What's the plan to recover after XT Takeover ?? - page 2.

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1617

Merit: 1012

Quote from: quakefiend420 on August 21, 2015, 06:43:29 PM

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network. And that means bigger blocks.

Large blocks are useless if they end up getting orphaned and the potential fees vanish into thin air. Miners will keep adding transactions to their blocks up to the point where their orphan rate becomes unacceptable. This depends amongst other things on the size of the blocks other miners are building.

quakefiend420

legendary

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 06:46:39 PM

Quote from: meono on August 21, 2015, 06:39:22 PM

Ah .... You pretended to trick us into another centralization argument.

Nice one OP some members got tricked to join this thread.

Don't want to trick anyone into anything
Just want to understand what is happening

See my last two replies, I'm interested to hear what you think after considering them.

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

Quote from: meono on August 21, 2015, 06:39:22 PM

Ah .... You pretended to trick us into another centralization argument.

Nice one OP some members got tricked to join this thread.

Don't want to trick anyone into anything
Just want to understand what is happening

quakefiend420

legendary

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 06:37:27 PM

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

But the block reward is going to diminish and internet connections will continue to improve, making that less relevant as time goes on(which is why we need a schedule or dynamic mechanism for block scaling, not a one time increase such as BIP102). Not to mention that the majority of the network is doing SPV mining even today with 1MB blocks.

Transaction fees have to be enough to sustain the security of the network. And that means bigger blocks.

onemorexmr

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 251

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 06:37:27 PM

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

as you seem to know bitcoin quite well i bet you know what "headers first" mean?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 06:37:27 PM

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

Ah .... You pretended to trick us into another centralization argument.

Nice one OP some members got tricked to join this thread.

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

From what i understand block propagation takes some time after the miner found a block
If the minner fills the block with more transactions he will cut his chances of getting the reward.
So it will be a mix between proof of work and proof of upload speed favorizing miners with higher upload speed.
I don't think this was originaly intended and might lead to centralization

Best Regards

quakefiend420

legendary

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 05:55:43 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on August 21, 2015, 05:15:27 PM

I think you should start doing minimum research before investing in anything.

You do realise that initially there was no block size cap? You know that 1mb was temporary solution? Are you aware that both XT and Core devs see the need of lifting the 1mb?

Off course you don't.

I know that initially there was no block size cap. I read this argument countless times. But what was the value of this technology when there was no block size cap ?

As a bitcoin entusiast i do want to see mass adoption and i realize that 1M it's quite small for that.
But we can change it after we experiment with the fee market. After the 21 mil coins have been mined the fees market it's the only thing that will suport the security of the network.

But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)

Best Regards

Which one sounds more attractive to both users and miners:

1. 100000 transactions in a block, each paying .0001 as a fee. (roughly 50MB blocks)
2. 1800 transactions in a block, each paying .005

Now before you answer that, imagine that the price of BTC has increased due to increased adoption(the market cap is likely going to need to increase substantially to handle additional commerce, right now there are mid cap companies with larger), let's say to $10000 each.

Now if you're using lightning/sidechains/etc you can still transact cheaply and quickly for most day to day activities. But let's say that your transaction isn't something that you want "on the books", most likely due to an oppressive government. Whether it's drugs or literary material, there's a government somewhere with the will to stop it. Is that worth a dollar(.0001)? Probably. Is it worth $50? Maybe not.

Increasing blocksize is going to ensure that users can still afford to transact directly on the blockchain without needing to trust an intermediary, not prevent it.

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 05:55:43 PM

Quote from: pawel7777 on August 21, 2015, 05:15:27 PM

I think you should start doing minimum research before investing in anything.

You do realise that initially there was no block size cap? You know that 1mb was temporary solution? Are you aware that both XT and Core devs see the need of lifting the 1mb?

Off course you don't.

I know that initially there was no block size cap. I read this argument countless times. But what was the value of this technology when there was no block size cap ?

As a bitcoin entusiast i do want to see mass adoption and i realize that 1M it's quite small for that.
But we can change it after we experiment with the fee market. After the 21 mil coins have been mined the fees market it's the only thing that will suport the security of the network.

But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)

Best Regards

As both, an enthusiast and investor you want value to increase. But it won't increase if there's no adoption and practical usage. And the adoption will be crippled if tx fees are too high and capacity of tx per sec is too low.
With mass adoption, more transactions with affordable and predictable fees will provide much higher reward for miners than higher fees in small number of txs.

That was the plan from the start.

Edit: removed one line that didn't make sense (misread quoted post)

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

Quote from: rebuilder on August 21, 2015, 05:59:56 PM

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 05:55:43 PM

But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)

Why?

You've had it pointed out to you that miners can choose what they want to charge to accept transactions, whatever the block size.

You have a valid argument.
Still triyng to grasp this concept

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

Quote from: Alley on August 21, 2015, 05:50:53 PM

If you want a fixed blocksize limit shouldn't it be what satoshi originally implemented? Wasn't it 8 or 32mb?

I think it's better 8 or 32mb then exponential blocksize increase.

The size it's 1m now and that's what my personal preference is.
The fact that satoshi originally implemented 8 or 32 it's not an argument. What if he originally wanted 42 mil coins .... should we change that now ?

rebuilder

legendary

Activity: 1615

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 05:55:43 PM

But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)

Why?

You've had it pointed out to you that miners can choose what they want to charge to accept transactions, whatever the block size.

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

Quote from: pawel7777 on August 21, 2015, 05:15:27 PM

I think you should start doing minimum research before investing in anything.

You do realise that initially there was no block size cap? You know that 1mb was temporary solution? Are you aware that both XT and Core devs see the need of lifting the 1mb?

Off course you don't.

I know that initially there was no block size cap. I read this argument countless times. But what was the value of this technology when there was no block size cap ?

As a bitcoin entusiast i do want to see mass adoption and i realize that 1M it's quite small for that.
But we can change it after we experiment with the fee market. After the 21 mil coins have been mined the fees market it's the only thing that will suport the security of the network.

But as an investor i don't care about mass adoption. As an investor i want to see BTC grow under it's curent limits (21 mil coints and 1M blocksize)

Best Regards

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Dude, if the fork happens, it's because we chose to!

We are the 'attack'!

No recover is needed!

Alley

legendary

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

If you want a fixed blocksize limit shouldn't it be what satoshi originally implemented? Wasn't it 8 or 32mb?

teknohog

sr. member

Activity: 520

Merit: 253

555

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 05:27:22 PM

Why someone would pay higher transaction fee if the supply (block size) it's larger then the demand (active transactions)

Please read my post again, especially the note where miners can still decide whether or not to accept transactions. This is how Bitcoin is working already.

If your supply is higher than demand, it doesn't mean you give everything away for free, you can still set your price.

I should also mention that BIP 101 allows for miners to set soft limits on the blocksize, i.e. smaller than the hard limit of 1 MB/ 8MB / 8GB or whatever.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 04:43:31 PM

I have boght BTC thinking it will keep his value and will be secured over time.
I don't care if 75% of miners want to exchange my BTC with worthless XBTC coins
XBTC doubles block size every 2 years not leaving room for transaction fees market (same effect as doubling the 21 mil coins every 2 years)
BTC 21 mil cap and BTC block size need to be fixed numbers

Since Bitcoin XT attack it's in progress the price will only go down and i don't think the attackers will give up till they fork the network.

Do you think after the fork mass adoption will happen ??

If my BTC get's turned into XBTC the only solution i see is to use my XBTC to pay for transaction fees while sending mass comercial messages over to every XBTC active address i can harvest.

Since XBTC has no transaction fee market i'm expecting the transactions to be quite cheap so i can target many addresses and even turn a profit

What do you guys think ?

No, there will be no mass adoption just due to fork , if it ever happens anyways.
No, your btc won't be "converted to anything". If blockchain splits, you can load wallet to both clients and have same number of both funds. i.e. you have 10 btc now, you will have 10 btc on core
version of blockchain, and 10 on xt version.
Who said that xbtc would have "no fee's" ?

knolix

member

Activity: 176

Merit: 10

MeVu

Quote from: teknohog on August 21, 2015, 05:12:35 PM

I don't see how the block size increase would end transaction fees.

Are You Kidding Me?

Why someone would pay higher transaction fee if the supply (block size) it's larger then the demand (active transactions)

For XT client will get to 8G in about 30 years

If we agree on a larger block size it should be fixed not increasing exponential. And we should also consider the transaction fees market to prevent spam

Best Regards

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: knolix on August 21, 2015, 04:43:31 PM

I have boght BTC thinking it will keep his value and will be secured over time.
I don't care if 75% of miners want to exchange my BTC with worthless XBTC coins
XBTC doubles block size every 2 years not leaving room for transaction fees market (same effect as doubling the 21 mil coins every 2 years)
BTC 21 mil cap and BTC block size need to be fixed numbers
...

What do you guys think ?

I think you should start doing minimum research before investing in anything.

You do realise that initially there was no block size cap? You know that 1mb was temporary solution? Are you aware that both XT and Core devs see the need of lifting the 1mb?

Off course you don't.

teknohog

sr. member

Activity: 520

Merit: 253

555

I don't see how the block size increase would end transaction fees. First of all, miners have the power to accept transactions based on fees, no matter what the block size limit. Second, if you want Bitcoin to grow more mainstream, you'll want more capacity for transactions per second, and hence larger blocks.

However, there are good reasons to limit the block size, and the various plans to increase it are very moderate and controlled. BIP 101 suggests an eightfold increase for starters, and then doubling annually. If you want Bitcoin to go mainstream, you'll probably want more than 8x increase from current usage.

Please note, I'm only talking about block size limit, and not the XT client. If we're deciding on the future of Bitcoin, it's much better to handle one well-defined issue at a time, rather than shove a bunch of shady features down our throats.

Topic: What's the plan to recover after XT Takeover ?? - page 2. (Read 1718 times)