And 98% of nodes right now can support 4MB blocks without a problem.
I'd like to see the testing methodology used in order to draw to this conclusion. IIRC there was some 'research' being done by some team a while ago, stating something like this (although I'm unsure about the specifics and can't find it). Please post the source if you are able to. I recommend 10mb size maybe its enough already.
That number is just arbitrary and useless. 1mb is clearly not enough but 10mb would be a shock to most systems.
A tenfold increase in resource usage is definitely a "killer". |
|
|
|
Interesting coin, especially considering the very small premium that it has. This is definitely something to keep an eye out for/buy as your first funded coin. Are you planning on selling them in a box, like the 1 BTC coin?
I'd like to know this as well. |
|
|
|
many of these sites still need Flash player and lots of other exploitable plugin and they have a lot of ads, popups, popunder and redirects to any site that pays them to do that. so you can be redirected to a malicious site and be unaware of that because it was opened in a window below your main.
That isn't something that's specifically tied to such websites. I see that everywhere from time to time. With a proper browser setup, it's quite unlikely that something is going to happen (e.g. flash control, popup/ad block). i wonder why you use a separate computer for porn?
There are many dangers lurking among those websites (e.g. weird kind of malware). I don't understand people that download it though, nor those that don't use incognito mode (among other things). i would imagine money. so why not buy a small laptop around $200-$300 should be enough. run linux on it and only use it for your coins, wallets and other financial stuff. the other time it can remain offline and shut down.
That isn't convenient, nor does that setup imply security. In addition to that, using a slow laptop for all of that (especially if you usually have really good hardware) is a nightmare. |
|
|
|
Enough time that even all of the human lives combined wouldn't be enough. We live in a practical world. Sorry about that.
The lifespan of a human is irrelevant for a definition of something. While we may never live to see that day come, it is possible, just not probable. yeah, if he has a lot of bitcoins, I think he would save the password, private key, etc in a safe place.
No, not really. Just because the may or may not have a fair amount of money, that does not mean that they're going to properly secure it. |
|
|
|
Since practice>theory, practically impossible = impossible.
I disagree with this and think that it is false. The definition of impossible is: something that cannot happen.
What we are talking about here is something possible, but improbable: improbable = something that can happen, but its probability is comparatively low, but not zero.
Given enough time, a collision can/will happen. |
|
|
|
you know the numbers. do you think it will be necessary tomorrow?
I didn't mean literally 'tomorrow'. However, we can't really predict how technology is going to progress in the next 50 years. It may very well be that an 'extension' is required. because i think it was done right the first time and we do not need to improve it. especially if we both think this would leave out the old funds that would not migrate.
As said, we can't predict the future. Although I'd say that the probability of this is very slim within the near/mid future. |
|
|
|
in order to add additional symbols to make bitcoin safer you probably would need to move the coins to a new wallet (key pair).
Well, that is likely the case. However, such a solution leaves out old/lost/unused addresses/funds at risk. An example of this would be Satoshi's coins. this is not necessary
Just because it may not be necessary today, that doesn't mean that it won't be necessary tomorrow. and if we would do it, then i guess you would come along and ask for more again to make it even safer.
Well, then it has to be done right the first time so that it doesn't have to be repeated for a long time. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generators are not allowed.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that detailed explanation. I have a question though. In the future when bitcoin will be still used, and we obviously will be having a better tech to "crack/collide" addresses.
Unless there is some unexpected and exponential growth in the generation capabilities, then I don't see that happening within our lifespan. Besides, trying to target some addresses is likely going to be economically unfeasible (e.g. why would attempt to generate address with XXXX Bitcoin, when it's going to cost you several times more money to do so?). It is possible to change /upgrade bitcoin address? For example add additional 10 symbols or find a way for addresses to be truly unique?
I've actually thought about this recently. The change would most likely be complex, although I'd say that it's a possible. Then it is practically impossible.
Low chance of occurring != impossible. As a community we should really have a guide on how to make sure your family would have access to your bitcoins in the event of your death.
No, the community does not need to do anything. Anyone with a brain and some knowledge should be able to figure out how to set this up on their own depending on what their setup is. |
|
|
|
They need 10^50 years or longer? I can't remember the correct time in theory, but we can't see that day before we die.
Here's a nice explanation of why it's not feasible in practice: The odds in colliding with a specific address is 1 in 2^160.
If there are a billion users and each have one million active addresses (1 quadrillion funded addresses in the blockchain) the odds in colliding with any address would be roughly 1 in 2^110 (1*10^33).
Vanitygen can produce 20 million keypairs per second. Lets say you build a super ASIC on 12nm (4 generations ahead of current tech) process that could create, validate, and steal one trillion keypairs per second (1 TK/s). That would be about 50,000x more powerful than faster GPU today. Lets also say you built a thousand of them and ran them continually with no downtime 24/7/365. In 1 year you could brute force 3*10^28 possible addresses.
If there are 1 quadrillion funded addresses you would still have a ~1% chance of colliding with a random funded address in the next 1,000 years.
Nope. It is impossible.
Wrong. It is possible, however it is just not probable with the current technology within a time-span close to our lifespan. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
The centralization of this forum is making bitcoin look bad.
You're literally the only person that I've ever heard say this for bitcointalk. I do recall some debate regarding listing of clients on bitcoin.org, but that is it. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generators are not allowed.
|
|
|
|
This was beaten to death back in the early days of Classic. You should use the search function or look around this sub-forum (although it may take time to find this). Theymos has stated their reasoning, and they do not agree with those 'implementations'. It's easy to claim you have consensus when you are censoring all competition. But I'm sure if other clients were given equal chance, the consensus would shift towards one of them.
Shift towards what exactly, an implementation that has even a much smaller team and even less peer review like Classic? IIRC theymos labeled it as an altcoin back in the day.
BU may be different. Last time I checked they didn't have a faulty fork proposal implemented(?). |
|
|
|
C++
explicit limit vs consensus limit
consensual vs controversial
reading code not social distraction
definition of hypocrisy
who is spoon-feeding him and why they do it
You've nicely described yourself. Focusing on ad hominem won't do you any good nor win any arguments. The main forums (this one, and /r/bitcoin) both support Core as the only 'official' bitcoin wallet. Most users probably don't even know about Classic/Unlimited/XT, and if they do, they don't know they are just as 'official' as Core.
It is the main and most advanced Bitcoin implementation. There's nothing "official" regarding that. Basically, this header needs to be more neutral, and also include links to the latest Classic, Unlimited and XT clients. As well as a link to a page that explains the difference in a fair and factual way.
No. This is a privately owned forum, and as such, does not "need" to do anything. |
|
|
|
You should lower the entry fee to 1 satoshi.  Wouldn't you want that mister mantis?  As per our discussion on Slack, I will take spot #0 in Lot [0-7].
I've added your spot. |
|
|
|
I consider the mentioned threads as off-topic, and it would be appreciated if they were moved to that section.
Unfortunately 'Bitcoin Discussion' is overflowing with this kind of content right now. Report them. I'm sure they'll get dealt with.
I've compiled a report in my previous post in this thread. Let's see how long it takes until somebody handles at least some of those, or if at all. |
|
|
|
Does that make you honest? No - it makes you a liar that has been caught in a lie.
No. I was proving a point which you seem to have missed. ive read the code of each.
What a nice joke.  Based on that, it sounds like you're not even remotely educated on what these alternative implementations are or how they work.
I'm "educated" enough about BU to not be interested in their work at this time. The reason that I used the "16 MB" was because somebody was advocating that 16 MB blocks were safe, which is obviously false. You seemingly just regurgitate opinions you've read elsewhere without even bothering to check the legitimacy of it.
If that was the case, then I'd be supporting Bitcoin Classic and BU. It's precisely the point.
No. That was a demonstration of the assertions being throw out by pro-BU members around here. Again with the garbage assumptions. Perhaps you could explain why you're skeptical about the proposals and in the process prove that you actually understand them.
You tell me to do research, and then afterwards want me to explain why e.g. header-first mining is a bad idea? How about you do the research this time?
Obviously we're long past any technical debate in this thread, and are at a point where the mindset being received is in the lines of "No, you're wrong. xx MB blocks are super safe. Core is evil". |
|
|
|
Bald assertion devoid of any supporting evidence is duly noted.
Fight fire-with-fire, or bald assertions-with bald-assertions when obviously reason isn't adequate. Prove it? You can't even define it!
This is actually true. We don't even have a clear definition of 'spam', and yet some throw out the claims that blocks are filled with 'legit' transactions. Your demonstrated pride in mastering this oh-so-advanced concept </s> is simply adorable.
Sarcasm is pointless, and adorable is not an attribute worth pinning to this. A point has been made, and the point is correct. |
|
|
|
once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-
You yourself have no idea what they all actually are. Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".
There isn't an extensive code review of such an implementation by myself (probably not by anyone, as I haven't seen one). That's not the point though. The point was that 'these people' are throwing around assertions regarding the safety of random block sizes just because 'it's fine one some test-net'. You do, of course, realize that if one lonely cpu starts mining upon this chain, you will have been proven utterly wrong?
I was talking about the current miners of Bitcoin. Oh wait - self-contradiction in one neat paragraph - quite an achievement!
It's not a contradiction; read the above. Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe.
Yes, it does actually, since there's no such thing as "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
