|
4136XBT bought in Dec 2015
|
|
|
|
I ask because this is the question that we have been asking ourselves a lot recently.
We are a Chinese BTC company that has invested a lot in mining and also runs an off-chain wallet service. So we have a vested interest in Bitcoin not failing. Like many Chinese miners, we believe that a simple and conservative solution to the block size question would be the best, but it seems that neither Core or Classic is willing to offer. I would very much like to hear your views.
In this Chinese article, I explained how a contentious hardfork could harm the price and wallet services. https://bikeji.com/t/3168Basically, with all the uncertainty, people will tend to withdraw bitcoin from services and store locally. Therefore, they will have both the old and new bitcoin after the contentious hardfork (as they don't know which one will be valuable). Services without enough liquidity will bankrupt. Services with enough liquidity will also lose a lot of customers in this process. I think none of us would like to see bitcoin to fail. However, comparing with doing nothing with having a contentious hardfork, the risk of latter is much much higher. -------------- For the question of supporting which implementation, please look at the number of commits contributed by different people in the past year, and consider what are the implications if these people are no longer interested in Bitcoin. (To avoid bias, I'm not providing a link to such data. You can find it out on github) |
|
|
|
bitcoin isn't gonna down deeper unless there are some of the major bugs in bitcoin.
Wait for the first roll-out of RBF. Not bugs per se, but new, unique gaming opportunities for the clever scriptwriters. Mind you, they are in such a panic to rush this through, I'm sure there will be some fun bugs too. RBF could be the 'killer-app' that the alternative clients need to gain traction. With less than 40% on the last core update, it will be interesting to see how many bother. RBF seems to be a necessary ingredient for LN. Can anybody explain how? No, LN does not need RBF. LN only needs BIP68, 112, and segregated witness |
|
|
|
etotheipi, I think this is what you are looking for: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/270This proposal defines a new transaction digest algorithm for signature verification in version 0 and version 1 witness program, in order to minimize redundant data hashing in verification, and to cover the input value by the signature. |
|
|
|
Segregated witness is a way better solution for malleability, plus more
Where can I read about segregated witness? Any updates on LN? Current whitepaper requires BIP62's features. BIP62 has nothing to do with LN For segwit, go https://8333.info |
|
|
|
As I see, BIP62 status is "withdrawn": https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawikiAre there any comments about this BIP? What's wrong with it? And one more question: how to contact Lightning Network guys? I tried their official email, but it looks like my message got into SPAM box.  I have some questions about colored coins implementation on top of Lightning Network for fast trading of assets. Segregated witness is a way better solution for malleability, plus more You certainly could trade colored coins over LN. |
|
|
|
I agree with the "segregated witness" part. Although the "block size" will be within the 1MB limit, is it OK to forget the signature data completely? If not, and someone has to save them as archival data, then I rather prefer them to reside in the 1MB blocks. Creating new coins however would be a hardfork, no full node would accept it.
SFCs are like bitcoin-2, bitcoin-3, ... and so on. Old full nodes can (and would) completely ignore them. But SFC-updated clients will be able to "see" a new currency type such as bitcoin-2. You don't even need a softfork to issue alternative currency on bitcoin blockchain. See http://counterparty.io/The real question is, however, why people would accept your alternative currency? |
|
|
|
Question: Could i sell my bitcoin in wallet while being 1 year behind?
How large is 1 year 20 weeks to download?
As long as you have the wallet and password, of course you could spend your money It may take hours and days. If you don't want to wait, you may switch to a lite client such as Electrum |
|
|
|
|
400XBT bought in November 2015
|
|
|
|
It's self-correcting. No need to change anything.
Yes, I know it is self correcting, and I like this improvement. My next question is thus: what is the time constant for this self correction? Choice of this parameter will have the crucial impact on the expected value and thus the accuracy of the model. There is no time constraint. It will always take all data into account. The only possible error is if the "exponential fit" is not the correct fit for the trendline. For a long time it was (giving the highest R^2) but now it is not sure. I haven't tested for some time. It is possible that a "inverted parabola in the exponential chart" is giving you a better fit (higher R^2 value). If it was so, Bitcoin would have been a fad that is destined to collapse in the next 2 years totally. In the end, you need to deduce yourself from the fundamentals if Bitcoin is here to stay or not. If you think it is, it is probably a given that the current price is very favorable for buying (unless you are already very heavily invested). If not, this is a very good time to exit. Rsq of the linear trend line is only 0.432, while the exponential trend line is 0.82 |
|
|
|
An interesting feature of my analysis is it will self correct after a long bull or bear period. Take my update on 19 Dec 2014 as example: By clicking the link in the quote, you will find that the expected price for today (30 Nov 2015) is $10447. With the latest model, however, it is only $1888.11. This is because the slope of the regression line is decreasing for everyday the price is under the expected value. If the VWAP sticks to the present value of $360 forever, the expected price will converge to $360 and the slope will also converge to 0 eventually. I will quote my previous post, as the recent run up showed exactly what I was talking about. Even in a quite bubble-like event we had recently, when price spiked at $502 and the daily RSI went to 90 (see charts on the previous page), we hardly touched -1.5 of BETI. That clearly shows that the expected value is overshoot by far. That is because the initial data is misleading the trend settings. Probably this question was already asked in here back at the early days of this thread, but I will try to bring this issue into a discussion once again.
Whenever I am running simulation or an experiment, I am interested in a stationary process. Meaning the initial (warm-up) behaviour should not have been considered when talking about long-term trend. Have you tried to remove the first two years of data and redraw your charts? I am wondering if that would correct your expected values to a more reasonable levels, as for today it seems that the chart will be stuck in the -2 area even with slowly rising prices, and only a bubble-like event could bring us to -1 values, not to mention even the expected price.
|
|
|
|
|
Over 60% of miners are mining for BIP65. If your pool is not listed in the OP, please urge them to upgrade or switch to a supporting pool!
|
|
|
|
|
Update: BW pool is supporting BIP65.
ghash.io and bitfury are partially supporting
Please urge your pool to upgrade or switch to a supporting pool!
|
|
|
|
tl;dr OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (OP_CLTV) is the latest function in Bitcoin. It allows people to lock their money until a specified time. It enables many interesting use cases that were not possible / not safe, such as Lightning Network, trustless cross chain exchange (e.g. BTC <-> LTC) and micropayment channels. It is the most exciting new function added to Bitcoin Protocol since Satoshi created it in 2009. Since the code allows people to freeze their money until a specified time, some people call it OP_HODL. For example, if you want to make sure you will hodl your coins until 2017, no matter it will go to $0 or $1million, only BIP65 would allow you to do it safely (without the need to delete your private keys) What could you do? 1. If you are pool operator or solo miner: Upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.10.4 or 0.11.2 2. If you are mining for a pool: Please urge your pool operator to upgrade. Please switch to BIP65 supporting pools, including (as of 2015-11-30): BiscusFish / F2Pool: https://www.f2pool.com/BitAffNet: https://www.bitcoinaffiliatenetwork.com/Solo CKPool: http://solo.ckpool.org/BitClub Network: https://bitclubnetwork.com/kano.is: http://www.kano.is/BW: https://www.bw.com/KNCMiner: http://www.kncminer.com/Slush: https://mining.bitcoin.cz/BTCC: https://pool.btcc.com/Please let me know if I do not mention your BIP65 supporting pool |
|
|
|
I don't see this big news. Its actually bad, you never know if there are some "paused" coins spent.
This can give heads-up to some traders, and some will be unaware :/
Thats pretty sad day
I don't follow you. What do you mean ? He meant to get paid for his ad-sig |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
