i'm currently syncing a full node and it feels like my computer is about to explode! cpu is running hot! hot! Hot!
Oh dear, are you running with the HCF flag set again?  |
|
|
|
I don't think you're being fair. Yes you are doing something by putting a little money into Bitcoin here and there. You are supporting Bitcoin because you want a better monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders. When times are lean then it makes sense to stash something valuable away, until it becomes worth more. When the value appreciates again, Bitcoin holders can use their increased purchasing power to support businesses that embrace crypto, rather than cash out. That's what 'many around here' are waiting to do I'm sure.
Buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is about as useless to the bitcoin ecosystem as completely ignoring it. You dont support bitcoin by wanting a "monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders" .. thats called dreaming. You can support bitcoin by actively seeking out ways that you can integrate bitcoin in your daily life, and maybe provide services to others using bitcoin. Also, when times are lean, the LAST thing you should be doing is putting what little money you have into a highly speculative and risky 'investment' like bitcoin. If you can afford to spare it or loose it, then go ahead. And you certainly dont want to get involved in the latest shitcoin IPO, thats for certain.  |
|
|
|
I would also add "the power of time" besides "the power of the network effect".
I agree with you. What you call the power of time is also known as the Lindy effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect) and Bitcoin fully benefits from it : in other words, time is playing in Bitcoin's favor. The longer Bitcoin survives => the longer (remaining) life expectancy => the more confidence people have in it => the more value it gains. The Lindy effect worked great for MySpace. |
|
|
|
Fedwire is a gross settlement network, not at all what bitcoin is supposed to be. A single settlement tx could reflect millions of other transactions - out of band from that network. I think that is the ultimate goal for yourself and the MPfags on here. Your dream is that all sidechain/LN activity will have to be settled with bitcoins, and of course the wealthy bankers will have to come to you on bended knee in the hope you might sell them for the equivalent of the GDP of a small country. Sorry, aint gonna happen. Its such a ludicrous vision. All the talk of economics and miner behavior is a side show. There will be a use case for side chain like features in bitcoin ( implemented by alt-coins) in the future, but that is years ahead, and it will be implemented in the context of blocks and transaction rates that will grow with adoption. YES! Better start buying Banks have a scarce history of giving poor people huge quantities of their money, but this time its different, right? But I applaud your optimism, even if it is foolhardy. Why would you think banks don't own a shitload of Bitcoin already? Who do you think has been buying all the coins dropped by the weak hands over the last year and a half? People like you who are speculating as you described above. Banks haven't bought them. Banks dont invest by 'buying money'. They invest in assets and infrastructures than will generate money. All the 'wall street' cash that has gone into bitcoin lately has gone into technology that will use block chain tech. All the ETF and other derivative investments are concerned with making margins on the trading of those asset classes, not the assets themselves. |
|
|
|
Yeah, right!!! Does this really mean anything for Bitcoin? They are creating a competing platform to have a private blockchain, but surely that blockchain is going to be centralized and secretive... .and then in the end, to what extent would it incorporate bitcoin's infrastructure at all? The main thrust of a similar project that i'm aware of is that it would be decentralized between the participating banks - they would all carry out verifiable POW activity (mining) which will secure the network for all participants. There would be an initial release of tokens, after which no more would be created (absent a need to expand the network) Transaction fee's would be a form of demurrage, creating an internal market for the tokens among the participants. But the tokens would not be a currency in themselves - they would simply represent a real world asset, be it currency, trade finance, bonds, shares, etc. Banks would effectively settle among themselves with the same token, over and over again. It would have zero impact on bitcoin. It would more than likely be employed over a leased line network similar to SWIFT, but there is no reason why it couldn't use the public internet at some point. I cant see how it could use the same Blockcain as bitcoin - there is no technical need for them to do so. Your further explanation doesn't really contradict anything that I said in my earlier post. Admittedly, you seem to be much more informed about the details than me, yet the whole concept seems to have quite a bit of variability in how it could develop and then be implemented. So, even though money may NOT be a central concern of big banks, yet I could envision scenarios in which some of them may want to build some kind of private system, but to incorporate the bitcoin infrastructure in order to save money on computing power and security issues, meanwhile retaining some control over the extent to which they use the bitcoin blockchain infrastructure to achieve their private money moving objectives - in that regard, rather than reinventing the wheel to take advantage of some of the wheel that already exists. Because I was agreeing with your post. :-) I think you are right, Banks will have some interaction with the bitcoin blockchain, especially if adoption improves and they find that more of their customers use it, then they will have to integrate it into their systems. But I think their interest in Blockchain tech, for now, could easily exist independent of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Fedwire is a gross settlement network, not at all what bitcoin is supposed to be. A single settlement tx could reflect millions of other transactions - out of band from that network. I think that is the ultimate goal for yourself and the MPfags on here. Your dream is that all sidechain/LN activity will have to be settled with bitcoins, and of course the wealthy bankers will have to come to you on bended knee in the hope you might sell them for the equivalent of the GDP of a small country.
Sorry, aint gonna happen. Its such a ludicrous vision.
All the talk of economics and miner behavior is a side show. There will be a use case for side chain like features in bitcoin ( implemented by alt-coins) in the future, but that is years ahead, and it will be implemented in the context of blocks and transaction rates that will grow with adoption.
YES! Better start buying Banks have a scarce history of giving poor people huge quantities of their money, but this time its different, right? But I applaud your optimism, even if it is foolhardy. |
|
|
|
Yeah, right!!! Does this really mean anything for Bitcoin? They are creating a competing platform to have a private blockchain, but surely that blockchain is going to be centralized and secretive... .and then in the end, to what extent would it incorporate bitcoin's infrastructure at all? The main thrust of a similar project that i'm aware of is that it would be decentralized between the participating banks - they would all carry out verifiable POW activity (mining) which will secure the network for all participants. There would be an initial release of tokens, after which no more would be created (absent a need to expand the network) Transaction fee's would be a form of demurrage, creating an internal market for the tokens among the participants. But the tokens would not be a currency in themselves - they would simply represent a real world asset, be it currency, trade finance, bonds, shares, etc. Banks would effectively settle among themselves with the same token, over and over again. It would have zero impact on bitcoin. It would more than likely be employed over a leased line network similar to SWIFT, but there is no reason why it couldn't use the public internet at some point. I cant see how it could use the same Blockcain as bitcoin - there is no technical need for them to do so. |
|
|
|
... MPfag crud .... Bingo! Listen. 7 transactions per second. Repeat that to yourself a few times until it sinks in. 7 transactions per secondGlobal reserve currency? @ 7tps, for who exactly? What a joke. Fedwire & TARGET2 run at 4 TPS  We will see in due time if we can scale this a bit. For now, we need to decruft the turd of its inefficiencies and build the eco-system it will support. Fedwire is a gross settlement network, not at all what bitcoin is supposed to be. A single settlement tx could reflect millions of other transactions - out of band from that network. I think that is the ultimate goal for yourself and the MPfags on here. Your dream is that all sidechain/LN activity will have to be settled with bitcoins, and of course the wealthy bankers will have to come to you on bended knee in the hope you might sell them for the equivalent of the GDP of a small country. Sorry, aint gonna happen. Its such a ludicrous vision. All the talk of economics and miner behavior is a side show. There will be a use case for side chain like features in bitcoin ( implemented by alt-coins) in the future, but that is years ahead, and it will be implemented in the context of blocks and transaction rates that will grow with adoption. |
|
|
|
... MPfag crud .... Bingo! Listen. 7 transactions per second. Repeat that to yourself a few times until it sinks in. 7 transactions per secondGlobal reserve currency? @ 7tps, for who exactly? What a joke. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us" Why? Because resources are distributed by Pareto power law, not imaginary one-mouth-one-cow Rawlsian social justice. All of your considerations of spherical blockchains fail to account for the fact Bitcoin's economic majority is composed of a very small number of very rich, very smart, and very stubborn individuals. They don't GAF how Reddit wants to redesign their coin for the greater glory of populism (and Goldman Sachs). I'm not surprised you lacked to the class to resist trolling the scaling workshop. Don't be shocked when you don't get invited to speak at the next one.  The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea.  |
|
|
|
and 5% in nodes... only 345
That might change if Core takes to long to increase the blocksize. We should be thankful that XT has given us an alternative. The freedom of choice should be embraced. According to the Gavinista Manifesto (*snicker*), Core has ALREADY taken too long to increase the blocksize (and blacklist TOR, etc). But their putsch failed, so now you're lowering the bar for XT all the way down to the ground. First XT was a revolution against Blockstream and Thermos, but now it's just a handy motivational poster? Give me a break...you are spinning like a pulsar!  Hundreds of other altcoins existed before XT. And some of them (eg Monero) have adaptive block sizes. Where have you been? If XT is the first alternative to Bitcoin you've ever encountered, you really should get out more. When will the MPfags just give up and accept that bigger blocks are coming? Not if, it's when... Its over for you due to fail and AIDS. |
|
|
|
That is quite an amount of inputs Total Received 2391.33012313 BTC Total Sent 2387.45339118 BTC Final Balance 3.87673195 BTC Lot of recieved amounts for a few Bitcoins.  Don't think its even that. Theres no more than 0.00061342btc there. They're all double spends |
|
|
|
right this is the kind of things we'd need to investigate...
the request for missing TX's could be done all at once **here's the list of TX i don't know about if anyone knows about these tell me** kinda thing. a distributed relay network whose sole purpose is to collect and relay TX accross the network would help.
also in theory a miner could include a bunch of TX's the network has never seen at which point other miners would be busy asking every other miner about TX's that no other minner has seen. i guess miners could consider that block invalid and orphen it. part of the protocol for miners including TX that he knows haven't been seen by the network would be to include the full TX... and also miners would try not to include TX that have likely Not fully propagated throughout the network ( TX they just heard about <10sec ago ?).
Plenty there to start off a bit of requirement gathering. Checking other nodes ( 3 steps, ~350 peers) would be pretty quick. If you didnt get a response for a tx from that many, its time to think of ignoring the block and picking another. .....and/or if blocks were held on NNTP servers, I2P nodes, Tor servers etc you could download from there when peers don't have what you want I think Just-In-Time Block Requesting is an obvious step. The debate would be around if we want the clients/nodes/miners to keep track of blocks to ensure full coverage or whether to use existing remote storage systems but the first step would use the latter. We are not looking for blocks - just transactions. Miners will push/publish blocks when they find a solution. Its just to confirm that the transactions they claim make up that block exist - nodes should already have the vast majority in mempool, but due to slight differences there is a requirement to find missing ones. This can only be done through other peers. |
|
|
|
right this is the kind of things we'd need to investigate...
the request for missing TX's could be done all at once **here's the list of TX i don't know about if anyone knows about these tell me** kinda thing. a distributed relay network whose sole purpose is to collect and relay TX accross the network would help.
also in theory a miner could include a bunch of TX's the network has never seen at which point other miners would be busy asking every other miner about TX's that no other minner has seen. i guess miners could consider that block invalid and orphen it. part of the protocol for miners including TX that he knows haven't been seen by the network would be to include the full TX... and also miners would try not to include TX that have likely Not fully propagated throughout the network ( TX they just heard about <10sec ago ?).
Plenty there to start off a bit of requirement gathering. Checking other nodes ( 3 steps, ~350 peers) would be pretty quick. If you didnt get a response for a tx from that many, its time to think of ignoring the block and picking another. |
|
|
|
I first got excited on hearing lightning network pegging into bitcoin so than get faster transactions than visa network. But allowing third party into bitcoin is not acceptable by our bitcoin community. May be some payment processors use lightning network for their own use of fastening transactions.
Lightning Network is a load of bollox at the moment, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Its just another alt-coin, with cheap lipstick applied, in its present vapour form. I watched Poon and the other guy try to sex it up during their presentation and failed miserably. They played down the very complex challenges of tx malleability that need to be addressed before this will ever get off the paper stage. The current test network has absolutely no meaningful* interaction with the blockchain, and unless they can perform sighash miracles in the near future, it never will. * and where it does, it requires Trust. Yes, trust. In a trust-less network. Such progress. |
|
|
|
Well, I think one problem with only sending pointers is what happens when a node doesn't have a particular transaction? How does it get it?
Nodes validate & store all transactions of every block added to the chain. If that is not the case then it is not Bitcoin. is it true miners have all the recent TX's in there mempool and when they get a new block they receive those same TX's all over again with the newblock? is this a little redundant? maybe we can broadcast only the transaction headers or something.
That is what the relay network does but once the headers are broadcasted the miners still need to fully validate it before starting mining a new block on top. Again, this has absolutely no impact on the full nodes that are not mining and need to receive, validate and store full blocks. Normal nodes are not time critical in receiving blocks. They can continue as normal even with much larger blocks. Only miners who are racing to create new blocks and need to know which one they have to build off get their knickers in a twist if there is any propagation impedance ( which would be exasperated by larger blocks) I mentioned earlier that this redundancy needs to be addressed. A development of the ideas of the relay network should be an option for all nodes. If they have 90% of the tx's in a block already in their mempool then they only need to adopt an efficient polling scheme to request the missing tx's from their peers. |
|
|
|
Economists have know for 500 years that a currency must have some inflation, otherwise people will hoard it and it will not be available for use as a currency. What economists advocated this position in 1515? I've never come across these scholars in my actual academic work, or even the notion of economics as a discipline per se existing at that time, so whatever you've discovered must be truly groundbreaking. 500 years? Try 2000 years - have a look at Diocletian controls over inflationary debasement of specie in the roman empire. Not quite the same thing, but this has been an issue for a bit. In a more contemporary context2000 years and the fuckers still can't get it right. |
|
|
|
....
My point though is he appears to have many people quite riled up and that's unfortunate. His points simply need to be deconstructed and the flaws pointed out. But if it's a waste of time doing that (and I haven't been in this thread for more than a few months) then probably best to just let him post and not respond.
Either way I don't find his posts to be trollish in their nature (but maybe his "graciousness" is hiding a whole other agenda I'm not aware of) and I appreciate he's expressing his view and that's perfectly okay.
I agree. The only ones who get really riled up by Jorge are the guys who believe that bitcoin will *somehow* make them incredibly wealthy, but who cannot quite understand the mechanics of how it will happen. When anyone pokes wholes in that balloon, they fight back angrier than a bag full of cats. But I've always found his posts interesting, if perhaps following a set narative. Jorg feel bitcoin will fail because of inherent flaws in its design. I, on the other hand, feel it just might succeed in spite of them! |
|
|
|
How is LN trustless?
If Bitcoin transactions can be signed with a new sighash type that addresses malleability,
these transfers may occur between untrusted parties along the transfer route by contracts which, in the event of uncooperative or hostile
participants, are enforceable via broadcast over the bitcoin blockchain
in the event of uncooperative or hostile participants, through a series
of decrementing timelocks. The piece you quoted relates to bitcoin transactions if we introduce new sighash functionality, they are not a unique property of LN. This will require an enormous development effort as its complex to achieve workable contracts without malleability. Sighash signing types allow for changes to the tx before they are final. But even when final, malleability still persists no matter how it was signed. Thats why most of this functionality was removed from bitcoin. LN as it would be workable now assumes a certain level of trust LN Presentation, slide 31● If Carol refuses to disclose R, she will hold
up the channel between Alice and Bob
○ If her channel expires after Alice and Bob’s she can
steal funds by redeeming the hashlock!
● Bob has to be rich for this to really work
3rd party low-trust multisig and/or extremely
small values sent can mostly work today |
|
|
|
@sAt0sHiFanClub, I don't know your definition of a transaction, but if we take the Lightning Network as an example, it does increase transaction throughput without neccessarily increasing the blocksize limit. Large blocks is not the only way of increasing throughput.
Your going off on a tangent now. LN is paperware at the moment. Lets stick to bitcoin for now, eh? So your definition of a transaction only includes on-chain transactions, then your statement is correct. My definition also includes trustless off-chain transactions (one way of scaling Bitcoin), and under that definition mine is correct. Oh, we really have to be precise... I think you have reflected your point through the nearest axis, and then continued into another domain entirely. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
