www.BURSTNation.com Making it Rain
-
@k.coins said in www.BURSTNation.com Making it Rain:
How can slower transaction speeds be a good thing at all?
I'm not aware of anyone that thinks slower transaction speeds are a good thing except maybe the banks. The coders, on the other hand, are busy developing other stuff and not prioritizing block size unless slow transaction speed becomes a lasting and permanent problem. I do not think it is a problem currently, but we will just have to wait and see how it goes.
-
A few ideas:
These all seem to be 1-to-1 transactions... is it possible to do a 1-to-Many transaction? If that registers like any other transaction, then it should cost the same amount of Burst and Adam might be more likely to do it to save on transaction fees. Would be good for dividend payouts too.
Multiple block rounds. Rather than increasing block size, simply allow more blocks to be mined per round. The miner with the lowest deadline gets the first block (and the most expensive transaction fees). The miner with the second lowest deadline gets the second block and so on... You could configure the network to only spill over into multiple blocks when > X number of transactions are pending.
-
@Propagandalf increasing block size isnt very good, at the moment its size is 44KB thats a decent size
-
@LithStud
I was just mentioning it as a possibility for those concerned with slow speeds becoming a (permanent) problem, but I guess bigger block size means a more bloated block chain too. I'm no expert though ;)
-
@Propagandalf well blockchain will bloat a bit faster bigger problem is not everybody has decent upload speed :)
-
@sevencardz this would still pose the problem where the max block size is 44kb.
so sending 1 transaction to 255 addresses will still cause the block to be about 44kb. the only difference is you will have 1 transaction go through each block instead of 255.
also if this method were possible would it have a 1 burst tx fee to send a payment to 255 people rather than 255 1 burst tx fees?
for multiple blocks mined poses seperate issues and would probably require a hard fork this would also deplete the total burst coin available to mine much faster.
-
@Lexicon - Ah, I was hoping it was possible to stuff a bunch of recipient addresses into just a single transaction, but if that's not the case, then that idea is obviously no good. It makes sense now that you've explained it because each recipient address has to take up a certain amount of space per TX and they all have to fit in a block.
-
send some love and help to some poor and homeless poeple
BURST-JCVQ-ZE66-7ZD6-8U754
-
Just sent this on Bittrex's slack channel so the wallet owners might be able to collect the "rain".
Just had a question about the "rain" that a certain person from the Burst community has been pouring down. Seems like two of the "other" exchanges has been crediting the "rain" properly to my account. My Bittrex account has not credited a single Burst (yet). Does anybody from #Bittrex know anything about this? Me thinks it might be because a public key is needed for deposits for Burst? If so where has all the Burst gone sent to the individual wallet addresses? Thank you for looking into this matter.
-
@vprf Bittrex need to have a hash (public key of your account in there system if you will) attached as message to transaction. Given recent events with Bittrex and smaller volume coins i dont see any sort of change happening unless they get paid.

