|
im laughing at the hypocrisy
1 minute : fear BU they want to split the network
2 minute : hurry and split the network because BU isnt going to
logic : NON-core implementations DONT want to split the network, they want consensus of level playing field PEER network
logic : core fear losing their TIER network and dont want to be on same level PEER network as other implementations
logic : core have the splitting code, the deadlines, the threats, the scripted rhetoric to play a victim card
logic : core trigger the split
|
|
|
|
In the cases that Roger (bitcoin.com ) and Jihan ( ant, via, and top ) are not state or corporate interest backed this attack is costing them lots of money/losses.
attack? non-core implementations have been running for years and have no intention to ban and split the network controversially/bilaterally.. otherwise they would have already. also they would have set deadlines and added code to intentionally split the network. however non-core devs have just run as normal, no threats no banning/split code.. all they have is the usual bitcoin consensus code. it is core that fear losing their stronghold and having to either drop themselves down to a decentralised equal playing field with the other diverse nodes or split off and have a core only network. and we know what they prefer. remember core did not exist before 2013. core is not the sole implementation running bitcoin.. but they want to be.(thus removing diversity) they have been desperate to rock the boat and try poking the bear to get non-core teams to split. but those other implementations refuse because they understand and want diverse decentralised bitcoin to survive. not hand power to only core by walking away. wake up to the bait and switch of core pointing the finger the other way for their own intentions just to play a fake victim card when core pull the ban trigger to cause the split |
|
|
|
And what? I accept dollars does it mean that I say dollars is better than bitcoin, like Ver says Dash is better than Bitcoin? Try again
i have looked at your post history. 1. you dont care about bitcoins diverse independent decentralised ethos, you are very much into REKTing anything not core. because you want centralisation 2. you are happy if core pull the trigger and split so you can double the coins to avoid losing control. 3. you dont understand non-core implementations do not have intentional banning mechanisms to take control. they will just use consensus of diversity 4. you keep talking excitedly about the price of bitcoin but lack understanding of bitcoin concepts such as consensus and diversity. meaning you have spent more time rekting diversity in hopes of FIAT enrichment. but no actual time understanding bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
gmaxwell loves zcash and monero
gmaxwells investor DCG loves zcash.
those fans of gmaxwell love monero and zcash
its obvious once gmaxwell screws with bitcoin to centralise bitcoin and hand it to the DCG corporation, they will move onto monero and zcash and rinse and repeat by calling them the next best dcentralised coin while slowly get those alts to fame and then centralise them too.
gmaxwell is dep in the bankers pockets and doesnt care about bitcoins decentralised ethos remaining. once centralised in 100% control of the blockstream/dcg corporation, he will pretend to do a walk away, pretending it is an act of protest., when in reality his job is complete and he is just moving onto the next phase
|
|
|
|
- Segwit turns BTC into an alt, a complex workaround for something that should be easy, but i agree with andreas that, it is ready now, and does not pose a risk of hard forking the network
the whole reason segwit is a soft fork and not a hard fork is to stop it from becoming an alt. it's bitcoin just as it is now but with extra fixes and the potential for masses of new applications. they went soft to AVOID node voting. they went soft and have bip9 that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks if their activation happens to turn their 95% into 100% they went soft and now super slitting hard with UASF that includes actively and intentionally banning pools/blocks and nodes to get their 100% other implementations, xt, classic, bu, and others dont have active/intentional banning mechanisms.. they only activate with consensus of majority. the non-core implementations have set no deadlines, no intent to have sole control. only core want sole control the problem that the unlimited miners seem to have is that it'll be just as it is now with that extra innovation that might cost them, even though it probably won't. still cheaper than a PoW change firing all of them.
there's uncertainty too of course. it's new code. as is the other one with alot less testing.
SW is a total re-write. new block formations, new rules new tx styles other implementations are just tweaks. and easy to implement by anyone. but core refuse to give p their cntral control. if you think bitcoin cannot survive without core, you are just admitting to yourself: 1. bitcoin is controlled by a group 2. bitcoins decentralised ethos has already been lost 3. bitcoin cant survive without the cartel paid for by DGC 4. that core are not independent because they refuse to walk away from their cabin fever filled corner office to independently help out anyone in bitcoin |
|
|
|
2) The most positive for BTU: BTU achieves an extremely high hashrate advantage (>90%) and is put in a position to attack the "minority chain" of Core (see the BTC.TOP statements from February), so BTU becomes the new BTC and BTC is abandoned. But I think this scenario would already do harm to Bitcoin, because it would show that an alternative implementation could "take over" the coin aggressively only with miner support. Price estimation: $400-500.
A. thinking bitcoin belongs only to core is not a bitcoin ethos of decentralisation. its a mindset of centralists. there are over a dozen different implementations that keep bitcoin diverse and open. wanting only core to run the show is already a mindset of harming bitcoin, by thinking core have control and bitcoin would fail without core... B. pools wont just produce different blocks only once a hashrate is met. the pools actually look at the node count and ensure the blocks they produce will be acceptable to the nodes(whoever has consensus). this is what true consensus is about NODES + pools.. thus if there is a majority to trigger a consensus activation the community (nodes and pools) will be BTC. and the minority become the altcoin. hence why even with core trying to bypass consensus and intentionally give only pools voting power. the pools are smart enough to wait it out until unofficially they see good node count.. C. if core want to pretend they are independent then why are they avoiding independence. and instead clinging hard onto one implementation of bip9 pool ban hammer code and UASF node and pool ban hammer code. yep thats right. other implementations are not setup to ban off other implementations they want to remain open and decentralised. if an activation is triggered it will be core that then press the red button of splitting the chains to keep core alive as a minority altcoin, should core not be the majority.. not the other way round. D. the whole DCG commercial announcement of their investors calling bu BTU also state that it would do so IF core split off in a "controversial fork( split)" which knowing logic of bitcoin consensus is that if bu or any non-core imp' activates due to consensus. there is no "controversial" thing about it thus no BTU... just BTC and some other alt(logically core) which will get the rename(probably SWCoin) E. if you look at the whole investment. EG core->blockstream -> DCG... coinbase->DCG .. and then check out all the other DCG investments you will see that core, by putting themselves into the centralist control. they are literally spelling it out to everyone that they are the take over attempt. after all bitcoin 2009-2013 was not even called "core". F. this should make (E) clearer if you look at the announcement by the corporat cartel. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor) https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00amthen compare the names (yep blockstream is there and coindesk(the announcement publicist) http://dcg.co/portfolio/and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt) https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investmentsthings become much clearer yep blockstream and coindesk and all the big names BTCC, coinbase, bitpay, bitso, shapeshift are all in DCG pocket, owing DCG millions that need to be repaid soon.. G. DCG getting edgy to get returns flowing from LN fee's so is trying to rock the boat. however the non-core implementations have set no deadlines set no activation threshold and set no agenda to ban nodes, pools or blocks.. they will only activate if they get consensus. H. once you read passed the reddit scripts. and look at the details. its CORE causing the drama and forcing the issue. core even removed fee lowering code to push the fee's up and then is offering the community a 'discount' bribe if people vote in cores favour.. thats how desperate they are getting. i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create. |
|
|
|
|
in short
group of guys doing work for the hyprledger project where members get info for a price of $200,000 entry fee.. hoping to get a total of $6m by next month to start them off..
not really about bitcoin as its just a years worth of reporting about whats the most efficient ways to use blockchain tech to make a lean hyperledger
|
|
|
|
What if some government or all the governments ban the mining hardware,not bitcoin.
Would bitcoin survive without miners?
though people think mining is all done in china. even the "chinese" pools are spread across different countries. so if one pool finds out it has a 'take down' order. they just load the ASICS up on a truck and move to a different factory. only affecting a couple percent of network hash at a time. (even antpools 16% is actually spread over SEVERAL locations) and so the impact of moving asics is marginal and not going to affect block creation. the 10min is an average so maybe it turns into 12minutes.. no one notices because its an average and not an actual real world fixed 10min anyway. then within 48 hours those asics that are moved are then running in a new country |
|
|
|
This has been discussed a lot in the past, and this has happened at the present time, BU has appeared and works, but it is still in development. However, it is not considered as a formal currency as BTC, it is only considered as an alt coin, and it is very hard to gain value as BTC. I have read a lot of news, there is information that the owners of BTC will be given BU with the same amount, I very much hope BU can achieve a good value so that we can invest and use.
BU and other NON-CORE nodes have no intent to bilateral split the network, they only activate with consensus of the node AND pool majority. core however bypassed node majority and went straight for a pool majority vote, but core DO have intent to bilateral split if core win or lose. turning their winning 95% pools into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pool blocks using bip9. turning their losing under 95% into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pools and non segwit nodes using UASF. core are demanding anything not core to split off. out of fear that core do not get to be the bitcoin government. they worry that having a diverse playground of decentralisation makes it harder for core to force LN down peoples throats to gather fee's to repay the $70m+ back. LN can function without cores code. but core want LN to be the end solution forced onto people.. rather than just a niche side voluntary service only for those that need it. if you look at the announcement by the exchanges. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor) https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00amthen compare the names http://dcg.co/portfolio/and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt) https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investmentsthings become much clearer |
|
|
|
Don't be fooled by this... Roger Ver is Anti-government and he will support anything that says "Fuck Government" ... They send him to jail, and I
would also be pissed off, if they have done that to me. I'm Anti-government, there's a huge amount right with it, but Roger is a strange kind of anarchist. Roger has been promoting all the blocksize hard fork Bitcoin coups, seemingly without realising that he's promoting the number 1 thing government and/or central banks would love: an idea to increase transaction rate that screws Bitcoin up in a way that's fairly subtle to understand. If there's one thing the soft-fascist establishment loves, it's cleverly subtle ways of tricking the public into doing something that's against the public's interests, and in the interests of the establishment. There's nothing wrong with anarchism, unless you believe all that nonsense you see on the TV where anarchists are just angry, hateful people that secretly want to be in power themselves. It's the best check on power there could be; taking away the power of the most powerful. lol pot calling kettle black? blockstream are the ones with the biased ban-score listings. the 'we will split using bip9 and UASF' on activation day or even if we dont get our way.. blockstreams investor partners DCG have even had meetings about it and announced treating anything not core an altcoin. for an anti-government anarchist you certainly do love being governed carlton. rather than just letting bitcoins CODE consensus find its way while all the other implementations have just been happily running for 2years+ not setting deadlines or demanding splits. and just waiting for natural and true bitcoin consensus to move things along. |
|
|
|
full node are meaninglesshere, why we should care if they need more money to run one? they are useless for the consensus,
they are not meaningless.. they are integral to consensus. but core BYPASSED consensus to try sliding their half gesture under the rug. which backfired because pools wont produce anything different unless there is a majority of nodes ready to accept and not orphan what pools produce. yep blockstream also have their fibre network pre-set up as the upstream filters as their fake gesture of confidence that pools shouldnt care about nodes because everything is routed through the FIBRE upstream filters first. but on a decentralised network, pools would rather connect to diverse nodes that accept what pools produce,(offset risk of bugs/issues of fibre/core) not be forced into routing data through a centralised gatekeeper 'filter' first. as going with FIBRE and blockstreams efforts is just setting up a TIER network not a PEER network. |
|
|
|
But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download)
But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.
lets not forget a crucial thing. the blockchain never syncs.... every ~10minutes its always adding more data. it never stops.. secondly. the thing that actually pee's people off is not the IBD itself but the side-effect that when they import keys they cannot see an uptodate balance for days to be able to spend their coins straight away. a fix would be for nodes to grab an existent UTXO set from a peer(or 2 for comparison) FIRST and let the GUI run as a litenode while then making the IBD more of a background activity that doesnt delay utility. (come on carlton you are an armory fanboy afterall, i would have thought even you would have conceived an idea that a node 'could' initially function as a litenode during the IBD time) as for hardware on average people upgrade their hardware every 2-5 years anyway, and telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan (fibre & 5G). knowing that bitcoin (pre libsecp256k1) was able to run on a raspberryPi1 ... and knowing (post libsecp256k1 efficiency) along with a raspberryPi3 allows for alot more 'capability' (20x-60x) means that minimum hardware compared to 5 years ago has much more allowances.. so stagnating bitcoin based on tech/stats that are 5-8 years outdated becomes foolish. do you think activation halts its Call of Duty game production based on having to get it to be compatible with 8 year old tech.. nope. |
|
|
|
He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield. That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st. This guy is supposed to be smart?  no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing. much like in 1996 "everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because dialup and 4gb hard drive limits of 1996" much like in 2006 "everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 said it would be bad" much like in 2016 "everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 and 2006 said it would be bad" |
|
|
|
it solves quadratic problem needed to raise the blocksize properly later on and allows for cool features.
reality check... NO it does not.. to have people only doing linear transactions. they have to move funds over to segwit keys which then disarms from those funds from quadratics. it does not disarm the network. it just disarms the people that voluntarily move funds to segwit tx keys. sigop spammers will not move funds to segwit keys. and segwit cannot lock out native tx's from being used, thus the sigop problem is not fixed. native users gonna continue spamming. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doing great? You mean only being in the hands of rich, greedy, mining farms? how is that doing ok? Tell me what do THEY do for bitcoin except for lining their own pockets. Bitcoin wasn't created just so the rich could own most of it. Control how it moves. But go ahead and keep shoveling them money.
The greedy rich own fiat. Now the greedy rich own Bitcoin. is wasn't supposed to be like this.
CORE gave the pools the vote by going soft. dont blame the pools infact thank the pools, the majority is undecided either way and no side is winning.. because the node count is not even adequate/ready for any side. if core went node first (to ensure users would be ready to accept what pools would produce without orphans). then pool vote second (when they are confident that their blocks wont get orphaned.. to flag more easily for a popular proposal..) thy would have had a better chance its logic. if you know ur wife is gonna kick you out if you come home with another girl on your arm.. do you still go ahead and do it.... no. you either find out if your wife will accept an open relationship first. or you just dont bring the new girlfriend home. you dont be foolish and show the intention to cheat and then bring the girl home hoping the wife responds positively.. core went wrong by telling the pools its ok to play around, without addressing what the wife at home may think first
secondly jihan only represents LESS THAN 16% of hashrate (not al of the 16% is his)
thirdly blaming the 45% undecided and the 15% non jihan group against segwit.. on jihan. is a laugh
sgwit only has 26%.. not 84%.. |
|
|
|
|
gets 2mb+ LOL
native key users will still bloat the bas block so that not many real users can move funds to segwit keys. then they wont be able to use those segwit keys because native base blockers are still ntive base block spamming. meaning hops of 2mb+ are low.. much like 7 years of 7txps...
ya mathematically possible to have both expectations of 2mb data and 7txps.. but reality will show that it wont get that far.
|
|
|
|
all these chats about the contingency plan. are not highlighting the main words enough contentious hard fork Poloniex agrees that any contentious hard fork must include replay attack protection. Without this, exchanges cannot continuously and properly operate. knowing that dynamics wont go contentious and is and always has for the last 2 years just patiently wanted consensus. never pushing for splitting, never setting deadlines. thus showing no intent to rock the boat. meaning if dynamics activates. they will have majority and it would be consensus not contentious. thus dynamic block prosals community will be the bitcoin. and the contentious minority that orchestrate a bilateral split to keep thir minority alive will be the altcoin. namely SWCoin |
|
|
|
you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away...
The wallet in Bitcoin Core supports segwit (it's what most people use for testing!), it just doesn't use it by default. USED on TESTNET, not mainnet even the segwit guide says the wallet is not and will not be publicly available to be USED on mainnet until after activation https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/Upgrade Safety
End users MUST NOT be allowed to generate any P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses before segwit is fully activated on the network. Before activation, using P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses may lead to permanent fund loss
Similarly, change MUST NOT be sent to a segwit output before activation you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after. Lie. They do not ban non-segwit nodes. stop trying to be clever with language. It's not acceptable for the network topology to suddenly change when segwit activates-- can you imagine that? drop all your current connections and then form new ones hoping that the network can make a non-partitioned graph?-- that would be irresponsible. Instead, it changes its connection preference at install time, so if there were any issues they could be addressed while the user is paying attention.
let me guess instead of the word "ban".. if i said at setup the segwit node has already chosen to not prefer to let a non-segwit node be the upstream, this its not a ban. its just an avoidance from even making the connection in the first place to not require banning later. you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes. Lie. let me guess due to the 'preferencial' connection at set up, the segwit node is already not connected to non-sgwit nodes to not need to worry about sending unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes. ... oh and gmaxwell if all things are fine and dandy and everything is fully compatible. how about you send a segwit tx to BTCC to force into a block.. knowing that old nodes will be fine receiving the block..  show the network that evrything is backward compatible. at worse BTCC block gets rejected and you/dcg can easily repay them $13k out of the millions of investment..for a test to thank them for wasting their time if it rejects. atleast it will show confidence in the "backward compatibility" claims and the "nothing needs to change" claims |
|
|
|
|
Basically, is cost of bitcoins generated > cost of power consumption
at the moment for BITCOIN generation: (which is what OP asked about)
antpool has 630peta hash = 48462 ASICS
and they make 30 blocks a day=375btc a day
1x 13thash asic = 0.00773802btc a day
1thash= 0.00059523btc a day
1ghash= 0.00000059btc a day
based on a few factors a gtx1080 can handle between 800mhash and 1ghash (47sat-59sat a day)
which then deminishes as time goes on due to competition from everyone else and difficulty changes every two weeks
over 2 weeks you may only get about 800sat. which over a fortnight is not even one cent for 2 weeks
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
