Latest posts of: mda

Quote from: Theb on October 30, 2019, 06:48:43 PM

The only obstacle to mass adaption is government sabotaging of native scaling. But sooner or later it'll become overcome and we'll say good bye to our dear government.

Quote from: AverageGlabella on October 15, 2019, 04:07:34 PM

Quote from: mda on October 11, 2019, 07:37:39 AM

A possible trade-off would be to limit transaction amounts from unhashed public keys to few million USD per day.

If you want to severely limit Bitcoin's potential then you could do this but I would and many others would advise putting any sort of limitations on the Bitcoin technology. Limiting it shows that there is a centralised force trying to control Bitcoin despite it being for a good cause. If you want to transact more than a couple million dollars in Bitcoin in an hour then you should be allowed to do that. Freedom is the best approach here.

This trade-off is a middle ground between two options. Let quantum computing flood the market in a short period of time (freedom approach) or destroy these coins because it's an easy way to preserve and even increase a bit our wealth.

A possible trade-off would be to limit transaction amounts from unhashed public keys to few million USD per day.

Relax, people. No need to build the mining farm yet.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.180410

My opinion is unchanged, further scaling can be possible only through market mechanisms. Actually, in the light of block space requirements brought by quantum threat, these mechanisms would merely preserve the status quo.

Quote from: pereira4 on September 27, 2019, 09:27:12 PM

The main problem with new computers is they all have backdoors, at the hardware level. With Intel you hve the "Intel Management Engine" (IME), and with AMD you have the "Platform Security Processor". IME is more understood, with PSP we don't even know anything about it. Both have proprietary blobs and cannot be flashed in current computers. So While the 3900x is awesome in it's performance, you have the privacy problem. This forces people to use old computers to run nodes.

Thanks, this kind of information isn't plastered everywhere for obvious reasons and I have had to dig again into the latest achievements of the big brother.

A possible approach to deal with quantum threat would be a multi-tier encryption system. For small amounts (90% of the total) don't change anything, for medium amounts (9% of the total) use weaker and lighter Lamport signatures and for the rest use stronger and heavier Lamport signatures.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Quantum_computing_and_Bitcoin

Solo mining doesn't exactly help with on-chain scaling. Wouldn't it be easier to detect censored transactions and boycott offending pool?

Software for atomic swaps between hundreds of coins with different protocols and blockchains would be a maintenance headache. However in a specific case atomic swaps could shine.

I would add proper scaling to the solutions from above.
With tens of thousands transactions per second CO2 footprint will have a practical application unlike ~5 transactions per second that are used now mainly for speculation.

While usually Khaos77 posts nonsense, this time he's spot on. Like a broken clock, I suppose. From the beginning LN has been designed as an hierarchical trap.

Also I would suggest shardcoiners to start mining with block reward 50 so all empty talkers here would pay the price for their intellectual indolence.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 25, 2019, 09:00:00 AM

Plus that proposed "solution" is vaporware. Where is the Github repository? Or the testnet? Some people want to say something, just to say something. Cool

You are absolutely right, there is no repository or testnet yet. But as soon as shardcoin is deployed my cripplecoins will be slowly but surely exchanged to shardcoins at a factor of 3 to 5. I'm unsure if it counts as 'just to say something' or not.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 23, 2019, 10:42:52 AM

Or their network proposes another hard fork to make blocks smaller again, and adopt a fee market, then increase transaction throughput only as necessary.

Then shards it hundred times and says goodbye to Blockstream's and Core's cripplecoin.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 14, 2019, 07:01:16 AM

But what is the "optimal block size"? That's the mystery that all cryptocurrency developers wants to know.

I'll try to uncover this mystery for you and the rest of cryptocurrency developers. The optimal block size is ~25% of the average residential line throughput divided in 10 minute chunks.

I don't see another way out of this situation.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5109561

Node reward are countless hours of effort otherwise lost/stolen through currency debasement.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on May 01, 2019, 09:25:48 AM

For a person who claims to be "smart", you don't sound as smart at all. You only repeat the big blocker propaganda without truly knowing the finer points of how Bitcoin works.

You waste the time arguing with a troll instead of ignoring him.

Feel free to create more block space, it isn't that hard. As a side effect this will end Veriblock's raison d'être.

Quote from: spartacusrex on April 01, 2019, 09:26:24 PM

Quote from: mda on April 01, 2019, 08:16:56 PM

Quote from: spartacusrex on April 01, 2019, 12:13:43 PM

We store it in a bitfield. 1024 Bits is 128Bytes.

This bitfield goes into every transaction 1024 times. Adding to this Merkle path and comparing to 250 bytes of an average transaction I would doubt even 1x throughput.

The original transaction ( the one where the 'transaction batching' is going on ).. is still 1000x times smaller.. with a fee which is 1000x smaller. And you'll still have paid out to 1024 users.

Merkle trees are useful when plain cryptography is not enough, like in inter-chain communication. In this proposal you are attempting an uneasy task to compress thirty-something bytes per output even more.