|
to clarify
currency is an umbrella term it is top category
below that are forms of currency.
such as asset currency, national currency,commodity, personal, and so on
anything can be a currency.
yep cigarettes are a currency (to inmates in prison)
food and clothing are a currency (to homeless)
drugs are a currency(to addicts and prostitutes)
sexual favours are a currency (to women with sugar daddies and pimps and husbands)
vodka and beer are a currency ( to friends that do favours for each other)
things like cash are a sub category of currency
currency is not a sub category of cash
assets are a sub category of currency
currency is not a subcategory of assets
once you put the word currency onto paper and then do a spider diagram out for all the subcategories. you will see the big picture
its not a case of looking for the currency withiin the electronic cash. its the case of looking for the electronic cash within the term currency.
bitcoin simply added itself as another subcategory of currency..
|
|
|
|
|
nah
your parade of james admiration has actually revealed nothing appealing.
if james wanted notoriety he could do something himself.
but instead you made him into another craig wright (fake wannabe satoshi) and also called him out on some unsociable behaviours (being a nazi)
so you failed to prove the satoshi thing..
failed to win his love
failed to grow his credibility
isnt it time you just step back and realise that your goals have not been achieved
|
|
|
|
I am an L2/LN fan though. You seem to be not, it's ok.
i am not dead against lightning. i understand its NICHE. but i am a realist who is happy to be loud enough to inform people of its negatives and limitations. i dont like the false advertising "this is a fluffy unicorn solution that will solve everything" over promise that keeps happening here are the devs themselves admitting LN has issues. limitations, complications https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570as for lightning. calling it a bitcoin layer or a bitcoin feature is just propaganda sponsorship buzzwords to make investors think they are buying into bitcoin because a separate network is throwing the word bitcoin about ALOT(too often). funny thing is like how blockstream throw in the word bitcoin to get investment.. but then try to downplay and say that the money they get from blockstream investors has nothing to do with bitcoin development or how litecoin is bitcoins silver or how circle is bitcoin service (though its actually a FIAT business) LN is a separate network. if no bitcoiners used LN, LN would still function. as its a separate network that litecoin and vertcoin and other coins can already do and will continue to use no matter if bitcoin is popular or not. research it. hint: chainhash here ill even show you a few lines of code that LN is not a bitcoin feature but a separate network for different coins https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L580 litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
})
// chainMap is a simple index that maps a chain's genesis hash to the
// chainCode enum for that chain.
chainMap = map[chainhash.Hash]chainCode{
bitcoinTestnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinTestnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
bitcoinMainnetGenesis: bitcoinChain,
litecoinMainnetGenesis: litecoinChain,
}
also knowing it locks up coins on network is going to cause UTXO sets get locked up. which lets say just VISAUSA user numbers(not global) used LN. thats 189million UTXO locked for long time periods and not transacting onchain. which will strain fullnodes UTXO issues while fullnode users are then seeing 'empty blocks' leading to less people wanting to be full nodes having empty blocks is not making bitcoin better, its making bitcoin worse because all it does is when pools want/need fee's to pay for mining. the fee's for the FEWER users remaining on bitcoins network will have to pay more to get a confirm. again diverting people off network does not help the network. oh and please dont even bother with the old myth of "gigabytes by midnight" is the only other solution to a non-LN situation oh and please dont even bother with the old myth of to pay miners limitations are needed on the network to force users to pay more. oh and please dont bother with the old myth that LN solves the problem for everyone. LN is for a niche of users that spam alot and often. not everyone spends every day so having to lock funds up, spread funds over channels and be online all the time just to get paid is not a benefit to them. there are many ways. to ofset the spammers from the ones that wont benefit here is one which doesnt cause every user on the bitcoin network needing an increasing average fee. (EG current situation. if one person spams txs into a block everyone has to pay a higher fee to bribe a pool) while also (unbiasedly) persuading the spam every block regular spenders who 'could' benefit from LN to then use it as using the bitcoin network is costing just the spammers more so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one). not about a network wide everyone should pay an estimated average increased fee(like currently) but about respend spam and bloaters pay more, and everyone else pays for what they use dependant on personal circumstance. lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours because they are happy to wait to get cheaper fees.. or rduce the lock if they want priority by paying more for less delay. and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx  as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age. this way those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain. if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay moreif you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the priceand if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate priceand lastly about lightning.. if you research into eltoo and read about the purpose of factories. to vault coins up(step 1) and then separately a step away from the blockchain create unconfirmed/unaudited payments.. which are then sent to users for users to use those as their channel open initial states(not blockchained UTXO) this makes factories like the fortknox of gold then offering promissory notes. the purpose then is to PREVENT USERS from just exiting back to bitcoins network. but instead hand back the unconfirmed updated initial state payment. to a factory. and the factory just give them new crisp unfolded payments to open channels. meaning people are less able to individually just exit back to bitcoins network.. much like how banks done it with the gold/bank note business plan in the 18th century.. and we know how that played out thunderdome: 2 may enter but only 1 may leave LN factory: bitcoin and litecoin may enter but only litecoin may leave banks: gold and silver may enter, but only silver may leave yes factories are designed to reduce/prevent users broadcasting back to the bitcoin network. you can dress it up in as many pink dresses and fluffy unicorns of how its a benefit. but atleast be open minded to the consequences.. after all banks done the fluffy unicorn promotions too about how returning back to gold was 'bad' and stayin with vaulted up gold while playing with unaudited payment methods was good again i understand LN's NICHE utility for the few that may need it. but over selling LN as the utopia solution for all. and selling it as a feature of bitcoin.. is going too far. especially as those overselling LN are the ones saying bitcoin cant cope.. which leads to actually people prefering to leave LN using other coins.. thus not helping bitcoin |
|
|
|
In contrast, some of your conclusions or narrative seem to be wrong. For example it has been clearly demonstrated that your strong narrative against Minisketch and some of your support points were (either intentionally or not) completely misleading and/or plainly wrong.
the thing is i see the big picture. EG issue: with bandwidth in relation to sending transactions so that users have them before a block is transmitted reason: so that a block can be compact and users then dont need to grab transactions after compact block instead of thinking of bigbox solutions that solve the whole issue. devs waste months and years on "exclusive" things that only handle a small offering, and only a offering for people who choose to use it. while not solving the broader big picture problem for the whole network EG minisketch does not ensure nodes have every VALID transaction so that when a block arrives it can quickly validate a block without delay. all because devs let users have configurable settings to play around and cause bottlenecks by being biased against certain transactions. thus ending up needing to retransmit transactions, causing delays in propagating blocks... all for the sake of 'user choice' which does affect other people (imagine the '8 degrees of separation theory' playing a game of chinese whispers) if core want to be the defacto full node and network security offering the most efficient node that has least chance of block propagation latency.. then be a full node. take out all the funk that reduces a core node from being a full node. take out the user configurable stuff that can cause resends and latency. then you will find that resends and latency dont happen by default if some users cant handle being a full node then they have the choice of electrum and other spv/litenodes .... my other issue is how core devs dont want other teams to offer a full node option.. (unless the other team are actually colleagues/buddies) take luke Jr's mandated follow core rules or get "f**k off" the network (UASF(it was actually a MCHF:mandated controversial hardfork)) or what greg would call a bilateral fork take greg also loving the idea of hard forks if core dont get their way and others are trying to offer something different ON THE NETWORK What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other. I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this. funny part about the whole 2016-17 saga is that if core actually went with a segwitx2. it would have activated segwit much sooner.. and without the august hard fork funny part is all the drama of core pretending to delay things to avoid a hardfork, ended up with one happening anyway due to their one direction, push it till its forced, no consideration for the community, no compromise to find a middleground mindset if core actually listened and actually compromised some of cores demands to meet communities wishes.. core would have got segwit sooner and the community would have got more legacy utility. and last funny part. with the now 95% core dominance. there is no actual reason to keep the witness scale factor in play, as there is not a controversial enough diversity of nodes to cause issues.. i find it funny because the august 1st event could have ben utiiised better to get rid of the (hidden by witness scale factor) 1mb allowance area completely. thus letting both legacy and segwit actually both function and both have full access to upto 4mb.. but no.. they done a half assed job because they have a roadmap that goes against opening utility on the network, because they need people to move over to LN so that greg and lukes investors can make some returns |
|
|
|
|
using a merchants physical technology (the NFC tap to pay card reader) yes its possible..
but here is some out of the box thinking
why does it need to be a plastic card that has to be sent through the mail box..
why not just use a phones NFC chip.
then a user has more control and can be set up and running just by downloading a wallet app on their phone that utilises 'tap to pay' (like applepay does) but while keeping the private key secure on the phone and only a signed tx is sent over NFC.
this then solves
1. no need to mail out cards (no user delay waiting for postman)
2. no need to produce cards (no cost to some business to offer such a thing)
3. no need to distribute cards (no cost to some business to offer such a thing)
4. user privacy (no delivery addresses, no concern user has that business has a copy of privkey before distribution)
5. user control using smart phone instead of trust using dumb plastic
6. smart phone is capable of creating signed tx unlike dumb plastic
7. tapping a smartphone is same as tapping plastic card, so shopping experience is the same at checkout
|
|
|
|
|
for me bitcoin is my personal offshore trust fund.
i didnt need to hire solicitors or accountants to set it up, i didnt need to sign contracts or declarations. i just bought some bitcoin.
many people who would love to have a trust but think all the legal stuff of fiat trusts is a turn off are starting to see how just buying bitcoin is the easiest way to create their own personal family trust and store funds away securely out of jurisdictional/taxable/financial rules
bitcoin is also my easy way to play markets. much easier than playing the penny stocks/forex. much more fun and dramatic too.
bitcoin is also my electronic cash where i use my profits to buy food, pay bills without getting bank statements or card statements in the mail.
its also better at privacy and security. i know people who shop using fiat and they get bombarded with jumkmail from the mailman with leaflets from businesses they frequent using their debit cards. meanwhile my mailbox happily just gets personal correspondance
using bitcoin i have never had to worry about things like bank robberies, visa hacks, paypal, amazon hacks. never needed to worry about card cloning, id theft. or other fiat concerns
|
|
|
|
it is a lot easier for a whale to buy a large portion of a specific coin (to have a large stake in it) and control the coin
they dont even need to buy coin they just need to syndicate(pool) funds of many people into stakes of higher amounts combined. and then make blocks the way they want as they will get seen as higher staking authorities to solve more blocks. syndicating funds is easier than pooling asics. and much easier than buying asics or buying stake. a stake manager doesnt need a penny to his name and can start convincing people to pool their funds into his addresses |
|
|
|
franky1 said: This is an illustrative example of your usage of the English language, sir? I can certainly see why you'd find it impossible to read or understand James Bowery's writings. how people comprehend and how people reply have no correlation i am very technical and can read things better than most. but for years i downplay how i speak/reply to generally be as ELI-5 as possible and just word things as a common-folk average joe, mainly for the benefit of this forum as it is read by many people who may not be as technical. i wont bother illustrating my knowledge and depths . as i dont need to kiss my own ass. i dont need to have my ass kissed and i dont need to kiss anyone elses ass. so i dont bother trying to tone my wording into something only those who socialise with the queen would say plus you have still proved nothing in regards to "satoshi" but instead shot yourself in the foot many times. all you have proven is a infatuation with another man usually with the nazi type of people. an accusation of such usually results in a heated argument. but it seems you didnt want to deny it. or get aggressive at the mere accusation of such an idea. ill leave others to take that subtle hint onboard as to what it infers but anyway. the link i provided was me having a comedy moment about people that like cyphers and puzzles could easily make nick szabo out of satoshi nakamoto.. it was done just for fun. not for prove of identity |
|
|
|
I've also seen people online complaining that bitcoin is too hard to use and that it's too confusing. Is this another reason why people compare bitcoin today to the Internet in 1994? I'm a software developer so I might be a little biased, but I don't think it takes a genius to use the blockchain wallet app I have on my phone. What needs to be done to make it more accessible? The only difficult thing I can think of is exchanging fiat for bitcoin.
blockchain wallet app is not true bitcoin. its a service that uses bitcoins network EG looking at a webpage is not the true internet. its just a page that uses the internet saying using blockchains wallet app is easy. is like saying looking at a webpage in1994 is easy. but understanding the intricate details of how the internet actually works (DNS, ISP, IP, HTTP, FTP, SMTP) is the difference people dont just want a flashy webpage that asks for credit cards. they actually want to know that its safe to shop online in the 1990's. they are worried about putting their funds/personal information out there onto the internet so they want to know about what http is as oppose to https and what makes https so much better. same with bitcoin using a service is easy, but knowing if its secure.. they will want to know a little more then just the basics |
|
|
|
now we really are going off subject. but he pokes, so ill bite. i know he had me on ignore for along time so i guess he has alot on his chest he wants to cough up.. just a pitty that the issues raised are concerning bitcoin code. which he is involved in thus he cant really blame me for bitcoin flaws that he and his his team dont want to fix, or he and his team have caused to sway people away from bitcoin... but anyway The block I linked to spent 9,039 inputs, which would have been impossible prior to segwit: each input takes 147 bytes, so without segwit a block could only have spent 6,802 even if it made no outputs at all. The block I linked to also made 3,553 outputs.
but do you want to know a real funny thing. something you tripped up with when you said impossible to let in ~9000 inputs into a block pre segwit... here it is.. your words If all you care about is number of transactions, this block has 12,239... or 20.3 tx/s ... though they are all very small inefficient transactions. block 367853 Mined on 2015-08-01 Transaction count 12,239 Input count 13,176Output count 12,917 year 2015=legacy block = pre segwit(2017) but i do find it funny you shot yourself in your own foot with your own ammo.. by saying legacy couldnt handle it,, but then display it could... comedy gold.. EDIT: actually because of the comedy above of shooting yourself in the foot. ill actually give you a merit anyway i knew about that block and tx count.. secondly i dont deal with utopian single use case fluffy clouds. hense why i only mentioned the 7tx/s more rational numbers of rational usage and i broadened it to a 600k tx a day because in reality people dont rely on single case examples. they prefer average expectations of real possible utility and yes individual transactions is an indicator of individual users... batched transactions is an indicator of foolish people trusting funds to exchanges/middlemen and services.. so yea. i prefer to measure bitcoin by its transaction count .. so since 2015.. when you first made the roadmap.. knowing what bitcoin was capable of (your own gunshot above) what have devs actually done to get passed a rational 600k a day tx expectation.. and please please dont refer to features that are purposed to divert people off the network last time i checked 1.7mb for ~3200tx is not hard drive efficient transacting (over 500bytes average per transaction (facepalm))
Again your posts are the opposite of the truth. Services now use sendmany (and indiviguals sometimes coinjoin) combining many transactions into one. This makes the much more efficient. batching transactions was a thing even back in 2015 and before that........ so.. nothings different. everyone knows your well paid In fact, I haven't made any income for over a year now-- beyond a couple tens of dollars worth a month for helping with forum moderation. I live off selling investments. Not that it's any of your business. But for the record, just in case there are other similar pieces of shit to you that think it's okay to treat your fellow man like dirt relentlessly lying and throwing shit at him simply because you think he earns more than you. I'm sure that you suffer because your paid shilling doesn't pay well, but that isn't anyone elses problem... And indeed, I am far from broke, but that doesn't make continued efforts worth any time in particular. The fact of the matter is that I'm not paid to work on Bitcoin, I've done it because I love it and care about its contribution to the world... but it's probably just not worth it when dishonest shills like you can just bury everything in shit and discord and almost no one will do anything to stop you. Maybe the world just isn't ready for bitcoin. 1. i learned that ages ago that your ready to retire. which is why people should care more about bitcoins network security rather than devs. devs retire, devs move onto different projects, devs get bored. too many people think your immortal and will be around forever. fact is even you have to admit you wont be, you already semi retired when you left(well you announced you left) blockstream .. devs move on retire, get old, have medical issues. get bored.. many reasons to not depend on a dev and only depend on network security. .. just like satoshi, just like hal, just like many other devs... your not the first, and you wont be the last. holding you up as an immortal god that will last forever.. caring more about you then network security of a global system is not in peoples interest. 2. your interests are not bitcoins network interests. or the communities interests. you made that clear by saying many things over many years about how things should not be fixed and left for users to deal with the consequences, users should just fork off, and many other things you guys even have the cowardice to still 9+ years on to call it an experiment. a betatest, a 0.x version. and to pretend at any community event to be just janitors when it comes to community desires, but then suddenly maintainers, chief technical officers of "the reference" "the core" when it comes to feature you want 3. i dont get paid to shill. i dont get paid to kiss ass. if anyone tried to pay me to change my opinion i would laugh at their attempts. even if someone tried to twist my words and then attempt to make a 25btc bet with me to prove a word twist, id just laugh at them. because they are the ones that are failing. my income is from investments i made from 2012 and i am happy. i get to travel the world. some may think that because im posting night and day means i have some sleep problem due to bitcoin issues. when infact its simply me adjusting to different timezones 4. as for your actions i learned early on. you set yourself a goal of a one way street one direction future for bitcoin.. well not a street. lets call it a roadmap. this roadmap is leading to getting people to mve their funds into locked vaults (issue: many more UTXO locked for longer periods than expected, while reducing the number of tx counts onchain).. just to push people into using a different network which is using th same business model as banks did in the 18th century in regards to gold the thunderdome: 1 gold may enter 100 silver may leave... oops sorry i admit that was a misquote.. but close enough to hint at the lightning business plan compared to banking 5. and before you continue coding features not designed for network security, but for privacy of certain users..that WILL bloat transactions further.. yea i know u want to keep witness scale factor in play to hide how much bloat that feature will add to hard drives ill say this removing users ability to transparently audit bitcoins value.(confidential transactions) might look like a user convenience for the privacy conscious. but from a network security/audit prospective.. it just turns into a ledger of data it cant audit. i know you'll say thats the point of your TX bloating 'payment codes'.. oops i mean commitments.. but it just makes the archived data just a ledger of useless data to the decentralised world. things like that lead to people thinking, whats the point in being a full node so instead of telling the community to go fork off oops lets use your words bilateral fork so instead of telling the community alternative networks offer more than the bitcoin network does how about actually stop pretending you care about bitcoin. and actually care about it. or man up and put your concentration to the real projects you care more about, like the alternative network known as lightning.. which i know you want because your investors ($101m) will want to get some returns on their investment. and yes. although you announced you left as a CTO, we all know deep down your still tied to it |
|
|
|
You can send to my Bitcoin address if you want to, but you won't get to see the full transfer sequence:
1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs3oLPvLiDNGf48cPD
franky1, could you show me how to get your Satoshi address, 1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs3oLPvLiDNGf48cPD , to go backward on the blockchain further than 2014? satoshi emailed hal finney and they bug fixed a few things.. satoshi published an address.. no where does it say that hal actually paid satoshi anything there was no obligation infact i know people on this forum who spammed their address for years and never got a donation presenting an address does NOT = getting paid/demand of payment hal never said he ever paid satoshi. the only reason that address started getting funds in 2014 is because the private emails got leaked. and suddenly the public wanted to donate to satoshi.. and lastly. NS = nakamoto satoshi yes i know some people started rumours of Nick Szabo i even said though its not nick.. i then done something that someone like you (if you beleived it was nick) would have found interesting https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1322765.msg13515701#msg13515701 |
|
|
|
I guess some people are just pathologically uncomfortable with anyone else having any choice at all in their life. The fact that you could choose to intentionally make a transaction that they allow other people to modify, and then have to deal with the consequences yourself just seems to drive some people wild.
put the shoe on the other foot.. think outside your echo chamber box of fluffy clouds and utopia i guess devs who pretend to care about network and user security are comfortable with not caring about the network and security. letting users who are not technical unintentionally make transactions that others can modify,. and then just saying its upto the users to deal with the consequences themselves.... Similarly, the fact there is some buried command-line configuration option that virtually no one sets to increase the minimum feerate your node will accept-- with essentially no consequence for anyone but yourself-- causes the same people to melt down
no consequence to others? .. block latency/propagation delays for their peers.. ...only getting transactions relayed if you pay more just to get your peers to relay/retain your transaction ...peers need to send transactions more then once due to the other person dropping.. *separating out witnesses was proposed back in 2012 when no one was really thinking much about L2.
#Lightning was proposed before segwit was a thing
*chicken or #egg.. choose one then stick with it.. which came first? It's really frustrating that they'll say anything to sustain their obsessions ... like above "they introduce RBF to actually help malleators malleate" uh no, third part malleability always either lower feerates or keeps it the same, so if RBF mattered at all it would actually make malleability less sucessful by allowing the original to replace (in practice it doesn't because the mallated txn is only larger by one byte). Not only is the claim untrue, if anything it's the opposite of the truth. But the speaker will never suffer any negative consequence that he cares about for spreading this lie, and it might convince some ignorant party... so he'll do it every time.
im laughing.. people who RBF DONT lower the fee for the second(replacement) tx... they increase the fee as a bribe to blockcreators to include the second tx with the greater fee and drop the first one with the lower fee. i do laugh that you think malleators would even try to do RBF using a lower fee replacement.... seriously. im laughing now. you really do try to downplay things and hide issues under the rug. the mindset is comedy 1. let users deal with consequences 2. theres a big picture flaw but this feature wont solve it, its "exclusive" to only reduce potentially a small amount of change 3. offering choice is a users problem 4. devs cant solve the issue its impossible It's really frustrating
whats really infuriating to you, is that some people just wont be sheep and kiss asses then just bite their lip i know you want to be a founders, a team leader, a chief, a boss, a top guy because you dont like having people to answer to and dont like having people tell you when your not doing your job properly.. .. but welcome to the real world and no your not on your last chicken nugget with no money left so are wanting to hear violins. everyone knows your well paid. so dont play the victim card |
|
|
|
wallets have always refused to spend unconfirmed outputs
last time i checked you could actually broadcast an ancester and broadcast a child and a blockcreator would include the ancester and child in the same block thus the child that has funds originating from the ancester doesnt need to wait for a confirm(separate block) all the block creator would do is make sure the child was listed after the ancestor in the same block. and it would be treated as valid |
|
|
|
last time i checked 3169 transactions was not more than the 4200tx of 7tx/s last time i checked 3169 transactions didnt need 1.7mb last time i checked 1.7mb for ~3200tx is not hard drive efficient transacting (over 500bytes average per transaction (facepalm)) last time i checked the whole 7tx/s capability. =604ktx a day we have not had a single day of more that 600k... allthough the fluffy unicorns will promote 4x weight is now achievable........ oh and dont try with the 'theres no demand' pfft. there have been many days of mempools being above average and people waiting more then one block.. but last time i checked even in them situations we didnt get a single day above a 600k tx day come on wheres the utupian fluffly cloud of upto 24,000tx a day .. go on admit it. the witness scale factor limits actual full utility of 4mb weight, due to how transactions are fully(legacy) and partially(segwit) still limited to a 1mb limit hidden from being called a 1mb base block due to the wishy washy code of witness scale factor come on wheres the utupian fluffly cloud of upto 24,000tx a day .. go on admit it. even if everyone was to only use segwit transactions the expectation would be only a 2.5x utility average |
|
|
|
Of course you can malleate your own legacy transactions, so what?
You have failed to provide an example about how that known behaviour would become a PROBLEM/attack vector in real life.
you failed to understand the malleability problem though this is offtopic... and i know im being poked by an obvious fan groupy based on certain terms you use, ill bite you said: It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible.
i replied if i sent you 1franky(0.1) -> bc1qexchange(0.1)
you said Of course you can malleate your own legacy transactions, so what?
so even when you as an exchange use a specific format... i can still malleate a tx to you maybe go do some research.. you know... google hint, its not about confirmed transactions. never was about confirmed transaction.. never has been about confirmed transactions. if you want to argue and say there never was a problem then take that up with the devs who obviously thought there was a problem for them to do what they did and promote what they did. also lightning network is not a layer two feature of bitcoin. its a completely separate network that allow multiple different coins to get locked up and then people get to play around on this other network. its not scaling bitcoin network. its diverting people away from using the bitcoin network. might be worth you doing research beyond the utopian dream promotional material ... lets get some things straight here. for people to be on this forum means they have already heard about bitcoin and crypto.. after all they didnt magicly just gt dropped into the forum. they dont need the wishy washy only positive advertising of utopian dreams and empty promises.. they want to know what is really going on.. both good and bad. i understand there is a group of people that only want to overpomise and fluffy cloud unicorn stuff with positive chatter.. but thats just not really doing much because to read that stuff here in the forum is advertising to people that already been advertised to. people want to know whats beyond the fluffy clouds |
|
|
|
if you actually google the email was actually Unfortunately, I can't receive incoming connections from where I am, which has made things more difficult.
Your node receiving incoming connections was the main thing keeping the network going
the first day or two.
You can send to my Bitcoin address if you want to, but you won't get to see the full transfer sequence:
1NSwywA5Dvuyw89sfs3oLPvLiDNGf48cPD
You could always findstr /c:"version message" debug.log and send a test to some random person you're connected to near the end of the list.
The ones ending in port 8333 can receive connections.
I just thought of something.
Eventually
there'll be some interest in brute force scanning bitcoin addresses to find one with the first few characters customized to your name, kind of like getting a phone number that spells out something.
Just by chance I have my initials.
so timestamp... your proven wrong sources: https://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/finneynakamotoemails.pdf |
|
|
|
|
anyway this topic has got so derailed.
anyway. if nodes want to be fullnodes and validate all transactions, keep all transactions and when a block arrives confirm block and keep block.
then having configurable features that then dont validate, dont keep and dont send full data is not a full node. especially if the configurations are for silly things that can be solved in a multitude of other ways
i know blah blah blah rebuttal of define full node define less than full node define litenode define spv
but in short if you going to
prune the block archive,
reduce mempool holding
cause issues with block propagation latency
drop transactions
not relay certain tx
drop and regrab
your not helping the network
if core want to be the "full node" provider. they should concentrate on being a full node and concentrate on fixing network wide flaws. let other teams play around with providing less than full nodes user configurable flimsy stuff..
or more appropriate. core fans shouldnt do REKT campaigns on other teams that also wanna be full node providers
|
|
|
|
AFAIK the main problem of malleability was that exchanges could get fooled by a malleated tx such that their software couldn't recognise the malleated (broadcasted by the attacker) tx had indeed suceeded and the original one didn't, so they would end replaying it making a double (or multiple by rinse and repeat) spend themselves. <- REAL spends, don't confuse with the "double spend" attack.
It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible.
Ok, main problem solved.
Now go to the next one... You are saying that if I am the receiver I don't control the sending tx, which is true. So the "attacker" can choose to send me a tx which is susceptible of malleability, ok. And now what? The "attacker" is going to send me multiple malleated tx's? What can I say... thanks?
I think I am not getting it... can you use another example but instead of guns use a real life example on how that would be detrimental to me as a receiver of a Bitcoin tx?
yea your not getting it...you think the main problem is solved.. EG if i sent you a tx of 1franky(0.1) -> bc1qexchange(0.1) that tx is not a segwit tx. i can still malleate my signature to change the txid even when you want the funds to arrive at a segwit bc1q address so an exchange will still get transactions that can be malleated.. all an exchange has control over is. if an exchange CHOOSES to only use segwit. then the exchange itself cannot malleate.. it doesnt mean an exchange cant be victim to malleation segwits false promise was to solve malleability for the bitcoin network.. it hasnt segwits real purpose was to add a gateway tx format to a different network which the different network would offer different things |
|
|
|
Also it seems to me that in any case minisketch has nothing to do about that because the drop of the tx's due to not meeting the min relay criteria is a previous step in the protocol. Minisketch just adds an optional and more efficient (bandwidth wise) way of dealing with a preexistent situation.
....
Sorry if I have stepped into this conversation without the necessary knowledge but, at this point, it has caught some of my attention and would like to know if I got it or not.
im against features that get offered as solving big picture issues but end up not solving the big picture issues of what the initial feature intent is but devs avoiding the obvious more simple way to solve an issue network wide for everyone EG segwit. offered as solution to malleation.. result people still are victimised by malleation after segwit activation because the victim is not part of the choice to choose to malleate or not of funds it gets/doesnt get. EG funny part. after pretending malleation is solved. they introduce RBF to actually help malleators malleate as for the tx transmission bandwidth and the compact block big picture surrounding a bandwidth concern the big picture is transactions get sent around the network of non mining nodes so that nodes have a store of transactions ready for when a block is created the node has the transactions in mempool to quickly validate the block and not need to regrab transactions after the blocks arrives. to allow quick propagation of blocks. the whole point of relaying transactions is to give nodes transactions dropping them defeats the whole point of sending them in the first place. thus making relaying transactions pointless if now devs think its ok to not keep transactions if gmaxwell thinks dropping transactions is perfectly fine then why even bother sending transactions to non mining nodes. save more bandwidth by only sending transactions to nodes that flag that they are pools, by having a mining flag for instance (yes you will argue that will cause more propagation issues.. i will reply yes welcome to the issue as i was being reverse psychological to prove a point) also when nodeX gets a tx from a peerA and drops it. that does not mean the next peerB suddenly doesnt need to send the same tx to nodeX. peer B will still see nodeX doesnt have the tx and WILL resend it... and nodeX will drop it again peer C will still see nodeX doesnt have the tx and will send it... nodeX will drop it its not fixing the big picture of getting nodes to keep transactions so that compact blocks can propagate quickly. as the whole point of relaying transactions to non mining nodes is to give them transactions they dont have. and the minisketch doesnt solve the problem of having to get the same data from peer b, c. yet by removing the drop for silly reasons. means when node X gets tx from A.. it wont need to get it from B, C .. and wont need to get it after a block is solved... because.. big picture. it would already have it oh, and if peer B,C doesnt have the tx to give. peer B,C wont get it from nodeX because node X didnt keep it so peer B and C will then be going through the same process of using bandwidth to try getting it from other peers if everyone just kept to a same rule of only drop invalid transactions. everyone would all keep the same valid transactions without having to re send transactions or interrogate peers or re grab after compact block arrives. and yes i can pre-empt the next empty argument some fool will argue that peer A sent it at initial relay so now its peer Bs problem.. guess what when a block is solved. guess who nodeX is going to ask again... yep. nodeA and guess what nodeA will do. nodeA will resend it some fool will argue that my concern only amounts to maybe 1 tx now and then.. nope if a node is saying drop transactions under 1000sat fee. there will be more than 1 tx now and again involved devs always know of flaws, but instead of SOLVING the big picture they just OFFER flimsy, reduce the chances of flaw but not remove it think about it devs say this minisketch under their default setting tests shows a reduction of bandwidth to then allow a node that usually connects to 8 nodes could connect to 16-24 nodes (2-3x reduction) but thats not 7x reduction to allow 56 nodes. and because settings are configurable around drops. if they ran tests using variable settings instead of just spinning up 8 nodes using defaults. the reduction would be LESS than 2-3x and ontop of that. nodes still end up grabbing data after a compact block. meaning although they grabbed a tx severals times from peers at initial relay. they still grab again at block receipt. causing block propagation delays where as removing configurable settings for silly reasons would actually give a better bandwidth reduction and make compact blocks not need to trigger as much bandwidth for the same dang tx's and an outside the box thought. if they actually removed the drop for silly reasons and put in a fee priority formulae that al nodes utilitise so that there still remains control over spammy dust. a fee formulae can actually make spammers pay more for sending spammy dust without it affecting everyone fees at block confirm. but nah.. devs just wanna OFFER flimsy stuff.. and not SOLVE the big picture |
|
|
|
eg "segwit solves malleability"...
nope it doesnt solve malleabillity.. it "exclusively" offers a non malleable tx format IF people only use this "exclusive" tx format, by which that "exclusive" tx format needs to avoid certain opcodes, or else people could malleate tx's that use the certain format
So it does indeed offer a valid solution to the malleability problem, doesn't it? it has not SOLVED malleation the foolish thing is that its a anti-malleability option not solution.. its something that the payer has to choose to use. if your a impending recipient of funds on the bitcoin network. waiting to be paid.. you obviously are not the one making the transaction. right.. so your not the one in a position to choose your not the one that is able to say that its solved for you. because you dont know what the payer will do when paying you. so you cant say to yourself things are solved and there is no need to worry about malleability.. a malicious person wanting to be malicious will use malleability against you and you cant stop them imagine it this way, there is a gun crisis in a country.. instead of making a no gun law for the whole country. what happens is that authorities offer a voluntary no commitment cardboard box for people to put a gun in should they not want to use a gun do you think gun lovers are going to choose to put down their gun by using the box? are gun haters going to suddenly have a sigh of relief that there are no more guns? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
