I don't think anything is fixed.
The network is resilient, though. Gotta give it that.
Topic: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker - page 518. (Read 1811613 times)
The network is resilient, though. Gotta give it that.
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.)
To quote Mike Hearn:
To quote Mike Hearn:
Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
Nonsense, of course. Now we know that the transition between versions should be done slightly differently. That is really all we know now.
The blocksize issue is quite trivial to resolve, as long as everyone is on the same page. But don't let me stand in the way of your desire for lower prices
All you know != all that is known. The blocksize issue is not entirely trivial.
We're now back to the old 250KB cap on blocks. There are more transactions than there is room to verify so we either get a congestion of unconfirmed transactions, or an escalation of fees. (In practice, both.)
Importantly, If you don't pay a fee, your transaction won't confirm, and your money is lost until you "double spend" the money with a fee, which is possible in the protocol, but not supported by the clients. Or a "good-samaritan" pool picks it up for free. I have had the displeasure of "losing" a transaction to this problem. It was not fun, and the mistake cost me a good bit of time and money.
Make sure to pay a fee on every transaction going forward.
I suppose you forgot already why this thread started - we ran out of block space and transactions started stacking up, unconfirmed. This almost immediately caused lots of user complaints.
Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.
Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.
Exactly because people did NOT upgrade to Bitcoin 0.8 fast enough, which fixed the bug in 0.7 and below, now we are now back to square one - stuck with blocks that are too small to meet demand for transactions. Expect the complaints to start again soon unless filtering of SD becomes common.
The options I listed in my first post are still the only options. If you don't want to filter out SD transactions then the default "do nothing" option means that transactions will become very expensive, and small quantities of Bitcoin won't be spendable at all.
The fork is certainly a big problem: unfortunately, nobody realized it would happen. It's not even clear yet what kind of testing would have revealed this issue. Simply making big blocks is apparently not enough to trigger it. That said, we knew that BDB was generally a rats nest of weird problems which is one reason why I ported Bitcoin to LevelDB. If the block sizes had been raised a few months from now, we'd probably have just abandoned the 0.7 users to their fate, but we got unlucky with the timing.
Assuming we want Bitcoin to scale up, we'll have to fork 0.7 and lower off the chain sooner rather than later and then raise the block size limits again.
EDIT: NVM- rally back on track. Good move.
what is NVM?do you mean NVC?
I do not usually day trade (actually I'm kinda trying not to ever day trade) and this is not really a good catch considering what was going on earlier but I still wanna brag:
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.)
To quote Mike Hearn:
To quote Mike Hearn:
Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
Nonsense, of course. Now we know that the transition between versions should be done slightly differently. That is really all we know now. The blocksize issue is quite trivial to resolve, as long as everyone is on the same page. But don't let me stand in the way of your desire for lower prices
I don't think anything is fixed. The current handling of the issue just bought some time. The main problem of too small blocksize remains and will have to be resolved. Now we know it's not possible to even lift the soft limit of 256KB without a hard fork. But this limit would need lifting right now, because transactions are starting to get stuck. So the real hard fork is just about to come up in the next few days. (Either because the old clients need a change to handle the larger blocks, or everyone will be forced to use 0.8+. Well okay, there's the third possibility of a really congested bitcoin-network.)
To quote Mike Hearn:
To quote Mike Hearn:
Rolling back to the smaller blocks simply puts us out of the frying pan and back into the fire.
TOP : BTC
BOTTOM : LTC
yes, we are back in game! BUY BUY BUY
One of my orders went through.
Each time I log into MtGox it allows me to click something once or twice then it logs me out.
yes, we are back in game! BUY BUY BUY
i'll just leave this here...
Most Online Today: 2397. Most Online Ever: 3809
Most Online Today: 2397. Most Online Ever: 3809
Litecoin is used exactly for 1 thing, mining new litecoins to either sell them for bitcoins or dollars, or to hoard them (which is is highly questionable since it's a Tulip bubble).
... The whole LTC economy is based on people mining new LTC's, it's a dead end loop.
... The whole LTC economy is based on people mining new LTC's, it's a dead end loop.
Yes. I came to the same conclusion too.
The first-mover advantage in crypto-currency is absolutely critical. I just can't see mainstream sites offering >1 choices of crypto. The public would see it as a Sony/Betamax or Blu-Ray/HDDVD drama all over again and be annoyed about it.
you guys forget, that by buying ltc with btc
and buying btc back with ltc you wash btc.
LTC is also much faster. We have seen where BTC can take 1 to 2 hours to have just one confirm. Operations that need speed all the time will use LTC.
join a faster mining pool
Lurk more, try again. Thank you.
if bitcoin will takes a couple of hours to confirm litecoin will take a few years
High orphan rate and long confirmation time discussion
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/high-orphan-rate-and-long-confirmation-time-discussion-88302
yep, seems like trade is stabilizing again, the rebounds are where the value people put in bitcoin really show, not walls. : P
I think someone just clicked market order "buy" when they meant market order "sell". Ouch.
EDIT: NVM- rally back on track. Good move.
EDIT: NVM- rally back on track. Good move.
Honestly, I wouldn't mind the drama if GOX could keep up with the volume. This is prime-awesome speculation time. I love it!
I don't love however, not being able to find out what is the real, current, accurate, price of a bitcoin.
I don't love however, not being able to find out what is the real, current, accurate, price of a bitcoin.
Despite WHATEVER happening in fiat world, I am still selling 1oz Mint State Silver Canadian Maple Rounds for BTC.
Check the terms:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1oz-silver-maple-leaf-check-best-price-in-op-151800
Bitstamp is not accepting BTC deposits. You are doomed. Buy some silver with your BTC NOW
BTC you send will be valid after 20 confirmations, you can personally take delivery of the silver.
Apologies for trolling style, the offers are serious and come from a legally incorporated company that has been around for years. This is just so fun
Check the terms:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/1oz-silver-maple-leaf-check-best-price-in-op-151800
Bitstamp is not accepting BTC deposits. You are doomed. Buy some silver with your BTC NOW
BTC you send will be valid after 20 confirmations, you can personally take delivery of the silver.
Apologies for trolling style, the offers are serious and come from a legally incorporated company that has been around for years. This is just so fun
Shit getting database access errors at Gox! And while clark moody just plummets!
>< lol so you didn't cash out... sorry to hear that
mtgox is lagging again....
what a POS
what a POS
Huston we have a problem >
Jump to: