Kannst du ganz kurz erklären, was der Nachteil ist, wenns einen gibt, weil dann wäre ja erst das segwit und dann eine Blöckerhöhung doch theoretisch ein win-win.
Jeff Garzik: Segregated Witness:
New economics
New bitcoin address fmt
New transaction fmt
New block fmt
New script fmt
Nachteile aus meiner Sicht von segwit gegenüber simpler blocksize limit anpassung in derselben Höhe: - segwit is viel komplizierterer code => bug risiko
- segwit muss in allen wallets, infrastruktur wie blockexplorern etc. implementiert werden. Diese Dev-Power könnte man woanders reinstecken. Für 2 MB ist nix zu implementieren
- Es gibt eine neue Ökonomische arbiträr zu wählende Variable (Kostenvorteil segwit tx gegenüber normaler tx)
- segwit ist "accounting fraud". Man sagt die blocksize bleibt gleich, macht aber gleichzeitig ein neues Ding auf (für die Signaturen) und verlagert Teile dahin. Also eigentlich werden größere Blöcke erlaubt... warum so kompliziert?
- segwit ist ein politisches Paket. Sind Sachen mit drin reinverwurstelt die man auch separat machen könnte, aber wohl für LN braucht (fraud proofs, malleability fix).
|
|
|
|
Ihr macht mich ganz verrückt mit euren ETH läufen  Wo handelt ihr die denn aktuell? Ich schau mir das ganze aber ersteinmal nur an. NO FOMO BUYING  @BTC Also bleiben die Blöcke vom 1MB ersteinmal so oder wann/wo wird da drüber entschieden? Kann von mir aus noch etwas fallen: Nachkaufen !  core roadmap: - segwit in april (?), should give 1.06 MB equivalent blocksize, tendenz steigend bis ca. 1.7 MB equivalent wenn alle wallets umgestellt sind.
- Mitte 2017 (wenn alle einverstanden sind): ein hardfork mit unbekanntem inhalt (?)
- möglichst schon vorher: everyone uses LN
Also angeblich arbeiten schon einige wallet Anbieter an der segwit Implementierung (darunter Trezor, Ledger und Electrum). Siehe: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/In wie weit das fortgeschritten ist kann ich natürlich auch nicht sagen. 1,7 MB ab April sollten für ein Jahr erst mal reichen. Wenn der hardfork nicht so der vom Core Team vorgeschlagene hardfork 2017 eher nicht so cool ist muss man ja dem nicht folgen. 1.7 MB ? Ich frage mich wo der Sinn dahinter ist. Warum nicht gleich 2 oder 4 MB? 1.7 MB ist 'ne Schätzung. Die werden ja nur erreicht wenn die wallets segwit-transaktionen benutzen. Dieses wird inzentiviert (kann man das sagen? gibt's da ein gutes deutsches Wort für?) dadurch, dass es quasi 2 blockspaces gibt: 1 für die transaktionen selber und 1 für die signaturen. Der soll dann billiger sein um einen festen Faktor denn sich die core-entwickler aus dem Popo gezogen haben (1/4 glaub). Warum dieses jetzt irgendwie besser sein soll als die erhöhung der maximum blocksize auf 1.7 MB konnte mir bisher niemand erklären. Weniger Bandbreite braucht das nicht, weniger cpu/ram auch nicht. |
|
|
|
Ihr macht mich ganz verrückt mit euren ETH läufen Wo handelt ihr die denn aktuell? Ich schau mir das ganze aber ersteinmal nur an. NO FOMO BUYING @BTC Also bleiben die Blöcke vom 1MB ersteinmal so oder wann/wo wird da drüber entschieden? Kann von mir aus noch etwas fallen: Nachkaufen ! core roadmap: - segwit in april (?), should give 1.06 MB equivalent blocksize, tendenz steigend bis ca. 1.7 MB equivalent wenn alle wallets umgestellt sind.
- Mitte 2017 (wenn alle einverstanden sind): ein hardfork mit unbekanntem inhalt (?)
- möglichst schon vorher: everyone uses LN
|
|
|
|
RIP 30$ I believe!! Please go up ethereum (50$+ please ) eth went up 20x already. You want to see another 5x increase? ok, a man can dream. |
|
|
|
Good call on the multi algo, that gonna really help to securing the blockchain by fetching new miners in.
I'm sensing a jump in price very soon.
So, tell a total newb to multi-PoW: do I need a GPU? |
|
|
|
That would currently mean $13 per coin. That's quite possible. I personally think it wil reach $10 within a month or so.
good call, bro. |
|
|
|
Bittrex is looking rather lopsided. Difficult to make a large buy without moving the price substantially. Need more sellers here!  Whoever wanted to sell below 20 kSat already did. Not in this context of bitcoin outflow to alts. Can you imagine what happens when some of that outflow hits our tiny little coin? |
|
|
|
We need unanimous consensus with this fucking idiot!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Geeeez!!! I can't believe I invested money in this shit!!! GOD DAMN!!!!
you can be happy we were able to keep him from implementing the tonal system into the bitcoin client in the old days. Noon would've been able to use it because noone would've known how much mill-susanton-bong bitcoin are supposed to be. |
|
|
|
BTW, Lots of people are gonna dump their BTC with the coming scare tactics by bankers [in the next 39-60 days] so this list is about to be consolidated.
That's quite an exact timespan you give there. Care to elaborate? |
|
|
|
Nichts für ungut, aber wer jetzt noch seine BTC in ETH tauscht, wird es bereuen. ETH Käufer sind jetzt nicht mehr bullisch, sie sind jetzt gierig  Sobald der ETH Dump startet könnte die BTC Rally beginnen. Wenn zeitlich nah auch noch das blocksize limit wegkommt oder eine andere effektive Lösung (nicht wieder eine Verarschung oder so ein "Politikerpaket") an den Start kommt (ich meine KOMMT, nicht VERSPROCHEN WIRD) oder die Miner Classic triggern, dann sehe ich eine jessesmässige Rakete daß wir uns und unsere coins wirklich gut festhalten müssten. Ich zweifel aber daran. Die Situation ist so verfahren und die Egos so riesig und bockig... da wird nix gehn. |
|
|
|
using "--p2p-bind-ip 127.0.0.1" resulted in no network activity That means your outgoing connection to the exclusive node did not work. Either the node you chose isn't working any more or your node is having trouble with outgoing connections (firewall issue, etc.) yes, I noticed that connecting to that node didn't work using "log_level 2" command (I also noticed that using "log_level 3" is rather ill-advised ;-)) Your syncing appears to be happening on multiple incoming connections, which aren't so easily limited, but are easily blocked (using the above option): 2016-Mar-05 10:45:06.376823 [P2P8][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 93601/983931
2016-Mar-05 10:45:53.243136 [P2P3][73.8.137.244:55437 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95001 -> 981505 [886504 blocks (615 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:45:58.458835 [P2P5][173.255.220.42:4587 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95001 -> 449346 [354345 blocks (246 days) behind]
2016-Mar-05 10:46:18.889231 [P2P7][41.164.163.114:52465 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95401 -> 983933 [888532 blocks (617 days) behind]
I couldn't find a seednode list, so I ran without giving an exclusive node, but with "--out-peers 1 --p2p-bind-ip 127.0.0.1" with good success. I was seeing different peer IPs in the log and "Sync data returned unknown top block" messages at first. But then things settled down... 2016-Mar-05 12:26:59.188420 [P2P9][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 204796/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:01.998728 [P2P1][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 204996/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:03.205146 [P2P4][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 205196/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:04.531189 [P2P5][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 205396/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:05.854204 [P2P0][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 205596/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:07.063295 [P2P9][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 205796/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:08.891061 [P2P4][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 205996/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:11.054276 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 206196/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:14.411026 [P2P8][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 206396/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:16.000495 [P2P2][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 206596/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:17.489989 [P2P3][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 206796/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:18.926391 [P2P0][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 206996/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:20.878400 [P2P8][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 207196/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:22.693849 [P2P2][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 207396/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:24.343272 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 207596/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:27.255623 [P2P2][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 207796/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:27:29.877210 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 207996/984054
sometimes it switches to a different peer like this: 2016-Mar-05 12:14:13.372133 [P2P9][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 181798/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:14:48.709904 [P2P4][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 181998/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:00.820519 [P2P3][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 182198/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:13.241033 [P2P0][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 182398/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:28.043966 [P2P5][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 182598/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:35.608570 [P2P2][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 182798/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:46.548866 [P2P0][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 182998/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:52.262579 [P2P2][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 183198/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:15:57.924032 [P2P3][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 183398/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:16:08.627850 [P2P1][95.91.125.54:18080 OUT]Synced 183598/984029
2016-Mar-05 12:18:50.743105 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 183598 -> 984054 [800456 blocks (555 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 12:18:55.829213 [P2P9][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 183798/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:18:58.220509 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 183998/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:19:00.959168 [P2P4][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 184198/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:19:03.836088 [P2P5][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 184398/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:19:07.495440 [P2P9][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 184598/984054
2016-Mar-05 12:19:11.584073 [P2P6][178.149.145.72:18080 OUT]Synced 184798/984054
anyway... I'm 50% synced and it's running like a charm at this point, so I'm happy. thanks a lot for your help, smooth. |
|
|
|
|
I noticed a lot of improvements and fixes are rolling in for some time now (2 months maybe?)
Across the board really, but most notably for me is substantially improved trezor support.
Just wanted to thank the developers for that!
I also see a new active contributor to the repo, called "kivy".
Maybe the 2 observations are related?
|
|
|
|
 ohoh. 7.364 transaktionen im Bereich 131-140 sat/byte. Wer glaubt, daß das Spam ist? Ich nicht. |
|
|
|
ok, now it's looking great: #> bitmonerod --add-exclusive-node 73.8.137.244:49995 --limit-rate-down 6000 --db-sync-mode fastest:async:10000
[...]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 11:03:09.898896 [P2P7][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 115801/455288
2016-Mar-05 11:03:12.124378 [P2P8][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 116001/455288
2016-Mar-05 11:03:14.992277 [P2P7][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 116201/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:17.050969 [P2P2][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 116401/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:19.381323 [P2P6][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 116601/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:21.414904 [P2P2][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 116801/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:24.279571 [P2P8][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 117001/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:26.835850 [P2P8][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 117201/266664
2016-Mar-05 11:03:29.308303 [P2P7][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 117401/672219
2016-Mar-05 11:03:32.102482 [P2P0][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 117601/983954
2016-Mar-05 11:03:34.469062 [P2P3][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 117801/983954
2016-Mar-05 11:03:37.015512 [P2P3][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 118001/983954
2016-Mar-05 11:03:38.697902 [P2P7][77.50.236.95:12878 INC]Synced 118201/983954
[...]
2016-Mar-05 11:06:28.340904 [P2P6][212.119.171.2:55573 INC]Synced 130000/983956
(it seems to be switching that peer from time to time) downstream isn't saturated any more, either. around 4-5 MBit/s. That's about 70 blocks/s. Should take ~3 hours to sync at that speed. Much better than the week I was looking at before. Still not sure why it was THAT slow before. Suspecting network clog (700 kbit/s upstream wasn't ever saturated, though) io disk write is around 10 MB/s on 2-3 threads. |
|
|
|
Can I reduce the bandwidth demand of the sync process somehow?
Yes: 1. Download the blockchain.raw bootstrap and import it using blockchain_import or 2. Pick one peer and use --add-exclusive-node peer --p2p-bind-ip 127.0.0.1 for initial sync, then restart normally. There is a certain amount of redundant downloading from multiple peers (specific depend on network conditions, your node performance, etc.). Either of the above will eliminate it. So it takes 40 minutes to sync 6,500 blocks? Is that normal? That is absolutely not normal, especially with an SSD. Are you sure you don't have something else using up CPU/RAM. I can sync almost the whole chain in 40 minutes on a mobile i7. Thanks for your tips. RAM: 10 GB free, CPU: 4 cpus at 10% load on avg. I just started using bitmonerod --out-peers 1 --add-exclusive-node 219.159.104.219:59704 --limit-rate-down 6000 --db-sync-mode fast:sync:10000
It still syncs from different peers (using "--p2p-bind-ip 127.0.0.1" resulted in no network activity, I had hope for that one helping to limit connections to 1 peer), but now the log looks different. I think using snychronous db-sync-mode did the trick: 2016-Mar-05 10:45:06.376823 [P2P8][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 93601/983931
2016-Mar-05 10:45:10.431624 [P2P6][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 93801/983931
2016-Mar-05 10:45:15.197708 [P2P1][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 94001/983930
2016-Mar-05 10:45:22.764763 [P2P7][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 94201/983930
2016-Mar-05 10:45:29.579743 [P2P6][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 94401/983930
2016-Mar-05 10:45:35.793358 [P2P9][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 94601/983931
2016-Mar-05 10:45:43.844316 [P2P9][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 94801/983931
2016-Mar-05 10:45:52.093073 [P2P2][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 95001/983930
2016-Mar-05 10:45:53.243136 [P2P3][73.8.137.244:55437 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95001 -> 981505 [886504 blocks (615 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:45:58.458835 [P2P5][173.255.220.42:4587 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95001 -> 449346 [354345 blocks (246 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:45:58.520588 [P2P8][123.3.223.110:37287 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95001 -> 983933 [888932 blocks (617 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:46:03.703374 [P2P8][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 95201/983933
2016-Mar-05 10:46:17.463863 [P2P3][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 95401/983933
2016-Mar-05 10:46:18.889231 [P2P7][41.164.163.114:52465 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 95401 -> 983933 [888532 blocks (617 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:46:30.264306 [P2P4][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 95601/983933
2016-Mar-05 10:46:47.128749 [P2P8][62.210.245.87:33885 INC]Synced 95801/983933
Looks like the network was my bottleneck and how this is solved (no more parallel download)? I can see 3 bitmonerod processes in iotop netting about 8 MB/s disk writes (averaged over 20s interval). Seems to be looking much better now. Not sure, though. Any info/hints are still appreciated. (I will benchmark sync speed now and if it's still slow, I might resort to downloading a blockchain.raw) |
|
|
|
I'm having problems with slow sync: 2016-Mar-05 09:39:56.820168 [P2P8][104.156.227.151:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 77001 -> 983848 [906847 blocks (629 days) behind]
[...]
2016-Mar-05 10:22:10.066426 [P2P3][90.161.84.133:34954 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 83401 -> 983899 [900498 blocks (625 days) behind]
So it takes 40 minutes to sync 6,500 blocks? Is that normal? There's only negligible IO happening (.bitmonero folder in on SSD drive) My 8 Mbit/s network downstream is completely saturated. This seems to be an awful lot of data: in 40 minutes that'd amount to 2.4 GB, while .bitmonerod folder only grew by roughly 0.5 GB (from 2.8 to 3.3 GB). So what's up with that? Is monero downloading the blocks in parallel from multiple sources or something? Looks like that in the logfile: 2016-Mar-05 10:26:44.428558 [P2P0][62.210.245.87:54353 INC]Synced 84001/983911
2016-Mar-05 10:26:48.009175 [P2P6][104.152.213.138:56072 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983911 [899910 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:09.699536 [P2P6][101.109.248.25:56177 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983911 [899910 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:13.870784 [P2P4][188.134.79.203:60708 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983911 [899910 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:15.405013 [P2P9][222.177.26.238:55204 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983911 [899910 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:17.439811 [P2P2][128.199.179.100:41131 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983911 [899910 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:19.690642 [P2P3][198.27.81.114:64382 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983912 [899911 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:22.665916 [P2P2][85.72.182.211:55128 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983912 [899911 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:35.236801 [P2P4][142.161.50.93:40308 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983912 [899911 blocks (624 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2016-Mar-05 10:27:36.904338 [P2P9][104.42.131.205:1322 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 84001 -> 983912 [899911 blocks (624 days) behind]
Can I reduce the bandwidth demand of the sync process somehow? EDIT: I'm lost... I tried: build/release/bin/bitmonerod --out-peers 1 --add-exclusive-node 216.130.237.88:45686 --limit-rate-down 6000 --db-sync-mode fast:sync:10000
but it seems to ignore my cmdline options: - still saturates 8MBit downstream (should be limited to 6, no?)
- still connects to different nodes, getting multiple "data returned" message with different IP and same block height)
- does not seem to connect to the given IP
- sync still slow as f..k
what am I doing wrong? |
|
|
|
Kleiner Aufprall bei 409. Befürchte aber, das könnte noch nicht alles gewesen sein.  Wer glaubt an die 400? 409 ist der double bottom mit dem 24.02. wenn der nicht hält könnte ich mir auch ~385USD vorstellen und wenn das wiederum nicht hält... uiuiui. Ich bin pessimistisch. Zum ersten mal seit ich dabei bin (2011). Bitcoin deadlocked. Ich hoffe wir kommen da irgendwie wieder raus. Beste Chance meiner Meinung nach: BitcoinClassic. Etwas Hoffnung habe ich heute geschöpft, weil f2pool (discus fish) einen Classic block gemined hat. |
|
|
|
When will this retarded experiment end....
When tx demand has dropped below 1 MB/block |
|
|
|
Wirklich dumm das er umzieht. Bin auch dafür wieder in die Sternchance zurück. Der neue Standort (nähe S-Bahn Bahrenfeld) ist einfach zu weit ab vom Schuss
Ja, ich hab grad nochmal mit Dominik drüber gesprochen. Wir finden Sternchance gut. Das Essen kann man sich leisten und es ist nicht so ein Restaurant-Prozess mit Vor-speise und seichtem "Zwang" was essen zu müssen und so. War mal ganz schön in der Alohacherie zur Abwechslung, aber auf Dauer finde ich Sternchance besser. Der gut Allrounder halt  Auch bei der Lage gebe ich dir recht. |
|
|
|
danke! Werd ich mir zu Gemüte führen. EDIT: und wenn mir die analogie zu doof wird steig ich um auf die dort verlinkte angeblich eher technische Beschreibung: https://lightning.network/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
