...
No te preguntaba eso. Esa respuesta es mas bien teórica y omitiendo los factores en la compra-venta de bitcoin.
Intentaba concretar el significado a ese "debería de ser buen negocio"
Porque, por ejemplo. No es lo mismo esa afirmación de alguien que ha movido menos de un bitcoin en localbitcoin. Q esa misma afirmación de alguien que llevará movimiento de mas de 500 btc
Según fuera caso uno o dos lo entendería de distinta manera
Con debería de ser buen negocio me refería a que si tienes la suerte de vender un bitcoin al día podrías ganar $500 dolares diarios, a eso es a lo que you le llamo un buen negocio. Pero para esto debes de tener la mejor oferta del mercado y una cuenta con muy buena reputación. No sabemos de donde es el OP. Si es de España, creo que deberia ser autonomo, ya que estaria vendiendo los Bitcoin por fiat (€) constantemente, no es que los gane y los deje en hodl como Bitcoin, haria compraventa. Ademas de que creo que haria algun tipo de licencia especial que necesitan los que se dedican a intercambios de divisas, ahora no recuerdo el nombre exacto, supongo que aparece en la web de CNMV. Entre impuestos y burocracia, si vas sumando cosas, al final para esas cantidades no vale la pena meterse en lios. Luego esta el tema de que cada vez hay mas limitaciones, asi que olvidate de operar en B. Tambien te la jueguas a que en el otro bando este alguien intentando timarte, ya sea particular o de la administracion. Yo no lo veo nada claro. |
|
|
|
What would be some good ideas to develop a database and rank how much time it is needed to sync given a certain setup? Someone needs to do this.
Nobody literally needs to do that. What nonsense are you blabbing about? It would be objectively useful to have real statistics on what are the most efficient devices in syncing nodes, what is debatable is if it's worth the privacy concerns of collecting metadata even if it was opt-in and the meta would be anonymous. It is definitely a bad idea to embed this into Bitcoin Core, but it could work as a separate software. However nobody would run the software so it's kinda pointless. The only way will be to manually benchmark different setup and take notes. If someone wanted to know what is the fastest setup available to sync nodes then looking at that data would be useful for that person. This is what I thought. What would be some good ideas to develop a database and rank how much time it is needed to sync given a certain setup? Someone needs to do this. Unless it's done manually and reported case by case, I can't think of any accurate way to gather data without some sort of telemetry involved.
you could do this but you can't ask for it to be built in bitcoin-core client itself. you have to build it on top of it as a separate thing that people could run voluntarily and then report their results if they wished to in a centralized database. start by writing the open source benchmark that you think could measure things you want listed in that database, add things like becnh of different versions of core or different implementations of the full node,.... create the database (website?) then release it to public. something like what these sites do: https://hdd.userbenchmark.com/I had something like this in the works but realized that it would be useless since you would need to interact with Bitcoin Core to some capacity to pull data from as well as separately downloading the software and most people wouldn't bother vs clicking an option within the same software. There's no point, it will have to be an old fashioned manual testing ranking. I wanted to develop something like https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/ but for nodes. Well you are comparing closed source telemetry to open source were it's clear what is being collected and how. I still understand the raised concerns. |
|
|
|
This will never happen. Any sort of telemetry will get shot down immediately and never be merged. Pretty much every contributor will Concept NACK it. Such a PR probably wouldn't even last an hour before it was closed.
This is what I thought. What would be some good ideas to develop a database and rank how much time it is needed to sync given a certain setup? Someone needs to do this. Unless it's done manually and reported case by case, I can't think of any accurate way to gather data without some sort of telemetry involved. Besides the fact that there are privacy concerns, there is also the issue of who is going to host the database that receives the data? What happens if that person stops working on Core (or dies)? How will those servers be paid for?
You could raise the same point for bitcoin.org maintenance. |
|
|
|
|
Yo diria que España no parece que sea un pais ideal para estos temas. No me refiero siquiera a la alta carga impositiva, si no que la legislacion no esta nada clara. Hay una sentencia del Tribuna Supremo que dicta que Bitcoin no es dinero, es decir esta en alguna especie de limbo. No se si esta considerado como una accion, o no hay diferencia entre Bitcoin y cualquier otro token virtual que pudiera venderse por dinero (por ejemplo, en el videjuego Second Life hay dinero virtual que se puede vender por fiat).
Tampoco esta claro si hay que declarar o no ganancias como autonomo o solo cuando se venden y a razon de incremento de patrimonio. Como cada gestor te dice una cosa y parece que te la juegas en una suerte de loteria donde quien te toque en la administracion te ayudara o te multara, no es muy alentador hacer otra cosa que no sea dejarlo en Bitcoin y ver que pasa en el futuro.
La gente que quiera protegerse del Brexit, lo que hara es vender su fiat por Bitcoin o oro, en ese caso, contra menos regulacion y burocracia para acceder y guardar tus Bitcoin mejor. España es conocida por su burocracia interminable donde gastas una fortuna en gestores intentando entender como se hacen las cosas. Como te equivoques en algo llegan las multas, aunque actuaras de buena fe.
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't the communty discourage the creation of anything that gives up the custody of Bitcoin to third parties?
Although it might be good for its price, would it be good for Bitcoin as a censorship-resistant hard money?
Most people give custody of their Bitcoins into the hands of shady exchanges everday. At least a government-aproved ETF would have way higher amount of regulation and surveliance (which is something you want, if you are going to give custody of your coins for whatever reason). On the big picture it's irrelevant for Bitcoin itself, you have always been free to keep coins on your own or appoint someone to do it for you. It may skyrocket the price in relation to fiat due the easy of access for big creditors. |
|
|
|
|
No creo que China use una plataforma como BAKKT para almacenar un activo que haria las de reserva mundial, son extremadamente paranoicos, igual usan otras alternativas OTC para acumular. De todas formas no creo que haya una vision a medio plazo de "uso masivo". Seria para almacenar tipo valor refugio, alternativa al oro. Tampoco tengo claro como una organizacion gubermanetal montaria todo el sistema de seguridad para evitar catastrofes. Seria como darle las claves de los misiles atomicos a alguien. Se podria hacer con un multisig, pero a partir de ahi ya empiezan las preguntas: Cuantos X-de-Y harian falta para que tenga sentido y sea seguro? Que pasa si fallecen "X" en un accidente aereo por ejemplo, o cualquier otra situacion donde viajen juntos? Hay bastantes escenarios catastrofes posibles a contemplar y estudiar antes de que un gobierno implemente este sistema.
Las reservas de Bitcoin de gobiernos llegaran, mas que nada por que no tienen alternativa. Si ya estan listos o no o si sera BAKKT el pistoletazo de salida esta por ver.
|
|
|
|
Blockchains do not scale on-chain globally, decentralized ones at least (and that is, the Bitcoin blockchain, the rest aren't decentralized). In order to keep the whole thing from collapsing upon itself, there's a fee market. If you want prioritize your transaction, pay an higher fee.
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
Segwit is a joke, and secondary solutions are just that secondary, if the primary onchain jams up the secondary will also fail.  The Future will require a larger blocksize or a faster blocktime, deny it all you like. When transactions fees start exceeding $20 and it takes days to complete a transaction, there will be an outrage demanding a hard fork or everyone will just move to another coin that provides onchain scaling. Precisely, the reason you guarantee the primary doesn't fall is by protocol solidification, derived from a de-facto reached decentralization which Only Bitcoin has reached, organically (no other way). You build on top of this, so if what you build falls, you have a place to fall back. Granted, the impact on price and hashrate would be felt, however, Bitcoin would outlive a fatal second layer error/exploit, as well as a fatal segwit error/exploit. This requires many years of studying Bitcoin and understanding the fine layers of game theory around it. By the time you reach this point, you may have lost half of your BTC stack in a variety of shitcoins which promised you to solve whatever you considered to be problem but proven to be a solution in practice. |
|
|
|
Lo que me sorprende es que el patrón se mantenga de manera relativamente sostenida desde el 31/08/2019. La lectura del 04/09/2019 sigue dando un ratio 85:7 entre BTC y Bitcoin, y BTC lejos de descender en el gráfico vuelve a repuntar y a acercarse a el máximo nuevamente ( https://trends.google.es/trends/explore?date=today%201-m&q=btc,Bitcoin). Si es una manipulación, le está costando a Google subsanarla … Tiene que ser una manipulacion. Bahamas Telecommunications Company no tiene el suficiente trafico de busqueda ni para mostrar un grafico en Google Trends, a no ser que este introduciendo mal los datos, pero creo que es el caso, y no aparece chart alguno. Opto por la opcion 1. De alguna manera, alguien ha podido hacer un bypass de los captchas. Estas cosas a veces pasan, veremos el rendimiento del grafico una vez Google lo solucione. Obviamente tampoco se trata de repunte de busquedas derivadas de Bitcoin, la gente busca bitcoin y no BTC en su mayoria, sobretodo los novatos. Lo que me da curiosidad es saber si Google, una vez comprueba y arregla el bug, modificara manualmente la grafica o dejara esa grafica con el pico enorme (lo cual es un recordatorio de su falla de captchas permanente). |
|
|
|
|
Im developing some sort of database which will have relevant info when it comes to time spent syncing the blockchain from scratch, given variables of the device used and the speed of the internet connection.
Since there is a big variability due nodes connected at x time and differences in blocks (initial blocks go through faster than crowded ones specially in times of spam) I was wondering if Bitcoin Core could have a built-in, of course optional and disabled by default, telemetry option to send all those useful variables to develop said database. Right now im just using standard deviations and rough estimates, however if I had a proper data collector that grows I could make great use of that.
Given the nature of Bitcoin, you want things to stay anonymous, so this information must guarantee to not contain the wrong metadata. My question is simple: Is this possible within this context, or the whole concept it will never get ACKd? I understand why it wouldn't, but I also see the positive on having real data on what is the most effective setup to run a node.
PS: Please move thread to software dev subforum.
|
|
|
|
I am not a übertechical user, but it looks interesting to me:
Bitcoin protocol is getting better.
Better bitcoin protocol means bitcoin is more valuable
Better bitcoin protocol means shitcoins (value propositions) are less valauable!
From what i've read and understood, it doesn't change Bitcoin protocol at all, it offers more friendly way to write Bitcoin script. Regardless, it'll allow more people and developer use Bitcoin script. Your understanding is correct. Miniscript is a simpler way to use bitcoin script, that is part of the protocol, leaving it absolutely untouched. In this sense is making protocol better: if more people and more developer use bitcoin script, it is going to be more widely used, being ultimately more useful, hence better. Cointelegraph published an article detailing better: Segwit creator introduces new language for bitcoin smart contracts While Miniscript is basically a reformulation of Bitcoin script and remains the same script language, it allows wallets and other software to construct and analyze scripts more effectively, Wuille explained on Reddit. In the post, Wuille provided an example of how the same notation would look in basic Bitcoin script in comparison with one in Miniscript.  By the look of this, I guess it's going to be a hell of a lot of constantly checking what all those abbreviations mean when you are formulating a script. I understand the gain in terms of versatility and decrease of size, but for me Bitcoin Script is way easier to read and see what's going on. I guess I will need to put in effort and practice a lot and maybe it becomes second nature with Miniscript, but for complex stuff I can already tell I will struggle with it for a while, maybe that is how my brain works, I like to see every "extended" on display with no shortcuts. |
|
|
|
So it basically wants to re-download the whole chain after you shut it down and start again? Odd I have never observed that issue. Which OS are you exactly running?
I have problem with shutting down bitcoin core on linux platform for years with different bitcoin core versions Sad
Seems like OP is using Linux and i don't see any indication of OP telling, or by looking at the debug log that he needs to reindex or download the entire chain after booting up the wallet again. (Hard to tell when it's first ran anyway. This has been happening to me for years too, tested on Windows nodes as well. The only workaround I've found is run a shortcut with this:
-reindex-chainstate
Remove the shortcun when completed. I think it may be related to RPC calls, a lot of people complained for years with problems related to crashes while shutting down and it's still not nailed down for all system it seems. I can't see anything odd on the logs. I have to run that shortcut whenever it starts derping again.
OP should try this. I've seen luke-jr recommend this (albeit on an issue which was a bit different) a couple times for similar problems. (Although OP seems to indicate that he has installed/uninstalled bitcoin core multiple times, so the issue might not be directly related to his Bitcoin Core software but rather... settings/hardware .. ?) Right now im not sure if uninstalling Bitcoin Core typically in your "uninstall wizard" doesn't necessarily delete the files on the bitcoin folder. And if it does, I guess it not necessary, if keeps happening often then it must be an error involving faulty RAM, so scan your RAM for errors. |
|
|
|
|
This has been happening to me for years too, tested on Windows nodes as well. The only workaround I've found is run a shortcut with this:
-reindex-chainstate
Remove the shortcun when completed. I think it may be related to RPC calls, a lot of people complained for years with problems related to crashes while shutting down and it's still not nailed down for all system it seems. I can't see anything odd on the logs. I have to run that shortcut whenever it starts derping again.
|
|
|
|
|
I was holding XSN but lost it all on cryptopia. It was the only altcoin I had before I dumped it all.
There has never been a worse time to hold altcoins, to be frank. Even if some projects have a decent and genuine goal you just can't ignore the game theory behind the whole altcoin thing. It's just so inconvenient to hold several different wallets. Reason me and many lost their coins on shitxchangers was due the fact that we do not want to deal with the stress of having many wallets installed, keeping them updated, making sure the checksums are legit so you aren't install malware (ideally you want to compile it yourself)... it's an huge mess.
BTC dominance is going back to 90% ish and this is good, because most altcoins are dumb and useless. Unfortunately the good ones that will die are collateral damage.
BTC is already the de-facto digital hard money. If BTC's LN and other 2nd layer solutions reach mainstream success then I don't see a single altcoin succeeding long term.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't been able to come up with tangible ideas which could be translate into code in order to get average sync times due all the variables involved... I could make a super gross average given average connection speed, average computer used in nodes... but that's just not realistic.
I think there's no other way to do this but to make a database and manually record every different device used to sync, the constant would be speed connection and then you can extrapolate into your speed own speed connection.
Like Ronnie Coleman say, everyone wants to be a bodybuilder but no one wants to lift heavy ass weights.
|
|
|
|
Craig Wright is fking insane. He has long been creating hype in the vastness of the crypto community and I am glad that this will stop. Another fraudster identified and I hope we will not hear him again
The catch with Craig Wright and his claim to be Satoshi is now moot. After the Klieman trial and the rest, he has been proven a fraud and stole Dave Klieman's works, who I think was likely Satoshi. Thus, even if he does get 'access' to some/part or whatever of the so-called Tulip Fund on 1/1/2020, no one will believe he was Satoshi. At worst folks with think he was part of the Satoshi Group which was likely Hal Finney and Dave Klieman and I guess this idiot Craig Wright. So again, even at worst case scenario, folks will know him still as Fake Satoshi and profiting off the efforts of a partner that likely was Satoshi and ripping him off with fake documents too boot. (see court case) Also, if 1/2 goes to the Klieman estate as per the ruling and taxes paid and Craig Wright claims he will 'dump' all Bitcoin. You have taxes off of that dump as well, plus penalties and fees for likely tax avoidance by the Australian Authorities on top of what he would owe them. Well, Bitcoin Will survive, again, even if the above 1 out of 1,000 set of circumstances is true. He is a fraud, even if he was, in the past, part of the Satoshi Group and outlived the others and there is a Tulip Fund due on 1/1/2020. He has shown his true colors that of a megalomaniac fraudster who ripped off the credit from a dead man, according to the court case. So access to Tulip Fund or not he is still an untrustworthy ass! Brad BSV bagholders are still hoping that something happens in 2020 when it comes to Craig's trust fund. The reason they want that to be true is because in case CSW was involved in the fund and got some coins out of it it would automatically kickstart more media attention for CSW and thus BSV. That may be the final exit scam for anyone that is still holding the thing, including CSW, unless his ego is big enough to go down with the ship, including loss of all the money destroyed in trying to keep the hashrate going and so on. Not to mention every exchange that had problems giving coins back to creditors. Another way that BSV could get more traction is in the unlikely even that segwit got exploited somehow in the future. Then people would (by mistake) think that BSV "is Bitcoin", they would buy it, then they would lose it as order is restored in legacy Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Blockchains do not scale on-chain globally, decentralized ones at least (and that is, the Bitcoin blockchain, the rest aren't decentralized). In order to keep the whole thing from collapsing upon itself, there's a fee market. If you want prioritize your transaction, pay an higher fee.
With clever tricks like segwit you can keep squeezing on-chain transactions in for cheaper prices, but the future is second layer scaling. You cannot exponentially keep raising the blocksize, it has to be lineal growth so it's predictable, beside the fact that the game theory doesn't allow you to hardfork every time someone feels like "we need to scale".
|
|
|
|
|
Remove the peers.dat file and let it generate a brand new one. But first post what's inside there. You can manually add nodes as needed on that file.
Check permissions on your Bitcoin Core folder just in case.
After deleting peers.dat, you can fire again Core with -listen=0 and test if you are syncing (remove after testing). Test and post debug results.
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not there's still many people bagholding their BSV. Similarly to Craig Wright's problems, BSV backholders (and pretty much any shitcoin bagholder, specially forks) have too much of an ego to admit defeat. Those are exactly the people that go down with the ship. They had many opportunities to jump and get saved by dumping in exchange of Bitcoin while they had the opportunity to do so, but no, they thought they were going to defeat Bitcoin, they thought they were the real Bitcoin, they thought they were "the next big thing" and so on. Once 2020 is here and absolutely nothing happens, they will look for excuses and keep kicking the can waiting for "the flippening". You can't save CSW as much as you can't save shitcoin bagholders, they share the same insolvable problems. |
|
|
|
|
I remember that panel. Dude was introduced out of nowhere. Trace and Szabo were there, they had nothing to do with getting him on that Skype call. It must have been a Matonis connection there I guess. I reckon he was introduced as an early miner or something.
What interests me now is what is the current state of the Paul Solotshi Calder LeRoux. Word around town was that CSW was trying to bruteforce on his HDD which allegedly had satoshi's wallet... history got increasingly comboluted to follow.
|
|
|
|
That means 500k bitcoin and that means that craig wright fell to his own lies.
did he "legally" claim to have a certain amount of bitcoin (in this case 1 million) or is it just the assumption? the article on Coindesk[1] only says "50 percent of the bitcoin that Wright held prior to Dec. 31, 2013" without mentioning any numbers. of course i haven't really been following the case, so maybe the value was mentioned before? [1] https://www.coindesk.com/judge-recommends-ruling-in-favor-of-kleiman-in-craig-wright-caseCSW was already exposed years ago by the awesome wizsec.jp blog, see this pic:  His ego has brought himself into a trap, he wanted to twist the facts to get institutions claiming he is satoshi to collect his coins and his fame. The boomerang keeps hitting back on his forehead and he digs an increasingly deeper holes of lies. To be honest, I have always thought CSW suffers from some sort of mental condition. He should admit this, and try to use it in court to make fines less heavy, it's the only thing he's got now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
