 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
But why does the fork have to make the existing outputs unspendable? I know it is possible to make any sort of fork, but who is proposing anything that would make these locktime tx unspendable?
There could be a locked 200kB transaction that spends some outputs and where an alternative transaction can no longer be created (private keys lost and/or multisig outputs). There isn't. 100kb is a huge transaction (100 times bigger than a "normal" large transaction). IMO, that's a perfectly acceptable threshold. If larger is needed, you can always create a second transaction. The "one every 100 blocks" exception really isn't needed here. It's more cool than useful. So would a hard frok to Classic result in the loss of time-locked coins? You mean coins that are time-locked in transactions larger than 100kb? That's enormous. Of course there aren't any such coins. But no, I think Classic has a 1mb transaction-size upper bound, which is a reasonable solution. |
|
|
|
But why does the fork have to make the existing outputs unspendable? I know it is possible to make any sort of fork, but who is proposing anything that would make these locktime tx unspendable?
There could be a locked 200kB transaction that spends some outputs and where an alternative transaction can no longer be created (private keys lost and/or multisig outputs). There isn't. 100kb is a huge transaction (100 times bigger than a "normal" large transaction). IMO, that's a perfectly acceptable threshold. If larger is needed, you can always create a second transaction. The "one every 100 blocks" exception really isn't needed here. It's more cool than useful. |
|
|
|
(I am assuming 2mb is more easily coded than segwit
You're right about that. It's so much easier, that it's already been finished for some time now, on the second-most-popular bitcoin client. See http://bitcoinclassic.com |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your answers, gmax. I understand segwit much better now, in areas like the backward-compatibility in the soft-fork scenario, and the changes to the "base" block.
|
|
|
|
[EDIT]How does it not help scaling, if it increases the number of transactions that can be included in each block?
Block size is easy to change. There's an arguably-popular client (Bitcoin Classic) that solves that problem today. To help scaling you need to invent tech to make running a full node easier, such as thin-blocks or IBLT. Shameless plug: I recently produced a video on Xtreme Thin Blocks. |
|
|
|
No need to attack with sarcasm.
If you are addressing that to me, I assure you my reply was not meant to be sarcastic at all. Not sure how anyone could take it that way. Oh, my bad, I should have been more clear. It's directed at statements like this: it is better for bitcoin to require trust
Isnt it nice to have all the hard choices made for you. We can trust in the math done by the central planners. Dont worry, be happy. |
|
|
|
|
Hold up. I'd like to hear from Wuille (one of the creators of segwit) about the size difference between a standard 2-input, 2-output transaction and its equivalent using segwit, for a fully-validating node. No need to attack with sarcasm.
BTW, I am also curious if the O(n^2) sigops issue can be solved in a much more simple way.
|
|
|
|
Whoa, whoa, wait... From the point of view of old clients, segwit adds one coinbase output that contains the root hash of the Merkle tree that commits to the witness transaction ids. It uses 47 extra bytes per block, so technically, yes, it "wastes precious blockchain space".
So, 47 bytes per block. That's not too unreasonable. But... This then gets us to my question that is not being answered. On average, how many bytes in the blockchain will be needed for a standard payment sent via segwit?
Is this ever less than it would be now?
Is this ever the same as it is now?
Is this usually about 50 bytes more per tx?
50 bytes per transaction for fully-validating nodes? This needs to be answered. |
|
|
|
I've just published a video review for each of these coins. I would highly recommend them as affordable coins with professional quality. Impressive. Review: Denarium Physical Bitcoins
Enjoy! Nice to see that you are on Bitcointalk as well! By the way, why are you holding the coins with your bare hands? Because my feet are too ugly. ...I couldn't resist.  |
|
|
|
I've just published a video review for each of these coins. I would highly recommend them as affordable coins with professional quality. Impressive. Review: Denarium Physical Bitcoins
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I recently put together a video covering one of my biggest peeves: linear vs log scale charts. Thought a few traders here might find this useful. How to Read Historic Bitcoin Prices Enjoy! |
|
|
|
|
Under the old plan:
1) Example: Invest $5,000 at the minimum bid of 0.002 USD per NSR
2) Receive 2,500,000 NSR
3) Receive approximately 0.27% of the B&C Exchange shares (2,500,000 / 913,000,000)
Under the new proposed plan:
1) Example: Invest $5,000 at the minimum price of $5 per share
2) Receive approximately 0.62% of the B&C Exchange shares (1,000 / 162,000)
Interesting. The new plan yields a little more than double the B&C portion, but relinquishes the entire NSR stake. Some will see that as an increase in value, while others will consider it a decrease.
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone, Just wanted to let you know that I just launched a pair of videos covering how, and why, to create paper wallets to store your cryptocurrencies. You'll have to forgive the pervasive Peercoin branding, as their community funded the production of the videos. However, pretty much everything covered in the videos also applies to Bitcoin, so I thought I'd share them with you here. If you're interested in learning how to store Bitcoins in a secure way, for an extended period of time, you might be interested in these videos. I recommend using the wallet generator at https://www.bitaddress.org/ to create your Bitcoin paper wallets. Paper Wallet Overview (why to use paper wallets): http://youtu.be/lybAGSH2VkIPaper Wallet Walkthrough (how to use paper wallets): http://youtu.be/p78Xp6qEpU4Enjoy! |
|
|
|
I like MrBAU's and iawgoM's designs best, especially their silver entries. I think MRBAU's silver entry would be a great choice for the gold coin. I guess I'll put in my "official" vote: Gold: #14 by MrBAU (but I also really like Silver #14 by MrBAU) Silver: #3 by iawgoM Two thoughts: 1) I think Coinographic should use the community votes as a guideline only, and make an executive decision on the final winners, even if they don't get the most votes. 2) My actual vote would be for silver to be iawgoM #3 (as voted), but the gold coin to use MrBAU's Silver #14 "Raptor" design, but I don't know if that's a valid vote.  Great competition! EDIT: For the "Raptor" design, I recommend turning the "," to a "." because the period is a more universal symbol for the decimal symbol. |
|
|
|
|
It looks like the image of silver design 16 by shogdite is cut off. (This isn't a voting post.)
|
|
|
|
|
In the short term, it looks like NuBits has the advantage, because they are providing a lot more market liquidity, and holding to the peg much more tightly. NuBits is actually usable today, more so than BitUSD, because of this.
In the long term, it seems that BitUSD will outlast NuBits, because BitUSD doesn't seem to depend as much on growing demand. However, if NuBits adds a "NuBits burn" mechanism as has been discussed in their forums, which shrinks the supply of the pegged asset in exchange for creating NuShares, it could go either way.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you could make the Wood boxes an add-on for additional cost, so those who are trying to save some money and dont need the box, may be able to save a little.
Perhaps you could make the physical coin an add-on for additional cost, for people who just want the bitcoins and are trying to save some money.  (only joking) I bought Coinographic's 25 LTC piece, and am impressed with the quality of their products. The box is very solid, and is a nice part of the collectible experience. Here's my video review of that coin. Anyway, current bid is 2.8 BTC. |
|
|
|
PPC hasnt been doing well lately...
Nearly every altcoin has been crashing along with Bitcoin since the beginning of the year, but that doesn't mean that the trend will continue. For example, as Bitcoin fell from $1200 to $500, Litecoin fell from a peak of $45 to $5, and Peercoin from $8 down to $0.75. It's a pattern that almost every coin has mirrored. To me, one very important thing to look for is active development. With an Android wallet expected to be finished soon, Sunny King's continued (but slow) work on the protocol, and NuBits on the way, Peercoin deserves some attention. I like the new site, but I'm a little biased on that point. |
|
|
|
|
