So this range-bound wash trading is very interesting. It seems that for whatever reason, the futures market is intent on controlling the price within a narrow bound.
Good thing, or bad?
Meh. Of course, we all want moon. But scraping consistent profits in a sideways market doth not exactly sucketh. |
|
|
|
I was hoping not to have to install special instrumentation like wireshark.
Well, wireshark is about as universal a network analysis tool as exists. BTW, 8333 is for bitcoind. LN uses a different port (can't recall right now).
Exactly. Filter out all 8333 and what are you left with? Traffic not to/from your validating client - which I believe was what you were looking for in your query. I'd be left with the rest of the traffic - which isn't LN alone. I'd better filter to select LN traffic only. But that's a minor detail. True, true. But your question was how to avoid cluttering the LN packets with bitcoind packets. Filtering port 8333 would do that. I assume that other background processing would be negligible. Unless you're seeding torrent at the same time or somesuch. And admittedly, I don't know the default LN port(s) either. |
|
|
|
What really distinguish BCH from BTC? Except low fee, faster transactions and bigger block. Why do you think it is superior?
You said it yourself - low fee, faster transactions and bigger block. And in doing so, it supports all the use cases that core threw overboard in their insane Raspberry Pi fetish. I'm not a troll or anything like that I'm just being curious. Is development really decentralized
Yes or it is just being maintained by solely deadalinx?
No. I know Bitcoin Unlimited develop BCH full node and Bitcoin ABC develop client.
If you knew this, then why did you ask whether deadlnix was the only maintainer? Both could not simultaneously be true. And there are other supporters.
Again. What is exactly you mean by saying Satoshi vision.
From satoshi's writings, it seems evident to us that Bitcoin was meant to be a 'Peer to peer electronic cash system'. With the direction core has taken, Bitcoin Segwit no longer can claim adherence to this. Hence, Bitcoin Cash. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Cash (The Real Bitcoin) is only 6 months old kid. Give it time to grow. It will eventually become bigger than bitcoin soon.
Bitcoin Cash can never become 'bigger than bitcoin'. When Bitcoin Cash becomes bigger than Bitcoin Segwit, then Bictoin Cash becomes Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
yaya and jbreher is a lying scammer, but he's 'polite' so that's fine
What the hell have I lied about? Nothing. |
|
|
|
I was hoping not to have to install special instrumentation like wireshark.
Well, wireshark is about as universal a network analysis tool as exists. BTW, 8333 is for bitcoind. LN uses a different port (can't recall right now).
Exactly. Filter out all 8333 and what are you left with? Traffic not to/from your validating client - which I believe was what you were looking for in your query. |
|
|
|
For those playing along at home, you'll no doubt note that (should my understanding be correct), BW consumption scales at O(n^2).
I'm sure it will improve when the routing invention breakthrough occurs.
Of course - the clueless developers! D'oh, what an unforgivable oversight! The system they implemented is doomed. They chose the SAN (Spam All Network) algorithm for both route discovery and node state update. They slept during their networking lessons, or was it calculus? So they failed to notice that bandwidth grows quadratically with the number of nodes. This way, it's almost as bad as if one increased the block size. But who would ever think of that? Hyperbole duly noted. Be that as it may, do you have any evidence that suggests that my understanding is incorrect? Honestly, I don't know which solution has eventually been adopted in this first version of the LN, but already in 2016 the proposed method was significantly better than the naive SAN technique you hint at. Great. What does that have to do with the shipping implementation? Anything? Let's summarize our path so far: you: I'll try it out me: cool - please let me know about your BW use. My understanding is it broadcasts all state to everyone you: oh posh! how dare you assume the devs did not do better me: well, that's what I'm led to believe - you have better info? you: no, but here's a possibly relevant scrap of a possibly workable design that would do better I mean, I don't mean to misrepresent anything here, but that's the way it looks from my vantage point. https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@emabfuri/bitfury-bitcoin-routing-lightning-network-solutionHere's a relevant excerpt. Using a fog of war like design, the collected information by the routing algorithm “includes channels within a low hop-distance and paths to randomly selected nodes further away… As a result, a node will have a well-illuminated map of its local neighborhood within the network, with random patches of visibility further away enabled by the selection of beacon nodes.”
I often write with rhetorical metaphorical flourish as well. But not within a technical specification that I expect to be taken seriously. So in addition to questioning this excerpt's relevance to current code, I also question it's author's capability. So, it's not an initially low TTL that gets conservatively increased as I had wildly imagined, but not so far off either: closer nodes are exhaustively enumerated, while a small set of distant nodes is selected pseudorandomly.
Which still leaves quite the bulk elided from view. In what way is this anonymous? How does it handle nodes dropping off the network? And the ensuing rejoins? 'Beacons'? Is that a euphemism for trusted intermediary? It just sounds like we're being asked to buy a pig in a poke. Again, my assumptions could be wrong. But life has taught me well that SW projects are rarely underpromised and overdelivered. |
|
|
|
Coinbase ... probably they were getting back-handers from Jihad , Roger and jbreher and those big-block bum-buddies to keep fees high and sow mayhem.
Shutteth up about things which thou knoweth not. Fuckhead. |
|
|
|
But still, I believe bitcointalk will always be the most effective channel for attracting investors and new users of projects. At a minimum, this is due to the fact that there are thousands of people who are engaged in bounty programs.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in not assuming that you are making this post merely to inflate your post statistics in order to benefit from the cancer that is 'sig campaigns'. But frankly speaking, your reason seems specious at best. Those that participate here in order to grovel over the crumbs that make up sig campaign 'earnings' are in no position to make a significant contribution to any coin's success or failure. Further, the next year of crypto growth will not be instructed by specialist venues such as this. It will instead be driven by mass market media such as Bloomberg, SCMP, Chosun Ilbo, and the like. |
|
|
|
Congratulations. Of course, anecdotal results are useless. Even averages ($14.38 USD today) are non deterministic. It is irrational that others will be able to reproduce your ... umm ... exceptional results. It's almost as if you had an existing special treatment arrangement with a miner or something.... |
|
|
|
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. For everything else, there's RISC-V. |
|
|
|
That's ... ummm ... interesting. Will the exchange of AMP to new ERC20 token preserve the holder's relative aggregate share of the current AMP market cap? With or without accounting for the 'dormant' AMP held by your organization? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Haven't checked this thread in a few days... I skimmed through a page or two but... pretty sure I saw what looked like jbreher going bullish on BTC. What else did I miss!?
You say that as if it is an exception.  I am -- and have ever been -- bullish on Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
We’re in the cross-over transition phase between a correction and the next impulse up.
We are precisely right in the middle of nowhere. Directly above the very center of the earth. |
|
|
|
Knock knock?
branch prediction! who's there? chuckle-worthy |
|
|
|
This recent fallback to 10k is no more a correction.
No shit! We haven't been this low in... in... ...oh... ...about two months. Nevermind. |
|
|
|
That's a pretty solid analysis (bookmarked), $55K is a very realistic prediction. I would only assume that at the end of 2018 $55K wouldn't have been to all time high but still a very good price estimation. At the end of the day it's still educated guessing but it was refreshing to see a HQ price analysis based on raw math. Indeed. We may need to temper expectations due to what seems to be a potential emerging halvening cycle. IOW, perhaps a completely random sampling of the daily returns is useful for predictions below a four-year-ish granularity. Though this could easily be offset by the first inlking of widespread, news-cycle driven FOMO. |
|
|
|
These are the bad posts, jbreher.  Aw, darn. But are they really? I'll try the homespun solution, install docker and all.
I'd be interested in your Internet bandwidth consumption, should you be wiling to share. I will post some data, but don't hold your breath. I'll need some free time to install the thing - starting with Docker - and some more to figure out how to measure LN's bandwitdh tax unbundled from bitcoind's base requirements. Got any suggestions? I dunno.... filter a wireshark dump of all port 8333 traffic? Wild speculation. I don't know how LN comms are routed within the host networking layer. Now we get to the "bad boy" part. My (perhaps flawed) understanding is that in the current implementation, all nodes broadcast all channel state changes to all other nodes. This is necessary, of course, as nobody yet knows how to do decentralized permissionless anonymous path route discovery.
That's incorrect. Nobody yet knows how to do decentralized permissionless anonymous OPTIMAL path route discovery. Heuristic methods with stored forward tables do work reasonably well. Several mesh-like networks work, without a single tear about being suboptimal. Well, yes. If everyone broadcasts every state change to everyone else... but that's not much of a workable solution, is it? Actually, it sounds an awful lot like the 'solution' I described. For those playing along at home, you'll no doubt note that (should my understanding be correct), BW consumption scales at O(n^2).
I'm sure it will improve when the routing invention breakthrough occurs.
Of course - the clueless developers! D'oh, what an unforgivable oversight! The system they implemented is doomed. They chose the SAN (Spam All Network) algorithm for both route discovery and node state update. They slept during their networking lessons, or was it calculus? So they failed to notice that bandwidth grows quadratically with the number of nodes. This way, it's almost as bad as if one increased the block size. But who would ever think of that? Hyperbole duly noted. Be that as it may, do you have any evidence that suggests that my understanding is incorrect? Out of sarcasm: I'll never believe the protocol broadcasts data mindlessly.
Who are you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes? (IOW, from what you write, I cannot see that you know any different) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
