https://bitcoin.org/bin/block-chain/You can bootstrap download the chain from here just make sure to check the signatures it will help you. It is advisable to download from the network but this is a way for those who struggle with downloading or have poor connection. this is a bad idea, do NOT listen to the above advice under any circumstances.
You risk being connected to a fake blockchain if you download random torrents without knowing what you're doing
@MagicByte your post is irresponsibleI was wrong about this, apologies to MagicByt3 it's still pointless to use this old torrent bootstrap, it won't speed up IBD. And it only includes the first 2-3 years of Bitcoin's blockchain, so it adds steps for no benefit. |
|
|
|
in order to use Bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, we all need the state’s national money. If there is no regular currency, it is unlikely that you can effectively replace them with a decentralized cryptocurrency. It only in theory seems that it is easy. no theory is necessary the nation state is a relatively recent thing. before that, many people all over the world didn't live in a state (some wouldn't even know such a thing existed) all these free people could or did use money, the archeological and historical records contain abundant proof I do not recognize any anarchy but practical life. you do, sorry to have to break it to you. the reason you (and most people) don't rape, rob and murder is because of your natural morals, not because there's a punishment for doing those things For me, anarchy is equivalent to chaos. it means "without rulers" in Greek. You've been watching too many movies (where the word "anarchy" is always used wrongly to mean chaos) It seems to me that in order for any society to function effectively, a certain order is needed. right, but when we solve problems with our friends, neighbours, shopkeepers or family, but without the state's help, we're creating an ordered society. Without rulers. Therefore, in our form of organization, bitcoin must be organizationally regulated.
well, there are no rulers in Bitcoin, but it is organized, and it is regulated, and it is ordered. You've proven yourself wrong rather simply  |
|
|
|
It doens't affect block announcement latency, but could increase block orphaning rates at the margins.
Simulation seems to show that it improves block propagation delay in fact. Erlay's latency increase for propagation is almost entirely an increase in latency of the first hop. Overall with the recommended parameters in simulation the result has transactions take a little longer to propagate but there is less variance in their overall propagation time. This improves the block propagation speed because more often if a miner includes a txn everyone already has it. ... at least in simulation. hmm, so less variance in overall propagation leads to less variance in respective mempools contents over time, and so of course compact block success rate improves. That makes sense, nice consequential effect. |
|
|
|
|
^^^
see what I'm talking about, anyone?
|
|
|
|
I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy
The mystery surrounding bitcoin creation is coded in mystery and secrecy. All is conspiracy theorem
WHAT'S.
THE.
CRIME.you're saying that writing the Bitcoin source code was a secret criminal act, what is the crime? Please.
Stop using the word "conspiracy", you do not know what it means |
|
|
|
This is really scary for all journalists who wants to express their themselves on various issues involving the rich and powerful in the society.
it's not actually confirmed that was the real reason why he was killed/murdered/disappeared (or even exactly what happened to him). Of course, it's not an unreasonable supposition to think it, but there is no genuine evidence. I say this in particular because Kashoggi had a colorful family background; he was nephew to the famous Saudi arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi. Adnan Kashoggi has an extraordinary reputation and life story, he was selling weapons into the 1980's Iraq/Iran war, as well as the contras in Guatemala (or was it Nicaragua?). He was ridiculously wealthy, was well known for parties that lasted 3-4 days at his luxurious properties, in places like Spain and the USA. In other words, Uncle Adnan had some really strong political friends in US and Europe, which of course he needed to be an arms dealer in wars that US and European powers were involved in. So was Jamal Kashoggi just an innocent Saudi journalist, fighting the House of Sa'ud for the Saudi people? Maybe, but growing up with an Uncle like Adnan, he could easily have been doing another job (or 3) at the same time, using the journalist role as cover (which also gave anyone he annoyed the cover they needed to kill him). Without any proper evidence, it's difficult to say anything for certain. |
|
|
|
Hihi, I love this route smuggling planning.... ha! you've been a goldmine of information, are you sure you're not actually a black market oil dealer or something  Let's say they find a way, let's say they deal with bitcoin, everything will be untraced, Venezuela will sell oil to NK, it will receive bitcoin, with the money flowing the crisis will be gone... Don't you have a feeling of missing something very important? When Venezuela was doing alright prices were at 100$ and they were producing 2.2 million barrels of oil. Now prices are 50$ and they produce 800k. But of course, they could raise production and sell the extra to NK.....oh ..wait.. NK has a consumption of 25 000 yeah 25k barrels of oil a day, 1% of the former oil production of Venezuela. Details, details...reminds me how the enthusiastic Russian agriculture minister was trying to impress Putin with his plan of exporting pork to a Muslim country. hmmm, yet again these are very good points, I am convinced so it seems like Maduro is a little screwed.... although, it's interesting that you say Nigeria and Algeria are still trading light crude (apparently) openly with Venezuela, kind of disproves my theory that only the most sanctioned nations can trade with Maduro, Who's backing Nigeria and Algeria militarily, China? All that talk of a proxy war across Africa is more convincing if so, Xi is practically tickling Trumps boots! |
|
|
|
can anyone speak to the transaction/block latency aspect?
Erlay increases transaction latency some, but not to the extent that a 100% set-reconciliation based relay protocol would. But it's more latent than flood relay, which has optimal latency performance according to @naumenkogs' presentation. It doens't affect block announcement latency, but could increase block orphaning rates at the margins. |
|
|
|
this could create another wave of people demanding a block size increase due the reduced costs in maintaining a node, so I can see pressure on raising the block size again making a case out of this update. sure, but people (myself, for instance) also said increasing the blocksize should be offset by mitigations that reduce it's impact. Erlay is one such mitigation, but there are also several more possible ways to do so. Erlay gets us closer to making a future agreement on another blocksize increase a no-brainer, but I don't expect Erlay to break down all the resistance in the die-hard small block contingent, it's not the most significant scaling improvement on the table (and any improvement in scaling the Bitcoin network is a by-product of it's real objective) The question is, will there be an agreement on increasing the block size this time? I bet that the outcome is a no. You seem to be living in an alternate universe; agreement was reached last time, and the blocksize was quadrupled. Looking forward to dumping "Bitcoin Erlay" for more Bitcoin I repeat: Erlay is not a consensus change, so there is no plausible fork. any fork-coin to avoid Erlay couldn't possibly work, people could make an Erlay implementation for the fork, and it would interoperate with the flood relay on that coin no problem. It would be a completely pointless exercise. |
|
|
|
Another false flag news. you don't know what "false flag" means please learn what "false flag" means, then you can use the expression appropriately (it is wrong in this case) |
|
|
|
corrected my link, thanks for pointing that out  Yeah this looks great on paper... reduction of bandwith and more security? Could anyone make a case for this being controversial to add for any reason? Segwit was also on principle only benefits but a whole narrative against it was constructed. Even if this can be added without the miner signal clusterfuck, there's always people that find things to pick at. no consensus changes are needed (erlay is a p2p layer change), so there's no scope for delaying or blocking this change. flood relaying will continue to be supported, and I think it's probably needed as a fallback mode in cases where set reconciliation doesn't work anyway (successful reconciliation is probabilistic) it's also difficult to see what the objections could be. Maybe one could argue that erlay pushes transaction latency up high enough to erase gains in reduced block orphaning? if it came from the "small blocks bad" people, it would be hilarious hypocrisy, as their position was always that higher block orphaning rates was an acceptable trade-off for "big" blocks (i.e. >8MB). but I guess we can expect them to make a bunch of contradictory and self-refuting claims anyway, it's never stopped anybody before |
|
|
|
|
well, they believe it really happened, and that's all we (and they) have: belief
like I said, it's be easy to fake this, so I guess they must trust whoever reported it to them. The data could be totally correct, but the person reporting it could have known about the bug, and stole the money from themself, then presented the thief as a 3rd party when in fact they "stole" their own money.
not seen the details, so I have no info as to how much was lost
|
|
|
|
atmospheric CO2 has increased from 0.03% to 0.04% over the last 200 years. The increase is 0.01%
The "difference" is 0.01 as you've said. But that's is not how much it's increased. It's increased by 33%. completely depends on what you mean when you use the word "increase" Well.. I guess what I should say is that the percentage increase is 33% which would be more accurate. I agree, and that's exactly what I've already said Here. I'll do the math for you.. 0.04 - 0.03 / 0.03 = 0.33 or, 33%. Saying it's 0.01% "increase" as opposed to difference, is usually what people do when they want to mislead someone into thinking it's not as big as it is. no, the other way round. when you mix "percentage change" (0.01%) and "percentage change in the percentage change" (33%) together, THAT's confusing. As per the OP and "who to believe", a couple documents were leaked awhile back from internal reports for Exxon and Shell. Both of them outlined the same sort of stuff that the climate change people have been saying. That was in the 80s and the reports said that we wouldn't be able to really tell until the turn of the century or within 5-30 years as the oceans might delay temperature increases etc. Those companies have known what was coming for a long time so it's "entertaining" to see them fund some of the anti climate change groups etc while at the same time, very slowly and quietly moving into more green industries and also related ones that are impacted by increases in CO2 etc. The info is out there for anyone to dig up on their own as I did.
link? the real facts are that the whole anthropogenic climate change argument cherry picks facts and statistics to make a "case", and apparently uses semantic sleight of hand expressing statistical statements now too  - if you look at temperature from 1960-2020, it increases. We're all gonna die!!!!1
- but if you look at temperature from 1920-1960, it decreases, from a higher peak than 2020
- if you look at ocean level from 1800-2020, it increases. Dooooooom!!!!!1
- but if you look at ocean level from 10,000 BC to 2020 AD, it increases (at the same rate)
The climate change people are full of these nonsense presentation strategies, and they wouldn't need to do it if their argument had any legs to stand on |
|
|
|
Venezuela, or any other country can't sell crude oil or petroleum products to the DPRK. how do you know that's the reality though? i.e. "can't" If they attempt to do that, then the tanker ships will be seized by the United States and the cargo confiscated.
only if they get caught  Going through the Panama Canal won't make things any less difficult. Iran was allowed to get away, as their sanctions are not this tough.
Iran apparently made some pretty smart maneuvers to evade the sanctions, I don't think they necessarily were allowed to do it, although, who knows? The point is, North Korea can make any amount of payments to the Venezuelan regime. But in return, they will not get any physical assets. The embargoes are being enforced very strictly, and any sort of smuggling in to the DPRK is down to bare minimum levels. It may still be possible to transport very small commodities such as gold bars though the Chinese border, but don't expect large containers or tankers to pass through.
If North Korea can make "any amount" of payments to the Venezuelan regime, they can do the same to Chinese/South Korean border officials, or to captains of US warships. If I was Kim Jong Un, I'd have spies looking for US warship captains in Okinawa all the time, trying to get on their good side |
|
|
|
|
ok, so the actual Lightning devs seem to be saying that real-world instances of the exploit have happened, not just a bunch of whiners from competing cryptocurrencies. That's not to say that someone couldn't be deceiving the devs, you have to take these claims on trust, as it'd be simple to falsify any evidence. But I guess that must be the underlying point: some person who the Lightning devs genuinely trust have reported this to them.
|
|
|
|
|
If a mining farm does go offline, other miners are taking delivery of new hashing units all the time
And as has been mentioned, if the miners all push the rate too high, they have no choice but to stop because the price cannot sustain profitability at too high a difficulty
honestly, you're all apparently afraid of something you've never taken 5 minutes to think about previously
|
|
|
|
If you're feeling incredibly brave, you can test out the pull requests from this user on github which all together can apparently cut the IBD time by ~14%. But 14% is not big enough to justify such a risky move, these are testing changes, and as such are not for real-world use in their current state. Although this particular change has been pulled into 0.19.0 release candidate, and is perhaps lower risk. I would still advise against it if you're expecting stability, there is a big risk that the full consequences of these changes have not yet been observed, as they've only seen limited testing. |
|
|
|
bingo! the only thing we know is that supply overtook demand. i dunno why people are so obsessed with rationalizing about the underlying causes of price moves.
well I've said this once already this week, but it bears repeating... the financial press have an incentive to make it seem like: a) they know why the price moved, and which news event moved it b) you therefore need to read the financial press to keep informed of such things this is just self-serving nonsense, particularly when you consider that this model of disseminating information is just begging to be corrupted by big players in any market who want to send false or manipulative signalling to the readers. When there's money to be made, anyone giving you "news" or "advice" about markets is an unlikely friend. It's a game of poker, people aren't gonna show all the other players their cards and ask them if they want to swap a full house for a pair of 2's |
|
|
|
We still don't know the reason behind the fall on Bitcoin price yes we do, it's the same reason every single time: people sold faster than people bought and I am not sure about why the hash rate dropped critically if it really happened. Because various sources still say different things about hash rate.
1 thing happened with complete certainty, the average hashrate during the supposed crash was higher than 2 weeks before. That means the "crash" doesn't matter, whether it happened or not or to put it another way... today, the exact same thing happened, but for some reason no-one is hyping it up. If you don't know that blocks sometimes take a long time to find, and sometimes take 5 seconds, and that doens't mean the hashrate is going crazy, but that it's completely normal, then: welcome to Bitcoin it's been like this for 10 years |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
