Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2021, 06:15:37 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 22.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Craig Wright is real Satoshi? No way! on: June 30, 2021, 09:50:13 AM
I think this is a big joke,https://u.today/craig-wright-wins-bitcoin-copyright-lawsuit-against-pseudonymous-developer

Bitcoin.org, a prominent website that supports the development of the leading cryptocurrency, will have to remove all references to the Bitcoin white paper in the U.K. following the court’s decision.

Cobra, a pseudonymous Bitcoin developer behind the project, chose not to reveal his identity to defend himself in front of the court. Hence, a default judgement was given to Wright.       

Apart from taking down the flagship cryptocurrency’s founding document, Cobra will also have to pay £35,000 ($48,655) in legal fees.         

In January, lawyers representing nChain’s chief scientist demanded that Bitcoin.org and Bitcoincore.org remove the white paper due to alleged copyright infringement.

Their letters sparked a major outcry within the cryptocurrency community, with companies and even governments moving to publish the copies of Bitcoin’s white paper on their websites in a rebuke to Wright.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I even think this thing is a means of BSV marketing.

If this thing is true, then it proves that bsv is the real Bitcoin,

Please log in  your bitcointalk account,Then verify your identity, otherwise I won’t believe you are Satoshi!




To hack or administrate BitcoinTalk account is the easiest thing to do. Unfortunately it won't prove who is Satoshi.
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... on: October 18, 2020, 09:20:03 AM
For what it's worth: 

I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.

Several attempted "abuses" of the blockchain under the 1MB limit have proved Hal right about needing the limit at least for launching purposes.  A lot of people wanted to piggyback extraneous information onto the blockchain, and before miners (and the community generally) realized that blockchain space was a valuable resource they would have allowed it.  The blockchain would probably be several times as big a download now if that limit hadn't been in place, because it would have a lot of random 1-satoshi transactions that exist only to encode information for altcoins etc.

At this point I don't think random schmoes who would allow just any transaction are getting a  lot of blocks. The people who have made a major investment in hashing power are doing the math to figure out which tx are worthwhile to include because block propagation time (and therefore the risk of orphan blocks) is proportional to block size. So at this point I think blockchain bloat as such is no longer likely to a problem, and the 1MB limit is no longer necessary.  It has been more-or-less replaced by a profitability limit that motivates people to not waste blockchain bandwidth, and miners are now reliably dropping transactions that don't pay fees. 


Is there a link to original post where Hal Finney and Satoshi discuss the block size limit and DoS attacks?
3  Local / Работа / Re: Работа листинг-менеджером. Оплата от $1000 on: October 11, 2020, 03:04:49 PM
Здравствуйте.

Биржа BitFex.trade приглашает к сотрудничеству листинг-менеджеров. Оплата $1000 за любую монету или токен, который оплатит листинг. Стоимость листинга 0.3 BTC из которых 30% получите вы после успешного размещения токена.

Суточный объём торгов 40$ https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges/bitfex и вы хотите 0,3 Биткоина за листинг?
4  Local / Работа / Re: Требуется опытный трейдер для раскрутки on: October 11, 2020, 02:49:32 PM
Я думаю , это предложение актуально еще и для тех у кого депо не большое.


У опытных трейдеров вероятнее всего большое депо. Во всяком случае желаю удачи с поиском кандидатов.
5  Local / Ελληνικά (Greek) / Re: Φορολογηση Κρυπτονομισματων Αξιας 70.000€ [ΒΟΗΘΕΙΑ] on: August 23, 2020, 02:57:22 PM
Γιατί να μην δηλώσεις το ποσό ως άτοκο δάνειο από ιδιώτη / τρίτο πρόσωπο και να μην πληρώνεις φόρους;
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / BTC the reason of keeping small block size. on: July 20, 2020, 07:56:49 AM
There are a lot of various opinions about safety issues. Starting from Satoshi himself, originally there was no limit as far as I know, then 1MB size was implemented to prevent spam, but it was a temporary limit, and Satoshi was advocating that the network in order to scale needs to increase the block size.

So here I find the next reasons nowadays about the BTC 1MB block size limit.

1) There is a safety issue with large blocks. What exactly is that safety issue?

2) Less nodes can support the blockchain with large blocks. It would cost more to buy large storage for the blockchain.

3) The network can be spammed with large blocks. But what is an effect of that spam, how dangerous is that spam for Bitcoin blockchain? .

Coming back to the nodes and decentralization issue, there is a statement I have heard many times.
If Bitcoin implements larger block size, less nodes can support the network, making Bitcoin network less decentralized.

Here I come to the point of Decentralization.
Bitcoin is decentralized in 3 ways.
1) Network is supported by multiple nodes / miners.
2) Coin generation is being made by multiple nodes / miners.
3) There is no central point of control over network, no matter how much nodes are running the network, the configuration of Bitcoin is designed to support an autonomous operation of network without a human control. There is no administrator that can restrict users from opening accounts, transacting and etc.

All 3 ways of decentralization are combined and important, but I think the whole point is the absence of a central point of control, and the network support by multiple nodes just helps to reach this goal.

Some people tell it's better to pay high transaction fees and use a network with a larger amount of running nodes that pay less fees on a network with a smaller amount of nodes. In both cases, the decentralization of network remains the same, there is no administrator in both cases.

Why users should pay more transaction fees, and make the usage of network less attractive, while nodes / miners can spend more money to buy a larger storage and support a greater amount of transactions with benefit, collecting fees by more confirmed transactions with low fees, instead of confirming less transactions with higher fees? When both internet speed and hard drive storage is much higher today in 2020 comparing to 2010.
7  Local / Ελληνικά (Greek) / Δημιουργία νέου κρυπτογραφήματος - Digital Drachma on: July 11, 2020, 03:44:18 PM
Γεια σας, θέλω να δημιουργήσω νέο νόμισμα proof of work όπως το Bitcoin, και χωρίς κανένα premine, κύριος για εκπαιδευτικούς λόγους.

Πιο πρωτόκολλο καλύτερα να χρησιμοποιήσω;

Bitcoin η το Bitcoin Cash γιατί έχει καλύτερες επιδόσεις σε onchain transactions.
Litecoin επειδή είναι πιο γρήγορο και έχει πιο χαμηλά έξοδα στης συναλλαγές;
Digibyte επειδή έχει της υψηλότερες αποδόσεις σε UTXO proof of work blockchain.
8  Local / Ελληνικά (Greek) / Re: Bittrex vs Binance on: July 11, 2020, 03:30:18 PM
Kαλησπέρα, μεταξύ bittrex και binance ποιο προτιμάτε; Mόλις ξεκίνησα να ασχολούμαι με το άθλημα και ακόμα μαθαίνω τα βασικά. Υπάρχει δυνατότητα για fiat funding και στα 2? Αν όχι, ποιά διαδικασία να ακολουθήσω;


Υπάρχει δυνατότητα fiat funding και στα δυο, προσωπικά προτιμώ το Bittrex. Τουλάχιστον γιατί δεν είχε θέματα με hacker attacks όπως το Binance 3 φορές.
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to launch a test Bitcoin network from 0 genesis block? on: July 06, 2020, 09:16:14 AM
disconnect from internet and make a local network of nodes using `connect` command.

Where do I use "connect" command?
Tried to launch Bitcoin 0.1v without internet, it shuts down immediately as it launches.

Which OS are you using now? I have no problem with windows 10.

I also use Windows 10.
10  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to launch a test Bitcoin network from 0 genesis block? on: July 02, 2020, 05:00:42 PM
disconnect from internet and make a local network of nodes using `connect` command.

Where do I use "connect" command?
Tried to launch Bitcoin 0.1v without internet, it shuts down immediately as it launches.
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to launch a test Bitcoin network from 0 genesis block? on: June 28, 2020, 05:47:50 PM
Yes, I was meaning V0.1 I'd like to try a new Bitcoin network since 0 genesis block, is it difficult to launch a new pow based blockchain only like Bitcoin.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / How to launch a test Bitcoin network from 0 genesis block? on: June 12, 2020, 11:06:18 AM
I have downloaded Bitcoin v1.0 but I guess it doesn't launch because it tries to connect to existing network but the version is incompatible. What modifications are required to launch it from zero block?

Is there any threads that can help explaining how to do it? I'm interested only in Bitcoin like blockchain testnet, proof of work without any premine, etc.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin wallet and addresses on: February 27, 2020, 05:32:17 PM
Every deposit, in the same or different addresses is technically separated. These are called "inputs".

However, your wallet does all the work to join them together and spend the ones needed when you are making a transaction. There is no difference.

case A)
1. Receive 1 BTC in Address X;
1. Receive 0.5 BTC in Address X;
2. Send 1.5 BTC to Binance's Address in one transaction;

case B)
1. Receive 1 BTC in Address X;
1. Receive 0.5 BTC in Address Y;
2. Send 1.5 BTC to Binance's Address in one transaction;

Exchanges create one address (or multiple addresses) linked to each user. If you have your address X, they know its yours. Everything is done automatically by their system. Every other explanation is probably way technical for you.

Well, thank you very much Sir. But if X and Y addresses can be used to send funds in one transaction, how the transaction fees are calculated? Do you pay fees for each address sending funds? Or both addresses are combined in a single transaction and you pay a single fee?

Satoshi was referring that for better anonymity it's better to use different addresses for each input, and let's say, you had random ~100 inputs of micro-transactions to different addresses, and want to withdraw all of them on a different, single address? How it is being processed technically, do you pay fees as if you were sending Bitcoin from one address to another (X to Y)?
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Bitcoin wallet and addresses on: February 27, 2020, 03:58:41 PM
I have a question about the structure of Bitcoin wallet.
In bitcoin full node client and electrum (SVP) wallet there are multiple bitcoin addresses.

If I use different addresses each time, will I have a total balance on a single wallet. Or each deposit is totally separate?
If I receive multiple deposits to different addresses of total 10 BTC for example, and I want to withdraw the total amount on a different wallet address, will I have to do withdrawal from each address separately?

And finally how Exchange addresses work? It seems Exchanges have a single wallet, but they create different wallet address for each user? Do they (the exchanges) receive all deposits on a single wallet that can be managed by single administrator? Does exchanges use standard Bitcoin wallets to operate customers accounts or they use some specific software?
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: 51% Attack on: February 23, 2020, 08:17:43 PM
Following scenario: A government would like to destroy Bitcoin. It buys a significant number of ASICs to build up a huge mining farm and carries out a 51% attack.
From my point of view it will not be so easy to buy so many ASICs as once - what do you think?
Another question: Will it be noticed (how?) that somebody buys a big stack of ASICs and/or are we able to identify such a behavior monitoring the network's hashrate?

Such an attack can lead to nothing significant, but an attackers wallet transaction reversal, and also such an attack may result in chain split, where most of the honest nodes will not follow the attackers version of blockchain.
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: v0.1 on: February 23, 2020, 08:10:56 PM
I have downloaded the 0.1 version of Bitcoin, if I run it, will it generate the first block? Or it will search for connections and once it finds nothing, the node will not run?
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why Bitcoin blocks are generated every 10 minutes? on: February 23, 2020, 05:38:12 PM
It's a rather controversial topic to discuss about. The thing about block interval is that the security of the network is taken into consideration. With a faster block, there is a risk that the propagation of the block within the network is too slow and that miners ends up mining a lot of orphans and causing more forks. Since Satoshi never publicly stated his rationale for the 10 minute block interval, it is widely assumed to be arbitary. Arguably, with better internet connection right now, the block interval can be lowered but there are still quite a few concerns.

No, the network won't be less secure with 5 minute block time. I don't really think so, for example Digibyte has 15 second block time, but it is very secure, proof of work, I have never heard it was hacked, 51 attacked, reversed or forked. The point is not solely the security in my opinion.



You are correct in saying that  it is noted in the original paper but only as a reference.

Quote
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore’s Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.

In my view it was done as a way to limit the amount of wastage as the block time increases you would see wastage drop there could also be a number of other factors that could point to why the 10 min time was included.

Such as if many nodes were to be generating the same block at the same time it could lead to more frequent forks this in turn would lower the strength of the network and push the times for conformations up.

For example if everyone is to be mining block 999,999 and miner A solves the block first and pushes it to the network all the other miners who would be at { t0 + t } t= time taken by miner A to mine and submit block 999,999.

Lets say miner B finds miner A's block at {(t0 + t)+ 1} with taking into account network latency miner B and all other miners who finish mining the same block where (t0 + t)< (t0 +t) + (delta_t)i < (t0 + t) + 1

All are successful in mining but they would have wasted there energy in doing so this shows the total wastage of the network resulting in a orphan block would need to be.

sum of { (t+ (delta_t)i ) * (hr)i } for every i

I'm sure there are other reason behind this that I have missed out on but it is an interesting topic to look over even just as a thought experiment.




In my opinion it has to do with simplified verification system, no matter how big will the block size be, the quote you refer

Quote
A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore’s Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.


Is the answer for the 10 minutes block time. You can have a light node with 4.2MB per year storage. There are some other blockchains that have much smaller block time but still are successful in security, Digibyte for example.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Why Bitcoin blocks are generated every 10 minutes? on: February 23, 2020, 02:05:37 PM
I have asked this question to myself many times. Today I finally realized why.
I just wonder what people think about it.

I strongly believe everything Satoshi did in bitcoin protocol code and whitepaper, he did for a reason.
Satoshi spent around 2 years on designing the architecture of the network, everything he was explaining was meaningful.
For protocol is set in stone he was referring the core design which is described in whitepaper.

So, I am curious of what people think about 10 minutes block time.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin block size limit on: February 11, 2020, 09:42:59 PM
My idea has been something like this a single patch that solves the blocksize issue permanently, X number of full blocks in a row = .1 mb blocksize increase.

Adaptive block size increases like this are easily gamed. An attacker intent on bloating block sizes can simply flood the network with transactions. The attack will actually become cheaper over time as block size increases, which makes it especially dangerous.

What can someone achieve by making lots of transactions? Except spending BTC for transactions and fees?
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin block size limit on: February 11, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Why it is so important to keep the size small 1-4MB? For a 1MB size block to be propagated on network within 10 minutes with current internet speed connections is not a hard task since most nodes can download 1MB per second. That's up to 600MB in 10 minutes. I am just referring about the abilities, no need of that large size, but why not making the block size more flexible, so it can handle more transactions when it is necessary?


At your rate the blockchain will expand by 84+ GB a day. Not every country has unlimited plans and not everybody can afford it. You'll also need to store everything (unless you run a pruned node). It will take you just over 12 days to fill up a 1TB HDD. Increasing the block size could be an option if LN can't handle the demand anymore but that'll be years from now (if that even is a scenario).

84gb per day or 30 terabyte annually with 1 Mbps.
We already have enough internet speed and storage space to support that. But.

My point was not to switch to a large block from now on, despite it's still possible, but to adjust the block size accordingly to transaction count, if required, which means raise the size to 8mb per block once the chain gets closer to that demand. Something like block size adjustment could be added on protocol, which would eliminate the onchain scalability issue every skeptic is talking about.

And yet, Satoshi was referring that it's not necessary for everyone to have the full node, miners can easily afford it. For the rest of users, it's possible to run the node with block headers only to enable simplified payment system onchain, which requires only 4,2Mb storage per year.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!