|
Uh-oh, here comes the thought police lol
This ECB crony is suffering the same delusion that many do, it's embarrassing that so-called authority figures can speak such nonsense, and no-one else in a responsible public role contradicts them.
Money is conceptually very much tinged with psychology. One can use any object as a common medium of exchange, history demonstrates this amply.
Either this Smets character believes in his own institution's BS too deeply to accept this fact, or he understands the psychology at play and is attempting to manipulate the way that the public perceive Bitcoin's value as a type of money. He's either a useful idiot for the central bankster monopoly, or a highly machiavellian piece of work.
|
|
|
|
|
this sort of thing is so, so pointless
Blockchain tech will do precisely nothing to help enforce copyright legislation, it's just an expensive way to administer a database that's now pretty trustworthy anyway (blockchains work best for abstract data where a centralised administrator of the database is prone to corruption, i.e. money and banks are a perfect use-case for blockchains).
Maybe this type of system could be useful to prove attribution of work. Copying copyrighted material might not be considered wrong in the 21st century, but plagiarism remains unethical. However, plagiarists have a problem in the 21st century: it's too easy to discover plagiarists in the internet age, everyone has the tools they need to research attribution when all easily plagiarised work comes from digital sources to begin with. A blockchain might make the research easier and more definitive (depending on how common the use of such a blockchain would be), but it's really no different from the copyright registration use-case: an expensive way to do something that isn't difficult to do already. A solution looking for a problem.
|
|
|
|
Who can decide whether or not an invalid block makes it into the blockchain? Who determines whether a block is valid or not? Isn't it the miner who mines the next block?
After a miner mines an block, they send that block to other full nodes on the Bitcoin network. This includes miners and non-miners, there's no difference. If the block breaks the rules, no other node will add it to their blockchain. The miner of a block can decide only on what their node accepts, not what everyone elses node accepts. Invalid blocks will be rejected You're exploiting the way that decentralised networks are understood, and it's not very smart. Every node has their own copy of the blockchain, there is no "the" blockchain. Bitcoin is designed to make all nodes agree on what the blockchain contains in the past, but the newest block is always in contention. So sure, a miner can add any total garbage non-conforming block to their own copy of the blockchain. And when that miner broadcasts non-compliant garbage, everyone else running the consensus rules will not add that to their version of the blockchain. This is the beauty of the blockchain design, you're arguing as if it's still 2008 and you don't get it yet. Even the corporate and government mis-information services like Bloomberg or the BBC understand what you do not about how a blockchain works. |
|
|
|
So if code is released that skips the signature verification part and makes miners make more money, then the more miners adopt this code, the fewer of their blocks will be rejected and the more "valid" blocks they will create. Thus the amount of extra money they make will snowball and get bigger and bigger.
You can keep on saying that, and it will still never happen. It's impossible while there are still regular people running full Bitcoin nodes. And as long as people have the resources to run full Bitcoin nodes, they will. Let's put it this way: your detractors in this thread are very confident you are wrong. Why not email the major mining pools & mining farm owners to tell them about this extra money you believe they can make? Responsible behaviour is certainly not a reason, you should be trolling contacting the Bitcoin developers about this privately, not exposing it publicly so that the miners (according to your non-logic) can make malicious use your "exploit" |
|
|
|
|
0 out of 100 times is the correct figure
your attack is pure fiction, which is why no-one is doing it
|
|
|
|
|
Since you're willing to entertain nearly every poor representation of Bitcoin's development, you really should do your own research. It's not a good use of my time to respond to every newbie on the forum coming up with old objections to Bitcoin development. You're just the latest in a large number of people highlighting concerns. I don't expect it to stop.
So if you're really interested, prove it. Do your own research, and present your conclusions publicly if you like. But this is old stuff marclebit, sorry
|
|
|
|
|
In cases like this, I prefer not to refute things that are false or half-true.
The list of things that are false is endless, the only limit is the imagination of any person dreaming them up. It's a waste of effort to handle every false claim, especially if the claims have been refuted already before, as is the case for the list of claims in your post.
|
|
|
|
If there is no incentive for you to verify then what incentive would there be for the network to verify? The problem is everyone will be more competitive if they stop verifying the signatures.
Your trolling is very poor quality (or you're totally insane, or unable to read) You were just told what the incentive is, and that it's a very strong motivator. |
|
|
|
Any ideas?
Sell your BTC. If you believe everything you've said (despite it either not being true, or a selective representation of the truth), you should sell. There's alot of choice in the cryptocurrency market. If you don't want to sell despite the development team being ostensibly against your interests, then you should support a hard-fork of Bitcoin from a different development team. |
|
|
|
After all the hassle of blockchain network, it becomes harder to transact using bitcoin as we have to pay higher fees and it takes a long time to be confirmed.
Yes, blockchain really needs to be upgraded or lightning network be implemented asap, without too much drama.
If you don't like drama, there's bad news: you are fueling the drama With Bitcoin, you can choose: - High fee, fast confirmation
- Low fee, slow confirmation
You said that transactions are slow and have high fees. That makes zero sense, and is also the same dramatic false picture that Bitcoin's detractors try to paint. Venezuelans are probably using low fees and waiting several hours/days to get into the blockchain. And it wouldn't surprise me if there are alot of Venezuelans using Segwit addresses to get even lower transaction fees. As this story demonstrates, desperate situations force people to learn how best to survive |
|
|
|
That means, yes, one transaction is needed to open a channel and another is needed to close the channel, but on-chain. That doesn't mean there's a limit to how long the channel can remain open though, so in cases of people who leave it open indefinitely that ends up being even worse for everyone else who uses on chain transactions compared to those who occasionally close the channel. Why talk about opening and closing "for the day" then? That implies you thought there was a time limit for channels to remain open Additionally, I never said that people couldn't pay directly. I said that people who weren't sending a large number of transactions wouldn't benefit from use of the lightning network themselves. (although I did make it clear that in the short term it has a benefit by easing congestion)
You had a whole screed of text complaining about how Lightning impedes users from paying each other directly. It does the opposite. Are you complaining about the Bitcoin network's ability to handle transaction capacity or not? If you are, a solution allowing "sending a large number of transactions" is going to work. Why you think that only works in the short term is baffling. In summary, you have no clue what you're talking about, despite giving the impression that you do. I'm not going to apologise for stating facts. I'd like to add that I don't believe that Lightning Network is the best solution to scalability. While it can certainly address the currently high fees, I have some long-term concerns about relying on it. The thing is, the Bitcoin network was designed such that less coins are minted over time so that the miners can gradually transition to being paid in fees. Eventually the only financial incentive miners will have is transaction fees, which means more transactions would lead to better mining incentives.
Using the lightning network to open channels through which several transactions can flow without fees circumvents that and can actually lead to higher average fees for everyone else. At present, it would work great because that would remove from the Bitcoin network large amount of transactions that would otherwise congest the network and improves usability for smaller transactions, but that doesn't side step the need to address network scalability issues. If anything, it seems like the lightning network would be better used as a tool for decentralized exchange between cryptocurrencies, but shouldn't replace the ability of any particular coin to act as an exchange of value.
If node operators were rewarded by the network the way miners currently are according to their bandwidth they would have a financial incentive to scale up their capabilities leading to the network as a whole scaling up if dynamic scaling was implemented. That would ensure that transactions everywhere confirm cheaply, and the lightning network can still be of use for quicker in person transactions at stores where you don't want to wait more than a few moments for the transaction to confirm.
If we go the route of relying on secondary networks to exchange value, how exactly are the miners going to be paid when there are no coins to mint and no on block transactions to confirm?
Future reduction in block rewards shouldn't be a problem. The mining market adjusts to the value of the block reward (and always has). Miners must sell some coins to pay their costs. So - new BTC supply always enters the market
- new supply needs an onchain transaction to use LN
- demand for on chain transactions will exist regardless of how prevalent Lightning transactions are
If you want to talk about the year 2140 (i.e. when the mining subsidy ceases altogether), perhaps the issue isn't quite the most urgent engineering challenge right now. In short, your objections to Lighting are both moot and over 100 years too early. |
|
|
|
suppose that we are in a future where miners only get paid in transaction fees and the lightning network is heavily relied upon to compensate for having never implemented dynamic scaling. Online merchants who want to process millions of transactions a day around the world utilize a system where one on block transaction opens the channel for the day, and another on block transaction closes the channel for the day. All transactions that go through their payment system is taken care of in one go keeping the fees low for everyone sending transactions between the two companies. However, the people who initially send the coin to those centralized wallets are going to pay extremely high amounts which would discourage independent wallet usage (and increase the risk of what happens when centralized companies go out of business). Meanwhile, the people who just want to send money to someone across the world wouldn't benefit from the lightning network at all since they are dealing with just a single transaction, so they have to pay more as well.
The reason why everyone is stuck paying more is because anyone with multiple transactions just processes one, which means that the cost has to be spread across fewer payers, and those with less transactions ultimately pay the most.
It doesn't work like that. People can pay each other directly, and there is no need to close the channels ("at the end of the day" or otherwise, lol) Please stop wasting your time (and everyone elses): learn how the Lightning concept works first, then start talking again. |
|
|
|
|
IM-what? Who are these people supposed to be?
|
|
|
|
For Villar, the stakes are especially high, and not just for his business. An engineer who once ran a biometrics enterprise, he is staking his financial future on the development of a game involving an alternative cryptocurrency called PepeCash.
A dozen employees operate from a small office filled with computers in an industrial community east of the capital. All receive part of their salary in Bitcoin.
To all the people, forum trolls and media idiots alike, who say "but you can't use Bitcoin for anything because blahblahblah": TELL THAT TO THESE PEOPLE. WHO ARE USING BITCOIN TO HOLD ONTO ANYTHING THEY HAD LEFT Authorities have largely permitted trading of Bitcoin in Venezuela, though they have heavily fined and detained people who attempt to mine the digital currency. Guess what these coward thieves did with the "evil Bitcoin computers" they stole? Yeah, that's right, they're mining with them. The most senior police officer possible no doubt was asked to bring the mining ASICs to someone very close to Maduro, if not Maduro himself. As soon as any of these senior policemen figured out why, they either did the smart thing and started under-reporting the amount seized, or did the dumb thing asked to be brought into the deal. That's your government for you girls and boys: corrupt, conniving, egotistical hypocrites |
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin wasn't useful or being used, I could understand the bubble aspersions.
But Bitcoin is setting another record that few are talking about: the daily number of transactions, average transaction count per block, USD transaction volume and basically every measure of the Bitcoin network's usage capacity are setting new all-time records.
The Bitcoin price is responding exactly how one might expect therefore: like a goldrush. People lose money in that kind of environment, sure, but in general, it benefits most people. Anyone adopting the pretense of "keeping investors safe" is only serving to keep people safe from the opportunity on hand.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, what's needed is a massive incentive for people to use the network, if you can think of one, let me know...
I too think that making people willing to use LN for smaller everyday transaction would be a big hurdle. I was being sarcastic. High demand for on-chain transactions will obviously drive demand for off-chain transactions, it's just that there's no network (and hence no supply) for off-chain payment channels yet. |
|
|
|
A year or two seems reasonable for proof-of-concept. Building LN wallets is a big step The UI for the Lightning wallets that already exists is not so bad really. I'd use it. Maybe LN takeup will be no different to Bitcoin adoption: the first movers will be the people that are most willing to learn something. and then building up the network of LN nodes is another hurdle, as well as getting people to use LN.
Yeah, what's needed is a massive incentive for people to use the network, if you can think of one, let me know... They're too late. The jokes on them. Bitcoin is no longer a payment system. You can't buy stuff with it anymore because now it's a "store of value".  Oh look, I actually went back in time to invalidate your point, with something else you said that contradicts you! Which one do you actually believe (hint: it can't be both  ) |
|
|
|
|
United Bitcoin? As a fork?
This is beyond 1984 new-speak double-think! This story has to be some kind of faked anti-Garzik fiction, even the real Jeff Garzik isn't this dumb? Surely not!??
|
|
|
|
If a scam is openly available, people are very likely to get caught up in it. The more that are removed, the better. No. If that really worked, we may as well extend that same logic to the whole internet. And people would do the same thing: get too confident because they falsely believe the Scam Police are protecting them from everyone. Like I said: this proves the idea doesn't work, because people still got scammed. And (also) like I said: Apple can abuse their Scam Police powers. Why would you want to promote such an astoundingly bad system? |
|
|
|
the fees are ridiculous,the waiting time is outrageous It cannot be both. There's a choice: - Low waiting time, High fee
- High waiting time, Low fee
High waiting time high fee would mean paying low fees to get low waits. Bitcoin never would have become popular if that's how transaction fees worked. So, if you pay low (9.5 satoshis per byte), you'll get slow confirmation times. Right now it can't. But shouldn't it be one of our goals moving into the future? I think it should. Space on the blockchain is limited for a reason. The alternative is to have people wanting to justify CryptoKittens traded on the Bitcoin blockchain; the only way to stop people using something valuable for mindless purposes is to start charging money for it. Otherwise I might as well use Western Union.
Or Bitcoin Cash. But there's a reason why Bitcoin devs limited the September blocksize upgrade to 4MB. And there's a reason why Bitcoin Cash can't get enough users to fill 1MB blocks (let alone the 8MB limit). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
