then advertise an alternative for original version.
(facepalm) sounds like people what new versions to replace the original as if its the true clean 'original' version how about 'then advertise a new and different version that is not an just "an alternative for original version"' movie analogy highlighted and noted as being a reboot... not a remaster of the original |
|
|
|
|
funds are not moved to your computer. they are on the blockchain.
electrum is just the tool to view and communicate with the blockchain. but you dont need to be permanently connected to 'accept' payment.
the network accepts the payment by confirming transactions into blocks. the blockchain is not in one place, never shuts down it is 24/7 network..
you can view your funds on any blockchain viewer (node/explorer) but only move funds if you provide your private key
your private key is your proof that you have the authority to move funds... all you need to worry about is having the private key to that public address to prove that you are the one thats allowed to spend it, whenever you want to spend it at a later date
wording it another way(fiat analogy)
telling your employers your bank details that are wrote on your debit card. does not mean you can only get paid by having to have your debit card permanently inserted into an ATM. or by having a sleeping bag and sleeping inside the local bank. or by having to log into your online bank and stay logged in
you can get paid whenever.. by whomever and however much they want to pay you..
your private key is like your ATM pin number. dont tell anyone it. but you will need it when its time to spend the funds
|
|
|
|
You haven't responded to my question.
Pos is also secure and immutable, but it's also flexible because it outlines who is in charge. If you own 51%, you are the boss.
Whereas in Bitcoin everyone is confused, and there is no clear consensus mechanism. And we have to rely on 3rd parties (nodes) who might not even have coins to decide things for us.
POW = REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
POS = CORPORATION
Which one is better?
if you stop thinking about WHO deserves the funds and WHO deserves to decide the rules and look at the security of CODE PoW is more resistant than PoS why do you think PoS changes happen so easily compared to PoW changes... if something is harder to change, it means its more secure. |
|
|
|
|
im not interested in altcoins... but lets reword the OP's question.. just for fun
if we were in 2009 and wanted to rebrand bitcoin.. what would some options be
for instance some people know there is no actual 'coin'.
a real world wallet stores bank notes but a bitcoin wallet stores keys.
so some would say rebrand it to something like
upay - to signify that YOU pay people without middlemen
keyring- the better analogy instead of 'wallet'
so you can than duplicate your keyring instead of backing up a wallet....... it makes more analogical sense.
then the unit of measure(value) not being called the same thing as the network/protocol/software.
for instance call them satoshi's for the minimal and for what would be bitcoin becomes.. megahectsat, commonly "mehesa's"... or MHS
..
i say this so that if making an altcoin.. atleast make it have some form of easy understanding. where the buzzwords actually have some realistic meaning if you dig deep enough.. none of this pick a random name out of a hat crap and then need to spend an hour explaining it
|
|
|
|
I recently quoted Satoshi on /r/bitcoin and was downvoted...that place is corrupt and anti bitcoin.
because its not /r/bitcoin... its /r/core-perate coin. managed by the BS cartel ( Block Stream/ Barry Silbert) the github repo they love and idolise over does not even originate from a github repo satoshi ever used. the origins before the rebrand to core in 2013 was originally from a fork Gavin started in summer 2010. satoshi's version was still only being sourced from sourceforge right up until and after winter 2010 |
|
|
|
if someone wants to rewrite the bitcoin paper to 'update' it.. then dont call it the bitcoin paper.. call it the segwit whitepaper that way it doesnt confuse people from the differences of what bitcoin WAS and where the ethos and purpose has changed, because people can then compare them both. rather than thinking the updated version is the only true version
The rewrite has nothing to do with Segwit, nor was the update related to it. Looks like you are having your metal breakdowns again. so by the time they update it.. it will be out of date.... might b worth you thinking about that Who is *they*? You can update it yourself if you wanted to and publish an updated version. Nobody can prevent you from doing this. "they"... well cobra for one, obviously has been the big mouthpiece that wants to update it.. so they = atleast cobra.... dont be ignorant, you know who 'they' are. even you seem to want to be ok with a re-write happening. so YOU and your desire to get YOUR named tagged for spell checking things in github have more chance of being part of "they" ... i dont want it changed. so i wont be part of "they". but if "they" want to write something. atleast dont try suggesting that it is the bitcoin whitepaper, but instead making it obvious that its different to the real bitcoin white paper by calling it something new... EG if the update is only upto corev0.12.. then call it corev12.. not "the bitcoin whitepaper" then in a few months time, if core gets segwit activated.. then... (those that love rewrites) can make another whitepaper and call it segwit |
|
|
|
if someone wants to rewrite the bitcoin paper to 'update' it.. then dont call it the bitcoin paper.. call it the segwit whitepaper that way it doesnt confuse people from the differences of what bitcoin WAS and where the ethos and purpose has changed, because people can then compare them both. rather than thinking the updated version is the only true version
The rewrite has nothing to do with Segwit, nor was the update related to it. Looks like you are having your metal breakdowns again. so by the time they update it.. it will be out of date.... might be worth you thinking about that |
|
|
|
|
if someone wants to rewrite the bitcoin paper to 'update' it.. then dont call it the bitcoin paper.. call it the segwit whitepaper that way it doesnt confuse people from the differences of what bitcoin WAS and where the ethos and purpose has changed, because people can then compare them both. rather than thinking the updated version is the only true version
|
|
|
|
|
even if you have a 100mb connection... if you only have 8 connections of 0.5mb sent to you.. you are only getting 4mb at a time
so the delay is more so on th other end getting to you rather than what you can get... much like the issues of torrents
so its all dependant on how many connections you have and their speeds more so than what your computer can take
even things like raspberry Pi can handle being a node. so a normal desktop/laptop being more powerful logically means its not really your computer or the nodes fault. but the connections.
its reasons like this i said months ago nodes need a 'speedtest' /benchmarking function built in so that it can work out what it can cope with and find the most efficient connections to make.
EG high score (lots of capability) get treated like a supernode(High level seed(torrent analogy)) allowing more connections. if crap score, it would be more down in the cesspit core is creating to be more of a leacher
but to answer the OP's question
you should be fine.. it is time consuming anyway, but usually most people just let it sync and do other things like watch movies, play games while they wait
|
|
|
|
|
solution:
just dont use reddit.
its full of scripted Fud and puppets
|
|
|
|
The only fucking problem is two lines of code.
The arbitrary, deliberate and corrupt 1MB block limit.
Bitcoin is in high danger.
We are approaching the irreversible point.
agreed technically its just a few lines of code politically: doing something so simple causes issues to devs wanting to monetise(get income) from their services (LN commercial hubs) to repay their debt bitcoin was suppose to remove politics and systems only for the rich.. bitcoin has lost nearly all of its ethos by the greedy ignorant devs that just shout "just pay more" rather than expand capacity PROPERLY. devs should be devs, not economists (segwit still only offers a empty gesture of hope of .. yep 7tx/s just so they can then push people into LN) |
|
|
|
|
its not just traffic.
its also that core removed alot of the fee controls and replaced them with mechanisms that actually push fee's up even if a few blocks have low demand
|
|
|
|
|
independent team
decentralised core
singular diverse client
|
|
|
|
|
the thing you got to realise is those using the 'drivechain' would do so because of some reason they wont want to stick with bitcoin.
also the purpose of drive chain is to have a SEPARATE ledger so that it does not clog up peoples computers.(crybabies 2mb=gigabytes by midnight facepalming fud)
EG the drivechain and BS guys prefer to have many chains of EG 4 chains of 2mb rather than 1 chain of 8mb.
so all those cry babies that dont want dynamic blocks ('bigger blocks') and want to stick with 1-2mb blocks by using drivechains, are not going to be the guys that will be running 2 nodes. other wise their hard drives will still be filling up by MORE than 2mb every ~10mins.. if they were to run all the chains.. thus dfeating the point in having the drive chain facility..
if those cry babies did run both.. then what is the friggen point in crying about bitcoins mainnet growing bigger than 2mb!! because the result would be more than 2mb of data per average block period, and all the bandwidth that goes along with it by running both.
you got to think about the psychology of it all and not just the hope/moral of protecting bitcoin many hope others have (but most usually dont)
|
|
|
|
but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use..
No. Because all drivechains are two-way-pegged to the Bitcoin main chain, without Bitcoin their tokens would be worth nothing (or at least, much less than with a working peg). Businesses and people that are aware of that relation will run a full Bitcoin main chain node to protect their whole investment. once the pegged swap is done.. the transactions on another chain will only be held on that other chains ledger/database. so users wont care much for protecting a bitcoins chain, which they dont transact on any longer. remember people mainly run a full node to see when their transactions arrive and fully validate the transactions they hold as the main selfish/personal concern.. the moral/ethics of 'protecting the network' is more of an afterthought.. not the priority. this is why you see many full nodes not running for months on end. and only running for a few hours to resync and see their own new totals when they want to transact.. so thats why my mindset is that the psychology of full node users is predominantly about personal use and network protect is the after thought. not the other way round also the amount of merchants/businesses is not 7000 nodes. but more like a couple hundred nodes. so like i said there will still be some that run 2 nodes.. but there would be a noticable drop of full node bitcoin count.. again not large 100% drop or 80% drop but a noticable drop. im personally less concerned of the node count drop due to 'drivechain'. and more concerned with a nodecount drop due to the cesspit of all the stripped, prunned nodes leaching(torrent analogy) the network vs the amount of true seed(torrent analogy) full archival nodes I estimate that drivechains will lead to a growth of use cases (because of the lower fees) and thus a usage growth in Bitcoin, because de facto they are a capacity increase. So it's very unlikely the full node number will go down - it is possible that it will grow slower than before, but in my opinion it will not grow slower as in the scenario of a big-block Bitcoin because full nodes would be much less costly, as I outlined in my previous posts.
it all depends on what features/differences these altcoins offer.. yea ya i know you prefer to call them drive chains. but im more of a realist.. its a pegged altcoin concept |
|
|
|
i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it.
its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node
First: Why would they use the geographical drivechain? Because the transaction fees would be much lower. i have no clue why you decided to go with an example of 7 continents... ask yourself why you used that example!!! if you were asking more generally what are the advantages of drive chains at all... then yes Africacoin may have super low fee's compared to americacoin. who knows what different features each altcoin (drivechain) will offer Now: Why would they also use a Bitcoin node? I think if the main chain is small enough they won't have a problem running it as a (probably pruned) full node. Probably there would be people which only would run the Drivechain node. But these are also the people that tend to run light nodes anyway.
1. if they are not transacting on the main CHAIN they they wont run the main chain.. EG those that move from litecoin to bitcoin, dont bother running a litecoin node, because they are not using litecoin. so if they start ONLY TRANSACTING on continent chain X, they will have less need to have 2 nodes running. 2. im not saying everyone will have this mindset. but SOME will.. which will dilute the full node count.. then with all the -nowitness -prunned options also dilute the full node count. making bitcoin weaker. again im not saying 100% drop nor 80% drop.. but enough of a drop to mak people realise the network has become less secure than before. People and businesses concerned about the security of the system and concious about the advantages of full nodes - these that run Full Nodes presently - would very probably run also a Bitcoin node to be able to verify and strengthen the integrity of the system. but as i mentioned above if some services only transact with (in YOUR!! scenario of continents) continent X. then they wont care/need to protect something they are not using and will only protect what they do use.. so again SOME may stop running bitcoin nodes if all their customer base was purely continent X transacting.. but as i said it wont be a 100% drop of bitcoin.. but a noticable impact |
|
|
|
those that want to hop between chains are not going to want to sync to the different chain.. so these people wont be full node runners anyway.
making the side chain weak Not necessarily. Imagine the following scenario: - There is a main chain as settlement layer (Oh, I named the Antichrist  ). - 6 Drivechains, each for one of the major continents, to be used in brick and mortar stores and online stores that sell material goods and operate in a geographical area. We have now 7 chains. Let's say we have a transaction count that would fill for 7 MB blocks and that every chain has 1 MB blocks. Average Joe normally would only have to use two of these chains (main chain + continental chain), so he would have to sync 2 MB every 10 minutes. So he would have to do only less than a third of the syncronization work, than if he was using a competitor with 7 MB blocks and the same capacity. So he probably could afford a full node even with today's consumer hardware. This scenario ("geographical sidechains") is only an example. There could be other kinds of "specializations" for Drivechains (e.g. a B2B chain, a smart contract chain like RSK, a remittances chain ...). secondly those that used to run bitcoin nodes see the bitcoin chain utility diminish meaning all they are holding is a big bag of LTXO which will make them want to turn off their full node too..
I don't see how Drivechains could affect them. They would run the main chain and a set of preferred drive chains and would also have lesser to store & validate, like in the first example. i see it more like .. using your 'continent'/country analogy and expanding it. its like 7 altcoins once you convert from bitcoin to lets say the EU altcoin.. people in the EU will stick to only give a crap about the EU altcoin. and thus wont be going back and forth to bitcoin. they would just trade using the EU altcoin and thus wont be running a bitcoin node and only running a EU node |
|
|
|
|
adam back although writing code for the 2014 segwit altcoin. he has not been a direct coder for bitcoin
he should have no say at all in anything bitcoin.
but atleast the puppeteer is revealing his puppet strings
anyone suggesting bitcoin should be high TX fee has obvious BScartel involvement. and yes bruce fenton the organiser of the BS cartel funded round tables had already been spotted years ago as part of that crew of bitcoin dismantlers
|
|
|
|
|
they now know people are willing to pay $2..
so if they push onchain upto $100 they can then let their LN hubs offer $1 a 'payment' to help repay their $75mill debt faster..
while still proclaiming LN is 100x cheaper than onchain..
its tooo obvious
barry and alan silbert are getting very itchy feet and wanting to start getting returns on their investments in the BS cartel
|
|
|
|
here is the reasons not to call bitcoin "digital gold"
1. golds value is not stable/ holding value, simply because it hold value..... it hold value because it has utility.
2. golds utility is not the same as bitcoins utility.
3. by calling bitcoin digital gold... next make stupid people think bitcoin is a commodity because gold is a commodity.
4. gold sits in many categories. asset and commodity. a commodity is a raw material of measurable stable quality used to create other products
bitcoin is not a raw material. bitcoin is not used to make other products. bitcoin will not sit on the same market as wheat, oil and gold
5. gold as an asset still has utility, a purpose, a function... its the utility, purpose function that give value.
take away its utility, purpose, function.. it will not hold value..
put it this way.
if there was a metal eating bacteria. that could turn gold into rust.. (making it useless in industry).. would golds price increase due to supply depleting (scarcity) or price drop due to no one wanting to buy something that will turn to rust in 6 months.
and this guy below suffers from number 3. I don't see it as gold but it's very close to a commodity in the way we use it (the majority of us, who are holding) at least, Even though it is money in a way and can be used as a currency but the majority hold it as an investment.
.... asset currency young grass-hopper.. not commodity take away bitcoins utility and bitcoin becomes digital rust |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
