P.S.: The original bitcoin was plain and simple - there are blocks, there are transactions in the blocks, that's it. Now there is SegWit and looks like no one understands what does it mean. If all TX info is still in blocks, what was the point of segwit if transactions are still there. If the TX information is outside of the blocks from now on where is the rest?
"You are dumb and don't understand and it's okay" is not an answer - it means that you have no idea what's actually going on.
Valle, since the “original bitcoin was plain and simple”, why don’t you write me an “ELI5” on the mathematics of the SHA-256 hash’s “avalanche effect”, and explain why that’s always been so important to Bitcoin’s network security. That’s much harder to understand than Segwit. Or if you can’t understand it, does that mean that Adam Back had “no idea what’s actually going on” when he invented HashCash? And Satoshi was just stumbling blindly when he repurposed the HashCash concept to create a Byzantine fault-tolerant decentralized database? Oh, puh-leaze tell me that you know what the Byzantine Generals Problem is! “The original bitcoin was plain and simple”, right? Bitcoin was never simple. The fact that you say it was means that you, personally, never had any idea what was actually going on. P.P.S., Satoshi was a genius. The shame is that more oft than not, his great opus is as pearls before swine. |
|
|
|
Sorry. I know I am technically slow to you but the least you can do is to encourage the learning process. I also know I do not have to understand what goes on "under the hood". But what can I do? There interest is there.
I wouldn’t have come down so hard on you, except that you asked again exactly what achow101 had already answered in detail. Why did you bother asking the first time, if you did not intend to read the answers? DooMAD’s high-level explanation is well done, if you just want to get the general feel of how Segwit works. However, speaking only for myself, I’m not interested in “[encouraging] the learning process”. People who really want to learn, will start by studying everything they can—before they ask questions. And people who really want to learn, will not be stopped by anything; they don’t need to be encouraged. I am reminded of an anecdote[1] about a professor who once told a hapless freshman, “You’re not smart enough and you’re not working hard enough.” I think that is a suitable answer for many questions. Deserving students will take the hint; and those who don’t have it in them will be saved much trouble.
1. From Philip Greenspun? I can’t find it now.
The original bitcoin was plain and simple - there are blocks, there are transactions in the blocks, that's it. Now there is SegWit and looks like no one understands what does it mean. If all TX info is still in blocks, what was the point of segwit if transactions are still there. If the TX information is outside of the blocks from now on where is the rest?
"You are dumb and don't understand and it's okay" is not an answer - it means that you have no idea what's actually going on.
That’s an idiotic non-argument. Tell me, Valle, if you understand the following technologies which you use every day; I guarantee that you will get zero for seven here: 0. The transistor, in its present-day integrated-circuit implementations measured in nanometers 1. Lasers 2. The Global Positioning System (GPS) 3. The secp256k1 elliptic curve cryptography algorithm used in the “original Bitcoin”, and used now 4. The past two decades of research in TCP congestion control algorithms 5. The metallurgy and materials science used to produce modern steels (hint: much different from steels produced 50 years ago!) 6. The virtual memory management code in your operating system’s kernel The technologies I named above are much more difficult to understand than Segwit (!). The technologies above are things which I don’t fully understand—I mean, not really, not according to my own standard of “understanding”. But it is okay for me to not understand them. It would not be okay for me to pass an opinion about their technical merits, without understanding them. The fact that I do not understand them, does not mean that scientists and engineers who work with them daily “have no idea what’s actually going on.” Bitcoin engineering is hard. Scaling anything is hard. “Plain and simple” is not a technical argument. If you are too dumb to understand the technologies involved, then no, you are not entitled to an opinion. Ill-informed opinions are worse than worthless, since they are nothing more than hot air which wastes the valuable time of people whose opinions actually mean something. |
|
|
|
Why are you so focused on my "newbie" status. Do you really think bitcointalk membership status has any bearing on the validity of my posts?
I have spent more time learning about crypto currencies and I have provided much more substance than your spam.
It is your choice what to believe, and if you want to go around shouting FUD everywhere, go ahead. It makes you look unintelligent
In matters of “substance” versus the “unintelligent”, I invite readers to compare my post history to yours. I didn’t say anything about your “newbie” rank. You have a reading comprehension problem. But yes, now that you mention it: It is telling that you created a new account the night before futures trading began on Gemini, and used it to start spewing all this garbage. Hey, legal eagles, isn’t Gemini a regulated exchange? Would it be legal for someone with a short position to spam message boards trying to push the price down? Just wondering. I mean, hypothetically someone self-styled “ShortCoins”. |
|
|
|
Hi Nullius,
Thanks for the "bump" aka spamming my board.
I am not sure why you continue to follow me all around the forums and post the same nonsense. I will be cordial, and ask you politely again, to please stop spamming
“My board”, it says. How telling. Calling me a spammer? Pot, kettle. STOP SPAMMING THE BITCOIN FORUM WITH YOUR STUPID FUD. |
|
|
|
Since when is being a realist a bad thing?
Everyone who believes that bitcoin can only go up is in La-La Land. Discussing both the good and bad things about Crypto is healthy. The people who just scream "FUD" are not providing any substance. They are simply spamming the boards. So again, I will request that the spamming and false allegations of FUD cease.
Oh my, it talks back when it should shut up. There is a world of difference between “healthy” discussion, and spamming the forum with hyped-up, emoji-wreathed garbage designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Sometimes, multiple such topics in a matter of a few hours! As I said, check the timestamps. And all this, from an account self-evidently created for the sole purpose of saying “bad things” about Bitcoin. “ShortCoins”—no, there can’t possibly be any agenda or ulterior motives there. I am posting this reply, to encourage newbies to examine your post history and decide for themselves if you have any credibility. Your opinion, I don’t give a damn about. |
|
|
|
But I think my question can be repeated for wallet seeds: how long would 128 bit seeds be secure against QC, and how do you think Bitcoin community will react if/when someone will start claiming coins from those wallets that were considered to be lost (I'm assuming that most holders will move their funds to new wallets before quantum brute force will become feasible). Of course it's a far smaller threat than the complete failure of public key cryptography, but still I'm curious.
The seeds are run through a KDF (key derivation function) which uses iterated hashing. I am not qualified to say definitively whether a quantum computer could efficiently attack those; and I should know better than to even hazard a guess, without really thinking about it for a very long time. But my gut says this would probably not be a profitable attack. Now, watch someone else show me up here...
No. Quantum theory is fake "science" and does not exist, nor do "quantum computers".
quantum mysticism. haha
There is a pernicious little subcultural strain of arrogant doofuses who enjoy spouting “skepticism” of quantum mechanics. Put that aside; of course, they’re morons—and all the moreso, when they make Internet posts using computers which could not be built without the practical application of quantum mechanics. Rather like Flat Earthers who use GPS. There is a huge difference between that, and skepticism of quantum computers. A quantum computer is not a sure thing! I should preface this by saying, I’m not endorsing the opinions of Scott Aaronson. I’m only citing him as someone who is not a moron, and wrote a book on quantum computing (which I have not read). I seem to recall some wager on his blog over the (im)possibility of quantum computing, but I can’t find it right now; anyway, D-Wave has a long history (2013) of drawing his ire (2017), to say the least. See how he discusses skepticism of quantum computers: What I did is to write out every skeptical argument against the possibility of quantum computing that I could think of. We'll just go through them, and make commentary along the way. Let me just start by saying that my point of view has always been rather simple: it's entirely conceivable that quantum computing is impossible for some fundamental reason. If so, then that's by far the most exciting thing that could happen for us. That would be much more interesting than if quantum computing were possible, because it changes our understanding of physics. To have a quantum computer capable of factoring 10000-digit integers is the relatively boring outcome -- the outcome that we'd expect based on the theories we already have.
Though he’s not a good speaker, an interesting lay-level talk is “What Quantum Computing Isn’t” (August 2017). At 09:39, he notes, “The trouble is, if you want it to be useful, well, at some point you’ve got to observe your computer, you know, to read an answer out. And if you just measure, you know, the superposition of all answers, not having done anything else, the laws of quantum mechanics say that what you’re going to see will be a random answer. Okay? Well, if you just wanted a random answer, then you could have picked one yourself, with a lot less trouble. (Audience laughs.)” Funnily enough, at 12:55, “ QUANTUM BITCOIN” appears on the screen on a slide discussing Silicon Valley Startup “QUANTUM” buzzwords. He does say of quantum computing that “it’s not science fiction” (13:15), when discussing Google’s 22-qubit chip; near the end (14:17), he says, “Already within a few years, we may achieve what I think of as the number-one application of quantum computing, which is just to disprove the people who say that it’s impossible. (Audience laughs.) Could it be impossible for some deep reason that nobody has figured out yet? Well, of course. But in some sense, that’s the more exciting possibility. Because that’s the possibility that means we have to rewrite all the physics textbooks.” Aside, just to cut through some more of the quantum hype: djb derides the alleged physical security of quantum cryptography (PDF) (“Is the security of quantum cryptography guaranteed by the laws of physics?” djb’s answer seems to be “hahaha!”). (To be clear, quantum cryptography is a different matter than quantum computing.) He has also attacked the motives of quantum computing and quantum cryptography researchers (“How quantum cryptographers are stealing a quarter of a billion Euros from the European Commission. #qkd #quantumcrypto #quantummanifesto”). Hmmm. As for myself, I account myself moderately skeptical of quantum computing; I’ll believe it when I see it, but meanwhile I think it’s a good idea to move to PQ crypto. I would be more surprised if quantum cryptography can deliver on its promises. I don’t like the hype around any of it, especially when it’s sometimes used to FUD Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Newbie warning: The tellingly-named “ShortCoins” is spamming the forum with FUD. That’s all he/she/it does; observe the timestamps, too: Account created: 2017-12-09 21:02:00 Caveat lector.
|
|
|
|
Nullius I am not sure why you come to all my threads and spam the same copy and paste over and over.
Please refrain from spamming in the future. It detracts from valuable discussion
I shall paste a post on your FUD post history onto of your FUD-spamming wherever I see it, as long as doing so does not bump your garbage up too much. If you don’t like it, go jump in a lake. Actually, you should do that anyway. Why the shilling? Should we all use BCH instead or some other shitcoin what do you suggest? Obviously that other guy is posting that because you're a fear mongering moron.
Exactly. Well said. |
|
|
|
(Preface: There are zillions of “cryptocurrencies”. There is only one Bitcoin.) How much are you being paid for your spew? FUD is this—observe the timestamps, too: Account created: 2017-12-09 21:02:00 Caveat lector. |
|
|
|
Fear Of Missing Out is a real concept.
This is not FUD
Oh, how cute: It talks back! It even knows how to throw back that “ X is real!” without connecting X to Y, or to anything I said. How much are you being paid for your spew? FUD is this—observe the timestamps, too: |
|
|
|
People, turn on your brains! A newbie prolific poster self-styled “ShortCoins” (get it?) is spamming FUD threads at an amazing rate. Each devoid of substance, but dripping breathless, hyped-up worry. Each replete with cute emoji in the subject line, to draw the fools. What do you think the game is here? Mr. “Shortcoins”, please enjoy my canned response to you and all your kind: What you really need to understand is that Bitcoin doesn’t give a damn about you, the special little snowflake. Bitcoin doesn’t need you. Big money is moving into Bitcoin now. If you don’t like Bitcoin, then dump it now and go be poor. Someday, you will miss Bitcoin. Bitcoin will never miss you.
|
|
|
|
Username: Nullius We get so many requests here but almost none of the accounts promoted to editor from this thread actually ever edit anything. So perhaps, to avoid the odd occurrence of spambots being promoted to editor, it should be a requirement to also post why you want to be editor or a specific example of something you would do with edit privileges
For awhile, I have idly considered contributing. You know how it is. My request for edit privileges is now urged by having found blatantly wrong information on the wiki. Oh, no! Duty calls.Full disclosure:We ask that new registrants do this to verify that they are not disruptive robots.
I am a robot—or so has been alleged; but I am not disruptive. At least, not most of the time. If I get in a bad mood, I may apply chainsaw+blowtorch to the spam which I presume will be spewed out by some of these one-post accounts recently seen on this thread. I hope that would not be too “disruptive”. Anyway, I will only do it if I am in a really bad mood. Would you let me in, please? |
|
|
|
I've read on the Bitcoin wiki that Bitcoin private key is usually a 256 bit number, but it can also be between 128 to 512 bits.
Are you speaking of this page? It is wrong ( permalink to incorrect section in incorrect version). I will apply for wiki editing privileges to correct it. A Bitcoin private key is always exactly 256 bits, no more and no less. I infer that the editor who wrote the incorect text was confusing private keys with HD seed values, or something of that nature. On a brief glance, this page and this page seem correct. Others on this thread have already explained the basic technical details of what a quantum computer could do. The takeaway is that Bitcoin’s public-key crypto would be broken— however, public keys which have not yet been exposed would be safe. There is no way to recover the public key from its hash, not even with a quantum computer. For other hash properties, in a PQ world, a 256-bit hash should be considered to have today’s equivalent of a 128-bit security level; that’s adequate. The more important point is that a practical, real-world quantum computer would shatter the banking system, as well as the security of the whole Internet. Bitcoin would actually fare relatively well, due to its use of hashes in transaction outputs. This is not really a Bitcoin issue. Some people (not you) who ask about quantum computers in this context tend to imply that it’s a Bitcoin risk, whereas you should be (relatively) much more worried about your bank accounts. |
|
|
|
In the grand scheme of things, forks are irrelevant, they are merely tools for FUD and inciting panic among newbies who haven't completely learned how Bitcoin works. Mainstream and crypto media like to report about them because they are a good material for sensational clickbait articles like "Bitcoin is splitting in two".
This. These ridiculous forks are a calculated attempt to destroy Bitcoin. But have no fear. Bitcoin has thus far always crushed all who try to harm it; and it is only getting stronger. Soon enough, “Bitcoin Cash” as well as the latest forks will join their antecedents in the graveyard of dead forks (XT, Unlimited, Classic, NYA/2X…). [...] and for example in Russian community words "fork" and "altcoin" are synonyms.
May I suggest that the Russian language needs a new word, to disambiguate. All words are birthed somehow! |
|
|
|
Hello Guys, I need some good faucets which pay decent amount with not much annoying ads/popups.
@mods, this is in the wrong place. OP, there is a whole Micro Earnings forum to get this garbage off the normal forums. Go over there. Shoo, shoo. You should also read this very, very carefully. |
|
|
|
hi , is there something to be worried about here since Bitcoin has dropped 1000 USD today , very scary
You are absolutely right. Bitcoin is worthless! SELL! SELL! SELL! Or better yet, send your bitcoins to me; my address is in my signature. I will not be scared to hodl them. What you really need to understand is that Bitcoin doesn’t give a damn about you, the special little snowflake. Bitcoin doesn’t need you. Big money is moving into Bitcoin now. If you don’t like Bitcoin, then dump it now and go be poor. Someday, you will miss Bitcoin. Bitcoin will never miss you.
|
|
|
|
|
Excepting a few scattered posts by well-informed persons, this whole thread is moronic. Just a place for FUD and fork scamcoin pushers.
First question for the whiners: Are you using a Segwit address? A Segwit address will give you an instant discount of about 75% on fees for every transaction you send. If you are not using a Segwit address, then shut up!
I use Segwit addresses; and I laugh at all the people paying 4× the fees for the same size transactions. You are essentially making a donation to miners. You are so kind and charitable.
But that’s not the most important issue here.
What you really need to understand is that Bitcoin doesn’t give a damn about you, the special little snowflake. Bitcoin doesn’t need you. Big money is moving into Bitcoin now. If you don’t like Bitcoin, then dump it now and go be poor. Someday, you will miss Bitcoin. Bitcoin will never miss you.
HTH, HAND.
|
|
|
|
Hi Achow, did Segwit make the blocks more compact by removing the signatures from the transactions and placing them in an "extended block", and at the same time, maintaining the block size to 1mb?
Is that what it really did?
Another question. Where is the "extended block" stored exactly?
achow101 already answered your questions. Fully. Did you read his replies to you? There are no "extended blocks". Blocks are the same as before; [...]
The signatures are stored as part of the transaction.
In other words, there is no “removing” of signatures as you say. Now to elaborate on this, which you should read carefully: What actually happened is that the block size limit was redefined to something called block weight. There is now a block weight limit, which is 4000000 weight units. Each byte of non-witness data (everything that a legacy node will see) is worth 4 weight units. Each byte of segwit data (everything that a legacy node won't see) is worth 1 weight unit. So if you use segwit, more bytes of your transaction will be in witness data than a comparable non-segwit transaction. So the weight of your transaction is lower and thus there will be more weight for other transactions in the block. That is where the capacity increase comes from.
Stop thinking in terms of “block size”. The whole concept of a “block size” is obsolete. With Segwit, there is no longer a block size limit at all! Instead, as achow101 already explained to you, there is a block weight limit of 4000000 bytes: /** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;
The above-mentioned “weight” calculation is specified by BIP 141: Blocks are currently limited to 1,000,000 bytes (1MB) total size. We change this restriction as follows:
Block weight is defined as Base size * 3 + Total size. (rationale[3])
Base size is the block size in bytes with the original transaction serialization without any witness-related data, as seen by a non-upgraded node.
Total size is the block size in bytes with transactions serialized as described in BIP144, including base data and witness data.
The new rule is block weight ≤ 4,000,000.
Aside: Ok, sorry for all the dumb questions. As you have seen, I am not a technical person so the concept is a little hard for me to grasp.
There is no need for you to grasp it. If you’re “not a technical person”, don’t even try. And if you do want to try, then you should start by increasing your basic technical skills—then reading the specs. Then, you would never find yourself apologizing for “dumb questions”. There is some sort of absurd postmodern myth that everybody needs to understand everything. No, you don’t—and you won’t; you never will. You use technology every day which you have not the slightest hope of ever understanding. I guarantee that you don’t understand GPS, either; but I’d wager that you trust it to guide you where you want to go. Segwit is highly technical. It’s a hack; but it’s a brilliant, elegant hack which makes everything Just Work without sacrificing backwards compatibility (= no hardfork). The whole Internet is built on such hacks, most of them far less neat and orderly. Do you want to start brushing up on IPv6 and DNSSEC? Or for that matter, the long chain of weird kludges applied to SMTP since the protocol was first defined in 1982? Segwit does not remove signatures; that’s a ridiculous canard peddled by smear campaigners for cheap propaganda purposes. The engineers did a fine job on this one. That’s all you really need to know. If you can’t or won’t read all the specs—if you lack the ability and/or the will to work through the process of gaining significant expertise—then don’t ask questions, especially if you won’t read the answers anyway. Just sit back, use, and enjoy. (Note: I am not affiliated with Core, though I hope to perhaps contribute someday. I like specs and Unix kernel C code for bedtime reading.) |
|
|
|
Confused? Bitcoin.org is the domain name that Satoshi established to release Bitcoin. You can still go there to download Bitcoin Core (the link is at the top of every page of this forum).
This forum's domain name is Bitcointalk.org...a bit different.
This forum is the Bitcoin Forum, originally hosted on bitcoin.org. It replaced a Sourceforge forum. This seems to be the earliest snapshot of the Bitcoin Forum’s homepage in archive.org: https://web.archive.org/web/20091215005450/http://www.bitcoin.org:80/smf/ |
|
|
|
Well, it’s not only Cloudflare. It’s that and/or something else: Admins may e-mail me for details, if that would be useful. (I doubt it; that’s all I saw.) PM seems not so useful right now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
