But, I read enough of his "Prison Papers" (that he wrote in jail, and brought out by friends, actually very impressive work) to know he is very smart and knows his history.
link plz? (I can't find them googling) |
|
|
|
On another note: I am actually interested in the Litecoin solution regarding spam.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ci25k/the_current_spam_attack_on_bitcoin_is_not/This spam attack is not economically feasible on the Litecoin network. I will explain why. Here's one of txns that is spamming the network: https://blockchain.info/tx/1ec8370b2527045f41131530b8af51ca15a404e06775e41294f2f91fa085e9d5For creating 34 economically unfeasible to redeem UTXOs, the spammer only had to pay 0.000299 btc ($0.08). In order to clean up all these spammy UTXOs, you needed a nice pool to mine this huge transaction for free. And the only reason why the pool was able to was because the spammer sent these coins to simple brain wallets! If these were random addresses, they would stick around in the UTXO set forever! (or until each BTC is worth a lot) The reason why Litecoin is immune to this attack is because Litecoin was attacked in a similar fashion (though to a much smaller degree) years ago. And I noticed this flaw in Bitcoin and patched it in Litecoin. There's code in Bitcoin that says if someone sends a tiny amount of coins to an output, make sure that he pays the mintxfee. This makes sense because you wouldn't want someone creating "dust" spam by sending small amount of coins. BUT the code still only enforces the same mintxfee if you send to many small outputs. The fix is simple: require a mintxfee for each tiny output. Because of this fix, Litecoin's UTXO set is much more manageable than Bitcoin's. But the pull request for this that I created against the bitcoin codebase was rejected 3 years ago: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/1536One of the reasons why I created Litecoin was because it was hard for someone like me (who was a nobody back then) to make any changes to Bitcoin. Having a different set of developers take the code in a different direction can only be good for the resiliency of the whole cryptocurrency movement. And that is why there is value in altcoins. |
|
|
|
My take on the issue:
Any solution has to make spam expensive. Anything else is just adding further problems. That's why I like the solution implemented with Litecoins. |
|
|
|
imho the 10-21 MA look good:  |
|
|
|
they want to control the fees to make a personal profit as their business model supported through investment by controlling the bandwidth .. they are like mansanto who wants to profit by controlling our food supply through poisoning it .. some people would call what "cripplecoiners" are doing corruption . "all of us" lose so they can profit.
hey, if you want your alt you can do your alt  |
|
|
|
My guess is we're going nowhere unless some miracle happens and criplecoiners see the light or some macroeconomic disaster strikes.
luckily you guess wrong. "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of Gavincoiners is to disregard the first lesson of economics." |
|
|
|
Soon bulls be like   either that or:  imho we enter in the pump zone if it crosses 240:  |
|
|
|
The "industry" is a bunch of VCs and scam artists bent on monopolize or take their slice -the larger, the better. Why they're into Gavincoins should be obvious. Either BTC is of the ppl, by the ppl, for the ppl, or it's their toy. SR crash was a totally different story, and quite coincident with the goxxing. |
|
|
|
notbitcoinXT doesn't make any sense. if blocks are stamped with bitcoinXT, they contribute toward the 75% supermajority, correct? why would anyone opposing XT want that supermajority activation triggered?
I lack the programming skills to see how this would slow XT adoption.
Of course. It's another double bluff from the NSA-bag of dirty tricks. Strange that anyone struggles to see it from a mile away. |
|
|
|
XT isn't dead until we lure it into NotXT's trap, then demonstrate why attempting a hard fork is a bad idea (especially for first movers).
That is another false flag, cypherdoc. A sign of desperation by your team. |
|
|
|
because conspiracies don't exist, right? you're smart. |
|
|
|
No one is buying forked coin. Waiting for next step down
They stuck a fork in it. Abandon the ship. |
|
|
|
this, and the fact that the free fee market would solve any traffic glut is what make me suspect that the blocksize crusade is just an inside job for a controlled demolition of btc. The worst case scenario is that someone starts spamming the blockchain with the 8mb blocks. Then, next thing you know, people will say "ohh these 8mb blocks are full, we need bigger blocks". Then you get 20mb blocks and ~3gb/day of bloat / >1 tb per year. And who is to stop them spamming the 20mb blocks and getting them full too? What's next? We'll be asking for 100mb blocks? This is madness.
Personally I don't believe that even the 750k/1mb blocks are full by legitimate transactions and not bogus transactions. I believe these bogus transactions are created to stir a "debate" about "ohh we need bigger blocks" and stuff so that we can then go on and shoot ourselves in the foot by "accepting" larger blocks as the "natural evolution".
We have to deal with a reality here: Big banks, credit cards, swift etc, don't want BTC to succeed. Bloating it is a very cheap way they can use to kill it. It's much cheaper than a 51% and cheaper than manipulating the BTC market. And it will be FAAAAAAAAAR cheaper to enable that attack vector with 8mb or 20mb blocks.
|
|
|
|
If you insist on running a full node then you'll have to run a full node. I don't see the problem.
a problem is that the number of full nodes is already pathetically low, and to further decreasing it of an order of magnitude or 2 via much higher bandwidth and hardware specs opens a whole can of worms about transparency, trust, resilience/antifragility and whatnot. I'd prefer that ppl use dogcoins or any alt of their choice for microtx, tips, spam, and frappucinos, and use btc only for serious stuff. |
|
|
|
But the main question is, how will Bitcoin behave against a rising dollar?
more interesting is how the world economy will react to it. Rising $ means all debt in $ become heavier and some of it unsustainable. So it would cause increase in defaults in any debt in $ worldwide. And if you're going bankrupt, having some btc that they can't repo sounds cool. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
