|
no need to watch data packets for specific ports and data sizes live while its being sent.
afterall ISP's are keeping metadata for years on every user(yea we know they keep more then just metadata, but shhh)
meta data is easy..
search keywords: "useragent satoshi"
search keywords: "useragent bitcoin"
|
|
|
|
|
the thing is that circle is making more profit swapping fiat. bitcoin is a small insignificant income for them.
many businesses are seeing that bitcoin <-> fiat is dropping off, while costs of trying to keep it running is increasing.
bitcoin has stagnated, which the bankers are loving.
circle calculated the legal costs of getting a similar subpoena that coinbase got outweighs the funds they make from it.
especially when circles costs to even do it are higher (they accept visa/mastercard=high chargeback risk and high merchant service charge)
circle in my view was never a big player in the bitcoin game. just a big player in the MEDIA game so they can get VC money.
|
|
|
|
I never intentionally made that claim and don't know where you are getting that.
In a consensual hardfork, the old chain will die off and thus the new chain becomes the main chain.
There is no potential altcoin when there is a consensual hardfork.
"old chain"... dies off?? its never a 2 chain event. its a BRANCH that gets trimmed off depending on which branch is the strongest where the weakest branch gets cut off by claiming old chain. thats a imagery of claiming everything before the branch right to the genesis block dies. its doesnt blocks are still mined ontop of the previous blocks. the CHAIN continues on. just that there are not 2 persistent branches no new genesis block is created, the mining doesnt start at block 1 again. it continues on.. again you do realise that consensus rule breaks happen everyday right.. up to about 2-3% average risk https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocksan nobody bats an eyelid because the majority of 97-98% exist to trim the branch pretty quick again no viable BIP is asking for a altcoin maker. so i have no idea why you keep trying to make everything sound like an altcoin maker when nothing is even proposing that. again the RATIONAL debate is about using consensus. the REALISTIC debate is about using consensus. where the RATIONAL AND REALISTIC result is due to RATIONAL acceptance of a 5% risk.. is slightly elevated orphans if a block was created at under 95% then the orphans would happen more noticeably. take 51% mining.. that would be orphan hell and merchants would hold off on withdrawals/trading until the drama passes. i dont know why you are obsessed with making everything sound like altcoin making. have you even run any simulations. have you even run a node that you have altered outside of blockstream devs perceived defaults. to realise that it does not create an altcoin by you having 2mb base 4mb weight. right now. yep thats right. nodes right now can have any blocksize setting they want be it 1.1mb, 1.5mb 2mb 4mb it wont change nothing. pools wont however push out anything bigger until they know the SINGLE NETWORK can cope with it |
|
|
|
again now you are trying to claim an consensual fork as being an altcoin maker.. seriously!! consensual = consensus consensus breaks results in orphans and fixes itself as the SINGLE chain to what the majority consent to the minority just doesnt sync. bitcoin has consensus built into it. from day one. orphans happen all the time https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocksits all part of bitcoin however banning opposing nodes purely based on politics requires adding opposition ban list outsode of the built in Ddos parameters, outside of the time limit defaults of the ddos ban. to get an altcoin it has to be an INTENTIONAL CONTROVERVIAL SPLIT where they IGNORE CONSENSUS/ORPHANS |
|
|
|
|
have a dart board. put different $$ on it and throw a dart.
then make an article using the exact words about economic stimulus..quoting the random number you hit
in short no one knows what the price will be. but anything can/could affect the price.
the thing is even if bitcoin hit lets say $2000.. trump could cripple the dollar where $2000 ends up only buying you a round of beers for 5 people
which means not so helpful for the buying power of bitcoin to get much in goods/beer
|
|
|
|
I hope segwit gets activated eventually. Only morons are actively blocking it.
you do know that LN can function without segwit. the benefits of segwit helping LN and helping bitcoin are exaggerated. seems kimdotcom is using the blockstream concept of LN, hense the delay in kimdotcom's service. however there are many many other concepts that dont need segwit. but the powerhouses choose their own partners even if it means making the community wait its just kicking a stone down the road to explain a year delaying real scalability. but thats a topic for another discussion. |
|
|
|
|
kimdotcoms version of LN is not ready.
as for 'at around december'..
that could mean november december or january.
a bit early to shout 'there is nothing'
much the same as segwit announced segwit by christmas.. but dont expect it by christmas.
wait for sgwit, LN and kimdotcom's LN news after the new year
and by 'after the new year'. i dont mean literally quote me on january 1st and say im wrong. take it contextually as some time in 2017
|
|
|
|
if expecting alot of withdrawals. dont send a tx per user request. send it out as batches. EG once every 30 minutes as a single tx going out to many customers. ofcourse highlight to customers that withdrawals may take upto an hour (allowing 30minute confirmation wiggle room)  note: 'bytes' might vary +-10 in calculations note: cost/byte set at an old 'high' as a onetime worse case scenario demo. but you atleast see the difference singular v batching does i displayed this old spreadsheet to demonstrate cost / withdrawl =0.00003085(batched) as oppose to 0.00070200(singular) as for LN LN is not about depositing funds into you and withdrawing out to not use you again. LN is for those that want to deposit in.. and then agree on who gets what amount of deposited funds over time internally. and settleup/withdraw later (repeat trades by having pre-paid bartab instead of buying each item separately) think of it like a joint bank account. you and wife put funds in. then away from the bank agree on who owes who what each minute, hour, day, week, whenever then at end of the month X goes to her Y goes to you when you both go to the ATM. saving you having to go to the bank each day to withdraw so its like an orderbook away from the network. if customers are always depositing 0.001 a day.. and withdrawing 0.00x then you can tell them use LN deposit 0.03 to cover a month. set the lock for a month. and you can both adjust who owes what each day internally and at the end of the month submit 1 tx for 0.0x to them and 0.0x to you. as one tx a month instead of 30tx a month. as for customers that only use you once, ever.. forget it LN has no advantage |
|
|
|
Or if China gov banned all mining as theymos points here: I'm not sure that I'm convinced that hardforks are quite as bad as this article implies, but the article makes many good points. Though one thing that's important to keep in mind is that if we can never hardfork, then miners de facto control the network. For example, right now the Chinese government could completely shut down Bitcoin (or worse) because the majority of mining power is located in China. The only defense against this is the credible threat of a PoW change, which can only be done via hardfork. love the doomsday. if china government banned mining. then pools switch to a stratum server based outside of china..(2 second switch) oh.. all the major pools already have backup stratums.. for that very reason oh.. and many pools called 'china' are actually run in thailand, mongolia, georgia(europe), iceland, etc.. for that very reason have a nice day |
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick heads up OP.
Pardon my lack of knowledge in investment.
How does one calculate the return of investment? Where does the 50 comes from?
I assume that 1191870 is the current amount of invested money?
What about the other investment opportunities such as Airbitz? In your opinion, are there better investments out there beside bitstamp?
Thanks in advance.
ill help the OP out E 1,191,870 is how much bitstamp is hoping 2% is worth.(their investment goal note measured in euro) $ 1,187,366 is how much bitstamp is hoping 2% is worth.(their investment goal note measured in dollar) lets call it a round figure of $E1.2mill for easy maths meaning bitstamp think 100% (2%($E1.2m)*50) of the business is worth lets call it 60 million dollar/euro now lets separately look at how much income that 60mill company gets so $5m a day trading volume ($4.3m dollars today but lets round it up to match OP) with 0.1% fee... ($5m/1000)=$5000 a day income multiply that for the year: $1,825,000 now that $1.8m yearly income is for 100% of the company. so now you divide that 100% to 2% to know how much the share holder of 2% gets the answer: $36,500 so shareholder buys 2% at $1,187,366 but gets only $36,500 returns a year based on OP's calculations
now here is the better maths https://bitcoincharts.com/markets/bitstampUSD_trades.html$1,089,496,180.20 a year volume what has to be known is the average trader is charged 0.2% and when a trade happens the 'maker' is charged 0.2% and the 'taker' is charged 0.2% so for each trade bitstamp gets 0.4% $1,089,496,180.20/0.4% = $4,357,984.72 income for 100% of the company to share. which (imagining(dumbly) there are no costs to account for first) again without caring about bills/salaries that eat into that $4.3m income equals AT BEST 2% is $125,560 but that still does not cover the $1.2mill investment and would take 10 years to recoup even if that money was handed out BEFORE COSTS. after costs expect ALOT less because salaries do need to be paid.. bills need to be paid and in most investments, investors get their % AFTER profit is calculated. not income
oh and here is the real kicker http://ukbizdb.com/company/08157033/bitstamp-limited/financesits from 2013.. but read it and get some surprises the company only has $18,800(£14,906) of its own assets (office/furniture/server/domainname) but is valuing the company at $82,847,791 (£65,687,050) its done this by using its customers funds as its own collateral!!! $81,813,497(£64,866,995) liability
based on the 2013 finances and knowing the income, etc.. i can see why they 'claimed a hack' in 2015 and they will claim another hack later too. |
|
|
|
The term hardfork does not connote that only one chain survived, only that a split in
the protocol occurred. So, it is possible that after a hardfork, two separate chains can
exist and survive. (Though personally, I think the system is a form of war and only one
chain should exist.) In the case of Ethereum, both the "original chain" and the "new chain"
survived, and which originated from an intentional controversial hardforking of the "original".
So a hardfork does not occur until there is a literal split or fork in the chain.
This fork, on one side has the original protocol and the other has the "new" protocol.
It is not a branching, but a literal "fork in the road" and we must choose a path.
The term branching assumes that it will come to an end at some point, but this is unknown.
Because it is unknown, before a hardfork is activated, there should be the required % consensus.
If a client exists that activates a new protocol and causes a hardfork intentionally with
only 50% consensus, which is designed to split the chain into two and take half the ecosystem,
not only is this an intentional controversial hardfork, but is also a malicious hardfork and would
be considered an attack. So it is an intentionally controversial malicious hardfork.
So, I think a hardfork can be many different things based upon the context that surrounds it.
I'm sure that in 5 years, there will be even more or an updated definition of what a hardfork
can or can not be. Hardforks didn't exist until Bitcoin was created and as such, we are still in
experimental waters.
here we go someone else trying to meander all the types back into on umbrella term and then make that term sound bad. by only mentioning the worse cases ethereum did not split and survive due to consensus. it was not just 2 differing rules that battled it out in an orphan war. they literally walked in different directions never looking at each other. learn --oppose-dao-fork im literally spelling it out for you which google can guide you further --oppose-dao-fork is not a consensus orphan war. but a surrender and retreat to different corners and never look at eachother ethereum should not be used as an example because ethereum did not use consensus. no bitcoin proposal should use the intentional altcoin maker. all the blocksize bips that are viable are not using the intentional altcoin maker the community want a consensus driven vote to grow on one mainnet. not split. so why even mention something that requires adding intentional rules to ignore and walk away. it has nothing to do with a viable bitcoin scaling. but everything to do with making clams2.0 (which the majority do not want anyway) if people stop umbrella terming the creation of an altcoin to be the definition of a hard fork. and start running real simulations of using consensus if people stop thinking that orphans only ever happen when an altcoin is potentially forming. and instead realise orphans happen more times then they think without an altcoin forming . they will realise consensus and orphans are part of bitcoin and a security feature built into bitcoin from day one. banning nodes is not built into bitcoin. so atleast learn the difference and stop doomsdaying a normal consensus driven fork |
|
|
|
|
as for the ban. the ban is not permanent.. its 100 seconds or any amount a node chooses.. (then when time is up the orphans return and wipe out that work of the minority in that time)
also the ban is if someone is intentionally broadcasting a block not requested and doesnt fit rules. (a DDoS)
however usually theres a handshake.
EG A requests data. gets bad data doesnt make B the bad guy that should be banned.. because B sent something that A requested...
unlike if lets say C (a malicious node) DDoSed A with unrequested data
in this event C would get banned.
but A would simply just not ask B to resend again. and would look for another source while keeping B active.
unlike the ethereum intentional split where its a permanent ban by extra ban rules being added.
its also not recommended to use the ban (meant for DDoS) to be used as an intentional split. (by adding in new rules)
|
|
|
|
|
as dannyhamilton has meandered upon.. the term hardfork has lost its meaning. and become an umbrella term that can be many things.
he however twists the scenarios to fit a rhetoric of A (staying low is best) by not staying on track with his scenarios.
by scenario 1
being consensual fork where A wins..
but for scenario 2
he doesnt use consensual fork where B wins.(like a mirror of A)
instead 'suggest' consensual fork where B wins but throws in intentional splits to make it sound bad.
in scenario 3
he doesnt use consensual fork where eventually A wins.
instead he ignores consensual fork and talks about controversial fork and intentional splits.
he should have, to be unbiased done a scenario 4.
consensual B majority, no mention of intentional split
he should have, to be unbiased done a scenario 5.
consensual B majority, A splits
but no he wanted to make B sound bad
but hey its funny seeing them try throwing controversial, consensual and intentional split under one buzzword to scare people. rather than explain the details and differences and what is actually involved.
|
|
|
|
I think you are talking about unintentional hardforks that reorg mostly.
When I was answering the OP, I was talking about intentional hardforks.
I believe an intentional hardfork can lead to two surviving chains such as with Ethereum.
I believe an intentional hardfork can either be an "upgrade" or an "attack" based on how its conducted.
I believe not all miners are purely financially motivated and some could be future attackers in waiting.
I'm not a programmer nor as technical as some of you, so some of my terminology and
explanations are not as precise and detailed.
hardforks under bitcoin resolve themselves due to orphans/consensus an intentional split like ethereum (--oppose-dao-fork) are things that are NOT proposed in any viable BIP and are not a hardfork. they are an intentional split(altcoin maker). dont think of forks as 2 persistant chains. think of it as one chain that branches off and one limb will be cut off.. once orphan drama sorts out the victor. any rational and viable fork should use consensus. to reduce orphan risk a controversial hardfork is when the consensus is low. meaning LOTS of orphans (a tree branches out, you cut its limb. another branches out, you cut its limb. over and over) again not 2 persistent chains a consensual hardfork is when the consensus is high. meaning minimal orphans (a tree branches out, you cut the weak limb quite fast and continue the strong limb) again not 2 persistent chains a softfork changes a rule without branching, unless there is a bug.. (like the leveldb upgrade in 0.8 that started as soft. but ended up as hard and controversial) a hardfork has a bigger chance of branching off even without a bug.. depending on node acceptance levels. however a controversial hardfork can be seen by the leveldb bug. yep changing to leveldb was suppose to be a soft upgrade.. but ended up causing a controversial hard fork where there was not a clear majority running 0.7 or 0.8 where by 0.7nodes hung.. and were not syncing.. it was not 2 persistent chains. 0.8 continued on. 0.7 hung and didnt persist. a decision was made to downgrade back to 0.7 and fix the cause later. thus cutting off the 0.8 limb rather than leaving 0.7 hanging in the unsyncing abyss of screaming out orphans. due to the high orphan risk if there was a clear majority wanting to move forward. it would be more prudent to get the minority to upgrade.. if there was a clear majority wanting to stay back. it would be more prudent to get the minority to downgrade.. these days. pools wont even do anything unless there is a clear majority acceptance. they want to avoid orphans.(zero reward) merchants want to avoid orphans(double spends) fullnodes want to avoid orphans (bandwidth, loops, hangups) |
|
|
|
|
hang on.
lets get this right
so icebreaker. who was happy with gmaxwell R3cking hearn(r3) . for being paid by bankers.
now icebreaker seems less friendly towards gmaxwell because its now public knowledge gmaxwell is paid by bankers too.
sidenote:
gmaxwell hates gavin.
where gavin(Bloq) and gmax(blockstream) are both paid by the same guy coindesk(DCG) who is involved with hyperledger(bankers altcoin) where all three (r3) (Bloq) and (blockstream) are highlighted as involved with hyperledger directly (members).. plus indirectly via investors
so hearn, gavin and gmax all paid by bankers and all have direct AND indirect ties to hyperledger ..
and then we have gmaxwell trying to take the moral highground pretending to be 'all about the bitcoin dcentralization' and 'it will all be ok' and anyone not blockstream friendly must be an altcoiner and should F**k off.. and if you are blockstream friendly you should patent your code under blockstream DLP so that blockstream can charge you FRAND royalties if you want to revoke your blockstream owned licence from your software
while gmaxwell plays with hyperledger and monero.. oh and multimillions of banker FIAT..
|
|
|
|
On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork. So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot? I giggle at the enormity of that count.
gmaxwells mindset national elections.. sorry folks citizens cant vote.. civil servants cant vote. only the senators can vote. but dont worry civil servants. YOU will notify yourself that you have been made obsolete. the day your obsolete.. but dont worry your still citizens. nothing wrong with being just a citizen. dont worry. you can watch from a distance. its then upto you to reapply for a civil servants role under new contract. but dont worry. we done this in a way that you cant go on strike against it.. now all we have to do is bribe the senate with a few all-inclusive weekendsdont worry there nothing wrong with being downgraded to a citizen, dont worry citizens =not full nodes civil servants = full node senate=pools |
|
|
|
- snip -
hardfork is a single chain that branchs off and then is cut off when eventually orphaned.
if there is no clear majority. then it branch off often. then get cut off often. its not 2 chains. but multiple branches that get trimmed (orphaned)
- snip -
Hardforks have multiple scenarios depending on what percentage of the nodes and hashpower choose each set of rules. Lets say there is a set A of nodes and miners that keep 1 MB blocks as the rule, and a second set B of nodes that allow 2 MB blocks. Hardfork Scenario 1 ============= An overwhelming number of nodes all belong to set A. Occasionally set B will solve and attempt to broadcast a block, but other nodes in set B will have a difficult time receiving the block. The block will quickly become orphaned as soon as 2 blocks are mined by set A. All nodes and miners in set A will simply ignore the blocks from set B. The blockchain created by set A will be the only "real" blockchain, and any miner mining in set B is effectively wasting hash power as they will never get any revenue from that hash power at all. They are spending money on the principal of the rules they want knowing that they aren't going to actually get anything. Hardfork Scenario 2 ============= An overwhelming number of nodes all belong to set B. Set B will have a blockchain that is always longer than the set A blockchain, therefore the set B blockchain will never be orphaned. Since set A will refuse to recognize any blocks from set B as "valid", it will grow its own forked blockchain that can't be orphaned by set B (as far as set A is concerned set B blocks are not valid blocks). There will be two continuous incompatible blockchains (one for each set). Bitcoins on the set A blockchain won't be very useful (since the overwhelming majority don't recognize those as valid "bitcoin" blocks). Hardfork Scenario 3 ============= There are many nodes and miners in each set, but neither set has an "OVERWHELMING" majority. Set B will grow a long blockchain fork that will possibly occasionally be replaced by an even longer blockchain from set A. Re-orgs dozens (or hundreds) of blocks deep will happen frequently enough to be VERY annoying. If set B can keep enough hashpower (or implement a modification that will reject blocks form set A) then there will be two continuous incompatible blockchains (one for each set). Bitcoins on each chain will be relatively useful (as there are a substantial number of nodes accepting them). There may even be a market that will exchange set A bitcoins for set B bitcoins at some exchange rate. When spending your bitcoins, you'll need to know if the recipient is expecting set A or set B. you scenario1 ========== you say B will have trouble receiving B blocks because A nodes wont relay it. your right so B sticks with A chain, due to high orphan risk. and because A's are acceptable to B. so no harm sticking with A. (ergo network does not implement new rule A rule still enforced) you scenario2 ========== but you forgot scenario 1 flipped. A will have trouble getting A blocks for the same reason as scenario 1.(majority B isnt relaying A blocks if B blocks have the height) thus leaving A dormant not able to sync. here ill explain without ignoring B.. A ends up requesting B's blocks because of height and rejecting the data due to size. requesting B's blocks and rejecting. requesting B's blocks and rejecting. endless loop. (ergo network implements new rule B is enforced A nodes cant sync) your scenario3 =========== reality is lots of orphans many times a day. branch out, kill off .. branch out, off kill.. branch, kill off. eventually it settles down presumably to A due to headaches of high orphan risk and knowing A is acceptable to ALL but B is only acceptable to HALF.. but if they were to keep up the orphan fight. if B attained a higher height. refer to scenario 2 if A attained a higher height. refer to scenario 1 logic dictates a drawn out orphan fight (not a persistent 2 chain fight) results in settling for the most compatible. think of it this way. if personB can hold 10 oranges but personA can hold 5 oranges.. is there a problem with handing B just 5 oranges if he is not already holding any...... nope. opposite cant be said for A. they will be dropping the oranges and asking to pick them up. eventually either A shuts down never holding oranges. or B agree's the rule should only be 5 oranges for the benefit of the network (unless B had super majority to not care about A) its not 2 persistent chains EG | | | | | | | | | | \| but orphans, many branches that get cut off \ | *| \| *| \| *| \| summary ====== pools are not stupid enough to risk their time/income on high orphan risk. so your scenarios are meaningless.. if B didnt have majority. B would stick with A rule to avoid wasted time/money. but i atleast helped by highlighting what would happen if pools did do it without super high majority, due to your thought process of thinking that pools would stupidly do it at lower numbers. the only way a minority branch of A survives is to intentionally avoid connecting to the opposition and forming an intentional altcoin via banning IP addresses and forming their own DNS seed/network |
|
|
|
but core have been selling the "backward compatible".. now they are selling the need to upgrade..
they should have sold the need to upgrade from day one.
There is no need to upgrade no need?? you do know FULL NODES want to be FULL NODES for a reason right!! a soft fork is not about keping full nodes as full nodes. its about bypassing opposition to push a change without a full node vetoing out a change. much like avoiding an election by killing the president and having the senate vote in someone without the countries consent. in the UK we never voted in Theresa may. and she already is causing grief and we have nothing to do to stop her. seriously i know you love work arounds to not fix problems but just jump passed problems (you have displayed this many times). but full nodes want to be full nodes for a reason. so saying that a full node will be downgraded but shouldnt care, and shouldnt need to worry because its not a problem.. is like saying you should go back to grade school and not worry about the world around you because your opinion doesnt count |
|
|
|
There is no need to upgrade for those against SegWit. That is why it is soft fork, i.e. "backward compatible". For 2mb Hard Fork, upgradation is mandatory, or else u'll be left behind.
though you STORE the blocks.. old node not validating segwit wont be independantly testing and veryifying a tx within a block if the TX is segwit. it just deems it as acceptable without even fully checking it. its like having a wife. she goes to the supermarket and checks the fruit is ripe. you double check its ripe, but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong. full nodes are like food connoisseurs/critics. and they want to be fully critical and checking everything for a reason. if they are not checking every part of the stuff they get. then they are not a full node.. in short they are now a trolley pusher not a fruit connoisseur turning 5000 connoisseurs into 3000 trolley pushers. 2000 connoisseurs can cause problems for the meal(network) especially if those 2000 all have the same tastebuds (running one implementation from one source) if they are not being critical about the data then they might aswell save the hard drive space and be relay nodes. because they cant independently trust what they have been handed. find something your fussy about, whether its who cleans the house or who pays the bills. where you want to be in control. then hand it off to someone else. |
|
|
|
Yes, but this rule of 1mb has been implemented by satoshi in the first or second year. If this has been impletemented by a soft fork why is it not possible to increase it by a soft fork.
Most simply: Softfork means we can change the system WITHIN the confines of the current code or consensus.There is a single chain and the softfork keeps that single chain in effect. Hardfork means we need to change the system OUTSIDE the confines of the current code or consensus. There is a single chain and the hardfork creates two chains.Since the blocksize limit was originally 32MB when debuted and was lowered to 1MB, it is a softfork.If we now wish to raise the 1MB limit to 2MB or more, it would technically be a hardfork since it expands upon. So a softfork can be softforked down again to a lower size, in theory, but to go up, everyone needs to agree
on the new hardforked chain. It is a transformation into a new Bitcoin. If there is no near universal agreement
and a hardfork occurs anyway, there is the potential to have two surviving chains. Two chains is not something to be looked upon as favorable, but a failure of consensus. Bitcoin functions on consensus, not survival of the fittest. nope. blue line soft fork is where there is a change. but it doesnt trigger a new branch, doesnt cause an orphan first red line hardfork is a single chain that branchs off and then is cut off when eventually orphaned. if there is no clear majority. then it branch off often. then get cut off often. its not 2 chains. but multiple branches that get trimmed (orphaned) intentional split is where the branchs survive ONLY because they ban opposition from connecting to them and ignore/dont receive the orphaning blocks (avoid consensus orphan mechanism) and instead link up in their own clan to a pool(s) that have similar rules.(this is not consensus) second redline the 32mb rule is a protocol rule. still inplace and used due to risk of packet loss.. below that there is a consensus rule, nodes have(core default 1mb) below that there is a policy rule, pools have.(core default 0.7mb, but most pools adjust this to 0.99 immediately) the policy rule is a pool 'preference' which before 2013 they had it at 0.5 and slowly increased it since. third red line if there is no agreement pools wont risk it.. if they are stupid and do risk it, orphans take care of it. in short it wont happen unless there is agreement and eventually, orphan drama or not, there is one chain heading in one direction building ontop of the last. the only way to make a new network is intentionally banning the opposition to avoid consensus/orphans so that both dont orphan each other out |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
