Bitcoin Forum
June 01, 2024, 07:10:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 [137] 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 ... 447 »
2721  Local / Italiano (Italian) / Re: Consiglio wallet sicuro per "ex niubbo ormai cresciuto" on: November 23, 2015, 03:29:06 PM
@BitBitCoin
Il formato delle chiavi private di Bitcoin è uno standard usato da tutti o quasi i client del network Bitcoin.

Quindi o sposti la chiave su altri wallet, o sposti i Bitcoin (cosa migliore)
2722  Local / Italiano (Italian) / Re: Bitstamp: INVALID AUTHENTICATION CODE on: November 23, 2015, 02:24:29 PM
L'altra possibilità è che ti sia fatto in qualche modo rubare l'access all'account.

Puoi giusto provare ad inviare un email al supporto e chiedere il reset.
2723  Local / Italiano (Italian) / Re: Bitstamp: INVALID AUTHENTICATION CODE on: November 23, 2015, 02:14:30 PM
Sempre su Google Authenticator c'è un opzione per risincronizzarlo, prova anche quello.
2724  Economy / Gambling / Re: Multiplayer bomberman clone - deposits now enabled on: November 23, 2015, 12:32:08 PM
Smiley

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/play-for-real-bitcoin-in-this-bomberman-clone
2725  Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: Btcd Version 0.12.0 Released - Alternative fullnode bitcoin implementation in Go on: November 22, 2015, 07:21:44 PM
Who are the lead developers of this implementation?
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd/graphs/contributors

They think that they will gain something by releasing the release with the same numbers as the next Core release.   Roll Eyes
Maybe there will be already another release of this full node at the time of the 0.12.0 of the core.


@2112
Maybe "Alternative fullnode bitcoin implementation in Go" wasn't clear enough Roll Eyes

@Lauda
By my thoughts I think that this should be sticked as the one of the Bitcoin Core, but I know, I'm too old here Roll Eyes
2726  Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: Btcd Version 0.12.0 Released - Alternative fullnode bitcoin implementation in Go on: November 22, 2015, 07:13:11 PM
Maybe you like to write a lot because of your signature, and this is the reasons that you didn't notice that this isn't Bitcoin Core.
2727  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 22, 2015, 05:57:34 PM
So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already?
I'm saying that the block size topic was always avoided by the rest of the team on the mailing list/chat/github while both gavin and hearn were trying to find how to increase it, and this is the only reasons so that they have chosen to make the fork. The last chance.
2728  Bitcoin / Wallet software / Btcd Version 0.12.0 Released - Alternative fullnode bitcoin implementation in Go on: November 22, 2015, 05:36:40 PM
Description
Alternative full node bitcoin implementation written in Go

Code:
https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd


https://blog.companyzero.com/2015/11/btcsuite-announcing-btcd-0-12-0-release/

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ttu4k/btcsuite_announcing_btcd_0120_release/


Overview
In addition to announcing the new release, the purpose of this blog is to discuss a few points of the release in more detail. For those of you who are simply looking for the release notes and updated Windows binaries, they are located here.


The most important changes this post will cover are:
CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY (CLTV) support (BIP0065)
Enforce LowS signatures for transaction relay
New flag for controlling the minimum relay fee
Bloom filter service bit support (BIP0111)
New signature validation cache
Developer-centric changes:
-Refactored peer package
-New options when querying address index
Under development


CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY Support (BIP0065)
This release implements BIP0065 which introduces a new opcode named CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY that provides the scripting system a method to guarantee a transaction is unspendable until a specific date, or block height, in the future. While transactions already contained a lock time field, there was no way to enforce it via the scripting system prior to this new opcode.

The deployment of this new opcode is done via a soft fork using the same voting mechanism employed by BIP0034 and BIP0066 and entails adding a new block version 4 which treats the NOP2 opcode as CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY and enforces the new lock time restrictions.

In addition, all block templates returned by the getblocktemplate RPC will now be block version 4 compliant. This means solo miners using the getblocktemplate RPC will need to ensure their preferred software is updated to support the new block version and rules. Miners using a pool should follow the instructions provided by their pool operator.


Enforce LowS Signatures For Relay
ECDSA signatures are now required to be encoded with the canonical ‘low-s’ encoding in order to be relayed or accepted into the memory pool. This is useful since it helps reduce the number of malleable transactions relayed across the network and included in blocks.

However, please note that this is only a standardness check as opposed to a consensus change. This is an important distinction because it means it is still possible for miners to include signatures which do not conform to this encoding in blocks and therefore software must not assume old style signatures are impossible.

An important consequence of this change is that old software which creates transaction signatures that do not conform to this rule will need to be updated to produce transactions which are not rejected. That said, there are a wide variety of conforming implementations already available including the btcsuite signing code which has already produced signatures conforming to this encoding since Jul 31, 2014.


New Flag for Controlling the Minimum Relay Fee
As many users have probably noticed, there has recently been an increasing number of low-fee transactions flooding the network which causes the memory pool size to grow tremendously.

As a temporary measure to help mitigate this, a new parameter, --minrelaytxfee, has been added to allow the minimum transaction fee (in BTC/kB) transactions must have before they are allowed to be accepted into the memory and relayed to other nodes to be changed. The default value is 0.00001. Users with memory constrained systems, or who simply desire the memory pool to consume less space, will probably want to raise this to something higher such as 0.00005.

We are aware that this is not the best solution and plans are underway to provide a more robust long-term solution.


Bloom Filter Service Bit Support (BIP0111)
A new service flag which conforms to BIP0111 has been introduced into the peer-to-peer protocol which can be used to signal support for bloom filters. The is accompanied by the protocol version being increased to 70011.

Please note that peers running previous protocol versions that are newer than the version which bloom filters were introduced are assumed to support bloom filters since they were previously required.

To accompany this change, a new --nopeerbloomfilters parameter is now available which can be used to disable support for bloom filters and disable the new service bit accordingly.

A full discussion about why one might or might not want to disable bloom filters is beyond the scope of this post. Suffice it to say there are several issues with them such that many of us in the community would ultimately like to see them replaced. However, it is important to note that the vast majority of SPV implementations currently rely on full nodes having bloom filtering enabled, so we don’t recommend disabling them yet.


New Signature Validation Cache
This release adds a signature cache to the signature validation system which, as the name implies, caches successful signature validations in memory. This typically provides a significant speedup to block processing once the node is fully synced. This is the case because most transactions in new blocks have already been seen and validated by the memory pool and therefore the new blocks can avoid many relatively expensive signature checks by consulting the cache for the ones already known to be valid.

The cache is limited by a configurable number of entries (though future development will likely change this to a target memory size) which is set to 50000 entries by default. A new parameter, --sigcachemaxsize, has been added to allow the cache size to be configured.


Refactored Peer Package
NOTE: This section is aimed more at developers than users, so users may want to skip this section.

This release includes a complete refactoring of the peer code into a peer package which acts a common base for creating and concurrently managing bitcoin network peers. While it doesn’t directly have a huge impact on the current release, we are excited to announce this package because it paves the way for a wide variety of applications that work with the peer-to-peer network. For example, it could be used to easily create robust and more intelligent network seeders, SPV wallets, testing tools, relay nodes, proxies, etc.

As it specifically pertains to btcsuite, btcd has already been updated with this release to use the package. This is significant because it means the peer package will necessarily have to be kept up to date with the latest network and protocol changes that are required by the backbone of the network. Compare this model with having decoupled peer code (such as a 3rd-party library written in Python, node.js, etc) which is for more likely to constantly get out of sync with the latest core network development.


New Options When Querying Address Index
NOTE: This section is aimed more at developers than users, so users may want to skip this section.

The searchrawtransactions RPC which can be used to query the optional address index now include three new parameters:

An optional vinextra parameter which causes the results to include information about the outputs referenced by a transaction inputs
An optional reverse parameter to return the results in reverse order which can be useful in block explorer type of applications
An optional filteraddrs parameter that filters out all transaction inputs and outputs that do not involve the provided addresses. This can significantly reduce the amount of data returned when the transactions involved have a lot of inputs and outputs and your application is only interested in those which involve a specific set of addresses as is typically the case


What’s Under Development?

The following is a quick overview of the major ongoing and future development plans:

Major database restructuring and optimization
We have been keeping a close eye on the performance characteristics of btcd and noticed some areas, particularly in regards to the database, that aren’t scaling as well as we would like. Our goal is to eliminate these bottlenecks.

Add support for concurrent syncing
Currently, all initial block syncing makes use of a single peer. This can lead to wild variance in sync time when the selected sync peer is stalled and/or slow. By making use of multiple peers, the initial sync time can be significantly reduced and other issues related to only having a single sync peer will be eliminated. The peer package introduced in this release was a key piece towards this effort.

Improvements to headers-first syncing
While btcd has already supported headers-first syncing since version 0.5.0-alpha, it currently only uses that mode up until the final checkpoint. Our goal is to extend this capability beyond the final checkpoint.

Refactor the memory pool code into a separate package
The current code which deals with the transaction memory pool is fairly tightly integrated into the main server code. We plan to refactor this out into a separate package which will greatly improve its testability, allow independent benchmarking and profiling, and open up some interesting opportunities for future development related to the memory pool.

Refactor the mining code into a separate package
Much like the memory pool, the current code which deals with providing mining-related functionality, such as generating block templates and creating new blocks, is fairly tightly integrated into the main server and memory pool code. By separating this out into an independent package, many of the same benefits mentioned for the memory pool apply here as well.

Several improvements to the memory pool
The current memory pool is not limited which can lead to it consuming massive amounts of memory. While on the surface it might seem simple to limit it to a specific number of entries, there are several factors that need to taken in account such as priority, fees, dependencies on other transactions, and general fairness to all involved parties.

As many readers following our releases probably have noted, the first three of these were already mentioned in the previous release. They have been repeated here since they are still ongoing and embody the major development efforts.
2729  Local / Gambling (Italiano) / [LISTA] Lista giochi/servizi basati skill legati a / con premi in Bitcoin on: November 22, 2015, 04:21:10 PM
In questi giochi non sparisce del tutto l'aspetto fortuna, ma il fattore abilita (skill) va ad influire molto di più il risultato finale della partita.

Come sempre, se ne conosce altri, segnalateli e verranno valutati Smiley


Cityfor.me (Minecraft)
Sito: http://www.cityfor.me
Discussione ita: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1216786.0

Battlecoin (Bomberman clone)
Sito: http://battlecoin.org
Discussione ita: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1043982.0
Discussione eng: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1010288.0

Leet (LOL / CS:GO / Minecraft)
Sito: https://www.leet.gg
Discussione ita: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973717.0

Chopcoin (Agar.io clone)
Sito: http://www.chopcoin.io
Discussione ita: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1172863.0
Discussione eng: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168533.0

Bitplay.today (Flapper / Candy Crush / Basketball / Hopper ) - Android
Sito: http://bitplay.today
Discussione ita: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=858054.0
Discussione eng 1: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=835437.0
Discussione eng 2: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1152093.0

Platoongame (similar to Ogame and Travian)
Sito: http://www.platoongame.com/
Discussione eng: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1362012.0
2730  Economy / Gambling / Re: Multiplayer bomberman clone - deposits now enabled on: November 22, 2015, 07:39:58 AM
It seems that there is a bug where sometime the player can't leave the game. (in the waiting room)
2731  Economy / Gambling / Re: eSport BTC betting site? on: November 22, 2015, 05:10:18 AM
http://www.8esport.com/
2732  Local / Gambling (Italiano) / Re: [SKILL][PVP] Battlecoin.org - Multiplayer bomberman clone on: November 22, 2015, 05:00:52 AM
Sito completamente nuovo, dateci un occhiata! Cheesy

http://battlecoin.org/
2733  Local / Italiano (Italian) / Re: [NEWS] In italiano - Raccolta di link dei media in lingua italiana on: November 22, 2015, 12:13:02 AM
Anche text secure aspettate a considerarlo del tutto sicuro Smiley

https://medium.com/@thegrugq/signal-intelligence-free-for-all-5993c2f72f90#.6cljcvxj6

Pare che la soluzione in arrivo sia Tox, c'è anche una discussione nella sezione "Crittografia e decentralizzazione"
2734  Local / Crittografia e decentralizzazione / Re: Signal / TextSecure ( iPhone / Android ) - Chiamate e messaggi criptati on: November 21, 2015, 04:33:39 PM
Ecco chiarito comunque il rischio a dare il proprio numero di telefono Smiley (e non solo)
https://medium.com/@thegrugq/signal-intelligence-free-for-all-5993c2f72f90#.6cljcvxj6

Si attende la fine dello sviluppo di Tox!
2735  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions for its customers on: November 21, 2015, 06:59:21 AM
With blocks completely full a common tx with the actual fee it will probably need more than 15 hours to get verified (the first confirmation)

So then there will be two possibilities:
- Putting a very high fee and hopping that a random pool will add it to his blocks
- Giving the fee (probably lower) directly to the miner/pool and having an high probability to get the confirmation earlier.
2736  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 21, 2015, 06:54:10 AM
What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.
Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.
2737  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 21, 2015, 05:52:26 AM
He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem.
What? Maybe you have missed a lot of the history of this problem or even you are trolling me.  Huh Roll Eyes
2738  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 21, 2015, 04:24:17 AM
Discrimination in mining, and Mike being early to realize the 'utility.'  Sorry to have lost you...
Do you understand that the discrimination is only possible with a situation of a limited size?

If there is a space for 10 tx on a block, and the block is always full, the entity that makes the block (the pool/miner), then can chose to give a preference to some tx.
So, it can ask for a fee paid to him directly.
If the block now has the space for 100 tx (example), the miner/pool can still try to ask for a fee, but no one is going to pay it, because there is a very high probability that another miner will incluse all the fees directly.

This simple logic doesn't need a genius evil mind. You should see that mike was already clever on giving this warning a way before this has happened.

Quote
The most critical thing is to contain Bitcoin and hand it over to the mainstream banks.  Why is less clear to me.
There are many ways so that banks can find the Blockchain as something useful.
And it's useful because it's trustless, and it is trustless because it's decentralized. (banks don't trust each others)
Banks doesn't need to centralize it to make it useful to them, so there are many people with a more open mind that are very happy to make money by helping banks on using this technology (and maybe then converting them in Bitcoin)

Bitcoin would work just fine with me running one CPU miner in the background...as long as nobody attacked it.
If nobody wants to attack it, than it has no value. You can't have both.

All the things that you say about sidecoin/chain are your personal expectations.
While you hope for something, you shouldn't stop looking at the reality.
Expectations can become failures.
2739  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 21, 2015, 03:51:03 AM
Or did i misunderstood and you are in favor of increasing blocksize limit? Cheesy
Yes I'm in favor, and Gavin was probably "desperate" because he wanted to avoid even the situation/solution that BTCC is going to do (and I'm sure that it will not be the last)

I don't think that it was stupid, but just the last possibility to save Bitcoin from the corrupted team.

It was just a way to show to the community that it's possible to fork if needed.
2740  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? on: November 21, 2015, 03:28:45 AM
Remember Hearn's quote about 'no difference between freezing coins and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  I see no indication that he has not worked toward that goal (extreme miner consolidation far beyond what is practical at 1MB) since that time.  All the while fostering other potential attack vectors as well of course.
What's the point about mike here? I'm totally missing it.

Now that the space on the blocks is becoming a very rare resource, then it will be the same for the confirmations.
So it's logic that who manage this space (like pools as BTCC) is trying to get more income from it.

The Blockchain is secure thanks to the avidity of the miners, it can't be otherwise.
Pages: « 1 ... 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 [137] 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 ... 447 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!