Bitcoin transaktionen bestatigen

What happened to that logic from just 3 months ago? What is wrong with conservative software development schedules? They recently said they weren't taking any time at all. Not even working on it. Didn't even register as something in their top 5 things to work on this year. You really seem to misunderstand things. What takes so long with a hard fork is giving people time to update and all get on the same page so consensus is maintained and chain splits are minimized.

That's a valid argument for SegWit, since it's relatively recent though one could also argue that SegWit has been operational on the testnet for a long time, and that Coinbase should have prepared it ahead of time. Transaction batching, though, is something that they always could have done. Further, it's something they should have started working on way back when blocks started being consistently full.

Every unbatched transaction they've done since then has been money down the drain. Agreed, so either Oct 26 or Dec 6. Although it's hard to scold them for not preparing for block gridlock and insane fees. Anytime it was brought up here, the idea was shot down as unrealistic FUD.

This place has changed from "High fees are temporary" to "Companies should have prepared for high fees. Batching your transactions is not the same as developing a consensus system. Changing how you implement withdrawals is something you can do unilaterally.

Given other large exchanges have already implemented batching and segwit it should not take that long. There is also a financial incentive for coinbase to do this. I just can't understand why they are delaying its hurting their investors which they should care about even if they don't care about the community.

I did a withdrawal from bitstamp yesterday. A typical Coinbase withdrawal will have weight of with only one output the second is change. Someone please check my math that seems even worse than I thought. With free withdrawals from GDAX coinbase are funding this spam and it really looks like a corporate spam attack to me. It's good to see more community pressure and it needs to continue. So, perhaps the math works out such that the cost of maintaining that artificial narrative is actually less than the profit they earn from keeping the shitcoin show going.

Or, at the very least, it dampens their motivation. Or, in other words: It's worse than that because Bitstamp consolidated a few dozen of inputs in this transaction. Coinbase does input consolidation separately so they are paying roughly twice of the weight per output sent. Gonna be honest, it'd be nice if the "currency of the future" could defend against moronic moves like this.

Familiar with the internet through the 90's? Thing I don't get is Don't miners want high fees? Ik coin base is not a miner, but wouldn't it be obvious that big companies would actually want to spam the chain and force people to pay high fees?

Miners want bitcoin value to increase. Getting high fees is pointless if the coin is worth less because people aren't using it. Sure is an expensive attack, but it's nothing compared to the gains. Even if your losing money on the mining you would gain it back immediately when the noobs goes chasing after the altcoins, that they've been stockpiling up on.

There is alot of them noobs btw. The devs were literally celebrating the high fees around christmas time, so yes everyone wants high fees but the users. People being willing to pay high fees is a sign of how much value they're getting from bitcoin. Bitcoin is a store of value.

High fees help encourage hodling and discourage wasting precious blockspace on buying dumb stuff like cups of coffee.

We WANT bitcoin fees to go higher. True, to a degree. Every transaction published to the blockchain has a cost of processing associated with it, which is externalized to every full-node in perpetuity. This cost being reflected in the fee necessary to post the transaction in the first place is the only way for meaningful decentralization to be sustainable over the long-term. This is an important insight that relatively few people seem to grasp. Not everyone does, but if Bitcoin fees continue to climb, that necessarily means that Bitcoin's demand is likewise climbing, which means that the value of each Bitcoin is correspondingly skyrocketing.

So, in a sense, for those who hold BTC, fees growing would be a good thing; it means that we are getting much, much richer. Fortunately, there are solutions being explored which give the promise of being able to amortize these fees over arbitrary-length transaction-chains, meaning that users of Bitcoin stand to realize the best of both worlds as long as the work continues to get done to achieve these goals intelligently.

Of course, through the amortization mentioned above, this could translate to sub-cent fees per actual economic transaction, which again gets the best of both worlds. Such a scenario would probably imply that each individual bitcoin is worth millions of dollars.

While this is not entirely inconceivable, it's absolutely not a certainty or anything resembling one. It seems from your comments below that you might have been trying to be sarcastic with this comment here, but the content is not as preposterous as you seem to be trying to imply, if that's the case. It's a logical fallacy that deliberately confuses correlation with causation. It only has the appearance of making any sense because the logical form is correct i. Except, the premise is false, A doesn't cause B.

B doesn't even cause A, there is a 3rd variable that causes both A and B which is what produces the correlation and illusion of causation. High fees are not a cause of bitcoins value, they are a symptom of it and of a protocol that makes it impossible for miners to increase the number of blocks they process no matter how much computing power they throw at it, and so creates a perverse incentive for miners and users to push fees up through competition for limited space on blocks, despite those fees having no ability to increase the number of transactions processed at least beyond the window of difficulty change.

The correlation between price and fees is due to a confounding causative variable of supply constriction since the supply of bitcoins and blocks are tied. Constricting supply increases price of bitcoin and it also increases fees with all things being equal except greater demand for transactions. If supply was not constrained and could increase to meet demand neither fees nor price would increase. In the short term it actually probably helps the speculative bubble because it further constricts the supply of bitcoin from people who have quantities of bitcoin that cost more to move than they are worth.

In the long term it will completely destroy the value as demand becomes utterly dependent on increasing levels of speculation and any use of bitcoin as a functional currency is abandoned and substituted by alternatives. No, not at all. Read my comment above; you'll note that I never once said that high fees cause bitcoins to be valuable.

That would be absurd. This is also a strawman argument that came out of nowhere. The only reason higher fees haven't already tanked the value of bitcoin is because the demand for bitcoin is coming from speculators,.

It is not unusable for these purposes, and as I explained above, the utility for such transaction types is oriented to increase massively as the full Bitcoin stack is developed, deployed, and refined. It seems like you didn't even read my comment above. Now might be a good time to go and do that! I was talking about the fallacy I myself constructed, not your interpretation.

How can I strawman my own argument? If you think my deliberately ridiculous argument said something else other than what I am now telling you I meant its because you chose to interpret it other than how it was intended. I admire the contrarian urge to find something true in something someone thinks its false but that doesn't make it a straw men when your interpretation is different what what I meant.

There are plenty of times bitcoins price has gone up as fees have come down and vice versa. There is only a loose correlation between the two. This is the very fallacy I was talking about. Assuming a linear causal relationship between price and fees in either direction. I chose to pretend fees caused the price to go up because its more ridiculous but the reverse causal relationship is also false.

A and B are correlated. Fees correlate with price because of how spikes in speculative demand correlate with demand for space on the blockchain, but there is no direct causal relationship. Fees can increase as a result of lots of people trying to sell, and price can go up gradually even as trading frequency decreases. It so happens when lots of people try to buy in a short amount of time it causes both price and fees to go up. As my first comment demonstrated, you didn't actually construct any fallacies.

Your first comment was devoid of any fallacious reasoning; it was straightforward and correct which I pointed out and explained. It was evident that you were trying to be sarcastic, and thus didn't realize that your comment, interpreted literally, was actually correct. Again, it would behoove you to read my original comment and reflect upon it.

Again, read my first comment in the thread. It makes everything clear, but you have to actually read it and understand what I was telling you. Perhaps you intended to, but your original comment in the thread said nothing and implied nothing about any causal relationships. Again , read my original comment. Once you do so, you'll see that you didn't say any such thing. I quoted you, claim for claim, to demonstrate that everything you had said was actually true and devoid of any fallacious reasoning.

If you keep refusing to actually go back and re-read the comments in question, you're not going to understand this. You seem to be confusing what you must have intended to say with what you actually said. Neither you nor I argued that there was. Go ahead, read the thread, you'll see. This is a fallacy regardless of the direction you interpreted it.

The word "must" clearly implies an absolute and essential nature that means one increasing must mean the other has increased. Higher fees do not mean price must have also increased. They just tend to go up and down together because they share a causative factor, which creates a fairly strong correlation and the appearance to some that higher price causes fees to increase. It doesn't, it just tends to, because what tends to cause higher price also tends to cause fees to increase.

What any sane person would want is for fees to go down as price goes up, which has happened and is possible though not likely given the perverse incentives for miners and speculators in the current protocol. The fact that anyone would justify fees increasing as a positive indicator is a good example of the attitude I was parodying, which is finding ways to justify any aspect of bitcoin no matter how clearly problematic so long as it results in higher price.

Look at a graph of average fees and bitcoin price and you can see many times this has happened. There is still a strong correlation so usually fees increase when price increases, but you can clearly see times where the inverse happens.

And you seem to be confusing what you interpreted with what I actually said. Interpretation is just as subjective as intention. All language is subjectively defined, and subjective definitions and interpretations vary from person to person. There's no such thing as an objective interpretation of a word or an objective grammar, just interpretations and grammars that are more commonly shared than others.

Yes, and this is true, as far as any economic assertion can be considered to be. Rational or even semi-rational economic actors won't pay more for something than they consider themselves to receive from the deal. You did not say "the higher the Bitcoin price must be", you said "the more valuable Bitcoin must be", and these are qualitatively distinct statements. Correct, as I've said many times already. You keep repeating these statements that we've both agreed on, and skipping plenty of content that I've written.

The entire problem here is that you haven't been reading much less understanding what I'm saying. Just because you don't understand the technical or economic subtleties of Bitcoin does not mean that those who do are "insane" or anything like that.

It just means you're relatively uninformed. I'd like to see this proof. Looks like you may have realized how tricky such a claim is to back up. At least be honest if you can't find any proof! You'll have to actually read my comments to understand them. I'm still waiting for you to do so. The word "three" has an objective, mathematical, and indisputable definition.

If you want to argue that "to me, 'three' actually means what you mean when you say 'five', or 'purple', or 'car'" then you're just being silly. I'm not surprised that you're retreating into the "language is meaningless anyway" cowardice, though. Not surprised at all! It will become a bunch of "banks" trading in organized batches..

Pretty much separate currencies. Their histories will determine the worth. A word of advice, accounts are free to open. In this kind of a market and sector, you would be well advised to open several. This, should one exchange halts fiat withdrawals, you can send the btc to another exchange and convert to fiat.

It doesn't matter where you are. To be accepted by the rest of the network, a new block must contain a so-called proof-of-work. Every 2, blocks approximately 14 days at roughly 10 min per block , the difficulty target is adjusted based on the network's recent performance, with the aim of keeping the average time between new blocks at ten minutes.

In this way the system automatically adapts to the total amount of mining power on the network. Between 1 March and 1 March , the average number of nonces miners had to try before creating a new block increased from The proof-of-work system, alongside the chaining of blocks, makes modifications of the blockchain extremely hard, as an attacker must modify all subsequent blocks in order for the modifications of one block to be accepted.

Computing power is often bundled together or "pooled" to reduce variance in miner income. Individual mining rigs often have to wait for long periods to confirm a block of transactions and receive payment.

In a pool, all participating miners get paid every time a participating server solves a block. This payment depends on the amount of work an individual miner contributed to help find that block. The successful miner finding the new block is rewarded with newly created bitcoins and transaction fees. To claim the reward, a special transaction called a coinbase is included with the processed payments.

The bitcoin protocol specifies that the reward for adding a block will be halved every , blocks approximately every four years. Eventually, the reward will decrease to zero, and the limit of 21 million bitcoins [e] will be reached c.

A wallet stores the information necessary to transact bitcoins. While wallets are often described as a place to hold [64] or store bitcoins, [65] due to the nature of the system, bitcoins are inseparable from the blockchain transaction ledger.

A better way to describe a wallet is something that "stores the digital credentials for your bitcoin holdings" [65] and allows one to access and spend them. Bitcoin uses public-key cryptography , in which two cryptographic keys, one public and one private, are generated.

There are several types of wallets. Software wallets connect to the network and allow spending bitcoins in addition to holding the credentials that prove ownership. With both types of software wallets, the users are responsible for keeping their private keys in a secure place. Besides software wallets, Internet services called online wallets offer similar functionality but may be easier to use. In this case, credentials to access funds are stored with the online wallet provider rather than on the user's hardware.

A malicious provider or a breach in server security may cause entrusted bitcoins to be stolen. An example of such security breach occurred with Mt. Physical wallets store the credentials necessary to spend bitcoins offline. Another type of wallet called a hardware wallet keeps credentials offline while facilitating transactions.

Bitcoin was designed not to need a central authority [6] and the bitcoin network is considered to be decentralized. In mining pool Ghash. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at Bitcoin is pseudonymous , meaning that funds are not tied to real-world entities but rather bitcoin addresses. Owners of bitcoin addresses are not explicitly identified, but all transactions on the blockchain are public. In addition, transactions can be linked to individuals and companies through "idioms of use" e.

To heighten financial privacy, a new bitcoin address can be generated for each transaction. Wallets and similar software technically handle all bitcoins as equivalent, establishing the basic level of fungibility. Researchers have pointed out that the history of each bitcoin is registered and publicly available in the blockchain ledger, and that some users may refuse to accept bitcoins coming from controversial transactions, which would harm bitcoin's fungibility.

The blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size, which has created problems for bitcoin transaction processing, such as increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block. Bitcoin is a digital asset designed by its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, to work as a currency. The question whether bitcoin is a currency or not is still disputed. According to research produced by Cambridge University , there were between 2.

The number of users has grown significantly since , when there were , to 1. In , the number of merchants accepting bitcoin exceeded , Reasons for this fall include high transaction fees due to bitcoin's scalability issues, long transaction times and a rise in value making consumers unwilling to spend it.

Merchants accepting bitcoin ordinarily use the services of bitcoin payment service providers such as BitPay or Coinbase. When a customer pays in bitcoin, the payment service provider accepts the bitcoin on behalf of the merchant, converts it to the local currency, and sends the obtained amount to merchant's bank account, charging a fee for the service. Bitcoins can be bought on digital currency exchanges. According to Tony Gallippi , a co-founder of BitPay , "banks are scared to deal with bitcoin companies, even if they really want to".

In a report, Bank of America Merrill Lynch stated that "we believe bitcoin can become a major means of payment for e-commerce and may emerge as a serious competitor to traditional money-transfer providers. Plans were announced to include a bitcoin futures option on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in Some Argentinians have bought bitcoins to protect their savings against high inflation or the possibility that governments could confiscate savings accounts.

The Winklevoss twins have invested into bitcoins. Other methods of investment are bitcoin funds. The first regulated bitcoin fund was established in Jersey in July and approved by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Forbes named bitcoin the best investment of The price of bitcoins has gone through various cycles of appreciation and depreciation referred to by some as bubbles and busts. According to Mark T. In particular, bitcoin mining companies, which are essential to the currency's underlying technology, are flashing warning signs.

Various journalists, [84] [] economists, [] [] and the central bank of Estonia [] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. In , Eric Posner , a law professor at the University of Chicago, stated that "a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.

Zero Hedge claimed that the same day Dimon made his statement, JP Morgan also purchased a large amount of bitcoins for its clients.

You can have cryptodollars in yen and stuff like that. Bitcoin has been labelled a speculative bubble by many including former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan [] and economist John Quiggin. Lee, in a piece for The Washington Post pointed out that the observed cycles of appreciation and depreciation don't correspond to the definition of speculative bubble.

It's a mirage, basically. Two lead software developers of bitcoin, Gavin Andresen [] and Mike Hearn, [] have warned that bubbles may occur. Louis , stated, "Is bitcoin a bubble? Yes, if bubble is defined as a liquidity premium. Because of bitcoin's decentralized nature, nation-states cannot shut down the network or alter its technical rules.

While some countries have explicitly allowed its use and trade, others have banned or restricted it. Regulations and bans that apply to bitcoin probably extend to similar cryptocurrency systems.

Bitcoin has been criticized for the amounts of electricity consumed by mining. As of , The Economist estimated that even if all miners used modern facilities, the combined electricity consumption would be To lower the costs, bitcoin miners have set up in places like Iceland where geothermal energy is cheap and cooling Arctic air is free. The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and the media.

Several news outlets have asserted that the popularity of bitcoins hinges on the ability to use them to purchase illegal goods. It will cover studies of cryptocurrencies and related technologies, and is published by the University of Pittsburgh. Authors are also asked to include a personal bitcoin address in the first page of their papers. The documentary film, The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin late , features interviews with people who use bitcoin, such as a computer programmer and a drug dealer.

In Charles Stross ' science fiction novel, Neptune's Brood , "bitcoin" a modified version is used as the universal interstellar payment system. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Bitcoin Prevailing bitcoin logo. For a broader coverage related to this topic, see Blockchain.

For a broader coverage related to this topic, see Cryptocurrency wallet. Legality of bitcoin by country or territory. Cryptography portal Business and economics portal Free and open-source software portal Internet portal Numismatics portal. The fact is that gold miners are rewarded for producing gold, while bitcoin miners are not rewarded for producing bitcoins; they are rewarded for their record-keeping services.

Archived from the original on 21 August Retrieved 23 September Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor". Archived from the original on 2 January Retrieved 28 December Archived from the original on 27 July Retrieved 22 December Standards vary, but there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself. Is It Bitcoin, or bitcoin? The Orthography of the Cryptography". Archived from the original on 16 April Retrieved 19 April Archived from the original on 5 January Retrieved 28 January Retrieved 2 November Archived from the original on 27 October Archived from the original on 2 November Archived PDF from the original on 14 October Retrieved 26 August Archived from the original on 15 January Archived from the original on 18 June Retrieved 23 April Archived from the original on 11 October Retrieved 11 October Archived from the original on 21 July If exchanges counted on a bigger blocksize, they would never try to implement clever way to reduce txs impact on the network.

But yeah, it's a problem. Too much centralization on one company that made a "killer app" super easy buying in USA, Europe and other regions and refuse to optimize their system.

If I'm Coinbase, perhaps maybe different people all initiate transactions in the next minute - or maybe it's 10, in the next 10 minutes - whatever.

What I'm doing right now is sending different tx's - each with let's say 1 input and 2 outputs one to the destination, one sending back the change. This is the smallest individual transactions can be. So these transactions will have inputs and outputs total. If I batch instead, I combine those all into one transaction. I might be able to fund this with 1 single input still. Maybe not, but I probably don't need different inputs.

And for outputs now I will have the recipients and 1 change output. To elaborate, each input has to be accompanied by the witness data that proves that the transaction is legal. Yes, but batched transactions will always be smaller than unbatched transactions, and quite significantly so in the vast majority of cases. It is not possible for the batched transaction to require more inputs than the non-batched transactions assuming a set with the same total amount sent.

Unbatched transactions will always take at least as many inputs as batched, and very often will require many more. What type of timeline would you expect to redevelop their backend? Isn't the general sentiment that it takes years to fully develop and test new features? First of all, no software is bug free. So you're arbitrarily picking some point to say it's "fully developed and tested" in the first place.

Secondly, estimating the time software development will take is notoriously difficult when you know the specific software that needs to be developed. Figuring out a time that would apply to "new features" in all cases is doomed ab initio.

What I mean is, if you wanted to answer the question, "How long does it take to fully develop and test new features of this software?

It's not just that your idea of " years" is a wrong answer, it's that this question cannot be answered period. Some features will take a day to be "fully developed and tested" however you define that and some features will take much much much longer. Now you have to define, "what is a feature? So what's wrong with Coinbase taking a little extra time to minimize bugs to minimize the chance of destroying their entire company? My years came from 2x. The last thing you want to do is dump a buggy upgrade onto the Bitcoin network, which is what happened and failed gloriously.

You really seem to misunderstand things. What takes so long with a hard fork is giving people time to update and all get on the same page so consensus is maintained and chain splits are minimized. That's a valid argument for SegWit, since it's relatively recent though one could also argue that SegWit has been operational on the testnet for a long time, and that Coinbase should have prepared it ahead of time.

Transaction batching, though, is something that they always could have done. Further, it's something they should have started working on way back when blocks started being consistently full. Every unbatched transaction they've done since then has been money down the drain. Agreed, so either Oct 26 or Dec 6. Although it's hard to scold them for not preparing for block gridlock and insane fees. Anytime it was brought up here, the idea was shot down as unrealistic FUD. This place has changed from "High fees are temporary" to "Companies should have prepared for high fees.

Batching your transactions is not the same as developing a consensus system. Changing how you implement withdrawals is something you can do unilaterally. Given other large exchanges have already implemented batching and segwit it should not take that long. There is also a financial incentive for coinbase to do this.