Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 04:13:01 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 230 »
1  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Request for comments: Developing guide for very high-security bitcoin storage on: Today at 02:57:33 AM
You should evaluate if your software decisions are consistent with best practices for selecting cryptographic software (see a talk I gave on the subject (third section) at; or if you're taking potentially dangerous code that you found on the internet because its superficial feature set sounded good.
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: What will happen if a block hash= trans hash? on: Today at 02:42:50 AM
This topic has been moved to Service Discussion.
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 07, 2016, 06:09:30 PM
Xio is insisting that the ban was due to /u/nullc's 'doxing' of Cypherdoc (aka Marc Lowe).

Then Xio is being untruthful. (also-- what Doxing? I removed any mention of his name once I found out it even might be against Reddit policy, even though I wasn't linking it to any other account!)

4  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair on: December 07, 2016, 08:04:35 AM
You were given a 105% refund of the ASIC's purchase price.  You felt like you were too good and pure to cash the filthy evil check.

You petulantly decided you were entitled to a 1000% refund, which is also called a "windfall" and not allowed in standard contract interpretation.
I responded back with a copy of a written statement from hashfast that said something like "yes in the event that we fail to deliver we will return your XX Bitcoins, not the price of the devices we understand the the price of bitcoin is volatile." and asked them politely to explain the discrepancy between our clearly stated written agreement and what they were sending. Not even a response. Shameful business practices.

And you claim I influenced others? AFAIK, morci's lawsuit began months before I had any complaint, when hashfast slipped its first targets.
5  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair on: December 07, 2016, 04:21:03 AM
a small litigious group who unreasonably demanded refunds in BTC (like Greg)

I just saw this now, but it should be clear I have _never_ been party to any litigation against hashfast.  They tried to send me a "refund" check that was totally at odds with our clear written agreement so I returned it, when I complained they never even responded.  They never sent me any hardware.  I chose to not litigate because the time and risk to my personal safety couldn't possibly be compensated by whatever tiny amount I could get out of the clearly bankrupt company which had since managed to dispose of most of its valuable assets.

The fact that people apparently associated wish Hashfast keep harassing me over the internet is seriously irritating, however.
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 07, 2016, 03:30:54 AM
Any lawyer (who isn't incompetent outside of the narrow domain of IP law) will confirm windfalls are frowned upon by the legal system.  "Full refund provided in BTC" means you get back via BTC the purchase price, which was denominated in USD.
Dude. Explicit agreement. Without it I would not have bought. This is a clear reliance.  And-- it's also not a "windfall", as hashfast claimed they would put the assets aside. (And apparently did so, since they had no problem paying Cypherdoc 3000 BTC) -- strange to see you argue this here, while not arguing that cypherdoc was entitled to "only" three hundred grand rather than the much larger "windfall" he was actually paid. It was also equally explicit that if the Bitcoin price dropped to $1 or whatever, I'd still just be getting back the Bitcoins I paid.

Consider: You own 10,000 tons of steel and expect the price of steel to go up a lot but aren't doing much of anything with your steel right now.  Someone offers to sell you a machine that will, given time and inexpensive feedstocks return something between 5000 and 25000 tons of steel, likely 15000 tons... but only if delivered on time.  They offer to sell it for your 10,000 tons of steel... but you're concerned that they'll just do nothing and hand you the market price of the steel at the time of the sale back if the steel price goes up since that has been a common scam pattern. So they agree that they'll have third party investors pay for the production, and if they fail to deliver on spec they'll return your payment.   Absent fraud this is a good trade... the risk that the machine might end up producing less is acceptable to you, and they sweetened it even further by offering that if it significantly under-produces they'll give you an additional machine later (most of their costs are NRE-- machines are marginally cheap to produce).  The seller get a good deal because-- assuming he can deliver-- he gets a guaranteed return instead of a machine with an uncertain income an a bunch of operating requirements. So you go for it.

Later, they don't deliver and try to cut you a check for the market prices at the time of the sale. The very situation you were concerned about and which you sought and obtained multiple copies in writing, explicit agreement otherwise.-- and made it very clear that you would not buy without this agreement.

This is hogwash, and if people can get away with it the result is a trivially repeatable scam pattern:   Collect Bitcoin for mining pre-orders at prices almost too good to be true, later when the bitcoin price goes up: "refund" the market value of the coins at the time of the "sale"; otherwise if the Bitcoin price goes down-- "refund" the exact Bitcoins paid. Heads I win, tails you lose.  Yes, in HF's case they did actually attempt to build hardware, but that doesn't change the general pattern.

To call that a "windfall" is to make a mockery of contract. If this hadn't been explicitly agreed in advance as a condition of the sale then maybe there would be an argument, but here it was clearly agreed. The only limit on the enforceability of the agreement is insolvency of the entity that made it, which was sadly the case here (esp with Cypherdoc walking off with so much of the Bitcoins).

Cypherdoc was always transparent; he fully disclosed his compensated endorser status at the very top of his Hashfast Endorsement Thread OP.
After it went sour and I negatively rated him, he contacted me directly and said his only compensation was discounts for hardware which he never received and that he was just as much of a victim as me, he plead at my sense of justice and I fell for it. So, indeed, I was not amused when I read the court documents and found out that he got 3000 BTC and full price refunds for the "discounted hardware". So much for "transparency" unless you mean transparently dishonest.

and is not a public figure,
He argued before a California court that he was the "LeBron James of Bitcoin"; and that on this basis the payment of 3000 BTC (10% of gross income) was more than justified.  Are you saying he perjured himself?

Of course Reddit will not allow their platform to be used
Except... it isn't there.

I won't defend Frap.doc doxxing you, that was obviously wrong, although I will not the only reason everyone including dangerous nutbags knows your shipping address is the mass doxxing accomplished by the spectacularly ill-advised and monumentally useless bankruptcy lawsuit.
My information cannot be found in the public bankruptcy proceedings. I specifically did not participate to keep that information out of them; because the at most few thousand I could have conceivably gotten out of the defunct entity was far less than the cost of security precautions necessitated by the publication of the information-- better the funds go to people who need them more.

Repeating an Officially refuted accusation of a criminal act like tunneling is called defamation.  When it's written on the internet, that's called libel.  When you post it in a way that encourages mob justice, that's called harassment at best and incitement at worst.
Bullshit.  But feel free to file a lawsuit. Otherwise pound sand.  You're the one arguing that you paid Cypherdoc hundreds of thousands of dollars for effectively nothing. I wasn't even specifically arguing that tunneling was engaged in here: only that you bought and paid for his reputation (and thus he shouldn't be surprised that it's trashed when hashfast failed to make good on its agreements) or that he was paid an astronomical amount of funds for some other reason.  E.g. If it wasn't buying the reputation of a public figure ("LeBron James of Bitcoin") to endorse the product, -- then what was it?

Let me make this completely clear here:  There was clear dishonestly here and it is unambiguous, while the this and that details may not rise to the level of criminal conviction and the successfully dispersed funds make civil action a waste of time, no one involved has any right to demand the affection or respect of others.  You can sit here impotently threatening with bullshit litigation on behalf of your buddy, but I won't be cowed by it.  All doing so does is piss me off and encourage me to make it more clear what a ripoff I believe the whole operation was.

But you know all this, quoting you from elsewhere on Bitcointalk:

I already told you the "then what" if BTC had gone to a buck: Frap.doc would be S.O.L.

It's only fair he enjoy the reward, since he embraced the risk.  Especially since that reward came with the externality of reputation damage.

We agree-- that if an agreement was X bitcoin, it should be honored as that for better or worse-- and that cypherdoc was granted a windfall in exchange for his reputation, so why do you seem to have forgotten your prior position?
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 07, 2016, 01:59:56 AM
GMAX was sent a refund check for 105% of the purchase price, but was too pure (IE stubborn) to cash it and thus admit the once-popular 'we-all-deserve-windfall-refunds' entitlement theory is flawed.

I have a written contract from hashfast saying that if they failed to deliver I would receive a full refund of the amount of BTC paid. I directly reached out to Simon Barber to double check this fact, due to the frequent mining scams that had previously happened where there was no intention to create mining hardware but simply to refund "dollars" if Bitcoin appreciated, and Bitcoins if the market moved the other direction. Cypherdoc also confirmed hashfast's refund policies in public.  Without those assurances I never would have made a purchase, just as I never purchased from BFL, and the same is true for many other early hashfast buyers.

What you call a "windfall" was a significant loss (something like 80%? I don't recall) in fact, beyond what hashfast had promised. This isn't just me yapping-- a california court also held that there was significant evidence of fraudulent behavior on this point.

The questions are simple: Did hashfast promise early buyers that they were externally funded without need of customer funds to build goods, and that in the event of a failure to deliver they'd simply return the Bitcoin paid? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc get paid 3000 BTC (even of his agreement worth  _over three hundred of thousand dollars_) to make a couple dozen forum posts laying out his reputation vouching for the operation? Yes. Did people rely on Hashfast and its agents promises and send them funds instead of other oppturnities (such as sitting on them, or spending them with other mining operations)? Obviously. Did the operation substantially both fail to deliver and fail to return the payments to the customers it agreed to do that with? Yes.  Did Cypherdoc's removal of 3000 BTC from the organization make it physically impossible for them to return the Bitcoins-- it appears so.  Did Cypherdoc lie to myself and others about his level of involvement (claiming to have lost funds) until forced to tell the truth by a California court? Yes. Could Cyperdoc largely have recovered much of his reputation by voluntarily returning the funds he removed to the bankruptcy or the customers, minus an actually reasonable payment for a few hours of message posting-- quite likely.

It's very fitting that this illegal and obnoxious pattern of behavior brought down the Reddit
Cypherdoc has repeated posted my personal information gleamed from hashfast records, including my shipping address-- great fodder for the nutbags threatening my life, no doubt--  If he thought any of my behaviors were illegal he'd certainly be able to begin litigation.  Give me a break.

The guy traded his reputation for a huge windfall, he has nothing to cry about.  No one's reputation is worth anything if someone's reputation isn't trashed if they put it on the line to promote something and that thing turns out to be a major loss for all involved. That is what you paid him for, unless you want to argue that he was paid 3000 BTC for something _other_ than putting a valuable reputation on the line? (such as, say, tunneling funds out of the company?).   Besides, regardless of the shenanigans at hashfast, he directly lied to me-- claiming that he was just another customer paid by discounted units, which never shipped leaving him at a loss too-- to try to evade a reputational hit. On that basis alone I don't have any reservation in saying that he's a dishonest coward.  

And bringing it back on-topic-- AFAICT, there is NO post on Reddit where I disclose any personal information about him. And the reddit administration already confirmed that the issue in question was the email address.
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 06, 2016, 10:58:06 PM
The post was alleging that I, specifically, utilized a cryotgraphic key to perform some act that the author thought was improper.  This is simply a lie. I responded on reddit answering that lie and my post was deleted, and ultimately my account suspended over that factual correction.   It would be helpful if franky1 would acknowledge that. And as far as the subject of this thread goes-- that is about all that matters.

In terms of the notice,  It was written by Gavin, not I.  And it no longer exists in Bitcoin Core since it was removed a year ago for version 0.12-- it was replaced with the far more informative messages I linked above, which is not tainted by the authoritarian and centralized thinking that anything other than the very latest version is automatically obsolete.

If you don't like the content of the old text-- don't take it up with me, I didn't write it and I contributed to removing it.

If you don't like that something was displayed, don't take it up with me-- I had nothing at all to do with it.

On the plus side of all this obnoxiousness, I do believe you've perpetually lost the ability to argue that any node is ever silently downgraded by a BIP9-using softfork.  So at least there is that-- how many hundreds of hours of 'argument' by franky1 does that moot?  I giggle at the enormity of that count.

but now she is saying to you 'just grab a fruit it will be ok, put it in the trolley nothing is wrong
And you're free to decide what to do-- accept it without a careful check, since it looks like a fruit and smells okay from where you stand-- or take action to verify it completely. It's your decision.   Sadly, with your hardfork mania you want to take away people's ability to decide by forcing changes onto them which they can't ignore even if they want to, and by driving up the resource costs of running a full node so that many were will exist, checking anything at all.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 06, 2016, 07:41:57 PM
from what i can read.

one guy argues that althought NEW implementations will not see an alert.. OLD implementations can. so old implementations CAN be alerted.
as for the content of the alert. checking github. it does show "obsolete" as a standard message when a node see's a rule break.

so old nodes will see this .. emphasis OLD nodes.
emphasis only these versions have alerts disabled
Bitcoin Core 0.13.1, 0.13.0, 0.12.1

then i see Gmaxwell chime in to wash over the post first by distraction "its been disabled".. yea ONLY FOR NEW NODES!!!
then he uses an demonstration of an alert. could have been grabbed anywhere any time. to not argue the word "obsolete" but to argue that the demonstration had gavins name involved.

i think gmaxwell totally missed the point and was trying to poke at the name "gavin" and ignore the topic word "obsolete"..

how boring gmaxwell. arguing about gavin when the topic was about an alert that even github proves says "obsolete" to the old nodes


The poster claims that I abusively sent an alert to try to cause node to upgrade. But I did not, I took no action, and what he is seeing is not an alert.

The message the person was posting about is the message (older) full nodes display when they detect that most of the hashpower is enforcing rules they don't know about.  It isn't an alert, it's a notice generated by the software itself. And not one I created: I showed the commit message where it was created in my response.

The tremendous irony is that you and other fudsters have spent untold hours fearmongering with claims that full nodes would some how be silently 'downgraded' by segwit, and ignored all prior points that full nodes can detect the new rules and will tell their users about them so they can choose their response.  (Current Bitcoin Core uses text which is much less obnoxious than Gavin's, but warns all the same).
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is not really open source. Why not? on: December 06, 2016, 06:40:43 PM
the word "open source" was applied for bitcoin network and do not expect it to tell you the full programming of a bitcoin wallet and if it did then the wallet will not be secured anymore

The security of a Bitcoin wallet doesn't come from any secrecy of its code. I would say a wallet with any secret code cannot be assumed to be secure.

The entirety of the Bitcoin download can be reproduced by anyone and in fact the release process requires many different people to reproduce the binaries exactly from source on their own.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 06, 2016, 06:14:10 PM
What bullshit.
What's the rationale behind this hiding someone's posts without telling them that it's being done?
rbtc can't tell people that it's being done because then they'd have to admit that they too moderate things, which would break their narrative that the difference between rbtc and rbitcoin is that rbtc is 'uncensored'.

What definition of "public figure" do they use?
Apparently one that defines Gavin Andresen as not a public figure but defines me as one (since no action is taken about the basically daily stream of attack comments naming me on rbtc-- ... though I never asked for any action to be taken with respect to them other than letting me post rebuttals, but they've taken that away.)

But whatever, it's their site-- they can have dumb rules.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! on: December 06, 2016, 06:06:54 PM
This behavior is not limited to just segwit but in general for node services; it just happens to be that segwit is the only major node service right now.
Not quite-- NODE_NETWORK exists, and is absolutely required for outbound connections (e.g. doesn't even get the bypass for 40 connections).

In whatever release that comes out after segwit is required NODE_WITNESS will become required just like NODE_NETWORK is.   The purpose of outbound connections is to make sure you aren't partitioned and can obtain blocks, they're for your own benefit. Inbound connections are for the benefit of others.

It's not acceptable for the network topology to suddenly change when segwit activates--  can you imagine that? drop all your current connections and then form new ones hoping that the network can make a non-partitioned graph?-- that would be irresponsible.  Instead, it changes its connection preference at install time, so if there were any issues they could be addressed while the user is paying attention.
That's rather interesting, you seem to almost be saying that you can't connect to non-segwit nodes at all with that comment.
Otherwise there would be a problem if it activated and you were connected to non-segwit nodes ...
Well that doesn't match anything else anyone has said ...
Egads. I was saying the exact opposite of you can't connect to non-segwit nodes. In repeated loud text. You can and do.

But once segwit activates you cannot request blocks from them, because they don't provide the witness data that you need to verify the blocks.

Oh you've never heard of that 95% rule?

You keep throwing around this word 'partition'.
You forgot that 95% is required?

95% is regard to hashpower. Hashpower is not listening node count.

So, anyone who doesn't accept incoming connections and only makes outgoing connections with 0.13.1 ...

Is in a perfectly fine state. They'll preferentially connect to other segwit capable nodes (about 40% of reachable peers), but if they can't find enough (or if addnoded/connected otherwise) they'll happily connect to what they can.

that turned out to be a bitcoin dev scam

Bitcoin Classic dev scam would be more accurate, you should pay attention to who writes things. The author of that "proposal" (which has never even had a BIP written for it) is well known for behavior like that in my circles. Then again, it's absurd that you supported something that hardly gave a clear description of what it would do-- beyond hand more power to miners which I suppose served your "pocket financial requirements" well enough that you didn't even care about the details.

It didn't suit the bitcoin dev's pocket financial requirements like LN does

Segwit doesn't have much to do with lightning, but good job showing that you've been brainwashed by rbtc. AFAIK no regular contributors to the Bitcoin project stand to gain financially from lightning on Bitcoin, except by virtue of the Bitcoin currency itself becoming a lot more valuable because of more options for using it.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 06, 2016, 06:56:27 AM
all of the subsequent posts do not even mention any personal information of anyone else.
To be clear, the bottom post originally had "Marc Lowe" in the place of that first "he"-- I yanked it shortly after making the post in an abundance of caution: I wasn't able to find any example where simply using a name not connected to any other identity or identifying information has ever been determined to be a violation of Reddit's policy, and I can find a great many posts where people name and shame others who've ripped them off-- but I had no desire to violate any rule and being more specific was pointless (everyone it matters to already knows) so I removed it, after someone suggested that it might be.   None of the response of Reddit which anyone has received has suggested this had anything to do with it.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell aka /u/nullc is banned from Reddit on: December 06, 2016, 05:25:20 AM
Here is the post that I was banned for-- no joke:

It looks like what happened is that BitcoinXio reported it to the site administrators before realizing how transparently dishonest his explanation was-- since my post contained nothing but totally public information, published by the subject of it, which is part of a open source project distributed everywhere was, and which would cause no one any harm.  

There has since been a lot of misinformation spread about this-- one point reported is the claim that I was lying about the git commit message in my post.  I pretty frequently edit my posts to add links and details; in this case I initially created the post saying that this message that the author was accusing me of creating was actually created by Gavin. Then shortly after I edited it to include the whole commit message because the commit message actually contained the notice. As far as I know, I'd added that well before BicoinXio deleted my message--  but because I couldn't actually see the deletion myself. In any case, it was obviously there by the time I took that screenshot.

Considering that rbtc is pretty much a non-stop set of attacks using my name and info along with that of many other contributors to Bitcoin-- I'm having a little trouble squaring the idea that Reddit policy in fact would actually prohibit that-- but be that as it may, the actual letter of Reddit's policy would apparently even prohibit a user from giving up their own personal information. 0_o

There has been some other speculation that it had something to do with Marc Lowe, since in the subsequent thread where BitcoinXio admitted that rbtc moderators had been secretly using the automoderator to hide comments-- a practice I've called out many times-- I mentioned that one of the things they'd used it for was to hide any case where I linked to the litigation against him when he had the nerve to accuse me of being unethical or Reddit.  Now, as far as any can tell, simply saying a name can't run afoul of Reddit's doxing policy (in particular, since I connected it to nothing else there); but after concern was expressed that I was potentially violating it there, I simply removed it in all cases. It had nothing to do with the site wide suspension.

Three days later, the site admins got around to the report, so a post with an email address in it and hit the big red switch.

In any case, I responded promptly to reddit's admins, explained the history and my desire to not violate any rules there (even if they're silly).   If they don't want to have me posting there, thats a loss for their users-- and ultimately them.  The problem will still remain that rbtc will continue to encourage and promote untrue attack posts like the one I was responding to above-- and without the ability to counter untruthful speech with more speech, I'm not sure of what will happen there. Cheers.
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can spanning tree protocol be used in Bitcoin? on: December 06, 2016, 04:49:09 AM
Hi, I'm working on a new blockchain proposal right now. My understanding is that gossip is more fault-resistant and topology independent. While spanning tree is faster, it is more fragile as it critically depends on the root node. If the root fails, the entire broadcast tree must be recreated. Is it possible to use tree communication in a peer-to-peer network like Bitcoin?

Possible, but not secure. As you noticed, a minimum spanning tree produces graph that is full of points of failure-- almost any dishonest node would cause significant breakage.

For transaction relay I believe I have previously described a class of gossip protocols that should be within a small constant factor of asymptotically optimal without reducing the reliability much below the current setup.

For block relay where the objective is to minimize latency at basically all costs, the state of the art technique uses network coding to achieve latency close to the physical limits-- in the Fibre protocol the source(s) of a block do not send the block data directly. Instead they send error correction code data to their peers who also share this error correction data to their peers.  If the block has size M a node need only receive any M of it it before they can recover the whole block. The process is largely insensitive to link or node outages or delays, and very little redundant data is received. (The actual process is somewhat more complex because it also utilizes the nodes mempools which end up providing most of the block data without every having to transmit it at all.).

(The promiscuous cross forwarding and potential multi-source combining of Fibre depends on all the participants in a single fibre network trusting each other... or otherwise they can trash the recovery.-- this isn't much of problem because fibre is really only needed to get blocks around the world and there can be multiple separate fibre networks)
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to destroy Bitcoin with a 10% attack: Roadmap for a Central Bank Takeover on: December 05, 2016, 02:47:05 AM
Limiting yourself will not increase your income when other miners undercut you-- they will take the transactions you reject, undercut your price, and be more profitable than you, then the difficulty will adjust and they will be making a profit and you will be making a loss and either have to adopt their practices or exit the business.
Miners will not work for free.
I never said they would. If you make a block smaller than the maximum permitted when there are fee paying transactions waiting-- you are making less money than someone who builds the largest block they can. -- and when they do so they undermine the effort you made at your own expense to artificially boost prices.

(but not higher than the average block setting showed by all the BU nodes)
What nodes 'show' is perfectly Sybil attackable-- if it weren't we wouldn't need mining at all.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Patent trolling in the Bitcoin world on: December 04, 2016, 07:13:27 AM
If you actually intend to freely license it, you will recover nothing of the cost.
The free license does not apply to patent aggressors, so we gain the ability to enforce against them which is very valuable.  It's very rare that patents for cryptographic purposes actually generate their own revenue, their value (free license or not) is primarily defensive.

The true reason why BlockStream and others get patents yet pretend to take the high road, is because when they get a good one and the network moves in their direction, they'll be able to say: "Oooops, changed our mind.  No more free licenses".
The licenses are irrevocable, were it not it wouldn't have been applauded by groups like the EFF.

Blockstream has made other movements which seem somewhat less than altruistic to me.  I'd say be on guard with this one.  
Oh really? Whats that?
18  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Patent trolling in the Bitcoin world on: December 03, 2016, 09:42:59 AM
It mentioned that there are Bitcoin companies like Blockstream,
The article was misleading on that front:

Blockstream has freely licensed its patents in a way which should make it a little more difficult for practicing entities to use patents to restrict Bitcoin.

If more companies join in this practice the effect will become stronger.
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to destroy Bitcoin with a 10% attack: Roadmap for a Central Bank Takeover on: December 03, 2016, 09:38:02 AM
Even with an unlimited blocksize all the miners will try to get as much possible as they can, by limiting them self the blocks as they did until now.
Limiting yourself will not increase your income when other miners undercut you-- they will take the transactions you reject, undercut your price, and be more profitable than you, then the difficulty will adjust and they will be making a profit and you will be making a loss and either have to adopt their practices or exit the business.
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: The Extreme Flaws Of Bitcoin on: December 02, 2016, 07:07:05 PM
A CPU is not an Application Specific Integrated Circuit. It is application agnostic.
Yes it is-- the circuit it implements is universal, meaning that it can emulate any other circuit.  But it's built exactly like a mining asic is, mining asics just are more optimized for that task and don't waste space for parts that aren't needed.

The term ASIC is a comparison to early "integrated circuits"-- devices that had many semiconductor parts integrated into a single chip, but still exposed them to the outside world as generic parts. An application specific part builds the application (like "computer cpu") into it to achieve much higher levels of integration.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 230 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!