Finite By Design (funded) - BTC
Finite By Design (funded) - LTC
Finite By Design (funded) - NMC
Finite By Design (funded) - PPC
Finite By Design (funded) - XPM
Which coin are we talking about here exactly and how much is on them (per coin - in respective currency)? 10 spots charging 0.69 BTC
Well, that is quite an interesting offer. I'll post a update (or you could come to IRC) once you answer the question above. |
|
|
|
Yes, this is serious BTC network problem. For example, if you paying with card, no one shop will be agree to wait let say three hours untill transaction is complete and BTC payment is received.  Wrong. It is not a serious problem at all and your analogy is wrong. The time that it takes to process those CC transactions is quite long (I'm not exactly sure when they settle, so someone else might know more). You obviously don't understand how the underlying system works. What happens at the 'counter' when you use your CC can be compared to when you send a BTC TX == near instant. Confirmations are something else. SEPA transfers between Euro countries can take half a day, and that's lightening fast for banks. They can't compete with an hour for a Bitcoin transaction.
Correction: They can't compete with 10 minutes on average. |
|
|
|
It seems that the Bitcoin system is soon going to collapse.
FUD and no. It's really "scary" and even something the banks can do much faster. Now almost 11 min in the first confirmation came through.
Of course! International bank transfers take 10 minutes. 
You need to take a look at these graphs:  
Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmation#Confirmation_TimesI don't see this as problematic (as a lot of services accept TX's with zero confirmations). If your include the proper fee, your TX is almost guaranteed to be confirmed in the next block. Indeed it is now often occurs in every transaction confirmation question Lags, it is because the network is experiencing a slowdown, Bitcoin and causes the slowdown because of the large number of transactions carried out every second and the network you use.
This statement is completely false. There is no such thing as "lag" or a "slowdown due to large amounts of TX" in this particular problem. The chance of finding a block is the same for every second. Read: There are lots of block intervals with a time less than 10 minutes but then a few block intervals much longer which bump up the average to 10 minutes. So the bitcoin network can get unlucky and a block won't be found for a whole hour.
|
|
|
|
I dont know the reason behind this, but freaky1's idea of separating amazon from the rest of the network makes the most sense. Amazon does not seem to care, this might be something the attack knew in advance.
I understand that it makes sense, however I doubt that something on such a small scale could have a big impact though. Wasnt amazon also among the ISPs that hosted a significantly large portion of the classic nodes? It might be an attempt to kick them off the network or make it look like someone was trying to do so.
Correct. However, almost all of those nodes have disappeared (a day or two before those connections appeared which is a strange coincidence)[1]:  Btw I dont think there is a big difference between manually banning single IPs for a month and automatically banning single IPs for a day each hour if needed. The only advantage I see in my approach is that have clear log file that indicates when the attack stopped (on my node).
I didn't mean to say that there was and I concur. I'll check up on them in a month.
[1] - https://coin.dance/nodes |
|
|
|
From what I understand, that rule applies to DOX in general, where DOX is not used to attack/troll. In other words, if you were conducing a scam accusation of something of the likes, it should be fine. However, if you've created an account just to troll someone with their personal information it is not [1]. It's quite difficult to draw a line due to the nature in which the rules are presented. I mean he forgot to leave a callback number so I thought I was helping him out.
If that truly is the case, then why not post it from your real account?
[1] Source: If you're going around posting people's personal information for no real reason other than just to annoy them, then that's trolling, which is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
I would never run a full node from my home internet connect (especially after DDoS attacks on XT and classic nodes), and would not recommend that others do this either.
I would not generalize this. It comes down to how the ISP sets up their connections, what hardware you have and whether you know how to mitigate/prevent at least some DDoS. It also ensures that I dont ban IPs for a long time when its not needed or if its a false positive. This prevents that my node helps separating amazon nodes in general from the network.
Correct. This is why I've chosen a 1 month trial period for only the IP's that were misbehaving. I do wonder though, what the person things that they could accomplish with this. They surely don't think that they'd able to completely separate Amazon from the network with such a small attack? in my case my nodes are old, one of it is two years maybe more i dont remember, old and all of them has the same dos attack.
Mine is only ~2 months old. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Update: No.
Either you are, or you misinterpreted my initial words. What I initially said "< 2 months", i.e. my statement had nothing to do with Segwit, but the release of the HF code as per HK agreement. Aside from that, I'm not particularly interested in "I won't do X, until you do Y" games nor the correlation between the releases. If anyone is manipulating with word-play… it is you, and those that you do PR for.
That would be my cat. My cat does not make mistakes. The code is being thoroughly tested while also some missing pieces are being added.
How can it be thoroughly tested while still adding "missing" bits? Take a look at the to-do list.
Update: Again, I have never said that there's no correlation between the HF code and Segwit. I said that there's no correlation in my post, which there isn't as it was solely about the time remaining until HF code needs to be released. |
|
|
|
All this year, by you and others, we were told "Segwit in April!" Now, you say < 2 months... Is this some kind of twist on the BFL "2 weeks" strategy?
That "< 2 months" has nothing to do with Segwit. It was the time left until the HF had to be proposed (as per agreement it was 'up to 3 months after SW code was release'). I can't tell you any exact dates, and I doubt that anyone can. Pushing something too early could end up being a huge disaster.
Update: No. Stop trying to manipulate with word-play; that's not what I was talking about nor what your reply was about. |
|
|
|
Thanks, I have a working script that automatically scans for these connections, adds the IP to a log file and bans them for a day now.
Why bother with it and not ban them for a longer period at once? I don't understand your approach here. I've used 1 month to check whether it is going to stop in the meantime, if it doesn't then these nodes will go to my yearly ban list. |
|
|
|
No. The ETA was April for the code to be released, not merged (!). There's a huge difference here and it seems like users do not know. The code is being thoroughly tested while also some missing pieces are being added. The last time that I was looking into this, the information pointed towards a release in Core 0.12.2 which is the next version. Peter Todd's AMA on the chinese forum. much of the hashing power has already said they're not going to run segwit until a hard-fork is released There's a difference between releasing code and merging it. From what I understand, the people that were part of the HK agreement are currently working on a proposal and it should be released in < 2 months. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial welcome thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Again, you have to perceive the 'issue' from the 'donators' side as well: the people that have donated the 50 BTC back then, could have 50 BTC today if they hadn't. This is why the required amount does not need to change. Besides, the forum does not need the donations anymore (it used to for hosting and whatnot). I doubt that we are going to see some changes anytime soon.
Update: Rephrased post and bolded repetitive part.
|
|
|
|
Look at people that: 1) Make threads in the wrong sections. 2) Panic because their currency does not have an infinitely growing pattern.
You should welcome the market stability and not be susceptible to your own greed. Did you already forget the long period of hovering around ~$250? Going for ETH is right approach ?
No. |
|
|
|
Your initial questions have been answered. Theymos will not change the pricing out of respect for the people who have donated previously, because 50 BTC = 50 BTC regardless of the fiat equivalent. In other words, if those people had not donated back then, they could have 50 BTC today.
Ok so when will this new forum surface.
https://beta.bitcointalk.org/Only the class I call idiots will do that
Have you really opened a thread just to 'rant' about people who donated to the forum?
Update 1: No. I've just provided you with relevant information and wanted to grasp the purpose of this thread. |
|
|
|
Why would running a full node on amazons service be any problem if its legit? Unless I am missing something?
One of the fundamental ideas behind Bitcoin is decentralization, right? When you start a node at such a service, you aren't really contributing to the decentralization, as more people could run their nodes there which equals centralization. It isn't a big problem, but I would not recommend running nodes there (at least pick less-populated/less-known services if you have to). However, according to bitnodes21 there aren't that many nodes run at Amazon (at the moment ~160). Yes, the IPs came from my new node.
Well, they're the same as can be found on my list. The ban-list that I've provided after should effectively ban all of those known IPs.
I've updated my graph once more, and it seems that the problem is gone (for now). |
|
|
|
A hard fork is the only moral way to make serious changes to the Bitcoin protocol...
plus fucking one. 
Here's mine:Minus two. Segwit on it's own solves the transaction malleability problem, thus enabling payment channels and true scaling at Layer 2. 2mb, like segwit's ~1.75mb, is also a "slight boost in transaction capacity." I'm not sure how you've convinced yourself there's a huge "far more effective" difference between their tps increases.
Segwit has quite a few benefits, while a 2 MB block size limit has none (we can exclude the TPS increase as the both share it). I don't understand why this is so hard perceive. The only people that call out Segwit on its complexity are people who don't really understand code or are half-baked coders. Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
