|
This helps nothing, if not making it worse. The chance of having a long chain of small blocks is approximately same as the chance of having a single big block. You may have a lot of small blocks during peak hours, and many big blocks when the mempool is empty.
|
|
|
|
81c2c3681cccd77dad4bcd41057381a5eaf1563fb9cc326269dd237573606703 01000000017a5d7cd74adca569d9d37b5efb427e303e4b601a3ced35bab62a91095e84426b010000007500093006020101020101014c6851410778d430274f8c5ec1321338151e9f27f4c676a008bdf8638d07c0b6be9ab35c71a1518063243acd4dfe96b66e3f2ec8013c8e072cd09b3834a19f81f659cc3455210378d430274f8c5ec1321338151e9f27f4c676a008bdf8638d07c0b6be9ab35c7152ae91ffffffff01e875010000000000232103d68f90ba81455256cb7a0df14fb3930d6df61393207f2f3e71659414d296e0f0ac00000000 04843f922a8a3eb5020cf7ea85f9ee9483faf8116665f8c18e1dcdcd40532756 010000000114fc097241a58ebd2191d0c2a47603f8193536f2405b99b45d623598584dd390000000007500093006020101020101014c6851210378d430274f8c5ec1321338151e9f27f4c676a008bdf8638d07c0b6be9ab35c71410778d430274f8c5ec1321338151e9f27f4c676a008bdf8638d07c0b6be9ab35c71a1518063243acd4dfe96b66e3f2ec8013c8e072cd09b3834a19f81f659cc345552ae91ffffffff01905f010000000000232103d68f90ba81455256cb7a0df14fb3930d6df61393207f2f3e71659414d296e0f0ac00000000 8375bf35ee1a487f755637b283a2a28b947f61090ed3a41eba71e32934a9dbcc 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 First two haven't been seen by my well-connected XT node. Third one has been seen but rejected: 2015-07-23 12:46:22 ERROR: CScriptCheck(): 8375bf35ee1a487f755637b283a2a28b947f61090ed3a41eba71e32934a9dbcc:0 VerifySignature failed: Public key is neither compressed or uncompressed
2015-07-23 12:46:22 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: : ConnectInputs failed 8375bf35ee1a487f755637b283a2a28b947f61090ed3a41eba71e32934a9dbcc
is it rejected by consensus or just by standard-ness? |
|
|
|
Double top matters in progressive uptrend.
"With any reversal pattern, there must be an existing trend to reverse. In the case of the Double Top Reversal, a significant uptrend of several months should be in place."
this. Well there was an uptrend from $150 on January 14th to almost $300 on March 12th. You can't say there is a "trend" just by connecting 2 points |
|
|
|
|
search "vps bitcoin hack" on google and you should know this is not a very good idea
|
|
|
|
A compromise would be to have a rule to allow UTXOs to be "revived". This would require a proof that the output actually exists and no double spends happen.
I wonder if it would be possible to have a UTXO commitment that you can store the legacy path and combine it somehow with the live path to prove that the output exists.
This defeats one of the purposes of the proposal: to prove that some coins are irrecoverably lost and we could forget them forever. A problem of the current Bitcoin social contract is that people assume that everything valid today is still valid after 100 years. They may sign a tx timelocked for 100 years and assume that will be confirmed eventually. This assumption limits all sorts of consensus fork as we could not introduce any rules with potential to confiscate coins. This also create instability in the value of bitcoins. Satoshi and other early miners own millions of bitcoin and we don't even know if they are still alive or whether the keys were lost. As I explained in OP I am not asking to delete their UTXOs but we should avoid this kind of dormant coins in the future. Your rules are too complicated. Let us create hardfork with a rule(s): 1) all unspent outputs with an age of X blocks ( X > 366307 at least ) are unspendable. 2) all amounts of these outputs go to the miners reward And now we can determine the exact number of X.  I suppose you are joking but that will provide an incentive for miners not to confirm tx as they could take the money |
|
|
|
interesting how you admit this is a "scheme".. because that is exactly what it is... a scheme to make more bitcoins out of thin air turning it into a glorified fiat currency.
I think you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. And don't pump a 2-year old thread just for trolling |
|
|
|
|
There are some ways to limit the growth of UTXO set:
1. Discouraging creation of new UTXO --- fee and relay rules
2. Encouraging consumption of UTXO --- fee reduction and relay rules
3. Limit the delta-UTXO-size for each block --- softfork/hardfork
However, some small UTXOs may never be economic to spend, or the private keys are simply lost. I bet this is not a new idea but I think we should consider to delete those "abandoned" UTXOs.
That would be too controversial if we are trying to delete any existing UTXOs. Therefore, this proposal applies only to new UTXOs.
This is a softfork:
1. 0-value outputs are not spendable
1a. (variation) 0-value outputs must be spent within 5,000,000s
2. An output of 1 satoshi must be spent within 10,000,000s (3.8 months) after it is created. The creation time and the deadline are both determined by the block timestamp.
3. As the value doubles, the deadline is extended by 10,000,000s. For example, with 1.34217728BTC (2^27), the UTXO can stay untouched for 280,000,000s (8.87 years)
4. No interpolation: e.g., the deadline for 1.34217727BTC is 270,000,000s after creation. In practice, it just measures the length of value in binary with leading zeros removed, and multiplies the length with 10,000,000. The code should be simple.
5. Bitcoin in deleted UTXOs are lost permanently. Most commercial banks will just confiscate your money if the account is dormant for many (say 5) years. The blockchain bank, however, will just delete the record.
The initial value of 10,000,000s is chosen, so that assuming the extreme case of 1BTC = 1,000,000USD, an UTXO with 128 satoshi (1.28USD) will still have 2.5 years to spend. Anything with at least 327.68USD will have minimum 5 years of storage period.
------------------
The arguments for this proposal are:
1. Limiting the growth of UTXO set.
2. No one should assume that other people would store data for free indefinitely.
3. Stabilizing Bitcoin's value if we could prove some bitcoins are really lost.
4. The original "Bitcoin contract" is not violated if the proposal is not applied to existing UTXOs
The arguments against this proposal are:
1. It opens a Pandora's box of confiscating bitcoin
2. It will create more on-chain transactions as people are forced to move their bitcoin. Enough block size is needed to make sure people will not lose bitcoin due to lack of block size.
|
|
|
|
nah probably not... it is more likely 'all of us' bitcoiners will take a nice big haircut during the 'big block of cheese day' which many of us know is coming. too many issues with bitcoin right now. what happens when peeps die and no one can un-encrypt their wallets ?? value goes up because there is less bitcoins ?? if an EMP strikes then no one can buy anything cuz all currency is cryptos .. that wont work because it is a weakness.. one EMP bomb takes out a countries entire economic infrastructure ??
if it does go to 32k+ that would be great because i have a few bitcoins.. but i think gold will be 32k+ before bitcoins will be....
ripple has just as good if not better chance at the new generation of fiat currency than does bitcoin because at least they are straight forward about making more coins when people lose their coins.. eventually bitcoin will be forced to 'create out of thin air' more bitcoins and we all know how that is going to turn out. when tell everyone your never going to make more bitcoins and that is why your different than fiat when you know you will be forced to print more at some point is not being straight forward. and when you finally print more then you are a glorified fiat.. ..... sure its innovating but it has problems that going to take a lot more innovation to be resolved... it is doubtful there is enough time left to fix all of it's shortcomings.
and bitcoin is backed by NOTHING... it's intrinsic.. hhahhahha.
What happens when people die and nobody can un-encrypt their wallets? Sad day for whoever's next of kin. That's not a problem with bitcoin, that is the problem of one idiot user not taking his own mortality into account when handling his money. A nationwide wildfire could theoretically destroy an entire nation's fiat, you know how common nation-wide EMP blasts are? As common as nation-wide fires. And last time I checked EMPs DO NO DAMAGE TO PAPER WALLETS. How dare you call yourself a miner when displaying such blatant ignorance!? Back up your shit, and it's good against the destruction of the backed-up material. If you have bitcoin and two neurons to rub together, you have several backups in several forms and storage means. Yeah, at the time, 32K seems excessive. I think we'll be at 10K by 2020, tops. Sure, any other and more widely accepted crypto has a chance at being as (or more) popular and widely used than bitcoin. And we can sit here and type for days about the millions of hypothetical scenarios where bitcoin ends below the competition (be it fiat or altcoins). One bitcoin is 1 billion satoshi. There will be 21 million billion satoshi by the time all bitcoin are mined. Even if 90% of that is lost, we will have 2.1 million billion satoshi... are those not enough to circulate? There are $5 trillion in printed cash in the world. There is (the equivalent) of 500 trillion pennies in cash in the world at the moment (according to this: http://gizmodo.com/5995301/how-much-money-is-there-on-earth). Are 2,000 trillion satoshi (10% of total bitcoin that there will ever be) not enough to be used as cash!? "Eventually, it will not be enough!" what a dishonest argument. We won't have to worry about that. Our children won't have to worry about that. Our children's children might ponder that someday there might not be enough satoshi to use bitcoin as fiat... I doubt that the hypothetical scenario of having to re-start block rewards will happen this century. No form of value exchange is intrinsically backed by anything. Gold? Just pretty looking metal, arbitrarily chosen to be valuable. Fiat? Backed by politic stability, look at what happened to the Euro over the Greek drama. Crypto? Arbitrarily chose bits and bytes to represent value. So long as it's good to exchange for goods and services, I dont care what arbitrary, human-created token we use.Just forget such stupid "we will not have enough satoshi" or "lost bitcoin is not recoverable" arguments. 2 years ago I have shown how we could indefinitely sub-divide a satoshi with a soft-fork. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=256516.10 |
|
|
|
I also disagree with the claim that it in any way addresses nothing-at-stake; in particular it's already common for schemes to suggest that duplicate signatures void coins (which can be done just by system rules without a single show signature) and yet those schemes also do not solve the nothing at stake problem: you cannot punish someone who has left the system and they can produce their conflicting signatures long after leaving it.
Do you believe that the nothing-at-stake problem is unavoidable? Ever better, is there any mathematical proof? |
|
|
|
We finally left the -1.90 to -1.95 area. -1.875 ($273) is the support. -1.90 ($266) should become a major support.
Major resistance is still -1.75 ($309). Then the next mark is -1.50 ($397)
so it reached -1.76 ($306.75) before went down. Support is still -1.875 ($274) |
|
|
|
Date: 17-Jul-2015 VWAP: 276.71 x: 1826 a: 0.00470 b: -1.08523 Rsq: 0.84783 The day's expected price: 1788.28 Actual price / expected price: 15.47% Log(Actual price / expected price) -1.866 Price to break the -2.23 all-time-low 192.53 Price to break the +1.87 all-time-high 11577.06 Predicted date for today's price: 14-Jun-2014 Days ahead: -397.39 Daily price rank: 443 (See OP for explanation)  |
|
|
|
Let's work the math. If 2/3 of the transactions actually processed are "real", then whoever is maintaining the backlog is paying the tx fees for 1/3 of every block. If this is someone with half the mining power then they get half of their third back, so their average cost per block is the fees for 1/6 of the block. If we are talking about someone with half the mining power, their average return per block is 1/2 the fees for a block. Because 1/2 is greater than 1/3, they are making a profit.
I think you made a mistake here by double counting something. Assume all miners will only mine tx with fee of 0.01BTC, and a full block could hold 900 txs. Scenario 1 (No one is artificially maintaining a backlog): If we have 600 real tx per block, the fee will be 6BTC/block For a miner with 50% of mining power, the expected income from fee is 3BTC/block Scenario 2 (A miner with 50% of mining power maintains a backlog): Since we have 600 real tx/block, the 50% miner has to create bogus tx at a rate of 300 tx/block, that costs 3BTC/block Now the blocks are full and the fee is 9BTC/block, expected income of the 50% miner is 4.5BTC/block. The net income of the 50% miner is 4.5-3 = 1.5BTC/block. He loses 3 - 1.5 = 1.5BTC/block |
|
|
|
yes.. for now. because the central banks are buying and hoarding metals atm.. the point here is you guys think bitcoin is going to be the replacement currency for the failing usd and suddenly we will all be buying boats... in my scenario: when the usd finally fails there will be a bank holiday and capital controls, a new currency will be rolled out that will be metals backed. the old fiat usd will be exchanged for the new currency and our bitcoins will be revalued in the new metals backed currency. .. we wont be buying boats by holding bitcoins .. instead we will take another huge loss like many of us have during the big pump and dump .
we wont be trading 'gold coins' on the street. we will trade our metals into a depository for the new metals backed currency. and we will trade our bitcoins for a lot less of the new currency than what they are worth in fiat dollars today. we're going to take a haircut just like holders of fiat usd. you are betting that bitcoins will replace the fiat "in god we trust" for the fed to print and manipulate dollar and it's not going to .
This is nonsense Let say now 1 BTC = 1 USD = 1 burger. When USD collapses and is replaced, that becomes 1 BTC = 100 USD = 1 New-USD = 1 burger. BTC holders can still enjoy a burger, while USD holders can only have 1/100 of a burger. |
|
|
|
What is a +2 in price today?  how do i figure this out myself? Expected price (1780.87) * (2.718 ^ 2) = 13159 |
|
|
|
Sorry if I missed it but is this based off Stamp or Finex?
Reference exchange: 17 Jul 2010 to 18 Jun 2013: MtGox 19 Jun 2013 to now: Bitstamp I'm thinking whether I should change to Finex as it has bigger volume now. Anyway, the trend is the focus so there should be no much difference |
|
|
|
Date: 11-Jul-2015 VWAP: 292.54 x: 1820 a: 0.00472 b: -1.09730 Rsq: 0.84893 The day's expected price: 1780.87 Actual price / expected price: 16.43% Log(Actual price / expected price) -1.806 Price to break the -2.23 all-time-low 191.73 Price to break the +1.87 all-time-high 11529.13 Predicted date for today's price: 22-Jun-2014 Days ahead: -383.05 Daily price rank: 424 (See OP for explanation) We finally left the -1.90 to -1.95 area. -1.875 ($273) is the support. -1.90 ($266) should become a major support. Major resistance is still -1.75 ($309). Then the next mark is -1.50 ($397)  |
|
|
|
Date: 6-Jul-2015 VWAP: 273.28 x: 1815 a: 0.00473 b: -1.10763 Rsq: 0.84992 The day's expected price: 1775.53 Actual price / expected price: 15.39% Log(Actual price / expected price) -1.871 Price to break the -2.23 all-time-low 191.16 Price to break the +1.87 all-time-high 11494.51 Predicted date for today's price: 5-Jun-2014 Days ahead: -395.42 Daily price rank: 440 (See OP for explanation)  |
|
|
|
I don't think such attack is practical. Attacker has to waste hashing power to mine an invalid block first.
I did a worked example. The cost to the attackers is more than the slight loss to the SPV-miners and then the SPV-miners are better off after the next difficulty update. I think it's quite obvious without any calculation: an attacker MUST lose a block, while an SPV miner MAY lose a block |
|
|
|
Excellent and informative thread.
Do you have a formula for calculating (excuse my terminology!) the given log value of the day?
I looked through the thread, but the only wolfram alpha links i clicked on give me the expected trend line price.. and not the log value above or below this line.
(I hope that makes sense!)
Actually the expected price from the link is not very accurate. It is overestimated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
