|
First buy order hit!
Now just a little more, please.
Oh, by the way...
JIMBOOOOO!!! To the ATM, rush!!!
(buying commission must be pretty low too)
|
|
|
|
I like core, but damn, something needs to be done about those fees.
The bitcoin spam problem seems intractable or very hard to attack. There might be some heuristic based approximate solution, but I don't see it at the horizon yet. I hope it's just me. On the other hand, a 50k contract or two could help. Allright, make it two 5 BTC contracts. |
|
|
|
What the hell, I wake up and BTC is down to the 17s and all the alts are up. What happened?
shake shake shake
|
|
|
|
In all seriousness, what the hell happened last night? We're over 1000 down from when I went to bed. Or is that just the kind of fluctuations we have now?
shake shake shake Shake it up baby c'mon c'mon c'mon baby now come on and work it on out! Hope they keep shaking just a little bit more. My conservative buy orders haven't been hit yet. |
|
|
|
I think it may be time for some retaliation attacks against Wu and Antpool who have demonstrably become malicious miners, attacking the bitcoin network. They are withholding blocks, spamming the network to drive up fees and being a general nuisance to the point that if they were excluded from the mining network it would do more good than harm to bitcoin. They are doing everything in their power to subvert the network, without performing the 51% attack which they may actually be capable of. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/In short, someone needs to fuck these guys over seriously. It's well past time. Agreed, but how? Do you have any hints for would-be avengers? |
|
|
|
Edit: bounced off of $17,800 (talking about Stamp), and now back to $18,300..... Bottom is in, perhaps?
It is no bottom until the official "Who sold at the bottom?" post. |
|
|
|
Mining has eventual low, uniform profit per unit of (hardware $ + energy $). Both hardware and energy markets are seriously skewed, that's what allows monopolies. No, there's absolutely no reason this paradigm will ever change because technology that exists is just a reflection of asymmetric intelligence distribution of humans, Or asymmetric resource distribution before the roll of the dice (Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel explains this nicely), but whatever. No matter if it's genetics or environmental luck. You're basically pretending a bunch of peons can crowd source a bitcoin miner better than intel can build, or that commodification of ASICs is inevitable when it's obviously not.
A bunch of peons or an aggressive startup company. Crowd source or reverse engineer, minus the research costs. Greed is great fuel. And it needn't be better. All it has to be is "as cost effective as" under some assumptions. There is no incentive to sell a money printing machine for less or equal money than it would make you unless the goal is simply to put on a ruse ...or avoid entrepreneurial risk (China bans miners for the umpteenth time!) or management overhead. Or it's simply that you are in a different line of business (designing and selling hardware) and don't care about the paltry, diminishing returns given how much time and effort it would cost you. Let's also not forget that in adversarial mining you can automatically eliminate your rivals simply by having larger hash power. The law of big numbers will attribute to each actor a revenue proportional to the hashing power - with a certain threshold to "get in the game" in the first place. It's not a 0/1, winner-takes-it-all game. When you're not savagely ranting and try to articulate human-shaped phrases, replying to your posts point by point is possible indeed! I think I managed. However, it is a taxing endeavour and I can't let it become a full time job. Bring new concepts to the discussion and I might reply again. P.S. It's not too late. You can STILL get into Bitcoin, unless the pirates stole all your silver and gold while you were "trustlessly, effectively, cheaply" moving it from the Goblin Bank to your underground bunker. |
|
|
|
blah blah blah blah blah
^^^ This person dedicates literally hours a day, hundreds of hours a month and thousands of hours a year discussing a topic that he despises. Now, I ask you, what kind of a person would do this and what kind of a life outside of this forum might such a person have? Now, if this is the type of life or person you would like to be, then you should listen to everything he says. Because, we become who we listen to. I find his posts less annoying than some other member's. Besides, they're easy to skip on sight. Of course that is why I have him on ignore.
I like to be reminded about the less lucky sometimes. It keeps my pride in check. |
|
|
|
Wow, some juicy details add a thrilling gust of fresh air to your lines! This deserves a quasi-normal response. For example, if you can just put a miner on cruise control and collect payments from it while not actually doing any type of work yourself, this works out to be roughly the same thing as collecting interest and we all know how compound interest spirals out of control. So you can then parlay all your interest into continuous expansion until complete monopoly (which is what many of these miners have done). Mining has eventual low, uniform profit per unit of (hardware $ + energy $). Both hardware and energy markets are seriously skewed, that's what allows monopolies. Once the hardware market levels out, the energy market will find its way with optimal offshore relocations of the actual farms. Or solar power, you can figure it out probably. To prevent this compound interest effect, you would need to do something like require miners to do physical labor (solve captchas) for the block reward so they can't continuously expand.
The problem you encounter here is that...you can create bots to solve the captchas for you, and you're right back to square one again and have fixed nothing. The system always turns into slum lords collecting money for nothing through a monopoly.
No, Roach. Some details are still off. Bots won't cut the mustard. Captchas are for humans, you see. In my version, once a block captcha is flunked, the nodes reject that particular block nonce forever, so the slum lord will need real human slaves to make sure no (hardware $ + energy $) is lost to the feeble competition. Come on, elaborate a little better. The slaves could be found... where could the average Jew find some decent slaves that more or less work without dying on you after a few months? |
|
|
|
Random thought. Do you think if we had a more sophisticated name less people would have thought it was a scam and took it seriously? And consequently we might not have got cheap coins? Like if it was a cool acronym for decentralized permissionless censorship-resistant cryptographically-secure asset, more people would have got the idea? I mean technically there are no actual coins.
Alternatively, if it had been called ScamWowMoneyButton, would it have made any kind of difference?
/random though
Would a rose smell less sweeeeet by any other name? I think 'Sweetcorn' would have been cooler than DUTOV (Decentralized Uncensorable Transfer Of Value). |
|
|
|
Can you say checkmate?
Checkmate. We all know. Crypto is done. The corn is dead. Blame on the Jews. Decent summary eh? So no need for you to repeat. (That would be in a perfect world.) |
|
|
|
A potential flaw in Lightning is the cost to open and close a channel. The fees are high enough that the average user might find it difficult to get onto payment channels. ALso the motivation to do so by the time they roll it out might not be there.
Indeed, that is the crux with lightning: the cost to open/close a channel. Or equivalently, the blockchain space. However, channels can be kept open indefinitely. No need to close them if you don't have to cash out and just re-use those new incoming btc for new expenses. The way things are now, re-funding a channel also involves a blockchain transaction. However, and it's a big however IMO, this kind of issues is already being addressed. I am aware of at least one possible solution that allows multiple channels to be opened together, with one single transactions (and closed too? I'm not sure about that, gotta find the source again). Of course the opening wouldn't be immediate, as the system must find the required number of participants to share the blockchain fee. It's a mechanism akin to coinjoin, with extra crypto to secure the joining/unjoining steps. The bottom line is: once L2 really starts working and gets acceptance, there are several technical tricks that can be played to squeeze utility out of it, significantly limiting recourse to L1 (the base blockchain). Ideally, such L1 transactions would only be used in special cases, when really necessary. Enduring transaction costs such as the current ones hurts. It hurts me too, to the point that I chose traditional banking over bitcoin for some of my smaller recent transactions. However, after some research, I am an informed optimist. |
|
|
|
I agree, spamming is a problem and I don't know if anything clever can be done to abate in the near term.
Keeping spam at bay would be much easier if Bitcoin wasn't designed to be censorship resistant. Deciding "this transaction here is spam, that over there is legit" is indeed an acto f censorship. I don't know if there's an effective solution, but I have a hunch that if there is one, it's going to require some very clever game theory with deferred rewards and similar tricks - and it will work only assuming it's a big mining cartel that spams, not some other actor. An entity with deep pockets and willing to pay through the nose will always be able to spam the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Why would a system that allows cheating be needed?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Unless you meant LN is a system that allow cheating. Well, with LN you can give a try at cheating, but only if you have a stake (a channel open) and you are ready to risk the whole stake should your cheat fail. Yes that is what I meant. So LN is intended to allow small payments, at low cost, that do not overload the base of the network. The most important feature of the base is tht it is trustless, so uncheatable. This is a bit difficult for me. This is the price to pay for instant transactions (no onchain confirmation), but I'd say LN's anti-cheating mechanism is near perfect. Anyone who spots a cheating transaction within 24 hours (I think - or was it 48?) of its timestamp can give the cheaters what they deserve and pocket a handsome reward. My bet is the network will be swarming with bounty hunters. So the system that must allow us, average Joe 's to use BTC as money for everyday spending needs bounty hunters to avoid cheating? Short reply: Yes - just as the system that currently allows us to use BTC for not-everyday spending needs full nodes and miners and lots of electrical power. Elaborating more. LN might need bounty hunters just to make sure every cheating attempt maked the "cheated" part end in profit (as well as the bounty hunter). I think the way it will work is that you open a channel with Starbucks, or Amazon, or some other reputable entity who has no interest at all in being labeled as a provable fraud (the cheat requires settling the channel on the blockchain, where it will be there for all to see forever). I guess most people who run full nodes will start a Lightning hub on the side, if it is even marginally profitable. There willl probably be blacklists and feedback scores for Average Joes who want to invest in facilitating channel opening without being Starbucks. Why not ask the FBI or any of the alphabet agencies, they will be glad to do so... . I do not believe we need this kind of system... . You're answering yourself. We don't need alphabet agencies for that. That's why not. Moreover, the hunter easily becomes the cheater in this kind of arrangements... .
Have you read some documentation on how LN works? I don't mean the full technical spec - that's a lot and it requires a highly degree of techno competence in crypto. There was a good, accurate but simple explanation that I can't locate right now. Maybe reading that could help you feel more at ease. Now if anyone would be so kind to link a suitable web page... Thanks for the extra info and I will be glad to read the laymans explanation. I am always sceptical towards solutions that tend to be more complicated than the problem. And as far as it concerns broad adoption, that is the single most important aspect. About the system, I meant we do not need a system that needs policing of any kind. Edited my prevous post - I found a good source that explains LN in detailed, accurate but simple terms. https://coinjournal.net/a-simple-explanation-of-the-lightning-network/ |
|
|
|
Why would a system that allows cheating be needed?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Unless you meant LN is a system that allow cheating. Well, with LN you can give a try at cheating, but only if you have a stake (a channel open) and you are ready to risk the whole stake should your cheat fail. Yes that is what I meant. So LN is intended to allow small payments, at low cost, that do not overload the base of the network. The most important feature of the base is tht it is trustless, so uncheatable. This is a bit difficult for me. This is the price to pay for instant transactions (no onchain confirmation), but I'd say LN's anti-cheating mechanism is near perfect. Anyone who spots a cheating transaction within 24 hours (I think - or was it 48?) of its timestamp can give the cheaters what they deserve and pocket a handsome reward. My bet is the network will be swarming with bounty hunters. So the system that must allow us, average Joe 's to use BTC as money for everyday spending needs bounty hunters to avoid cheating? Short reply: Yes - just as the system that currently allows us to use BTC for not-everyday spending needs full nodes and miners and lots of electrical power. Elaborating more. LN might need bounty hunters just to make sure every cheating attempt makes the "cheated" part end in profit (as well as the bounty hunter). I think the way it will work is that you open a channel with Starbucks, or Amazon, or some other reputable entity who has no interest at all in being labeled as a provable fraud (the cheat requires settling the channel on the blockchain, where it will be there for all to see forever). I guess most people who run full nodes will start a Lightning hub on the side, if it is even marginally profitable. There willl probably be blacklists and feedback scores for Average Joes who want to invest in facilitating channel opening without being Starbucks. Why not ask the FBI or any of the alphabet agencies, they will be glad to do so... . I do not believe we need this kind of system... . You're answering yourself. We don't need alphabet agencies for that. That's why not. Moreover, the hunter easily becomes the cheater in this kind of arrangements... .
Have you read some documentation on how LN works? I don't mean the full technical spec - that's a lot and it requires a highly degree of techno competence in crypto. There was a good, accurate but simple explanation that I can't locate right now. Maybe reading that could help you feel more at ease. Now if someone could be so kind to link a suitable web page... EDIT - found a good source. Here it is. https://coinjournal.net/a-simple-explanation-of-the-lightning-network/Let's get back to the discussion when you have a more detailed understanding of how LN works. |
|
|
|
Why would a system that allows cheating be needed?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Unless you meant LN is a system that allow cheating. Well, with LN you can give a try at cheating, but only if you have a stake (a channel open) and you are ready to risk the whole stake should your cheat fail. Yes that is what I meant. So LN is intended to allow small payments, at low cost, that do not overload the base of the network. The most important feature of the base is tht it is trustless, so uncheatable. This is a bit difficult for me. This is the price to pay for instant transactions (no onchain confirmation), but I'd say LN's anti-cheating mechanism is near perfect. Anyone who spots a cheating transaction within 24 hours (I think - or was it 48?) of its timestamp can give the cheaters what they deserve and pocket a handsome reward. My bet is the network will be swarming with bounty hunters. |
|
|
|
Why would a system that allows cheating be needed?
Sorry, I don't understand the question. Unless you meant LN is a system that allow cheating. Well, with LN you can give a try at cheating, but only if you have a stake (a channel open) and you are ready to risk the whole stake should your cheat fail. |
|
|
|
I only make about 1 transaction a week on average. It makes absolutely no sense for me to open up a LN channel. Furthermore, opening up a channel subjects me to a counterparty risk. The other party could transmit an earlier, more favorable tx to the blockchain and rip me off. Yes, if I catch the other party in time, I can invoke a penalty. However, this involves ensuring my Lightning Node is online 24/7 or enlisting a third party to monitor for me. Seems like a malicious hub could invoke DDOS attacks on vulnerable channels and known third party monitors effectively knocking them all offline and hightailing it with lots of BTC.
We will probably be able to enlist third party patrols and pay then with a part of the penalty/reward - which amounts to the FULL CHANNEL value! This is a strong incentive for would-be patrols. All it takes is ONE such guy to spot a cheating transactions and the thief is done. It's not like an individual patrol must keep its rig online 24/7. I think there will be very little cheating. It's way too risky for the perpetrator. |
|
|
|
Bigger blocks are just an inelegant solution and I don't approve that, but we need to start segwitting or lightening or whatever asap. And to identify spam sources in order to stop them. I would like to see more discussions about this..
Problem is, in a censorship-free network such as bitcoin means to be, it's a thin line to tell spam from legit. |
|
|
|
I do not know if I'm right, but I've read that the eth network processes twice as many tx
If you don/t understand the technicals, you might as well refrain fro postig. This is a matter for engineers, nor for vocal users. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
