

Zynga Links Up With Bitpay For a Bitcoin Payment Test in Web Games - a_olt
http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/04/zynga-links-up-with-bitpay-for-a-bitcoin-payment-test-in-farmville-2-cityville-and-other-web-games/

======
spectrum
Here is a video demonstration of the in-game purchase using the Kryptokit
extension [1] in Google Chrome:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmN7UtXFRIU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmN7UtXFRIU)

Really shows the simplicity and speed which is great for these type of
microtransactions.

1:
[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kryptokit/lhhiping...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/kryptokit/lhhipingoaiddcoalochnbjlkifbpmoj)

------
dreen
The article seems to conclude this is mostly a PR move, which I find
plausible. I can't really imagine that an average Zynga customer would want to
use bitcoin.

This is good news though, hopefully people will stop going bananas about the
value of a bitcoin so using it as a payment platform becomes a viable option
for everyone.

~~~
XorNot
The Bitcoin network split and tanked when it exceeded, what, 500k transactions
an hour?

~~~
jnbiche
The network split had nothing to do with transactions per hour. It was due to
a very subtle difference between two versions of BerkeleyDB used in different
versions of the Bitcoin client. Basically, a perfect storm:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1a51xx/now_that_its...](http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1a51xx/now_that_its_over_the_blockchain_fork_explained/)

~~~
makomk
Not really. The issue with BerkeleyDB was actually triggered by a new version
of the Bitcoin client that didn't use BDB to store the blockchain and that
simultaneously raised the number of transactions allowed in a block so that
more could be processed. Older BDB-based versions of the Bitcoin client hit a
previously unknown limit when attempting to process that many transactions,
causing them to fork onto their own version of the network. The issue hadn't
been noticed before because the number of transactions was previously
restricted to a low enough level that it couldn't trigger the bug.

~~~
ewillbefull
> and that simultaneously raised the number of transactions allowed in a block
> so that more could be processed

Source? I don't believe the hard limit in blocks has ever been changed;
bitcoin's devs are currently struggling to convince people to let them do it.
The soft limit will NOT cause hard forks.

The only reason that fork happened was an unknown limit that existed with one
database in one version and which didn't exist with an improved database in
another version. It was a bug.

Here's an evaluation of the chainfork:
[https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki)

------
untilHellbanned
I wonder why Zynga chose Bitpay over Coinbase. Anyone know?

~~~
gigavps
Probably because Bitpay does one thing and does it better than anyone else.

