But a relatively simple solution could be to change the concept a bit:
Instead that the "reservation" means that you will be able to get a space in any future block without fee competition, it means that you are enabled to compete in an additional space of the block (e.g. 4 MB vBytes more). In this space there will be less fee competition so a fast confirmation is extremely likely, but not guaranteed. This would solve the "huge block" problem and also gives the miners even more incentives to include the second transactions, as there will be to some extent a fee market in this additional block space because it's not unlimited.
It's somewhat better. But if without fee competition means no fee, there's no reason for miner/pool to add such transaction. |
|
|
|
Individuals often lack the resources to run full nodes, impacting their influence on network consensus.
Each full node verify all block and TX, so malicious party who run millions nodes which follow different consensus won't affect Bitcoin network consensus. |
|
|
|
How about Newbie benbrian42? --snip-- Zerogpt.com says it's 99.2% AI diarrhea. OP was last active the second he created this topic. Is this a new thing trying to earn Merit, and if not, abandon the account? Yes, i believe it's an attempt to earn merit. Thread about detailed, specific or constructive question usually earn some merit. Fortunately, AI-generated text usually doesn't meet any of those criteria. |
|
|
|
Somewhat relevant xkcd comic,  Source: https://xkcd.com/285/I wonder if this guy gets off every time he lies, this isn't the first time that he has made claims without backing it up or with BS "evidence". The last time I saw a post of his he said Satoshi made a Twitter account to refute Craig Wright's claims. he also made a post where he claimed he has messages that came from Satoshi Nakamoto himself and you would need to privately message him in order to hear what Satoshi had to say.
this guy needs to stop with his BS
He already got 2 neutral and 2 negative feedback, but it's obvious he don't care about it. We can try report his post to moderator, but i'm not sure which forum rule he violate in this thread. |
|
|
|
|
If i understand it right, it's basically about better utilization of CPU, GPU or other computing unit. If so, it won't change mining ecosystem since i expect mining software already utilize CPU, GPU or ASIC at it's best capacity. But it'll probably help application which only use 1 CPU thread.
|
|
|
|
It's interesting idea and easy to understand, but i don't like it due to these reasons. 1. It's a hard-fork, which unlikely to be accepted by Bitcoin community and developers. 2. Additional technical complexity on protocol level. I prefer either block size increase or LN software improve how they handle inconsistent TX fee rate. This seems like it would open an avenue for a significant attack. Couldn't a malicious party "Reserve" space as much as possible every time fees are low, and then after a few years "Redeem" all the reserved space all at once in a HUGE block? Using this to attack Bitcoin would be equally expensive than a normal spam attack, so I think the reservation of space itself is not a vector here (i.e. you couldn't make Bitcoin unusable). I'm unsure if the huge block in the future could be a problem though. Perhaps this could be solved with a hard block size cap of e.g. 2x the current max vByte size. This means there would be additional space for "redeem nonce" transactions per block, but a limited amount. But that would kill the point of OP's idea, since people/group who have "reserve" still compete in terms of TX fee rate. |
|
|
|
--snip--
👍 Many people keep repeating that nodes need more storage, but it's not the actual concern. Storage is cheap. It's bandwidth that's currently the potential problem because in some regions they are more expensive. RAM and CPU are also getting more expensive, and that might also be another concern if network consensus allows more transaction throughput. But on other hand, you don't have to buy newest generation of RAM/GPU and both RAM/GPU still getting faster over time. Bandwidth isn't big problem either, since blockchain size increase only about 10GB or less per month. |
|
|
|
|
30% of miner's electricity cost? It's not small, even considering miner usually get bulk/discounted price. Unless electricity company in U.S. can offer even cheaper rate within few years, we'll see miner leaving America.
|
|
|
|
OP doesn't explain properly, but he's not talking about exchange. GPP actually service where you can rent Google's server. Using their server as your own "computer", exchange would see Google server's IP address rather than your IP address.
Is that not GCP (Google Cloud Platform)? I assume OP talking about GCP. If you search "Google Private Platform" on Google, you only get 2 results (including this thread). But GCP itself provide few private feature, which are private cloud[1] and private access[2]. [1] https://cloud.google.com/discover/what-is-a-private-cloud[2] https://cloud.google.com/vpc/docs/configure-private-google-access |
|
|
|
Sometimes I still keep thinking about how to trade via Google, which be said to be anonymous? and honestly, I just found out that Google can carry out transactions?
can someone give an example?
because I only trade on dex and p2p
OP doesn't explain properly, but he's not talking about exchange. GPP actually service where you can rent Google's server. Using their server as your own "computer", exchange would see Google server's IP address rather than your IP address. But obviously it's terrible idea due to reason which already mentioned by other member. And you might want to add OP to ignore list since he usually talk non-sense or lying (just see OP's neutral/negative feedback). |
|
|
|
This is just a free service, where the transaction gets broadcasted to multiple node API's. At least for the ones who paid low fee have higher chances of getting confirmed sooner than estimation at high node congestions.
That's not true, we already mention miner/mining pool usually prioritize transaction with highest fee rate. Miner/mining pool won't give higher priority to transaction which rebroadcast many times. Also to mention this is not any kind of scam website and doesn't have any backlinks/scam links.
 Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scamSome people may think or feel you deceive them since you don't perform acceleration. |
|
|
|
Yet another fake/scam Bitcoin TX accelerator service. At this point, i wonder whether we should give neutral (or even negative) feedback to such service unless it's directly offered by either mining pool/miner or they can provide proof that they're working together with certain mining pool. How Long Does It Take to Confirm Transactions?
The time taken to confirm transactions can vary based on network traffic and other factors. However, using a transaction accelerator can significantly reduce the confirmation time compared to standard processing.
Legit/real accelerator service would say as soon as they or their partner mine a block. |
|
|
|
I have heard about Contabo but many people say that their response time is not reliable and many people don't recommend their service. I checked buyvm/frantech but what I want is not available in any location.
On other side, some member on Starting a Bitcoin Node using a VPS mention good experience with Contabo. Or if there are good cheap VPS alternatives? There are many cheap VPS when I google but I want advice and recommendations from someone who had a good experience with certain cheap VPS providers. Many of you run many tools on VPS, so I hope I'll hear good suggestions. Crypto payments are a huge bonus for me but not mandatory.
You may want to check this thread, Sharing for Bitcoin Core download: the cheapest pay-per-hour VPS I found.. |
|
|
|
While i somewhat agree with your opinion, it's also true information which related with Satoshi already shared publicly either on this forum or elsewhere. I don't think theymos would agree with your interpretation either, so IMO we only can re-telling people to respect Satoshi's privacy. I think his identity will always be a subject and I think everyone has a legal right to know who is the original author, a real person who created the product that they use. So, satoshi might be an exception in this case not only on Bitcointalk but everywhere.
Since you mention legal right, do you mind tell us which law on which country allow that? |
|
|
|
Looks like he got another account to spam shady AI seed finder. Stupid of him to think that we have already forgotten about his scam AI seed finder. And worst of all, posting from an account with negative feedback from DT members and a flag. Even if we forget it, there'll be people who mention it's either shady or scam, which makes their attempt ended in failure. Meanwhile both @sedinvore and @CryptoAIDev aren't still banned even though there are some proof they perform ban evasion.
I also still don't understand why they have not been banned yet the post has been deleted. Flags and tags will do for now. Based on my experience, occasionally you need to make multiple public report in order to make moderator take action. |
|
|
|
Finally Wasabi move away from plaintext format, although few people liked it since they can open and read it easily. But here's a question, does that mean we can open the wallet using SQLite viewer/explorer to see the data/encrypted data? |
|
|
|
There is a whole other issue about fungibility as well. Should we still allow hackers access to those Bitcoin, or condemn governments for attempting to censor it? This would be like Ethereum V Ethereum Classic again and hopefully we won't have to reach that stage.
Good point, i could see that happening in the future. As for censorship, it's already happening on centralized service and i expect only minority Bitcoiner condemn censorship towards stolen Bitcoin from vulnerable address. Change address is quite commonly used now
People are now more aware about coin controlling and coins privacy than before. I do it always but never had this Quantum Computing awareness before when using change address. Or they simply use wallet which do those by default. It's shown by people asking why their wallet keep generate new address or send Bitcoin to address they don't recognize (in reality, it's just change address). |
|
|
|
--snip--
Thanks for your answer  yes i know, i gave little details. But now i've changed my plan a bit. Instead of the raspberry pi i would use a Gekkoscience Smarthub - 11 Ports with 9 usb just attached. For electricity i would buy a solarpanel with batterie (costs about 1.700€ at leats what i found)With this usb hub i would get around 2,6 tb/h. Since i'm new to this, is this a good bandwith? And how much would be the roi? Here's very rough calculation, Total initial cost: $3650Gekkoscience Smarthub - 11 Ports With 9 Compac F and 9 fans 2.6 TH/s - $1800. ALLPOWERS S2000 - 1700€ or about $1850. Using https://buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/calculator/ which consider rising difficulty, it state you can obtain $247/year. But it doesn't consider halving on next month, so you probably can obtain $123.5/year. At this point, i believe it's safe to assume ROI will never happen. And if you're willing to spend $3.6K in first place, you might as well as buy regular-sized ASIC (e.g. S21). |
|
|
|
When I started this thread I wouldn't have imagined ETF inflows being this high. Looks like Blackrock is determined to become one of the biggest holders in Bitcoin. To me it is clear now that what I said will happen sooner or later. Either by accident or in purpose, we will see some sort of hardfork attempt by the ETFs that are US based, perhaps forcing any other US soil hosted custodian to follow, very likely actually, they then will try to do an ESG Bitcoin fork or what have you. It is just a matter of time. The question is, how will the community react to this. We are letting in a bunch of people that will not care about the consequences in the network, they will just want their money back. Best case scenario some sort of class action is done against them and the conflict is resolved, if not then it will be another Bitcoin was as seen in previous hardfork episodes were all attempts failed.
Bitcoin supposed to be permissionless, so we can't stop those people from owning Bitcoin. Bitcoin community never like hard-fork, so it's obvious such hard-fork will face tons of critic or rejection. I also doubt they could show argument to sway portion of Bitcoin community into keeping their forked coin alive. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
