oh this pointless.
lets just fix TX malleability and incress blocks to 2 MB
What is the harm of malleability? The only time when users would possibly be affected is when an unconfirmed output is spent in a subsequent transaction. Almost all (if not all) Bitcoin related business that have transaction volumes that can reasonably be described as substantial are able to not get tricked by malleability. malleability Is an annoyance at worst IMO. also in LN because its a multisig (dual signing) if one person is malicious to sign his half malleated. the counterparty will spot it. and not sign. if not spotting it.. and the malicious person then wanted to broadcast a 2nd tx within minutes.. guess what he needs the counter parties signature.. which the counter party would definitely refuse.. so.. only 1 tx gets in and a second tx cant even be created. LN itself by being multisig solves the malleation problem. what is not being told to people is the real reason to want to mess with all this segretated witness. as it has nothing to do with the empty promises of scale, malleation/bloat (which segwit wont fix network wide) |
|
|
|
whens blockstreams election.. is been 3 years+ and no election
whens cores election.. is been 4 years+ and no election
BU just (tongue in cheek) put in an interim president for their implimentation (not the entire network) and set an election for 2 months later. which went ahead.
You have no claim to satoshi's hierarchy by the implementation of your own dictatorship. You admit a dictatorship, that chose it's own members to hold up its own rules. It will never work, It can never work. You are the laughing stocks of the future of humanity. BU is just one of many implementations. difference is president BU wants to have an open single level playingfield network of many brands with their own presidents. all working on the same thing. president blockstream wants to own the field and maintain it and decide who plays on his field. limiting what they can do on his field |
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.  I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go. usually i try to keep things laymens. non technical version imagine it like a plane that originally only allows 2500 seats. and people are waiting at the airport to buy their seat issues. 1 guy can buy a party ticket to buy up all the seats for only 5 obese people to sit in.. leaving 2495 passengers angry and frustrated solutions a. allow plans to grow in seating capacity, but limit the party ticket. EG a 5,000 seat plane has a party ticket to allow 20people to reserve the whole plane instead of 5 (or go one step further make it so party ticket people need 40+ to fill the plane instead of 5) b. make the cargo-hold area into new seating and offer a discount for adults if the let their kids sit in the cargo hold c. invent a teleporter on teleport island to avoid passengers needing the plane each month. but once a month they need to travel by plane to or from teleport island just to be able to use the teleporter inbetween times. a=dynamics b=segwit c=LN issues b. though there are 2500seats that could possibly allow more first class empty seats for more people because some adults volunteer to put their kids into cargo freeing up the main seats. the plane operator has done nothing to stop the party ticket guy from buying up all the seats for only 5 people c. although some people may love teleport island. some people may only need the plane once a month so why buy a return ticket via teleport island to get to destination. rather than just a single ticket to destination. also plane operator hasnt stopped the partyticket reserving the plane for just 5 people. thats the situation we are at...
now to your question 1. are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly. answer: LN (teleport island) does have a niche for gamblers that want to get to Lasvegas many times a day instantly in their coffee break. but LN is not for everyone. and forcing people into LN/teleport island especially without fixing bloat/partyticket, isnt solving the issue of queues at the airport. answer: also if it starts costing too much just to get to teleport island by plane. people will hate travlling distances and never use the airport to even then use the teleport island.(AKA never use bitcoin to never use LN) 2. planes with (ur 32mb scenario) 80000 seats too big to be reliable around the sky and can crash with all the weight. answer: no one is building plane to be that big overnight. it would be natural growth over time that move when safety allowances are met. nodes wont flag preference for such big planes unless they could cope. (think slow progressive growth over time. not 32mb by midnight) answer: if the plane allowed a party ticket of 5 extremely obese guys fill the plane then the unbalance weight could cause more damage. so restrictions of bloat to allow say only parties of 2 onboard (40,000 tickets) is safer and manageable. rather than 5 tickets of insane obesity. |
|
|
|
2. Sidechains. A sidechain of MimbleWimble will allow Bitocin to scale to visa levels. The entire blockchain of MimbleWimble never grows bigger than 1MB. Additionally MimbleWimble has the best privacy features of any cryptocurrency in existence.
sidechains= altcoin sidechains allows "cryptocurrenty"/blockchain tech to expand to visa.. not "bitcoin". its much like starting a bank. one bank branch says it cant cope with all its customers. so instead of expanding the bank branch with more customer counter desks they open a new bank branch with a different name down the road. where people can move funds back and forth between branches. but later hope everyone never returns to the original bank branch because the new branch is more efficient. WAKE UP to the reality of the meaning of sidechains/offchain |
|
|
|
Yeah. The difference here is that _I_ understood them. I understand them well enough... When you get to pick the starting members, and vet them, the articles HOLD UP a dictatorship, they do NOT secure the separation of power and do NOT ensure checks and balances. whens blockstreams election.. is been 3 years+ and no election whens cores election.. is been 4 years+ and no election The secure-ness of the entire proposal is all hinged on NOT starting with a clique.
BU put in an interim president for their implementation not the entire network.. and using satire/tongue in cheek to announce it and set an election for 2 months later. which went ahead. core pretend to be independent yet lock themselves up in their own corner of cabin fever monologue, dictating they are the reference CORE engine.. hypocrisy much |
|
|
|
|
i think its best people simply learn real consensus and the symbiotic relationship between
nodes
pools
services.
nodes set the rules,
pools collate data(transactions) to create blocks in a formation that can be accepted by nodes,
users/services see the tx/block details using nodes(directly or indirectly).
doing things like bypassing node consensus is a backdoor exploit, which some think is useful but is actually a open hole which can be exploited.
(plans to us this exploit to make it even easier in future to slide new things in unnoticed later(trojan possibility risks))
so nodes have the most important role. they set the acceptable rules pools need to follow and allows services and users to access and view data.
its important that nodes remain diverse, decentralised to not have a single point of weakness.
by having a dozen+ node implementation(brands) means if one had a bug it doesnt cause big issues to the entire network
(BU 2017 assert bug(negligible network drama))
by having one node implementation(brand) means if it had a bug it does cause big issues to the entire network because it affects so many.
(core v0.8 2013 Berkeley/leveldb bug(large network drama))
not only does diverse nodes help reduce bugs affecting everyone. but it also makes it less easy for corporations to change the rules without consent.
(blockstream cannot just activate segwit tomorrow because although they deny it. it does require community consensus, even if they did go soft)
pools will not produce blocks that are not acceptable to node consensus, else it would get rejected in about 3 seconds. and they just wasted their time
(dynamic block with 1.000250 bytes reject 3 seconds)
devs should have the mindset of offering a option. and letting the combined node/user/pool/services to choose it or not.
no consensus bypassing,
no mandatory activations without consensus.
no threats to kill pools or change things to less secure mechanisms
obviously if there were true bugs(network danger risk level, rather than feature level), then users would update their nodes to the implementation that has fixed the bug.
|
|
|
|
The fact that their exchange will force users to KYC verification is kinda bad news, but in the same time, this should somehow make people trust bitcoin more since the Mt.gox disaster happened.
if an exchange is going to touch fiat. then expect fiat regulations to apply. you cant escape having fiat as part of your business by thinking the bitcoin half of the business absolves the fiat side. if an exchange doesnt want fiat regulation then remove the fiat funing and just be an altcoin<>bitcoin exchange. |
|
|
|
might be a Duplicate. but atleast not censored (self-mod) by the blockstream fanboy with no C++ reading ability lets leave Lauda's self-mod topic for the core fans to live in their cabin fever, and dream up their own stories
anyway i feel discus (f2pool) has a open pool of varied opinions from a variety of miners. so they will have a variety of flags. though april fools may play into it. |
|
|
|
|
there is no "hype"
BU and other implementations have no deadlines, threats or code to mandatorily activate.
they have been plodding along for 2 years allowing free choice.
the only reason its hyped is because CORE want dominance ever since core set the deadlines and votes and threats. and core are realising that not everyone is buying into cores half baked promises.
core are scared of losing their dictatorship TIER network plans, especially if people wake up and realise diverse decentralisation of a multiple implementation PEER network is better than blockstream(core) centralised upper Tier network and a cesspit of nonfull nodes down tier.
remember segwit activation does not fix maleability. or spam or guarantee 2mb..
it all requires people moving funds weeks-months after activation to new keys.. to only disable themselves from being malicious.. not the network
|
|
|
|
|
traincarwreck
adamback blockstream president
gmaxwell blockstream CTO
whens their next election?
.......
core maintainer.. whens the next election because Wladimir J. van der Laan has been.. to use your own words. dictator for a few years now.
......
reading the articles trainwreck quoted about BU. if looking at the source and reading just one line more then trainwrecks quote contextually limited.. it shows elections happened just a few months later.
the quote about self appointing at the setup of their team being "autocratic about it. I'm defining myself judge, jury and executioner" was a tongue in cheek (comedy sarcasm satire) context
anyway there are many implementations running on bitcoin and bitcoin should stay like that, diverse and decentralised.
trying all these REKT campaigns purely to make core the dictator (reference) is totally the opposite of a divers decentralised network.
wake up and see the big picture and stop kissing just a handfull of corporate devs that move on once their job is complete.
EG matt corrallo WAS part-founder of blockstream. and inventor of Fibre. but even he has jumped ship to chaincode labs now that his sction of prepping the centralised TIER netwirk(fibre) is complete.
think about it.
if you are in your 20's and part founder of a company 'valued' at $70m why would you leave before any buy-out/ownership change.
thats like leaving a party before the cake is sliced up
|
|
|
|
|
"This page is unavailable"
blockstream will to anything to ensure the sheep remain asleep
i wonder who begged medium to censor it
|
|
|
|
|
canadian statement .. pfft
sign declaration = against decentralisation of a diverse network
abstain or fail to sign = automatically converted to be declared against decentralisation of a diverse network
(AKA fudging numbers)
out of just 25 people
16 voted. (15 economic nodes)
i wonder how many more they did actually survey, but then tweaked down to 25 names to then get over 50%(15)
and lastly.. the real funny part
by core going soft.. core is not following the canadians guidelines..
thus either the exchanges should hold themselves to their guidelines and reject core too.. or reject the guidelines making the pledge void
truly funny
i would laugh and mention about other hypocrisies but all rebuttles to my post will be just the same sleeping script readers that love the core cabin fever of centralisation and a TIER network.
but here is a hint.
if a implementation that did get true node consensus and then pool consensus. having things like
Strong 2-way replay protection
Wipe-out protection,
would then be twisted into "they are attacking by having such things in their code"
|
|
|
|
only core gave mining farm the vote and core do not care about node consensus.
if core dont get the miner vote, core will force activation anyway. thus wasting a year pretending its an election but where the end result in their eyes a sure thing and mandatory activation anyway..
bu and other dynamics rely on node consensus which pools have to follow and also have a lower preferential threshold that is only allowed to go a certain way into before pools have to back off and not push thier luck
to even activate irequires both a NODE AND POOL consensus (unlike cores pool only soft bypass exploit)
for the last 2 year many dynamic implementations have set no deadlines no threats, just running along side dozen other brands happily letting the community decide or not.
SW(segwit) will allow the developers to implement major changes in the future without needing to perform a hard fork
this is called a backdoor exploit and a risk because if it lets core implement a change without node consensus.. meaning anyone else can too.!!
emphasis exploitable
hard fork BU if activating via consensus will cause minimal distruption. but core wont let it get that far into consensus because core will cause a split to prevent bu getting popular. thus core will cause the damage for the whole network while blaming BU for just becoming popular.
If you think SW will give advantage to anyone running SW activated software they would be wrong. the activation is just to get people to resync and reset connections to a TIER network of centralism. the funny part of trying to coax 46million unspent tx's to move to new key pairs is going to cause alot of mempool spam and issues. with no guarantees on the segwit promises. due to it not actually killing off native spam methods.
oh i must add segwit have introduced new ways that spammers can mess with blocks.
But one can argue why not switch to BU and have whatever BU supporters are going to have? answer is simple: BU is one of many dynamic implementations that do not rely on devs to control bitcoin decisions. where the node has more control and users can independently change settings at runtime
If BU had only changed the block size limitation then the remote shutdown exploit which was part of core 0.12 would still be there. lucky it was fixed and a release was ready, even though some nasty people wanted to scream out to attack it before people downloaded the update.
core would be glad to accept their version but blockstream managers told the core independent devs not to independently review it but REKT it instead
Having freedom over the size of a block makes no difference to ASIC miners. after all an ASIC doesnt have a hard drive so doesnt see or care about blocksize. all an ASIC see's is a hash. so blocksizes do not make it expensive to mine. because it doesnt affect an asic chip in any way
fixed that for you |
|
|
|
If segwit activated and spammers still able to spam with old keys then every one should switch to segwit and then everyone could ban/ignore those spams
getting everyone 46million output to move to segwit keys. would in itself cause a mass 'spam event' ....think about it. secondly then rejecting old transactions is just killing off the hoarders that are not actively spending. thats like nuking someones old safety deposit box purely in the hopes it will reduce the queue at the banks cashier desk because savers who hardly ever/ dont move funds are then lost. wake up far far far easier to not give spammers too many opportunities.. rather than open new attack vectors and then build walls affecting innocent people. EG core v0.12 a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 4000tx sigops. (20k block sigops) core v0.14 a spammer could fill a block with just 5 bloated tx's of 16000tx sigops.(80k block sigops) meaning... ..yep core 0.14 makes a block have alot longer native quadratic validation time attack. however. instead of locking out old UTXO's completely as a fix ImHash said.. keep the 4000tx sigops but grow the (80k block sigops) meaning now requires 20 bloated tx's to fill a block instead of 5 and the time is better and manageable, yep 20 x 4000=80000 is better by many factors of multiplication, rather than 5 x 16000=80000 |
|
|
|
But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use.
I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly.
there is no reason not to use LN.. emphasis as a VOLUNTARY side service for those that need it. but LN does have some limitations and issues which make it useful for only a niche of people. not everyone. also the 1mb base still limits how many channels can be active. and needing more base block size will be needed to cover the more channels being open while also allowing people to replenish funds of channels to spend more. (which does require onchain space to restart new channels or add fresh funds to a channel) some have done the maths. to have enough channels open to cover say 7billion people with a 1year lock requires 133-200mb blocks for a more reasonable 2week lock. that would be 5.2gb blocks. so thinking w can survive on 1mb blocks and (i laugh) 'be like visa' is impossible |
|
|
|
Will that lead to more blockchain bloat or not? There is also the mining centralization issue that comes with bigger blocks.
miner centralisation?? nope you do know that an ASIC has no hard drive. ASICS do not store the blockchain and do not care about the data of a block or how big a block is. an asic is just handed a hash and told how many0000 at the start of the solution is needed for a solved hash 1byte of data 65c74c15a686187bb6bbf9958f494fc6b80068034a659a9ad44991b08c58f2d2 or 1000byte e6631d63c97fb6d9239bd7d1d0a8878e3ea383722635051f94efc5b2790fc441 or a gigabyte 442aaa99d16cf451b853451fbb0515ed696985f236924adf682b34e9531472b1 the hash a asic is given is the same length
the POOL/nodes however that do validate tx data need to ensure they do it in a timely manner. for instance v0.12 had a txsigop limit of 4000ops.. and a blocksigop limit of 20,000ops a malicious person can make 5 transactions of 4000ops to use up the blocks limits. lets say it takes 0.01sec to process 4000ops that becomes 0.05sec to do the whole block. now imagine. instead of having 1mb block with 4,000txsopl and 20,000bsopl we had 2mb block with 8,000txsopl and 40,000bsopl using native keys quadratics would take 1min 40 seconds for the 5 tx's where as if we had 2mb block with 4000txsopl and 40,000bsopl using native keys even with quadratics would take 0.10 seconds for 10tx's thus alleviating the quadratics scare because your not allowing a single transaction to multiply up the sigops. but allowing more transactions per block. the real silly thing is, core have actually put in 1mb base 4mb weight block with 16,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl which is incredibly stupid and allows native key sigop spammers to do alot within the baseblock if basing the block sigop limit on the weight. they should be doing 1mb base 4mb weight block with 4,000txsopl and 80,000bsopl which would allow 20 bloated maxed out tx's instead of 5. but the timing would only be 0.2sec... not hours and only five maxed out spam tx's that core 0.14+ allows but now im just ranting. |
|
|
|
I like your thinking about scenario #2. A 3rd party service or a "smart wallet" is a more convenient way for ordinary users to have an extra layer that does not directly connect anyone with questionable users of the system.
I know there is fear among the big blockers about it becoming like Paypal 2.0, but what if the system is a level playing field and an open one? I am sure Blockstream does not have a monopoly in setting up a payment hub service.
LN DNS SEED.. look into it |
|
|
|
This is not true, I was making good profit up to the end of 2013 on home asic.
asics were only introduced PUBLICLY in october 2013.. so you only made a couple months of good profit.. |
|
|
|
Other than to line your pockets with profit from the coins you sell, why would you want bitcoin to be mainstream?
Currently, it's a day traders magic volatile commodity that blows up and down with the wind. Why end that magic just so you can wait 100 years for the price to rise to a million each. If the price only climbs and never falls then you can sell btc only once. If you try to buy it again you'll have to pay more than you sold it for.
going mainstream dos not mean only upward trend in price. i have seen days in 2012 where the price was stagnant for months. and that was when there were under 1mill users estimated. and about 20,000 merchants. now there are estimate of millions of users and a few hundred thousand merchants. and the price is still wobbling in both directions upto 20% either way. also recently. i have seen examples where, due to fear of people holding funds in exchanges due to many factors like 'exchange bankruptsy via we been hacked fud' the exchanges can swing in price with less people trading.. even when more people are USING core cry when the price moves up and down and try making it sound important meanwhile exchange move from $935 ⇘ $933 by a user with just $302(324mbtc) meanwhile exchange move from $933 ⇗ $935 by a user with just $50(54mbtc)  (note trades measured in mBTC (0.001btc)less than $302(324mbtc) to drop the price from $935 to $933 ⇘yep $302 to make the market cap change by $32,470,200.00 then ~$50(54mbtc) to ramp the price from $933 to $935 ⇗yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00 in short the utility does not exactly relate to price |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
