Search content
Sort by

Showing 7 of 7 results by fuddy
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 14/11/2017, 08:25:16 UTC
How many coins are still available for the airdrop?
There.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 08/11/2017, 23:21:28 UTC
ok, i thought it was a serious discussion ahha

i hold big on btx, but i would like to know the answers. Always better to find first the negative sides than the positive when you invest Grin


Waiting for someone that answer at this " larger blocks means bigger blockchain, that means less nodes, that means less security"
Larger blocks don't mean necessary a "much" larger blockchain. The thing taking moste space in the blockchain are the transactions and therefore the hashes.
There are many pros and cons on this matter and I'm not going to lay them all out for you. Read yourself:
https://www.google.de/search?q=why+no+bigger+blocksize&rlz=1C1CHBF_deDE769DE770&oq=why+no+bigger+blocksize&aqs=chrome..69i57.4718j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
IMHO short: Bigger blocksizes like 20MB are worth it because atm there's just no other option (at least basing on bitcoins blockchain design) to handle enough transactions to compete with anything near RL Use Cases regarding # of transactions per time.
Your point is pointless, you "need" larger blocks to process more transactions, if you have 20MB blocks but only 50 kbytes of transactions per block your 20MB block size is useless, but sure the block chain wont be any bigger than if you had 50 kbytes blocks. It is a block size LIMIT and if you never even come near the limit the limit is pointless.
Why shouldn't you come near this limit. The # of transactions per timeframe calculates out of block size (# of possible transactions fitting into a block) and block time. If you want really to get anywhere near the transaction speed of let's say credit cards, what must be a goal if you wanna come anywhere to real value as a usable currency, with the bitcoin blockchain model there's no way around bigger blocks. Are you really arguing "If you don't need the capabilities ATM, it's pointless to have them?" That makes no sense. Especially as long as you are not filling the blocks there's no difference and while bitcoin is creating with larger workloads a backlog and a transaction fee race bitcore can just handle the load. Bandwith and storage for such capable nodes shouldn't be a problem nowadays. Do you think s.o. who can handle 10GB of a blockchain can't handle 100GB or 1TB? The bitcoin blockchain is also growing only at a slower speed. If you need more transactions you always have to store them anyways, bitcoin is only doing this much slower.
What I wanted to say, the factor being signifcant for blockchain growth is the # of transaction per timeframe. The block size is only limiting the speed this can happen.

There are other implications of bigger blocks, but afaik they are not really a problem. The other two fields are consensus and the need to make a hard fork and therefore no way to come to a real fix new number. Hard fork and agreement don't matter because bitcore starts from scratch. Consensus and security is really arguable, but that's imho a question of what you're favoring.

Any other solution would require off-chain constructs. Like payment providers to condense small transactions off the chain and bring only the sum of many condensed transactions back on the chain. But that's, from my view, the same problem as raising the hardware demands of a full node by increasing the "speed" of the blockchain. By raising the requirements for a full node the network tends to centralize. Off-chain transaction lead to the same.
In a really long term perspective only other blockchain/storage (lower storage requirements, lower the ressources needed for consensus...) and consensus models make sense. I don't think the bitcoin style blockchain like bitcore is going to survive the next ten years, but that's just a wild guess.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 08/11/2017, 22:24:31 UTC
ok, i thought it was a serious discussion ahha

i hold big on btx, but i would like to know the answers. Always better to find first the negative sides than the positive when you invest Grin


Waiting for someone that answer at this " larger blocks means bigger blockchain, that means less nodes, that means less security"
Larger blocks don't mean necessary a "much" larger blockchain. The thing taking moste space in the blockchain are the transactions and therefore the hashes.
There are many pros and cons on this matter and I'm not going to lay them all out for you. Read yourself:
https://www.google.de/search?q=why+no+bigger+blocksize&rlz=1C1CHBF_deDE769DE770&oq=why+no+bigger+blocksize&aqs=chrome..69i57.4718j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
IMHO short: Bigger blocksizes like 20MB are worth it because atm there's just no other option (at least basing on bitcoins blockchain design) to handle enough transactions to compete with anything near RL Use Cases regarding # of transactions per time.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 08/11/2017, 11:42:18 UTC
The airdrop for this week is done.

Dear Bitcore-Community,

we are happy to announce that the snapshot for the current airdrop has been taken.

You can now move your coins again and will receive your airdrop coins if you had your address registered with a balance of at least 1.0 BTX.

37184,62791 BTX have been moved to 3134 wallets
TXIDs:
805ead13611219e0dc31b011afd5e8f363661a3023715a4bd6bdad475bee1dcc
15d3645c4dfcf2d29c5a1dbcdb533ac8215a0ef4d0d7dd6f979d0f9f69890802

You can verify everything on our chain-explorer: https://chainz.cryptoid.info/btx/


As you may be aware we had the big Bitcoin blockchain snapshot on November 2nd.
From Nov. 3rd to Nov 6th we created a massive stress-test for the Bitcore network resulting in approx. 5'000'000 transactions with record breaking tx-sizes of up to 3.1 MB.
You can read about the BTC-snapshot here and about the blockchain world-record here.
This was the main cause for the delay for this airdrop - we are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Extra precautions have been made to avoid a delay of more than 24 h in the future.

Your Bitcore team
Damn... I was to fast and already had sent them to cryptopia. To say it with Trump's words: Sooo saaad, all those tiny little beautiful coins. Sooo beautiful coins.
Smiley
But all my fault. Next time I gonna have to be more patient.
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 08/11/2017, 00:40:40 UTC
Just as a reminder:
During the last few days we made blockchain history!
You can read about it here: https://steemit.com/crypto-news/@xwerk/making-blockchain-history-bitcore-btx-is-currently-writing-blocks-with-over-3000-kb-of-data



And for your entartainment:

https://i.imgur.com/zYYL8WS.jpg

Don't you mean "Love at first block"?
Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 07/11/2017, 21:33:37 UTC
Looking for an update.
Standard Monday Airdrop (not swap) not received.
The airdrop is stalling because of a database crash and a running rebuild, taking some time analyzing the big blocks the blockchain moved the last 3 days.
Coinmarketcap.com info has been very inaccurate for over 24 hours now. (How was it fixed, and reflecting accurately on Sunday...yet was then was "unfixed" (back to initial stats) late that night? Makes zero sense from a technical standpoint.
That's only an issue of coinmarket cap and has nothing to do with bitcore.
Sent a test few BTX to cryptopia last night - good thing it was only a test - it's not showing 12 hours later. Address was/is valid.
What does the transaction in the blockexplorer say? If the blockexplorer says it worked, it's obviously a problem on cryptopia's end. Looks like nothing to do with the bitcore blockchain. Today I sent 3 transactions over the network and all were executed in at most some minutes. Mostly in seconds.
I'm actually shocked that more people have not been asking for an official update on these issues?
No, need to be shocked. Perhaps it's because you are having these problems and are blaming bitcore for them. At least one is obviously not a bitcore made problem and your cryptopia problem looks too, as you can't blame it on bitcore. Only the airdrop did really go wrong but the devs explained it now many times.

Post
Topic
Re: [ANN]Bitcore- BTX - SEGWIT - BLOOM - ONLINE - new virtual fork 1:0.5 of Bitcoin
by
fuddy
on 07/11/2017, 20:22:03 UTC