You said you didn't understand my question, so I'll rephrase. For example, Coinbase Wallet asks for your bank account information as soon as you sign up. Is this the norm? If not, what are better places to use?
Coinbase is actually an exchange, their wallet services are secondary. There are web wallets which do not require such information to sign up. Or for anyone else that cares to answer my initial question, let me word it differently. I want to remain anonymous at all times.
There is no such thing as complete anonymity in these cases. That means opening a wallet, funding it, buying bitcoins, receiving bitcoins, and converting to cold hard cash so I can spend the money locally in town. It seems this is not likely.
One does not "open" a wallet; one creates a wallet. 'Buying' Bitcoins is the most problematic part here. You could attempt to find someone dealing with cash e.g. on this website: https://localbitcoins.com. Similarly, cashing out completely *anonymous* is also a problem. I assume you want to avoid taxes, which is illegal and I shall not give you any advice in this regard.
To create a wallet all you have to do is download and run a client, e.g.: https://electrum.org/ (no information is required whatsoever). |
|
|
|
Never did this before, but it seems all wallet services want your bank information at some point.
This is pure nonsense. The only ones that eventually may or may not require your information are online wallets. They are just a sub-category of a lot of wallets (mobile, desktop, paper, hardware, etc.). Are there any wallets that don't require it?
Any desktop wallet, e.g. Electrum.[1] As in, can I fund them with a Vanilla Visa card (just an example) and then later when I want the money in my hands, can I withdraw to a bitcoin ATM, also without showing ID or giving my bank account info?
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
[1] - It is generally recommended that you keep your money on your own machines. If you are purchasing online, say via an exchange, you should withdraw as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
From year+ now this limit is NOT working as protection at all. There is just "too many" transactions to fit in 1MB.
This isn't a valid argument to increase the block size limit. If this was an valid argument, then anyone could push a scenario where it is required to keep raising the block size an *infinite* number of times by creating "too many" transactions (at each upper limit). Block transmission is now done by header/gentx/tx list, not as full block data.
Whilst this is a very nice improvement, it has zero relevance. If you have a node with open ports, you will be straining yourself with upload bandwidth not download Block pruning allow run full node on about 20GB HDD space.
Firstly, a client which has pruning enabled is not a full node, it is a pruned node. Secondly, it requires ~4-5 GB of space (not 20 GB). You don't even know what you're talking about and you are making demands!  1MBit connection allow to transfer over 100tx/s (1:4 in/out), block can be like 15MB on that connection.
Which leaves us with.. 0 seconds for validation? You really have no idea how Bitcoin works. There is a technological problem to make bigger blocks.
FTFY. When SegWit start it probably will take another year to popularize SW transactions, LN and/or sidechains.
Speculation on SegWit. The popularity of Segwit has nothing to do with the popularity of the latter two. Think, how it is possible that "better" idea as SegWit have LESS support in miners than "worse" BU? Why over 30% is not decided?
Simple: Someone or a certain group of *someones* has been lobbying miners and feeding them FUD how LN would steal all of their fees and how Segwit == LN. Both claims are absurdly false. IF Core merge ANY code that raise block limit along witch SegWit, it will get 95% in no time. If not - I (and not only I) see no chance to activate SegWit.
No, that is most certainly not the case. From what I understand Ver, he wants to *fork away* from the Core contributors are any cost. To me it seems like maybe three currencies could be the way forward;
1) bitcoin as it is running right now; it gets the legacy but with no development team to love it
2) SegWit, a new wonderful currency with loads of followers and a strong development team
3) the bigger/dynamic/adaptive block guys, a new wonder currency with loads of followers and a spirited development team
There really is only one legacy, right? We can't have two currencies both considered to be the proper descendent of the original Bitcoin, right?
No. There will not be three currencies. If the BTU folk fork away, it is highly likely that Segwit would be activated very soon after that (be it with BIP9 signaling or UASF). In the case of two currencies, the latter, also known as BTU, would be an altcoin. |
|
|
|
3.7 MB for full nodes. This is why Segwit may also be *too much* in the worst case scenarios. Your understanding is very flawed, therefore saying 'exactly' has zero meaning. I'll address your previous post & others soon. |
|
|
|
-snip-
I think, there is clear how it looks there.
Team Core should merge block size raise along witch SegWit. Time is NOW.
This doesn't make sense; Bitcoin is not a democracy and random individuals with no demonstrably relevant knowledge should not be deciding on technological solutions/limitations. How are certain groups unable of understanding something this simple? I don't think Core will do that.
There isn't a very good proposal for an adaptive block size at the moment (IMO). rav3n, why do you refuse to understand that blocksize is a very dangerous value to change? The world is becoming a more dangerous place every day, we can't rely on the internet growing the same way it did 1990-2015. It might very plausibly become much slower and more restricted, that is a very serious risk, and not just to Bitcoin.
Whilst I do not like doomsday scenarios, your argument is not without merit. As can be observed, NATO moving forces to Estonia & surrounding area to "combat Russian aggression", China warning US to respect airspace, etc. Things may not be as good tomorrow as they are today. |
|
|
|
It's been 3 months, and you're only labeling this as a "probable scam"? 
Tagged. |
|
|
|
now would pools jump to 2mb where there might be hit by that bug AND say 5 other propagation issues aswell all in one swoop of mega F*ck-ups and then have to tear up and remake a 1mb block with half as many tx's to try again..
or wrongly guess that it must be an issue at 2mb so try 1.9mb and have that block too throwing a tantrum in the orphanage, then try 1.8 and so on all creating orphan tantrums trying to find a new 'sweetspot' that is acceptable(to potential knitpicker: yes i know bitcoin doesnt have an actual 'orphanage' place, im just entertaining wordplay of 'orphan drama' to entertain the imaginations of people with short attention span)
Are you saying that the network participants should put *trust* into the miners in hopes that they don't centralize in order to reduce orphans, but rather produce smaller blocks? This thing might have been answered several times but still I cannot understand why do we need a hardfork when softfork is available,
We don't. aside from that, is it really necessary that a hardfork is needed In order to upgrade bitcoin features?
No. Well, some things can't be done with a soft fork but there aren't any planned hard forks that 'upgrade' existing or add new features. |
|
|
|
These blood letting portends no good experience for the average user, whales stands to buy back at ridiculous low prices, while average joe might have had a chunk of his worth and purchasing power gone with the wind. What to do now  Guess the time is ripe for migration while these two elephants make a show of their sizes. Any 'average user' can do the same as those whales. You just need to sell on time and buy back in at a lower rate. Sad? Why would it be sad? The big blockers are saying that a fork is "healthy" and at some point, to make everyone happy, it is unavoidable. S
-snip-
The fork is everything but healthy. I know one person, who is a long time Bitcoiner, who has the capability to do something like that. He is also rumored to be the guy who hacked the DAO. He is kind of an eccentric but he is very smart. I am scared to mention his name in public and I do not know if I should. But I would happily give it to you through pm.
Don't do that. they may even once say the first few blocks above 1mb havnt caused issues. increment it in 0.25mb increments. taking possibly a day or less to get to 2mb... but one thing is for sure they wont just jump to 2mb -straight off. they will see if there are unknown bugs/orphan risks etc
-snip-
Slow increments will not reveal all possible exploits. They will be revealed once someone attempts to use them, at which time damage has already started occuring. |
|
|
|
You can label things however you want and define consensus however you want.
No. That's why the BTU folk is doing. Hashing Power and Economic Power are the prime movers here.
Of which you could argue that the latter has more importance; mining worthless coins doesn't make much sense, does it? Hashrate aside, BTU has an absolute minority. |
|
|
|
|
Watching for more information.
Side note (regardless of validity of this story): I'm starting to get sick of services withholding the users money for random reasons (often due to their own incompetence).
|
|
|
|
1. Locking/trashing all of them
No. 2. Making one or a couple new ones* to gather all the discussions in one place and prevent crowding up the place!
No. 3. Trash any new topic after this and redirect them to the existing topics.
Yes.
There haven't been that many *abusers* in said threads as those threads usually require *some* brainpower to remain on-topic with a decent post. I have observed an annoying amount of duplicate threads started by randoms, as you've mentioned. The staff isn't exactly the swiftest around here; let's see if anything will get done. |
|
|
|
I've already posted a link to this proposal. However, it looks like the code for it is just not ready yet. Wouldn't this be a *compromise* for those that think Segwit is great, but prefer a 'block size increase'? -snip- Your current coup hasn't finished jonald, don't you remember? (or has it.... ) I guess this would be better than a certain 'mr. Emperor' not signalling/running Segwit at all. |
|
|
|
And Satoshi was mining silently way before I heard about Bitcoin for the 1st time (in 2013). I consider it almost like pre-mine. So I don't care either way.
In other words, every coin that was mined by anyone besides you (until you discovered it) means that it was premined. It looks like logic isn't one of your strengths. Or the centralized MtGox and Bitfinex heists waiting to profit on the decentralization-minded Bitcoin "investors". Relevance? I was talking about ETH. What truth? That you had interactions with the chain that was heisted on MtGox and Bitfinex. (And don't tell me that there is nothing that can by done on chain to prevent losing funds on centralized exchanges, because there is something that can be done but your stupendous Core hasn't apparently realized or proposed it afaik)
What should be done? Can you guarantee that?
I can guarantee nothing. Just like when you mods banned me for posting too much about China's mining cartel.
Firstly, I couldn't have banned you anyways as I've never had that privilege. Secondly, I'm not a moderator anymore. You're preaching to the choir. |
|
|
|
|
Looking forward to the prices. Would you be maybe interested in running an auction for these items (separate within a thread, not a single lot)?
|
|
|
|
Lauda, most people don't agree with what you said, considering how things evolved.
What people? The speculators just waiting to profit from ETH or the bagholders/developers? You're a victim of barry and chandler and you should seek help.
I am a victim of no one but the truth. I have neither traded nor had any interactions with either chain. ETC is the original ETH, and the current ETH is the altcoin as it was a contentious HF also known as 'bailout fork'. I would bet that vitalik by himself would be able to end this war by choosing to support one camp. Because arguably he's the most respected individual in public blockchain scene.
This is one of the biggest jokes I've recently heard. Vitalik is a loon. I'd rather have large nodes but anyone is free to send anonymous transactions than everyone is free to run a node, but you have to register with some third party to transact.
Who has been feeding you these kinds of doomsday scenarios for the Core roadmap? In no way will you ever need to 'register with some third party to transact'. -snip-
Dash follows Satoshi's vision, and Dash is Bitcoin done Right !
Mining early != insta mining. The latter was done by the DRK scam coin developer(s) && cartel. DASH is one of the biggest pyramid schemes / scam coins that I've even seen in crypto. |
|
|
|
In a PoW system, the hashpower majority controls the longest chain. Supply and demand of the token determines its value. (simple facts, right?)
No. Even franky1 gets it and sheds some light on it: nope
the hashpower majority just has more chance of having a block solution faster.. it doesnt mean that the block they produce seconds faster is any bettr or worse.
no one cares about hash power primarily. its about whats an acceptable block first. and then if there happen to be 2 acceptable blocks, the one which was produced using most chain work gets the edge, as a secondary thought.
-snip-
Miners could theoretically create a contentious hard fork with 51% and then everyone would see what the demand is
for the new token, but it is probably wiser to wait for a larger consensus and that does appear to be what miners intend to do with BU.
It doesn't even matter if there is *some* demand (or a fair amount of demand for it), that is effectively an altcoin. Hashrate does not dictate rules in a consensus based system. Stop living in a dystopian fantasy where the miners are 'supreme emperors' of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
@iamnotback yes and no, because BU-core war is different. Everyone knew ETH is official even before ETC was born. The "problem" was this: barry and chandler dumped ETH and pumped ETC, and obviously miners followed the price. Even though most mined ETC just to convert into ETH because everyone knew it is the official one
The current ETC is the real and original ETH. The current coin named ETH* is an altcoin which took the name from the original coin. This works in coins that are severely centralized, development, mining and governance wise ('one high king').
@OP: This is a ridiculous poll due to several reasons. For example, "Bankster cartel" is exaggerated, and there are no valid altcoin alternatives either. |
|
|
|
You know as well as I do, that doesn't mean shit. He can just claim that his account was compromised.
Ah yes, one of the known 'tactics'. I guess an equivalent signed message is required to confirm his acceptance. |
|
|
|
I didn't expect Ver to accept this bet. I'll be watching this. This sounds like a great deal for both of us. I look forward to ironing out the exact details and terms. I'm super busy for the next 48 hours, but would love to connect after that.
Quoted for reference. |
|
|
|
What happened to the BTU rhetoric that 51 hashrate = Bitcoin?
Are you trolling , looking for an argument, or you really want a lesson in consensus? Argument. That was what was being preached by BTU folk, and you were most certainly not eager to correct them. I don't think there are "plans". But the traditional blockchain transaction is the most decentralized and trustless way to pay within the BTC network. If we rely on second-layer solutions the most probable outcome is a higher degree of centralization. I doubt a LN-like off-chain solution will be possible without at least some centralized hubs. I have some hope on two-way-pegged sidechains though, but I know there are many challenges for them to work.
Where I think you're right is that the BU proposal, if it leads to a higher node-level centralization, would also put into question the "decentralized nature" of on-chain payments. But at least some idealists in the BU fraction seem to think there is a possibility BU won't centralize the node structure because of technological evolution (like the LN enthusiasts that believe in a decentralized LN). It's possible that both hopes are only wishful thinking, but we would need to test it to find it out.
You have no real argument that proves your assertion that Core would centralized the second layer, and BU would not. In both case, if we were to follow your own statements, LN would be somewhat centralized regardless of Core or BU. The fix to your statement would be (only where the outcome of the second layer is the same for both implementations): Core: decentralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer BU: centralized 1st layer, centralized/decentralized second layer Lauda, do you think the Core developers are seriously thinking about a POW upgrade? Is it on the table?
Depends. People wrongly think that if luke-jr (for example) or Todd think about doing something == Core considering something == likely to be added into Bitcoin Core. This is wrong. They are Core contributors, yes, but what they independently think about or consider is far from having a chance of being added to the repository.
Speaking of 'trojan horses': Another major BU bug, now with a special bonus: a closed source patch. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/60s6r5/peter_todd_unlimited_responds_to_the_latest_dos/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
