Quote from: ETFbitcoin on June 18, 2022, 12:19:37 PM

Quote from: hZti on June 18, 2022, 11:15:58 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on June 18, 2022, 10:38:10 AM

--snip--

You are right with what you say but I just meant that the average confirmation time would be quicker since many people just pay 1-2 sats/vByte and this transactions will also then get processed pretty quickly. Still it always depends of course on how crowded the network is and that at the moment is not a problem but could be one in the future.

The average is still 10 minutes or higher though.

The mean blocktime is 10 minutes. In the exponential distribution, the mean is meaningless to everyday life. Median blocktime is about 7 minutes; lowest quartile is <= ~3 minutes; upper quartile is >= ~13 minutes. IMO, it means much more to everyday usage that half of blocks are much faster than 10 minutes (but the average is dragged up to 10 minutes by the long exponential tail).

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on June 13, 2022, 08:10:04 AM

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 13, 2022, 04:39:55 AM

Running a bitcoin node is intensive.

So why do you want to remove the ability for people to run a pruned node if they cannot manage to run a full node?

He explicitly wants to force others to pay a cost that he explicitly refuses to pay. I was correct when I accused him of being “actively malicious”.

The funny part is, his understanding of Bitcoin is so poor that he doesn’t even know what node pruning does and does not do. He believes that node pruning affects his view of block explorers, and make his own transactions unavailable. Say what!? Node pruning is strictly opt-in, and it only affects local data availability for those who choose to prune their own nodes.

Last week, I began writing a post to split this misunderstanding off to Beginners & Help, where it properly belongs and where the discussion may help others. (Interrupted by personal circumstances 13 June; no time for it now.)

Quote from: vjudeu on June 16, 2022, 09:06:22 PM

Quote from: larry_vw_1955 on June 16, 2022, 08:36:54 AM

no one made the ethereum devs and node operators angry and look what happened to their fee situation

Because they want that. They chose high fees by choosing Turing completeness and executing complicated contracts on-chain. They chose large scripts, instead of making things simple, and adding new single opcodes as needed. I think it is better to introduce OP_DO_SOMETHING as a new opcode, than to force developers to write "2 2 OP_ADD 4 OP_EQUAL OP_IF ...". There is no reason to include long programs on-chain. There is no reason to execute everything on-chain, that makes it costly, when you want to write a simple game, and each move is executed on-chain, as a contract. They made it more complicated than needed, and they pay for that in fees, just because that's how they constructed their consensus.

I disagree. I think that they suffered some application of the Law of Intended Consequences, and then realized how profitable it is to rip everyone off for gas.

There exist Ethereum competitors who attain Turing completeness at much lower cost; and I think that it could be done even better!

Nowadays, most gas is burned. That reduces the supply of ETH. After they started the gas-burning thing, something like $5 billion worth of ETH was burned in the latter part of 2021. How does this work in practice? Speaking from experience: I myself wound up paying about $2,000 for gas with ETH at $3.8k–$4k, just because I needed to make a relatively small number of contract invocations; thus, I had to bid up ETH at high prices to burn most of what I bought, with the rest going to miners. (I currently hold no ETH but dust.)

I think they like that situation just fine.