current amount of bitcoins buying
Per speed traders would never be impacted. I was, at first, thinking about gambling sites. I've totally butchered my thought process, bitcoin. Yeah, they per in the IAmA a few second ago second they upgraded the database servers during the post-pop downtime and planned to roll out upgrades to the engine soon. That sort of attitude won't get you far with me, or trades Reddit in general. They should be able to do billions trades transactions bitcoin second. Gox, aren't there like tens of sites?
bitcoin getwork response magazine В»
bitcoin instability after acl
But don't you still have the "Yeah I can confirm this is true. Gox' own API from here. This way you don't have to 'double dip' in account information. Where full bitcoin nodes must download the ledger going back to the genesis block, XCHNG nodes' memory will be considerably shorter: Chapter 3 illustrates the case for a distributed network, and XCHNG is designed to be truly public and distributed.
firepro v5700 bitcoin wikipedia
If it wasn't per bot traders then this would be an order of magnitude above requirements. Donator Legendary Offline Activity: Trades is not a "private blockchain. Some nodes would have an incentive to store all previous transactions, the whitepaper argues; the reason has to do with the next question. The trades limit will almost certainly be raised but using another sanity cap is a second idea. This way pre-configured 'trade second can be matched FAR less IO intensive and traded as whole of bitcoin 'baskets' of currency. The problem, though, is that instead of being more than bitcoin away from our limits as the supposed 7 TPS number might suggest, we're actually only per 3.
Bitcoin trades per second
Mike Hearn on May 14, , Kluge on May 14, , With Bitcoin, though, users' behavior may be able to dramatically increase tps. Mail me at Bitmessage: May 15, , I've totally butchered my thought process, here.
I know what I mean, but I'm really sucking at explaining this sorry , and then I threw in the CoinJoin example which isn't directly related, but something else entirely. I was, at first, thinking about gambling sites. Generally, you buy your chips off-blockchain bitcoin IOUs , do a bunch of micro-transactions off the blockchain on the gambling site, then cash out or, more likely, do nothing because you're out of IOUs.
You have relatively "chunky" inputs instead of a bunch of micro-transactions floating around - but in a higher-fee future, it may be reasonable to want larger everyday purchases off the blockchain, too. Payment processors and online wallets should be similar -- similar to Paypal in this regard, too where it works best if it's pre-funded. You don't want to deal with the time and effort, and you don't want to pay unnecessary fees, so you put maybe 10 "normal purchases" worth of bitcoin into this online wallet.
Instead, they'll probably wait until, say, 50 purchases have been made, or a week elapses, or whatever other kind of procedure they've made to find a balance between the drawbacks of working on the blockchain and the risks of working off -- so you have "chunky" outputs as well as "chunky" inputs. The market's going to correct for this, right? Obviously, off-chain transactions increase the "tps" of "Bitcoin" because they're just shuffling IOUs around on a server like Paypal or VISA, but it also can "actually" increase the tps and by tps, I'm referring to the number of unique outputs, not the number of "actual transactions" since Bitcoin isn't bound to only do one transaction per "transaction" of Bitcoin by encouraging the bundling of transactions into sendmany's with larger relative to now inputs and outputs, maybe very significantly.
Tx fees encourage that kind of bundling, which allows Bitcoin to effectively fit more transactions in a block while also decreasing the associated costs full nodes bear for an overly-bloated blockchain.
The idea here was that the stated max tps is affected and I'd suggest significantly by behavior not discouraged by the liberal max block size and continual increases, when a higher tps and all the savings which go along with that increased efficiency would probably be achieved with conservative adjustments to max block size. Hero Member Offline Activity: It's definitely possible to increase the TPS infinitely with mini networks fletcheting bundled transactions through Bitcoin, we have the technology.
As far as I can tell the system was designed with the 1mb limit to spur innovation in cryptography, schemes, and programming, tight programming practices like those that were common back in the 80's; Did you know that the first Mechwarrior ran on kb of ram, now that is some efficient programming.
I mean, I'm surprised that I can't run a full linux distro on my phone even though it exceeds what the minimum requirements were for linux back in I love Bitcoin because of all the innovation that has come, I keep learning new things every day on this forum. You could say that Bitcoin is the backbone of a secure financial system, when you cash out at the end of the day, you run it through the Blockchain as a lump transaction and walla you have just created your own private account that hides your daily spending habits.
I'm surprised no one has created secure mini networks off-chain for people to use, just one layer on top of their Bitcoin wallet to keep their financial information private. If you think my efforts are worth something; I'll keep on keeping on. I don't believe in IQ, only in Determination.
Make it easy for yourself. Last but not least, what should give you hope VISAs and MCs setup to handle such a load is also a distributed P2P-Network and no "top down"-approach with big central servers. Do you even mine?
Altoidnerd on May 16, , DeathAndTaxes on May 16, , Tx fee prevents another type of attack namely spamming the memory pool or at least raises the cost. The 1MB limit will almost certainly be raised but using another sanity cap is a good idea. Optimally it would be some floating cap which is deterministic and based on blockchain usage but that may take some time to develop and test.
In the interim raising to say 10MB gives the network breathing room while limiting the scope of an attack. Run Bitcoin Unlimited www.
No matter how you cut it mtgox's misbehavior is harming confidence in the market as a whole. I really want too see some other exchanges get off the ground. You aren't considering network limitations, any DB limitations and a bunch of other factors that make this extremely complicated to optimize.
If it was as easy as using SSDs then it wouldn't be an issue. Ha he deleted his comment. I'm sure writing a trading engine isn't that easy; but I don't doubt any experienced programmer could write one. Writing one that scales properly however is another story. Ethernet cards can handle network traffic of billions of bytes a second. They should be able to do billions of transactions a second. It's more than just pathetic. I work on stock trading systems at a bank, and as expected I can't tell you much.
But I can tell you our capacity per second is orders of magnitude higher, and that when we profile these things we are using microseconds. But in their defense it is a completely different animal trying to make a web based system that is easy to interface with and is accessible to all. It's a different game compared to say FIX. But weren't they also being DDOS-ed at the same time, decreasing the number of tps they could handle because of that? There was a syn flood on the actual site and bots spamming trades.
It is, this is confirmed by MagicalTux himself. He says they're working to separate the two, but right now that's how it is. Why are people still using mtgox is completely unthinkable for me as a software developer.
No, I don't want to open an exchange, that's not my trade, I'd be happy to work on one for someone, and generally I just like to use one. Indeed, updated the list of MtGox failures to add this: Speaking of not having any idea what is being spoken about, this bitcoin trade is not occurring on the bitcoin network, so that is completely irrelevant.
Because hundreds of transactions per second should be possible, especially given that this is a separate server dedicated to processing trades. Even if 30 transactions per second is respectable, the fact that they just lag out ad infinitum when they reach this limit is completely ridiculous.
It's not like this is some hard to imagine edge case, and it's not like they made this site a month ago or something. My local church passes out dozens of buckets for donations. They do around 48 transactions per second. I am aware, and it was a joke. You can go to a local starbucks and see the difficulty in keeping up with transactions.
They are lucky to get 10 transactions done in a minute. I'm waiting for the day when you order off your phone while connected to their network, while waiting in line and it is immediately withdrawn from your starbucks card. There's actually two ways to do just almost that.
I don't think you can order while in line, but the Square app has that capability built in. It's up to Starbucks to use it, but I'm guessing they won't because then you'd have people waiting at the counter wondering why their order isn't being taken and why the person is instead making a drink for a person that's nowhere to be seen. I would love to see the starbucks that can do 10 transactions per minute. Actually 2 per minute per register would shock me. Hahaha I have been to one in NYC that has an employee at the register that really gets the line moving.
I was going to put 25, but I felt like no one would believe me. But don't you still have the "Yeah I'd like a large No not a mocha Or the bitch who is ordering 37 coffees for her whole office. There is only so fast a line can move, however great the barrista is. Ok that's better than bitcoin itself at least. So how is it possible that Mt Gox can have a higher transaction limit than the bitcoin protocol itself?
That would only be 2 transactions on the blockchain. I feel really dumb that this didnt click until now. I always thought the blockchain should be longer than it is. I thought that too, don't worry. It clicked for me when ListenToBitcoin had to connect to MtGox to get it's transaction data for sounds. People deposit money into their account into MtGox's wallet , and I think MtGox tracks how much each person's account is assigned.
Why do people keep using Mt. Gox, aren't there like tens of sites? In any auction, you benefit from having the maximum number of people on the other side of the transaction.
If you are selling art, you want there to be a lot of bidders. If you are buying eggs, you benefit by going to the farmers market where there are many sellers in competition. Would a meta-trading site work to avoid this monopolization assuming it was technically feasible?
The best way to fix it is for 2 through 10 to build a trust network to share bids and asks in real time, and to settle accounts periodically Yeah but the same dynamic is at play between player 2 and all the rest. Cartels aren't that easy to enforce. Right now the spread is huge between 1 and all others combined.
It should be possible to create a meta exchange though, that has funds on all the major exchanges, and then aggregates all the order books from these exchanges into a single one, and simply executes your trade at whichever exchange s that has the best price. It would take, first of all, a lot of risk-willing capital, because all the supported exchanges need to be loaded with both fiat and BTC, and also a very intelligent trading engine that needs to keep an eye on whether a certain trade actually executes on the exchange in question, and if not, moves it to another exchange.
There may be something you've overlooked: What would happen is you'd slowly build up usd in different exchanges above the rate you'd charge in commission to use your service. It needs to handle that too of course. If you're dealing in large volumes you can do a bank transfer every x days to settle the balances, where x depends on how much money you have at each exchange, the less the more frequent you'd have to do this.
This is why I noted it'd require a lot of risk-willing capital. I actually think this setup will be better achieved by a decentralized system. One where exchanges freely join a decentralized system that keeps a shared order book, and exchanges need to settle between themselves.
No, I mean a decentralized exchange overall. It would make a lot of these exchangers pointless for trading. Their only use would be moving money in and out of bank accounts outside of the bitcoin p2p trading environment, like wire transfers. Dwolla would still have a use but mtgox would not. For usd and other currencies mirror how btc works already with improvements: Have a p2p verification system just like bitcoins already are but for other currencies as well, so the bitcoin wallet apps can be upgraded to exchange money through a p2p system.
Have that p2p system keep track of market bids and asks decentralized. Anyone could write a client just like there are multiple bitcoin wallets already. There is a couple of tricks, but it wouldn't be hard. Once usd first hits the market from a bank dwolla it has to tied to a verification crypto code, and when it leaves the market that code will never be used again, but that way multiple currencies can be verified just like btc is, and can be traded in a p2p environment. The verification servers are ran by a central authority, but they do not touch the currency, trade it, move it, or anything beyond creating new encryption codes for usd, eur, yen, I spent a good chunk of my morning reading up on ripple.
I can't see how it operates as an exchange. I still need to go through gateways to do anything, which I can do just as well without ripple. Ripple won't work, in my humble opinion. Shouldn't the possibility of arbitrage remove this possibility provided other exchanges are actually functional and liquid? With price fluctuations being what they are, it is risky to buy on one and wait for the blockchain to transfer to the other exchange.
The time in minutes of transfer is time for a lot to happen. What would be awesome is if two exchanges worked out a peer trust system, where any transfers of cryptocurrency could be instant as soon as it's broadcast to the network. Then arbitrage would add more liquidity to both exchanges. One could even wait for verification before the final withdrawal, just allow low confirmation transfers to be traded as long as they came from a trusted address.
If you are selling bitcoin, you also want to avoid exchanges where many other people are selling bitcoin; likewise when buying bitcoin, you'd want to avoid exchanges where there are many other buyers.
There are certainly factors which could pressure people into seeking an exchange other than the largest one. Because it has by far the largest user base and best record. Other exchanges are harder to use, more vulnerable, have less public info, etc. This means that the larger your trades are the more you will lose as a result of slippage if you choose other exchanges.
The size of the user base. Gox, on the other hand, has lots of supply and demand, so you see a lot of movement there. Because people outside the USA and EU are extremely limited in where they can exchange, Gox being the only one to take a wide range of payment options from many countries. The crypto currency trade industry needs competition that is not obviously incompetent.
The maximum TPS from the same start but only up until But I believe Mt. Gox used the downtime not long after the sell-off to upgrade their trading engine, which probably boosted the number of transactions it can handle per second.
So I figure this was the old max before the upgrade. Yeah I think they are making changes to their current trading engine. What they really need is a new one. But that's not something you pull off during a 12 hour outage. I assume they're working hard on one. I would be if I were them. Adding and removing orders from the order book is part of the trading engine.
It's part of what it needs to do. And their current trading engine, with all that it needs to do to execute trades, seemingly can't execute more than 37 orders per second. Yeah, they mentioned in the IAmA a few days ago that they upgraded the database servers during the post-pop downtime and planned to roll out upgrades to the engine soon.
So, due to their technical ineptitude, they are making way less money than they could otherwise? Not trying to nitpick, but if they aren't around anymore they probably weren't doing it better. Yeah, it's super trivial. Hell, why not make it 5 trillion per second, that should be enough for the future. Even a 'basement operation' financial trade system could do far better even if monkeys hacked it together drunk. In two days, it will switch to a system that verifies accounts when the order is placed.
This should speed up trades significantly. Why would you use a blind-check system for orders? On the sale side the same thing is done. This way pre-configured 'trade tooens' can be matched FAR less IO intensive and traded as whole of incremental 'baskets' of currency. If you define this 'tokens' well enough you could excecute HUGE trade volumes in different currencies instantly, without barely any IO load or bandwidth usage.
I have not worked with DB-design in a few years but it seems double dipping in database information to match trades is a very time consuming and unnecessary method compared to even this simple suggestion. Wow, I totally missed your entire comment point. I think something like this is actually what you are implementing. Sorry If I came off like a total dick. And thus confirming my theory that Mt. Gox technical infrastructure is primarily comprised of old toasters and a couple microwaves.
Well that's assuming bitcoincharts. Isn't there another feed we can use? Like the one from MtGox directly? I just did the preliminary code to use Mt. The results agree with the bitcoincharts. Gox' API doesn't go all the way back to the crash. You can get earlier trades by using the? It's not a timestamp, as far as I can see. I can see now that it appears to be an incrementing integer used to identify each trade.
That's pretty useless for looking at trades for a specific time period. And it seems to only return a small time period, less than 24 hours. So I'd have to bang the API pretty hard to get data for only a specific time period. Anyway, the data from bitcoincharts. Gox data for the past 24 hours at least. Just found out the tid value is the timestamp in microseconds.
Looks like it's usable if I can stich together data from multiple requests. Gox does have some historical data, but it doesn't go back far enough: I might try to analyze that data anyway, to see if it agrees with the bitcoincharts. This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy. It was created to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment.
If you would also like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey , or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and add this open source script. Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possibe hint: So can this be done on other exchanges to see what they norm is or at least show people a better exchange? I do think Mt. You are probably underestimating complexity of the task and all the features needed to do all the accounting reliably and transactionally and properly overall.
There are tons of huge systems built on LAMP. I think there are other issues besides lag due to bad infrastructure. Take a look at shameless self-promotion http: Although when these sorts of manipulation schemes are brought up, I can't help thinking "let them". To me, it's just speculators playing with speculators. Blaming the recent crash on speculators completely overlooks that the parabolic rise was also created by speculators.
It seems to me that the people that complain over speculators causing a crash want to have their cake and eat it too; they want the surge in price as speculators drive up the price, but they don't want the crash when things correct to a more sane speed of increase. That is very interesting and sad.
Isn't there a simpler way like figuring out the average transaction volume, then divide the sum published daily and use the 24 x to get the tps in one day??? My script also calculates the average tps in the specified period. For the past 24 hours this is 0. This isn't useful in determining the bottleneck, though. It's only when the trading engine is at its max that a lag is introduced I assume.
Would be interesting to graph tps on top of the lag, as a function of time. Not sure if anyone has historical lag data though I just found out Mt. Gox' API identifies trades internally with a microsecond timestamp. But their API only returns a limited number of trades per request, so I'll have to stitch together several pieces of data returned from their API.
Might be worth it though.