|
ethereum is only on a couple exchanges and even though it has a so called billion cap, the amount of coins actually on an exchange is small.
so ethereum can be pumped easily by concentrating on those couple exchanges.
bitcoin however is spread out on many exchanges so trying to pump and dump it takes not only alot more coin/fiat but also having it all spread out on multiple exchanges, to ensure that all exchanges follow the pump/dump instead of working against your efforts
also some of them exchanges halt trades if a pump is happening so yes you can create movement, but an large spike or drop of more than 20% (meaning a real pump or dump) is not easy to do anymore.
it use to take minutes, now it takes hours/day to achieve and there is no guarantee's that your attempts to dump are not defended by others buying up ur hard work as they see it as discount day.
in short.
ethereum is a useless coin with no real world usage and limited exchange coverage. so when a dump happens people dont assume its a discount day, but see it as a stay away and let it plateau before deciding what to do
bitcoin has millions of uses (300k merchants selling multiple products) and many exchange coverage, so when a dump happens people are eager to grab it at a discount and not wait around.
not saying its impossible to pump and dump, just saying you cant make it drop/rise 20% in 10 minutes anymore, theres too much resistance
|
|
|
|
to all those talking about quantum computing, thinking it involves the mysticism of quantum realms and parellel dimentions.. nots not is actually alot more simple. but the creators of d-wave dont want competitors beating them to it so they are distracting the world with their "secret" by pretending its mystical. here is a previous post i made explaining quantum computing logically rather than mystically https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1606167.msg16150882#msg16150882in short the "cubit can be both a 1 and a 0 at the same time due to third dimensions" translates to a cubit can be a 0volt or 1volt AND.. 0.5volt that can represent both its just simple measuring of electricity, no longer just no electric vs some measure of electric for 0 or 1.. but multiple measures of electric to allow more then 2 choices per 'bit' |
|
|
|
|
ok some basic maths
at todays 1mb blocks = 52gb maximum bloat potential.
so far no year has even got close to 52gb growth per year alone.
but lets pretend the next 4 years are at full capacity
1mb blocks x4 years = 208gb maximum bloat potential(+ 7 years historic data = ~290gb)
2mb blocks x4 years = 416gb maximum bloat potential(+ 7 years historic data = ~498gb)
4mb blocks x4 years = 832gb maximum bloat potential(+ 7 years historic data = ~914gb)
so there you have it.
in 4 years time the MAXIMUM bloat the blockchain can be is 914gb, which is fact
yet the reality of actual data can be anything between/below, which is speculation
|
|
|
|
|
many programs related to crypto could do with massive tweaks to the GUI. but thats not a developers job, thats a graphic designers job
|
|
|
|
|
a farmer wont release the coin. because who would buy it.
the retailers wont because what they want to buy is the raw food produce,
lets say that a farmer convinces a retailer to buy it.. ok the retailer gives dollars to the farmer gets a coin then instantly gives the coin back to get the dairy/meat.
whats the point right!
the the farmer wants to pay rent. so does he ignore his coin and just pay rent in dollars.. well in the OP's mind no. so now the farmer gives the leaseholder of the land some of his coin and the leaseholder instantly gives them back and asks for dollars
see its useless
unless all farmers got together and wanted to work under one network(coin) along with some retailers and landlords, there is no chance of it becoming viable.
and even if all farmers did work together, they would still need to work out how to utilize the coin to have an actual function. beyond the flip-flop-flip of their coin
this is why so many altcoins fail.
1. they dont understand WHO will be using it
2. they dont understand WHY it will be used
3. they dont understand HOW it will be used
remember moneys initial invention was to be an understandable measure so that it solved the problems of
1 horse-shoe is worth 5 loaves of bread or 10 bowls of soup, or a night with a prostitute.
because having lots of different prices get confusing. so having one measure that everyone's individual goods and services can be measured against allows pricing something to be easier to understand and manage
its utility is in being the middleman of bartering. where people didnt need to know about soups, bread and prostitute value to be able to price their horseshoe
because a king would say 1xmoney is an hours hard labour
the horse shoe maker know the time it takes to get the metal, stoke the fire, hammer the metal is 8 hours. so a horse shoe is 8xmoney
the bread baker know the time it takes to get the flour from the mill. stoke the fire and make bread is 40 loaves for 8xmoney
and a prostitute sells her time in 1 hour amounts (even if she can finish off a guy in 10 minutes) so an entire night with a prostitute is 8xmoney
and they all come to an understanding that they can fairly trade their own goods for a reasonably equal value by knowing everything is valued to the same thing, money.
meaning anyone can value their produce easily against money without having to care or know about other peoples produce
but in the OP's idea of individual farmers having their own coin.. just wont work. they might aswell not have the coin and let the produce itself be the measure (making fiat the value transfer) because a individual coin holds no measure or value.
if a farmer is setting a random value for the coin. its no better than setting the price for the produce itself and not needing the coin, essentially
|
|
|
|
|
yes many people have already mentioned it since last year..
however this years big TV gossip point is the TV show "Startup" which is not about hacking or darknet stuff, but the financial industry dealing with cryptocurrency
|
|
|
|
Nobody wants a spam-transaction ridden, centralized bigblock Bitcoin-clone.
before blindly hailing core as your god. realise this.. the statement i quoted of you is actually something core is doing. again "bigblocks" 4mb vs 2mb which is bigger. secondly you think people are against core should automatically be deemed wanting another team to dominate. to me this is you revealing that you understand that bitcoin is already controlled by dev's. meaning your ok with that, as long as its core your unending desire to want core to dominate continues to prove you want big blocks of spam that cant be validated and where decisions are controlled by a single small team and a flock of 90 spellcheckers. the hypocracy of core fanboys is so loud that i think they put their fingers in their own ears and n longer want to hear anything else |
|
|
|
99% may not be sufficient to prevent a network split. ETH:ETC hash rate distribution was 99:1 at one point (not to say this represents users per se). Still, network split persisted.
Something many people ignore is the potential profitability of promoting a hard fork. If market demand for the weaker chain emerges, this creates very high risk/reward opportunities to accumulate, mine and promote the weaker chain. What the market thought was worth nothing all of a sudden could have a 9-10 figure market cap. I was mining and buying ETC over the counter the day of the fork for that reason.
These conditions are inherent to hard forks. The most interesting attack vector to ensure a network split is to show market demand for the weaker chain (lobby exchanges, create OTC markets, evangelize). If there is market demand, rational miners will secure the chain out of profit motive. So you don't need users nor miners per se; you only need the perception of market value. You need speculators. Miners will then ensure the network split persists. The appearance of market demand and mining security produce a feedback loop that drives speculators and users to the weaker chain.
It's a beautiful thing, PoW mining incentive. But it will surely split your network when you try to hard fork.
your talking about controversial hard forks where the nodes are programmed to ignore other nodes purely to keep a minority alive. EG without ignoring other nodes and there is 99:1 hashpower, the 99% would ORPHAN the 1% and is part of the consensus mechanism with ignoring other nodes and there is a 99:1 hashpower, the 99% do one thing and the 1% do another. and is NOT part of the consensus mechanism, hence controversial consensual hard forks do not even make a switch until there is a majority desire. so merchants and miners have already made their mind up before the code kicks in. making it not only a high hashrate, but a high utility aswell. and with a high node count the majority does not become an issue. where as as the minority dies off due to orphans, lack of utility very quickly. if people decide they want to tweak the minority fork again, after the code kicks in to make it not connect to the main network, to make its own network to try keeping it alive.. then say hello to CLAMS 2.0 where merchants are not accepting it and the popularity of coin holders is tiny. thus no threat to the majority. but as i said this is if the fork is made controversial. the funny thing is that in a soft fork, a controversial softfork dominates and can continue to irritate and annoy the old clients and the old clients cannot do anything about it. they are stuck being slaves to the softfork. in short its harder to separate a controversial softfork than it is to separate a controversial hard fork. so please learn about controversial and consensual.. and then put those phrases into the context of soft vs hard.. it will wake you up |
|
|
|
|
owning bitcoin is a term to cause misunderstanding because some think bitcoin is the brand, OR bitcoin is the currency unit OR bitcoin is the network, OR bitcoin is the chain data connected to satoshis genesis block.
so
EG the BRANDNAME, was already copyrighted years ago
EG the CODE, though many teams open their code to open licence(MIT) those teams then slag off anyone who uses the code, from outside the 'team'. so although open, be prepared to be slagged off unless your willing to re-write the code from the start to follow the rules. or join the main team.
EG the CURRENCY, as long as people dont hand out their private keys, no one can own your coins on your private key
EG the CONSENSUS, is slowly being diluted down so that nodes are no longer part of voting, (softforks dont need majority nodes to vote)
EG the LEDGER, is slowly being diluted down, by fear mongers other implementations to gain one dominant implementation. which then wants other nodes to not validate and also be pruned.
decentralized:
imagine that we had 6000 nodes split up as 500 nodes per different 'team'
imagine that we had 6000 nodes where all nodes had the same validation rules
centralized
but now its 5000 under one one 'team'. where of those 5000 only 500 are validating the new rules, and only 200 of the 500 are actually storing full ledger data..
that means there are only 200 full validating nodes with full ledger history all running from one 'teams' implementation
|
|
|
|
|
the ethereum hard fork was a controversial hardfork not consensual hardfork
also the weaker chain is surviving for these reasons:
1. ether has no real world uses, so no one can easily decide which one is better.. its like having 2 lazy siblings, deciding which one you love more
2. the hashrate was so low that there was not really much disruption in the transactions confirmation times between the two
3. ether is useless so many people dont even care about the hashpower/confirmation timings as most coins are locked in altcoin exchanges.
4. ether fork ignores opposing versions to ensure they dont orphan each others data off by simply not even getting the data of the other chain
bitcoin however, in a scenario of controversial(not recommended) hardforking would squash a minority fork quickly, for these reasons:
1. bitcoin has real world uses. when users see merchant X, exchange X is not using fork Y.. people will drop fork Y
2. the hashrate would be noticeably different where confirmations on Y can take longer and cause bottlenecks
3. these confirmation time difference cause increased fee war to fight for next in line.
4. orphans would add issues to the minority fork by nodes rejecting it, causing delays and other issues for the minority
all in all bitcoin will see faster decisions being made in a controversial(not recommended) hard fork because bitcoin has real world uses and larger userbase to make the differences between the chains very noticable.
by making it a consensual(recommended) hardfork. most of these decisions are made before the fork even activates. meaning the very very small minority notice the differences(slow confirms, fee wars and lack of merchant acceptance) even quicker and the minority fork dies off even quicker when it pee's off the minority to the point of realising they are wasting their time on a fork that has no use
|
|
|
|
|
a softfork is not "compatible" par-se with old nodes. because old nodes dont continue to check the data of a softfork.
a softfork uses a flag that a certain type of transaction should NOT be checked and instead blindly passed on. this trick then allows anything to happen simply by using the flag that tells old nodes not to check whatever data appears after it.
controversial softforks can change bitcoin without any opt-out
consensual softforks can change bitcoin but wont activate until there is a majority desire for it
its not "compatible" per-se. its more like ignored to not cause rejection
controversial hard forks (initiated without majority consensus) and also set to block certain useragents (versions) can cause a continual and growing altcoin because the 2 pieces of data do not mix to have one orphan off the other.
however a consensual hardfork only implements when the majority of nodes show they want it, and small risk of orphans will continually kill off the second chain until its rendered useless
controversial hard forks dont simply need to find a miner to accept the change, it needs to blacklist other nodes and completely separate itself from the first chain.
it requires extra feature to make it worthy of continuing to exist too.
think of
softforks as updating the small print of a contract in an area you know that old people cant read.
hardforks as changing the contract entirely where people either accept the new contract or stay with old unchanged contract
controversial as doing it without the users consent or majority desire, meaning people are no longer handling the same thing as each other
consensual as doing it with the users consent and majority desire, meaning people are handling the same thing as each other
|
|
|
|
If I can get a significant majority of the users to use my software, then I will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software).
translate, if blockstream can get a significant majority of the users to use their code, then blockstream will be in control (until someone else gets a significant majority of users to use their software, So, to translate your translation... Control is what the users give to whomever they want. If the vast majority of users choose to give control to a group of people then that group of people will continue to have control for as long as the vast majority of users give them that control. That seems a bit obvious. Each user chooses for themselves what software to use. If lots of users choose a single piece of software, then that software has control over what those users can do with it, and the creators of that software have control over what that software does. That's pretty much how decentralized control is intended to work, isn't it? Nobody has any more control than they are given by the users, and can't maintain control if the users choose to take it away. This applies pretty perfectly also to USD and FED and so they are also perfectly decentralized. New stuff learned every day. I cannot think of anything that is not perfectly decentralized except maybe something in north korea. But let's get back to reality. I have not heard any such definition for "decentralized control" which is intended to work like you say. "Decentralized control" is something where the system works having the control itself decentralized. centralized control= one person/group makes the decision and everyone else either follows or they can get lost decentralized control = everyone is equal, and if there shows a majority of consent that something should change, then it changes. EG centralized = one team change code and say upgrade or be paralysed, or f**koff decentralized = every users flags a desire. if a majority show similar desires then that desire activates. EG softfork does not need 5700 of 6000 nodes(95%) 'permission' / consent to activate, it can function with just 2 nodes. causing the other 5998 nodes to not understanding the data that the 2 nodes are transmitting, but pass it along anyway |
|
|
|
if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent
You have it backwards. Core isn't trying to change rules without consent. They have not proposed to break consensus at all. Soft forks are implicitly accepted by bitcoin users since the Bitcoin software accepts the longest, valid chain. Arguing against soft forks is arguing that the longest, valid chain is not Bitcoin. Pretty silly. consensus=consent. the NEW RULES and new verification requirements doesnt require consent in a softfork. old nodes cant block or invalidate or orphan a softforks new rules.. they just blindly pass it on unchecked passing it on unchecked is not consenting, or agreeing. its no longer being fully part of the consensus mechanism. because they dont have the full list of rules any more. infact what they think is "blocksize" has a totally different meaning to softfork nodes.. but hey lets just tell everyone that their nodes are perfectly fin being blind, no longer verifying the new data.. infact lets just tell everyone that old nodes are (wrongly) still full nodes). lets pretend there isnt any consensus (consent) issues purely to let bitcoin change without nodes having to make a choice, lets just brush consensus(consent) under the carpet and pretend consensus(consent) was never part of bitcoin. lets just call it CORE rules instead of consensus rules. |
|
|
|
this is not a news or documentary series. its actually a real entertainment/action tv series called "startup" first mention of cryptocurrency is at 12minutes when they talk about developing their "Gencoin" basically really gets into the whole crypto currency discussion at 28:30 onwards yes i know people dont like links but for all those that like free TV streaming sites, you should recognise this one. http://123movies.to/film/startup-season-1-16042/watching.htmlenjoy your free to search your own streaming service for "startup" |
|
|
|
|
if you cannot code an exchange yourself then you have no ability to review the code to ensure there are no back doors.
if you dont have experience to run an exchange yourself, then you dont have experience to know the "third party employers" are not misusing your service to internally rip you off, which will leave you holding the bag of 'hacked' excuses that you have to explain.
if you dont have the funds to pay employee's to work for you directly, then you dont have the financial skills and management skills to look after and manage other peoples funds.
sorry but we dont need another boiler-room exchange
|
|
|
|
|
im starting to think you are not the same danny hamilton from years ago.
if you cant comprehend that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of a soft fork or consensus.
if you dont care that core want to change the rules without consent, then you cant comprehend the true meaning of decentralized and trustless
also if capitalization and full stops prevent you from reading, then its not just technical stuff that seems to be your problem.
by the way this is a forum not a white paper being submitted to earn a degree. if you care more about grammar then content,
then many things in life will be lost on you.
so enjoy blindly believing in fluffy spoonfed propaganda simply because its been constructively written to look degree level grammar(even if the content lacks merit). and enjoy ignoring the people that are more concerned with content, not capitalization.
1F Y0U C4N R34D 7H15 7H3N 9R4MM4R 15 N07 7H47 1MP074N7 4ND Y0UR M1ND 15 0P3N 3N0U9H 70 7H1NK 0U751D3 7H3 80X
on a separate subject.
maxwell and friends are blaming the need to restrict capacity, by saying its because of spam causing the UTXO(unspents) list being so big.
that restricting capacity and raising the fee's is the only way to solve it..
when in actual fact the reason for the unspents list being so big is not due to "spam". but due to their own pushy idea a couple years ago that people should be doing "use once" addresses... but you will never seen greg and his friends admit his idea back then is the cause of the UTXO "spam" he is talking about lately
have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
- snip -
seriously that is not respecting consensus.
- snip -
Bitcoin consensus doesn't require that the users voluntarily "respect consensus". Consensus is a feature of the design, no matter who wants to make a change or why. There are a lot of sheep out there that have chosen to simply follow "Bitcoin Core" regardless of what they do. Therefore, acquiring consensus is much easier if you can convince Bitcoin Core to include it. However, if you are convincing enough, you can get consensus without Bitcoin Core. lol but core want to change the rules without even needing users to upgrade. thats what softforks are.. the only reason they use the fluffy blanket of 'activation parameters' are not due to acquiring a consensus (consent) but to fool people into thinking consent is needed.(its not needed fundamentally, its just added later to pretend its needed) put it a different way if 5500 did not upgrade to version 0.13.. core can still change the consensus rules, without anyone able to stop them i think you fanboys are forgetting the logical, moral, and even the dictionary definition of these words decentralized trustless consensus put it a different way you fanboys dont want people to fundamentally consent to a 95% requirement for a hard fork you fanboys prefer sheep to blindly let changes happen and just pretend that everyone is consenting to it. seems many of you have been sipping to much on the core soup that greg and his boss prepared for you. |
|
|
|
wut?
my point is that there hasn't been any type of bitcoin startup that's generated any return and that's with the best people, best funding and in first world countries.
I Africa for bitcoin makes more sense than first world countries. but I still don't think anyone's gonna get anywhere near their money back let alone any profit.
there are many legit businesses that can make returns. but for the OP after reading his previous posts and attempts to gather funding, i think that this is not the topic to give him idea's to scheme (i said scheme not the other similar sounding word) the community. the OP doesnt seem interested in actually running a business legit business that gives returns. but more so running a funding round .. and then... just running so lets not help him out by telling him anything legit, or he will just use it later to 'scheme' people by pretending his 'scheme' is just as legit |
|
|
|
What if this is not about 2 vs. 4, but rather about respecting user consensus and preventing a network split? If you don't consent, you can opt out of the network.
so your saying that going soft is basically: accept controlled bitcoins new route change or fuck off and dont use bitcoin?? seriously that is not respecting consensus. i also have to ask where are you even getting such crap information that there would be a hard fork at 51% please please please tell me why miners would risk 49%+ of their income by causing loads of orphans.. seriously use logic and not propaganda.. explain your point why anyone would consider a hardfork without majority acceptance.. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
