That doesn't even make sense in English so I don't know how you realistically expect to get a translation of it.

It's very good to be skeptical - and as I stated I think at least "some POW" is essential to prevent the NAS attacks (and you need other ways to prevent large re-orgs as well obviously).

Whether mining rewards are necessary I think is debatable (as I illustrated you could fairly simply reduce those by not having every block produce a reward although that doesn't necessarily mean that you could reduce said rewards to zero).

So the kind of thing you should be able to translate then should be this:

"Speaking of the devil"

(an idiomatic sentence rather than a literal one)

Well I do know basic Chinese reasonably well but I guess you don't, however, a good test result with the approach that I am talking about would be for me to translate some English into Chinese and then have someone translate that Chinese into French and finally someone else translate that French into English.

(would end up being a bit like the children's game of "Chinese whispers" if you're familiar with that)

I speak English and some Chinese (a tiny amount of French but not enough to be useful).

You want to prove a test to me?

Hmm.. that seems as though you are using machine translation for the testing (which is not really a very good idea but it's your money).

It's going to be very hard for you to know whether or not they are actually doing good translation or just using some software if you just get the translation done "one way".

You will have better results (in terms of the translation quality) if you employ two separate parties - one that translates from say English to French and the other that translates from French to English.

You then compare the final results (both in English) and if they do not compare well then you know one or the other party has screwed up (I guess the harder part then is working out which party has screwed up the most).

And exactly why on earth would you require that?

(as that makes it far more likely that the OS could be comprised by the software - making such software a serious concern for malicious attack)

I'll chime in before @TBTB comes in and tells everyone that they are stupid and only he knows the answer to everything (at that point I'll quit watching this topic as I've done with every other topic he has ruined - and he ruins every topic he posts in basically).

The relationship between "reward" and "minting" could be made less "one-to-one" but more statistically probable if you mint more blocks (thus providing an incentive to mint but not even needing to be POW).

You need ways to discern "winners" if you aren't using POW as the only measurement (although I think some amount of POW is going to always be required to help prevent the NAS attack issue which I've discovered can even occur "by accident" when using different approaches).

This is a key part of the CIYAM blockchain design (which I am not going to discuss here, however, unlike some others it isn't some silly conjecture or "academic breast beating" but already published open source code which it seems @TBTB is actually unable to understand which rather pleases me).

As a simplistic idea imagine that a block reward only occurs every X blocks but is more likely to favour the minter that has produced as many of those X blocks as possible (and also imagine that rules prevent them from being able to produce all of the blocks).

From what I can gather their miners begin work on the next block before the pool has decided on the txs (so they are broadcasting the block header as soon as they see a new block seemingly without even validating the new block much which is what led to the block version fork).

Presumably they then later send out the block header for the block that actually does have the txs included (and perhaps after further validation of the new block although I am only speculating about that) but if a miner had already found a solution with the previous (empty apart from coinbase) header then they will publish that (thus typically these blocks are found very quickly).

If indeed this is how it is working then I guess it isn't really having as big an effect upon TPS as otherwise it might.

Be sure to register your vote - as of course you must think it matters.

Sorry @OP but I just ruined your vote as it is bullshit (idiots such as the bought account replying to me will post their rubbish but it is clear that this topic is stupid).

You do realise that this forum has no problem with sockpuppet accounts and therefore any "stupid vote" is absolutely not representational beyond the sock puppet ownership?

So you think that your stupid poll has any validity at all?

The only reason to create such a poll is that you already know the outcome because you control the sockies that are going to vote on it.

(so I'd say *don't bother voting because this entire topic is simply rubbish*)

Effectively yes (understand that "finally" is not an absolute thing but the chances of a re-org happening after X confirmations gets harder and harder so that generally once say 6 confirmations have occurred it is considered as pretty much impossible for the transaction to end up later being "undone" by a re-org).

Each mining node will build either on A or B (but never both) to extend the chain (so only one or other set of transactions is considered "confirmed" by each of the miners).

If a miner later sees that A or B was incorrect then they perform what is called a re-org which basically means that they undo everything (back the block before A/B) and then redo the transactions using the other block instead (so it doesn't work like any normal accounting ledger and why you need to wait for confirmations before being confident that a transaction should be considered "okay" assuming that you are accepting it for the purchase of goods, etc.).

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?

(I am only rude to people who are rude to me btw and if you want to be taken seriously then please dump your ad sig for a start)

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?

Don't compare what we have seen up until now when the limit of 1MB has been in place since before any 1MB block was ever created (of course this probably all is too hard for you to understand so perhaps just post somewhere else to keep up your ad sig posting count).

You are an idiot (and most likely @franky1 who I've already put on ignore).

I am putting you on ignore as well so feel free to post your rubbish (I don't think that anyone is actually taking you seriously anyway but I don't actually care).

Because *idiot* practically no nodes could verify all the sigs that would be in a 32MB block in 10 minutes.

Can you comprehend that?

(or do we need to translate it into "baby language" that you can understand?)

I see - those with particularly big appendages I would assume then?

A post from the "mega-retard" - how refreshing.

If you bother to look at the entire history of Bitcoin blocks just see how many were bigger than 1MB before 2010.

(come back to me after you've done that research although I'm guessing your lazy ad-sigging ass won't bother to do so)