Everyone's bitcoins will be doubled! Why would anyone not want a hard fork?
want to fork away? clam coin check it out. there are your "double coin" statistics |
|
|
|
|
they do infact have the bitcoin. i beleive they are just denying you service/goods (whatever it was you wanted to use the bitcoin for)
EG if it was an exchange/payment service they are not allowing you 'credit' balance.
instead they will send the bitcoin back. and refuse future service to you.
if you send them the funds using a wallet you have full control of the private keys to, they can simply send it back to the address it came from.
but if you sent them funds using a exchange or payment service. be sure to tell them an address belonging to you to send the bitcoin back to.
|
|
|
|
The problem with pruned mode is... you need to download the entire blockchain the first time in order to enable it, so the problem persists... will we be able to enable pruned mode without having to download all of the blockchain?
the only problem with pruned mode is once you have pruned it.. you are then not part of the 5500 full nodes able to help the network. in laymens terms no newbies to the network can leach the entire network data of the last 7 years from you. so you become second class and people drop their connection from you because you cant hand them what they desire. this affects the 6 degree of separation and also the distribution of the blockchain. if people dont want to hold all the data.. then just download electrum. stop messing with full nodes! edit: if you dont want to be a full node |
|
|
|
|
electricity has never been the biggest problem.
tiles are also not free.
so although you are not paying a monthly electric bill you are either repaying a loan to have the panels or paying a larger amount upfront to then get the savings (returns) later.
the main costs are the asics themselves
afterall.. due to hashrate rises every day, and difficulty rises every fortnight. its deemed best to try and get ROI within 6 months.
so even at zero.. you are still having to think about the.. THOUSANDS of $ to buy the tiles.
as for normal access to electric
one asic
at 20cents/kwh for 6 months electric = $900
at 10cents/kwh for 6 months electric =$450
at 5cents/kwh for 6 months electric = $225
and the $1600 to buy an asic
so paying thousands on solar power vs $225-$900 using normal electric providers is not a saving.
solar panels are only cheaper based on their 10 year lifespan, not on making bitcoin profits in 6months
|
|
|
|
The problem to overcome is the visibility of the panels from an upper distance. Governments will use planes to find out houses using this technology and I predict massive sanction fees will be delivered upon those that install this technology on their roofts without noticing to the government. It sucks but we have no way out unless you want to risk it. Hopefuly in the future we have 100% undetectable panels.
governments will use planes with high zoom lenses?? um noo they will just look at electric companies and ask for records of all residents with £$0 bill or all residents with over £$XXXX bills. £$0 = getting electric via other means £$XXXX = probably growing cannabis with lots of heat lamps and ventilation. results are faster and cheaper to achieve and seeing as law enforcement are paid a salary it costs nothing to order them to check out a few residents in those categories inbetween doing their true onduty jobs of course governments are not gonna waste a year on a plane when they can get the same data more accurately in 5 minutes and double check it on foot within a couple weeks |
|
|
|
Personally I was really excited about the end of the year and was sure that price would rise to the $750-800 range.
But all it took was a news story with no sources saying that China may be looking at regulating Bitcoin
and the price dropped 8%.
I wonder if a similar story about regulation in the US or Europe would have such a strong effect.
if all you care about is the fiat price. then dont expect pure good news to speculate the price up. accept there will be bad news to speculate the price down. afterall those that sold on a high will want to shout some negative news to bring the price down to then grab some cheaper coins again. so expect bad news and good news will always follow one another.. thats how speculation works as for the 20% up in recent months and 9% drop in recent days. thats normal. but dont attribute it to china. after all, china only amounts to just 150 nodes and a hand full of people. yes western bad news has a bigger impact on speculation due to there being more speculators involved in the west, but overall its just speculative temporary drama so expect ups and downs. if you want stable increasing rises. just sit back and let the deflationary nature do its thing. which is more related to hashing power costs and the reward of such activity. yes its slower and more boring. but its where the real value lays. (the resistance points that stop the price falling all the way to zero) |
|
|
|
|
the flag waving period of segwit begins november 15th.. but that does not mean anything changes on november 15th.
it will take a while to obtain 95% and i guarantee it wont happen in just 2 weeks. because although core are releasing code, mining pools prefer to use their own codebase that they trust due to the fact that mining requires different things that a normal node does not offer, so they will only flag when they are confident and running something that does what they want it to do.
yea core fanboys will say that code has been available for months. but pools will only work with the up-to-date variables. not the old variables of spring/summer 2016.
so expect activation in early 2017 once miners ar confident that their code does what it is suppose to.(still not that long away, so relax fanboys!!)
then its upto nodes to move their funds out of legacy keypairs and into segwit acceptable HD seed keypairs to then be able to use them. this is also a headache for some services/merchants having to change customers deposit addresses, move reserves and audit it all to be sure nothing gets forgot.. so expect it to be a slow adoption after activation.. again expect this to start being noticeable in about spring/summer 2017.
all i can see from this article is some PR guy waving his meaningless name badge, while exaggerating how soon bitcoin will change purely to try drumming up some FIAT!! price speculation.
the article has no bases on talking about bitcoins real usability and growth of bitcoin tech. especially not using any rational timescales.
in short
dont expect anything to happen to usability of bitcoin in 2016..
just treat the article as some speculative market trading waffle to try pushing the price forward without actually giving any rational reason for the price to move forward due to real uses of bitcoin in 2016
|
|
|
|
just to ignore altcoins would probably be not a good idea. if you want people to be safe from altcoin scams you need to inform them first. but only saying all altcoins are bad like a mantra will sound cult like for outsiders. so, talk about altcoins and say to be aware of scams should be an ok way to go.
altcoins as altcoins have "some" purpose. and yes making people aware of scams is good too but everyone knows an ICO is just a premine scam tactic of pump&dumpers. the OP should not do AMA for ICO's (people making new coins before they are even released/tested found a niche and utility) but instead, at best only do AMA with alts that do/have served a purpose that have already shown themselves to survive the test of time. (not the pre-launch pump&dumps) but i still prefer to have a bitcoin media group concentrating on bitcoin.. otherwise this time next year it will just end up highlighting the benefits of hyperledger. which is just fiat2.0 (banker owned, blockstream coded) and the opposite of what bitcoins ethos was |
|
|
|
Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic: knowing theres under 6000 nodes if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays) 146*146=21316 nodes get it if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays) 6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it and so on 9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it 18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it 75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools. and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily. Can I use your 6 degrees of separation in a white paper? How can I attribute you or how do you want to be attributed? Pm if preferred. 6 degree's of separation is a theory that has existed for decades they have made movies about it, drinking games about it. google it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation It was originally set out by Frigyes Karinthy in 1929 its not my theory.. so use the source(Frigyes Karinthy in 1929) and then make your own calculations  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Unlimited will join the altcoin cementery soon along with Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. By next year we should have segwit activated already.
In the moment of truth people know it's stupid to gamble with developers, and the Core devs are the most solid devs.
OMG what a Kool-Aid drinker. SegWit and LN is not Bitcoin. It is CoreAltCoin. ...and it is stupid. Fucking stupid. Core/Blockstream is the biggest scam in Bitcoin. They are trying to take over. That is not a problem because you can always fork it away from the core developers. I understand your argument and your concern but there is no need for name calling and condescending comments. If you do not agree with the cre developers and the direction they are taking then just campaign for the fork in a respectful manner. That is why Roger Ver is still highly respected because he has the right attitude. suggesting to fork away from the core devs means they win and make bitcoin a dictatorship. its like saying if you dont love obama leave america. rather then doing the right thing and showing why they dont deserve to dominate. especially if those domination lovers want a dictatorship. you dont just hand them the dictatorship by running away. you ensure bitcoin stays diverse, open and no barriers of entry. again dont fool for the bait of forking away. thats what gmaxwell is begging other implementations to do.. not what the other implementations themselves are begging for. |
|
|
|
|
before working out how they will pay or how much they are willing to pay.
you have to work out what would be worth seeing.
you already said you want to focus on your area. so make a listing of all the places in your area that might attract people.
this can be done just by looking at the competition and seeing what they offer and then looking at the costs of duplicating the same thing.
you can try to think of offering different levels of service.
EG
5star + limo service and personal butler
3star + tour bus and self service all inclusive
also if you are planning on having all of the vacation based in bitcoin. find out which stores accept bitcoin already.
think about what stores would happily accept bitcoin. EG usually its independent stores where the manager actually has direct decision making
responsibility, rather than national chain stores where the local manager is a glorified storekey holder/supervisor.
the reason for this. is no one can tell you a budget unless they have an idea of what to expect.
EG you have suggested northern europe.
so im guessing it wont be a sunbathing summer sports vacation. but more so hiking skiing northern lights vacation.
or even an amsterdam club 18-30 night life vacation
give some suggestions of what is available that way you can get a better answer out of people
no point throwing out an empty question and get random answers like
$4000 summer sports where its expectant to be 4-5 star all inclusive.
where reality due to location is more like 3-4star evening buffet and a hike into the mountains to see the northern lights.
without knowing what your capable of offering.. EG city night life.. fortnight cruiseship, mountain cabin ski/hike. its harder to get defined answers.
like i said you may end up with lots of people shouting for celebrity tour bus rides and beach sunbathing vacations which are not that viable for northern europe.
|
|
|
|
overall do you agree that for those not upgrading.. they should be more wary of risk
Yes. again wait a few confirmations to ensure it doesnt orphan because bad data and malicious intent is and always will be a risk and thats why nodes are important
Yes. took you long enough good day |
|
|
|
This is pointless. You just keep running around in circles screaming the same things you said earlier, not listening to what anyone else has to say, constantly ridiculing them and thinking you are correct and everyone else who doesn't think the same is wrong. Are you ignorant, blind, terrible at reading comprehension, or all of the above?
The only IF that I said is IF A MINER DOES NOT UPGRADE. How about this, it means exactly the same thing: Miners who do not upgrade and continue to operate as they do now will not have their blocks orphaned by those who do upgrade.
the point of FULLY VALIDATING INCLUDING SIGNATURES is to rule out malicious or accidentally nasty data. What does that have to do with ANYTHING that you quoted? I never said that fully validating was unnecessary. All I said regarding validation is that a non-upgraded node will still be validating the rest of the transaction. It is still validating, albeit partial validation. It is not just "blindly accepting" all segwit transactions. let me guess.. next month you will be saying segwit is such a success nodes are not needed because all the pools are running core and they alone can hold the blockchain. and you will start promoting only running lite clients because you think independent security is not relevant
Stop putting words in my mouth. At no point in time have I said any of that sort and at no point in time will I say anything of that sort. I have said nothing except facts which you can look up and verify yourself by reading the source code. All you have said are baseless statements, false statements, and slander against me and others who do not share your viewpoint. And the occasional true statement. Much like Donald Trump. do you agree pools should not be 100% trusted to not make bad data do you agree pools should not be 100% trusted to not be malicious meaning nodes have a real reason to FULLY validate do you agree that orphans do happen and while nodes cannot FULLY validate a transaction as not being malicious/ bad more orphans can occur and while not all pools are uptodate there is a heightened risk even further do you agree that nodes should not 100% trust data they receive do you agree that nodes should 100% independently and FULLY data they receive overall do you agree that for those not upgrading.. they should be more wary of risk anyone can steal someones chequebook and right a destination an acceptable date and an acceptable amount.. but the cheque is not valid unless its fully validated. any banks cashing a cheque without the signature risks a double spend. and should "accept" the cheque and let it pass on to other more uptodate banks to validate the cheque using uptodate technology before its then deemed safe again wait a few confirmations to ensure it doesnt orphan because bad data and malicious intent is and always will be a risk and thats why nodes are important |
|
|
|
OMG
all your IF if if.
your not thinking about risk your thinking of shying away from risks with 'if' statements
you are not even considering malicious intent to double spend.
instead your saying if there is no double spend then you can accept a tx with 1 confirm
Are you ignorant, blind, terrible at reading comprehension, or all of the above? The only IF that I said is IF A MINER DOES NOT UPGRADE. How about this, it means exactly the same thing: Miners who do not upgrade and continue to operate as they do now will not have their blocks orphaned by those who do upgrade. the point of FULLY VALIDATING INCLUDING SIGNATURES is to rule out malicious or accidentally nasty data. untill all pools are running updated software untill all pools are proven not to be malicious untill all nodes before yours are proven to not be malicious. then you should not trust the data you receive. but in utopia then you can be comforted to not need to fully validate a transaction, because you TRUST the network will do it for you. in which case validating independently and diversly and decentrally is no longer required.. so think about this: why do you think bitcoin needs to be independently and decentrally validated.. think about bitcoins whole ethos. think about why double spends happen why orphans happen segwit has not fixed that and its still a problem which is the point of needing decentralized and independent validation.. to not trust a miner is uptodate and ethical. let me guess.. next month you will be saying segwit is such a success nodes are not needed because all the pools are running core and they alone can hold the blockchain. and you will start promoting only running lite clients because you think independent security is not relevant come on wake up!! ask yourself why decentralized nodes exist. why not let just the pools hold the blockchain.. if they are so ethical and perfect |
|
|
|
Who sells their coins as a reaction to baseless rumours any way, that's what I want to know.
its called speculation. if you can use speculation to make 1% a day.. thats 365% a year if you know speculation can change a price from $745-$675 ~9% then you can make one dump grab the 9% and take the rest of the week off still able to make 365% a year |
|
|
|
IMO yes. I do not think that there is a larger orphan risk. Most miners are already following the standardness rules. If they do not upgrade but continue to follow the already existing standardness rules then their blocks will not be orphaned.
OMG all your IF if if. your not thinking about risk your thinking of shying away from risks with 'if' statements you are not even considering malicious intent to double spend. instead your saying if there is no double spend then you can accept a tx with 1 confirm hellloo... wakey wakey you need to wait out more then one confirm to ensure there is no ifs, buts or maybes seriously wake up |
|
|
|
I am prioritising the community first by trying to help stop the spread of misinformation from people like you.
ok lets break it down to a community helpful question should old legacy clients trust a 1 confirm segwit tx.. i mean 100%. please before putting the shoe shinner hat on.. think about the larger orphan risk. again should old legacy clients trust a 1 confirm segwit tx.. i mean 100%. |
|
|
|
It is still checking other parts of the transaction for validity. Signatures are not the only thing to check for when checking validity of a transaction. The fact that it still checks validity as best as it can means that it is not just blindy accepting the transaction. Blindly accepting would be accepting a transaction regardless, even if it is invalid in some other way than just signatures, i.e. included in block but locktime has not passed yet.
seriously, again? if you cannot verify the signature then you cannot validate the funds should be moved. acceptance is different then validating it. EG someone writes out a cheque. no signature seems to be present (wrote in vinsible ink).. "hey bank will you cash this while i stand here." "well i can see that the amount is wrote correctly, i can see that the funds are going somewhere.. i dont see a signature.. but the date looks good enough..screw it lets cash that cheque. dont worry if it bounces later, its just a double spend" above scenario is baddddd hello wake up.. yes the network of segwit banks will validate the cheque because they have the special UV light to see the invisible ink signature. but the old fashioned bank should not cash the cheque. they should pass it on to the network of clearing houses and then the customer has to wait for a few days in the hope the other banks can validate it. for the bank to then cash it again. if your not up to date, dont accept a tx in a block at just 1 confirm, let the block relay around the network and wait to see if other nodes throw out the block for having a dodgy tx. and then be satisfied it is TRUSTED to be settled by others doing the validation i feel sorry for anyone to say. go ahead risk a double spend simply because the locktime date looks legit.. seriously stop shoe shining the devs and start being honest to the community. are you that desperate to appease the devs due to probably wanting to get a salary?? seriously prioritise the community first |
|
|
|
Well, not every node requires 146 connections. While I commend that user on his beneficial fanout, it is little wonder that his meager 20Mb/s upload rate is a limitation. While I've not seen a survey, I would assume 'a handful of up connections and a balanced number of down connections' might be a more pervasive usage model. Maybe divide by ten?
6th degree of separation/kevin bacon logic: knowing theres under 6000 nodes if everyone had 146 connections. then everyone would receive data within under 2 hops(relays) 146*146=21316 nodes get it if everyone had 6 connections. then everyone would receive data within 5 hops(relays) 6*6*6*6*6=7776 nodes get it and so on 9 connections is 4 hops(relays) needed 9*9*9*9=6561 nodes get it 18 connections is 3 hops(relays) needed 18*18*18=5832 nodes get it 75 connections is 2 hops(relays) needed 75*75=5625 nodes get it i would suggest anything over 75 is overkill and only for pools. and if you do have limited bandwidth you can bring the numbers down to save bandwidth while still connecting to the network and sending data happily and healthily. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
