I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.
If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.
This is not the $ and never it will be.
If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone. To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it. Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor. And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles. I always hear this comparision. The 21 million bitcoins was a core stone on the fundamental of the protocol. Mainly to ensure a protection against inflation. And now there really are a lot of people who dare to compare the 1mb temporary spam protection setting with this fundamental? And they even claim it's on the same level. Really unbelieveable. I see this fight, way too often fought with fears, the problem is nobody knows the future and only can guess about it. So everyone feels strongly he is right because his reality has come to realization for sure. Well, time will tell and i think the development of bitcoin will move on lastly based on the user bases wishes. And the past has shown that the users rarely want to adopt sidesystems beside of bitcoin. They want bitcoin, when bitcoin isn't working then they will take the fix offered. Well, that might be an alternative payment system where you have to bind your bitcoins into some payment channels or the promise of another bitcoin client who fixes the problem. I think it's not hard to guess what most users will chose. It's way too hard to argue what bitcoin was meant for. For me it's clear that satoshi wanted to empower the people to be freed from the power of banks. Which only makes sense with adoption. Even his plans on how miners will be rewarded make very sure what he thought should happen. Miners will be paid from the fees coming from a growing amount of transactions. The block reward will go down and slowly fees from the rising amount of transactions will take over the reward system. For me it's pretty much unthinkable that he implemented a temporary spam protection with the thought in mind to bring inflation to the transaction fees, blocking adoption, blocking not so wealthy people from bitcoin and finally make bitcoin a system used as a setting layer for another network which at the end can turn to be a system that makes that only big corporations will use bitcoin at all. Because the costs would be too high for the average user. It's so perverted to think that this could have been his plan. It's the full opposite of everything he claimed he wanted to achieve with bitcoin. But again... these points often enough are impossible to convince someone already having decided on a front. Well in fact not everyone is that way yet. There are way more users that only are wondering why bitcoin is not working anymore.  |
|
|
|
Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals: 1. 2MB Block size - doubles the theoretical tps
- introduces a new attack vector
- Simple change
- Hard fork
2. SegWit- Fixes transaction malleability
- Fraud proofs
- Simpler script upgrades
- Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
- Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
- Soft fork
I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase. I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes. Well, if you want to be taken serious then you can't really add a new attack vector to the 2 mb block solution when you already know that it is no problem anymore with a fix existing.
You told me in the old, now closed thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1333937.msg13634824#msg13634824that you did not get what i was asking. The question was, segwit blocks can't be verified by non-segwit nodes(miners) but the nodes are forced to accept them anyway to enforce that segway will be able to create the blockchain without having >50%. Right so far? You claim that in no way 10% can create a fork. But wasn't it said that the blocks have to be accepted by nonsegwit nodes even when they can't check if the transactions are valid? And miners need to check if the last block was valid by checking if all the transactions are valid and check if the hash for the block is valid. With segwit blocks only segwit miner nodes can check, non segwit nodes accept it even when the transactions would be bogus. So what is wrong? That non segwit nodes can not check if a segwit block is valid and so would accept corrupt segwit blocks too because it was built this time for this fork this way? You did not say what happens when someone spams the network with segway blocks that are not valid but have to be accepted by the non segwit nodes.
Then you claimed that the 2mb attack vector is no danger to 1mb blocks. Because the validation time is quadratic. The same transaction on 2mb could mean a 10 minute solve time, on 1mb only 20-30 seconds. But wouldn't the risk be the same the when someone simply creates 20 to 30 of such transactions, maybe in different blocks? These blocks would have to be checked all. So why is it no problem with 1mb blocks?
And again you claimed the internal movement of bitcoins inside of lightning network are real bitcoins. Guess you don't even get why people prefer to buy material gold instead owning a paper that gives you the right on gold. Theres a clear difference and since you seem to not even get to think over your claim when everyone else tells you that your view on the topic is wrong, i will stop here like i said i will. It seems to make no sense to discuss this with you.[/list] |
|
|
|
|
I was asked to check if that offer is real and it seems a user gave that offer. The account offering is not so old too.
|
|
|
|
I think the business of buying and selling account bitcointalk, can be done to grow bitcoin, buy account when ranking is still a member and sell them when the full member, I think it's a very safe investment
It is a safe investment as long as you make the sure market doesn't get flooded. It is similar to owning a stock, however, as you get the "dividends" of being able to run a signature campaign on the account in the interim, which is around 50 days I think? I probably couldn't do that myself, but if you can manage it good for you. The market already seems quite saturated. Prices for accounts dropped alot in the last months or year. Legendary accounts still trade quite well but i think too many try to earn that way. |
|
|
|
In general there are a lot of good business ideas that die pretty fast once everyone and his mother start using it. I remember once people started adsense arbitrage, then parking arbitrage, then some arbitrage with craigslist was happening. People earned 10th of K USD per month with that, some built a house and whatever but these methods died all pretty fast once they became known as well working methods and everyone told his friends about it.
so true on this one
most who say they freelancing will never tell (my main freelancing is local in my country i do 2-3 off in whole year)
yes there are sites for that but sometimes there so cheap project that i dont wont to bid on them and sometimes to many bidders are in project with good quality that you spend time for nothing
still here is sig excellent and trade the right coin for profit (current is BTC to DOLLAR and other way around)
It is like they dont want anyone else doing this kind of jobs that offered to them specially when it is easy. They dont the mass online workers to be there also and put it at risk of stopping it. Just like spammers in a signature campaign. When that happened the company is the one who will take all the consequences. Quality assurance is the other reason for keeping it secret. |
|
|
|
@mod: Der spamt hier alle Threads mit der gleichen Frage zu...
Ich nehme mal nicht an dass du mich meinst oder?  Ich hab die Frage das erste mal im Forum gestellt. Wenn du trotzdem mich meinen solltest...  |
|
|
|
i mean i want to use you as escrow. Thanks, you sent me a pm too, which is best. I don't have time to check the threads so often but i get a notice on my smartphone for new pm's coming in for me at bitcointalk. So it is the fastest way letting me know that someone needs me.  |
|
|
|
|
I'm actually wondering what will be found at that address. Possibilties are huge for scammers unfortunately. :/
Maybe calling would be a first interesting step. Can a phone number be found to that address? And or name?
|
|
|
|
Are you sure that you used the same point in time to calculate the first 2 points? If C is correct then in average you should always find a point in or on a 1 minute timeframe.
Are you saying that the next block always happens within one minute of the current time? That isn't true. The average expected(*) time to the next block is always one minute. It is often more than one minute to the next block. Note that when staking you don't make "progress" to finding a block. You either find it or you don't. The same with Bitcoin mining. When you are waiting for a block, if you wait 5 minutes without a block being found, it doesn't mean a block is "due", or that a block "should" be found in the next 5 minutes. Even after waiting 5 minutes, the expected time to the next block is still 10 minutes. And if there is no block in the next 10 minutes, the expected time *after that* is still 10 minutes. (*) I've been using the word "average" when I meant "expected". Let's pick a random time, say Sat Jan 16 02:33:17 2016. The previous block was found at 02:32:32 (45 seconds earlier). The next block was found at 02:33:36 (19 seconds later) The time to the next block was 19 seconds. The "average" time to the next block was 19 seconds, I guess, if you can average a constant. The average of 19 seconds is 19 seconds. But at that point in time the *expected* time to the next block was 60 seconds, even though at that time it had been 45 seconds since the previous block. I wrote it the wrong way. What i meant is that your statement might be true WHEN you don't check it against the reality. So we know one clam block is found in average every 1 minute. Then when you don't check it against the real blocks found, let's say you take a point in the future, then you would await that the next block, in average would be 1 minute away. The last block was one minute away in average too. Because you don't have data to rely on. Though when you check it against the past blocks or wait until the blocks were solved around that point then the theoretical truth proofs to be wrong because that point in time has to be somewhere between 1 minute blocks. Which would be the same for the average of all points in time that are checked against the real blocks. So was your statement theoretical only? It sounds so when i read your answer. Even though i already was doubting what i wrote your answer seems to say you would see it the same way... in theory, without being checked against reality. When i would chose a random point in the future then the next block after that point should be a half minute later, i think, too.
OK, let's test it. I wrote a script which picks random points in time over the last month or so, then looks up the time to the previous and next block. #!/usr/bin/env python
import random, string, time
def rand():
return start_date + random.random() * (end_date - start_date)
def fmt(seconds):
return '[%s]' % time.ctime(seconds)
def find(seconds):
last = None
for sec in times:
if sec < seconds:
return sec, last
last = sec
datfile = "clamblocks.dat"
count = 0
lines = 100000
samples = 100000
times = []
fp = open(datfile, "r")
while True:
line = fp.readline()
if not line:
break
line = string.split(line[:-1])
times.append(string.atoi(line[5]))
count += 1
if (count == lines):
break
start_date = times[-1]
end_date = times[0]
print "picking random dates between %s and %s" % (fmt(start_date), fmt(end_date))
before_sum = 0
after_sum = 0
count = 0
while True:
t = rand()
before, after = find(t)
before_sum += t - before
after_sum += after - t
count += 1
if count % 1000 == 0:
print ("(%6d) %s is %6.2f seconds after %s (%6.2f) and %6.2f seconds after %s (%6.2f)" %
(count,
fmt(t),
t - before, fmt(before), before_sum / count,
after - t, fmt(after), after_sum / count))
I happened to have the data in a file already, so it's a bit quicker than querying the clam daemon. But never mind that. Here's the output of the script. It shows the average times in (parentheses): (200000) [Fri Nov 13 01:41:39 2015] is 67.13 seconds after [Fri Nov 13 01:40:32 2015] ( 52.78) and 44.87 seconds after [Fri Nov 13 01:42:24 2015] ( 52.96)
(201000) [Tue Dec 8 16:40:24 2015] is 40.73 seconds after [Tue Dec 8 16:39:44 2015] ( 52.76) and 7.27 seconds after [Tue Dec 8 16:40:32 2015] ( 52.97)
(202000) [Sun Jan 17 05:09:04 2016] is 16.23 seconds after [Sun Jan 17 05:08:48 2016] ( 52.77) and 31.77 seconds after [Sun Jan 17 05:09:36 2016] ( 52.97) After picking 200k random points in time the average of all the actual times from the previous block is 52.78 seconds, and the average of the actual times to the next block is 52.97 seconds. I'm surprised it's coming out around 53 seconds and not 60, but can imagine two explanations: 1) the CLAM network is always a little bit too fast; the average block time is 59.xx seconds, not 60 seconds; not a significant error 2) the average time to the next block is 60 seconds because it's possible (though unlikely) to have *very* long gaps between blocks; we're not seeing those very long gaps in the sample that I'm averaging over, but we are seeing lots of short gaps Either way, it's closer to 60s than to 30s, and their sum is way over 60s. Edit: I ran it again, using a year's worth of blocks, and let it run for longer. The results barely changed: picking random dates between [Sun Jan 18 03:37:36 2015] and [Thu Jan 21 07:04:00 2016]
(276000) [Mon Feb 23 00:40:30 2015] is 62.58 seconds after [Mon Feb 23 00:39:28 2015] ( 52.74) and 289.42 seconds after [Mon Feb 23 00:45:20 2015] ( 52.76) Well, i'm surprised and don't see why this is the case. First, statements A and B don't make sense. The average amount of time from the chosen point in time is a singular number. You probably mean the average of a distribution of randomly chosen points.
You are correct. The average time to the next block from a particular random point in time is whatever the actual time to the next block was. I was being sloppy. I meant the expected time to the next block if the future wasn't already known. You wake up, turn on your computer, look at blockchain.info. How long since the last block was found? Make a note. Wait for the next block; how long does it take from when we woke up? Make a note. Repeat this every day for a year, average times to the previous blocks, and average the times to the next blocks. Do you get something close to 5 minutes for both averages or something close to 10 minutes? I think SebastianJu would tell us that on average we are half-way between blocks, so the average time would be 5 minutes to the previous and 5 minutes to the next. I'm claiming that the average is actually 10 minutes in both directions, and that the sum of the two averages would be 20 minutes. But I am also claiming that the average time between BTC blocks is 10 minutes. [/quote] I still don't get it. The average time between blocks is 1 minute. Then all you can do is chose points between this minute. Which means 60 seconds. If you do it easy and calculate 1+2...59+60 you get 1830, if i used the small gauss correctly.  Divided through 60 numbers would be 30,5. Oh well, i'm not a big mathematician it seems.  But what i want to say is that how can the average be higher than the average of these points in between a block if the average blocksize is 60 seconds? |
|
|
|
|
So were this preorder, which means money is lost now or did this end without monetary losses for the users interested in miners?
|
|
|
|
Hey SebastianJu, really appreciate your keeping up on this thread. I know I had a fair number of these as I was one of the earlier investors but for the life of me I can't remember how many shares I had. And given that cryptostocks is down it doesn't seem likely I'll be finding out anytime soon. Do you happen to know if Cannabit has anything that might be useful?
I had to guess the exact amount of my shares too because i can't really know now anymore. The issuer received a daily list with shareholders containing their cryptostocks email address and the amount of cannabit shares they own. Though that only works for shareholders that did not change the option that shareholders are allowed to see their email. That is why we asked last time, with NXT, to change that option to allowe the issuer to see the shareholders email addresses and it seems practically everyone did so or at least shares were seeable. So simply guess the amount of shares as good as you can. When your email address is in there and you are in the shareholder list then we can know the amount of shares. |
|
|
|
Another little step. The form to claim your shares is ready.  I know it probably is hard to know the amount of shares you own when cs is down so try to remember and put the amount into.
The URL is http://goo.gl/forms/hv8WkEXye7The issuer receives a daily list with all shareholders that have enabled the option to allow the issuer to see the shareholders email, he knows the email address and the amount of shares bound to it. So you need to put in the form the email address you use with cryptostocks.com.Next thing is to put into a bitcoin address for the divs. Please register at https://wallet.counterwallet.io official server. See tutorial here http://foldingcoin.net/resources/video-tutorials/counterparty-guides/ especially http://foldingcoin.net/resources/video-tutorials/counterparty-guides/#walletOnce you did so you have a bitcoin address in there. Back up the privkey in your password manager so that you can recover it. Counterparty is using normal bitcoin addresses so with the privkey you can restore the shares that are bound to that address too. Put that address in the form.
Last field is for the amount of cannabit shares you own.I hope we can do this fast, i don't want to wait for divs. Good luck everyone! |
|
|
|
You guys must be kidding me with this. Bitcoin works perfectly, I just send a transaction through my Core wallet, sent the recommended fee, and I didn't had any problems. Don't be cheap on the fees, and wait until 0.12 comes, and wait for SegWit, we can do this without raising the block size now. In the future maybe if needed, but right now, we have SegWit and we can resist until Lightning Network is operative. We must resist the pressures.
Guess you don't get all the threads and complaints about newbies and established bitcoiners whose fees again were not sufficient. And fees will only rise now. 1mb blocks enable easy spamming too so that makes things worse. I can't see when a big part of the community became that conservative and fearfull that nothing is allowed to change anymore because "what if". |
|
|
|
What i heard is that a lot of investments went into blocksteam. Whoever invests in something is promising something from it. And that is normally profit and no act of altruism.
$21M initial seed funding. It could be considered 'a lot'... Personally I'm surprised the community isn't more concerned about Blockstream. As for their supporters, I can only surmise that A) some aren't aware of the potential conflict of interest or even who they are B) some believe there is no real conflict of interest, or that there might be theoretically but when it comes down to it, "they will do what's best for Bitcoin" C) some acknowledge that Blockstream may have an agenda to profit, but they don't care because they believe the core devs are best decision makers for Bitcoin. Ah, so it was. One has to be very blueeyed to see no potental risk in that. And when i think about it, the risk of going back to a banking system where only banks and corporations access bitcoin is not too far fetched. 1mb blocks can raise the fees exponentially if nothing is done. Which makes that a possibility. |
|
|
|
I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.
If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.
If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.
This is not the $ and never it will be.
If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone. |
|
|
|
If we already know that the solution is a block increase I don't understand why it should be an increase to 2mb. If the increase is to be to 2mb in 2 years or less the community will be facing the same problem again.
So, in this sense, the increase should be to at least 8mb or even more.
I guess the current line of thinking is just to kick the can down the road. You do not implement something before it was thoroughly tested. I agree with this thinking in the sense that developers need to scale Bitcoin without risking the integrity of the whole network. For example - " In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. " - quoted from https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#roadmapYou cannot just dump bigger block sizes into the protocol and hope nothing goes wrong, because it is a Billion dollar network. Let's just approach this with caution. Well nobody feared what will happen when blocks are not 0.1mb filled but 0.2mb. There was nobody screaming around that it is dangerous. And even with 2mb blocks, 2 months ago NOBODY claimed any danger coming from that. Though what i read, the threat might only be of theoretical nature, similar to a >50% attack. Though i would need to know if it is possible to create such a block even when he not verifies, since then you would not need a miner. If you need a miner then no miner who can creates block would kill the chance for his own block reward. And if this risk can be created with a normal pc then it would be possible to simply flood the network with such blocks even with 1mb blocks. Mass would bring the danger then. And it seems there is already a fix for that which could be implemented in bitcoin classic and make it safe. |
|
|
|
Um, i think that was the old hardlimit for blocks. Some miners did not update that yet. It's no proof that all transactions were cleared at that point in time. It's fully up to the miner how many transactions he want to put into a block.
That's not the hard limit. The 'hard limit' is 1 MB, you're talking about a 750kb soft limit. It is interesting because Antpool was one of those that mined a 749kb block, yet the block that they have previously mined was 930kb. I know it is the softlimit but i remember a discussion where it was said that the standard setting in nodes was sat to 750kb as the hard limit even though the blockchain allower 1mb blocks already. Not all nodes had changed that and people asked them to adjust that value in order to help the network. But it might be that still some miners use that old hardlimit. I might remember wrongly though. It would be convenient to check the last blocks and found one of these blocks with only one transaction, the block reward, and believing that it shows the network is greatly underloaded.
If I'm correct that is because of SPV mining. You are correct with that. Only that it means that it is fully up to the miner how many transactions he put into a block. It can't be judged from the blocksize how many transactions could not be included. But since you mention SPV mining. I believe the newest implementation was that, when a new block was found in the system, the miners start mining instantly with an empty block. in order to not lose hashingpower. Then it starts to check transactions and slowly put the transactions into the block, starting to hash on the block with the additional transactions. That might be the reason why antpool creates such blocks? Dunno. |
|
|
|
BUT: doesn't that make it so that when a dishonest miner would put a malicious SegWittransaction in its block of the latest version, and lets say only 10% of all miners are upgraded to this SegWitversion, that 90% of all hashing power will accept this invalid transaction because they are programmed to not oppose it?
This makes no sense at all. You do realize that for the activation of a soft fork a high consensus threshold is needed? This makes even less sense. If I do 'my own research' I'm essentially 'listening to others' because I'm reading their input. The best way to avoid false information is to directly ask different developers. But it is an interesting point. So when there are only 10% segwit nodes and 90% nonsegwit, then a user creates a block that is wrong, segwit nodes can't accept them as wrong but nonsegwit nodes will accept them because they can't see that it is a wrong block, then how will you avoid the fork to happen? |
|
|
|
There is a common sense in decision making process of financial products: Risk aversion
And I think that's the reason XT was not welcomed by majority of the stake holders, because it makes a too large change that could have trigger many unpredictable behavior in the system thus greatly increase the risk
In fact the risk most wanted to avoid was named Hearn. *lol* You speak like the jump from blocks being 0.1mb full to 0.2mb full were full of risks of all kind. The risk of jumping from 0.1mb to 0.5mb was really enourmous. I really wonder where all this fear comes from suddenly. 2 months ago no one spoke about any risk at all coming from 2mb blocks. Guess it is the new "in" thing for those wanting to hold 1mb blocks. This is similarly observed in SW and LN, since the amount of change in those solutions are so huge that they will impact many different parts of the whole ecosystem of bitcoin
I found Segwit to be very similar to the personal transportation device Segway. It looks very cool, only runs on two parallel wheels and it can maintain its position without moving. Then the first question people will ask is: Is this thing safe? Will I fall from it? The answer is yes, you will fall if you don't know how to operate it properly
Some people will start to play with it and learn how to control. And once they get used to it they will have some fun, and more questions followed: How long will the battery last? How fast it can go? What kind of road it can run on? What if the engine inside failed etc... because the inside mechanism is so complex that normal people will never understand how it works, so they have to ask all kinds of questions that they would never ask for a bicycle
Only thing is that these experiments are interesting but don't attract many users. I remember how ripple came out. Some tried, most were not interested. NXT, has a big community, but most stay with bitcoin only because no need for nxt. No ln comes and i'm very sure it will have the same problems these projects had. Promises, come switch over but really, no big interest from the normal bitcoin community. Only some geeks interested in the tech behind and having a lot of time to spare to check things out are with it instantly. The rest... hard to catch. So most of the people will just treat it like an exciting experience, but will never have confidence to use it in commercial traffic. And after learning that it can not run faster than a bicycle and not run well in a tilted condition, people will fall back to their old traditional way of riding a bicycle or moped Back to SW, someone recently pointed out that in an environment of 75% SW nodes, the malicious users only need over 37.5% of hash power to attack the network. This is because the rest 25% of non-SW nodes will not be able to detect the double spending since what they see is only empty blocks Interesting point. Guess it has it's own risks. If true i would prefer the theoretical 10 minute confirmation time transactions with 2mb blocks. This is just one example of the unpredictable behavior of the system when the system changed its way of working. There will be other problems caused by the fact that the communication between non-SW nodes and SW nodes is asymmetric. So from this point of view, SW must be implemented through a hard fork
|
|
|
|
Ive managed many campaigns on this forum and what you are seeking is most likely not gonna happen. I have seen a few member be paid up front including myself but the members who are paid up front are very reputable. Ive never even heard of you before this thread.
Im currently managing BetKing campaign, youre welcome to apply but youll be paid weekly with the rest and youll earn .04 for 50 posts. Thats prob one of the best deals you will find here and youre paid on BetKing by dean the owner.
thanks! who knows... if I still cannot find anything... but in life you have to try first... I'm even posting the current sig for free for the last posts  So finally you use signature from campaign that is completely fresh, without escrow and have delay with payment?!?! (Unitaco) I see that you are a joker.. one of the reasons I'm still looking... serious ones are very hard to find. Well, like i said. If you really want a good deal and have good post quality then you need to check out the biggest sig campaigns and contact the campaign runners, asking for a special deal. Only then you will get the best offers because for sure the ones that run successfull campaigns won't browse the forum to maybe find someone who wants to sell his signature. Members come to them in masses. It's like you wanting a job and waiting for the business bosses to come to you giving you a job. Surely won't happen. If you go to them you can sell your service. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
