an interesting poll from Juan S Galt : https://dashtalk.org/threads/budget-proposal-peter-todd-to-review-instant-x.8186/

edit : that should make certain trolls either very nervous or very happy or both 

[23:35] == drakoin [] has joined #dashpay
[23:35] <drakoin> hi guys
[23:35] <drakoin> is there a bootstrap file for downloading the whole dash blockchain?
[23:36] <drakoin> I still had DarkCoin, but just copying the files over did not help. The wallet insists to be "2 years and 6 weeks" behind ;-(
[23:37] <drakoin> the downloads page https://www.dash.org/downloads/
[23:38] <drakoin> needs a "download the whole blockchain as one file" link.

Superb :-) Thanks.
 
I could not have imagined that this doesn't exist for a CMC #7 coin.

i.e. I knew it :-)

But ... it was not possible to find it, even after a lot of googling.


Please put that link

• into the OP#1
• + onto https://www.dash.org/downloads/
• + on a separate HTML page which is SEO'ed.

Thanks!

 


EDIT: Synced. What an ordeal       XsRFvj2hGPpGzRSA11q1xE8XzADryd1GYS    Thanks a lot!

https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

That's BTC/day in fees... considering that the network is designed to replace BTC subsidy with fees, and given that almost 75% of the monetary base has been distributed, fees are way behind compared to what they should be to keep the network sustainable after the halvings.

If fees don't rise *significantly*, then either we need a very serious btc price spike to compensate, or, ideas like endless inflation to secure the blockchain will start floating around as "better alternatives" to tx fees. And while it can't be marketed as "let's change the 21mn coin limit", it can be marketed by populists in ways like "we need to ensure that everyone can transact economically, so we'll ensure everybody has low fees (and endless inflation)".

Thanks for posting that. I wasn't aware of that relationship.

This can only be a gradual process not an on-off switch where fees suddenly spike upwards 100x....


Bitcoin, as a network, is operating fine. Your customer's wallet software failed him in that it used a very low fee.

In this regard, wallet software must have two features:

1) Good fee estimation
2) An option to rebroadcast the tx with higher fee

I don't follow... What evidence do you need? That's the design of BTC: Fees have to take over from subsidy. It is a known element of how it works.

There is a glide path in place in reducing subsidy so that fee increases don't go from zero to max overnight when coin distribution is (practically) over. If the designer of the system felt that subsidy must be replaced at an end point, and only then, there would be no glide path in diminishing subsidy. Emission would be flat, at a certain rate, until the last coins are issued.


If you take the broader view, how about taking an even broader view:

Do you understand that trial and error represent a lesson in user education?

Every user at some point will have a moment where his tx takes a long time because he forgot to pay fees, clicked the "send as zero fee if possible" etc etc. That's the moment when he learned why fees are useful. That's part of his learning.

Now... if that happened once and he thought it won't happen because now he paid 0.0001 KB, which is 0.01$ for a 250byte tx, then he has something more to learn: It's not only about paying the fee, but how much you pay.

So, taking this even broader view, your client may have learned yet another lesson into how to properly use bitcoin. So the ecosystem improved by improving user education giving him lessons the hard way.

It's like forgetting your money in your pocket and putting your pants in the washing machine - destroying the paper notes. I'm not going to blame the destructible nature of paper money for that one but I will sure make a mental note to check my pockets in the future, before throwing the pants in the washing machine. Lessons everywhere



Fee calculation is a relatively trivial issue. If wallet devs can't fix it, they better use fixed fees that are more expensive than what should be normally expected but at least ensure first priority for those who desire it.


0.0001/KB = 0.01$ for a 250b tx. It's an extremely low fee and there is no way to spin it around that it isn't.

Yes, but that does not mean that fees have to increase.

Where is your evidence that fees have to increase?


Nearly over? I don't think so. We've had a grand total of one halving. On this chart we are in reward era 2 out of 34.


And maybe they learn that Bitcoin is a pain in the ass, is unreliable and complicated, and go elsewhere.

I'm not saying that the system has failed or that it will definitely fail. I'm saying that it is starting to fail right now, because there is a mismatch between the infrastructure and user-education requirements of the system and its ability to function effectively. That is absolutely the case. At best it is poor planning and deployment.


Actually the very common rule is to set the fee at 0.0001 per any part of a KB. You can see this easily by looking at a block explorer and seeing how many of the transactions have fees of 0.0001, 0.0002, etc.

0.0001 BTC is around 0.04 USD. Whether that is tiny in absolute terms or not is somewhat subjective, but the fact remains that it is not tiny relative to established practice over the past few years (as I said that was consistently a high priority rate until very recently) and for that reason lot of very widely deployed infrastructure is now failing.

It could, but it is currently out of step with that vision. SPV wallets were built up (in part by Satoshi, by the way) as a way to make the system easily accessible to people making routine transactions including buying coffee and using vending machines (plus many others of course). So you have have many end users doing exactly that, having adopted Bitcoin as a transactional medium, not something limited to high powered bankers and cryptocurrency experts. Perhaps that was a bad idea, but it's too late to erase that from history.

That worked just fine until very recently, and now you still have those users trying to transact but without the tools to do so effectively. Even if one fully buys in to your Evolution concept (as one example of several), and believes that Evolution is the way that the ecosystem will scale to infinity, Evolution isn't here. Even Bitcoin wallets with the ability to effectively set fees and increase fees if needed after the fact don't exist in any widely-deployed form.

So the whole thing is quite a mess right now. In the future I have no doubt it will get better, but where we are today is not pretty. Either an earlier and more effective push should have been made to get the tools out there faster to manage block space scarcity and shift transactions off the Bitcoin main chain, or there should have been some sort of block size increase to buy the time that is needed. Having done neither is an objectively poor outcome, and therefore one must fairly rate the process of having reached this outcome as ineffective.

EDIT: BTW, Satoshi never said that Bitcoin was supposed to be digital gold (that description was invented later by others). His only mention of gold in the white paper related to the steady release of new coins, and in an email he compared Bitcoin to "base metal as scarce as gold" that could be sent over the internet. It is very clear he intended it to be for end-user payments. Opinions differ over whether that vision has turned out to be impractical or Bitcoin has been hijacked by people who want to develop it in a different direction.