The problem with Bitcoin, from the git-go (actually from this bullshit), Bitcoiners adopted the former  Just curious... I have noticed that whenever you include a URL in a post, the base of the URL pretty much always gets replaced with " https://bitcointalk.org". Any idea how that happens? |
|
|
|
Absolutely nothing is concentrated in Greenland.
Except suicide... |
|
|
|
Interesting... [bitcoin-dev] The first successful Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payment Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> To Bitcoin Dev Today at 4:42 PM I am happy to announce the first successful Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payment (ZKCP) on the Bitcoin network. ZKCP is a transaction protocol that allows a buyer to purchase information from a seller using Bitcoin in a manner which is private, scalable, secure, and which doesn’t require trusting anyone: the expected information is transferred if and only if the payment is made. The buyer and seller do not need to trust each other or depend on arbitration by a third party. Imagine a movie-style “briefcase swap” (one party with a briefcase full of cash, another containing secret documents), but without the potential scenario of one of the cases being filled with shredded newspaper and the resulting exciting chase scene. An example application would be the owners of a particular make of e-book reader cooperating to purchase the DRM master keys from a failing manufacturer, so that they could load their own documents on their readers after the vendor’s servers go offline. This type of sale is inherently irreversible, potentially crosses multiple jurisdictions, and involves parties whose financial stability is uncertain–meaning that both parties either take a great deal of risk or have to make difficult arrangement. Using a ZKCP avoids the significant transactional costs involved in a sale which can otherwise easily go wrong. In today’s transaction I purchased a solution to a 16x16 Sudoku puzzle for 0.10 BTC from Sean Bowe, a member of the Zcash team, as part of a demonstration performed live at Financial Cryptography 2016 in Barbados. I played my part in the transaction remotely from California. The transfer involved two transactions: 8e5df5f792ac4e98cca87f10aba7947337684a5a0a7333ab897fb9c9d616ba9e 200554139d1e3fe6e499f6ffb0b6e01e706eb8c897293a7f6a26d25e39623fae Almost all of the engineering work behind this ZKCP implementation was done by Sean Bowe, with support from Pieter Wuille, myself, and Madars Virza. Read more, including technical details at https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/[I hope to have a ZKCP sudoku buying faucet up shortly.  ] _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.orghttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev |
|
|
|
In terms of Kanye West. Why isn't he starting his own crypto? Name it Coinye!!!  As Andreas Antonopolous said: "And this time Kanye will make it!"  Someone actually made a coin called "Coinye": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinyeand Kanye sued them, as I recall... |
|
|
|
|
This "Poloniex Matthew" character you guys are replying to is apparently some troll who is just going from thread-to-thread and re-posting previous comments in the same thread literally word-for-word. Look at his post history and you will see. Don't waste your time replying to him.
|
|
|
|
So usually I don't recommend full node (Core) to newbies because they would be put off by the fact that you have to download GB's of data at slow speeds which take ages.
So I wonder if Core in pruned node is a good way to get them started, couple with the fact the new features make it boot faster too. Of course Electrum should be enough, but since I have been using Core for years im paranoid now to use anything that isn't Core for any relevant amounts of BTC, so I would recommend Core in your computer for main amount of BTC + Mycelium for "let's do groceries" type of amount of BTC for newbies if Core in pruned mode is light enough so they don't get pissed off with waiting time or just a frustrating experience.
Of course the remaining drawbacks would be:
1) The wallet in Core is still too minimalistic, it doesn't even allow you to order your receiving/sending addresses nicely in groups, or in order of creation etc, only by of alphanumerical order, so you end up with a mess since it's recommended to use 1 address each time.
2) The fact that you have to use an address each time is in itself an annoyance for noobs. Im wishing in the future stuff like BIP47 can solve this? Since I've heard HD by default is not possible with Core?
3) Then we have the need of doing backups for each single new address we make. Obviously it's too paranoid, but every month or so, you would need to copy your current wallet.dat to your backup devices since the backup devices would lack the generated addresses during that period.
Im just trying to think how to get people involved in running nodes and running a "lite node" is a start but we need to give them feel like they are getting something extra. For me the extra in security and reliance is enough to deal with it but not everyone is as paranoid or even holds enough BTC to care.
Even a pruned node has to download the entire blockchain in the beginning, to do initial validation. |
|
|
|
Would thast show up as 0.12.0 , or would it have some test suffix like rc3.
In the peer list, it will show up as 0.12.0. |
|
|
|
0.00099 is far above the dust threshold. It is 513 satoshis or thereabouts. The monetary value, even assuming 0 txfee, is much less than one cent.
The current dust limit is 2730 satoshis. It used to be 546 before all the 'stress testing'. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, anyone who actually gives a damn about understanding the issue will still have access to the link I posted. Many understands the statistic thats why conservative value of 75% is choosen so you cant claim the change is tiggered by minority, or to be exact, there is real chance of this happening by variance. At anything less than 70% of steady hashrate, triggering a fork would take at least 6 years, and gets exponentially less likely as miner share decreases.
I can only assume you didn't read the link to OrganOfCorti's blog I posted, since he demonstrates quite rigorously how that can, in fact, happen. http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html |
|
|
|
OrganOfCorti's post seems to focus upon mathematics, yours seems to focus upon hysteria.
Dude, I posted a link. Who's the hysterical one here again? A link, coupled with a statement implying that the material in the link was applicable to the particular 75% fork threshold being discussed, and that it necessarily indicated a "problem": If you are really interested in why 75% is not enough, the definitive answer...
And imbues my focus with hysteria? uhm, ok  You obviously are not interested in any kind of a conversation here, so I will just leave you to what you were doing... Meanwhile, anyone who actually gives a damn about understanding the issue will still have access to the link I posted. |
|
|
|
OrganOfCorti's post seems to focus upon mathematics, yours seems to focus upon hysteria.
Dude, I posted a link. Who's the hysterical one here again? |
|
|
|
Because the stated 75% criteria produces a negligible yet discernible chance that we get a false trigger at an actual 67% adoption rate due to variance? Yawn. Troll harder. Uhm, no. He shows pretty conclusively that 5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.
It also allows true proportions of fake voters to be sufficiently low that it becomes quite possible for one large mining pool or a couple of smaller ones in collusion contributing fake BIP101 votes to cause premature BIP101 activation.
Emphasis is mine. If you want to present math that disproves OrganofCorti's, feel free. Calling me a troll for pointing out OrganOfCorti's excellent blog post is just childish. |
|
|
|
At start, Satoshi choose 32MB as consensus rule, then changed it to 1 MB consensus rule, now it can be changed to 2 MB if majority chooses. If you dont want, your free to use 1 MB the same way people were free to choose continue using 32 MB before, none force you anywhere, but you force me to keep using 1 MB. Do you see the difference between dictatorship verus freedoom here ?
No. Stop with the "majority" nonsense when talking about 75%. For an upgrade of the network we need 'almost everyone' (obviously you can't achieve 100% but can come close to it) on board else you break consensus. You are essentially forcing the 1/4 of the current network (and this is a lot of people, hashpower and possibly even more merchants) to join the fork or be left on a slow and dying chain. This is not freedom. Could you link me to the source of boldface above? I keep searching https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, and getting zero hits. Perhaps alternative spelling? Or are you simply making stuff up/using air quotes? If you are really interested in why 75% is not enough, the definitive answer is found here: http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html |
|
|
|
...
Who decided what the existing minimum fees are? Greenspan?
Are there minimum fees? If so, what are they/who/ how were they implemented? min fees now seem to be set by core, via their software. Filthy non-coding Miners hardly get a look in anymore. Anyone running a node (including miners) can set mintxfee and minrelaytxfee to whatever they want, can't they? |
|
|
|
Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case
I think you have it backwards. The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin. Do you know arbitrage? This has been discussed for years in the economy forum, I thought it is already a basic knowledge, just search for it there Put it simply, if it cost $1 to mine one bitcoin and the market price is $400, everyone will mine and immediately sell, no one will buy; and those who want to hold coin will immediately sell their coins and mine it back at a much lower cost. That is $399 profit for every $1 spent, 399x return on investment. No matter how large the market demand is, the arbitraging will make sure the price keep dropping until it reaches the current mining cost So, unless the mining cost quickly rise up to $400 overnight, a new pow coin with neglectable initial mining cost will just crash to zero in a very short time You are assuming no real demand for bitcoin except speculation, which I expect will not be the case forever. If there is real demand, the demand will drive the price, and the cost of mining will rise to the value set by demand - not the other way around. If, on the other hand, demand remains purely speculative, then you would probably be correct that the price will fall to the floor established by the mining cost. Of course there is market demand, but if I need one bitcoin, and it takes $1 to mine but $400 to buy, should I mine or buy? Maybe I don't have the necessary tools to mine, but I'm quite sure there will be plenty of miners who are willing to sell to me at $10, which already bring them a 1000% profit immediately Maybe there are many people who are so stupid that they blindly buy at $400 a coin because they don't know the PoW has changed. But if there is only one guy knows this, he will immediately borrow as much coin as possible and at the same time buy as much hash power as possible, and dump the coin on exchange and mine them back, and in a few days everyone knows how to get rich quick I understand what you are saying... I'm just trying to clarify that the price is not defined only by the cost of mining. The cost of mining sets a floor for the price, and demand can potentially pull the price to any level at all above that floor - and the price of mining will be pulled up at the same time, as it will be profitable (and ultimately necessary) for miners to spend more money to mine, no matter what the mining mechanism is (CPU, GPU, ASIC, whatever). |
|
|
|
Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case
I think you have it backwards. The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin. Do you know arbitrage? This has been discussed for years in the economy forum, I thought it is already a basic knowledge, just search for it there Put it simply, if it cost $1 to mine one bitcoin and the market price is $400, everyone will mine and immediately sell, no one will buy; and those who want to hold coin will immediately sell their coins and mine it back at a much lower cost. That is $399 profit for every $1 spent, 399x return on investment. No matter how large the market demand is, the arbitraging will make sure the price keep dropping until it reaches the current mining cost So, unless the mining cost quickly rise up to $400 overnight, a new pow coin with neglectable initial mining cost will just crash to zero in a very short time You are assuming no real demand for bitcoin except speculation, which I expect will not be the case forever. If there is real demand, the demand will drive the price, and the cost of mining will rise to the value set by demand - not the other way around. If, on the other hand, demand remains purely speculative, then you would probably be correct that the price will fall to the floor established by the mining cost. |
|
|
|
Mining cost is the baseline of coin value, if you change to GPU mining, coins value will drop to single digits thus abandoned by investors, better use litecoin in that case
I think you have it backwards. The cost of mining does not define the value of the coin. The amount of money people will be willing to pour into mining the coin is, however, determined by the value of the coin. |
|
|
|
Where did -ck's post go? I also wonder why - so I'm gonna try it......  From Bitcoin-Core 0.11.0 Release Notes: Block pruning is currently incompatible with running a wallet due to the fact that block data is used for rescanning the wallet and importing keys or addresses (which require a rescan.) However, running the wallet with block pruning will be supported in the near future, subject to those limitations.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
