Thx - guess these guys have shown their Rust power the day before Peter... why is this not taken up here? |
|
|
|
|
According to Peter Rizun@ conf The Fututre of Bitcoin / Arnhem 1th July 2017
due to the SW - SF and potential fractional network there is an attack vector for selfish miners to hold back the initial small SW - witness data relatively easy and get into a potential success on a late but fast release to the network once they expect a next block coming up.
Could you pls comment on that or point me to some place where this was discussed or solved? How do you weight this impact?
|
|
|
|
SegWit2x intention peaked at 89% today. I hope it gets activated soon. This drama is reaching diva proportions.
It still nothing only some more drama to be putted on us. This is still no concluded yet tomorrow will be something else. Think that they test our patience. Or will this innovation take aggressive actions to ensure a hard fork would enforce a 2 MB upgrade, and if this is true how many mining pools will run this resolution? Why on earth IS there so much room left for that drama ? Is it because tech = 'computers don't do that' or human ? |
|
|
|
RECAP : 1) Jhonny (bless him..) posts his document telling us that LN won't work and that he has proven it mathematically. 2) Bram Cohen (Inventor of BitTorrent) replies : In this analysis nodes aren’t bothering to make sure that they have any connections at all. Shockingly, if a single node has no connections whatsoever then no amount of other connections in the system will make it routable. If instead every node enforce that it has at least three connections then these problems evaporate and everything works fine. I’m not being flippant here, this analysis really is that dumb.
Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
This is not to say that a completely random homogenous network is an ideal or even necessarily a good way of setting up routing, but it works fine as long as every node makes sure that it has a minimal level of connectivity. 3) Jhonny retorts : Bram, are you sure you understand the article? “At least 3 connections” means you have to divide your money up “at least 3 ways”. With only 3 open channels, you’d be then relying on long routes which make actually getting your payment through exponentially less likely, as the math illustrates. Not sure what “settle out in the middle” means to you. 4) Bram retorts : ‘Settle out in the middle’ means using the smart transactions bit of Lighting so that there’s no lending happening in the middle. Maybe you should learn about how technologies work before posting tirades about them.
As for your math, I can’t tell if you’re disingenuous or just stupid, but this is a very simple concept: The probabilities of different routes working aren’t independent of each other, because the target node will notice if they have no connections at all and form some, so if some routes don’t work that increases the probability of other routes working.
If you assume that peers don’t make sure they have connections then your math is mostly correct, but your claim is that ‘lightning network can’t work’, not ‘lightning network doesn’t work with this asinine implementation I came up with’, which is what you actually showed. 5) Jhonny fires back : With all due respect, I believe it is you who is being “disingenuous or just stupid.” The target node cannot form new connections without doing an on-chain transaction, which defeats the whole point: Why not just send an on-chain transaction in the first place, without the LN. ....  .. as always.. please fasten your seat belt and make up your own mind. ps.. in 5).. Jhonny is saying that the fact you have to make a single on chain txn to start using LN (and then potentially do infinite txns), negates LN. I'm not kidding. Ouch - that (and more above) is killing LN. I wait for first LN Fan Boy triade here wanting SW and LN work despite of this AND missing out any usual financial product disclaimer in case I might lose my bitcoin on that - nobody can tell there is 100% security on that - even bitcoin on-chain tx are not 100% secure but much closer to than anything known yet. |
|
|
|
The projection is real mass business.
Of course it is. That's why we need to consider other options than linear on-chain scaling. Even a tiny share for 2nd layer central crap might cost you a bunch of bitcoin because of some lower security you cannot grasp yet.
[citation needed] Corps and banks are way more picky on that and can afford huge risk analysis. They will all stay off bitcoin and you stay nichy.
Bitcoins biggest challenges when it comes to business and banks are legal and economic. The technical aspects are miniscule. Good bye
Have a nice day  Tx ! Entry point for big business is always risk / reward. RIsks: There a lots of: Operational / Market. (Reputation, Systemic, Counterparty, Legal.../ Volatility) Hope you know this a bit. If your riskmanagers throw the red flag on only one of these parts and you cannot fix / control / MINIMIZE* them - bitcoin is OUT - byebye. Either blockstream knows all that shit and want to do only a quick buck - or they kill bitcoin not knowing better. Think bigger *MINIMIZE risk = MAXIMIZE on-chain scaling - easy to get. |
|
|
|
|
What intrinsic value has a globally reachable secure programmable open information ledger ?
|
|
|
|
Most ICO's dont have any code, just an IDEA. This is not good enaught.
Idea Coming Outs are great I Cheat Others fits better  |
|
|
|
Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ?
A thin protocol with a few simple rules is what he have now. Moving scaling details to a second layer would help keep it that way. Or are you arguing in favour of adding complexity to the base layer? Software separate isn't the issue, but rather economics. Proof of Work secures the base layer. Any money for fees, etc that's not on the base layer is draining security funding from that base layer.
Miners still get their block rewards and transaction fees. Even in the far future when block rewards are gone they still would get at least the amount of transaction fees that they are getting now (or like 6-12 months ago before blocks started to get full). The projection is real mass business. Even a tiny share for 2nd layer central crap might cost you a bunch of bitcoin because of some lower security you cannot grasp yet. Corps and banks are way more picky on that and can afford huge risk analysis. They will all stay off bitcoin and you stay nichy. Good bye |
|
|
|
Single males = On-chain scaling (bigger blocks). This is real money.
Married men = Off-chain scaling (SW/lightning). This is fairy dust.
Power corrupts, and the easiest way to gain power is to join the banks or the state, get married and have a bunch of children. New souls are the easiest to possess. Why do you think grandmothers always want more grandchildren? They're corrupt. They possess no power of their own, so they need to prey on innocent victims. A grandmothers worst enemy is a strong, independent, single male with no partners. Men are the source of gods light. Women only want to possess it. Prophet versus profit. God versus the natives.
Has anyone else noticed that females (or feminized males) have pretty much taken over the banking sector and the government? I'm not completely sexist either. A 20-year old girl traveling by herself can remain independent, but as soon as she has children or gets into a position of power she becomes corrupt.
Wives and mothers and grandmothers will always advocate for off-chain scaling, so they can steal power from future generations.
That's some strong shit you're smoking there bud. Hehe, yeah. But with his effotrs he came to right conclusion. The way is the goal. Proof of Smoke PoS |
|
|
|
They've kept people's savings in bitcoin safe for 7+ years or 8, I lost the count. That is all that matters. The software must be solid, and I must be able to run a bitcoin full node, everything else doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoin if that means i can't run a full node, they seem to agree with this so they are good to go.
The hardforkers will fail because the other devs will make them lose money, it's a matter of time.
I hope we don't have 2 fucking bitcoins by the end of the year because my bitcoin saving will suffer.
Sure. My car was also fine first 7 years. But then it needed a HF. Shit. The HF is 3 years shifted and kicked down the road because of very human lazy aproach or interest conflicts inside BScore. This car is OLD and misses new modern scaling inside. They want to lift the wreck on waky plane and close planes doors now. |
|
|
|
I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to on side, there is always another side suffering.
Translate
If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security.
That's not how software development works. The whole point of separate abstraction layers (or protocol layers in this case) is that you can have separate development efforts working on different parts of the problem without interference. Either way, if on-chain scaling would be as simple as changing the blocksize variable, there'd be no development effort needed for on-chain scaling in the first place. Again, not fully right. If you take the protocol layer, tell me what might help to scale: thin protocol, few simple rules, many teams competing - or that what we have now ? |
|
|
|
Wow! What an underappreciated video. I'm surprised their isn't more discussion in this avenue. At the same time, he pretends to act as a force against the status quo, claiming Bitcoin is about sovereign money. One way to look at this, even if you're a hardcore anarchist or libertarian, is to consider the blockchain nodes in a similar way as Wikileaks mirroring sites: the grew from 208 - 1885 in one week of 2010. However, the content did not change between 208 and 1885. Geographic distribution is as much or more important than overall total nodes. The only way to guarantee 100% that you are downloading a valid copy of the blockchain is through a full node client as you validate everything while you download. I wouldn't trust any other method because possibility of man in the middle attacks. That is true, but who needs a full copy of the blockchain that they have personally verified, and why? I fully understand his claims, wanting all to ensure the on chain safety. It is hard to get that this is not task of the simple hodlers,rather of the money makers / mearchants. It might be de-illusional that your RasPI is totally meaningless and have to relay on bigger ones. But I have more problems to understand that they (small hodlers / blockers) will rather give away the on chain security to LN 2 nd layer crap... Oh wey. |
|
|
|
Check this video at 3:09 LN is a Mesh with 80 Hubs. always attackable. Anyone get this explained? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0And yes, if you do not concentrate to on chain scaling, you allow starting that less secure crap around, weakening bitcoin network security... Bitcoin network security can't get weakened by layers you put on top of it, unless you change the very core of the Bitcoin protocol itself. I cannot agree in full here. He also says wise words about scarcity at all. If you spend recources to one side, there is always another side suffering. Translate If you spend things on 2nd layer dev, on chain scaling does not get full support. Choose what you want bitcoin to be. I vote for on chain as much as possible. Its our best security. |
|
|
|
Do you trust any person who are being paid to develop a technology that might disrupt Billion dollar businesses like MoneyGram and Western
union or possibly the whole banking sector? The moment when you get paid to do something, you have to follow instructions from someone.
Do you think for one moment the Bitcoin Unlimited team are doing this for the fun? They are getting paid too.. and this makes them corruptible
and unbiased. I trust nobody... not even Satoshi Nakamoto. {because I do not know who he/she or they are}
Oh wait. Youve forgotton evil Linus from Linux, yeah. You just cannot trust anybody. This is why bitcoin needs to scale on chain. The most trustless way we have now since 2009! |
|
|
|
He is being funded by Bitmain just like Roger Ver. Talks absolutely nonsense, obviously trolling, toxic to the community but has the support of the biggest mining company. Bitmain supports every retarded piece of shit there is who's against bitcoin. I think we should do something about it and end this crap once and for all. Every miner you buy from Bitmain is helping those fucktards. Bitmain needs to go. I am more confuse than you, well if he would show himself in some conference regarding what will gonna happen on August 1 I think Craig Wright wants to stop it, and because of the risk involve in what is Segwit's gonna do with bitcoin but I never understand if wright is the real Satoshi because there are a lot out there claiming to be him and even if his proof are legit what is the reason behind of showing now in the public? Well my Answer would be, to stop what is about to happen in bitcoin the control over it and I think this is what the real Satoshi would want to do, but the question would be is he the real and legit one!
There is nothing legit about his proofs. Can't you tell that just by looking at his face? He is just another clown. I can claim myself to be satoshi but nobody will care or talk about it (because it is ridiculous) but when this clown does the same it is all over on the news. It is because they (his sponsors, bitmain/bitcoin.com) are spending money heavily on the news blogs/websites. He is nothing, he is nobody. Just a clown. ... And if he is right, than your USAf node pool has 0,3 % of the relevant network connections and no meaning at all... |
|
|
|
|
It s clear to me and he said it. He does not want to be the King, so if he really was Satoshi, he needs to destroy anything there ( in our minds) .
No matter what, if he deliver, I m fine. I m bitcoin maximalist longer than most other here and wanted bitcoin big from my earliest contact. And there was never a person cult, just feature ( security first) and adoption. Go for on chain scaling, thats most secure and needs to be maximalized!!!
All other efforts ARE weakening bitcoin, get it or loose.
|
|
|
|
We need to keep the nodes in the hands of the people to keep the network decentralized and safe, period.
A non-mining node doesn't decentralise the network, it only benefits you, by allowing you to confirm that you have received payment. Regular users, spending bitcoin have no need to run a full node 24/7. If you've got a high enough value transaction coming in from someone you don't trust, you can spin one up and verify the chain yourself. Running a full node is all about what its worth is to you. It has no bearing on the security of the network for anyone else. That comes from decentralised *mining*. Here is your friend. Translate to me and others: If you are a small hodler, dont buy a PI, rather bitcoin. If you are a small merchant, run a SPV ( on a PI ) If you are bigger merchant with lots of flow and want to ensure get paid, run a 20k$ Full node ,if we have 10-20k of those , we ve done it! They wont ever collude across the world. Miners should also do that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
