11–20 of 96 posts
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
I'm not holding my breath
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
You might be able to make mining more efficient, or based around some other finite resource besides computation power (like storage), but even that's a long-shot.
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the pending transactions fit in a block, there's not much incentive to not include them -- it doesn't cost much, so miners can include them all in order to maximise fee revenue. But when there are more pending transactions than fit in a block, miners will sort by fee and include the biggest fees and reject the lowest fees. By growing blocksize, you avoid the situation where there are more pending transactions than…
Miners will likely omit transactions that offer a fee that is lower than their cost of mining (at least eventually). This sacrifices some small amount of revenue on the current block, but should lead to higher revenue over the long term (assuming their cost levels make bitcoin an attractive transaction system).
* There is not the organic transaction growth for this to even be a problem, and there is no evidence there ever will be. Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods.
* Even 20MB blocks would be susceptible to a cheap spam attack like the DDOS "stress test" a few weeks ago.
This is the quintessential bikeshed: a fight to the death for insanely low stakes.
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
The problem with bitcoin is the idea that it even requires a mining pool or transaction fee. Bitcoin will die the moment someone figures out how to build a decentralized crypto-currency that doesn't need a stupid idea like "mining" to be functional and secure.
You can't get rid of mining - that's the cost of trust-less decentralization. You might be able to make mining more efficient, or based around some other finite resource besides computation power (like storage), but even that's a long-shot.
Important point about this debate: * There is not the organic transaction growth for this to even be a problem, and there is no evidence there ever will be. Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods. * Even 20MB blocks would be susceptible to a cheap spam attack like the DDOS "stress test" a few weeks ago. This is the quintessential bikeshed: a fight to the death for insanely low stakes.
I think the 400 Million[1] in venture capital alone can disqualify this statement.
Important point about this debate: * There is not the organic transaction growth for this to even be a problem, and there is no evidence there ever will be. Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods. * Even 20MB blocks would be susceptible to a cheap spam attack like the DDOS "stress test" a few weeks ago. This is the quintessential bikeshed: a fight to the death for insanely low stakes.
> Bitcoin's only real-world use case is illicit goods. I think the 400 Million[1] in venture capital alone can disqualify this statement. [1] http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-venture-capital/