Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 06, 2016, 06:24:10 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on April 06, 2016, 05:27:29 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 05, 2016, 09:13:54 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on April 05, 2016, 08:32:52 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 05, 2016, 06:58:37 PM

Quote from: aztecminer on April 05, 2016, 03:08:17 PM

Quote from: Ayle56 on April 04, 2016, 10:29:59 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 04, 2016, 07:58:14 PM

Quote from: Fatman3001 on April 04, 2016, 07:36:21 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on April 04, 2016, 06:51:07 PM

[blablablablablabla]
Some of the data on that site make little sense to me, however. I don't really understand how they are calculating average blocksize as compared with median blocksize, and why there would be a difference between those two concepts (except through their definition of such).
[blablablablablabla]

https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/mean-median-average/

Hahahahahaha

I will admit that I had a brain fart, and for a moment, I was considering mean and median as the same.

So, O.k. I will agree that reviewing information about the median could be helpful to various analysis regarding whether there are block full problems and transaction time problems that are resulting from block fullness, and blockchain.info charts are providing the mean for blocksize, but so far, seem to not be providing the median. At least, I have not found it, so far.

There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics. Any statistician will tell you the average is an awful stone age measure, then start talking about mean, median, and standard deviation to decide whether the blocks are truly full or not. However if you can't get your transaction into a block for hours even with a good fee that's all you need to know.

if juans transaction took four days to complete he would still argue with you that everything is fine in #bizarroworld of bitcoin. ...

Yes, that is a big "IF".

My transactions are not taking four days but tend to show up immediately and usually take less than an hour. In early March, while the blocks were supposedly full, I sent out three transactions with varying fees, and the one with the highest fees (I recall it was $.04) took about 75 minutes to complete, and the two with the low to no fees ($.01 and $.001 respectively) took close to 10 hours to complete.

In other words, you are in a fantasy world, Mr. Aztec, and transactions do not appear to be taking anywhere near 4 days to complete, even when blocks are at their fullest... and including some small token fees seems to help speed up transaction confirmations.

yeah waiting over an hour for a payment to go through rocks.

Nothing wrong with that. Bitcoin is in an interim stage of development, and we should not be expecting a 6 billion dollar market cap system to compete on the same level as various centralized credit card and other centralized payment systems (in terms of speed).. in these early and expansive days of bitcoin and its various systems.

And, even so, these days, it seems that bitcoin is allowing a lot of value transfer, control and storage of value in ways that would be extremely expensive and even slow for final confirmation in many instances with traditional payment systems.

A couple of weeks ago, I sent 80 bitcoins (price at the time $416 - therefore $33,280), and it took about 7 minutes to be confirmed, and I was able to use the money in less than 30 minutes. I did not do anything special on that occasion, and the standard fee was .000187 BTC (almost $.08). Personally, I find that transaction to be quite amazing in comparison to any other payment system (and largely decentralized in this circumstance).

My earlier March tests of three transactions (while the blocks were supposedly full) that took 75 minutes, and nearly 10 hours for the other two, were fairly small level transactions (a little more than $1), and those transaction times and fees were acceptable, as well, yet would depend on use case, whether faster confirmation would be preferred or lower fees would be expected...

Bitcoin is not anywhere near broken, and a lot of further innovations are in the soon-to-be implemented pipeline... this year, and maybe more next year. So, you FUCD spreaders seem to becoming less and less persuasive with your lame assertions of "emergency" and or to make supposed "brokenness of bitcoin" cries.

i disagree, i believe that is a serious problem. i own a bunch bitcoins, however, i am not going to lie to myself and try to convince myself or anyone else that there is nothing wrong with bitcoin. clearly, to anyone with intelligence, there is a problem with bitcoin taking 75 minutes to clear. online business might find bitcoin useful, however, starbucks will find it annoying.

Yeah... You seem to be ignoring most, if not all facts in order to repeat your assertion that in your view bitcoin sucks.

As I already asserted, and should be sufficiently clear, bitcoin is not yet at the starbucks stage... it is just not close to being mass or merchant adopted or even sufficiently user friendly for such level of micro transactions at the current time.

Surely, in the next couple of years, it seems very likely that bitcoin is going to have the potential to become incorporated into a lot of the fast transaction confirmation market... we just aren't there, yet, and therefore, describing expectations that are not there seems to be in the fantasyland self-serving territory to talk bitcoin down and to focus on deficiencies without acknowledging a large number of development attributes that are either in the wings or likely to be developed in the coming years.

we were told fix would beginning of this year over a year ago.. they are holding back the fix.... according to you the fix is in the next couple years. whatever.. keep convincing yourself. let me refer back to the problem with your thought process here:

March 30th 2016 i posted:

you know what ?? i have several hardware servers that are over six year old technology.. they run great still, they are Dell 2950 1U servers.. i have mostly migrated everything from those six year old servers and replaced with virtual servers or new hardware server, except for one server. it is running some accounting and product tracking software for one the companies i maintain. the company is totally reliant upon their accounting and product tracking software, if it goes down they are fukd, cant do business until it is back up.. i look at this six year old server and it has an amber light on it.. that means something might be going wrong..i look and see the battery is dead on the perc raid controller card.. np no big deal .. fukit i don't expect anything bad to happen to this server, it has been running great for six years. i can see something is wrong with the perc card but it seems to not be causing an issue to the accounting software.. fukit, i'm just going to leave the accounting software on this six year old server .. i aint gonna do anything about it.. why should i ?? i dont expect anything bad to happen.

that is how you are looking at things. this is where experience with technology comes into play.. i'm not leaving the six year old server like that. instead of waiting until that six year old server dies, i decided to spin up a virtual server and will migrate the accounting software to this new virtual server. here is the kicker: i am going to do this BEFORE my six year old server with the blinking amber light has a fatal hardware error and brings that accounting software down and that entire company to a grinding halt.. today i know its just a bad battery on the perc card, what if tomorrow that perc card goes bad ?? the point is, from an engineering viewpoint, u dont wait when u see a problem developing just because in YOUR OPINION and YOUR EXPECTATIONS that nothing bad is going to happen. in technology, it is more likely than not that something bad is going to happen. we don't take the risk, because if we do and the something bad happens then u have a company losing money every single day they cannot operate.

your veiwpoint is the reason why i do not allow programmers to fuk with hardware. programmers are just smart enough to be dangerous.. as we have seen with bitcoin, the programmers are doing the dangerous thing, they are waiting and taking that risk that nothing bad is going to happen.