and yes there was code
heres one early version
if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC
(nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC
(!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && // Segwit is not locked in
!IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) // and is not active.
{
bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS;
bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0;
if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) {
return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit");
}
}
That code was specifically designed to prevent a chain split, you utter putz. Your ability to take well-intentioned ideas out of context and portray them as something malicious is truly astounding. The code was written by James Hilliard, whose primary contribution is BIP91, which was largely responsible allowing miners to activate SegWit with consensus, which was the nail in the coffin for UASF. What point are you even trying to make? Here's the full mailing list post for anyone who would like to take a look for themselves at the motivation and rationale behind that code. Franky1 frequently likes to alert the readers' attention to the 'ignore' button under his avatar, so I'll do that for him now just in case anyone needs assistance finding it. 1. rejecting legitmately good block formats that are valid for 8 years is what that code done it rejects blocks that are not segwit. again anyone opposing segwit gets rejected 2. wait you said there was no USAF and USAF done nothing.. now your saying it done something by preventing the actual thing it caused.. dang.. thats your worse flip flop ever. what the mandated code does is reject any opposers who want to continue relaying a full block thats not segwit SEPARATELY there is other code that prevents cores sheep from forking by the "compatibility" stripping of blockdata. atleast read some code. ill give you a hint to where your research about the compatibility stripping and the ability to be a full node differ --iswitness 3. you can spend 30 years flip flopping social drama. all i need to do is show the code and anyone reading iit can see it. i can show the blockchain data.. and you will have to then restart 30 years of your social fakery.. all it takes is looking at the facts. block data is immutable. your flip flops are just temporary drama. 4. using a mailing list post from june has nothing to do with code. oh and if you want to pretend luke JR had nothing to do with it.. you should check with him first. he will tell you he was involved. he's even promoting his involvement in his linked in profile so i see no reason why your trying to down play his actions when he himself wants to highlight his actions. he loves that he trojaned in segwit its his number one accomplishment 5. seeing as how u like to go around in circles refer to point 3 then re read point 5, |
|
|
|
If a random user you've never heard of created a new client with a flag-day activation of Aug 1st 2019 which implemented an idea Core are currently developing, say Schnorr for example, would you instinctively blame Core,
stick to facts. Luke Jr and chums are not "random user" The author was an unknown developer named Shaolin Fry. As I remember it, Luke Jr audited the code after Shaolin Fry posted on the mailing list and he later promoted it. But there was a lot of division among Core developers, which is why Core never merged the code. mandated code was done by the segwit/core guys. There was never any "mandated" code. lol im laughing so hard luke JR was talking about soft forking it in since 2015 shaolin puppeted it in 2016 luke wrote the code. luke and buddies promoted it. go research it.. oh and that does not mean reddit research or quotes of conversations. im laughing that people are pretending august 2017 never happened.. such a shame.. but the blockchain never lies. its wrote in the blockchain if you know what to look for and yes there was code heres one early version if ( (nMedianTimePast >= 1501545600) && // Tue 01 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC (nMedianTimePast <= 1510704000) && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC (!IsWitnessLockedIn(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus()) && // Segwit is not locked in !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) ) // and is not active. { bool fVersionBits = (pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS; bool fSegbit = (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) != 0; if (!(fVersionBits && fSegbit)) { return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit"); } } anyway while you lot ramble on for pages trying to social drama deny history like some nazi holocaust deniers... ill carry on pointing out that core centralists are not decentralists. if you want to kiss core ass, carry on. ill carry on highlighting issues that are aimed at raising awareness of things that negatively affect the bitcoin network have fun in your little cabin of circular talking about how great your kings are. oh and before you continue denying luke Jr's involvement. you might want to actually check because he had been actively promoting his involvement. so it's very strange for you to denie his connection to UASF its like your defending people that dont need defending. thus i go back to my other topics points of you lot just created social drama about things you know nothing about just to twist history. |
|
|
|
If a random user you've never heard of created a new client with a flag-day activation of Aug 1st 2019 which implemented an idea Core are currently developing, say Schnorr for example, would you instinctively blame Core,
stick to facts. Luke Jr and chums are not "random user" mandated code was done by the segwit/core guys. even mr samson Mow earned a job from blockstream due to his role in it. he even made a baseball cap and got the group to wear them and social drama the hell out of it. |
|
|
|
in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point
So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"? And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns...  I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like. I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out. But you have to appreciate the debate from franky1's perspective. Although, some of them believe what they want to believe, and gaslight their way to win a debate because they know some newbies will pick it up and believe it as the truth. Read this, https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/so my defense is the immutible blockchain height numbers. locked in history which shows who flipped the switch. so my defense is the bip CODE that was the switch. which can easily show "i cant force sgwit2mb' luke Jr hypocrit coding the mandate your defense. a blog post from some website that core defenders probably treat as their bible come on. show some stats, blockheights, chainhash heights. something real thats not just social drama.. you do realise the propagandists follow the bible of quoting quotes from social sites as "proof". meanwhile i just tell people about real data they they can do real research on. |
|
|
|
in future using mandated,forced,coerced, backdoor methods to change the rules should be treated as bad
and thats the ultimate point
So, you're advocating putting aside any kind of technical arguments for or against and encouraging people to just jump on a bandwagon and bash anything you don't like the sound of under some vague assumption that it's "bad"? And there I was with the impression that you didn't like REKT campaigns... I guess they're suddenly okay when it's something you don't like. I'm glad we've taken this valuable opportunity to get your moral compass figured out. funny part is. you have not read code. under bip9 its not a "dont like it F**K off" its just a well you didnt get adoption. so put tail between legs and go back to drawing board. dont mandate. in the last 9 years only one team/group mandated change. because THEY were not happy with the result. my mindset is if your proposal doesnt have TRUE majority.. then rip up your roadmap and try a new road design. dont just throw tarmac down and demand crap. but i do laugh how you pretend how those that never had any mandating code are some how the badguys. logic fails you everytime. as for windfurys "gaslighting" buzzword of the season. couple years ago the word your friends group followed was "ad-hom".. then "conservative". i think its time you ask your preacher for the next buzzword for you to mention. im starting to thing the over use of certain buzzword when making personal comments might has some sort of point system behind it. like a game how many times can you slip it into a conversation unnoticed |
|
|
|
If any of you had control of bitcoin, how would you fix the volatility problem?
volatility is nothing to do with bitcoin bitcoins code has nothing to do with price/markets. i think you mean if you ran a fiat money service business that is also a bitcoin custodial service. how would you fix the fiat market options: 1. dont affix the market to be dollar pegged. instead use something more universal like the cost of living unit. or a minimum wage limit. after all a bitcoin for americans is only 533 minimum wage hours. but for other countries a bitcoin is 80,000 hours ($0.05c an hour) so imagine bitcoin was measured as just. say 533 minimum wage hours WORLD WIDE. and increments up and down in minutes and seconds on orderlines. then the world is more fair in regards to sweat equity(labour needed to earn bitcoin) 2. make it so that the orderlines dont increment in 100cent slots. make it so each order line is 1cent difference eg buys: eg buys: 0.1btc $4000 =$400.00 0.1btc $4000.00 =$400.000 0.1btc $3999 =$399.90 vs 0.1btc $3999.99 =$399.999 0.1btc $3998 =$399.80 0.1btc $3999.98 =$399.998 2. if you really want to try influencing the market.. have buys do orderlines of micropenny movements and sells move in dollar amounts that way moving the price just a fraction doesnt move it down much. but does move it up alot. thus if orderlines are full there is more support to prvent downward movements. but easier to move price up. eg buys: sell: 0.1btc $4000.00 =$400.000 0.1btc $4000 =$400.00 0.1btc $3999.99 =$399.999 0.1btc $4001 =$400.01 0.1btc $3999.98 =$399.998 0.1btc $4002 =$400.02 edit this guy below. is funny guy he doesnt want things to change as he is deep in the pockets of certain group who want control. he defends centralists. and doesnt want people thinking outside the box.. funny part people should be allowed to open their own exchange. and decide to not be reliant on the dollar |
|
|
|
^
About your first point. Fees has nothing to do with non-mining nodes. Well, yes, there is a minimum fee and any tx with lower fee gets dropped by all nodes but, in the end, it is miners that decide what practical minimum fees are needed to be included in the next block. I don't think there's nothing the developers need to do about that... it's up the fee market.
About your second point. That's what SPV wallets are for. You are proposing that a full node somehow "degrades" itself into an SPV which basically defeats its own purpose.
1. mining bribes can remain miners choice. im talking about a NETWORK rule that takes the guess work out of min fee just to be relayed peer 2 peer. saying its "upto the fee market" is useless if everyone is checking the same website that estimates the market.. then everyone pays the same amount. meaning someone spamming the network pays the same amount as someone that only spends once a day. meaning someone in america spending $4 on a coffee pays the same as someone in third world who pays $0.10 for coffee again think outside the box of rich american rule. think about a fairer variable rule that alters depending on circumstance. thus not ruling out lower classes a rule that penalises spam spending habits. infact to be devils advocate it would actually make people that want to spend many times a day, find it cheap to use LN. where as those who only spend once a day who wont benefit from LN still find it cheap to use onchain. remove bias and removing forced adoption of LN, allowing choice, teaching people better money handling habits. takes the guess work out of it. takes out the everyone must visit this fee estimate site. taking out the america knows best so fees are set to american spending standards 2 bloom filters before IBD . its not about making a full node an SPV. its about letting a user get on with their lives while they remain part of the p2p network imagine wanting to play GTA game. would you prefer to wait a day downloading from torrents and then play. or get a quick demo that allows you to do a training mission while the full game torrent downloads in the background... you will soon understand that frustrations are then removed because people get to do something rather than just looking at a download % screen |
|
|
|
We have had too many failed project in the recent time. There was this project I followed and I even fell in love with it oooh! Poor little me! they had promised to deploy a high technology in the military sector and they were going to start by user of the token been able to wear their various coins on the wrist and many other gadget to be produced. They hit soft cap (only God knows if they were the ones who bought the tokens), with less than 24hrs after which they listed the token for trading, they were delisted from trading due to lack of volume, and the exchange classed them as misleading. As we write, the project is dead and preparing to refund investors who can proof they invested. ETH will eventually kill ICOs and scamming projects will send ETH to it grave
should have asked what military they have established themselves with. |
|
|
|
|
imagine the energy wastage used to secure a bottle of pepsi's temperature stays at a cool refreshing level.
billions of bottles sold a week need refrigeratures...
|
|
|
|
We know that holding Bitcoin is better when users have full control over their funds. What makes an open source software better? Is there any advantage on using it than using close source wallet.
imagine a situation whereby you open a wallet and it has automatically created payment addresses for you to receive funds. how would you know that the code behind it is simply a list of made addresses by the developers that have a copy of the keys. in closed source wallets you wont know. ......until one day your funds go missing. in open source you can check the code and see if the address generation is genuinely random, created from within the software locally on only your computer, to a high standard that in a billion years of maybe creating 1000 keypairs a second no 2 addresses would be the same. |
|
|
|
|
2 idea's devs ignore simple because i dont kiss their ass:
1. fee priority
though i personally am a white brit. i can see the impact fee's have on multiple countries because i actually went and visited countries. when thinking of decentralisation its best to think about others. not just a typical rich wall street american
imagine a country where 25cents/pence was 5 hours labour for a dozen countries
saying 25cents is not acceptable as its ruling out the desires of a dozen countries
saying $1 is cheap is ruling out several dozen countries desires
if the rich want to pay more because its still cheaper than other methods. then they should pay more
EG bring back a fee priority mechanism
fee =
total sats=(bytes + (total input value/1000))*(144 - confirms of inputs)
this formula would make it so that
a. if someone was to spam the network everyblock(1confirm resend) they pay 143 times more than someone that only spends once a day.
b. those that send more, pay more.. they can all afford 0.1%
c. if someone had a bloated tx of 2.5kb vs someone with only 250bytes the bloater pays 10x more for the 10x space they consume
d. this just gets a easy to automate fee. while still allowing people to add more if they want to wave their hands in the air that they want priority.
2. initial block download headache
these days 200gb is storage the size of a finger nail. its not "servr farm". these days a 4tb hard drive is less than a single persons grocery bill for one week. so again no debate about size of price needs to be FUD'd
the real issue people actually have is having to wait.
yep thats the real complaint. having to wait hours to spend funds.
the solution is simple. dont do block download first before displaying balance. do a quick wallet check and get the addresses of local node and SPV/bloom details about them.. that way within seconds of opening up the node people know a UNVERIFIED BALANCE, which is better than nothing. if they spend and find out the bloom data was faked. then no harm the tx wont relay and wont confirm.. but atleast users can actually do something when they open their node.
then the initial block download becomes a background activity people dont notice because they are not having to wait for the IBD before even seeing a balance verified or unverified
|
|
|
|
|
the first secret of an ICO is that th project involves making tokens. if the projects token has no utility outside of just buying token then its not sustainable
if the token has utility its sustainable so you dont need investment. just release the project and be part of the project and earn through the utility of the project, not from begging for funds upfront.
EG if the project is for, lets say medical records ledger. if the ledger has not already been designed to be functionl for the medical industry and no medical industry groups are going to use it in the first month then its dead before it begun.
a functional medical ledger would be to give it out to the medical industry and earn via mining to secure the ledger for them.
it works out cheaper for them then current systems management thus they would happily use it. and then the development group get ongoing returns by mining/bug fixing/bespoke upgrading needs.
so in simple and short terms.
if a project which is obviously a script kiddy fork of another coin pretends to be something for a particular industry but the team involved has not relationship with the industry.. its a failure from the get-go.
|
|
|
|
i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.
to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends' which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event. however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit (pieter wuille aka sipa) https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses |
|
|
|
|
to be a full node you need to offer a full service
validate AND archive
if your just a validator thats for your personal utility. as the next peer would also validate so you are not really serving them in regards to just validating.
other peers care more about being able to provide them with any/all archive data. thats the main part of the p2p network.
with knowing ~144 blocks a day are mined 550 is not really that much data. ~4 days.
some nodes are set to the 288 minimum (~2days)
many transactions hang in mempool limbo far longer. so if a peer comes online wants to build a block when it receives a blockheader. of 5 days ago..but a peer has removed data beyond 4 days ago. some tx's cant be bloom filtered to the peer wanting tx's from 5+days ago
thus its not offering a full service. thus not a full node.
maybe terminology needs to advance
think food
fullnode=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
=does it all including archiving and has segwit data
satisfiednode=NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
=self validates. then prunes data. then only relays recent data
hungrynode=doesnt validate everything, just wants to feed off others
=spv node/litenode
compatible=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM
=stripped(downstream filtered) legacy node(no segwit)
basically if ur not flagging all 4 flags, your not a full node
|
|
|
|
I don't blame merchants and exchanges for not yet looking into LN, because there isn't much to gain yet, especially with how the main-net is doing a pretty decent job keeping the fees low.
I expect Schnorr to free up even more block space, and I expect this upgrade to be taking over rapidly with how beneficial it is to any sort of service receiving tons and tons of smaller inputs from users/customers. It would even say that I consider Schnorr to be one of the best on-chain upgrades to the network ever, especially with how its impact will be felt immediately.
Innovation right there. No bullshit gimmick features, just what you really need and benefit from.
schnorr doesnt help with lots of different inputs. schnorr only helps with multisig contracts.. where funds are put into one multiparty address.. where schnorr then hides how many signed it by making it one signature end result is segwit already moves signatures out the baseblock to not count bytes(fake math) .. thus segwit would have done some/maybe impact on the tx count but schnorr because it only messes with signature data..makes no difference in tx count because schnorr just reduces the sig data sat outside the base block, thus it doesnt count anyway analogy for the non-techs imagine them trains in india where you see people sitting ontop the roofs because the cabin compartment is too packed 50 years ago: a child and the proof of the childs origins ('witness'/signature) mother sit in the cabin. years later it gets crowded. train conductor suggest segregation. get the mothers to sit on the roof so more families (children) can sit in the cabin seats. not offering more seats in the cabin. just removing some entities to make a few more empty seats by not counting the mothers on the roof that is what segregated witness does. next comes smart contracts where a father of the same child gets involved(multisignature) he too sits on the roof. ofcourse no more children fit in the cabin area, but now the roof is getting crowded... so schnorr hides how many people were involved with the conception of the child. by making the mother appear as parthenogenesis (self impregnateable) thus only one parent is on the roof again as no father can be seen thats schnorr schnorr doesnt make more seats in the cabin.. segregated witnesses job already takes mothers out of the cabin. schnorr just cuts down on how many UNCOUNTED entities are involved outside the cabin.. the train conductor never counts the people on the roof anyway. so no impact on passenger(tx count) due to schnorr .... but here is the thing people dont realise about LN to actually get a reliable service on LN. most users need to open 5+ channels (onchain tx's) to have chances of reliable routes. which is like imagining 5 indian children in the cabin with 5 parthenogenesis parents on the roof. just to have a good chance that 1 child gets to its desired destination then once they done whatever they wanted. and want to come home again. 5children in cabin and 5 parthenogenesis mothers on roof thats 10tx's worth of data per person. even going one step further. visa stats show that the average person only does ~1tx a day. and thats using a currency that can buy anything. reality shows people wont risk more than 2 weeks worth of income in LN (even devs dont rccommend it) also psychologogy of average person does not plan/predict each and every spending habit beyond a fortnight. so an average 14 tx's only end up turning into 10 tx's if lucky. for average joe. this is why LN is not a "solution for everyone". its only a niche SERVICE for gambling/spammers who spend to same known destinations more than once a day |
|
|
|
Currently, the main disadvantages of decentralized systems are low transaction throughput and poor scalability. These problems inhibit the development of decentralized systems.
that is not a problem of decentralisation. that is a problem of a centralised group deciding not to change the code that has put limits in to prevent scaling. blockchains can scale if you alter the limits imposed At the moment it is a major problem until the limit to the code is altered. But my fear is that, if it's altered and scalability sets in, what then happen to transaction charges, do you think it would increase or.decrease? allowing more transactions in. takes pressure off the mempool also if a fee priority is put in place where by a user spending more often pays more. then spam decreases meaning people dont just make transactions for the sake of it (mixers/tumblers/de-tainters) or who just run their coins through just for the sake of running coins through (spam up mempools) so seeing a reduction in people spamming the network with bloated transactions, spending every 1confirm will become something rarely seen. allowing for others to transact easier and cheaper. |
|
|
|
if you actually check
the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments
i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses. yep when a mixer doesnt have reserves to mix, it just ends up being a tumbling. or as i call it a de-tainter service. just hoping the coins along. but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example.  i was counting addresses used and yea quite alot went legacy->(loads of) bc1q ->legacy so not one example but thousands of bc1q addresses used just for that particular stash even if you dont count/check 66k/200=330 allotments. * 5+tumbles=over 1000 easy |
|
|
|
bitnodes.earn.com under 10k nodes.. (less that 7k are full nodes) over 3000 of all under 10k nodes of mixed ability (full and not so full) are on servers gotta laugh. you cant be decentralised if you all who are running one of the 1400+ nodes on amazon.. are running a node on amazon. if your running a node on amazon and ur not a business.. your just not seeing the point of running a node anyway https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=1037less than 7k are shown as being full nodes |
|
|
|
In truth, blockchains don't scale well. Adding exponentially more throughput to the mainchain would encourage mining centralization to sidestep latency problems (or otherwise cause high orphan rates and regular unintentional forking) and would discourage full node operation due to bandwidth requirements.
Sharding is one approach to solving this problem. Offchain payment channels are another. Tree chains are another. Why do you think so many people are working on ways to achieve exponential scale? Because blockchains can't do it. They scale linearly, which is extremely limiting. The Core developers have done a great job optimizing for better scale, but there's only so much they can do.
look passed the usual "must defend a dev" mindset. it gets soo funny when people revert to defend a certain dev group rather than defend the network its soo obvious LN is not a bitcoin feature. it is its own independent network that happens to let multiple coins that are made compatible to function with it. bitcoin being just one LN is just using bitcoin as the test coin to glory hound some investment. as for scaling BITCOIN (not finding ways to tether altcoins and altnetworks to bitcoin) but to scale bitcoin can be done easily and if you think its so linear. then i guess your just reading the standard scripts of "bitcoin is broke LN is the future" promo posters it reminds me of history digital photography wont work because floppy disks or servers digital photography wont work because linear scaling of solid state media people with that mindset are like kodak at the millenia |
|
|
|
The thing is I don't think non-mining nodes add much security or decentralisation to the network. If you already are a major economic player, ie: an exchange, then yes, running a node adds security for both the network and yourself. Other than that I don't see much advantage. This is not a democracy, no one is gonna care if my node reject a transaction but if Bitstamp node rejects it, that has some real impact. On the other hand are nodes at the front of major pools which obviously have a great impact on the network but those do have an indirect incentive being a fundamental part of the miners behind.
if a full node was run just by mining pools. of course they would ignore their competitions efforts and just want their own blocks to win. so there needs a unbiased outsider group deciding what gets added to a chain. normal home users that need to monitor just 1-5 addresses dont need to monitor every transaction of every block every day. and normal home internet would bottleneck the propogation if a home user was to foolishly want to connect to 120 nodes. infact mathematically its better for home users to only connect to 10 nodes however merchants that need to validate hundreds/thousands of transactions they are more needing to have a reliable ledger. so businesses are more important. because if they dont relay transactions of their customers then the merchant wont get paid if a pool doesnt add a transaction to a block. where as users would prefer not to relay transactions and hope pools dont receive it. because they hope merchants would see a unconfirm and react, while hope a pool dont receive and confirm. so users are not actually needing to have a reliable ledger, users prefer slow networks because they hope the merchant act on the unconfirmed transaction so a user can double spend with all that said.. if all users are just running core. unedited.. they are not decentralising th network. they are just distributing the chain distributing and decentralising are 2 different things |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
