensuring that the future of bitcoin is one where it dies out of bloat and where no-one wants to download it?

Increasing the fees within the 1mb limit is a far more acceptable strategy. If that means bitcoin not doing microtransactions (at least in the traditional / on-chain way), so be it. Gold coins weren't used for microtransactions either, they had silver and copper coins for that.

Good explanation.

Personally I'm still undecided.

Looking back at satoshis posts shows that he always expected the blockchain to get really big and for the vast majority of people to use 'client only mode'. Is this best path for Bitcoin? I'm not sure.

noobtrader

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

is bitcoin dead again Huh

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21060. (Read 26710084 times)