I suspect that they will implement confidential assets into either LN or another 2nd layer solution. This is likely where the big money is as Banks spend a lot of money on back office work in settling trades, and have tried unsuccessfully in trying to streamline these processes with blockchain technology. Further, LN (along with SW) will have so much technical debt, that consultants will likely be needed in order to properly setup LN nodes, and create LN compatible wallets, and the supply of qualified people who can advise companies on how to implement LN will be in short supply, however many of them will work for Blockstream, allowing them to sell their services at high rates -- they will essentially make Bitcoin and LN so complicated so that few people understand how it works. OK, how come the testnet Lightning software looks pretty easy to use already? I've seen nothing more than a couple of screenshots on this forum, and I could figure out how it worked just from that, without even using it. So, remind us why highly qualified and expensive IT consultants will be needed to run Lightning nodes for businesses, when I can figure it out from a coupe of screenshots? On an early version of the software? The Lightning network is actually my primary concern, not SegWit itself. Personally, I don't care if it is done with a soft fork or a hard fork, but increasing the block size limit only provides more options. We aren't talking anything crazy like 1 GB, 2 MB isn't that large any more. Forcing the Lightning network without any fallback isn't rational engineering. It might be great politics though. |
|
|
|
That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition. Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique.
False equivalency fallacy; as expected by the likes of you. An exploit is an exploit; that is an undeniable fact. You are showing you are an intellectual giant!  Optimization is not the same as an exploit. Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost?
It does not block it entirely. It blocks the covert usage of it. Segwit changes the block header in a specific way, which prevents the covert usage of Asicboost. In fact, Asicboost as is implemented in current Bitmain devices is incompatible with a lot of potential upgrades (which change the block header). So? You actually have nothing ... Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s
He's certainly more trustworthy than the likes of Ver, Jihan, Peter R and the other charlatans. It would appear he is more trustworthy than Landa too ... at least he appears to be doing his own thinking. You really are trying to make something out of nothing or you are just being a parrot. Why don't you take some time and actually write a crypto miner and learn what you are talking about. I've actually written two different miners. The first one was for Proto Share mining and I used it for months. The second one is for cryptonight and I'm currently using it. Both of these were vastly more optimized than the ASICBOOST you are complaining about. (Otherwise there really isn't any point to writing your own miner.) Not doing more work than is necessary is just good optimization. If you really had a valid complaint that made sense, it would be focusing on the patent, not the technique. That is where there is a possible valid argument. |
|
|
|
Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost? The coinbase transaction in a SW block contains the hash of all the transactions in a block, forcing a miner employing ASICBOOST to spend more resources on calculations so that the advantage to employing ASICBOOST is removed. Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost But Greg said that he has proof that a miner has implemented ASICBOOST, and that this is why they are not signaling for SegWit. Since Greg Maxwell is the posterchild for integrity, and has never tried to mislead anyone in his life, it is safe to take his word for it without any evidence. /s The problem with increasing the max block size at all is that doing so will create a precedent that the max block size will be increased once it needs to be increased (aka when blocks become full). However in order for LN and other settlement layers to be economically viable, tx fees need to be very expensive (prohibitively so), and if one option is to increase the max block size, then tx fees will never be prohibitively expensive. I take it that you have never written or even worked on any miner either hardware or software. Hashing all the transactions in a block is child's play and has nothing to do with finding the block. As for the president that is also nonsense. 2 years ago when I was very active the Bitcoin network you would have had a point. We are about a year past that now. SegWit would work just as well with a 2 MB max block size as with a 1 MB block size. There is a lot more politics than common sense being used here. |
|
|
|
AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize.
1) Bullshit. AsicBoost is not an improved mining technique, it's abusing a weakness in the PoW function. 2) It is everything about Segwit. Segwit would prevent covert use of it, therefore Bitmain and mr. big child Jihan does everything to secure these profits. That is like saying multiplication is an abuse of addition. Avoiding needless work is a basic optimization technique. Also just exactly how can SegWit block AsciBoost? Maybe you are just repeating random nonsense you'll heard from someone in the Bitcoin core that should know better. Anyway Bitmain has stated they aren't using AsicBoost and are holding out for 2MB blocks with SegWit. Which actually sounds like a reasonable compromise at this point. https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/As for the rest of you nonsense, it isn't even worth replying too. |
|
|
|
The number of nodes is meaningless. It is trivial for someone to spin up 100's (or thousands, or more) nodes with little to no cost. This is especially true when discussing short term trends.
Setting up a node today is not a joke. Have you tried setting one up at litte to no cost as you said? I think you havent tried to. The yearly bandwidth costs alone could set you back a decent amount. You must live in the internet backwaters, maybe the USA? While I'm not running a node now, I did from my home and it wasn't a problem. However my daily uploads are limited to 2GB, although I've never been shutdown for going over it. Downloads are unlimited. My upload speed is a little slow, typically 50Mb/sec, download speed typically greater than 120Mb/sec. However I pay though the teeth for it, the fiber optic service with IP phone run around $45 / month. Kind of middle of the road for Japan. Seriously how much bandwidth is needed now? However to spin up 100's? Just one was a real pain in the butt. I think it took over two days to get the whole blockchain at when I did it. Of coarse one could clone. If you use something like AWS ... It is going to cost a bit to run 1000's of nodes. |
|
|
|
Yes, that's correct and almost 200,000 stores owner if I'm correct were accepting bitcoin as terms of payment. Big one for Japan  I think that is a bit blow out of proportion. I live in Japan. I've read a national newspaper that puts the number at 4500 and currently I only know 4 places in Tokyo that work with Bitcoin. That being said awareness and use of Bitcoin is growing here. |
|
|
|
I added the UASF-SegWit-BIP148 user agent string to my node.
Of course, I don't support this ridiculous UASF proposal or Segwit, and neither does my node. It could never work!
This is why we unfortunately can't rely on such statistics like the ones in the first post. because of one moron? I don't trust anything that says btu shills, never saw 1 trustworthy post from them That attitude shows my main objection to SegWit. I see this a lot from SegWit supporters. I don't get it. SegWit and BU are just two possible solutions. It shouldn't be the cult of SegWit. |
|
|
|
as for chek2fire's image of the trolley growing double the size in half an hour.
the realisty is much more like
nodes set consensus.h at 8mb (calculated as network safe for at the moment)
nodes set policy.h at thier own personal preference amounts BELOW consensus.h
nodes publish their preference in the user agent
...
pools see all the lower preference limits and determine a safe majority of preference.. EG lets say it was 75%-95% say 2mb is ok
pools then make a block that is 1.000250mb and dip thier toe in the water testing the orphan risks or other issues, much like detecting if there was a 2013 leveldb bug when surpassing 500k limit even with a 1mb hard limit
and then progressively grow in small increments which they deem safe, up to the majority PREFERENCE of ~2mb
where by the minority nodes that had 8mb consensus but under 2mb policy preference. would be alerted that their policy preference is going to get dynamically altered up to 2mb
all of which are still blocks well under the main consensus limit of 8mb.
meaning nodes can cope and the blocks dont just go "gigabytes by midnight"
That is close to what I understood. |
|
|
|
Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit. Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem.
This statement is nonsense. UASF is a decent proposal; definitely not a backdoor. SW has near unanimous developer approval, supermajority of users and the economy approval; AntPool is holding the network hostage due to ASICBoost. AsicBoost is just an improved mining technique, it isn't about blocksize. The developer community is divided and no where near unanimous. If what you claimed was true there wouldn't be so many competing Bitcoin forks. Even the Bitcoin Core isn't unanimous if you listen to the devs that were kicked out. Again I stand by my claim, UASF seems only to function to try and force SegWit. It is just more confusion being thrown out there. Antpool is holding out for a blocksize increase via a hard fork. At least that is what they have stated. |
|
|
|
hi im check2fire. i have read no code,
i do not care about bitcoins ethos, only blockstreams ethos
but i do love the reddit scripts of calling anything not blockstream sanctioned an altcoin.
even if the diverse implementation runs on the mainnet
even if the diverse implementation helps keep bitcoin decentralised
even if the diverse implementation refuses to split off and will only activate with community consensus. i will call anything not gmaxwell approved an altcoin.
purely because i love brown nosing maxwell
when gmaxwell moves on to other projects like hyperledger i will follow him like a obsessed stalker because he is my king
FTFY Oh, that explains a lot ... |
|
|
|
Shows a lack of understanding about how Bitcoin Unlimited would work. I don't understand these underhanded dirty attacks. With Bitcoin Unlimited larger blocks could be produced but there is a tradeoff as too large of blocks probably would be orphaned. The blocksize would settle around the sweat spot of the number of transactions and the transaction fees producing the maximum revenue. Transactions not including transaction fees would probably not be any better off than they are today. It appears the SegWit changes would allow more transactions in the current 1MB block, but it isn't as clear to understand. Later small transactions would be pushed to the yet to be built lightening network. It is a fundamental change. The developers also gain tools for making future changes. Frankly I'm not very excited by either proposal. It will be interesting to see how it works out with LTC. |
|
|
|
Block time is 4 minutes. However, the last couple of hours there have been fewer than expected blocks. It happens.
The number of coins don't matter, although the size of the transaction in bytes can make a difference (bigger txs are harder to fit in a block).
Block explorers that I know of
minergate.com
chainradar.com
Thanks ... all of my transactions have shown up. Probably it did take a lot of block space since my wallet is filled with 0.5 transactions from mining. Yup that is exactly what causes problems like this. I had the same issue on other coins. Is there a good solution for the large number of transactions from mining? I've considered periodically consolidating my miner earnings into a separate wallet. Not really. Consolidate periodically. Solo mine. Start your own pool with higher payout threshold. With the simple wallet I found that transaction of 30 coins went quickly. Probably larger than that would would too, but 100 was very slow. You can use the up arrow then return to quickly repeat the transfer. It wasn't that big of a deal once I knew what was going on. |
|
|
|
(Plz don't give me the "bitcoin transactions takes too much time to get confirmed" comment because the answer will be "put some transaction fee")
But this is not how things should be There shouldn't be such fees in the first place. Conceptually, given the number of nodes capable of confirming transactions (i.e. nodes having full copy of the blockchain), the fees shouldn't be there at all. In fact, there should be negative competition since among a few dozen thousand nodes capable of confirming transactions will always be a couple of nodes that will first include transactions with no fees, just to support the network at its lower edge. Today, we see paradoxical situation when miners instead of facilitating bitcoin payments are actually hindering them. This is nonsense from an economic point of view if you ask me, and this should be changedWe are at a point where the financial gains have more priority for miners than serving the whole Bitcoin eco system in a honest and appropriate manner. It has no chance of changing unless we move away from the POW aspect and incentivize some sort of a node pos system. That idea on its own will not be welcomed as the fundamental changes are too severe, which basically means that Bitcoin won't entirely be Bitcoin anymore but a complete different coin I can't really tell whether PoW is worse or better than PoS in this respect I just don't have enough technical knowledge to make a definitive conclusion, but I think we don't even need to go that far. The issue can be fundamentally and I daresay even gracefully solved by introducing instant transactions in the way Lightning Network makes them possible. Massive off-chain transactions will necessarily bring down the number of on-chain transactions to a minimum, and miners will have to either leave or include all transactions. Otherwise, they would still have to leave eventually. But once expensive miners are gone, difficulty will readjust and cheap miners will take over. This process will necessarily cause demonopolization of the mining field via purely economic, indirect means To be honest Transactions Fees are kind of a cheap thing considering that it is way cheaper compared to what Banks try to take from our accounts. Recently I just sent Bitcoin to my friend in which it cost me around .00045200 BTC which is just around half a dollar. Transactions fees like this help maintain or support Bitcoin itself as they are the ones who give us the most benefit from using it in our daily lives. The problem is that the transaction fees are growing quickly now. At some point the fees won't be cheap. For small transfers the transfer fees can be a serious issue. |
|
|
|
Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?
And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down
The difference is in attitude. Some people pushing SegWit basically present themselves very poorly. They attack people that disagree with them. Often throw out wild statements like "Bitcoin was never intended to pay for a cup of coffee" and make false claims to try to shore up their supposed support. Where there is smoke there is is fire. It is fine that a group wants to fundamentally change bitcoin, but they shouldn't villainize people that just disagree with them. While you claim BU is dead, there are more BU blocks than SegWit blocks being produced. That shows there is a clear problem and disagreement. What I do like about SegWit is it lays a foundation for making progress. What I don't like about it is that it is taking steps way beyond what is necessary and not really focused on the most immediate issue. I think a prudent thing to do would be to hammer out a compromise. However calling a group "Miners Mafia" is really absurd. Now the LTC is going with SegWit it would be wise to let that coin lead the way and prove the concepts are sound. This is an opportunity for Bitcoin to take a smaller more prudent step and come up with something that both the miners and users can live with. Getting back on topic it seems like UASF is just a backdoor way to try and force SegWit. Seriously if SegWit can't stand on its own then there is a problem. |
|
|
|
That's just stacking together as many positive statistics as possible for BU, isn't it? And the way you present it makes no sense.
780 BU nodes are not producing 1/3 of the blocks. Of those 780, less than 20 are the BU nodes actually creating blocks, the rest are non-mining relay nodes.
And even if 780 nodes were BU (and that figure is disputed, there's good evidence that a significant proportion of the 780 number is run by far less than 780 individual people), that's still little more than 11-12% of the 7000 nodes in total.
Do you understand what the word "unanimous" means? If you do, then you'll know that Bitcoin nodes are much much closer to unanimity at ~ 85% of the network than BU nodes are at ~ 12%.
You are really are being disingenuous. How many of the 5700 nodes are producing blocks? Not very many. When one looks at which blocks are produced with which code sets SegWit was well behind BU. https://btc.com/stats/block-ver?bip_mode=SegWit. SegWit accounts for less than 30% of the blocks produced out of the last 1000. Most nodes are not involved in mining, but without mining there isn't any Bitcoin. Well there are benefits of having more nodes, it is a much lower commitment to to set up node vs actually mining. It is disingenuous to discount the minority of nodes that is actually doing more beneficial work than the majority which is mostly just passive. Clearly there isn't anything close to unanimous yet. Maybe you should look up the definition of the word yourself. I haven't made up my mind yet, although I find the lightening network concept rather vague and potentially dangerous. It is too bad there there isn't more focus on the near term issues with SegWit. Less long-term pie in the sky and more short term fixing the issues would have probably pushed SegWit to a quick success. |
|
|
|
I don't think that the community is divided, all community is unanimous in supporting SegWit.
Sorry, I don't have this impression, and I'm not talking about the handful of members that post dozens of pro-BU posts/day (these, probably are paid in some way for it). In the German and Spanish sub-forums some very high-profile members support BU, among them a former Bitcointalk moderator with an important Bitcoin blog. I think it's currently a 60/40 to 70/30 division with the majority being pro-Segwit. In my opinion, in the case of a hard fork, that's not enough to "kill a BTU chain instantly" what would be necessary to preserve Bitcoin's network effect. You're conflating 3 things 1. Miner support 2. Forum activity 3. Node support When it comes to miners and forum activity, a division exists. Mining is hard to fake (although we now know that Bitmain's hashrate share is inflated by ASIC Boost). Forum activity is very easy to fake. Node support is somewhere in between the 2, it can be faked (remember the NotXT nodes?). But still, it appears as if a growing majority of nodes support Segwit. I would argue this is the most important metric. And further to that, miners signalling Segwit is beginning to grow again. A consistent >30% is now evident, and removing the ASIC Boost advantage will change that figure even more favourably. When we add to that the undecided miners, we could easily have close to or above 50% Segwit signalling. And that's all is needed, simply the fear of block orphaning by the majority faction has pushed previous soft fork activations over 95% very, very quickly after 50% is reached. So there's no need to worry yourself so much. Well around 780 nodes are Bitcoin Unlimited and they produce over 1/3 of the blocks. That is a far cry short of unanimous. Saying they aren't part of the community is disingenuous. See: https://coin.dance/nodes |
|
|
|
I don't agree gambling is a sin, because everyone can change your future and you are your free will to do what you want, everything depends your own wish, need to be strong sometimes, but it's not a sin. You can overcome any difficult in life if you are inspired to do it.
One thing is certain, if you do not break the law then definitely it is not a sin, we can just put religion law aside here since with it definitely gambling is a sin since it defies the trust to God and relies on sime msyticism and luck. It is not a sin as long as we do not cause harm to ourselves and other people. Baffled by your logic. Breaking a law isn't the same as a sin. However, for the record gambling on-line is actually against the law for many that do it. Just because the law hasn't caught up with the technology doesn't mean it is legal. |
|
|
|
Block time is 4 minutes. However, the last couple of hours there have been fewer than expected blocks. It happens.
The number of coins don't matter, although the size of the transaction in bytes can make a difference (bigger txs are harder to fit in a block).
Block explorers that I know of
minergate.com
chainradar.com
Thanks ... all of my transactions have shown up. Probably it did take a lot of block space since my wallet is filled with 0.5 transactions from mining. |
|
|
|
Does it just take a very long time for large transactions to get picked up? Actually 100 coins shouldn't be that long. [wallet Wmsve9]: transfer 0 WmtK9TQ6yd2ZWZDAkRsebc2ppzUq2Wuo9XRRjHMH2fvqM3ARVqk3styJ6AavJFcpJFPFtxRGAqGFoJM ZGJ6YYzQ61TYGfpykX 100 55f7301188bd4e23ba5d9242a45479f05254d60065e142b1ba7f737830501eea Your transaction needs to be split into 2 transactions. This will result in a fee of 0.020000000000. Is this okay? (Y/Yes/N/No)Y Money successfully sent, transaction <102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d> Money successfully sent, transaction <a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174> [wallet Wmsve9]: refresh check_tx 102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d transaction wasn't found on chain: <102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d> check_tx a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174 transaction wasn't found on chain: <a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174> Do I need to rerun the daemon or somehow cancel the transaction? It has been over an hour. As I was typing it appears that transaction started confirming and showed up on the other end. The check_tx still says not found though. Wow it was way over an hour and I only have 1 confirmation. Pretty lousy considering I paid for the transaction ... Can anyone point me to a working block explorer for AEON? |
|
|
|
Does it just take a very long time for large transactions to get picked up? Actually 100 coins shouldn't be that long. [wallet Wmsve9]: transfer 0 WmtK9TQ6yd2ZWZDAkRsebc2ppzUq2Wuo9XRRjHMH2fvqM3ARVqk3styJ6AavJFcpJFPFtxRGAqGFoJM ZGJ6YYzQ61TYGfpykX 100 55f7301188bd4e23ba5d9242a45479f05254d60065e142b1ba7f737830501eea Your transaction needs to be split into 2 transactions. This will result in a fee of 0.020000000000. Is this okay? (Y/Yes/N/No)Y Money successfully sent, transaction <102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d> Money successfully sent, transaction <a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174> [wallet Wmsve9]: refresh check_tx 102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d transaction wasn't found on chain: <102690a9805c87f3911ea298d84566aed8aad40b77a0ba708459bde2d2eeba2d> check_tx a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174 transaction wasn't found on chain: <a849dd7658edc3975d032466f266fc402808d09753ed96b58abc694603aaa174> Do I need to rerun the daemon or somehow cancel the transaction? It has been over an hour. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
