* Full nodes download every block and transaction and check them against Bitcoin's most up to date consensus rules.
* Independently validating all formats of transactions
* Independently validating full unstripped/unprunned block data
* Filtering transactions and blocks to light node peers so as not to download all transactions in the network.
* Sending historical blocks to nodes that have been deactivated for a while.
* Transmit all formats of new transactions and relay all formats of valid transactions via peers.
* Running a full node is the only way you can use Bitcoin in a trustless way.
fixed that for you |
|
|
|
transaction fees for high sums are definitely cheaper
^ is like saying: "it seems high fee's are ok because the rich dont mind them" that there is the mindset of excusing the issue because it favours the rich of developed countries. think about the 5 billion people NOT in the rich/developed countries then you might understand. though i personally am a white brit. i can see the impact fe'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 acceptable is 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 1. if someone was to spam the network everyblock(1confirm resend) they pay 143 times more than someone that only spends once a day. 2. those that send more, pay more.. they can all afford 0.1% 3. 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 |
|
|
|
|
disadvantages:
1. people:
when people think a network is decentralised, they get stuck in the mindset that even if centralisation happens and the rest of the network is just distributed. they still think its 'decentralised'. which then makes it harder to actually redecentralise the network because the central power will just force the decentralists off the network, using the distributed sheep that dont realise they are following centralisation.
(distributed and decentralised are two different things)
2. organisation:
when a centralised group forms or a attack occurs.. trying to convince distributed people which is the right or wrong path, action to follow is not straight forward. a well paid development group with $100m to throw around and code things that bypass individual voting/revokes individual decentralised 'vote' power. leaving the network as 'distributed' not decentralised.
3. excuses:
anyone coding new rules can use the 'decentralised' argument as an excuse to ignore communities needs and say even when there is a consensus of the community, that the developers dont need to follow the consensus because of whatever excuse they can find that consensus is wrong and they are right. thus bypassing consensus to get what the developers want as new rules rather than the communities compromises and commitments to get to a fair majority consensus, by which time the community are just left as distributed compatibility non voters or thrown off the network when people oppose centralist decisions.
basically if decentralisation gets diluted too much it then becomes easy to over power the 'individual' to then centralise the network
|
|
|
|
This is silly, volatility doesn't mean "negative price fluctuations", there are just as many chances to get profit off it, if the price goes up while they wait for confirmations and in the long run it would all even out. They are just shooting themselves in the foot with this stupid policy, because they have to deal with refunds and just scare off customers. If they are so scared of volatility, they should accept Bitcoin as a deposit on their site and allow to spend it as soon as it gets 1 confirmation.
that then makes them no longer a merchant service. but a custodial service. thus then needing auditors regulations, policies etc same goes for LN. the 'factories' end up being custodial services. much easier to just buy a starbucks giftcard or just use bakkt to buy coffee rather than to pre-plan spending habits for next two weeks to then use LN and have to split funds over several channels and have th risks that some routes are not online to spend all your money. or other people routd through you to spend your money before you could spend it yourself dont get me wrong i understand the utopian concept of LN when everything is running correctly and everyone is online and no one is playing nasties. but reality is far different then the promises promised. the devs are starting to wise up to it too hense the video in my last post shows them saying LN has issues even they wont be able to fix.. its worth a watch, even by those that strongly defend that devs are kings and they own utopia |
|
|
|
The fee priority mechanism was just node policy. As I recall, miners had mostly all removed it from their nodes so it was eventually removed from the reference client. Developers aren't really in a position to force new fee policies on miners.
they forced segwit...................... |
|
|
|
The cost of the coin began to fall sharply in the evening of December 3, over the course of the day market capitalization decreased by almost $ 10 billion.
read the first line and instantly thought the OP has no clue. 3 errors error 1: fell sharply? going between ~$4k ~$3.8k is not a fall sharply... its a standard expectation variation 5% change is not even worth a mention these days also being more precise.. 4030->3880 = 3.722% not 6.5% error 2: his "evening" "course of the day" is different than other peoples. .. in an international forum. you need to use timezones or suggest which clock you refer to when mentioning times error 3: bitcoin has no capitalisation there is no hoard of $ backing every coin in circulation the market cap is a meaningless number. do not refer to it as it has no meaning. i can make an altcoin with 5trillion coins. i can spend just $1 and make a market cap be $5trillion yes i can make a market cap of a coin be $5trillion, only spending $1 |
|
|
|
lightning is not a bitcoin feature lightning NETWORK is a separate network for multiple coins. it involve locking funds up into a permissioned contract with another person. and then playing with unconfirmed unaudited funds with no guarantee that you will actually get value back. what th OP doesnt realise is the issues bitcoin network has. LN also has plus more. EG people think signing a transaction means value transferred. but as the OP has proven he broadcast 2 signed transactions on the main net and both didnt result they way he favoured. (take a look at the visa CHARGEBACK scams that businesses hate.. LN is the same model. but with more issues) so yea play with unconfirmed/unaudited transactions. but dont think that it means your guaranteed immutible value when you close out its the same with banking. 19th century, vault up the gold and play with paper money. but no guarantee you get gold back out. dont get me wrong the LN has a niche. but its not a bitcoin solution. its just a small side service for convenience. much like purchasing coffee via purse where you hand your BTC over to a trade partner and they give you a non blockchain method of payment in the form of a giftcard oh and if you think and agree that LN should just be for its niche of small purchases. people wont want to be masternodes for litecoin/vertcoin and bitcoin to monitor channels to then atomic swap within LN.. (and dont rebut that people will just use litewallets as that again further detaches users from a trustless decentralised payment system) they will use things like bakkts btc app funny part about LN is if you deposit 0.01btc($40) you have to split it over 3-4 channels to get good routing($10 a channel) you then end up having others routing through you. thus your $10 in a channel can be treated as spent, but not by you. dont follow the utopian dream of promotion, instead take a step back and think logically, realistically and from the perspective of average joe. you will see that beyond thee promotional material that LN has flaws. and even the developers admit it https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570 |
|
|
|
VC GUYS would never buy crypto because they're NOT idiots, and they have no plan to 'get rich quick', cuz they're already rich,
i am laughing. maybe you should do some research next time crunchbase should be a start point for you. where you can start to see where all the money flows its not about them buying btc for the VC to hold. its more for buying bitcoin companies where the companies want to be paid in BTC. also VC's do invest to get rich. this is to KEEP their pockets full even when they are handing out the cheques, again they do it directly and indirectly. but first you need to understand them before you can understand their actions and the reactions caused by them. which is where i think you are having issues with. but i have attempted to help by giving you a few tips on where to begin your research. i do understand your frustration that dev teams stopped innovating bitcoin and turned their mind to try being economists by saying bitcoin should just be a value store and other networks should be the payment utility. (but btc cant be a value store if it has no utility to grow desire to grow the production(mining)cost to keep the base value rising) but once you get passed all the mumbo jumbo of knowing the devs got bought out/bribed by investors. the solution is to now concentrate on the direct effect on bitcoin, which can change if we had other new dev teams on bitcoins network making full nodes to not just rely on one teams software base. |
|
|
|
Of course, blockchainchain can be used in Healthcare. I've even seen several ICOs from this industry. I think such ICO will continue to appear. I participated in ICO WELL. WELL Token already received.
An ICO in the healthcare sector makes no sense to me. If there was a really good project, they would simply approach a hospital or insurance company who, upon seeing how good this project is and how much money it could save them, would fund it. Why would they need a tradable token to put patient records on a blockchain, unless it's just to make them a quick buck before they disappear. While I do agree with what you are saying, it is not reliable to assume corporations will instantly pick up blockchain just because it will save them money on paper. It would be a great incentive though for blockchain to not only protect sensitive data, but to save the corporation's money. there is your failing. if you cant get a healthcare provider to use it in the first place then its not a healthcare project. its just a empty ledger if you dont think a institution will use it to protect data. your project is dead before you started. |
|
|
|
|
for a simple explanation without having to code
a block chain is a block of data and identifier made of up hashing the block data to make it unique (in any format/function/way you please) the block also contains a unique identifier of the previous block thus chaining blocks together. whereby altering a bit of data alters the identifiers thus alters all the blocks built after it. making it easy to spot alterations and reject them if they dont fit the rule
there you go. nice and simple.
|
|
|
|
It's clear to me all along here that CORE never gave a shit about BITCOIN long-term, its always been about putting on a band-aide and keeping the PONZI afloat by all means possible for as long as possible.
This is why I am pissed about BITCOIN, because all the original passion for Libertarians ideas has been loss, just 'money'
"How can I make a MIllon dollars on BTC quick?" that was the daily question on this forum last year, a refuge for morons
I really think that a lot of the original smart guys 'engineers' who found bitcoin post 2009, and got some btc by mining, they moved on, ... then all these hustle people with exchanges and criminal biz models run the show now, ...
fixed that for you. i crossed out ponzi because bitcoin is not a ponzi. a ponzi is where there is no asset. its just a single man grabbing funds from peter to then drip feed small payments to paul to keep paul happy. bitcoin is not that bitcoin is where paul sells his asset and peter gets the asset. end of story for paul, he is not then drip fed profits.. and peter can do the same. they are not tied to sell only to a certain person and there is no certain person working as a middleman hoard of fiat. as for the rest that i selectively did quote you on without crossing out. you do have partly right. but you need to understand it better the paid core devs have $100m+ to get alternative networks running and populated LN is nt a bitcoin network but a separate commercial network for multiple coins, which require locking up coins into contracts requiring others permission to move this does not mean the bitcoin network is dead and cant scale/grow. but right now innovation of the bitcoin networks utility has remained stagnant for the last 3 years. while they well full on promoting other networks. we just needs to get more decentralised developer teams to re-ignite bitcoin innovation. not these silly 'the only solution is non-blockchain side networks of contracted hoarding |
|
|
|
I don't think you even know what "VC" means, its clear the way you toss around that word, you haven't a clue.
i think your narrow mind does understand the multi-layers and depths and widths of how things are. but hey. good luck in life. venture capitalists come in many forms. they put funds into many different things in many different ways. you may have only understood one way because your understanding only comes from one source. venture: to take a risky course of action capitalist: to invest in return of profit many people think VC just means throw money at startups. but it dont. VC invest in many things. new/old/small/big |
|
|
|
Please don't use bitcoin to send money somewhere if you want it to go through quickly. It's meant to be a store of value not a currency.
^ look how low and bottom of the barrel things get, where people make loads of new accounts to try telling people not to use bitcoin in this topic alone i think i have spotted 3 posts made by 1 person using 3 different accounts. and separately a bunch of new accounts that think they know best. trying to tell people that bitcoin is bad the only thing bad about bitcoin is the lack of development. the developers want people to think bitcoin is bad because they have $$millions involved in promoting other networks bitcoin lost its fee priority mechanism 4 years ago due to developers. and developers should have put in a new fe priority that does a better job. they didnt. having 20k tx's in mempool all using the same suggested low fee's simply because of badly coded fee 'estimate' is like having a 2000 seat airplane where the airport had a bad seat booking system that has 20k passangers all paying economy seat prices. thus the captains dont know who deserves the seats the most. bitcoin blockchain is not broke. but the node software that aids users to choose a fee needs sorting |
|
|
|
35 blocks processes in 6 hours expectant is 6 blocks an hour.. so id say blocks are being solved roughly on time. so no reason to blame the blockchain though it does seem many blocks are 100% full mempool tx count did see low mempool of under 5k tx yesterday, then sudden 15k-20k tx count today. so seems a bit of spam/extra tx to contend against. so anyone making low fee transactions usually dont get priority https://www.blockchain.com/charts/mempool-count?timespan=1weekthough this amount of mempool is not considered huge (january 2018 had mempool of awaiting transactions at 200k) |
|
|
|
|
its not funds moving to exchanges. its funds going through mixers/taint strippers
66k -> 100 txo's of 660 -> more addresses of 200 ->
its starting to accumilate back up into some addresses(at time of posting) 8k
14zukxqLuLXg5kqZYRB1Q3Audec3NtxJPW
|
|
|
|
So as per your theory to show the loss they are waiting for 2019 but some country are having financial year ending in 31-march-2019, so in that sense then the price will shoot up from April when the new financial year starts.
those countries are not the big VC money in crypto. so dont expect as big of a speculation in april time of year also.. Bakkt is designed to enable consumers and institutions to seamlessly buy, sell, store and spend digital assets. Formed with the purpose of bringing trust, efficiency, and commerce to digital assets, Bakkt seeks to develop open technology to connect existing market and merchant infrastructure to the blockchain.
As an initial component of the Bakkt offering, Intercontinental Exchange’s U.S.-based futures exchange and clearinghouse plan to launch a 1-day physically delivered Bitcoin contract along with physical warehousing on December 12, 2018, after receiving CFTC review and approval. These regulated venues will establish new protocols for managing the specific security and settlement requirements of digital currencies. In addition, the clearing house plans to create a separate guarantee fund that will be funded by Bakkt.
It all begins on December 12, 2018. And as the firm and exchange quickly spool up their partners will become more and more visible. For example, Bakkt has partnered with Starbucks to process payments via Bitcoin on the coffee company’s mobile app. You may be interested in this fact: Starbucks occupies the largest mobile app payments ecosystem in the United States. Bigger than Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay – with 23.4 million users.
basically. expect 2019 to be off to a good start on many fronts VC, user adoption, mining |
|
|
|
Very valid arguments, as opposed to the regular FUD that gets thrown around daily.
What do your u think of the opinion that there are not enough new investors to push bitcoins price as high as it's last peak?
I think it's very possible but it won't be a bubble which bursts when the party is over, but rather a slow, sustainable rise.
VC money made some losses.. but here is the thing. they love loses. these loses are 'paper' loses of FIAT 'accounts' not real bank balance. why do they love it. tax deductions=pay less REAL tax FIAT many FIAT businesses dont want to make profit in 2018 for this very reason. so this year they are happy making a 'paper loss' (you dont actually have to sell to make a paper loss) so when 2019 starts. its then great starting point for a profit year. its why all the ETF's are holding out on applying. SEC dont want some small time cowboys being thee first ETF. so they are holding out for the big VC institutions. also to add onto point 3 of my previous post. most next gen asics are delivering in final week of december (currently being ""QA TESTED"(profitably)) so will be up and running by new years day. 2019, fresh new year |
|
|
|
There is no way to escape regulations.
prohibition era a century ago.. people still got drunk 'war on drugs'.. people still got high the secret is. if a FIAT business is heavy on its regulation policy. dont use it. OTC is the moonshine industry of bitcoin. custodial exchanges are the licenced pubs/bars that have a 5 drink limit and require you to have a designated driver after 2 drinks |
|
|
|
The trigger for what happened to the market is still unclear.
Thoughts?
1. the 2017. was triggered by VC money that needed to buy btc to pay off some tranche(contracts) that succeeded in november2017
the price of 2017 should have not gone up so much, but speculation, hype and FOMO pushed it too high and that temporary bubble burst by spring 2018This is so on point. You've clearly explained a whole lot that most people don't really understand about the price hike of Bitcoin in 2017. to add to this. and explain more about the black text part DCG.co and digital garage are high investors of blockstream (guys that programmed segwit into bitcoin, to make bitcoin compatible with another SEPARATE INDEPENDANT NON BLOCKCHAINED network called lightning network. compatibility NEEDED to succeed by november 2017. (alot of developer/social drama went into ensuring segwit got adopted and LN active) devs got paid off in november2017 by means of BTC (millions of $$ worth) which is where the actions of the mandated upgrade instead of natural adoption was so controversial. as a separate 'bet' those VC's also done some futures contracts which expired november 2018 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
