The problem is with vendors/sites that force you to wait for multiple confirmations -- the worst are ones that still make you wait for 6 confirmations. I could see it if we were still in 2010... but zero confirmation transactions should be the norm. See: Bitpay.
I've seen it on luckyb.it for the first time. Is there any practical reason for requiring confirmations? Guaranteeing the funds aren't double spent, or there isn't any attack that can reverse or redirect funds. Just a security precaution that can be used with our current PoW scheme  I read somewhere(cant remember now) that Crypto 2.0 has instant transactions like stellar, ripple that's why bitcoin should be updated to 2.0
I guess Bitcoin is already updated then  |
|
|
|
They aren't a real alternative, at least to me, because they are still more costly than other Bitcoin cashout methods I have and they don't provide me a solution for any problem. They are useful, but not essential. Cards from Xapo and Bit-x seem to be a good product, but noone has really caught my eye yet. As for anonymity... The card has to be registered to someone  I've seen some anonymous cards on the forums that appear to work without registering... But I haven't really seen one working, so I have my doubts. |
|
|
|
That's simply an amazing idea, the problem is shipping cupcakes in good condition... If it was on my country, I'd definitely buy way more cupcakes |
|
|
|
Just a regular article without anything clear... He could have mentioned that mine from HaoBTC that's been appearing a lot on the forums lately, that's using hydro power. He could have shown that guy on youtube mining with solar power too. Anyways, everything is obviously getting more eco friendly. Chips are more effective, consuming less electricity for more hash... |
|
|
|
|
There was no doubt whatsoever since the get go that Bitcoin was obviously going to survive the test. It was only going to be slowed down. Think about at as a DDoS attack that doesn't render the server completely useless, just a bit slower.
That's pretty much what happened, a big backlog of transactions. I hope they do not repeat the test. The message is already out there, we need bigger blocks. No need to hit something that's already been beaten down...
|
|
|
|
Didn't notice that one so far, pretty funny |
|
|
|
That's how he envisioned and created Bitcoin. The transactions are instant. However, confirmations are not... |
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.
This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this. Yes, the test is meaningless - it's an annoyance aiming at price manipulation. The solution to stop spam attacks like this is certainly not a max_blocksize increase, because even at 20x times the blocksize the resources needed to perform such an attack are still extremely small for any serious attacker. The practical solution for now is: Prioritize your transaction by sending it with an adequate fee. The general solution is: Increase fees for spam transactions, i.e. fees should rise non-linearly (maybe exponentially) for small-value transactions with big data size. ya.ya.yo! Uh.. NO. If they wanted to manipulate the price, they wouldn't have announced this; then people might start panicking not knowing who is attacking the system. That will manipulate the price. Exactly, this was obviously never going to affect the price whatsoever. And I highly doubt it would if it was unannounced The test data is interesting and useful, but doing this sort of thing is extremely inconsiderate to Bitcoin users. Even if the intentions are to collect data it's still a malicious attack and hurt the Bitcoin economy today, very selfish.
My thoughts exactly. As for their reddit post... Another test in 7 days? Wasn't this enough? What are these people trying to achieve? They are ruining their own business  And I'll be waiting for that data in the next few hours, it better be good in order to "compensate" for the slow transactions... |
|
|
|
It will be interesting to see if this stress test brings about a solution to the block size problem. Hopefully we can find a solution to ensure that the blockchain continues to function without any issues or unnecessary delays.
This test isn't really going to change anything, or bring any solutions... This is only raising awareness of a problem we already know we have, it isn't proposing anything new. It's an interesting test, but with a predictable outcome for which the solution is already in discussion for quite some time, and there is already code ready to be deployed that helps prevent a situation like this. |
|
|
|
|
It seems that stock clients can only go up to 732kb blocks. Miners/pools need to manually raise this limit, and that's what some did... While others have the limit on stock settings.
|
|
|
|
Anyone want to donate 8 gridseeds so I can fill up my rack (just got another 10 port hub): I'll pay for shipping! Wouldn't mind a donation myself either haha  |
|
|
|
0.8 and newer versions are compatible. The only thing between them is the fact that the blockchain has to be reindexed, because the format used to keep the database has changed in newer versions The torrent is no longer maintained, because it's irrelevant, it does not make blockchain indexing faster anymore, as the new versions use a different form of syncing that's quite faster... So in your opinion would copying an 0.8 blocks directory to an 0.10 install be problem free? I understand that going the other way round is forbidden. Yes, it should be problem free. I've upgraded nicely from 0.9 to 0.10, it shouldn't be much different from 0.8 to 0.10. There is no database structure differences from 0.8 to 0.9 as far as I know The other way around is forbidden, yes. You have to have a backup of the "old" blockchain to be able to use 0.8 again. |
|
|
|
0.8 and newer versions are compatible. The only thing between them is the fact that the blockchain has to be reindexed, because the format used to keep the database has changed in newer versions The torrent is no longer maintained, because it's irrelevant, it does not make blockchain indexing faster anymore, as the new versions use a different form of syncing that's quite faster... |
|
|
|
CoPay is supporting Bitcoin QT or Bitcoin XT ?
Of course, both supported, no possible way of only one being supported |
|
|
|
This looks really interesting, and I think it could be used, for example, as a donation address (or donation payment code, in this case). But there's something I'm not sure I understand (and forgive me if this is simple, but I'm not a very technical person Bitcoin-wise): if a payment code was given for donation, would each transaction to this code "redirect" the funds to different addresses? Will these codes make a lot of addresses via the same seed and use each address for each transaction?
A payment code is an address that each sender can use to derive up to 4 billion deposit addresses unique to them. If a charity advertises a payment code for donations, each individual donation transaction would send funds to a unique address. So I guess I understood correctly the usage of payment codes This is great system, clearly needed on the Bitcoin network, as it will avoid address reusage greatly. I really hope this gets some traction. |
|
|
|
|
So, were they hacked, or "hacked"? We also need to know the limit of the hack.
I guess only time will tell...
|
|
|
|
Wasn't aware that was the current of thought in the UK, it seemed quite the opposite when I went there once: super cars pretty much everywhere on the streets. Of all kinds and brands... So I guess there are many twats around there? As for staying under the radar... Agreed Compared to almost any other country I've been to, the UK is heaving with top end cars. In comparison in Europe or the US you might spot a fancy car every couple of days if you're lucky. It's not down to wealth as much as a love of outrageous amounts of credit. I think the UK is the world's most personally indebted economy by a long way. A supercar in London is just part of the landscape. Elsewhere it's open season from jealous dick heads. Brits do not like or encourage overt displays of success.
Seriously though, they can't all be rich surely?
Nope it's all on the never never. Look at all the finance options on the table for the average car buyer here. In France you can barely get the bank to hand over a credit card with a couple of hundred Euro limit. Didn't know it was usual in the UK to have such huge car loans Now I see that many people are living above and beyond their possibilities. I thought the population there actually had quite a bit more money than the average european person, but I guess that's just hear say. |
|
|
|
A few Gridseed's, worth around 5 Bitcoins, most of them resold locally... |
|
|
|
As I was expecting and wrote a while back on the forums... Although it's an interesting experience, the cost and blockchain delays provoked by such a test outstand the results obtained from it. There isn't a beneficial funds spent/results obtained relation here. Just some spam and confirmation delays for folks wanting to send coins back and forth... We already know we've got to bump up the block size... |
|
|
|
I haven't yet installed XT, but as it says on their github, XT and Core are compatible. So you just run XT instead of Core and you should be good to go But yeah, it's a safe bet to back up everything |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
