Wieso versucht man die Bitcoin Krücke am leben zu erhalten? Ihr versucht doch auch nicht einen 2 Takter so umzukonstruieren, dass er effizienter wird, stattdessen bedient man sich besserer Konstruktionen und ignoriert die alten Motoren. Lasst den Bitcoin Bitcoin sein, versucht doch nicht durch krücken das System skalierbar zu machen sondern bedient euch hier besserer Techniken. Vor allem ist das Konzept des Bitcoin ökologisch meiner Ansicht nach in heutiger Zeit, wo es um Schadstoff Ausstoß oder Stromressourcen Schonung geht nicht mehr akzeptabel. Hier gibt es weitaus bessere Verfahren die Ökologisch effizient sind. Bitcoin kann ja gern so bleiben wie es ist und als Grundwährung wie zb unser physisches Gold bleiben, als vergleichbare Fiatwährung sollte man sich jedoch anderer Techniken bedienen. Aber spätestens mit dem Rollout der neuen intelligenten Zähler und der dmit in Zukunft drastischen Strompreissteigerungen hierzulande werden zumindest in Deutschland die letzten Miner abgestellt. Bitcoin ist nur als PoW mit enormen externen Langzeit (Hardware) / Kurzzeitinvestments (Strom) im freien Internet wirklich sicher. Es braucht ein ökonomisches Gleichgewicht / hohe Barriere für Angreifer das ganze SICHER am laufen zu lassen, ganz ähnlich, wie geschlossene System (Banken) mit hohen Kosten ihre Firewall / Cybersecurity bettreiben müssen - dieses Wissen ist leider nicht oft vorhanden. Weiter bin ich als bekannter Big-Blocker ebenso an LN fundamental / sicherheitstechnisch / kundenschutzseitg interessiert, ich denke es gibt vernünftige Anwendungen, z.B. Netting von TRX bei immer denselben Gegenparteien wir z.B: HF Trading, Mirco-Payments für online content (Musik , Filme usw). Leider glaube ich nicht, dass es annähernd ausreicht, um die Skalierung zu lösen und es genügend Zeit gib (Horizont 2-3 Jahre, damit alles für Finanzsysteme sauber genug ist) , irgendetwas damit 'schnell' zu retten  Hier noch mein konstruktiven Input an alle Versuchskaninchen: Denkt an die Regularien als Payment Processor - dies ist BAFIN Gebiet und könnte manche recht schnell wieder auf den Boden bringen. In der Schweiz sollte die FINMA relative gute Einstiegs-Regularien haben, das ist evtl hilfreicher als in D.... |
|
|
|
YEA both are C..dont be to excited about - or + lol
The fact that many .. weak coins are listed higher than multi $bill,established ,big dev team/communities coins,says it all.
Noobies will be burnt if they follow these shit ratings weiss has created.
(prob see pumps on almost all B coins...then weiss will change ratings and the B will become C and dump on the noobs..
at the same time the C rated coins will be moved around causing even more confusin...well done)
https://weisscryptocurrencyratings.com/ratings/thank-your-for-feedback-heres-our-response-130
Why don’t we give Bitcoin an A? Actually, thanks to Bitcoins strong adoption, brand, and security, it does merit an A … but only on our Fundamental Index.
Problem: That’s just one of our four major metrics. Meanwhile, Bitcoin falls short in two other important areas: Our Risk Index, reflecting extreme price volatility and our Technology Index, reflecting Bitcoin’s weaknesses in governance, energy consumption and scalability. As soon as the metrics on these improve, an upgrade for Bitcoin is likely.
You see again - middlemen can't be trusted. What is part of security like 'energy consumption' = PoW = neg entropy = order generation > strong security and where is decentralized governance / coding -> protocol immutability = security ? Trading Vol ? Years of stability ? I fear that some companies did pay for this rankings / lobbied the entire metrics as we know for Moodys et al -> Crypto should ban these middle men and ignor! |
|
|
|
Legal aspects? You might get regulated as a payment processor....
Yes very good point if the banks take up front fees which I think we can safely assume they do or else you could be in credit, broadcast to close the channel and they get hit with $30 transaction fees if you look at the white paper the process of being in dispute and how this get resolved is quite complicated so was a bank to go down then this would create so many transactions that it would grid the Bitcoin network to a Holt I would imagine. I have tried to contact Joseph Poon who is leading the lightning project about major concerns I have and it looks like he does not want to speak or address any of the points I have raised in the email Here is the white-paper if your interested in the nuts and bolts of the project https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdfKey here is that money does not move between the many private ledgers held by the bank and only the entries created from the initial deposit can be changed within the ledger which from the legality side looks about right but from a clients side means that the bank ends up effectively lending you your own money when you send it until the channel is closed and settlement happens on the main block chain Thx to CSW twitter: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/196018 U.S. Code § 1960 - Prohibition of unlicensed money transmitting businesses |
|
|
|
So it created the possibility of some institutions starts to work for profit providing large hubs. This is interesting.
The costs of running a Lightning channel are essentially zero. That makes it very difficult to make any kind of profit from Lightining channels. There's more routing potential in multiple independent nodes than there is in one node with lots of channels, so it makes no sense from a business perspective or a technical perspective. Legal aspects? You might get regulated as a payment processor.... |
|
|
|
notary is the highest judicial officer in each county btw. just sayin'.. ^^ similar concern>>> happening for ten years now: the subversion of the os via hardware Do you have a link? Looks like a good read. Could be very true every G8 country is spying on their citizens. comment not mine: None of the fixes can possibly work, because they are like trying to attach a fifth piston in a 4 cylinder engine. Intel processors are designed to function fully subservient to the NSA and now that they got busted for it, there is nothing they can do to fix it! The "patch", which has now been revealed to try to fix the problem by tweaking the BIOS (and not the operating system, that was a lie all along) causes the computers that get them to behave like they are drunk, with random crashes, reboots, and total general instability and for some reason, once the "patch" is applied, it cannot be undone because it screws the BIOS. Haha - thats a great analogy and I associated this here: Segwit is like the try to generate more space in your old car -> Move out its engine to a attached tender... |
|
|
|
answer is simple. unnecessary MAX- block size is unnecessary  As a protocol / consensus relevant param : YESS!!! |
|
|
|
zu obigem Post:
der Einstieg in die Cryptogeschichte wird einem wirklich einfach gemacht, dafür ein grosses Kompliment.
die Gebühren/Kurse sind teilw. aber schon jenseits und dürften mal überdenkt werden.
Solange es kaum Konkurrenz gibt .... |
|
|
|
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere.
My understanding was that having a blocksize limit was Hal Finney's idea and he talked Satoshi into it after quite a bit of discussion between Satoshi, Hal Finney, Ray Dillinger and possibly others as well. Although I'm not entirely sure if setting that limit at 1MB was Hal's decision too, or if that was someone else's input. But suffice to say it wasn't just Satoshi acting alone. In the early days, it's likely quite a few conversations were had via email, so we don't have reliable records of exactly what happened. Yes. And it happened at a time, where there was absolutely 0 fees and only a few txs. The idea was coming from excluding a sheer brute zero cost spam attack, bloating the blockchain for free and crashing / eliminating bitcoin before it could take off. Very reasonable for an open blockchain in a open hacker world that time, handwaving the no-brainer to lift it as 'needed'. |
|
|
|
Cmon, and for a central graph the routing is trivial, but for a random distributed?
Its not solvable and so LN is limited to central ones, not even thinking of 'funding', economical and regulative issues that are also strong fix point attractors for centralization.
strong statement - how do you know it's not solvable? Like the Fermat's theorem was not solvable? Or mankind can never fly? Or maybe just "currently it seems extremely difficult to find a solution for this topic"? I am looking at BGP daemons, and the DNS system. They are exactly dealing with this same problem. And at the very low level RIPv1 was centralized, per design. Up until the time were networks decentralized, and BGP was developped. There are hubs everywhere in the world, there is no single, centralized hub. I imagine a similiar approach in Lightning. Would this still be called centralized? I don't think so...? The sum of attractors (you've not addressed) will kill it - its always about cooperative effects potentiating forces (some glues / polymer structures work that way). Yes - if some genius might solve that math (only), it will be patented in a milli second - because SOOOO MANY need it. |
|
|
|
Wow - at least little logic still working in parts of the brain ... |
|
|
|
I still like Trace Talks and find him trapped and shilling for tech bubbles like LN and 2nd layer not having any rigorous risk idea for these into BTC.... and yes immutability is king -> ETH is crap, but immutability need to be understood in terms of TX history, scarcity and inflation dynamics. Client params should be not included, and can be done with HFs. He might get shocked how genius Bitcoin really is in its form of BCH. He also says it when short cutting Bitcoin is a Better Cash into Bitcoin B(etter)Cash.  https://www.theepochtimes.com/trace-mayer-bitcoin-can-become-reserve-asset_2418481.html |
|
|
|
Is BCH the same as BCC? i want to withdraw my bitcoin cash to Binance but i don't want to mess up my account by depositing it in to the wrong wallet. coin base says that i have BCH while binance that bitcoin cash is BCC.
Some exchanges say BCH, a few BCC. Figure out here https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
