BIP101: 26 BTC per block : bitcoinxt - reddit.com

So this is me trying to discuss bip101 without saying bip101, Bitcoin XT, or /r/btc on the /r/Bitcoin mine-field.

So this is me trying to discuss bip101 without saying bip101, Bitcoin XT, or /btc on the /Bitcoin mine-field. submitted by Brettc286 to btc [link] [comments]

AUG 25 DIGEST: 8 Leading Bitcoin Companies Pledge Support for BIP101; Bitcoin Exchange Rate Falls Below $200

AUG 25 DIGEST: 8 Leading Bitcoin Companies Pledge Support for BIP101; Bitcoin Exchange Rate Falls Below $200 submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

Olivier Janssens just offered to sponsor 1000 BIP101/Bitcoin Unlimited nodes on reddit /forum.bitcoin.com

Olivier Janssens just offered to sponsor 1000 BIP101/Bitcoin Unlimited nodes on reddit /forum.bitcoin.com submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

So this is me trying to discuss bip101 without saying bip101, Bitcoin XT, or /r/btc on the /r/Bitcoin mine-field.

So this is me trying to discuss bip101 without saying bip101, Bitcoin XT, or /btc on the /Bitcoin mine-field. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Common misconception/myth that seems to be being pushed right now.

There is a common misconception/myth being pushed in the community right now that states something along the lines of; "Block reward is decreasing over time therefore individual transaction fees must increased to cover the missing block reward". This is incorrect and incomplete for two reasons. The first reason is that although the block reward is decreasing in bitcoin terms it has been increasing in real terms due to bitcoins increase in value in real terms. If bitcoin continues to succeed this will continue to be true for some time.
Even without that argument, there is a second argument that is relevant to BIP101. Bitcoin was originally designed so that the total transaction fees would increase over time and replace the block reward, not the individual transaction fees. Below I have outlined how this works with BIP101 in numbers.
Block Size TPS TP(Block) TP(Day) Fees per Block $.05 Fees per Day ($.05)
1MB 3 1800 259,200 $90.00 $12,960.00
8MB 24 14400 2,073,600 $720.00 $103,680.00
16MB 48 28800 4,147,200 $1,440.00 $207,360.00
32MB 96 57,600 8,294,400 $2,880.00 $414,720.00
64MB 192 115,200 16,588,800 $5,760.00 $829,440.00
128MB 384 230,400 33,177,600 $11,520.00 $1,658,880.00
256MB 768 460,800 66,355,200 $23,040.00 $3,317,760.00
512MB 1536 921,600 132,710,400 $46,080.00 $6,635,520.00
1024MB 3000 1,800,000 259,200,000 $90,000.00 $12,960,000.00
2048MB 6000 3,600,000 518,400,000 $180,000.00 $25,920,000.00
4096MB 12,000 7,200,000 1,036,800,000 $360,000.00 $51,840,000.00
8192MB 24,000 14,400,000 2,073,600,000 $720,000.00 $103,680,000.00
For comparison, even with the 25btc block reward that is current given to miners each block, this is only roughly $10,000 per block. What this shows is that within about 7-8 years (roughly the age of bitcoin right now) we can have the same amount of money pouring into miner's pockets through transaction fees alone with only an average $0.05 fee per transaction. That's without any efficiency improvements to the network to fit more transactions in per Megabyte. I don't think free transaction should last any longer as they have been subsidised for 7 years now and we are now in a very strong position without them. But it is is important that we keep the utility of bitcoin as peer to peer payment system as it was designed.
submitted by singularity87 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

According to Blockchain.info F2Pool is shading hashing power

Blockchain.info places F2Pool at 21% of the network over the past 4 days, 20% of the network over the past two days, and around 17% of the network over the last 24 hours. This could just be a statistical anomaly, or it could be miners leaving after the announcement to support BIP100 and hostile toward BIP101/BitcoinXT.
submitted by newhampshire22 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Compatibility requirements for hard or soft forks | Gavin Andresen | Oct 28 2015

Gavin Andresen on Oct 28 2015:
I'm hoping this fits under the moderation rule of "short-term changes to
the Bitcoin protcol" (I'm not exactly clear on what is meant by
"short-term"; it would be lovely if the moderators would start a thread on
bitcoin-discuss to clarify that):
Should it be a requirement that ANY one-megabyte transaction that is valid
under the existing rules also be valid under new rules?
Pro: There could be expensive-to-validate transactions created and given a
lockTime in the future stored somewhere safe. Their owners may have no
other way of spending the funds (they might have thrown away the private
keys), and changing validation rules to be more strict so that those
transactions are invalid would be an unacceptable confiscation of funds.
Con: It is extremely unlikely there are any such large, timelocked
transactions, because the Core code has had a clear policy for years that
100,000-byte transactions are "standard" and are relayed and
mined, and
larger transactions are not. The requirement should be relaxed so that only
valid 100,000-byte transaction under old consensus rules must be valid
under new consensus rules (larger transactions may or may not be valid).
I had to wrestle with that question when I implemented BIP101/Bitcoin XT
when deciding on a limit for signature hashing (and decided the right
answer was to support any "non-attack"1MB transaction; see
https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/ValidationSanity.pdf for more details).

Gavin Andresen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151028/061c73f2/attachment.html>
original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Octobe011625.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Gavin Andresen: "It is clear that BIP101 will not be adopted, so I'm withdrawing it." ['Withdraw BIP 101 proposal' by gavinandresen - Pull Request #329 - bitcoin/bips]

Gavin Andresen: submitted by eragmus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

7 major Bitcoin companies sign a pledge in support of BIP101

7 major Bitcoin companies sign a pledge in support of BIP101 submitted by statoshi to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

GMaxwell declares he would no longer be involved with Bitcoin system that adopts BIP101

GMaxwell declares he would no longer be involved with Bitcoin system that adopts BIP101 submitted by LovelyDay to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

3 alternate implementations of bitcoin have or are implementing BIP101 BitcoinXT (Java) btcd (golang) bitcore (nodejs)

There are now at-least 3 alternate implementations to Bitcoin core that have implemented or are in the process of implementing BIP101.
And there are none that I know of that have implemented or are considering implementing any of the alternate proposals (BIP100, 102, 103, etc)!?! Although I feel it would be great to see some of those in code as well.
If a single exchange can trigger adoption of BIP101 as a post from yesterday suggested then there are a lot of choices to choose from now.
In 2013 some people in the community were concerned about the homogeneity of Bitcoin core in the ecosystem. Seems like this problem has slowly resolved itself. :)
submitted by kawalgrover to btc [link] [comments]

Dear miners: want the price of Bitcoin to go way up so your fees and coinbase rewards are worth more? Support BIP101.

Let me tell you a quick story... I started a small Bitcoin company that is going through the joy of fundraising right now, like every other startup on the planet.
Do you know the #1 reason people are avoiding investing in Bitcoin? It's not that our company, product or team are weak. They are all great.
It's that the internal politics of Bitcoin are affecting the total addressable market of users. Translation: they won't invest because they see the upside as capped because they don't think more people will enter the market as users. They see an internally divided community and what probably looks like a possible death spiral.
And do you know what? They are right. Capping the blocksize at 1mb limits us to 200,000 transactions a day, about enough for a few 100k nerds who already use Bitcoin.
By supporting unpopular scaling options, or gridlock, you are driving investment money and users away from Bitcoin. This ultimately is what is holding the price down.
Do you want to know how to make a lot of money right now? Support bip101!
The simple announcement that major miners are supporting bip101 will send the price of Bitcoin through the roof. Venture capital will unfreeze, money will start to flow back into the industry, and the bull market will resume.
That's all. I hope you are listening.
Edit: I'm not an investment advisor and this does not constitute investment advice. This message is for miners, not speculating bitcoin noobs. All the usual disclaimers about bitcoin apply, it could go to zero, it's an experiment, no guarantees, yada yada yada. But seriously miners, get with the program. BIP101!
submitted by MrMadden to btc [link] [comments]

GitHub: BitPay’s test branch for Bitcoin Core 11.1 + BIP101

GitHub: BitPay’s test branch for Bitcoin Core 11.1 + BIP101 submitted by sebicas to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

GitHub: BitPay’s test branch for Bitcoin Core 11.1 + BIP101

GitHub: BitPay’s test branch for Bitcoin Core 11.1 + BIP101 submitted by titaniumblight to btc [link] [comments]

Miners are to blame for the lack of BIP101 adoption(A rant from a Bitcoin app developer).

Feel the need to get this off my chest.
BIP101 was completed in code six months ago. The solution is here, right now, and yet, miner adoption of BIP101 is currently at 0.1%. Community support for it is probably > 80%. Its hard to deny that there is a conflict of interest, between the bitcoin userbase who want bitcoin to scale, and the vast majority of miners, who aren't responding to our needs.
On black friday, the blocks were full and there was a transaction back log. This should frustrate the bitcoin userbase more than it currently is; miners, rather than adopting the viewpoint of having safe margins, are preferring to wait until a state of permanent crisis arises. The black friday backlog, to them, was just a temporary crisis to be ignored.
Satoshi handed over control of the project to Gavin for good reason. He's the most level-headed, solution-oriented, clear-thinking developer the bitcoin community has.
On the other side, the blockstream core devs do everything they can to stifle solutions. If you read any argument by nullc or blockstream-core devs, you'll see that they contain no solutions. They always commit the nirvana fallacy, IE, never offering an alternative solution, but pointing out how the proposed one isn't perfect in an idealized world.
I've written projects for the bitcoin ecosystem, and mike_hearn and Schildbach were happy to help me out whenever I had problems. While that may be an anecdotal experience, its hard to deny that wallet developers are responsive to the needs of the users, far more than the blockstream devs.
If the miners just keep kicking this scaling problem down the road, and refuse to adopt a solution soon, then we can conclude that proof of work has failed; that the conflicts between the userbase and the miners are irreconcilable, and that bitcoin is truly a settlement network, rather than a global payment network to be used by ordinary people.
TL:DR; The vast majority of miners are not responding to the desires of the bitcoin userbase, and are completely at fault for the current crisis.
submitted by thouliha to btc [link] [comments]

Jameson Lopp on Twitter: Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin dictator-for-life Theymos apparently even considers BIP101 support to be "alt-coin support."

Jameson Lopp on Twitter: Bitcointalk & /bitcoin dictator-for-life Theymos apparently even considers BIP101 support to be submitted by SatoshisGhost to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

8 Major Bitcoin companies express Support for BIP101. "by December 2015 [...] we will run code that supports this"

8 Major Bitcoin companies express Support for BIP101. submitted by saddit42 to bitcoin_uncensored [link] [comments]

BIP101 voting by bitcoin holders

There are several proposals for optimizing Bitcoin's scalability:
BIP100 - Periodically change the limit based on observed block size, but never go larger than 32MB
BIP101 - Increase to 8 MB on January 11, 2016, and double the limit every two years (Bitcoin XT)
BIP102 - Increase to 2 MB on November 11, 2015
BIP103 - Increase by 17.7% annually until 2063
BIP8MB - Increase to 8 MB
BIPSIPA - Block size according to technological growth
BIPRosenfeld - Elastic block cap with rollover penalties
BIPUpal - Dynamically Controlled Bitcoin Block Size Max Cap
BIPCBBSRA - Consensus based block size retargeting algorithm
 
Bitcoin-qt doesn't provide any option for bitcoin holders to take part in voting for a solution of scalability issue. Thus I suggest the following message syntax for voting anywhere in the internet for any BIP published on https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
The syntax is:
#BITCOINVOTE {vote version} {bitcoin address} {+|-|=}{BIP id} {+|-|=}{BIP id} ... {signature} 
For example:
#BITCOINVOTE 201508251200 12WRTDrnLy7FMHj8b4kNWPJgnDfseTK6cX =BIP100 +BIP101 -BIP102 H1TmFhlXT8vPnbWsLWDPs2qbWRWA1htZIuCd/Avts/OzaVsWfWcIzfOCqO9w/FmnQEkjve8UU4kZtEtoIN1CpEg= 
where
201508251200 - (optional) vote version number or date (in format YYYYMMDDHHMM)
12WRT...K6cX - vote weight is determined by balance of this address
=BIP100 - (optional) abstain from voting for BIP100
+BIP101 - (optional) vote for BIP101
-BIP102 - (optional) vote against BIP102
 
Automated service for voting
User friendly interface is available here: http://coinarchy.com
Just answer the questions and submit the form
 
Current results
http://coinarchy.com/results/
submitted by the_schnibble to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Andrew Stone: While ideas like BIP101 require us to project far into the future, and BIP100 puts voting solely in the hands of miners, Bitcoin Unlimited puts "voting" in the hands of every full node -- the max block size emerges from the "excessive" settings

Andrew Stone: While ideas like BIP101 require us to project far into the future, and BIP100 puts voting solely in the hands of miners, Bitcoin Unlimited puts submitted by BalconySitter to btc [link] [comments]

Show your support of BIP101 by signing the statements with non-empty bitcoin addresses

Show your support of BIP101 by signing the statements with non-empty bitcoin addresses submitted by KarskOhoi to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Show your support of BIP101 by signing the statements with non-empty bitcoin addresses

Show your support of BIP101 by signing the statements with non-empty bitcoin addresses submitted by KarskOhoi to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin and BIP100 VS BIP101 VS No Change • /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoin and BIP100 VS BIP101 VS No Change • /Bitcoin submitted by DRKMSTR to btc [link] [comments]

bip Mnemonic amazing 9 in 1 tool Scaling Bitcoin - Day 1 - Morning Session How To Protect And Profit From Upcoming Bitcoin BIP 148 Fork WATCH NOW (AUG 1ST) Bip Coin Coin ! Bitcoin wallets 101

A Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) is a design document for introducing features or information to Bitcoin.This is the standard way of communicating ideas since Bitcoin has no formal structure. The first BIP was submitted by Amir Taaki on 2011-08-19 and described what a BIP is. BIP number allocated 41 API/RPC Stratum mining protocol Marek Palatinus Standard BIP number allocated 42: Consensus (soft fork) A finite monetary supply for Bitcoin Pieter Wuille Standard Final 43: Applications Purpose Field for Deterministic Wallets Marek Palatinus, Pavol Rusnak Informational Final 44: Applications Transaction volume on the Bitcoin network has been growing, and will soon reach the one-megabyte-every-ten-minutes limit imposed by the one megabyte maximum block size. Increasing the maximum size reduces the impact of that limit on Bitcoin adoption and growth. Specification. After deployment (see the Deployment section for details), the maximum allowed size of a block on the main network ... BIP 101 - Activate 8MB max block size when 75% of previous 1000 blocks were mined with a BIP 101 client no earlier than January 11, 2016 and allow a 2 week grace period for non-BIP 101 nodes to switch over.Max block size doubles every 2 years up to 8GB. BIP 101 ist alles andere als sicher. Aber selbst wenn sich die Fork harmonisch zugunsten von BIP 101 (also XT) ausspielen sollte, ist die Situation nicht entschärft. Denn von allen Vorschlägen zur Erhöhung der Blockgröße ist BIP 101 der radikalste und darum auch gefährlichste. BIP 101 sieht vor, die Blockgröße sofort auf 8 MB und ...

[index] [37284] [37758] [7093] [29383] [1137] [2124] [41957] [11932] [38223] [47533]

bip Mnemonic amazing 9 in 1 tool

bitcoin Private keys - puzzle 3,4,5 2019 lucky enough to find 3.8 million bitcoins lying dormant - Duration: 5:01. ICON BTCX 21,187 views. 5:01. Live Session Python - Day 1 Techi Sugan 262 ... petit délire de Guides. Uncensor the World: Michael W. Dean & Derrick Slopey Talk BipCoin, Dot-Bip, More - YMB Podcast E152 - Duration: 48:37. World Crypto Network 230 views Top Bitcoin Core Dev Greg Maxwell DevCore: Must watch talk on mining, block size, and more - Duration: 55:04. The Bitcoin Foundation Recommended for you For the complete text guide visit: http://bit.ly/2Qc7Khp List of wallet software for your computer: https://multibit.org/ http://bitcoin.org/en/download http... Skip navigation Sign in. Search

#