This makes me a little bit less uncomfortable with LN, however I would say that I am still overall opposed to LN.
Strange. I would be interested in reading the white-paper on the Thunder Network and am curious to see how it compares to LN. Does anyone have a link to the White-paper and/or know if one exists?
Today, we release the alpha version of our Thunder Network, the first usable implementation of the Lightning network for off chain bitcoin payments that settles back to the main bitcoin blockchain.
It is just an implementation of LN, I'm not sure why it would need a separate White-paper. -snip-
Do I still understand it correctly?
Not really, no. You are speculating, just like everyone, as to what is going to happen with the fees. Whether you like it or not, there is no such thing as 'mainstream' adoption and a 'mainchain only Bitcoin'. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Stolen/hacked account.
|
|
|
|
Seeing is believing my friend ---> " Scale: According to our tests so far, we can achieve better-than-Visa scale (100,000 TPS) with only a few thousand nodes on the network " .... If that is possible, a
company like VISA can just buy your company and double their capacity and kill Bitcoin.
No. A system that they have no control of is of no use to them. Additionally, they can't kill Bitcoin in any form by buying any kind of companies. Besides, this is open source. Although I'm going to wait for someone to conduct and publish the results before I believe these claims as well. I'll wait for the trustless implementation, thx.
Until both CSV and SegWit are implemented on the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are not enforceable at the bitcoin protocol level. So, the current Thunder prototype is best suited for transactions among a trusted network of users.
Read the page. |
|
|
|
Once the patent got approved, should they decided to sell the rights to use the tech to ASIC companies, these companies will simply pass the costs to their end-users, us miners and the huge mining organizations. In the end everyone gets to upgrade, and the situation would stay the same as it is now.
In the end if everyone pays money to acquire that 'improvement', the it is pointless as nobody gains the advantage anyways (everyone's hashrate increases by 20%). In other words, this is pointless as it gets. What i can see here, bitcoin slowly become centralized.
Everyone should able to create mining equipment without restriction or stupid patent and miners should be allowed to mine bitcoin with anything (even it's inefficient)
The solution is simple and was proposed by some developer, i.e. block such improvements with a change that is required to make them inefficient. Bitcoin was designed to allow anyone to be able to mine it. A mining environment where one entity is able to mine 20% faster than all the others because they are using government power to cripple the competition doesn't work out well for Bitcoin as a whole.
Exactly. If they don't 'sell' their patent to others, they're going to be abusing their position and pretty much undermine all connection. On the other hand, if they sell it nobody has an advantage and they generate profit. I disagree with either case. |
|
|
|
|
Not that I'm aware of. I'll send a message to the developer right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly how do you think that I am able to know why you were banned when I don't even know what account we are talking about? This is why I've told you to provide the username.
|
|
|
|
looks a personal attack to me
No. If you were banned then it was most likely well deserved. How about you tell us your username so that we can check and possibly tell you why you were banned? |
|
|
|
|
Well, I guess this wouldn't be a bad change. There was a point in time at which I did not know how to check whether someone edited their post. This could be made as a user-preference in the settings. This is worth suggesting for the new forum, I doubt that we are going to see a change here especially since the beta is open to everyone now.
|
|
|
|
How would that be any different from "legitimate" owners being able to manipulate the price? Help me understand.
Exactly why would a longtime 'legitimate' owner want to get rid of all of their Bitcoin in a hurry? No. Theymos wants satoshi's stash to disappear. Lauda just wants whatever theymos wants.
Bullshit. I never said that I agree with the idea, I said that I understand all of the viewpoints. You would have known this had you read the whole thread.
Update: Trolling is not the right answer. Update 2: Sigh. |
|
|
|
I'm not so sure. Exactly why did you choose Blue-Ray as the medium here? You do realize that a lot of people have no way to read those discs either? People would have to get Blu-Ray certified/compatible hardware. Have you thought of other mediums? I honestly don't think this idea would work. People who are interested into running a full node already have enough disk space and high-speed Internet service so they don't need to get any other prerecorded Blockchain when they can download it themselves.
It is not really about high-speed internet. You don't need internet that is unusually fast for a node, although the initial download takes a while and wastes good bandwidth. Also this stuff will be very outdated by the time it gets to you and for collectors value one could just buy an external hdd and store the whole Blockchain on this instead of collecting a dozen blu rays every couple months and still the database will be outdated.
It is going to be outdated on whatever you store it, the question is just 'how much' it is going to be outdated. |
|
|
|
So there is two possibilities here:
1. To stay in that wallet locked forever?
2. Or to be stolen?
That are the two end options, so the lesser 'evil' has to be chosen. However, people can just move their coins in time to a secure address. Cash it out? Someone will buy that coins and they will be in safe hands... Its a lot of money but someone will need to spent it I guess.
He can manipulate the price easily with that huge 'stash' that could be acquired (at least for a while). So Theymos can share on equal parts. Almost everyone will get 1 btc.
Theymos can't share anything besides his own coins. |
|
|
|
1) Yes that is true, normal supercomputers can become more efficient and dangerous at some point. But I`m just telling that everyone is scaremongering about the quantum computers which are a so remote idea that a meteor hitting earth might be a bigger concern.
2) And then cant scale it up, because the entropy of the universe is too big for building it further. Qubits can only form in vacuum and at 0 degrees kelvin. The best they came up with was near 0 degree and they can only put together a few qubits because any tiny energy interference just collapses the entire buildup like a house of cards. You can't isolate the setup 100% from outside interference, it's impossible.
3) Well yes, but after many many threads discussing it, and articles coming up on reddit about it all the time, at some point it looks like FUD. I believe there are bigger priorities than this.
1) A flaw could be discovered in the encryption or a way to calculate much faster (as an example). 2) People said that a lot of things were impossible, and look where we are now. I'd rather not rely on speculation (if you know what I mean). 3) Sure, some of them are FUD attempts but surely not from theymos. aww.. AWS free trials terminated.  #R3kt  Nothing surprising there; it was just a matter of time. They are now down to just 867 nodes according to this website. I've been banning every single Classic peer from my own node as I don't want to waste bandwidth on AWS. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Cracked accounts.
|
|
|
|
I know I am a bit slow, but has anyone use any of these buttons before?
Are you talking about the Dash buttons? There's nothing about 'being slow' in case that you don't use them. If someone doesn't know what these are, here's a video. It seems to me it is a great invention and can be a prefect match for bitcoin payment system.
I'm not sure when Amazon is going to accept Bitcoin, although it would be quite the news (as e.g. I would not need to buy Gift cards through third parties). Exactly what is your idea here? |
|
|
|
There's nothing special about it, there are a few of these sites. There's even one showing up as a Google AD. I always highly recommend that people do not use web wallets at all. At least then you'd not have to worry about phishing links. I'm not sure how many of these there are, but someone could create a list in 'Service Discussion'. |
|
|
|
Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.
I've forgot to reply to this last night. This is exactly what makes Bitcoin so great. It is supposed to be very hard to change. I`m not talking about the theymos paper, but about the bitcoin classic people that want a more invasive approach.
I understand that. BTW Wtf is all with this quantum computer bullshit scaremongering? Do you guys realize that there wont be a quantum computer for the foreseeable future. And in my opinion there wont be any ever.
1) As far as weakened encryption is concerned, the reason doesn't have to be a quantum computer. 2) There are already quantum computers, they're just slow and contain a small amount of qubits. 3) Making an opinion/trying to discuss something != "scaremongering". There are real improvements that can be made to Bitcoin with a hardfork.
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.
Are you talking about things from the HF wishlist (Wiki)? What would you prefer to be included in a HF? |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Imagine if you set away 20,000 BTC in a savings address, and then you fall into 10 years of coma. When you wake up, you find out that you don't own those coins anymore because some moron pushed a hardfork, and those that didnt uppgrade in time, lost every coin!!!
You do realize that it is most likely that you would have lost your coins in either case since this is about weakened encryption? There's just a difference between the community drawing out to a consensus in which coins get "destroyed" or a hacker exploiting the weakened encryption only to take away your coins. You'd have to choose the lesser of two evils. |
|
|
|
No. It ain't be revolutionizing anything. It's just going to generate an absurdly high and useless number of planets via random generation of a fixed set of elements/environments. Once you visit enough planets, all others are going to be the same. Nothing special here. You can tell the game yes is going to have a zillion worlds to explore, but they're all going to be pretty much the same and there isn't going to be a whole lot to do besides just wander around and look at things.
Exactly. |
|
|
|
@Lauda, I guess OP means DT2.
I haven't checked that. He didn't specify it at the time. I don't think it is all that important for him to be removed from the DT network. He is apparently in jail, so is unlikely to be able to leave any trust ratings, and I am really not aware of any major issues with his prior left trust.
That's what I wanted to bring up, although I was doing something else and forgot. Just because he committed something bad at X period of time, does that invalidate all his ratings that were left before that incident (< X)? I would say that the answer to this is no, especially if there are no issues with his trust ratings. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
