Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once.  Only. The. Code. Matters. So true. Crikey, isn't that a sign of the Bitpocalypse?  But ya, only the code matters. All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction. The Monero Trolls and other Altcoiners of course welcome all addition capital invested to cripple Bitcoin. They have leveraged the work of countless people over 7 years to build out a ledgering system that has proved itself to be largely unbreakable.( all the scams/thefts from bitcoin have been a result of human failings rather than anything in the protocol, but i'm open to correction). The last few holes in such things as 0-conf and tx malleability are being patched up as we speak. But what some of the flag wavers fail to realise is that it is just about the code - not the bitcoins themselves. Banks obviously want to make money, but their main business is simply the accurate accounting of transactions. And that is what the blockchain provides. The idea that a 2-way peg with bitcoins implies that a $1m transaction on a sidechain will require $1m worth of bitcoin is naive. The peg will simply act in the same manner that a government stamp has when conveying title on a land deed. It gives the underlying transaction legitimacy by virtue of its existence. The stamp itself is of nominal value. This is why a strict limit is important - its the fee paid that signifies the value, not the transaction amount. I think this announcement signifies a clear line in the sand as we move from seeing bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash system to it simply being an accounting backbone for multi-billion dollar financial institutions. Make of that what you will, and what impact it will have for the value of bitcoin. When is the last time you heard much discussion of rolling out payment solutions for the public or multi million dollar investments in the firms working on them? Do you think the Blockstream/PWC/AXA Softfork will be the winner against the hard fork proposals? Will the miners upgrade to Blockstream/PWC/AXA 0.12 instead of Classic/BU? By the way: my car is insured by AXA. The more pragmatic miners support Classic because its their best bet to secure the value of Bitcoin into the near future. They currently realise most of their income from the sale of bitcoins as a value token, whereas the blockstream model could very well kill that off in favour of artificially induced fees. With no clear indication of how this will work, I imagine they will opt to preserve bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash system for the time being. The part of AXA involved with this appears to be a €250m fund from their reserve pool that they are dedicating to VC projects. Exactly how much they have committed has never been stated. They haven't mentioned it on their website yet. Oddly enough, they posted a list of 'Top 10' bitcoin projects in 2016 - Blockstream is not mentioned, but Ethereum is.  |
|
|
|
Price when approaching Bitcoin halving in July:
A. Big drop?
B. Big pump?
Definitely gonna pump the living daylights out of it. If you time it well, there's money to be made. But I suspect that it will happen about a month before the first 12.5btc block. |
|
|
|
Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once. Only. The. Code. Matters. So true. Crikey, isn't that a sign of the Bitpocalypse? But ya, only the code matters. All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction. The Monero Trolls and other Altcoiners of course welcome all addition capital invested to cripple Bitcoin. They have leveraged the work of countless people over 7 years to build out a ledgering system that has proved itself to be largely unbreakable.( all the scams/thefts from bitcoin have been a result of human failings rather than anything in the protocol, but i'm open to correction). The last few holes in such things as 0-conf and tx malleability are being patched up as we speak. But what some of the flag wavers fail to realise is that it is just about the code - not the bitcoins themselves. Banks obviously want to make money, but their main business is simply the accurate accounting of transactions. And that is what the blockchain provides. The idea that a 2-way peg with bitcoins implies that a $1m transaction on a sidechain will require $1m worth of bitcoin is naive. The peg will simply act in the same manner that a government stamp has when conveying title on a land deed. It gives the underlying transaction legitimacy by virtue of its existence. The stamp itself is of nominal value. This is why a strict limit is important - its the fee paid that signifies the value, not the transaction amount. I think this announcement signifies a clear line in the sand as we move from seeing bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash system to it simply being an accounting backbone for multi-billion dollar financial institutions. Make of that what you will, and what impact it will have for the value of bitcoin. When is the last time you heard much discussion of rolling out payment solutions for the public or multi million dollar investments in the firms working on them? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is ...doomed to scale, except if some catastrophic failure of our civilization destroys the IT industry.
Some day, an engineer is going to wake up and realise. "Oh shit, we forgot to carry the 1.." |
|
|
|
Only the code matters. Good point! I agree. Who is writing the code? I don't care. Only the code matters. Who is influencing the people writing the code, and what are their intentions? I don't care; that's none of my business. Only the code matters. Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once. Only. The. Code. Matters. So true. "We were one of the first companies that painted a vision for interoperable blockchains, that there wasn’t going to be one blockchain, but many of them, all building off the bitcoin codebase to deliver the technology." In particular, Hill cited the recent decision by blockchain startup Digital Asset Holdings to use Blockstream’s tech as part of its Open Ledger Project, an open-source blockchain initiative being overseen by the Linux Foundation, as an example how the bitcoin codebase can become more relevant for commercial applications. As such, Hill suggested Blockstream’s value proposition will be in its ability to adapt bitcoin’s codebase for other production use cases btw - I;ve searched the coindesk article and blockstreams PR for mention of bitcoins ( as in the currency) and I cant find it. Am I missing something? Litecoinguy, when are they buyin all the coinz??  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0 |
|
|
|
*yawn*
Promises, promises. It's been over a year since Gavin started the Bitcoin civil war, but nothing has come of it besides some good lulz.
*snore*
You are such a ball bag, but you *are* adorable.   |
|
|
|
You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point Core is tyranny  VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors. 1. It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy. 2. Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people. The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin. The Nakamoto Consensus: The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism No 90%. No 75% No veto. Just users voting with their feet - or in this case, their CPU. This is the unbearable truth that you need to deal with. If you let the network decide, it *will* decide. It may not be in your favour, or it may. But you dont get to choose. The network does. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections. A non-upgraded node can make outgoing connections to anyone. All nodes. Upgraded or not. Upgraded nodes will accept incoming connections from anyone. Upgraded or not. The only change he is suggesting, is to make sure upgraded nodes only make outgoing connections to other upgrading nodes. My own node currently has 8 outgoing and 104 incoming connections. Even if my node is upgraded, and all my outgoing connections are to segwit nodes, there is nothing whatsoever stopping non-upgraded nodes to connect to my node, and nothing is splitting the network in any way imaginable.
How does a peer to peer network work if all nodes only make outgoing connections? How does that work exactly? . Unfortunately many nodes are behind NAT and/or restrictive firewalls, and cannot accept incoming connections. Nodes which are on a public IP, and accept incoming connections, often have a hundred or more. Logical fallacy. Dont make a statement like "Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections" and then pretend to educate about port forwarding. OK, I'll find a baby spoon: Bitcoin has been designed in such a way that running a node without incoming connections work fine. Of course you need at least one node on the network which is able to accept incoming transactions. Preferably more than one. I can see why you dont understand the idea of how segwit nodes selectively picking connections will split the network.
I have tried ELI5. I just don't understand why you can't understand it. Please try to read again. As I stated above, the bitcoin network depends on at least one node able to accept incoming connections. That node will accept incoming connections from all other nodes. Upgraded or not. It doesn't matter. The only way to split this, is if the single node is not upgraded. In that case all upgraded nodes will be isolated until at least one of them is able to accept incoming connections. But this isn't likely to happen, is it? Another way to split this network in the case above, would be to switch off the only node on the entire network which accept incoming connections. In that case nobody can connect to other nodes, and every node is isolated. Fortunately in the real world there is more than one node on the network able to accept incoming connections, so this will not be a problem. If at least one of the nodes which accept incoming transactions is upgraded, there won't be a split. Both upgraded and non-upgraded nodes will have a common connection point there. When 95% of the hashrate is on upgraded nodes already (otherwise they wouldn't be able to create upgraded blocks), we can safely assume the upgraded nodes are well connected. You can ELI5 all you like. But you are only explaining it to yourself at this stage. Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections. A non-upgraded node can make outgoing connections to anyone. All nodes. Upgraded or not. Upgraded nodes will accept incoming connections from anyone. Upgraded or not. The only change he is suggesting, is to make sure upgraded nodes only make outgoing connections to other upgrading nodes. My own node currently has 8 outgoing and 104 incoming connections. Even if my node is upgraded, and all my outgoing connections are to segwit nodes, there is nothing whatsoever stopping non-upgraded nodes to connect to my node, and nothing is splitting the network in any way imaginable.
How does a peer to peer network work if all nodes only make outgoing connections? How does that work exactly? . Unfortunately many nodes are behind NAT and/or restrictive firewalls, and cannot accept incoming connections. Nodes which are on a public IP, and accept incoming connections, often have a hundred or more. Logical fallacy. Dont make a statement like "Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections" and then pretend to educate about port forwarding. I can see why you dont understand the idea of how segwit nodes selectively picking connections will split the network. |
|
|
|
... The Four Punch Raiders are real. This picture was painted by a first-hand witness of their pillaging.  The jib covering over [whatever those square sails with "four punch" are called] came out nice Its a fore-course. I agree, thats the coolest graphic I've seen here for a while. Nice work. Who's the face on the top left? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has been designed to work fine without incoming connections. A non-upgraded node can make outgoing connections to anyone. All nodes. Upgraded or not. Upgraded nodes will accept incoming connections from anyone. Upgraded or not. The only change he is suggesting, is to make sure upgraded nodes only make outgoing connections to other upgrading nodes. My own node currently has 8 outgoing and 104 incoming connections. Even if my node is upgraded, and all my outgoing connections are to segwit nodes, there is nothing whatsoever stopping non-upgraded nodes to connect to my node, and nothing is splitting the network in any way imaginable.
How does a peer to peer network work if all nodes only make outgoing connections? How does that work exactly? |
|
|
|
"Adoption? It that what you call transaction spam? Do you think 2 MB blocks will reduce the spam in any way? The blocks will be just as full.
I just had a look. Of the last 8 blocks, only one is close to full. 1.8 kB left in that one, which should allow for about 9 more non-segwit transactions. The rest have plenty room. The blocks which are completely full usually contain a lot of dust transactions, i.e. outputs which cost more in fees tp spend than the value of the output, which won't get mined using a default configurations. Some miners happily prefer those transactions as long as they pay more in fees. This is abuse, imho.
Here is a nice infographic which explains why segwit is a much better idea than some panic fork blocksize war."
1) You mention of the last 8 blocks, one is near full with 1.8 kb left. You suggest this could allow 9 more transactions? So theoretically, you are saying, if the usage of bitcoin had increased, and 10 more people, tried to send a transaction during this time period, the block would have been full and those transactions would not have been included? Is this accurate? Since very few people use bitcoin, it seems self-evident, that if adoption increases, the likelihood of full blocks increase. Is this correct?
2) You then mention there are dust transactions, outputs which cost more in fees to spend, than the value of the output. If I'm sending a bitcoin from A to B, would this be considered a dust transaction? There isn't much included, correct? Assuming this is the case, since I'm moving a fair amount of money, wouldn't it be safe to say that I would want to ensure that this transaction takes places and increase the fee? Forgive my ignorance with this regard. Or would it only be spam if I was for example sending .00099 btc and I had a fee of .001 btc to ensure that the transaction was hopefully included in a recent block? Perhaps a better exampled would be, me needing to send btc to my brother in Germany. I want to make sure he gets it, that the transaction is included, so say I send .05 with a fee of .05 or a permutation of that with .049 and .05 or .05 and .049.
3) How would this(the above mentioned) be considered abuse? In either of the above mentioned transactions I need to get him ~$20USD for whatever reason I have. This seems like legitimate usage, no? How is the determination made whether usage is an abuse or not?
Thanks.
He is talking rubbish, like he has for the last few posts. He fancies himself as the "arbiter of bitcoin - its only a transaction if I say so...." So much for the "censorship resistant" nature of bitcoin. Why would anyone use bitcoin over paypal if you had to send an email to this guy in advance to see if the transaction was acceptable to him or not. Jesus wept. And he has the temerity to call other people Dictators? Ha. Thankfully, bitcoin was designed so that pragmatic miners are rewarded for processing tx's irrespective of their size, as long as they pay an appropriate fee. |
|
|
|
Yes, they are. SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY is a standard script operation which has existed since the beginning. They are an important part of many types of smart contracts and colored coins. You are totaly confused. Have you been taking the Reddit pill or something? You have deliberately avoided the point I made - these 'appear' to be anyonecanpay, but they are not. The substantive feature of the tx lies in the segreagated winess data, which non-upgrading nodes will not have access to. Instead of making the change explicit by way of HF, you make it underhand in such a way that nodes, through no fault of their own, can no longer process certain tx's. Just because they are not aware of it, does not make it any more palatable. I emphasized two important words you didn't read. An old node can still connect to peers, but will not receive incoming connections from [SW] nodes. It will receive incoming connections from old nodes, however. New nodes will only make outgoing connections to segwit nodes, to make sure they can sync with segwit data.
A node will only make 8 outgoing connections. If most of them are to non-segwit nodes, it will be much harder to get the segwit data. Peter Todd suggest a solution to this potential problem.
Dont play silly games.. And dont presume what I read or didnt read into it. Since when does an outgoing connection from one peer not equal an incoming connection to another? How does your statement above say anything different to mine - this is effectively splitting the network in two. users to switch to a different software maintained by two incompetent brothers and a dictator.
You know, you could have just said this at the start and saved me the time of trying to argue with a tin-hat conspiracy-theorist. Looking back at your efforts to respond (apart from quoting verbatim from /r/bitcoin reddit posts) I can see that you are more adept at turning your points into ad-homs than saying anything substantial. |
|
|
|
Of course they are. They are standard bitcoin transactions, and there are many of them in the blockchain. They do exactly the same as standard P2PKH transactions, just that the output is spendable by anyone. There are many of them in the blockchain already.
Except they are not. Its a different transaction, that does something differently when interpreted by a particular version of the code. It has extension data ( segregated witnesses in an unvalidated block extension) that the client knows nothing about. Add to that the explicit intent for HAVEWITNESS nodes to disconnect from non upgraded peers - effectively forking them off the network. Why - if as you suggest they are handling 'valid' data? On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 01:51:24PM -0500, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> While Pieter Wuille's segwit branch(1) doesn't yet implement a fix for
> the above problem, the obvious thing to do is to add a new service bit
> such as NODE_SEGWIT, and/or bump the protocol version, and for outgoing
> peers only connect to peers with segwit support.
Peter Todd has not discredited the plan as fraud.
I didnt say that - you conflated 2 different statements. Peter discredited the notion that SW could be a safe soft fork as it stands. The idea of it being a fraud is my own - a fraud from the perspective that it it being spun as a harmless soft-fork to users, when it is anything but. The fraud that you spin a HF as this evil, to-be-avoided-at-all-costs event, when in fact it is the more straight forward solution, involving infinitely less risk than a rushed segwit deployment. I mean, just look at the mailing list the last few days. There are still huge issues with how it is to be deployed - there are still more questions than answers at this stage. And I'm not against segwit per se - I think its a great solution, but it should wait its turn and be deployed when it is ready. Currently it is being misrepresented as a scaling solution, when it is anything but. And by the way, the existence of code in a github repository does not equal the existence of a "release". That is a complete nonsense. |
|
|
|
Right on schedule too. I wonder how many of those we will see in close succession before things get really bad. |
|
|
|
Huh? The bitcoin blocks are still valid bitcoin blocks when segwit is deployed. Transactions with a segregated witness will have the signature in a separate chain, but this does not change the validity of the block. The blocks and the transactions in the blocks are perfectly valid to all nodes.
This is completely wrong. The segregated tx's are absolutely invalid to present nodes. A nasty hack to make them appear as "I dont know what to do with this, so I will assume its valid" does not mean a tx is valid. They will remain UNVALIDATED by nodes that are not upgraded. No, it is correct. Transactions with a segregated witness will be completely valid to present nodes. They will look like a normal "anyonecanpay" transaction. Are they "anyonecanpay" transactions? Yes or No? Of course they are not. If they are not, then how can you say "they have been validated"? The transaction has been misrepresented, it is something completely different to what the node thinks it is, yet you maintain that as correct. Nodes will essentially be SPV clients with respect to segwit transactions. That is the fraud of this so-called "soft-fork" plan. Which, of course, has already been discredited by Peter Todd. |
|
|
|
I have tried to get an answer to what I think is the biggest problem here many times, but you keep ignoring it:
SPV wallets, which most people use, will connect to a random fork and spend and receive conins on a random chain every time they connect. Whyat do you think the users loosing coins due to this will do? Run to buy coins from the chanfork which is mos popular this week, or get the f out of Bitcoin before it is too late?
SPV clients which connect to full nodes can detect a likely hard fork by connecting to several full nodes and ensuring that they’re all on the same chain with the same block height, plus or minus several blocks to account for transmission delays and stale blocks. If there’s a divergence, the client can disconnect from nodes with weaker chains.
SPV clients should also monitor for block and transaction version number increases to ensure they process received transactions and create new transactions using the current consensus rules.
sourceIn the madness of someone intentionally hardforking with little support and only a few nodes, there is still a very high chance of a SPV wallet getting on a different fork. Madness, in that scenario, is a choice, not a condition. |
|
|
|
Huh? The bitcoin blocks are still valid bitcoin blocks when segwit is deployed. Transactions with a segregated witness will have the signature in a separate chain, but this does not change the validity of the block. The blocks and the transactions in the blocks are perfectly valid to all nodes.
This is completely wrong. The segregated tx's are absolutely invalid to present nodes. A nasty hack to make them appear as "I dont know what to do with this, so I will assume its valid" does not mean a tx is valid. They will remain UNVALIDATED by nodes that are not upgraded. |
|
|
|
She's getting menopausal. Bullish for Classic....  [disclaimer: No, I didnt read the rantarticle, but I'm not wrong, am I?] |
|
|
|
I have tried to get an answer to what I think is the biggest problem here many times, but you keep ignoring it:
SPV wallets, which most people use, will connect to a random fork and spend and receive conins on a random chain every time they connect. Whyat do you think the users loosing coins due to this will do? Run to buy coins from the chanfork which is mos popular this week, or get the f out of Bitcoin before it is too late?
SPV clients which connect to full nodes can detect a likely hard fork by connecting to several full nodes and ensuring that they’re all on the same chain with the same block height, plus or minus several blocks to account for transmission delays and stale blocks. If there’s a divergence, the client can disconnect from nodes with weaker chains.
SPV clients should also monitor for block and transaction version number increases to ensure they process received transactions and create new transactions using the current consensus rules.
source |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
