Bitcoin Forum
May 26, 2024, 06:13:38 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 »
701  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network: how to trace the path between the sending and receivin nodes? on: January 23, 2018, 05:12:38 PM
impression that "time-out" thresholds was built into Lightning Network to protect against "Loop" problems.  Huh
Broadcast for settlement is in on the Lightning Network and fees on the LN network would prevent
loop back attacks but the trade of is expensive fees for legitimate micro-transactions but I don't have
a clue why you brought this up

Time outs in LN muiltsig accounts are called Hash Time Locks (HTLC)  but I can talk a bit slower
for you if that helps or maybe you could read the document at your own pace
702  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Still possible to bootstrap blockchain via Torrent? on: January 23, 2018, 04:19:53 PM
He is asking about Torrent not Tor.

Sorry and thanks for the correction

Bit-torrent should take just a few days to get data if its anything like the one I use
703  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Lightning Network is a banker scam part one on: January 23, 2018, 03:06:08 PM
I just replied to this thread so that the FUD doesn't go unchallenged.
Well I welcome debate when its based on facts but you have been debunked and now want to be rude so lets
deal with some FUD like MoonLite which is yet another ICO that we are getting sick off that runs on the
ETH network and in eight days time goes live using the MNL tokens.

Lovely marketing with the usual signature campaign that pays in ETH to anyone that spams for them
and they are so desperate for money that they will even take payments using Ripple which amishmanish
hates along with about anything else that's not Bitcoin.

Now is this new ICO selling bullshit, lets see

Quote
ABOUT THE MOONLITE PROJECT
The MoonLite Project will operate several industrial scale data centers in the Crypto-Currency Mining industry, and plans to begin by mining predominantly Bitcoin, DASH, Litecoin, and Ethereum using 100% sustainable, green energy.

100% of the energy we consume is generated using Hydro, Geo-Thermal, and Wind sources. The MoonLite Project will base its first mining operation in data center capital of the world, Iceland, where the average tariff for the industrial connections are 0.043 USD per kWh. Our data centers enjoy a contractual supply of the cleanest energy available, and at a multi-year fixed rate, and additionally do not need to provide extensive cooling infrastructure due to the cool Icelandic climate.
 

it's cold in Iceland so that saves on air-conditioning costs but I seem to remember that high voltage power lines
can be used to transmit cheap energy across the sea but it's better just to waste it anyway by running servers
in Iceland so that everyone else can play CPU-Wars with them to mine coins

I know I will start with 1000Th and see if the other side can get a machine that is so hot it glows
in the dark to match the performance because we are green, we are saving the earth

My dear up for sale green friend it seems like the contents of my footer has upset you
so you like to keep being rude and attacking me since I debunked you because your facts were incorrect so
please have a second go and debunk any of the facts mentioned above  Cheesy


  
704  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Lightning Network is a banker scam part one on: January 23, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
I appreciate your input but like I said above, will treat it with scepticism.

You are free to read the white paper yourself

Quote
doomsayers like yourself will naturally be treated with scepticism

The tone of your voice needs to also be called into question too before you lecture me about how to
act in a forum so lets try sticking with facts and deal with the source please
705  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions? on: January 23, 2018, 02:27:22 PM
Nobody and nothing has been debunked except in your imagination. Its just that nobody likes to engage trolls for too long. Goodbye!

Whats these MNL tokens and i see they pay people to spam the ICO but they pay them in ETH
and not Bitcoin and shock, horror they will even take donations in Ripple.

So just how do you become green if your competing with other miners in a game of CPU-wars
to create new coins because you my friend sure seem full of contradictions so clear off back to the
marketing section of the forum where you belong. <<< Full stop as not to offend teacher dear 
706  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Channels on: January 23, 2018, 02:04:58 PM
Legal aspects?  You might get regulated as a payment processor....

Yes very good point

if the banks take up front fees which I think we can safely assume  they do or else you could be in credit, broadcast to close the channel
and they get hit with $30 transaction fees

if you look at the white paper the process of being in dispute and how this get resolved is quite complicated so was a bank
to go down then this would create so many transactions that it would grid the Bitcoin network to a Holt I would imagine.

I have tried to contact Joseph Poon who is leading the lightning project about major concerns I have and
it looks like he does not want to speak or address any of the points I have raised in the email

Here is the white-paper if your interested in the nuts and bolts of the project
https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Key here is that money does not move between the many private ledgers held by the bank
and only the entries created from the initial deposit can be changed within the ledger which from
the legality side looks about right but from a clients side means that the bank ends up effectively
lending you your own money when you send it until the channel is closed and settlement happens
on the main block chain

707  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions? on: January 23, 2018, 01:20:48 PM
because if old steam engine run then why get new engine let us first put all money into the bank where it will run our engine
and engine engine bank bank LN  SegWit  Bank Core blockstream bank segwit bank

ERROR CODE: 404 BOT UNRESPONSIVE

Is this your bedroom



Nothing green about Bitcoin miner CPU-Wars but do you think its worth my time taking
an in depth look at this moonlite.io

708  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions? on: January 23, 2018, 01:04:32 PM
You forgot something: Segwit addresses are banks. And the old style addresses, banks, all of them!!! Cheesy

You have been debunked and now want to act like a child instead of admitting it like a man

 
709  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit? on: January 23, 2018, 12:57:50 PM
If you want to pay less fees, use segwit. It has big blocks.

Segwit not save money unless all outputs are Segwit

Why should people pay $30 to convert to new address in extortion fees to miners
because development team broke existing client code and few exchanges use Segwit ?

You must be using it so even if you know someone that can receive these payments
then was the saving 50% or more like 20% like I am hearing ?

Since Swegwit came out in August 2017 fees continue to go up and that mempool
using queuing theory is always just out of reach so why do you think that is ?

710  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Channels on: January 23, 2018, 12:26:43 PM
This is not for beginners though, I strongly advise against using Lightning for the moment (as do the developers of Lightning clients & protocol)

Lightning  not live, won't be for estimates of between six and nine months so you must be talking about test-net

See https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki
Yes i can agree about having to break existing code but not about who pays to convert the wallet

Quote
The idea is that you open a channel to use it, not so you don't use it. Then you can make many transactions with other people for tiny fees. And mining fees aren't high if you're willing to wait. You could set up a channel, using a low fee, wait a while till it confirms. Once it does, you have instant transactions (no more confirmation waits) and you'd be very happy with the overall price of transaction fees you could be paying.

So are you going to ever admit that the Alice > Box > Peter and Paul case is theoretical and that we are dealing with major banking hubs here ?

Getting money out as cash to spend on the streets as is the case for "Cam Girls"  Cheesy mean the poor old girl will need to close the
channel each week so that's $30 gone in miner fees and will force the girls back on the game

You can argue that something that charges fees, locks your money, pays to maintain lots of channel, has counter party
risk is not a bank but can you not at least force yourself to accept that we have centralized hubs ?

711  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Segwit Addresses explorer? on: January 23, 2018, 11:46:34 AM
Only the second one (Segwit) is really a Segwit wallet, which is using the bech32 format, thus not recommended right now since most services don't support this format (address starting with bc1).

The first one (Standard) is a normal address.
I see so that's the reason for breaking client code in old wallets was because they need bech32 in the transaction

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki
Quote
For most of its history, Bitcoin has relied on base58 addresses with a truncated double-SHA256 checksum. They were part of the original software and their scope was extended in BIP13 for Pay-to-script-hash (P2SH). However, both the character set and the checksum algorithm have limitations:

Base58 needs a lot of space in QR codes, as it cannot use the alphanumeric mode.
The mixed case in base58 makes it inconvenient to reliably write down, type on mobile keyboards, or read out loud.
The double SHA256 checksum is slow and has no error-detection guarantees.
Most of the research on error-detecting codes only applies to character-set sizes that are a prime power, which 58 is not.
Base58 decoding is complicated and relatively slow.
Included in the Segregated Witness proposal are a new class of outputs (witness programs, see BIP141), and two instances of it ("P2WPKH" and "P2WSH", see BIP143). Their functionality is available indirectly to older clients by embedding in P2SH outputs, but for optimal efficiency and security it is best to use it directly. In this document we propose a new address format for native witness outputs (current and future versions).

Well forget about it being slow because Mining and PoW in Bitcoin is all about wasting CPU power (They love it)
I can run with mixed case and error correction forced the change

Maybe the miners should give us free fees when converting a wallet, you know like all 20,000 of the parasites
could just about manage the conversion since the development team cocked it up in the first place and they
are only processing seven transactions per second

We keep seeing problem-reaction-solution with Bitcoin and the odd thing is that it hits our pockets
each time but yes i can agree it needed a fix 







712  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions? on: January 23, 2018, 11:37:36 AM
The maximum block limit is 4MB, and has been for four months. So your wish came true already.

it's just a tab under 4mb with half the data being written to a separate file and I read that Segwit data
in the block gets some discount on how they count it as being a byte so they seem to be cooking the
numbers.

apart from the Segwit having a "3" instead of "1" what else did they need to change in the transaction
sent from the wallet to the nodes ?

They broke client code with this update and users get to pay mining fees to fix it when converting
wallets and I for one would like to understand why
713  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Question: Hashgraph on: January 23, 2018, 11:28:29 AM
This uses a legacy protocol called gossip protocol

That got extended and now its "gossip about gossip" and I am told that they are testing the thing
to destruction and i think this is the one that uses a type of stream to store blocks but it goes
over my head

Academia has taken over much too much these days and they invent problems that don't really
exist or they create them and then try to mitigate them and the 51% attack on Bitcoin is one
good example of this happen.

714  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Question: Hashgraph on: January 23, 2018, 11:17:43 AM
Me not thinks HashGraph is like IOTA because that only does 100 TPS and HashGraph is more
like 50,000 TPS or something

Evo is one worth studying and has some very interesting concepts but the killer is that
it's based in China and the gas it uses as a currency can only be traded on one exchange 

And the fact that all those "innovative" projects that are promising to disrupt Bitcoin and blockchain are spending a lot of resources on marketing while having very little codebase makes them extremely suspicious. This is the exact opposite of Bitcoin - free, non-profit and open-source project maintained by volunteers and community with no central authorities.

Still trying to defend seven transactions per second are we with $30 Tx fees and the "Lightning Network"
to the rescue debate is in full swing and it's funny but this "open-source project maintained by volunteers and community"
is not listening to us developers and they knew eight years ago that Bitcoin would not scale which is very "suspicious" and yes the Bitcoin
network never has bugs if we blame everyone else when coins get lost in translation.

Did you know there are people in this world that can create block-chains that does scale and everything can stay on block
and are mining pools centralization anyway or maybe your happy with the monopoly too.
715  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why the fuck did Satoshi implement the 1 MB blocksize limit? on: January 23, 2018, 10:57:42 AM
As a protocol / consensus relevant param :  YESS!!!

Maybe we could try this

public static money MaxFees=1.50 // 20,000 miners is 19,000 too many

Far to many miners doing CPU-Wars with each other and if we had 1000 then $1.50 would be enough to keep
Bitcoin running and this proposal has the "consensus" of the community using Bitcoin but not the ears of the developers
because the miners and bankers have them.

We could even get complicated as a short term fix and add

if (Mempool>10000 && Amount<$10) Return Error.AmountToLow

Seven transactions a second and 20,000 full nodes ! We are being take for twats


 

716  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why didn't bitcoin scale using both proposed solutions? on: January 23, 2018, 10:39:03 AM
Blocks and timing could get a little more steam out the old steam engine and we know this because
ETH runs at 15 transactions per second and BTC is at seven TPS and Segwit takes some of the data
out of the block and puts it in a separate file but this does not solve the problem because each of
the 20,000 full nodes are still forced to host 200gb of data

Basically we have data replication and not distributed processing of the block chain or what
some people call block-matrix and I would be happy as pie to say that Lightning is the solution
but it's not and this ignores BTC going off block.

Try doing a ICO and tell everyone that your money is all off block and see how well that sells
because effectively that's just what people are buying here with Bitcoin 
717  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Still possible to bootstrap blockchain via Torrent? on: January 23, 2018, 10:28:00 AM
As in the old days, or are those days past? I need to get a full client going within the next 5 days, but am unsure it'll sync on current connection.
Tor is so slow so what I do is point the browser at a local proxy server and that uses code to decide if it will
go direct for things like images, css but then uses Tor for page data and anything that's pushing anything
out in the Url

200gb of data over Tor ? Months it will take
718  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to do micro payments with bitcoin? on: January 23, 2018, 10:23:01 AM
Hope lightning network will be used by bitcoin soon. The current fee in way too much...
I would like to agree but it's like your onion skins and the more I peel bank the more obvious it
becomes that lightning network is all about banking (Relay nodes in Tor) and the miners have
the BTC to deposit to complete the next hop plus hardware and also the skills to put themselves at an advantage
during disputes

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2776719.msg28395400#msg28395400

Your BTC is locked in a private ledger with the bank and does not cross over in the banks to the banks outbound
ledger so effectively your borrowing your own money during transit over the network
719  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network: how to trace the path between the sending and receivin nodes? on: January 23, 2018, 10:09:11 AM
Hail Dijkstra! Seriously, a lot of people here are throwing around "LN is centralized" and "it's the same thing as using banks". That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

That is exactly how it works or we would not have deposits of BTC in channels  and the killer
is that money does not cross between private ledgers and you can pick it out from the white-paper
here https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf
or see the image that i uploaded here http://forum.cryptolivecap.com/posts/t31-Lightning-Network

and without large central banking hubs your routes end to end would need hundreds of hops and
and involve hundreds of muilisig internal transactions that would be a nightmare to roll back if
just one of the nodes went off-line during the process

You seem to forget that channels cost money to close so I am only going to open one at a time
and that's going to be to someone that has lots of money on deposit and is always connected so
is that not centralized and even now we are hearing about money lost in transit on the BTC
network so whats going to happen if a banking hub goes down and everyone broadcasts a
signal to force settlement on the main BTC BC

When real banks screw up I can pick the phone up so was the above to happen then who are you
going to call

720  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network: how to trace the path between the sending and receivin nodes? on: January 23, 2018, 09:37:45 AM
In what way do you think that those will attract centralization? The very design of LN makes it so that anyone, at any time, can create their own LN node that serves as a "hub". Even if LN does become centralized around a few large hubs (which I think is unlikely given how easy it is to create your own LN node that is a "hub"), those hubs cannot be a central authority that can take away people's money or force channels open or to never close like an actual central authority can. The user is still in charge of his own money and he can always close a channel unilaterally to access his money.

That's like saying you are free to close your back account at a cost of $30 therefore it not centralized when it is all based around
central banking.

Routeing without big central hubs in a disbursed network looks almost impossible to me if
most people only open one channel and even if I wanted to do the banks out of a job by
becoming one myself then without 60,000BTC to deposit in various channels I cannot do it
no more than you can open a regular high street bank.

if I could move money between various ledgers that I hold open without paying crazy
miner fees then it becomes half possible  if the muiltsig time outs are low and not much
money is held up in transit.

You say "The user is still in charge of his own money" yes so long as we keep paying miners
$30 a pop when we use it and the argument that fees will drop is speculation because Lightning
not designed to move what they term larger amount for the reasons I listed plus you now have
inter bank settlement to on the main BC

if I earn $200 a week as a cam-girl and I live hand to mouth then I need cash to spend in
the shops and the only way I can get BTC to USD is to close the channel to put coins on block
and then cash them in.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!