Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21359. (Read 26715635 times)
July 09, 2015, 12:01:38 AM
July 08, 2015, 11:57:25 PM
I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.
Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.
True and some independent miner will no doubt build those huge blocks that everyone else has to deal with but the big boys aren't going to do it for free.
Should we invest in larger highways or force people to carpool? It may take some time to resolve...
Nice metaphor, a small village with a single lane toll road is going to have a hard time competing with the town next door with a two lane (miner) subsidized thoroughfare.
And after time and growth. A big city shouldn't/can't use a 30 lane freeway, but can (for a fee) generate a market for limited travel capacity, because the demand to be there exists and that demand is willing to pay (to use the most secure blockchain).
July 08, 2015, 11:32:32 PM
I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.
Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.
True and some independent miner will no doubt build those huge blocks that everyone else has to deal with but the big boys aren't going to do it for free.
July 08, 2015, 11:28:16 PM
I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.
Bigger blocks do impact all mining pools (and full nodes in their own way), independent of whether they set their software to make smaller blocks. It comes in the form of validation and hashing the transactions, which takes time, in a game where seconds count. That's why this is important to get right, and I think something crucial in the growth of btc vs plenty of willing competitors.
July 08, 2015, 11:16:17 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.
The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.
Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.
Why can't we have both a fee market and higher throughput?
Seems a bit early to say 2.7 tx per second should be set in stone. Shouldn't it be allowed to grow in the early stages? Within reason, wrt current hardware and avg bandwidth capabilities. This still requires adequate time to be studied, and shouldn't be rushed, nor needlessly delayed. Even the bandwidth constrained majority of chinese hash power said they would be open to 8MB.
It seems like a somewhat artificial handicap when btc is competing with an entire universe of alts, many with much higher throughput.
The fee market should grow in proportion to the diminishing of the block reward over time. Early=big inflation/no or tiny fees, Later= exponentially smaller inflation/higher demand for limited blocksize (speed incentivized by non-trivial fees eventually).
I have no issue with the increase to the "maximum" block size as proposed by Gavin. It doesn't mean miners are going to utilize the extra capacity unless they are compensated for it.
July 08, 2015, 11:13:25 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.
The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.
Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.
Why can't we have both a fee market and higher throughput?
Seems a bit early to say 2.7 tx per second should be set in stone. Shouldn't it be allowed to grow in the early stages? Within reason, wrt current hardware and avg bandwidth capabilities. This still requires adequate time to be studied, and shouldn't be rushed, nor needlessly delayed. Even the bandwidth constrained majority of chinese hash power said they would be open to 8MB.
It seems like a somewhat artificial handicap when btc is competing with an entire universe of alts, many with much higher throughput.
The fee market should grow in proportion to the diminishing of the block reward over time. Early=big inflation/no or tiny fees, Later= exponentially smaller inflation/higher demand for limited blocksize (speed incentivized by non-trivial fees eventually).
July 08, 2015, 11:08:20 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.
The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.
Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.
I haven't had much experience, so I ask: is it common for services to let you determine the transaction fee when withdrawing? Because I've only seen that option in one of the... three bitcoin-related services I've used.
No, but they really should let users decide if they want to add an additional fee in case it is a high priority transaction. This is going to be a bigger and bigger issue as time goes by and the block halving occurs. The days of free (or nearly free) transactions are numbered.
July 08, 2015, 11:05:31 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.
The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.
Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.
I haven't had much experience, so I ask: is it common for services to let you determine the transaction fee when withdrawing? Because I've only seen that option in one of the... three bitcoin-related services I've used.
July 08, 2015, 11:01:37 PM
July 08, 2015, 10:58:02 PM
July 08, 2015, 10:56:14 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
I think it would be great if they never clear up. Bigger fees only make sense.
The average fee for the 22800 pending transactions is .000128 BTC or 3.4 cents per transaction.
Anyone who wants to get a transaction processed in the next block or two only needs to have a $0.10 (.00037 BTC) fee and it should be just fine. The way I look at it, if you don't think it's worth it to pay 10 cents to process your transaction on the most secure network on the planet, then use a less secure alternative. The higher the average fee goes, the less chance of spam attacks and low value transactions bloating the Blockchain.
July 08, 2015, 10:53:22 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
When whoever is doing the
July 08, 2015, 10:20:30 PM
When do you think the transactions are going to clear up?
July 08, 2015, 10:01:51 PM
July 08, 2015, 09:01:51 PM
It seems to be a cyclical thing. Long ago I remember a dump was guaranteed every weekend without fail. Then it was a guaranteed pump despite many still betting on dumpage way after that behaviour was gone. Not bothered whether it's pumpy or dumpy any more as long there are some signs of life.
July 08, 2015, 09:01:42 PM
July 08, 2015, 08:56:32 PM
weekend is coming, will we see a pump or a dump?
Last couple of weekends have been pump.
July 08, 2015, 08:45:43 PM
weekend is coming, will we see a pump or a dump?
The usual is dump.
July 08, 2015, 08:44:30 PM
weekend is coming, will we see a pump or a dump?
July 08, 2015, 08:37:32 PM
*The manipulator's plan*
Price shot up to $1200, test pump, peaking interest of many.
Price correction down.
Price artificially held down, waiting for large scale economic crisis, accumulation phase for bitcoin manipulators.
Price pump as crisis hits critical point, world jumps in, bitcoin seen as safe haven from economic collapse. Btc=$5-6 figures.
Price continues to pump through halving, economies integrate currency backed by bitcoin. Btc=$5-7 figures.
*(Tin foil hat speculation over.)*
Price shot up to $1200, test pump, peaking interest of many.
Price correction down.
Price artificially held down, waiting for large scale economic crisis, accumulation phase for bitcoin manipulators.
Price pump as crisis hits critical point, world jumps in, bitcoin seen as safe haven from economic collapse. Btc=$5-6 figures.
Price continues to pump through halving, economies integrate currency backed by bitcoin. Btc=$5-7 figures.
*(Tin foil hat speculation over.)*
atm the are desperately trying to save their 'interest to infinity' debt slavery system.. in the future (if there is a future) people will look back at their 'interest to infinity' system as primitive and a form of slavery .
Here is a tin-foil hat documentary for the idea behind monetary enslavement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCPaszQpXjE
Jump to: