Current blockchain difficulty walking
WTF are you on about here? You do know that increasing the number of transactions incorporated into a new block makes it larger, right? Maybe you do some reading and come back later. Lol what else do you have to do with your time?
The chain is fine. What is the current blockchain difficulty walking mechanism by which you think a larger blockchain makes the network current blockchain difficulty walking secure? A larger blockchain takes up more physical space in the form of hard drives in full nodes. The full nodes are in charge of governing the network; not the miners. The miners are like the police force, enforcing the rules set by the nodes. It seems as if Gavin would like to current blockchain difficulty walking increase the barrier to entry into this governing body, and I suspect it has something to do with the fact that an ever increasing number of them are refusing to go along with his proposed rule changes.
The number of transactions in a block does not affect the amount of work miners need to do to solve the proof-of-work function. Larger blocks does mean that all validating nodes will have to spend more CPU time building the Merkle tree, but CPUs are insanely fast.
Really amazingly, blazingly fast, and getting faster all the time. So network bandwidth will be the limiting factor, not CPU or memory or disk— all of those have been growing, and are projected to continue to grow, faster than network bandwidth.
In the near future, most fully-validating nodes will NOT store the entire blockchain, they will store a few gigabytes of recent blocks. The point is entirely that larger blocks require current blockchain difficulty walking processing power to validate. Maybe you PGP sign next time, current blockchain difficulty walking your handlers pay you for work someone else did. Gavin correctly points out that the processing power to add transactions to blocks is trivially small.
Can you point to anyone with current blockchain difficulty walking technical expertise who thinks this is worth worrying about? It would current blockchain difficulty walking instructive for you to actually calculate the current blockchain difficulty walking of adding a transaction in terms of CPU power. More to the point, what is increasing block size if not inflation? Bitcoin is about being a scarce resource and so it shall remain.
Are you so against monetary inflation that you dislike when current blockchain difficulty walking inflates? You have yet to describe how exactly an increasing blocksize makes Bitcoin less secure. Can you clearly describe the mechanism without resorting to vague analogies? In essence, bigger blocks require more computing power and current blockchain difficulty walking bandwidth for the nodes to properly verify transactions.
Current blockchain difficulty walking is fine just how it is, current blockchain difficulty walking you very much. Your reply confirms the poor logic I mentioned before but you are also correct in one thing. You really believe what you wrote. In this case your logic is provable poor, visible for all readers with a sense for details. Shit, my digital photos alone take up 10x as much space as the blockchain and I barely use the current blockchain difficulty walking I pay for. I know many people like me who WILL adopt bitcoin and are not yet contributing, but they will.
Especially current blockchain difficulty walking the ideas in the the roadmap are implemented. The current network can easily get bogged down during a black swan. Your analogies have left me scratching my head tho. Will someone still be able to send funds from US to Ivory Coast and back in an hour for next to nothing?
This is the same broken thinking as the merchant adoption nonsense. Bitcoin waits for no man. Bitcoin competes with gold and diamonds, who said anything about Visa, PayPal, etc? That should be increasingly clear. The Bitcoin that exists today already facilitates this. See this thread for CPU costs of verifying a transaction as of three years ago. It was about one tenth of a cent back then. CPUs are about six times more powerful today, so divide by six.
Then divide by 2, because we no longer check signatures twice. Okey dokey, it is nice you think that. I see my job as paying attention to the needs of EVERYBODY using Bitcoin, and promoting technical solutions that make it better for as many use cases as possible — store of value, medium of exchange, current blockchain difficulty walking distributed ledger.
These calculations make me uncomfortable because they assume nodes scale up infinitely given small dollar amounts. Most of those 10, nodes will be running on single or dual core machines.
A few current blockchain difficulty walking might run them on 8 or 16 core machines, but even very large cloud computing operations rarely go much higher than this. The right approach to pricing a scarce resource is to let the price of it float on the market rather than trying to figure out its component costs and then simply pegging the price current blockchain difficulty walking that.
This is what is boils down to: Other applications and whatnot can be built on top of it as is. The world is a finite place. You should drop by bitcoin-assets on IRC for a chat when you have a spare hour. Gavin has done quite a lot for the bitcoin project, and is one of the few people who can credibly represent it to lay people. Still, I agree with the Romanian school inasmuch as the blockchain increase seems unnecessary and potentially disastrous to me.
Thus it is a Bad Idea. What about side chains, and all the other ways that BTC can grow in real transaction volume? To soften my comment, I would not want to replace Gavin with some loony that thinks the USG is competent enough to undermine bitcoin in any organized way. All this talk about Mike and Gavin being stooges is absurd, and undermines my respect for much of the other very insightful stuff you guys write on the Internet.
They can be wrong, without being corrupt. Current blockchain difficulty walking is what it means to sink their fork on the open market. People like me will decide to sell one version of bitcoin and buy the other remember, we will have equal amounts of each from the moment of fork. People like me, who run full nodes, will also decide whether or not to current blockchain difficulty walking use this perverted version of bitcoin being proposed.
Pools, solominers, farms and p2pool miner nodes have better network connection than most full nodes. Mining pools and farms aim to lead the network not follow it, and many maintain multiple nodes to help. Just like we do with everything the Power Rangers propose, which is how and why we dodged the Heartbleed headshot. And so it will go the next time Gavin et al. And so those of us smart enough, strong enough, and uncompromising enough will continue on our merry way towards global domination.
One step at a time. It will be more like an infowar. This is why seeing Gavin so publicly humiliated and so thoroughly discredited, as he is in the comments section of this very article, is so very important.
Powerful things, these blogs. Pretty much all the miners are also full nodes, what nonsense dychotomy is this? They can be wrong once without being corrupt. And definitely not this many fucking times in a row. Oh no, not them. One cannot be wrong this many times in a row, not this spectacularly at least, and not be rotten to the, well, Core. To be fair, the most harm perpetrated on the human race has been committed historically by bumblers with good intentions.
Ideally I would like compromising video of Gavin and his handlers cavorting in a Turkish whorehouse. Then I will withdraw my skepticism. I suppose this speaks to the wisdom of retiring before senility hits.
Back in the day when the most complex object people could spawn were more people, that senility was a result of biological degeneracy. Revolutionaries are often poor governors. The great genius of Satoshi or George Washington is that they were able to exit the stage gracefully. I often refer back to your article about how the world of finance will fragment into thousands of crapcoins, the real money will be made by people who understand how that works, and ordinary people will just be fucked up the ass harder and deeper with a sharper implement.
Or something along those lines. Sadly, I think that is the inevitable direction dictated by the laws of financial thermodynamics. If there were a hard fork to increase blocksize, or any change for that matter, and the current blockchain difficulty walking chain is amazeballs and the newer chain is terrible, what permanent damage does the existence of the second chain do to the first?
Why not sell your second chain coins and double your amazeball coins while simultaneously teaching derps a lesson in economics? Not that I disagree with your economic conclusions, but there are risks involved with forking the blockchain. The biggest risk, to my mind at least, is that, while the miners are choosing which chain to support, the network hashrate on each chain would necessarily be lower than the pre-forked chain and therefore open the door to subversive attacks.
The only people asking for bigger block sizes are those who would seek to twist Bitcoin into a slave rather than the master it is. So take your flunky and dangle. Completely agree on the need to keep the network secure from bad actors and attacks. It seems you either need either higher fees per transaction or more transactions per block. This is a long, long ways out. Bitcoin is a baby still if a baby dragon.