Bitcoin Forum
June 14, 2024, 10:23:13 PM *
News: Voting for pizza day contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 [926] 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 ... 1471 »
18501  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin price drops as PBOC continues inspections on: January 26, 2017, 12:10:36 AM
this top is over hyped out of context and exaggerating..

put it this way.. imagine its a fast food location..

health regulators do a visit once a year. if they see rat droppings or food not cooked at a certain safe temperature. the health regulators set a action plan for the business to clean up and sort out the issues and they would return in a month to reinspect.

if after a month they pass. they are informed there will be a random inspection in X months. if that passes they then dont return for a year.
going back to the usual expected and standard yearly inspections..

now.. if the chinese exchanges did do things that while handling fiat, required them to follow fiat regulations. and did follow it correctly.. they would only be inspected once a year.
but because issues were found there will be a couple inspections before next year until regulators are happy the fiat accepting exchanges are following fiat regulations..

in short.. the exchanges should not have done more then regulations allowed if they intend to continue handling fiat.

this has nothing to do with bitcoin.
18502  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit and 2MB blocks together ? on: January 25, 2017, 11:07:22 PM
more power to miners?
seriously!!
miners cant produce blocks bigger than the majority of nodes would accept. end of..
I'm not talking about BU, I'm talking about existing dynamic block size proposals. Nodes would accept anything that miners throw out at them with those, unless there is a hard cap.

lets delve into this point.

imagine the network had 55 nodes. for easy display purposs of 5500

and the acceptable node tolerances(user settings) were all collated and put into order
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

the pool then takes away three nodes (~275 of 5500) to get to what would be ~95%
1.0mb, 1.5mb, 1.5mb, 2.0mb, 2.3mb, 2.5mb, 2.6mb, 2.7mb, 2.8mb, 2.9mb, 3.0mb,
3.0mb, 3.0mb, 3.2mb, 3.5mb, 3.6mb, 3.6mb, 3.7mb, 3.8mb, 4.0mb, 4.1mb, 4.1mb,
4.1mb, 4.3mb, 4.6mb, 4.7mb, 4.8mb, 4.9mb, 4.9mb, 5.0mb, 5.0mb, 5.1mb, 5.1mb,
5.2mb, 5.6mb, 5.8mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 5.9mb, 6.0mb, 6.1mb, 6.1mb, 6.2mb,
6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.2mb, 6.3mb, 6.3mb, 6.4mb, 6.4mb, 6.5mb, 6.5mb, 6.6mb, 6.6mb,

then knowing that all remaining 52 nodes can accept 2mb.. thats what they make..

now here is the fun part most people forget.

pools start a flagging vote consensus saying we will make upto 2mb.. once the pools get 95% consensus.. those 3(300) nodes at the bottom can up their limit.. as it takes time for pool consensus to get reached.. (eg 2 months for segwit and not near 95% yet)
so plenty of time for then to change a setting.

then. lets say it activates. pools can now push passed the 1mb old barrier and start moving to 2mb (much like the 2013DB bug where it pushed passed the 500k barrier even when nodes had a higher buffer.)

and guess what.. they wont jump straight to 2mb.. (much like they didnt jump straight to 1mb in 2013). they would try 1.001mb and test the water, see if any bugs present themselves any orphan risk. any issues.. if not. they push on 1.002mb, 1.003mb and so on over time naturally growing until* they get to 2mb due to demand and need.

*side note the 2 grey nodes(1.5mb i underlined) actually still happily accept blocks during the early movements meaning they dont actually need to decide to join consensus as early as the lowest single node at 1mb.. so while pools are testing the water only 1 node (100 of 5500) need to make a decision during the pool consensus+grace period before activation. the other 2(200 of 5500) can have a bit of breathing room ontop of pools consensus+grace period..

then when the limit is reached, finally after a lengthy natural growth period. the process begins again.
slow natural risk averting process where the nodes decide the tolerance

so dont expect a spammer to force a pools hand to make a pool jump up to 2mb on day one of activation.. pools are smarter then that
(much like the spam attacks of 2012-2015 didnt cause blocks to all be 1mb non stop, it was a slow curve over a couple of years)
18503  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit and 2MB blocks together ? on: January 25, 2017, 10:36:04 PM
let me guessing your thinking then financially penalising pools by changing the blockreward mechanism is gonna help?..
What made you mention this?

because i read and research and seen what gmaxwell and gang have been getting excited and are talking about.
then i have seen a few other bits about why they are getting excited. and then i read and research more and deeper into it.

by the way there are other proposals.. just not been added to cores moderated bip list.

but by you being aware of it atleast shows the chit chat within their group has reached your ears for you to be aware of it too

p.s i edited previous post to added context to the other question you mentioned
18504  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit and 2MB blocks together ? on: January 25, 2017, 10:20:35 PM
id say 2mb base 4mb weight default beginning. so both segwit and natural onchain growth can begin..
I wonder what the implications would be of going from: '1 MB base and 4 MB weight' to '2 MB base and 4 MB weight' as opposed to '2 MB base and 8 MB weight'.

the A base  Ax2 weight   EG 2mb base 4mb weight  would allow segwit and actual tx count rise..
the A base  Ax4 weight   EG 1mb base 4mb weight  or 2mb base 8mb weight.  is cores desire..

the reason that need Ax4 is because 2017 they wanted to slide in segwit, and have the spare 1.9best bet expectation of spare weight (remember your 2.1mb utility) as just spare unused buffer..
but later while still at 2.1mb with 4500tx.. they want to turn the same transactions of ~450byte into 1450byte with their confidential payments idea.

thus still 4500tx but instead of 2.1mb total it would be 4mb total..

in short
Ax2 (2mb base 4mb weight -> 3mb base 6mb weight) allows segwit and lean tx growth
Ax4 (1mb base 4mb weight -> 2mb base 8mb weight-> 3mb base 12mb weight) allows segwit and bloated confidential tx growth

but where its dynamic to grow when the community want/need it. not when the devs decide it
I don't think there is a good dynamic block size proposal that doesn't allow gaming in one way or another or gives even more power to the miners just yet. I'd be in favor of a block size increase HF (along with other changes that are 'to-do' but require a HF) post Segwit.

more power to miners?

seriously!!

miners cant produce blocks bigger than the majority of nodes would accept. end of..

let me guessing your thinking then financially penalising pools by changing the blockreward mechanism is gonna help?..
no thats just a tactic to turn nodes and pools away from agreeing to that bip (because its stupid) so that dev's can say "oh look the community dont want it"

rather than doing a proper natural consensus dynamic implementation
18505  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segwit and 2MB blocks together ? on: January 25, 2017, 09:58:16 PM
Is there any reason why we cant do both of these in 1 go?  it might appease both sides of the block size debate and we could see where we go from there.   Undecided

2mb fixed?
nah we long way passed that compromise of dev orchestrated fixed boosts. it needs to be dynamic to stop the devs from spoonfeeding and controling the community with their tactics

id say 2mb base 4mb weight default beginning. so both segwit and natural onchain growth can begin..
but where its dynamic to grow when the community want/need it. not when the devs decide it
18506  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Running 24/7? on: January 25, 2017, 08:55:04 PM
if laptop. the only thing i worry about is the battery.

i have seen many batteries die within a year where the power cable is plugged in 24-7. usually best to unclip the battery and run on just the power cable 24-7 and just clip the battery in once a month-6months to top it up and reenergise it due to natural depletion of non use.
18507  Economy / Economics / Re: Investors dumping gold-switching to bitcoin? on: January 25, 2017, 08:02:26 PM
old news

sell 1ounce gold for $1200
buy bitcoin at $900 (1.33btc)

wait for bitcoin to go to $1200.. sell 1.33btcc for gold.(get 1.33 ounces)

this is why bitcoin topped out at $1200 2 times in the last 4 years and then sunk back down
18508  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Filthy scammers, cheats, hackers, thieves, conmen, fools and protestants. on: January 25, 2017, 07:43:36 PM
media says darkweb is bad..

people know amsterdams redlight district, detroit streets, and syria even worse.

more sins, drugs and deaths are linked to fiat
18509  Economy / Collectibles / Re: How many Casascius owners out there? on: January 25, 2017, 07:27:51 PM
casascius stopped making them in 2013.
link below last updated 2013 shows how many created and how many opened by the time casascius stopped making them

http://casascius.appspot.com/

also
https://casascius.uberbills.com/
but unsure of date of last update
18510  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Filthy scammers, cheats, hackers, thieves, conmen, fools and protestants. on: January 25, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
As if they dint exist before 2009.

Cheesy

movies such as oceans 11,12,13 wouldnt exist without all the Fiat scams and thefts inspiring the movies

clint eastwood would never have been famous without the old wild west gunslinging gold stealing bank robbing outlaws

18511  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Running 24/7? on: January 25, 2017, 07:17:51 PM
i hav had my computer running for 3 years non stop Cheesy im not worried.

many people (office workers, security guard stations, control rooms, home entertainment/smart homes) have their systems on 24/7

it used to be a big problem during the 'solo mining' days of bitcoin where mining bitcoin with your CPU would kill it.. but these days, there no real long term affect because we are no longer mining with out CPU any more
18512  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Filthy scammers, cheats, hackers, thieves, conmen, fools and protestants. on: January 25, 2017, 07:13:29 PM
fiat is no better

bank thefts
blackmails
murders for hire
pickpockets
card cloners
nigerian price phone scams
phishing for love 'my love i need hospital bill paid or i die next week
sugar daddies, girls marrying old guys just to get name on a will
corporate money laundering
the list goes on

the only difference between fiat and bitcoin is there is less (never zero, but less) chance of knowing who the other party is to slap them with a wet fish/court order.

so never trade with anyone you dont know anything about. unless you can slap them with a wetfish/court order should they do you wrong, dont trade.

AKA.. rule 1: stranger danger
18513  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin Wallet without KYC on: January 25, 2017, 06:54:11 PM
if your looking for a service to swap FIAT ($ŁEuro) expect KYC, as these are called exchanges.

just dont pretend /treat these exchanges as 'wallets' .. move funds away from exchanges.
if you are just looking for somewhere to store bitcoin (a wallet) then all proper 'wallets' are KYC free.

there are webwallets. but most have it where THEY hold the private key (secret to spend the funds) and you have to rely on them 'managing' it on your behalf.
some webwallets are also exchanges. but some are not exchanges..
some webwallets also allow you access to the private key..
but most peoples rule is dont use a webwallet for any large amount. and especially dont hold for a long time in a webwallet.
and if the webwallet is also a exchange. expect KYC and more risk of them running off with your funds at some point.

there are many personal wallets such as lite-wallets like multibit/electrum which allow you access to the private key so that YOU hold the secret to spend the funds. and that private key is stored on your device.. not some website

then there are full node wallets which is where your computer is helping the network to protect everyones funds. and that private key is stored on your device.. not some website

then there are hardware wallets which is where a separate device(imagine pendrive/external hard drive) that the private key is stored on. but then requires a personal wallet on a computer or a browser extension on a computer to connect to the device to spend it

now you have learned the basic lessons
https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
18514  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What are these "off-chain" transactions I am hearing more and more of ? on: January 25, 2017, 06:35:48 PM
offchain means its not handled and passed directly onchain (on bitcoins blockchain) its handled privately.
it can be in many forms but the main one in discussion right now is a future service that may have a niche for certain users. but not all users

the main group hoping to offer this commercial service is blockstream. the code is being headed up by 'rusty russel'
their project is called "lightning network" - emphasis on network because its a different network although the funds are linked to bitcoin funds

this is as laymans/basic as i can word it.. without getting too technical
how it works is that instead of standard independent tx's that get broadcasted to spend.. people fund a special address known as a multisig.
this is a transaction that needs 2 signatures to spend/move the balance inside.

now because it will only be accepted on the network if both signatures exist. these 2 people can write a transaction and secretly (away from bitcoins network (aka offchain)) both sign it. to know its a valid transaction. they both agreed and nothing else can change without both consent.

emphasis: because no other single signature can be accepted by the network, only the both signed transaction is acceptable..

so now they can privately trade and make make new transactions where both sign. which invalidate the previous both signed private transaction. and know the latest one is the most valid transaction.. thus not needing to confirm it because they both know its good

think of it like having a bank chequebook.. but requires 2 signatures.

if both signatures exist. you know one person can cash it by depositing it. so that person just by holding it, knows its as good as paid. just holding it. they can then agree to make a new cheque and both sign the new cheque and rip up the old cheque. without needing to 'deposit' the cheque each time.
they simply sit in a private room writing new cheques and ripping up old cheques each hour/day. and only need to deposit the latest cheque at the end of the week when they finally want to settle the balance and end the private trades

for instance bob and joe both deposit $10 into a dual signed account (both pay 0.01btc into a multisig) and initially say they want their $10(0.01) back
tx1
in
  bob: 0.01
  joe: 0.01
out
  bob: 0.01
  joe: 0.01
signed
  Robert
  Johnny


next time bob wants to pay joe 50c (0.005)
tx2
in
  bob: 0.01
  joe: 0.01
out
  bob: 0.005
  joe: 0.015
void tx1
signed
  Robert
  Johnny


next time joe wants to pay bob 75c (0.0075)
tx3
in
  bob: 0.01
  joe: 0.01
out
  bob: 0.0125
  joe: 0.0075
void tx2
signed
  Robert
  Johnny


if anyone tried to transmit tx 1 or 2.. the other person can transmit tx 3 and void off the other ones. thus making tx 3 the latest and most valid and trusted tx.. so they dont have to rush to transmit it. they just keep writing new transactions in private and only transmit it when they want to settle up
18515  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Block Size Debate - Talk about what seems must be Done! on: January 25, 2017, 06:13:03 PM
We need segwit first as adviced by everyone worth listening to in the field.

After segwit is activated, then we can raise the blocksize in a safer way.

We should also focus on LN since its the only way to scale globally.

In other words, you can thank the miners that keep blocking segwit for the lack of any major movement in the capacity increases. If it went as it should, we should already have segwit with smoother transactions and the 2MB blocksize increase planned as intended in the Core roadmap, then once we have LN there will be no complains about transactions taking too long anymore.

dont be foolish..

you can thank the devs..
they decided to make the miners accountable by violating consensus and not giving nodes a vote.. no sane and smart pool is going to change something without having the network as a whole ready to accept it first.

devs chose to make the pools the decision makers so that devs can take the glory if it happened quickly but shift the blame to the pools if it didnt happen quickly.. (standard political point the finger gaming when things go wrong.)

nodes should have had a vote first.. to then give pools confidence there wont be any large orphan risk. thats just rational logical common sense.

secondly.. LN has a niche, but is not the end solution for all users.. try researching further
its also not the open permissionless zero barrier of entry bitcoin ethos either.. hope you enjoy your research
18516  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 25, 2017, 06:08:29 PM
But if people dont fix this fucking fee problem .. then it's toast.
..
Nobody will use BTC.

fee's can be sorted. not just by having a maturity element to stop malicious people.
an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm(CLTV). instead of using 'economics'(fee war) to cost people out of utility.

that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)


but also changing the "priority" calculation

instead of
(value * age) /size

which just allows some rich guy to spend every 10 minutes with no fee.. but causes a poor person to only reach priority once a week/month.

we could try thinking of something that actually deals with the bloat/age/size issue. and not so much care about rich vs poor

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
where lean tx's can transmit every 7 hours. fat 100kb tx's can transmit every 5 months. then the fee only becomes about the fatter you are the more you pay and the sooner you want it the more you pay.

rather than a richman poor man game where the main variable is about how much you own counting
18517  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Block Size Debate - Talk about what seems must be Done! on: January 25, 2017, 05:32:00 PM
Thats a big problem. So whats the solution? Is lightning network is the only solution for this? But as far i know lightning network is centralise system. Am i right? Segwit is not even close to 50% of votes. I dont think it will happen. So what now? Is there any solution for this?  If segwit will never happen. What will happen to bitcoin?

increasing the blocksize in a natural pace, as a dynamic scaled approach where nodes set their limit and consensus forms what the next rise gets to based on what the nodes allow.

no harm can be done if using consensus.
nodes already exist on the networl for the last couple years with their settings at 2-8mb and nothing has gone wrong.. because the blocksize rule is for anything below X.... meaning even 1mb is acceptable.

pools will only move forward making blocks any larger than 1mb when pools see their is no risk of their attempts getting orphaned. so they are not going to be foolish and do something controversial/bilateral.

forget the doom of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" and "servers". because nodes will set the max capacity.

this can be done by nodes doing a 'speed test' that sets a score. or users manually setting the limit. and that score/limit is then inserted as part of the user agent or a few bytes as part of users tx's. so that the network can see whats in majority accepted

there are many many ways to get nodes to know whats acceptable.. the important part is it being consensus.. not bilateral
18518  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 25, 2017, 04:40:08 PM
I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

Cheers for that. Very interesting actually. I have no idea what to make of it and i will do some research about what you mentioned. If that was the case, then what do you make of it? Do you have any links i could read up on in relation to what you mentioned?

google: barry silbert blockstream - top answer
Thrilled to invest in @Blockstream alongside a fantastic group of forward thinking global investors

google: barry silbert BTCC

to put it short. the whole list of his 'stakes'/investment
http://dcg.co/network/

barry silbert owns DCG (digital currency group) which then has investment/advisory/chairman board seat demands of many groups
you will see he is the guy behind "consensus 2016"
Quote
Consensus 2016 Hackathon will be held during Consensus 2016, a 2nd annual blockchain technology summit, in collaboration with Digital Currency Group (DCG), the blockchain industry’s most active investor.

this is why coindesk is very biased and in favour of companies owned by barry silbert(DCG) because coindesk is ownd by him

then check out DCG hyperledger

barry silbert to bitcoin/blockchain world.. is like rupert murdock to the fiat world
18519  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is this one of the so-called spam attacks? on: January 25, 2017, 04:23:12 PM
but imagine it this way. instead of 100 addresses sending out and respending every 10 minutes. they have to wait an hour.
imagine if they tried to respend right at that 6th block. the next maturity is 2 hours..

where as everyone else that only spends once or twice a day, or week or month never gets maturity locked out, because it matures before they need to respend. but know they can respend because the waiting time is AFTER confirm.. thus they know they have been paid. instead of the current setup that delays due to spam leave them waiting before confirm and unsure if they will be even paid..

thus ethical people can spend when they want and malicious people are ending up having to wait.. and its all done by code rules.. not 'fees'

the problem is that they are not using "100" not even "1000" addresses. it goes so much deeper than that.

here is the last time this happened:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=553487;sa=showPosts
this is the tip of the iceberg and there are about 820 keys there used in the spam attack, each address containing lots of transactions (about 10K to 40K outputs) to spend.

and this is only the private keys they released to fool others into making transactions with the inputs and join in the attack. they also had other addresses which were sending out transactions on a massive scale.

thats where
one guy makes a single TX of say $1 to send to 1000 addresses of $0.001 .. and thats it. game over.

but other spam attacks that cause more hassle long term is where
one guy makes a TX of say $1001 to send to 1000 addresses of $1

then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds
then 10 minutes later splitting the funds back to $1..
then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds
then 10 minutes later splitting the funds back to $1..
then 10 minutes later sends all them $1 transactions to another address combining the funds

endlessly.
this is when devs think they can mitigate this type of spam attack by raising the fee to make the guy lose alot of his $1000 investment each time he respends.. but the reality is that it just prices ethical/moral people out of using bitcoin less often.

however a maturity lock stops this endless spam without the 'penalty' hurting innocent people
18520  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will segwit be activated? on: January 25, 2017, 04:03:32 PM
I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october
Pages: « 1 ... 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 [926] 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 ... 1471 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!