rHu4VYeFh7dq6ogsvDCDbTBZvvA562KKwJ

Why the limit is not in some real time proportion with the pending transaction memory size? Then confirmation of found block would have to accept block size witch are not bigger than the peak pending transaction memory size since last found block.

thx

We need a direct proportion between the number of pending transaction in the memory and the limit size in real time.

someone's with me on this?

when a block is found, confirmation take in account the pending network memory size peak since the last block found

then, miner will have son incentive to add low fee transaction because they can always add a quite good proportion of all the pending transactions?

I really think that if bitcoin can't adapt to a very broad spectrum of events, like the mini crash of yesterday, another cryptocurrency will win the race. It's not that we have to win, by no mean, but we must continue to make bitcoin the best, with all we got witch is strongly related to winning the crypto-currency race.

So, the block size limit should be raised and should even adapt itself to the needs of the network. The only concern i can credit is if there is no limit, witch may brings centralization pretty fast.

The limits should be a function of the number of transaction pending in order that they get in the block chain with an expected waiting time of around 10 minutes.

i'm still new to bitcoin logic but something as simple as that could evaluate real time transaction size limit.

(Nb of transaction pending * mean transaction size (kb))/C

or if it is more usefull

(Size of all transaction pending)/C

Where C is a fine tune constant near 1 or exactly 1. if it is exactly one, someone will eventually confirm a block containing all the transaction (pending at time = some time) witch may not be what we want tough.

the idea is to accept a confirmed block only if, at time=t, the size limit chosen by the pool was under or equal to this hard limit. This way no miner can choose to work on a very large block and work out all the transaction by himself)

I really think it is better to rise the transaction size, the idea to filter someone like satoshiDice goes directly against all our freedom philosophy. everyone should be able to use the network like if they where anonymous. Whe just can't use information about satoshi to arbitrary censor it. That's just wrong.

thx for reading! i'm new here because i love the principles of bitcoin.

Would you use such a feature in your client?
 - yeah if it's good and more like floor() that round()
Do you think it makes sense, also for non-technical people?
 -  a lot but if you have 0.109, you round it to 1.11. then something cost 1.11 and you can't buy it because you only have 0.109 and you don't know it and people will not understand.

Do you find 0.1255 easier to read than 0.125501?
 - not personnaly
Should we kind of standardize the options (4, 6 and 8 digits) for all clients?
 - yeah, but with the floor function
I deliberately left the option of 2 digits out, because we're way past the "0.01 is equivalent to a penny/cent" era. Do you miss it still?
 - no it should in fact be set to worth 0.1 cent at all time and folow mtgox
Which option should be default?
- having a floor function witch floor to the 0.1 cent depending on the value of BTC

sry for english!

the best way is still local for a first purchase

this is really nice, i have been using it for some time already!

Is there a way to use dropbox or similar product and still get some king of a safe wallet following me around?

reddit is very usefull for bitcoin news!

im new to bitcoin, I can be refer as matakaonew. I just try peerbet and it is quite nice. I would really like to use my programming skills to create something about bitcoin

This a a first reply to get out of the newbie status.