|
I just read somewhere that it had been attacked in the beginning
could you guys give me the story about how ETC survive the 51% attacks it sustained at the start.
thanks.
|
|
|
|
Support Segregated Witness ASAP! The following is a list of companies and projects which have stated they will support segregated witness. https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/Please everyone support this and Ask the mining pool you mine at to Upgrade to segwit ASAP. the sooner we can get this Nice Pieces of code activated the better.  |
|
|
|
|
I dont want to get married
It's not so much the idea of committing to 1 person
It's more about the extravagant amount of money wasted.
My GF says shes wants a wedding of ~100 people
Some preliminary planning shows her unwillingness to cut cost here or there, she wants to full package and the fact that she doesn't have the money to pay for it dosnt seem to factor into her thinking.
She says things like "your supposed to spend 3 months salary on a wedding ring"
I feel i should run away, should i GTFO of there?
|
|
|
|
|
Craig White has been part of bitcoin since the very beginning, was he the first miner? does he have keys to the very first block? did he have the POW idea? did he take part its first Impl. does it matter?
Craig White may or maynot have lied to us, tried to pull a prank, but who cares!? it was a silly thing to try and "prove" he was satoshi such a thing CANNOT be proven, simply having access to early blocks keys isn't enough, we'll never know who had the original POW idea.
Craig White is very smart and talented, maybe he's an asshole, maybe his ego is too big for his own good, but this doesn't really matter... what matters is he has a strong skill set that bitcoin can benefit from.
Craig White, I Appreciate everything you did in bitcoinland, and would hope you continue to work toward our common goal.
We are all satoshi.
|
|
|
|
|
If Satoshi would do an AMA, what would you ask him?
|
|
|
|
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306thats the true path bitcoin was meant to take. core is abandoning this idea and banking on unproven untested, and non existing technology to scale bitcoin. if they want to do such a radical shift from the original vision let them start an altcoin. |
|
|
|
|
assuming classic will fail to gain >75% of miners we will go with Core's roadmap, in which a 2MB HF will be proposed ~1year from now.
will you support this proposal or actively speak out against it? why or why not?
|
|
|
|
|
just wondering if anyone has any info / rumor of progress with segwit?
do you think they will be ready in april as expected?
|
|
|
|
|
how will the second layer prevent double spending?
what's stopping me from opening 2 payment channels using the same BTCs?
|
|
|
|
|
post below insults, go nuts, ALL CAPS, and dont forget to use very colorful language
|
|
|
|
|
once block subsidy runs dry miners will need to turn to TX fees in order to get paid for securing the network.
what should be the the long term plan for TX fees?
|
|
|
|
Segwit Pros and Cons
Pros________________________________________________________ Effective block size increase this increase would be about 1.6 MB to 2.0 MB. as far as relay speeds and network load is considered segwit blocks or 2MB traditional blocks, would cost the same.
Segwit is a softfork - it hardly qualifies as a soft fork; users & wallets that do not implement segwit and receive funds from a segwit TX will end up with TX they cannot validate. they should be able to spend the funds even if they dont upgrade they simply see the TX as anyone-can-spend, when infact noly they can spend...- Segwit allows a softfork by requiring a significant wast of space in the wtxid, it should be implmented as a hardfork.its only 1kb wasted, softforks are favorable.- calling segwit a softfork might lead people to believe they do not need to upgrade, confidence in the dev team will drop as these users figure out that it was indeed a mandatory upgrade.
-SegWit is technically superior as a hard fork. Witness proofs would be about 50% or 1,000 Bytes larger, and code would be more complex, as a soft fork.
Fixes third-party transaction malleability allowing LN and sidechains to be developed .Possible 66% additional improvement in bi-directional channel efficiency by consolidating channel open and close operations.
Allows the ability to more easily upgrade Bitcoin’s Script language.
Includes fraud proofs.enables sidechain type contracts.it does not currently include fraud proof validations and it won't include it even in the first deployment.fixes which is the O(n^2) hashing problem. With segwit it is incredibly difficult to produce a large transaction which would require several seconds to a few minutes to verify.Cons________________________________________________________ The implementation of segwit is complex and multifaceted - all the different wallets will need to implement segwit themselves, its unlikely they will all get it right the first time, could lead to some serious loses.core devs have helped with that by creating a document to explain all of the segwit changes and help developers implement segwit into their code. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
Bitcoin is fairly simply to explain, poeple can trust it because they understand it, segwit makes understanding bitcoin an order of mangure more complex, which could lead to poeple not trusting bitcoin. Upon adoption, segwit creates a 4X adversarial attack surface. miners and network engineers have to design their systems to be able to handle 4 MB blocks without bogging down, but we only get to actually use about 40% of that capacity. This 4x adversarial case will make it very difficult to increase the blocksize limit in the future. With a 1 MB base block size, it's 4 MB, but with a 2 MB base block size, the adversarial case would be 8 MB.
Makes use of an existing feature (anyonecanspend) that was never meant to be used this way. Introduces a new type of DOS attack (go-fish-wit-ddos) An attacker mines a segwit-block with 1000 transactions the network has not yet seen (The attacker creates these TX herself )The attacker has the witness data readily available. When other miners try to validate this block they will go through every single one of these TX and say "I don't have the witness data for this TX_ID, I have to call TCP::GetWitnessData( TX_ID ) aw yes this is valid" Subsidizes signature data in complex/large multisig transactions. Weights signature data at 1/4 the level of transaction/UTXO data. Signatures are more expensive to validate than UTXO, so this is not justifiable in terms of computational cost.Increased resource usage (capacity, bandwidth, processing power) *** Black Text Is a Pro or Con related to segwit . Green Text Is used to highlight key points which give the Pro or Con more validity Red Text Is used to highlight key points which debunk or lessen the validity of the Pro or Con We are compiling a list of some basic pros and cons for segwit softfork. please post below some Pros or Cons for segwit, and discuss them. Feel free to try and debunk the pros / cons i will try and follow the discussion and summarize / post links to these posts with more information. Free feel to ask me to reword a Pro or Con listed in OP for added clarity, please provide full text as you believe it should appear. In a few month Core will be looking push segwit out onto the network, Its is my hope that this Pro & Con List will help users and miners understand all the specific issues related to segwit. so they can be confident about their decision to accept it or not. Thank you for your input! |
|
|
|
|
i do believe there's a hell of a bubble going on with ETH fueled by the bitcoin scaling crisis. call the TOP
personally i'm thinking 0.06
|
|
|
|
2MB Block Limit Increase
| Pros | Cons | | ________________________________________________________ | ________________________________________________________ | Double transaction capacity
Improved user experience, ( no more threads about a TX taking a long time to get confirmations )
temporary effect
Makes sustained spam attacks much more costly to accomplish. (Basically, doubles the cost of an attack, or limits its duration to 1/2 as long)
temporary effect
minimal effect, at 1-5cent fee / TX, It still is cheap to spam the free space the 1MB of extra space provides.
spam is OK, it simply increases total fees collected by miners
More fees potentially collected by miners on each block
Business can operate with less fear of being outed from the network because high fees
Renewed trust in the development process and in the network scalability capacity
Bitcoin users will stop dumping their coins in favor of alternative coin like ETH.
Less reliance on side chains, LN, and centralized payment processors to handle TX.
It's likely that most users will end up using centralized payment processors to process their smaller value TX, centralized payment processors could employ fractional reserves, and all kinds of other nasty things bitcoin was meant to solve.
More adoption
BTC value will rise as a result
We maintain the positive correlation between price and volumelink
TX volume was never meant to be capped, not allowing the block limit to rise is a change in and of itself
Not bumping limit to 2MB could cause a fork.
It's no secret poeple want 2MB, we've seen open letters signed by many many top bitcoin businesses stating they want bigger blocks, we've also see the same thing coming from the a huge % of hashrate, it's not unreasonable to assume, inaction on this issue will cause a fork.
| Requires hard fork
There is a risk of splitting into 2 chains, but properly implementing the hardfork with a 75% threshold and lengthy grace period, makes the risk of a "war" breaking out filled with pain & confusion for users and merchant, unlikely
Increased resource usage (capacity, bandwidth, processing power)
If the user base shrinks it will put an unnecessary burden on a smaller user base.
They can always change it back, But also it is just limit, not actual block size, miners can use any soft limit they want, like they did when we had a 1MB limit but the miners had a soft limit of 256KB
The possibility exists to construct a TX that takes too long to validate
easily mitigated, through the use of soft limits imposed by miners limiting the number of inputs a TX can have.
Increased chance for orphan blocks.
more data required, it is believed the effect will be minimal but we have no hard data either way
Sets a bad precedent for changing consensus rules, and can lead down a slippery slope, which eventually lead to: only high-end datacenter servers could participate in Bitcoin.
The change wasn't done lightly it tooks years of debate.
2MB wouldn't be a final solution, this makes a lot of Pros a temporary effect, and we won't achieve similar scalability to other payment methods like VISA
bitcoin doesn't have 800 million users. bitcoin has ~2 million users 2MB will satisfy the current number of users and allow for some growth
2MB might not be the ultimate scaling solution, but alongside segwit and Lighting Network we can scale bitcoin beyond VISA like capacity.
Less adoption, network latency will increase, potentially forcing some full node clients with high latency or low bandwidth connections from participating. (think small African village in bum fuck nowhere for instance)
SPV clients mitigate this issue.
|
*** Black Text Is a Pro or Con related to a 2MB block limit. Green Text Is used to highlight key points which give the Pro or Con more validity Red Text Is used to highlight key points which debunk or lessen the validity of the Pro or Con We are compiling a list of some basic pros and cons for a 2MB HF. please post below some Pros or Cons to a 2MB block limit, and discuss them. Feel free to try and debunk the pros / cons i will try and follow the discussion and summarize / post links to these posts with more information. Free feel to ask me to reword a Pro or Con listed in OP for added clarity, please provide full text as you believe it should appear. OP will not include any reference to Core or Classic, only the pros and cons of a 2MB block limit increase, pure and simple. This time next year Core will be looking for wide spread consensus before raising block limit to 2MB, Its is my hope that this Pro & Con List will help users and miners understand all the specific issues related to block size limit. so they can be confident about their decision to vote for a limit increase or not. Thank you for your input! |
|
|
|
Dear miners, I am a bitcoin investor, speculator, end user. I am asking you, no i am begging you, JUST DO IT! I know you do not want to offend anyone or step on some toes; you want to make sure that when you put the 2MB limit in place it is because we have reached "consensus" on the issue. I BEG YOU, do not delay any longer, assert your power! do not wait for somthing that may never happen, do not let a dev believe they know better than you, or have more power than you, they don't, show them! let them feel the wrath of your hashes, Command their respect!Put in place the 2MB limit TODAY, without their "approval". Put out some code of your own, gather >51% hashing power, and FORK us to the next level! if this offends the some poeple / core devs and they rage quit, GOOD! we dont want them trying to control bitcoin, it is not for them to control, bitcoin is OURS not theirs! amass 51% and take control!As an investor / speculator, I promise you, if you can demonstrate that bitcoin's destiny isn't in the hands of any one group, but requires vast amounts of power to sway one way or the other,and that no amount of FUD can stop you/us; I will value bitcoin much more.Time is now, do not delay, own the day! |
|
|
|
|
list of names - who they are, would be nice.
|
|
|
|
yesterday we got some chilling news and the wall thread has been buzzing ever since. is it true, is blockstream trying to veto the consensus reached at the roundtable last weekend? links that sparked rumors that the roundtable consensus was falling apart
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13993733#msg13993733 <- Adam Back ( president of blockstream ) cannot speak on behalf of blockstream, f2pool is outraged. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46po4l/we_have_consensus_in_april_we_get_sw_3_months/d07gqic " Thankfully we at Blockstream are given the freedom to speak and act as individuals on this matter. Even Adam is attending as an individual, his signature not carrying the weight of representing Blockstream in this instance.
I cautioned against going and was not in the room (I feel this meeting was antithetical to Bitcoin and no good outcomes were likely) so I only know second hand like you what was or was not said. But regarding the "consensus" document that was posted on medium, no I am not on board with that outcome."~ maaku7 <- confirmation that blockstream is not onboard with the agreement |
|
|
|
|
Chinese miners are pushing hard to get some kind of progress in the blocksizelimitbitchfest
post your appreciation below:
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
