Bitcoin (BTC) statistics - Price, Blocks Count, Difficulty ...

BitcoinABC

https://bitcoinabc.org
[link]

Bitcoin Mining Forums: Turning Computers Into Cash Since 2011

The official bitcoin mining forum / subreddit / chat room / place to be!
[link]

Thoughts about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies

A place where people share in-depth analysis and thoughts about crytocurrencies.
[link]

07-09 18:17 - 'Actually a monero transaction is about 10x the size of a bitcoin transaction (around 2kb), so it's not "100x-1000x fewer users". Also the tx size will shrink soon with new development. / Bitcoins missing fungibility is...' by /u/Davethebrave111 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 61-71min

'''
Actually a monero transaction is about 10x the size of a bitcoin transaction (around 2kb), so it's not "100x-1000x fewer users". Also the tx size will shrink soon with new development.
Bitcoins missing fungibility is a very huge show stopper imo. And it doesn't matter if you make some of the transactions private, with coinjoins etc. ,which instantly triggers all red flags in the snitch companies software like chainalysis. It's ether privacy by default or no privacy.
I'm don't want to shit on bitcoin, but this game is lost. Bitcoin won't ever be private, even if it's technically possible, the suits in the game will prevent this by all means because "compliance". It's too late, the time to think about this was 5 years ago.
Better join the dark brother of bitcoin;)
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Davethebrave111
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

What is the current average size of a bitcoin transaction, sent by a node (not the size inside the block)

submitted by Alienware9567 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What is the current average size of a bitcoin transaction, sent by a node (not the size inside the block) /r/Bitcoin

What is the current average size of a bitcoin transaction, sent by a node (not the size inside the block) /Bitcoin submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

10-13 06:07 - 'I was gonna provide feedback to the ETF as well. / Two main points: jstolfi refers to gold as a ponzi scheme as well. He's mentioned it in multiple comments, just gotta find one to quote. / Then I'd describe the size of the...' by /u/DerSchorsch removed from /r/Bitcoin within 11-16min

'''
I was gonna provide feedback to the ETF as well.
Two main points: jstolfi refers to gold as a ponzi scheme as well. He's mentioned it in multiple comments, just gotta find one to quote.
Then I'd describe the size of the bitcoin ecosystem, as well as the wide applications of blockchains across various industries, for which some may use the bitcoin blockchain, and some already do like remittance providers. This global impact of bitcoin across different industries is quite different from a penny stock.
Regarding liquidity, there are quite a few more exchanges than the Gemini one, again across different countries which makes price manipulation more difficult.
Edit: One of the gold comments from Stolfi: [link]1
Not saying his point is inconsistent in that sense, but still important to keep in perspective imho to avoid a negative bias against bitcoin.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: DerSchorsch
1: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/4tfcal/is_it_me_or_does_the_segwit_implementation_look/d5hwnx5
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

10-13 06:02 - 'I was gonna provide feedback to the ETF as well. / Two main points: jstolfi refers to gold as a ponzi scheme as well. He's mentioned it in multiple comments, just gotta find one to quote. / Then I'd describe the size of the...' by /u/DerSchorsch removed from /r/Bitcoin within 6-11min

'''
I was gonna provide feedback to the ETF as well.
Two main points: jstolfi refers to gold as a ponzi scheme as well. He's mentioned it in multiple comments, just gotta find one to quote.
Then I'd describe the size of the bitcoin ecosystem, as well as the wide applications of blockchains across various industries, for which some may use the bitcoin blockchain, and some already do like remittance providers. This global impact of bitcoin across different industries is quite different from a penny stock.
Regarding liquidity, there are quite a few more exchanges than the Gemini one, again across different countries which makes price manipulation more difficult.
Edit: One of the gold comments from Stolfi: [link]1
Not saying his point is inconsistent in that sense, but still important to keep in perspective imho to avoid a negative bias against bitcoin.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: DerSchorsch
1: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/4tfcal/is_it_me_or_does_the_segwit_implementation_look/d5hwnx5
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin blocksize less than the size of a floppy !?

Do core developers really believe that a block size of 1MB is sufficient for a global currency when it is fully adopted? It is less than the size of a floppy disk to record nearly 10mins of global transactions!?
It does not matter if lightning succeeds or not, the bottom line is that the artificial and honestly ridiculous block size limit has almost killed Bitcoin scalability.
I am not pro bch or anti btc, I am just a normal guy who wants to see crypto succeed. At this moment though, Bitcoin cash is the clear winner.
submitted by cryptomhanks to btc [link] [comments]

Unpopular opinion - the economy has to become dynamic in order for it to have any longevity (and other musings on the progression)

Ain't no one gonna read this but here it goes!
The issue of progression has recently been gaining some traction in the community with Klean and DeadlySlob covering this topic recently.
Now any solution to this has an inherent issue associated with it - it'll be uncomfortable to someone. Whatever is done, it'll negatively affect someone, just by the fact of change alone. You cannot make something better by not changing anything. So anything you do or don't do, you will alienate a portion of your playerbase.
Early/Mid-game vs Late game.
Early and mid game is lauded, late game is considered boring. But why? For startes, firefights last longer, require more skill, movement, tactics and outsmarting your opponent. You value your life, you feel respect even for the shittiest of bullets. You have a feeling that the kill is earned. Guns have tons of recoil so you need to pick your shots. It's... I know it's illegal... but it's fun.
Late game however is plagued with a number of issues. Gear gets dominated by very similar loadouts that cover approx 10% of the gear in the game. There's nowhere to progress as you've reached the ceiling. The excitement from killing a kitted player diminishes as time goes as the economy saturates. People start being picky with their loot and only the good stuff brings any sort of satisfaction. The hideout provides a steady, predictable stream of income.
You let it run long enough it becomes a mindless PVP battleground.
Side note - the black and white fallacy of the makeup of the community.
Casuals vs hardcores. Rats vs Chads. Whenever a discussion pops up this dichotomy is always present. "Feature X hurts casuals but doesn't bother hardcore gamers playing 8h a day". No. Like anything in life the population of EFT is subject to the bellcurve distribution. There are hardcore sweaties grinding out the kappa within a week and there are also sunday gamers. Then there's everything else in between. Let's keep that in mind.
You don't need to be a streamer or play the game as a full time job to make money. We have a discord for 30+ yr old gamers with families and all of us were swimming in roubles and gear after 3 months of the past wipe. Sure it takes us longer than streamers, but still.
The meta
Taking weapons as an example. Different items have different stats (recoil, ergonomics, etc), some are obviously better than others which obviously makes them more sought after. There are also different ammo types for every caliber. Then lastly we come to the guns which directly tie into the first point, by their base stats and how much those can be brought down/up by attachments.
If you have a plethora of items that have different stats, there's sure to be an optimal loadout. If that optimal loadout is always available at an attainable price to the point where you can run it consistently, then there's really no reason to run anything less. This is the meta and at the moment it's basically a synonym for best in slot.
Appealing to a greater good such as gameplay variety is in vain because people will do everything to put themselves in the best possible position. If that means running whatever flavor of meta weapon that is - VAL, M4, FAL alongside top tier lvl 5 or 6 armor over and over and over and over again, so be it. We all know that's not the only way to get by in EFT, but all else being equal - top gear puts you on equal footing at minimum.
Trash contextualizes treasure. A rare item is not rare if everyone is running it. It's a normal item.
Gear minmaxing combined with a ceiling in progression create a situation where the game becomes stale, people get bored and we get chants for a wipe to releave the pressure.
Wipes
Wipes however, even at set intervals, are not the solution. Every wipe, in the absence of something fundamentally new, gives you (rapidly) diminishing returns. Doing the same quests over and over is an absolute drag. It's my 7th wipe and this time around I've really hit a brick wall with them. Now imagine doing them every 3 months. Maybe just do an inventory and trader level wipe? Yeah, that's just skipping one part of it and arriving at the same point but even quicker, considering how quickly you can make money.
The endpoint being - having enough money to run anything you want all the time without the fear of getting broke. Or in the abstract, having a big enough cushion to make any blow from a bad streak become inconsequential.
All of that is just a perpetuation of the same sawtooth progression. Grind, saturate, wipe, grind, saturate, wipe.
Side note - persistent character vs wiped character
I know there have been talks about having two characters - one persistent that's not wiped and one seasonal that is. On paper this might look like a good solution, but there are some problems.
POE players would have to chip in, but I reckong, that in a way this might become a form of matchmaking - the persistent character would be a mode for "sunday" players, while the wiped one for the sweats. I mean, maybe that's the way to go, but if the game is to gave any longevity, the persistent character will eventually face the same issues as the current game, it'll just take longer to develop.
Unpopular opinion - The economy is just a set of time and effort gated unlocks.
There have been multiple ideas to prolong a wipe, but in my view the fundamental issue with those is that they're based off the same linear progression - start from scratch and acumulate wealth until saturation. Some of these ideas include restricting labs till level X, locking behind a quest or just disabling it for a month. The problem with these is that it's just delaying the inevitable, while also giving a direct buff to those who get there first as they'll have the place virtually to themselves.
What follows is also the concept of "starting mid wipe", which essentially means that the gear disparity is so big that the further into a wipe, the more difficult it is to catch up. That effort is directly correlated with experience - the more experience you have the easier it is for you to reset or jump in midwipe. Extending a wipe potentially alleviates that by giving people more opportunity to catch up, but also pushes away from coming back/into the game if they recognize that it had passed their personal breakpoint where it's too hard / frustrating.
Perpetual mid-game
So out of all of that, a clearer picture emerges. We have to somehow find a solution to always have something to work for, but also not give the impression that you're up against an impenetrable wall.
That means that the game needs to pivot around something colloquially known as mid game. How would we define mid-game? That's another debate, but for the sake of the argument we could define that as something in the range of:
That would be the sort of mean loadout you can run on a consistent basis and you'd see the majority of the time. From the sentiment across the community, this seems to be the most enjoyable state of the game, where the sweetspot is in terms of protection and vulnerability, but allowing a lot of headroom for both variety and
Solutions
Now we must have to remember that there's a number of changes inbound that will alleviate some of the issues:
But those are sill far on the horizon.
The uncomfortable reality is that in order to truly balance that you have only a few choices. One is to go down the route of typical FPS tropes where every weapon type is perfectly balanced (i.e. shotguns powerfull but limited range, smg's low recoil, high ROF but weaker, dmrs powerful but high recoil and low ROF, etc). I don't think this will be ever a thing in the game.
Another one is to make attachments roughly equal and just attribute the differences to the tacticool visual factor. This would be realistic in a way, but would take away from the game.
The last one is to price them out. Literally. I'm of the unpopular opinion that endgame should not be a stage, it should be a state.
Dynamic pricing
I know I know, last time it failed spectacularly. However, that was a different flea market and the implementation was poorly thought out. Since it didn't have a pivot point to relate to it caused widespread inflation of even the most basic items and was prone to manipulation.
However the concept in principal has proven itself to work - M995 was essentially priced out of existence and forced people to look for alternatives like M855A1 or M856A1 or different calibers alltogether. Even the sweaties of sweats got a bit excited when they killed someone with 3 60rounders filled with M995. See where I'm going with this?
The execution was poor and poorly thought out.
But how about a different implementation? Adjust the prices based on how much an item is (or is not) bought compared to other items of the same item type. Most popular items' price (of a specific category) increases, while the least popular one decreases.
This could also be coupled with (or as an alternative) an additional rarity factor which would sort of specify how volatile the price is. Continuing the ammo example M995 would have the highest rarity factor and would be very prone to price increases, while the likes of M855 would be considered common and have a much more stable price.
Obviously this would be subject to long term trends and would not happen overnight. But the main aim is to dynamically scale the economy to the general wealth of the playerbase around a certain pivot point which we established before as the mid-game.
This would be a quite significant blow to the uberchads as they would unironically struggle to maintain a profit from their runs. And yes, some of them would still probably be able to pull this off, but remember what we said about the bell curve? It's just about making them so insignificant in the global player pool that they'd be a very rare occurance.
Global item pools
This idea has been floated around by Nikita some time ago but we have no ETA on this. In short - for some items, there is only a set amount that is present in circulation. For example there are only X amount of ReapIR's in the entire economy - spawns, traders, player stashes. If everyone hoards them in their stashes - thats where they'll remain. They don't spawn on maps, they're not sold on traders. Only until they're lost they get reinjected into the item pool.
This idea should be reserved only for the absolute top tier OP items. Something that you'd get all giddy if found/looted and you'd contemplate taking it out.
Side note, the X amount should scale to the active playerbase, which could be something like a weekly or biweekly moving average of people actively playing the game in a set period.
Insurance
This one is a bit controversial but also attributes to some of the in game inflation and gear recirculation. If you run a large squad, even if one of you dies, there's a high chance someone will survive and secure others' gear. And even if all of you die, something's bound to come back.
This might be a bit controversial, but I think group size should have a debuff to the chance of getting your gear back the higher the bigger your squad size, for example an incremental 10% chance for each additional squadmate.
Hideout adjustments
Right now fuel consumption is static no matter how much stuff is going on. What if the fuel consumption rate was tied to the size of your bitcoin farm and the amount of crafting going on.
Additionally hideout appliances could wear out and require maintenance, which would grant them performance debuffs like increased crafting time.
Dynamic stocks.
Right now stocks are predictable. You have the same amount of items at a set interval. Things like traders missing some items or not getting a restock due to broken supply lines, which can be cheekily tied into...
Dynamic global events/quests
Such as as getting rid of scavs on a particular location to remove the roadblock. These might be done per player or as a global event where everyone has to chip in.
Summary
The subject is difficult and solutions are not simple, but what I do know is that eventually Tarkov will have settle into an identity which will come with a sacrifice either at the expense of vision or mainstream popularity.
Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk. I'd like to give a heartfelt thank you to the 5 people that read this wall of text.
submitted by sunseeker11 to EscapefromTarkov [link] [comments]

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

One of the best ways to increase censorship resistance was to make Bitcoin so widely used as a currency in daily life, that it would no longer be possible to stop it without causing a revolution. Keeping block sizes small without viable alternatives totally killed that momentum.

One of the best ways to increase censorship resistance was to make Bitcoin so widely used as a currency in daily life, that it would no longer be possible to stop it without causing a revolution. Keeping block sizes small without viable alternatives totally killed that momentum. submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

Is DeFi Going to be Bigger than Bitcoin?? DeFi May Be the Greatest Opportunity in Crypto. Gold (BTC's target sector) is only *0.8%* of all DeFi addressable market size. BCH has a token economy and programability.

Is DeFi Going to be Bigger than Bitcoin?? DeFi May Be the Greatest Opportunity in Crypto. Gold (BTC's target sector) is only *0.8%* of all DeFi addressable market size. BCH has a token economy and programability. submitted by ColinTalksCrypto to btc [link] [comments]

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving
On May 11, the size of the Bitcoin mining reward fell by half. The next time it will be in 2024. What devices will be profitable by that time, and what to hope for owners of obsolete equipment.
In May 2020, a halving took place on the bitcoin network. The cryptocurrency mining reward has decreased from 12.5 to 6.25 BTC. This is a long-awaited event, which, according to the hopes of the crypto community, should lead to a strong increase in the value of the coin. For example, Anthony Pompliano, co-founder of investment company Morgan Creek Digital, predicted that the rate would rise to $100,000 by the end of 2021, primarily due to lower mining rewards.
So far, the bitcoin price hasn’t responded to the halving as much as expected. In mid-May, at the time of the reduction in the mining reward, the BTC rate was around $9,000. To date, the cryptocurrency has risen in price by 27%. This year’s high was set yesterday, August 18, at $12,400.
The hashrate of the cryptocurrency network showed a different dynamics. Its value fell immediately after the halving from 137.5 to 87 EH/s, according to bitinfocharts.com. Since mining bitcoins has become less profitable, some of the miners probably turned off their equipment. They could switch to mining other coins or completely abandon this activity due to its unprofitability.
Later, when the BTC rate began to rise, the amount of computing power in the coin’s network also began to increase. So, from late May to mid-August, the cryptocurrency hash rate increased from 87 to 130 EH/s. But over the past three days, the figure has dropped sharply by 20%, caused by floods in China. Torrential rains in Sichuan province caused power outages that interfered with the operation of mining farms.
Changes in hashrate and mining rewards have affected its difficulty. On May 11, at the time of the halving, this figure was at around 16.1 T. By the current moment, this value has increased to 16.9 T, in July rising to a maximum of 17.3 T.
The decline in the reward for mining cryptocurrency was partially offset by the increase in fees. Until May, a single BTC transfer cost the user an average of 50 cents. By the current moment, commissions have grown more than 10 times, to $5.5.
Mining profitability is now at around 0.114 THash/s. It fell sharply immediately after the halving from 0.16 to 0.08 THash/s. To date, the indicator has grown by 40%. This was due to the rise in BTC prices and higher fees.
Development Director at BitCluster Dmitry Shuvaev said that the profitability of the device for mining BTC s17–73Th/s is now about 8 thousand rubles per month (at an electricity price of 3.5 rubles per kWh). The payback period is about 15 months. Old devices, such as the Antminer S9, are now unprofitable to use, they do not bring profit. But this situation may change if the bitcoin rate rises to $15,000.
“We recommend our customers to buy the new generation S17 or S19 devices. It is these devices that will provide profitability until the next halving. Their break-even point is at $6,000 per bitcoin”, Shuvaev said.
In June, specialists from the research division of the BitMEX exchange announced that in the long term, 2–3 ASIC miner manufacturers will remain in the industry. Canaan’s Avalon devices were the first to hit the market in 2014. Three years later, in 2017, Bitmain took 75% of the market.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel
submitted by Smart_Smell to Robopay [link] [comments]

One of the best ways to increase censorship resistance was to make Bitcoin so widely used as a currency in daily life, that it would no longer be possible to stop it without causing a revolution. Keeping block sizes small without viable alternatives totally killed that momentum.

One of the best ways to increase censorship resistance was to make Bitcoin so widely used as a currency in daily life, that it would no longer be possible to stop it without causing a revolution. Keeping block sizes small without viable alternatives totally killed that momentum. submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

07-31 01:05 - 'Based on my understanding when you send your transaction it’s just like sending any other data online - an email, a file, website data. The “file” (or data packet) size of the transaction info. [link]' by /u/chinavirii removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min

'''
Based on my understanding when you send your transaction it’s just like sending any other data online - an email, a file, website data. The “file” (or data packet) size of the transaction info. [link]1
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: chinavirii
1: t*ad**lo*k*com/b*og/analysis-of**i*coin-*rans*ctio*-*ize**re*ds/
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

History Lesson (Apr 2013) - "The idea that Bitcoin can be a store of value with a 1mb block size limit seems like nonsense to me. That's reversing cause and effect. Bitcoin gained value because it was useful, it didn't gain use because it had value." - Mike Hearn

History Lesson (Apr 2013) - submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

Chris Pacia: "You need to remember how the "store of value" meme came to be in Bitcoin to begin with. Parts of the community refused to make a trivial change to the block size which would have preserved utility and had zero negative effects. This rendered the system largely useless. Hence SOV."

Chris Pacia: submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Wow 100k bitcoin traded on CB! It must be a coincidence that's almost exactly the size of that whale block last week that moved... Right?

Well in my opinion it is certainly not a coincidence. Actually, my conspiracy theory mindset has me wondering if this overdone Corona virus was created just to have a market crash while the elite still had a sizable percentage of the Bitcoins in existence which they acquired via mining and OTC markets for the sole purpose of crashing the bitcoin spot Market harder than the stock markets to try and shake people's belief in it being a non correlating asset or better than gold as a SOV. Most FOLKS here believe (myself included) that in a truly open market that could simply not be the case due to the fact that it is the first Truly finite asset and one that we do not need anyone to validate nor anyone's permission to transmit to anyone anywhere anytime instantly. I believe that math will work out here over time and that this is a temporary pre halving opportunity for us to acquire bitcoin cheaply. I will continue to dollar cost average, run my own node, and store my own keys. I will not sell no matter what the fiat price is. I do this knowing its risky, and also with the belief that this is a way to vote for the future of humanity in the right direction away from the financial oppressors and a truly decentralized world with a bonefied truth machine to hold people accountable and create a more just world for all! Will you join me?
submitted by BitcoinCanSaveUsAll to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Time for a reminder and history lesson: People should get the full story of r/bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
CONTINUE READING THE FULL POST HERE...
This post was written by Singularity87 in 2017. Thanks to Jessquit for the reminder about this post in another comment of his.
submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

05-01 15:55 - 'It is very obvious I was referring to the hard coded limit of 1MB, still in the code to this very day, that means without segwit a block is limited to 1MB. / ​ / Block size refers to this limit by convention, blo...' by /u/ROTwasteman removed from /r/Bitcoin within 12-22min

'''
It is very obvious I was referring to the hard coded limit of 1MB, still in the code to this very day, that means without segwit a block is limited to 1MB.

Block size refers to this limit by convention, block weight refers to what you are talking about. If we're being really pedantic, (which it seems like you are) you are using the conventional terms incorrectly to call me a liar.

You were being misleading as you imply the "average block limit" (again a nonsense term, limits don't have an average) has doubled. What are you accusing me of changing by editing? I've only added additional information, within a few minutes of making the comment. So who's being misleading again? You have quoted me multiple times and nothing is changed there so.......


The context of my entire participation in this thread is to actually provide some balance to this sub's insistence that lightning is currently a good working, useful, scaling solution. Which it just isn't for the vast majority of bitcoin users. I fully expected to be downvoted while people who point out that you can use lightning to have online casinos take your money (don't really need inbound capacity for that) get voted up. This is from someone who has been here since 2011 and runs a full bitcoin and lightning node. As well as a bitcoin based business, that is still trying to find a non shit way to integrate lightning.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: ROTwasteman
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

showerthought: The change Core made from a currency to "digital gold" is FAR more radical than the change Bitcoin Cash made from 1MB(+0.4) blocks to a max size of 32MB, which is really up to the choice of the miners, to stay a currency.

submitted by unitedstatian to btc [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin blockchain has grown by 102.24GB more than the BCH blockchain.

The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has reached 246 gigabytes currently - https://www.blockchain.com/charts/blocks-size?
This is why we must not scale simply by making Bitcoin blocks bigger, but instead have to scale using other means.
https://cash.coin.dance/blocks
submitted by FluidAttitude to btc [link] [comments]

The platform uses a Protocol developed on the basis of TCP IP in conjunction with Blockchain 5.0. The developers of Blockchain 5.0 managed to reduce the size of blocks to as much as 120 bytes, which is 8 thousand times less than the value of a single block for bitcoin. #relictcoin #relictum #DLT

submitted by natka5 to Crypto_Currency_News [link] [comments]

The platform uses a Protocol developed on the basis of TCP IP in conjunction with Blockchain 5.0. The developers of Blockchain 5.0 managed to reduce the size of blocks to as much as 120 bytes, which is 8 thousand times less than the value of a single block for bitcoin. #relictcoin #relictum #DLT

submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

KCN: Size of Bitcoin blockchain has exceeded 100 GB What is Bitcoin - What about block size? Trading Bitcoin: 4 Steps to Calculate Your Position Size ... Bitcoin Is the Size of an Entire Country Resolve Bitcoin Core Blockchain size problem

Bitcoin SV. Blockchain size. Dogecoin. Blockchain size. Dash. Blockchain size. Litecoin. Blockchain size. Groestlcoin. Blockchain size. Sponsored · Turn off ads. Farm DeFi 🌾 Farm DeFi 🌾 Sponsored. Crypto.com DeFi Swap - Best place to Swap & Farm DeFi Tokens. Swap and farm top coins, including UNI, YFI, ETH, CRO, DAI, and many more. Boost your yields by up to 20x when you stake CRO ... This page displays the number and size of the unconfirmed bitcoin transactions, also known as the transactions in the mempool. It gives a real-time view and shows how the mempool evolves over the time. The transactions are colored by the amount of fee they pay per (virtual) byte. The data is generated from my full node and is updated every minute. Note that in bitcoin there is no global ... Blockchain Size (MB) The total size of the blockchain minus database indexes in megabytes. 30 Days 60 Days 180 Days 1 Year 3 Years All Time Raw Values 7 Day Average 30 Day Average The size of the Bitcoin blockchain has experienced consistently high levels of growth since its creation, reaching approximately 285.06 gigabytes in size as of the end of June 2020. Bitcoin Blockchain Size – Das Wachstum 2017 , 2018 und 2019. Die ausgeklügelte Mechanik des Bitcoins hat sich in den letzten zehn Jahren kaum verändert. Das trägt natürlich zur Stabilität und zum Vertrauen in das Netzwerk bei, zeigt aber auf der anderen Seite, dass wesentliche technische Herausforderungen noch ungelöst sind. Abgesehen von der Proof-of-Work Difficulty, die für das ...

[index] [15148] [38313] [34130] [48949] [43423] [29277] [46958] [11738] [10839] [37262]

KCN: Size of Bitcoin blockchain has exceeded 100 GB

What is Bitcoin? Follow Evander Smart, Bitcoin journalist, author and video producer on a journey into Bitcoin, "The Future of Money" In these videos, learn Bitcoin facts, tips, lessons, and the ... Growing demand for Bitcoin increased the size of cryptocurrency blockchain. Bitcoins’ blockchain has exceeded 100 GB for the first time on Monday, the 19th of December. According to forklog.com ... If you use responsible risk management, you won't be stressed out if a trade doesn't go your way, and you won't feel the need to stay glued to your computer ... 525,600 Minutes, 657,000 #Bitcoin per year. 525,600 Minutes. How do you measure a year? In Bitcoin, in block size, in throughput, in blocks per hour. 1Emmons... In this i'm going to tell you about the size of bitcoin the latest update 21 September, 2020. The size of bitcoin is gradually increasing while it was starte...

#