Look at any test net explorer and you can find blocks that are 2-4 MB big. Separating the witness is the method used to achieve this (calculations are therefore done differently, so you seemingly are able to transact more without a hard fork block size increase).
look at any testnet and you will see blocks that are filled with certain pattern of tx's to get certain stats. much like testnets of 2009-2016 where certain blocks had the most leanest tx's possible to show 7tx's was 'possible' .. yet reality of mainnet has never seen a 7tx/s block. testnet has biased results because the tx's are not real life scenario randomness. they are not filled with random bloat from merchants which then fight for room against obvious native spammers and native quatratic creators. the reality is that the 2mb 'assumtion' is based on a block that is 100% full of segwit key users that do whats deemed as average in-out spending habits. but fighting against native key users. you wont get the 2mb 'assumption' so even with segwit the 2009+ 'assumption' of 7tx's is still not a guarantee/promise |
|
|
|
The only way I could imagine is that most competing pools could mine on the merchants' chain and then orphan the "block with changed rules". Is this the way it would work? But then we would depend on the assumption that the other pools are not agreeing to the change introduced by the "rule-changing pool".
this is how bitcoin has always worked nodes set the rules and pools follow the rules or find their block rejected in 3 seconds. if a couple pools colluded to keep the funky block alive by building ontop of it(within the pools harddrive not the network) but still it would get rejected by the node network. But what if 51% agree? I think that's what dinofelis already wrote so you can answer his post directly.
if a majority of pools colluded their blocks would be rejected by the network but COULD cause such a fiasco of making people wait for the few honest pools to make a good block it MIGHT be enough to blackmail node users into downloading a new node that would accept the pools new funky blocks yes the pools would be building a long chain of funky blocks but the nodes wont sync to them. instead they would just wait for an acceptable block or at worse get blackmailed into downloading a new node version. all pools can do is either give in and start making honest blocks that follow the rules so they can spend their block rewards. or waste months holding the network hostage if there was a majority of pools not following the rules HOPING its enough to pressure the nodes to download a new node version that accepts the blocks so that the rewards are then recognised and spendable its really time people actually learn consensus |
|
|
|
As I indicated above, given that the only nodes that play a significant role in the current bitcoin system are about 20, the miner nodes, which have all the infrastructure that is needed to keep bigger block chains, the argument that there would be less proxy copies of them around without much power if ever one would relax somewhat the severity of the 1 MB constraint and that that would lead to "centralisation" (as if a network that is running on 20 deciding nodes, well, 5 deciding nodes with majority, and a few thousand proxy servers can be called a decentralized network today) sounds somewhat crazy in my ears ; especially because one doesn't really know what is going to be the realistic future need of the bitcoin system. It might very well be that bitcoin never needs more than, say, 4 MB or 8 MB of transaction room for real, because there's no indication that it is going to replace mainstream payments in any foreseeable future. However, bitcoin thriving on the needed illusion of "replacing fiat in the far future", something needs to be told in the story that bitcoin could, eventually, if that totally hypothetical possibility were, against all odds, to arrive, handle that. On the other hand, as block rewards are going to dry up in the not so distant future, miners would like to have a fee market that guarantees them a sufficient possibility to make transactions scarce enough so that they can squeeze out enough money from people in the need of transactions of their so valued bitcoins. Miners are not going to project for the "VISA like volumes" that most probably will never happen, and would like rather to take money from the speculators transacting bitcoin from exchange to wallet and back.
though there is a Fibre network of supernodes that propagate data between pools superfast and as the first tier outward to the node network, the node network does actually play a crucial part. all them 20 pools could make their own rules and make blocks how they like just betwen each other, but the 800+ main merchants nodes and backed up by the other 6000 user nodes can reject blocks and literally not want to see blocks for good reasons. meaning the pools end up wasting time making blocks that are seen as unspendable well before a pools reward matures... making pools know they wont even get to spend it before they even get a chance. we have already seen many many times that when pools try something that gets rejected in seconds they dont persist for 100 blocks and then try waving their rewards to merchants in an attempt to get merchants to accept the blocks.. its too late merchants threw them blocks aside hours earlier so pools end up following the nodes rules within minutes .. not continuing to be funky for hours and then try swaying merchants to change their node to accept what pools have made it seems somewhere along the line you have been sold by some pitch that pools dont have a symbiotic relationship with nodes. maybe some altcoin works the way you pretend bitcoin works. but bitcoin does not work the way you try to presume it does. pools end up following what the node network find acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
last few posts are of the mindset "gigabytes by midnight to beat visa".
wake up think logically.
natural progressive and node capable growth over next couple decades not midnight.
secondly halting blocks at 1mb for native keys with the dooms days of "it cant get to gigabytes by midnight to beat visa". is just delaying the chance of natural growth over the nxt few years
EG imagine we had 2mb in 2011.. meaning the 2015-2017 debate didnt happen
looking at mempool now average 3mb all time.
this year we would have been discussing 4mb
now imagine we had a 8mb consensus rule from 2011.. but then had a second rule where nodes suggest a preference below that of
0.50 2011-2013
0.75 2013-2015
1.00 2015-2016
2.00 2016-2017
3.00 2017-2018
4.00 2018-2019
5.00 2019-2020
where it does not break consensus or split the chain, just like moving from 0.75 to 0.999 did a couple years ago. but allows nodes to be in a little more control as a bit of risk management to stop pools jumping straight to 8mb instantly
|
|
|
|
It's one method used by Bitcoin to find out the IP of other nodes. There is a risk that the DNS seeds could co-operate together and attempt sybil you off the network by only giving you IP's controlled by them, but it is only one method used and it's only used during the initial set up of a node. The IP's are also sent over DNS, which gets cached by various DNS servers, making it nearly impossible to do that. After your node gets an initial list of node IPs your node keeps a DB of IP's and nodes share IP's between each other. The risk of an attack this way is absolutely tiny that its not even worth mentioning.
look at what vrsions 0.13+ are doing when "first set up" hint gmaxwells buzzword: upstream tier hint luke Jrs buzzword: bridge node |
|
|
|
The problem is, we do not want mass adoption linked to third party services. If people can only use Bitcoin through the use of 3rd party services, then we failed. Yes, Xapo has it's benefits with FREE off-chain transaction and also immediate transaction confirmations.. but it is a centralized service. These centralized services is a risk, because it can become a second MtGox when it gets compromised. The more people using these services weakens the security offered by Bitcoin.  i dont mean literally xapo. i just used them as an example('for instance') as a way of taking the strain off the retailers pre-selling customers into the idea of bitcoin in the retail stores. we already know it is not a 10 second sales pitch to explain bitcoin. nor is it a 10 second way to buy bitcoin and then use it. so imagine this you want to buy a shirt or some groceries. which do find most irritating as a customer when retailers do these things (non bitcoin related) "before we take your money can we talk to you for 10 minutes about the 20 minutes it takes to put your funds into our store credit card that offers to 10% cashback" or "here sir is your receipt and at the bottom is a link to a website where you can see your loyalty point bonus now think of it this way. instead of xapo.. its an LN channel |
|
|
|
Why oh why i never see Franky1 in the Development & Technical Discussion section if you know so much about this topic? You're just a fake copy/paste noob try to troll people who doesn't know much about it.
Gmaxx is active there so you can have youre debat with him...Oh no you aint got the balls for it right? It's much easier to troll!
Paid shill Franky1!
Gmax moderates that along with achow. i have had many discussions about technical flaws which funnily enough months later they end up patching or doing work arounds to cover up but not admit to.. but they happily delete my posts i guess you missed the whole blockstream censors all negatives about them hint: I think it's about time that we, as a community, take proper action against such behavior. A permaban is long overdue!
funny part is darkbot and others do not reply in connection to the content. but just poke the bear with "shill" replies to divert the discussion away from the content |
|
|
|
I know my regions of China and I know exactly what Johan does it's obvious, he turns entire villages into employees and makes them dependent on him
lol now your exaggerating it only needs maybe 5 people to run and maintain a mining farm. 2 during day 2 during night and a fifth person to cover any sickness or breaks. .. not "entire villages". also i hav travelled to many countries and have seen how media try to make anything not western to seem like cave dwellers EG photo's of africa of mud huts EG photos of mongolia as temples and monks EG photos of thailand as clear water oceans with funny shaped inhabitable land masses poking out the water. yet the reality is different. mongolia for instance is very industrialised and has for the last few decades been developed very quickly, i hope you can see passed the idea of monasteries and monks and poor people in rice fields. P.S i dont even donate to oxfam because i have seen how they waste funds and how the reality of africa works , China has 91 ethnic minorities and most of them are extremely poor, all he needs to do is find the villages that are close enough to cities and can either extended internet and build warehouses or bring them to cities.
This means he's going to stick to most northern China just due to climate but also due to the tier ranking cities there are a lot more tier 3 cities up north if I remember correctly. (Though I think it's Guiyang that is the poorest and that's down south) This means Jihan can get entire communities dependent on him for cheap,
the amount of internet traffic is very low for asic farms. infact the only data needed to be transmitted in is literally a couple hashes.. and a difficulty requirement. and then ~10 later a solved hash. everything else is just done locally. not over the internet remember ASICS have no hard drives and dont need to see tx/block data. all they need is the hash. which can be handed to them remotely from stratums around the world. and then everything else is then local. It's not even comparable and silly to not be conserned, the only nations that could shift it would be more Asian countries like India but the temperature and converting their factories to more technology industry would cost more.
again you have not looked deep enough. iceland, north canada, georgia etc. oh and a couple other places in eastern europe/slavic regions as for you and others screaming that im a shill or only defending X. is more narrow minded i simply look at the big picture. and i am not pigeon holed into blindly supporting anyone. i have no need to kiss anyone asses. in my eyes dvs are temporary. so no one should rely and depend on any particular dev. the sooner the software can support itself dynamically via user settings and then finding network consensus without dev spoon feeding. the better one minute im being called things for supporting A, then B, then C , then D... much simpler explanation is that i simply dont support z arguing endlessly "this guy doesnt support Z and has been seen to not care about A means he is shil for A" "this guy doesnt support Z and has been seen to not care about B means he is shil for B" "this guy doesnt support Z and has been seen to not care about C means he is shil for C" is silly. maybe because i see A, B, C as temporary drama which has been exaggerated by Z into trying to make A,B,C look bad just to pressure Z into being blindly followed. where by attacking A,B,C,D,E is simply doing the opposite of holding a open diverse decentralised peer network. |
|
|
|
this is an old debate that happened ages ago and the summary ended up something like 1. for an person to go through the process of signing up and doing the AML/KYC stuff then exchange fiat for bitcoin (some exchanges have a variable 'spot' price of 2-5%) meaning most people could consider themselves at a loss before they even started. and thus the merchant 'discount' needs to be far higher that 2-5% just to counter that  2. getting people to sign up to bitcoin services to buy bitcoin and then move bitcoin to spend bitcoin is a huge burden for the customer and time delay for the merchant where the customer at times may give up even purchasing something because of all the processing required. 3. people see bitcoin something that requires merchants to discount. many many people introduced this way got angry because they were expecting all merchants that accept bitcoin to suddenly offer X% off all the time. (not good business for merchants and or customer service)
since then what could be envisioned as a more viable entry into bitcoin is not a discount day, but a loyalty 'points' bonus. saved up in bitcoins for fiat spenders to then use as they please later, or just save for retirement, as their way in to bitcoin. eg in the background: and that loyalty point system (which is the advert for bitcoin). by the merchant signing people up to xapo for instance (pre register x empty xapo accounts) to move small amounts of bitcoin to a account. .. no long sales pitch in the retail store to explain what bitcoin is. just a "get 1% loyalty points" when you spend normally.. and all a merchant needs to do is say 'here you go, here is your temporary password and username for xapo(for instance), your loyalty points should appear in the next 48 hours.' and thats it..... and then let xapo (for instance of my example) do the explaining of bitcoin AFTER the customer purchase, thus not hindering merchant trade or interrupting customers desire to buy something they would have bought anyway. |
|
|
|
No one in their right mind would be on Bitcointalk that many hours a day, saying the same shit over and over again without it being a job.
what you dont realise is that i and many others dont need to be paid. i hold bitcoin from the earlier times. i am not expressing my opinion to earn an income. i am doing it because i care about my hoard and future. i dont even look at the bitcoin price because even that is just temporary drama to me. i care about the long term viability of the bitcoin network as a diverse decentralised peer network, not a cludgy cesspit with a blockstream dominant tier network my rationale about antbleed is that their firmware check server doesnt respond, and for months has not been used for anything malicious. and most pools are behind firewalls anyway. if pools were to become malicious all they would be doing is hurting themselves. directly and indirectly secondly my rationale is that for months nothing has happened but now that segwit supporters are getting very desperate to find excuses to kill off pools to fake a 95% activationof the cludgy tier network, by purely rejecting blocks based on version number.. is a bigger threat because that is more likely to happen than all the if's and maybe's of antpool shooting themselves in their own foot using antbleed thirdly i will emphasis the last point. shouting out a sudden 'pools are bad because they 'could' shutdown some pools, so segwit/uasf 'must' shut down some pools is hypocrisy in its finest. thats like saying there could be a nuclear war, so america must start a nuclear war. come on think logically about the mindset of some people "omg X could kill 30% so we must kill 70%" rathre than actually listening to the 70% its even funny that things have got so desparate that some are saying that 70% are all one man.. (illogical facepalm) lastly. if segwit supporters want to go down the kill 70% route(which is not 1 person by th way).. this can only be done via a node consensus. then atleast use that opportunity to actually recode segwit as a 1 merkle version where there is just a single block parameter of 4mb that both native and segwit can sit in and include other features the community want and can unite everyone not simply push out another version that has one small temporary purpose just to allow in something else that only has temporal positive features "at best" but a bigger negative, more long term issues it can and will cause. now try to reply about my context above without just screaming any thing that amounts to 'typical shill response' or 'wrong because cant find reason but your a shill' because thats just a whistle in the wind response. P.S dont reply about me presuming your just going to scream something about shilling like your playing the victim card. again whistles in the wind.
reply about the context of the black writing not this grey writing |
|
|
|
I think the argument is finished. It is now clear that Blockstream won't be able to take over the blockchain to run their proprietary (patented) bullshit and pay back their $70 million to AXA.
I am confused, isn't Asicboost the patented bullshit? Is Blockstream supporting BU? I thought it was the other way round? I need some sleep.  google: blockstream defensive patent strategy Our Patent Pledge assures developers and users of our technology that we will not sue them for patent infringement, provided they comply with the terms and conditions of our pledge, |
|
|
|
No. Segwit == big blocks. The top size that can be generated by Segwit is already 2x of the conservative approach. Bundling Segwit together with a conservative block size increase == possibility of 4x the size of a conservative increase.
2x?? only if EVERYONE moves funds to segwit keypairs.. pretty much the same empty promise of 7tx/s only if everyone does lean tx's in 2009-2016 guess what we are only at ~3.5 so even with segwit. and then needing everyone to use segwit keys.. only then the network MAY SEE 7tx/s so its still as empty as the 2009-2016 expectation of 7tx/s WAKE UP the 1mb base 4mb weight 2merkle segwit does not promise or guarantee 7tx/s at all.. plus its not a "it will happen at activation". there are other factors at play. however a 4mb single block 1merkle segwit where both segwit tx's and native tx's all fit inside the 4mb block as a single peer network without the tier network* of (gmax upstream filter nodes)(lukejr bridge nodes) would allow more tx/s without people needing to move funds to new key pairs for hopes and dreams to come true *https://btcmanager.com/why-segwit-builds-a-network-within-a-network/ *https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg *https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1 If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.
Filtering by an upgraded node
In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). |
|
|
|
You've cried racism and brought Fox News into it. LOL what a rabid snowflake. Just for entertain,net give us a reliable "news" source. Try getting some pussy and leave the basement. It will help your insanity.
funny part is im writing this on a tablet in a hotel looking over a beach. sometimes i write on a plane. sometime in a taxi. just about everywhere apart from a basement but if you look at my post history, i waffle details and things that get people thinking. if you want to do a tally of how many times feindcoin uses the word shill vs how many times i only respond about race or news preference before today. you will see who shouts out the empty replies more. but have a nice day |
|
|
|
Are you having some kind of meltdown dude, I can't understand what your trying to say?
I didn't say anything about PoW or UASF or mining bad asic good wtf?
not in this topic, but you seem to be over the last few months in the same band camp of kill off or destroy anything thats not supporting segwit |
|
|
|
What im trying to understand is, how did it take so long for somebody to find out about this? I mean I understand most devs have better things to do, but we are talking about the biggest miner provider, so if I was a bitcoin developer I would be taking great attention to every single pull request on the bitmain github because these guys are always going to try to be a step ahead and try to have a hidden ace of spades that could checkmate the entire network. If this wasn't found in time, they could have made a lot of damage.
If Jihan felt cornered and about to be defeated, im sure he would go down while trying to kill the entire thing, and this was a way to do it. Remember to always think the worst.
its because gmax found a flaw in going soft last month. so now wants to double down on blaming pools for why segwit didnt activate at christmas. and his army of followers went out looking for all excuses possible to make pools seem bad. a way to sway users into thinking that UASF should be activated to kill off pools. but your right. if it wasn't for the desperation to get segwit activated.. people would not have cared or looked or tried to dramatise these things |
|
|
|
Looks like your shouting racism to avoid discussion, if you think the fact that Bitmain is Chinese isn't relevant you're crazy.
what if i told you most of the hardware was in places like mongolia.. thats like saying something canadian is american...'cos its north america' what if i told you mining hardware is also in other places like georgia iceland etc what if i told you jihan is just one person that cannot be at multiple farms at once. what if i told you that jihan doesnt control 70% of hardware. i shouted the racism card once.. yet everyone else shouted shill or insult in many post.. but i can yawn off all the people that can only reply "wrong coz ur a shill" without actually addressing the context with anything meaningful |
|
|
|
It wouldn't matter if bitmain only produced 40% of the miners for Bitcoin, that's still a lot of miners being produced by 1 company and if said company is shady that's a problem.
If bitmain is blocking changes to Bitcoin to protect some secret advantage, that's a problem for ALL of us.
If bitmain has the ability to remotely kill their miners and their miners make up a significant amount of total miners in use, that's a problem for ALL of us.
It is undisputed that they have a lot of influence in the Bitcoin world.
Does it matter if bitmain is shady? The answer should be yes. It should matter a lot, at least to those who wish to see bitcoin prosper.
BTW, bitmain doesn't dispute the 70% producer of miners, why are you trying to?
funny part is now your dfending keeping PoW running because killing off 'if 40%' to If 70% would be bad... hmmmmm so i should quote you above everytime you mention UASF good or time to change PoW i do find it funny that one minute mining is bad then asic mining is good when overall its just social drama to distract the real debate of the code of the bitcoin network that wants to change the network to a cesspit of a tier network |
|
|
|
I now assume you are a shill, after all, calling critics racist is exactly what a shill would do to push his agenda. Thank you for the clarification.  call me what you like. but now you have go all the insults off your chest go research and try seeing the big picture from the point of view of the bitcoin network. dont wear the blockstream defence cap. wear the critical thinking cap. dont read the reddit scripts. read the code and documentation again not with the utopian dreamer blockstream defence cap look at the big picture, the long term picture. and be truly critical. maybe even worth you repeating to yourself "what if hearne coded this" just to keep your critical mind on track i will just leave you with this thought. knowing that changing PoW requires a network consnsus upgrade to achieve it instead of doubling down on threats just to push segwit as is but done hard.. the blockstream team and fanboys should think of plan B
if they are going to pull a pin... actually recode segwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features.
dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network
|
|
|
|
Franky on ASICBOOST exposure: All is good. Ignore temporary drama. Franky on AntBleed exposure: All is good. Ignore temporary drama. Franky when someone mentions SegWit: "DOOMSDAY. TEMPORARY GESTURE. BLOCKSTREAM. BOMBS."  lol lauda you make me laugh segwit end user features that core promise and promote are the empty promise temporary gesture. but the tier network and control is less than temporary. PS read the core code and documentation about biasedly rejecting blocks and disconnecting from nodes purely out of version bias, not out of rule validity. its really time you took some time to read less of reddit and more of the actual details |
|
|
|
You'd think that if bitmain were to cease development on minerlink, they would remove all related code, or even announce that they are working on a fix.
Great to see there are people looking out for these exploits, but I think bitmain really screwed up here.
has anyone looked at bitcoin cores DNS seed managed by mainly blockstreamers vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bitcoin.sipa.be", "seed.bitcoin.sipa.be", true)); // Pieter Wuille, only supports x1, x5, x9, and xd vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("bluematt.me", "dnsseed.bluematt.me", true)); // Matt Corallo, only supports x9 vSeeds.push_back(CDNSSeedData("dashjr.org", "dnsseed.bitcoin.dashjr.org")); // Luke Dashjr |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
