I've read conflicting reports as to whether or not there is a deeper affiliation between the USDT devs and Bitfinex management. I saw some posts claiming there was a parent company that owned both -- anyone know if this was definitively debunked?
https://tether.to/legal/1.1.2 “Associates” means Tether Limited, Tether Holdings Limited, BFXNA Inc., iFinex Inc., and each and every one of their respective shareholders, subsidiaries, employees, contractors, agents, directors, officers, partners, affiliates, insurers, and attorneys; https://www.linkedin.com/in/reevecollinsAlways on the cutting edge of technology, Collins has been a pioneer in the Bitcoin/Blockchain space and was co-founder and CEO of Tether. His efforts revolutionized the way currency is transacted by creating the world’s first fiat currency platform on the Bitcoin blockchain. In just over one year from inception, Tether was acquired by Bitfinex the world's largest bitcoin exchange. https://themerkle.com/wells-fargo-blocks-180m-in-funds-belonging-to-ifinex-and-tether-customers/ifinex taking banks to court lol sorry but just because ifinex uses "usdT" does not make them absolved from fiat regulations. any virtual currency that is easily transferable (paypal dollar to fiat dollar.. tether dollar to fiat dollar) where its pegged 1:1.. the 'virtual currency' is treated as if it is fiat. so although bitfinex uses bitcoin.. its still ALSO playing with something thats deemed as fiat (tether pegged 1:1 for dollar.. much like paypal MySQL balance of paypal dollar is not real dollar, but resembles and easily translatable visually representing fiat) |
|
|
|
the first thing that came to my mind after reading this was a question! "Why now". why is it that these days, all these news about mining, miners' equipment, backdoor, boost, etc are coming out. ASICs weren't created yesterday!
its because segwit as a softfork has last month been found to hit a hurdle, so now people are hurrying to find any reason to push mining aside to drag segwit in without having to change segwit as a soft fork.(even though segwit is not even active and can easily be redone as a proper community uniting version that includes other features the community desire.. rather than the tier network cesspit version) funny part is that segwit is using its own backdoor (going soft) to bypass node consensus and its admitted that they want to make it easier to implement changes even easier in the future. (code backdoors that outsiders can exploit to add in their own features by 'going soft') EG imagine if hearne coded segwit as a soft fork(line for line the same) and said how he wants to add more ways to add new things in without node consensus, would you remain positive about it? EG imagine if hearne tried to blame pools for holding things back(after giving only pools the vote) and wanted to find ways to ban/orphan blocks/pools based on brand bias.. not tx/block validity |
|
|
|
|
if its an fiat<->btc exchange then expect AML/KYC
if its just an altcoin<->btc exchange that has no mention of fiat use/trading or accepting fiat in any form then it wont be hit by fiat regulations.
if you find a fiat accepting exchange thats not got any AML/KYC then be more concerned, because its flaunting fiat laws which can leave it to have bad things happening later. so dont hold/leave funds in those exchanges for long
|
|
|
|
I wasn't specifically calling you out or Jonald but more or less the many btcu shills while quoting the other reply, and the Chinese thing is because Jihan is Chinese and he is willing to throw money around to get his way.
I don't want a pow change I would like there to definitely be more asic producers and them come from all around the world. The issue is the production is just going to be cheaper in China due to the many factories and cheap labor, the other issue is Jihan buying out his competition there. I don't mine Bitcoin directly anymore because it's just past me with noise and power consumption for a home miner, but I do worry about the network. Jihan seems like a bad player in the Bitcoin world and it seems like he is starting to sabre rattle to protect his interest and this could just be a new weapon in his arsenal especially with all future miners.
Along with the fix we know large mines won't take down their miners and flash them, too much work for a large mine until an attack happens.
you may realise other countries are in the manufacturing game and its not (current 67% nay/abstainers) of asics are bitmain or chinese. thats the reddit hysteria of blaming the segwit nays'/abstaining on one person(illogical facepalm). many people who are independent like myself who just think critically rather than ass kissery see some flaws in segwits 2 merkle approach. even gmax sees now that 2merkle approach has hit issues last month looking deeper at the matter i can see a few countries with low labour, low facility costs and low electric costs. and some manufacturers are already using them. but it does not matter about blaming china(as a country).. what people should be doing is defending a decentralised diverse peer network not just pointing fingers to find excuses of why bitcoin should centralise to one one brand by pretending its getting attacked by another brand it might be worth you taking a step back from the reddit hysteria of blaming the (current 67% nay/abstainers) on jihan because those numbers dont rationally add up, the community is wider than that |
|
|
|
I don't see BTU shills here. Appears not only Bitmain has an Antbleed and could shutdown antminers, but they also have a Shillbleed and can disable/anable their shills on demand.  Man, I was thinking the same thing, where's franky and jonald? They are still translating the excuse from Chinese into English but can't figure out how to spin "BTCU or we kill your miners" in a positive light. mention my name and i appear. i was going to keep myself quiet because this indeed is a exploit risk unlike asicboost which is a efficiency anyway achow and frodocooper the antbleed website has explained the issue and the fix but as you all aware i do like to waffle my opinion when i can. which i was going to hold back on due to this topic originally being an actual risk that needs highlighting without derailing the topic. but my name was mentioned. seeing as the OP and first couple posts of topic has the fix aswell as an explaination and people have already started derailing the topic with "kill asics now" "PoW change" "sitting on landmines" we might aswell consider all posts just "post bumps" to keep the topic on front page so people tomorrow and so on know of the issue. anyway if you want to change PoW then that involves a proper network consensus upgrade, which is a great opportunity to then do things properly like a 1merkle segwit which would give a 4mb baseblock and not need the 1mb base 4mb weight tier network cesspit creating crap. (id prefer the 4mb block to be dynamic to not rely on any dev team to spoon feed limits in future) aswell as a opportunity to really handle quadratics by keeping maxtxsigops down, eg: 4k or below so that the native key users dont gain more spammer causing headache (0.14: maxtxsigops 16k) thus getting the community everything everyone wants. where native key users get 4mb block and segwit key users get to use segwit where everyone on the same level playing field. yep no more core tier network concern. no more band camp debate. but finally a community peer network not filled with half gestures and empty promises P.S you can try pigeon holing me into "chinese" or "btcu" all you want. my opinion is about open diverse decentralised single peer network of many implementations. which has not changed in years if the only thing you can do is try turning this topic into a "hate the chinese"(as a country) or point fingers at anything not core. then thats your bias. but if you just want to waste a oppertunity of a proper ful network consensus upgrade just to kill asics. just realise that within a couple months the utopian dream asic killers think they will get of solo mining from their basement again wont last long because someone somewhere will find efficiency methods of any new system and within 6 months the its back to a new form of pool/syndicate/sybil mining groups |
|
|
|
Well you are assuming there will be a network split...
You assume there won't? if BU, XT, classic wanted to split off without majority they woulda done it by now. they would have even done it when gmax begged them What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.
The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
and when all the REKT campaigns begged them to F**K off but no BU, XT, classic and the rest are just plodding along waiting for natural consensus. no threats, no PoW bombs. no blackmails.. no deadlines. just free open choice. |
|
|
|
You could end up with a network with a multitude of different excessive block and acceptance depth settings. That sounds like a complete clusterfuck to me.
or pools see it can be a cluster fuck and dont go passed a limit unless majority of preference says its not going to be a clusterfuck A simple block acceptance size with an acceptance depth of '1' achieves that without the unnecessary complexity. the blocks are "accepted" EG say a block A 0.251 received and also block B 0.249 (both accepted because they are both under 1mb consensus) both sit there accepted.. but not set in stone. yes some nodes are happy to accept blocks upto 0.5 some are happy with 0.25 and some are happy with 0.25 only after 6 confirms. but all are holding both blocks until conditions are met. the acceptable depth is the deterrent.. for pools it adds a bit of risk to the pools to not push forward too quick, because nodes may reject them if other pools are following the node 'preference' majority pools wont want to risk going to 0.26 unless high majority say its ok. because their is a risk their 0.26 block may get rejected if the majority dont want anything above 0.25 thus if the other pools were building on block B.. A will drop off once B gets its 5th confirm however lets say the 'majority threshold was 75% if there was 75% acceptance of 0.3 where by looking further at nodes its seen 80% acceptance of 0.25 pools would work out the risks of going to 0.3. by looking at the acceptable depth of the group below 0.3mb. if everyone had only 1 AD then pools will say yep very small chance of orphan risk going to 0.3.. but if there was AD12.. pools may say, hmm maybe best to stick with 0.25mb and re-assess later as there is a chance that if i make a 0.26mb block other pools may not. due to such a high AD (yes im using low numbers of blocksize so people can imagine dynamics in a scenario of 1mb consensus but where nodes had dynamic 'preference' below that since 2009) thus nodes having more control over what pools move to. (please dont just take the reddit doomsday scenario rhetoric as gospel. do proper independent research) remember all these blocks are still under 1mb. so its still going to be just 1 chain. in the end. its just a way to deter pools from jumping the gun rushing to 1mb 2009-2017 by knowing some nodes prefer only 0.x.. and pools become more obliged to follow node preference because their competitors pools may only build ontop of node preference. |
|
|
|
You could end up with a network with a multitude of different excessive block and acceptance depth settings. That sounds like a complete clusterfuck to me.
or pools see it can be a cluster fuck and dont go passed a limit unless majority of preference says its not going to be a clusterfuck |
|
|
|
whats wrong with paying $60 fee.. thats only 8 hours minimum wage labour in UK/america??
now you may emotionally understand third world countries where for the last year you and others have said 40c (8hour labour) is ok
False comparison. get your mind out of first world only mindset 8 hours labour for millions of people you deem ok.. you have said it many times.. "40c is cheap" ... right up until you start seeing that fee's of 8 hours .. are in prices of first world countries '8 hours' atleast wake up to the point.. you have been dribbling for a year now that 8 hours labour is ok.. so whats wrong with you paying $60 $60 is only 8 hours labour. you have been telling the third world and many unbanked countries that 8 hours labour is fine/cheap for a year |
|
|
|
Sorry franky1, but I think under BU's acceptance depth mechanism, every time some miners want to up the limit there becomes a temporary chain split with orphan drama as the miners fight out whether the block size can be upped or not. An acceptance depth of '1' simplifies things a lot.
its not a chain split. both blocks are stored and accepted. just not treated as set in stone until which ever one gets the 6th confirm (5 blocks ontop) its actually avoiding chain splits happening so easily because both block A at 0.26 and block B 0.249 sit in the node. however if block B gets built on for next 5 blocks then block A is rejcted. its not about altcoin creation.. just about orphan drama.. which if you check the stats is happening all the time anyway. orphan mechanism is a good thing. its the shield that throws out what the network as a whole doesnt agree with. it makes pools think before they act. and to keep pools inline with what the network find acceptable. |
|
|
|
BU's acceptance depth approach, I consider it to be a terrible approach to bigger blocks.
Usually 6 confirms is considered as statistically set in stone. Not with BU, all of a sudden a bigger block might fall through the gate causing a chain reorganisation and potentially the transaction might not have any confirmations at all due to the mining policy on the new longer chain.
It's overcomplicated approach introduces new economic risks, even if its bugs are fixed.
I am all for bigger blocks. However you can call BU Bitcoin Unavailable, Bitcoin Uncredible, Bitcoin Unneeded or the Bitcoin Undead for all I care.
imagine this though.. ALL nodes had a 1mb block consensus rule but below that they had lets say a preference of .. well lets say the majority was viewed as preferring 0.25 in 2011 and where they would accept 0.25+ only after 6 confirms it does not break the consensus rules. but does publicly show pools that the majority of node prefer only 0.25mb blocks. pools wont want to go passed 0.25 because the majority of nodes wont like it. (the nodes would accept the blocks, but wont treat them as set in stone unless 5 other blocks are ontop) the pools would weigh upt the pro's and cons of going passed 0.25 much more wisely, rather than just doing it EG pool A may want to make a block 0.26mb but pool B,C,D,E,F,G are building blocks that are only 0.249 so theres a chance pool A's block may get orphaned. but all nodes would still be all on one chain due to all blocks being under 1mb.. the dynamics is just about orphan risk not chain splitting(altcoin creating) now say its 2012 and nodes moved their preference of to a majority of 0.5mb.. EG pool B,C,D,E,F,G that were listening to community demand will happily make blocks over 0.25mb meaning so can pool A without any orphan risk as you can see this is not about causing chain splits because all blocks under 1mb are acceptable. all its doing is keeping pools under control |
|
|
|
well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more.
EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms.
EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day.
the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees
that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price
So if I'm a genuine user who uses Bitcoin a lot per day, I will be classified as a spammer and will have to pay the price? Awesome idea. you would use LN to pay small amounts randomly multiple times a day.. or you would decide that your sig campaign management should adapt in daily batches to cut costs onchain instead of many times a day. oh here is the kicker.. that should really wake you up to the fee debate of the last year.. whats wrong with paying $60 fee.. thats only 8 hours minimum wage labour in UK/america?? spoiler [ now you may emotionally understand third world countries where for the last year you and others have said 40c (8hour labour) is ok] highlight text inside brackets to reveal With this node crash BU supporters should have woken up
they should now realize that they shouldn't their million to some idiot programmers who produces bad software.
They should have trust their money to more experience coders and has maintaining the welfare of bitcoin for a long time.
It takes a normal and rational person who is not delusional (and obviously not paid) to realize that they're wrong. It takes a big person to admit being wrong and changing your opinion (this happens with pretty much every belief, e.g. vaccines == autism; flat Earth). BTU is pretty much identical to those. oh lauda you need to read your own words then. thats why MANY implementations of diversity offsets the "too big to fail" mentality. your stuck in the 'its us or them' corporate takeover mindset.. wake up and think many diverse people as a community all with their own brand preference which unite on certain rules , that way EG if your a mcdonalds guy, someone else was a KFC guy.. it wont matter if mcdonalds or KFC stopped serving.. peopl wouldnt starve because theres loads of restuarants of different brands available in the same town(network) that agree to the fundemental rules of feeding people i know you wanna scream blue murder that mcdonalds should be the only fast food restaurant because they also serve chicken based meals. but your not thinking beyond the burger/chicken debate |
|
|
|
We need to make the network ready for all those hundreds of millions of potential users otherwise it will cripple when we have an influx of new people. To prevent is better than to cure.
On the other hand we need to focus on the path in front of us rather than worry about what's 30 miles ahead. Raising the 1mb limit TODAY is more important than being ready for hundreds of millions of users aren't we trying to increase it in the best way to allow all those millionf of user in the future to use bitcoin without paying expensive fee, isn't that the point of this mess that is raising with the block limit? the only question now is, is the current block limit hindering a greater adoption than what we have right now? if we had a bigger block already, maybe we could have many more users that use bitcoin, which would bring a much better adoption but maybe not because people that use bitcoin don't even know what the block limit is, and for most of them paying $1 in fee would also look normal $1 fee should never be "normal" it cuts out third world utility. ( v general note to everyone 'you' . not the people in the quotes above 'you' v ) if you think third world will just use LN, you would be wrong because it requires $1 to deposit into a multisig (open LN channel) onchain thats like real world end user paying 20 hours labour to 'open an account'.. if you compared it to a bank the only reason the devs want people to think $1 is normal is to charge 1cent -10cents per LN so that they can still say "but its cheaper than onchain by 10x-100x, which is commercial greed mindset. much like they are ALREADY saying "but its cheaper than western union" when devs remove things that control fee's with code.. and instead devs just shout "just pay more" they are no longer thinking as coders, but as commercial business men. which is wrong on so many levels
and if you think random "users" will get a share of them 1c-10c LN channel hop fee's forget it... and only remember who controls the DNS routing gets to decide which path the routes are laid out. for users. infact i can see rusty russel and other LN teams actually 'renting' DNS listings as another money earner. EG a 'paid for' directory stop thinking with a western world brain or a fox news brain and try scenarios based on the real world oh and dont try looking for the most expensive transfer method to then say "but bitcoin is cheaper than..." bitcoin should not be like other banking services. bitcoin is meant to beat banking services by having no barrier of entry many countries can transfer for far far far cheaper than western union. as for the "millions/billions by midnight" or the "gigabyte blocks by midnight". seriously ground yourself to the realities of today |
|
|
|
|
to clear up this topic
unless FIAT is handled then its not part of FIAT regulations.
so LN wont need licences. but... here is the rub
if some organisation or dev made an altcoin that was 1:1 pegged for fiat, then that alt is under fiat regulations as the e-money/virtual currency fiat regulations. if used in swaps within LN.. which would then lead to any LN hub handling/accepting such obvious FIAT coin needing regulations
because most countries regulations are about e-money/virtual currency fiat concerns the easy translatable/auditable (pegged/replaces/represents) real bank fiat money
|
|
|
|
I don't like the bitcoin unlimited idea at all. I really hope it becomes segwit for now. If no agreement can by made then do nothing for a while. Like 2018.
or core tries something else thats actually adding and doing things the whole community can unite around, before wasting another year on half baked segwit |
|
|
|
but wait.. wasnt the reddit propaganda that the blocks opposing segwit meant to be all be jihan... 67% (12+ pools) - im laughing at that part that jihan owns 12 pools(67%).. if bu activates now controversially(wont happen, so relax) or segwit pulls the UASF bomb(could happen, they have made many threats).. then bu, classic, xt and other diverse decentralised nodes would have 12+ pools and 67% of average blocks - im still laughing how people still think the core opposition is just ver and jihan. thats way beyond fox news sheeple mindset of repeating what they see... thats alex jones sheeple mindset of repeating what they see. but in both cases.. all they see is one enemy that needs to be bombed. rather than think naturally about who poked the bear first |
|
|
|
"biggest node crash in history" um you forget the core 2013 DB event hell because so many blockstreamist babies cry "why do i mention cores actual biggest boo boo of thousands of nodes" (for obvious reason) but anyway lets look at more recent numbers.. by actually counting the nodes drops in the image sources that icebreaker used  so bu dropped 420 .. but wait.. core crashed 560 nodes on the 17th... hmmmm |
|
|
|
I suggest locking BU devs and Core devs into a bunker and not let them out until a satisfactory compromise has been created  that was tried late 2015, and early 2016.. but blockstream(core) wanted to be the one holding the whip and wanted everyone else to wear a gimp mask |
|
|
|
and spammer can be dealt with by adding a new priority fee forumale that hurts spammers and rewards those that dont spam
Who are you to decide what is or what isn't spam based on some "formula"? well if people want to fill every block by spending 144 times a day and they are not doing lean tx's then they should pay more. EG not just a pay per byte, but a pay per lack of many confirms. EG you pay 144 times more if you want to spend every block, compared to someone who only spends once a day. the benefit is then if its not spam but a service that needs to send every block. they then move over to LN and save lots of fees that way users that only spend once a day are not paying the price here is one example - not perfect. but think about it imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation) where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes) so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat. lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does) and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx  as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age. this way those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01). if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)note this is not perfect. but think about it |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
