Topic: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit? - page 4. (Read 2196 times)
I love how people think they are smarter then Satoshi
The "amount of miners" are simply the number of decentralized participants in the consensus decision. Today, that number is something like 3 or 4. There are 3 or 4 deciders on the consensus decision: the 3 or 4 mining pools that have majority hash power under their decision. About 10 deciders, even though they cannot go against the tacit agreement of the 3 or 4 majority deciders, make up the essence of bitcoin's consensus deciding power.
(...)
The power of consensus is in the hands of 3 or 4 entities.
Let us see what this means. Suppose 3 or 4 entities collude and are pissed against a single exchange. They know that exchange's hot and cold wallets. They decide that no transaction from one of these wallets is going to make it in the block chain. If they are serious about it, they will never include one of these transactions, and will orphan every block that does. People will realize that they cannot withdraw from that exchange. They will think there's something quite fishy with that exchange. The transactions will never be confirmed. They will see the transactions in the mem pool, and never in the chain.
(...)
The power of consensus is in the hands of 3 or 4 entities.
Let us see what this means. Suppose 3 or 4 entities collude and are pissed against a single exchange. They know that exchange's hot and cold wallets. They decide that no transaction from one of these wallets is going to make it in the block chain. If they are serious about it, they will never include one of these transactions, and will orphan every block that does. People will realize that they cannot withdraw from that exchange. They will think there's something quite fishy with that exchange. The transactions will never be confirmed. They will see the transactions in the mem pool, and never in the chain.
Right, so when Bitcoin advocates say things like:
Quote
Bitcoin gives us, for the first time, a way for one person to transfer money to another person anywhere in the world, so that the transfer is guaranteed to be safe and secure, everyone knows that the transfer has taken place, and nobody can challenge or block the transfer.
You're saying that's actually false because these "3 or 4 entities" can block whatever they want and the rest of the network is powerless to prevent it? In my view, the miners would only get away with that if the rest of the network agrees with that action. If the majority of non-mining nodes disagree - and there's an incredibly strong likelihood they would disagree, because blocking transactions is categorically not part of Bitcoin's ethos or underlying principles - you can expect that a change of algorithm would be promptly forthcoming and there would be many expensive bricks that used to do something profitable left to rot on a shelf somewhere. Not to mention that the users of that exchange would be innocent bystanders and wouldn't deserve to have their withdrawals blocked like that. There would be uproar if miners pulled a stunt like that. So no, "3 or 4 entities" do not have "consensus deciding power". Miners might decide what transactions go in their blocks, but users decide which blockchain they freely choose to follow. If the users aren't accepting those blocks, no one cares who they did or didn't include.
Whoever says miners have all the power is wrong; whoever says users have all the power is wrong; whoever says developers have all the power is wrong. It should be more than self-evident by now that's not how this shit works. It all exists in equilibrium. No one group can act unilaterally if the others don't agree, unless one of them is prepared to fork off or be forked off.
So... we will never understand what his true intentions were. As far as I know, what we know is having full nodes in the hands of a few corporations only would centralize the system at layer 0 (BCash). If LN centralizes or not, it's yet to be seen. I trust no one.
The dispersed network theory where even if everyone kept open two channels instead of just one because these things
are expensive in miner fees has been blown out the water and it would be like trying to use the Tor network with 300 relay nodes
and that's if you could workout the routing.
I contend that having banking hubs is centralization and was a bank to go down then people would broadcast a message
on the Bitcoin network en-mass and the BTC block-chain at just 7 transactions per second could not cope with demand and unless all
the LN internal channels are able to close down gracefully then chaos would ensue.
In the lighting Network white paper they even talk about "Spending accounts" and "Saving Accounts" to be used for security
and reading whats shown below I can even image insurance brokers being built into the network to reduce risk
Quote
If one wishes to broadcast the transaction chain instead of agreeing
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty.
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty.
Yes sure, here you go miners have another $30 on me and just where is that button in my
wallet to contest transaction since it is built into the protocol or will the banking nodes all
be running much more sophisticated software which put paid to the saying "Anyone can be a bank"
You can think whatever you want about the lightning network, what is clear is that "nodes-as-big-as-needed" (in other words, BCH's approach, as admitted by Roger Ver) is not a real long term solution, and it will end badly, and it will end badly at layer 0.
Whoever is drinking the koolaid that the system would remain as decentralized with a handful of nodes can't be giving lectures on the supposed centralization of the lightning network.
This is the first time this year I see an interesting thread/post, thanks for that.
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
...if more than 1,000 miners are needed for Bitcoin...1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
The "amount of miners" are simply the number of decentralized participants in the consensus decision. Today, that number is something like 3 or 4. There are 3 or 4 deciders on the consensus decision: the 3 or 4 mining pools that have majority hash power under their decision. About 10 deciders, even though they cannot go against the tacit agreement of the 3 or 4 majority deciders, make up the essence of bitcoin's consensus deciding power.
To illustrate what this means: suppose that you are the owner of coins in an address that the 3 or 4 mining deciders are angry about. If these 3 or 4 deciders really don't want you to transact, they can refuse your transaction (no matter what fee you pay). If these 3 or 4 deciders also decide that they won't mine on top of another block that contains your transaction, mined by a smaller pool, then they will orphan these blocks. By the time that the other significant mining pools, not understanding why their earlier block is orphaned, get the message, they will also avoid putting your transaction in their block (even if they don't have anything against you), in order for them not to waste their blocks: they can't win against the majority hash rate that will always orphan their blocks faster than they can construct on it.
The actual miners selling their hash rate will never know. The block chain that is built is perfectly OK. Your transaction remains in the pool. No miner decides to include it, because 3 or 4 entities decided that your coins were excluded from the system. Their consensus decision is in agreement with bitcoin's protocol. No "full node in Joe's basement" will alert Joe that something is fishy.
The power of consensus is in the hands of 3 or 4 entities.
Let us see what this means. Suppose 3 or 4 entities collude and are pissed against a single exchange. They know that exchange's hot and cold wallets. They decide that no transaction from one of these wallets is going to make it in the block chain. If they are serious about it, they will never include one of these transactions, and will orphan every block that does. People will realize that they cannot withdraw from that exchange. They will think there's something quite fishy with that exchange. The transactions will never be confirmed. They will see the transactions in the mem pool, and never in the chain.
This is the first time this year I see an interesting thread/post, thanks for that.
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
Mining using CPU-Wars was and is a total joke and others have proved it and transactions on other coins like ETH don't cost
a tenth of what we are forced to pay today and competition is good but not good by the time you have 20,000 and if you plot the
fees against the mempool then before now when it was at 130,000 we have paid fees of $40 and now we are down to about $15
Clearly something does not add up and something is very wrong if more than 1,000 miners are needed for Bitcoin when it's not
even hosting "Smart Contracts" for other coins and they also say "Lightning Network" bring smart contracts to Bitcoin so where
do I publish my scripts to then if this is indeed the case
45 sat/b
https://blockchain.info/tx/8c189782b4eeb4074674b1c009b12edfde8ef4264733485c7627cfc8b75106f4
Explain this 1$ transaction.
This is the first time this year I see an interesting thread/post, thanks for that.
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
...if more than 1,000 miners are needed for Bitcoin...1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
This is the first time this year I see an interesting thread/post, thanks for that.
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after
Mining using CPU-Wars was and is a total joke and others have proved it and transactions on other coins like ETH don't cost
a tenth of what we are forced to pay today and competition is good but not good by the time you have 20,000 and if you plot the
fees against the mempool then before now when it was at 130,000 we have paid fees of $40 and now we are down to about $15
Clearly something does not add up and something is very wrong if more than 1,000 miners are needed for Bitcoin when it's not
even hosting "Smart Contracts" for other coins and they also say "Lightning Network" bring smart contracts to Bitcoin so where
do I publish my scripts to then if this is indeed the case
Okay okay, before you rush and say "To prevent spam attacks!!", please wait and read this whole thread.
^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.
Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.
Okay... history lesson over.
Now here is why it doesnt make sense:
The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:
1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain
Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.
The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!
Allow me to explain:
Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.
This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.
This is the first time this year I see an interesting thread/post, thanks for that.^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.
Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.
Okay... history lesson over.
Now here is why it doesnt make sense:
The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:
1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain
Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.
The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!
Allow me to explain:
Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.
This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.
1MB can be considered for preventing spam. Maybe he didn't think if bitcoin could become so popular and also there aren't some things considered like what will happen after mining of last block.
Also if you say that it's because of miners to get much profit, then we can proudly say that satoshi's idea was being a miner and he may be owner of one of the biggest mining companies and that may be the reason of his quiet.
And if his aim was much profit by mining, then why did he decided to give a try to reward halving? Maybe for price rising and he decided to cover that loss by filling it with high tx fees. I have no other idea...
What mail was he responding to here? http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
Can I get a link.
Can I get a link.
You only get Satoshi's replies, not the emails that were sent to him/them/whatever. Keep in mind these are emails, which aren't usually publicly accessible at all. The email Satoshi replied to on that link is quoted in the body, though. You have to pay attention to the > and >> marks to see who said what. You might find more details on the early cryptography mailing lists, but that's down to you and your "googe-fu".
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/p
Nope. Read his e-mail of November 2008:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
He understood perfectly how it would go.
The only thing he missed, was the collaboration of mining into pools. He didn't realize that people could pool together, and sell part of their hashing effort into a fraction of a block reward, so in his opinion, there would have been more individual miner nodes.
That said, mining itself is automatically limited to a finite number of sensible participants. It wouldn't make sense to be 1 million independent mining nodes (the only nodes Satoshi considered, were mining nodes: he never considered non-mining full nodes as meaningful - and he was right). The reason that it doesn't make much sense to have 1 million mining nodes, is the fact that there are only 52 600 blocks mined per year.
Even if there were 1 million mining nodes with all having exactly the same hash rate, that would mean that *on average* a mining node would win ONE SINGLE BLOCK every 20 years. But given statistical fluctuations, you might as well mine for 50 years and never have a block. Or you might mine for 3 years and be lucky and find a block.
Given that all capital has a power law distribution, and never a uniform distribution, even if you would only have 5000 mining nodes, where, with a uniform distribution, each node would, on average, mine 10 blocks per year, the power law distribution would give most blocks to the 1000 upper class miners, and almost never a block to each of the 4000 others.
So it would, in any case, in Satoshi's mind, not have been meaningful, statistically, to have many thousands of nodes.
The strategy of pooling together has of course strongly amplified this effect, and he wasn't aware of that. In a certain way, mining pools add a small sniff of decentralization to the, in any case, obvious centralization that the economies of scale would induce in the competition for mining. If mining pools weren't possible, we would quite possibly simply have 5 or 10 mining nodes, period. Who can, effectively, still compete in *solo mining* as Satoshi saw it ? The industrial proportions of mining make solo mining only available to a big company. You'd have Intel vs Motorola vs Nvidia vs AMD or something. Now, with mining pools, even with a modest mining investment, you can still contribute. However, the "voting power" of a mining-subcontractor is very small: he can just go to another mining pool. But it is better than nothing.
What mail was he responding to here? http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
Can I get a link.
Simple answer:
Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.
Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.
Nope. Read his e-mail of November 2008:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
He understood perfectly how it would go.
The only thing he missed, was the collaboration of mining into pools. He didn't realize that people could pool together, and sell part of their hashing effort into a fraction of a block reward, so in his opinion, there would have been more individual miner nodes.
That said, mining itself is automatically limited to a finite number of sensible participants. It wouldn't make sense to be 1 million independent mining nodes (the only nodes Satoshi considered, were mining nodes: he never considered non-mining full nodes as meaningful - and he was right). The reason that it doesn't make much sense to have 1 million mining nodes, is the fact that there are only 52 600 blocks mined per year.
Even if there were 1 million mining nodes with all having exactly the same hash rate, that would mean that *on average* a mining node would win ONE SINGLE BLOCK every 20 years. But given statistical fluctuations, you might as well mine for 50 years and never have a block. Or you might mine for 3 years and be lucky and find a block.
Given that all capital has a power law distribution, and never a uniform distribution, even if you would only have 5000 mining nodes, where, with a uniform distribution, each node would, on average, mine 10 blocks per year, the power law distribution would give most blocks to the 1000 upper class miners, and almost never a block to each of the 4000 others.
So it would, in any case, in Satoshi's mind, not have been meaningful, statistically, to have many thousands of nodes.
The strategy of pooling together has of course strongly amplified this effect, and he wasn't aware of that. In a certain way, mining pools add a small sniff of decentralization to the, in any case, obvious centralization that the economies of scale would induce in the competition for mining. If mining pools weren't possible, we would quite possibly simply have 5 or 10 mining nodes, period. Who can, effectively, still compete in *solo mining* as Satoshi saw it ? The industrial proportions of mining make solo mining only available to a big company. You'd have Intel vs Motorola vs Nvidia vs AMD or something. Now, with mining pools, even with a modest mining investment, you can still contribute. However, the "voting power" of a mining-subcontractor is very small: he can just go to another mining pool. But it is better than nothing.
What mail was he responding to here? http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
Can I get a link.
How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
I like a man with attitude so wait a few seconds and I will check the charts and be right back to you
Nope it's $15 according to this https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
and was about $30 a week ago when I last looked but I will reduce it to $25 to take in to account
the $55 it was at. Ripple fees are so low that they don't show up on most charts so if $5.00 makes you feel smart then jobs
a good one.
45 sat/b
https://blockchain.info/tx/8c189782b4eeb4074674b1c009b12edfde8ef4264733485c7627cfc8b75106f4
Explain this 1$ transaction.
You are clearly sent here to do some concern trolling. Nobody is paying $15. Pay your $5 and get on with it. If you don't like it go use whatever the fuck you want.
I gave you the link, it says $15 so get your nose out of the miners bum because it's gone brown Lets see a link that has them at $5
Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2
Well that would cost me $15 to convert, won't work with my Jaxx or Exodus wallet that I like or
shapeshift or most of the exchanges and why should I pay for the because the developers decides
to break backwards compatibility without asking us first
Man why you defending the bankers and the $1-2 is bull even if sending to Segwit address
not that I know any
You are clearly sent here to do some concern trolling. Nobody is paying $15. Pay your $5 and get on with it. If you don't like it go use whatever the fuck you want.
Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2
Well that would cost me $15 to convert, won't work with my Jaxx or Exodus wallet that I like or
shapeshift or most of the exchanges and why should I pay for the because the developers decides
to break backwards compatibility without asking us first
Man why you defending the bankers and the $1-2 is bull even if sending to Segwit address
not that I know any
How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
I like a man with attitude so wait a few seconds and I will check the charts and be right back to you
Nope it's $15 according to this https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
and was about $30 a week ago when I last looked so look like your a slot-machine player who's getting upset with
me because his tokens are going down
Ripple fees are so low that they don't show up on most charts so if $5.00 makes you feel smart then jobs
a good one.
Here is your chance, use segwit and fees instantly reduced to $1-2
Simple answer:
Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.
Satoshi never knew crypto will be this important.
Nope. Read his e-mail of November 2008:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/
He understood perfectly how it would go.
The only thing he missed, was the collaboration of mining into pools. He didn't realize that people could pool together, and sell part of their hashing effort into a fraction of a block reward, so in his opinion, there would have been more individual miner nodes.
That said, mining itself is automatically limited to a finite number of sensible participants. It wouldn't make sense to be 1 million independent mining nodes (the only nodes Satoshi considered, were mining nodes: he never considered non-mining full nodes as meaningful - and he was right). The reason that it doesn't make much sense to have 1 million mining nodes, is the fact that there are only 52 600 blocks mined per year.
Even if there were 1 million mining nodes with all having exactly the same hash rate, that would mean that *on average* a mining node would win ONE SINGLE BLOCK every 20 years. But given statistical fluctuations, you might as well mine for 50 years and never have a block. Or you might mine for 3 years and be lucky and find a block.
Given that all capital has a power law distribution, and never a uniform distribution, even if you would only have 5000 mining nodes, where, with a uniform distribution, each node would, on average, mine 10 blocks per year, the power law distribution would give most blocks to the 1000 upper class miners, and almost never a block to each of the 4000 others.
So it would, in any case, in Satoshi's mind, not have been meaningful, statistically, to have many thousands of nodes.
The strategy of pooling together has of course strongly amplified this effect, and he wasn't aware of that. In a certain way, mining pools add a small sniff of decentralization to the, in any case, obvious centralization that the economies of scale would induce in the competition for mining. If mining pools weren't possible, we would quite possibly simply have 5 or 10 mining nodes, period. Who can, effectively, still compete in *solo mining* as Satoshi saw it ? The industrial proportions of mining make solo mining only available to a big company. You'd have Intel vs Motorola vs Nvidia vs AMD or something. Now, with mining pools, even with a modest mining investment, you can still contribute. However, the "voting power" of a mining-subcontractor is very small: he can just go to another mining pool. But it is better than nothing.
How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
I like a man with attitude so wait a few seconds and I will check the charts and be right back to you
Nope it's $15 according to this https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html
and was about $30 a week ago when I last looked but I will reduce it to $25 to take in to account
the $55 it was at. Ripple fees are so low that they don't show up on most charts so if $5.00 makes you feel smart then jobs
a good one.
So... we will never understand what his true intentions were. As far as I know, what we know is having full nodes in the hands of a few corporations only would centralize the system at layer 0 (BCash). If LN centralizes or not, it's yet to be seen. I trust no one.
The dispersed network theory where even if everyone kept open two channels instead of just one because these things
are expensive in miner fees has been blown out the water and it would be like trying to use the Tor network with 300 relay nodes
and that's if you could workout the routing.
I contend that having banking hubs is centralization and was a bank to go down then people would broadcast a message
on the Bitcoin network en-mass and the BTC block-chain at just 7 transactions per second could not cope with demand and unless all
the LN internal channels are able to close down gracefully then chaos would ensue.
In the lighting Network white paper they even talk about "Spending accounts" and "Saving Accounts" to be used for security
and reading whats shown below I can even image insurance brokers being built into the network to reduce risk
Quote
If one wishes to broadcast the transaction chain instead of agreeing
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty.
to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction,
one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the
blockchain. If the counterparty refuses the notice from the third party to
cooperate, the penalty is rewarded to the non-cooperative party. In most
instances, participants may be indifferent to the transaction fees in the event
of an uncooperative counterparty.
Yes sure, here you go miners have another $30 on me and just where is that button in my
wallet to contest transaction since it is built into the protocol or will the banking nodes all
be running much more sophisticated software which put paid to the saying "Anyone can be a bank"
If you want to pay less fees, use segwit. It has big blocks.
Segwit not save money unless all outputs are Segwit
Why should people pay $30 to convert to new address in extortion fees to miners
because development team broke existing client code and few exchanges use Segwit ?
You must be using it so even if you know someone that can receive these payments
then was the saving 50% or more like 20% like I am hearing ?
Since Swegwit came out in August 2017 fees continue to go up and that mempool
using queuing theory is always just out of reach so why do you think that is ?
How did you come up with that number? Are you dumb enough to pay $30 while everybody else paying $5? (current fee for a max. 1 hour tx is 100sat/b)
If yes (it seems like a yes), then you are not clever enough for this shit. Stay with credit cards.
Because he does what he want, he's a grown man leave him alone! And have some respect boy!!
He's the godfather of the new world
He's the godfather of the new world
Best answer ever!XD
Maybe he knew altcoins would follow Bitcoin and didn't want to give Bitcoin a bigger edge.
Jump to: