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*. |
|
|
|
|
Brilliant presentation at Future of Bitcoin. Your client looks really good, hopefully it will get you some more recognition!
|
|
|
|
| | BIP141
SegWit | BIP148
UASF | BIP149
Timeout | SegWit2x
/ New York Agreement | Extension
Blocks | SegWit
Adaptive | Emergent
Consensus | Bitmaincoin | | sgbett | No | No | No | Weak. | Deficient | No | Bitcoin. | Also Bitcoin. |
[tr]
[td]sgbett[/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=cyan,2,100]Weak.[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=yellow,2,300]Deficient[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]No[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Bitcoin.[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Also Bitcoin.[/glow][/td]
[/tr] |
|
|
|
|
Things must be bad for magic mike to put in an appearance on "discussion".
This "altcoin" sounds great, same great btc taste with no added Segwit. Sign me up!
|
|
|
|
|
*Adjusts monacle*
*repositions self in armchair*
*takes another sip of bourbon*
No comment
|
|
|
|
Wonder if this guy managed to HODL  |
|
|
|
For the record, I replied to Loaded on March 24, 2017, 10:29:47 PM.
I still haven't heard back from him yet.
Oh please You can accept or decline the terms right now, then everyone knows where you both stand Or do you need more time to think it over You spin that comment however you want. I'd say a potential $100million+ bet warrants some due diligence. |
|
|
|
, which any sane person would do *sigh* no, what you chose for your own reasons is not "what any sane person would do". Explain why it was the right decision, especially in light of current price levels. Back when apple was around $100 (before the split) I moved my whole pension fund into a SIPP and went all in. Risky but... As the price kept going up I kept taking some profits. At the time its the best thing to do in terms of lowering risk. Sure I would be sat on more now I'f id just left it there. A lot more Same with bitcoin. I could be sat on millions, but I'm not because the rational thing to do in the face of outsized gains is to take profits. You can never explain why a decision made in the past was right in light of current events, because you can't know the future. So in the case of both AAPL and BTC, with 100% hindsight it wasn't the right thing to do, but with the information I had at the time it was. I can't regret that. So from that view I think roach was probably right to take profits. Whether or not they should have been put into metals is a different story  |
|
|
|
Sorry i was not able to upload 3.2Gb of Ubuntu VM Vare image, but now - it is done - everybody can check everything or build/compile his own core for Windows / Linux / Mac. To get latest Bitcoin Core sources use command: git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.gitAngryDwarfDid you see CPU-load more than 70% even if you launch with -par=16 on i7 quadcore-cpu (i did not on i7-2630QM) sgbettI may agree a little with you but on your link there were no tech explanation why MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS >8 is very bad. To the end user, especially if he launches the wallet with interval a week/month - it is very good, because he may sync very fast, also it is good because his transaction will be BROADCASTED via a lot of nodes, sometimes it helps to pay less fee to be earlier confirmed. Thanks for critics. Go ahead and do what you like, but I don't think it will do what you think it will... I'd urge others to read this other post (by Pieter Wuille) before making up their own mind about whether its good/necessary: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/8109/how-does-one-attain-1-000-connections-like-blockchain-info/8140#8140 |
|
|
|
In June 2016, I was correct to not want to buy Bitcoin...
Since bitcoin came out there has pretty much *never* been a time that was true. Technically speaking, you aint wrong... ...but hindsight is 20/20 and you have been around long enough to know that the arse can fall out of Bitcoin with a moments notice. You are correct, and not even just technically! I miss the old days. This new crap is so tiresome compared to when people just used to argue about up or down. |
|
|
|
And thus we see the bitcoin price was significantly dependent on...the US SEC. Hope everyone is enjoying what remains of their SECOINS.
My sources confirm it. |
|
|
|
In June 2016, I was correct to not want to buy Bitcoin...
Since bitcoin came out there has pretty much *never* been a time that was true. |
|
|
|
Several people have suggested increasing outbound connections over the years, the answer has always been "don't do this it's bad!" or words to that effect. This is one from recently https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9217Many others if you google around. |
|
|
|
|
I must warn that news from sources confirms that the recent all time high is confirmation that this thread confirms a downtrend. I expect other good and reliable sources will confirm it.
|
|
|
|
|
Most importantly, only invest if ur teh smrt
|
|
|
|
Your re absolutely on the right track. This all suggerates any prediction power that is not existent. Nobody really can predict markets - it's just a very poor try by searching for patterns. Rumour has it the OP said the title was click bait and the underlying message was the price chart will look like speculative bubbles overlaid on an s-curve of adoption. Dunno where we're at right now, I'd guess ETF around the corner means "institutional investors" but flirting with ATH seemed a nice time to bump this nut job thread 560k has a nice ring though, so I'm sticking with it as my 'target' |
|
|
|
even activating segwit does not stop worrying about O(n^2) attacks!!
people wanting to cause O(n^2) attacks will still do O(n^2) attacks
wake up to reality.
O(n^2) attacks are only allievated by those using segwit keys.. the thing you need to understand is attackers wont use those keys even after activation. so the problem is not solved.
You are thinking about this completely wrong. Let's revisit: We know that at 1 MB that quadratic hashing problem is *okay* (to put in this way) and that it opens a DOS attack vector at higher block sizes. I think we can agree on this statement. If people create Segwit TXs, they can create blocks that are bigger than 1 MB. However, in this case the O(n^2) is reduced to O(n) which levitates the problem. So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work. Until core does that hard fork to increase 'blocksize' they said they were going to do |
|
|
|
'member this? "Furioser and furioser!" said Alice.
Fear does funny things to people.
Wasn't your precious XT fork supposed to happen today? Or was that yesterday? Either way, for all the sturm und drang last year the deadline turned out to be a titanic non-event. Exactly as the small block militia told you it would be. The block size is still 1MB, and those in favor of changing cannot agree when to raise it, nor by how much, nor by what formula future increases should be governed.
You are still soaking in glorious gridlock despite all the sound and fury, and I am loving every second of your agitation. I 'member. Keep at it old boy, you're hilarious. |
|
|
|
There's about a million different reasons why metals will skyrocket in the near future and why governments will be using them in some manner.
Wouldn't that change be already priced in? Um, no. Are you citing "efficient market hypothesis", which is the most wrong scam of an economic theory to ever exist? "The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is an investment theory that states it is impossible to "beat the market" because stock market efficiency causes existing share prices to always incorporate and reflect all relevant information." According to that theory, it's not possible for millionaires to exist who made money in the stock market. It pretends there is no asymmetric information distribution or capability to analyze such data and that all humans are 100% optimized branch predictors LOL. I always thought EMH was the emergent behaviour of the market - e.g. the current price. Participants all buy/sell, some win some lose, the distribution of winners losers is some statistical curve, normal, Poisson, whatever. I don't think winners and losers is mutually exclusive with EMH. |
|
|
|
|
Should have took my own advice, sold waiting for pullback to ~800 but then when it didn't go that deep I FOMO bought back in at 900. d'oh
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
