Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[theZerg]

what kind of transaction fees are we seeing per block? Any data source on this?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

We aren't at the pain point on unconfirmed tx yet. Check the darknet market subreddits. Those are the people that actually use Bitcoin in commerce out of necessity and are mostly Bitcoin newbs to boot. I see no mention of unconfirmed transactions or other network complaints.

The DNM subs are the subs to watch for such things, where rubber hits road, rather than the Bitcoin subs which delight in all manner of theoretical issues.

 

[_mr_e]

Blocks aren't actually full yet, why would this cause txs to be stuck for so long already?

 

[Melbustus]

@solex
...
SW does not involve simply updating software, it requires re-writing the critical sections of key pieces of software. Wallet code bases need to be overhauled and tested, websites need to be re-implemented (can you imagine implementing SW and blockchain.info not recognize the transactions), point-of-sale merchant tools need to be redeveloped and redistributed. I could go on.

The fact the "core devs" even suggested SW as a quick fix, demonstrates that they do not think the rest of the ecosystem matters. In their minds Bitcoin is whatever bitcoind is and everything else is not Bitcoin.
...

Indeed. Not caring much about the rest of the ecosystem is another symptom of fundamentally misunderstanding where value comes from.

 

[sickpig]

Trees that don't bend with the wind won't last the storm.

Visible signs of stress appearing. It's a real shame this is getting so messy. These dogged idealisms need to have some flexibility. He is going to eventually take the 'hint' or it will break him.
(Soft forks good - Hard forks Bad; Small Blocks good - Big Blocks Bad)

Please don't let it go that far nullc; compromise is easy if you are willing to admit, you don't always know best.

I've just read a few posts in that thread, I'm amazed.

By gmax's definition r/btc is a cesspool. (edit: he used cesspool more than once, so it's not a temporary anger condition but a rational judgement).

if one has to apply the same metric what's a fit definition for BCT then?

 

[Zarathustra]

The best of them seem to understand it is unsustainable, they just believe they can kick the can farther. And so far they've been right.

Each new generation of economists move the goal posts though for what is acceptable. Just as recently as the 80s a top FED person ( I forget who ) said that a 20% reserve requirement for banks was a red line, this meant 1 to 5 ratio. By 2008 we were well over a 1 to 20 ratio..

Yes, but should Capitalism (= Debitism) have an artificial debt cap, where the government decides how much Credit is acceptable? Some people would then demand: Raise the limit!

 

[Zarathustra]

Always great comments by u/ForkiusMaximus

 

[Inca]

Looking at this from the other side. Imagine a situation where all our roles were reversed and we were trying to get the 'Core' developers to implement the following brilliant features into bitcoin!:

1) a fee market which makes bitcoin transactions unnecessarily more expensive

..Uh no thanks.

2) a fixed blocksize cap which in combination with 1) means only so many transactions can be included on the network, if you want in you have to pay..more than everyone else

..Uh no thanks that will massively disrupt the network leading to major transaction delays and people not being able to use the network at all.

3) implement RBF to allow double spending of transactions, which is really neat because if you don't get into a block then you can up your transaction fee and keep spamming the network until you are included..

..Uh you want to implement double spending into bitcoin? GTFO.

We would be laughed out the room. Justifying all this by saying not doing the above promotes 'centralisation' would be seen as being ludicrous. Someone would point out we were paid by a company hoping to profit from off-chain cheap transactions and had an obvious and massive conflict of interest.

The best outcome here is that industry and say gavin, mike and some non-partisan Core developers align forces to openly support a new fork of Core without the new contentious 'features' that degrade bitcoin, but which includes a scaling solution which may be less aggressive than 101.

Remember if bitcoin scales even a little bit - say up to 4mb then Blockstream have literally no usecase for their payment layer solutions. And more importantly their arguments against scaling will be shown to be instantly fallacious.

 

[Zarathustra]

@VeritasSapere

you and @Zarathustra are doing yeoman's work over there.

I hardly speak English, but I try my best ...
"This eternal accusation against [totalitarians] I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found. I have letters that even the blind will be able to see." But unfortunately only in German.

 

[sickpig]

@Inca you forgot point 4).

They are going to remove the space reserved for 0 fee txs (reserved for "old" coins). It used to be there since the beginning as already noted on this very thread. Software changes that implement that are already merged.

The main motivation for such change is said to be reduction in code complexity. They sure are funny.

They are outpacing any sane engineer-rules-of-thumb timetable to implement SegWit and deploy it via a soft-fork.

A change that will give us a mere 75% more block capacity at the cost of changing the system core data structure, the Blockchain, without even an official BIP, but at the same time for the sake code simplicity they are going to ditch a feature has been here form day one?

Isn't this a clear example of Doublethink?

You know the funny thing about it? Luke-jr want to revert it, maybe due to the fact it has a lot of "old" coins that could be moved without fees under the old rule:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7151

and he's encountering quite a bit of resistance. It will be funny to see how this will play out.

That said, I think there would be significant demand for BlockStream's payment layer solution even if BIP101 was deployed. Instant-visa-scale payments' txs will always fit better on a LN rather than on the main chain.

Sure such LN market will be an order of magnitude (maybe two) higher once full RBF will move from opt-in to opt-out and SegWit ( i.e. 1.75 block size limit and fixed malleability).

I really do hope that BU / Btcd / Investors backed full nodes will gain enough market share to remove such concentration of power from Bitcoin Core devs. The sooner the better.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object just got longer. How much more obvious does it have to get that the principal motivation for every change is to help Blockstream's projects, not to help Bitcoin? It's like they're just seeing how much they can get away with now, how blatant they can be at taking away everything that could possibly serve as an alternative or threat to LN and SC.

They really had to take away even coin-age-based free tx just to close that last little loophole? They're having a laugh but... Pride cometh before a fall.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Roger Ver asleep at the wheel??

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/about/moderators

EDIT: Nope, apparently Ver invited btcdrak to moderate /r/btc in an effort to bring balance to the mod team.

 

[albin]

Now /r/btc has its very own trollmod just like /r/bitcoin!

 

[awemany]

What the actual fuck? This starts to really smell like a concerted divide-and-conquer to me...

@Aquent:

You wrote this, right?:


Thanks, this is to the point. Nice collection of misbehavior you made there

 

[albin]

I think many of us are destined to become Bitcoin internet unicorns, miraculously getting banned on /r/btc but not on /r/bitcoin!

 

[cypherdoc]

i knew i wasn't imagining it:

"Let's not confuse empty blocks with SPV mining. F2Pool has definitely taken steps to reduce the number of empty blocks they produce. Since macbook-air made his post:

KnC - 2 of 35 are empty
bw.com - 2 of 34 empty
AntPool - 13 of 81 empty
Eligius - 1 of 10
f2pool - 2 of 110

That's a far lower percentage than is typical for them, so whatever changes they made have produced noticeable results.

Having written this, the fact remains that f2pool, AntPool, etc continue to SPV mine."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274066.msg13256619#msg13256619

that's from loshia, who knows mining deeply, from back in my days of mining.


[doublepost=1450194879][/doublepost]also, this, from the great Con Kolivas of cgminer:

"It is both as can be seen when 2 blocks back to back come from an SPV pool and the 2nd block has zero txns. The reason is they've not gone to the effort to make the bitcoind validation process fast in their own nodes and they don't want to wait for bitcoind to validate the block (it takes time) before starting on their next block. For solo.ckpool.org and kano.is we run a customised bitcoind which speeds up the validation process dramatically, making this delay negligible."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274066.msg13200727#msg13200727
[doublepost=1450195037][/doublepost]

What the actual fuck? This starts to really smell like a concerted divide-and-conquer to me...

@Aquent:

You wrote this, right?:


Thanks, this is to the point. Nice collection of misbehavior you made there

there's way more btcdrak quotes one could find by scrolling back thru his history. that is just so sad. what a mistake. damn, Roger.
[doublepost=1450195317][/doublepost]also, further backlash strategies towards f2pool and other spv miners other than identifying their ip addresses. maybe this is why f2pool is trying to clean up it's act. again from loshia:

"3. For fighters who want to stop them even loosing some money.
a Rent and point Petahashes to their PPS pools(via patched proxy

) and do block withold. Be constant and they will feel the pain

"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274066.msg13255380#msg13255380

 

[VeritasSapere]

I suspect that was indeed a mistake, in principle it is a good idea, I do think that Roger did have the right motivations for doing this. However considering the history of btcdrak, I am also doubtful of whether he would be a good mod. I suppose time will whether he will abuse this power or not.

 

[albin]

This post in the xt sub is fascinating.

I get the impression that Luke-jr is making his way onto the list to get purged. They already did Mike Hearn and Gavin, Garzik getting iced out feels like it's in progress.

 

[Peter R]

what kind of transaction fees are we seeing per block? Any data source on this?

Here is a chart that @dgenr8 recently made:

Also, footnote 19 from my fee market paper might be useful as well:

Edit: I copied this post to the "fee market" thread...

 

[awemany]

This post in the xt sub is fascinating.

I get the impression that Luke-jr is making his way onto the list to get purged. They already did Mike Hearn and Gavin, Garzik getting iced out feels like it's in progress.

Thanks, interesting conversation. So they're getting a lot more aggressive lately, it seems?
Why do you think luke-jr is going to get purged from Core, too?
And jgarzik, I still don't know what his exact stance on Core is. He seems to be pretty close to Core lately...