|
Build problems...
In file included from ./uint256.h:15:0,
from consensus/params.h:9,
from chainparams.h:10,
from bitcoind.cpp:10:
./crypto/common.h:16:10: fatal error: sodium.h: No such file or directory
|
|
|
|
It isn't much cheaper to spam bigger blocks. Why is this attack so one-sided?
I asked myself this too... spamming bch mempool would be only 8 times more costly, even more cheap because 1 bch is 1/5 of a btc in usd terms. Why are we not attacking bch? Seems that we are have not evil manipulators on our side Bch spamming would actually be zero cost because its mempool is empty. You could fill 8mb blocks pretty quickly. In fact, with something like 500 blocks per day, you could add +3 to +4gb of spam in there for nothing (in terms of cost). A more "real" cost would be bitcoiners who wouldn't even bother downloading a 400-500-700gb chain to cash out their bch for btc. So that would "add" a bit in terms of bch price preservation. |
|
|
|
That entire pdf is the biggest load of crap I've ever seen. It sounds like it was written by a 3rd grader. And there's a lot of "We the Management will manage things better for you" garbage rhetoric. So centralized management will decide what's best for the lowly masses. Got it. It must be a joke or something... "telling people what they cannot do, must do, and may do. All of this is slowing a movement and lowering morale and energy. It just about sucks donkey balls."  |
|
|
|
Is this an attack? Is it orchestrated by the you know who's? It's more like BCH trying to survive. All things being equal (sha256, 10 minutes block target) a lower value chain cannot attract enough miners to operate at a proper functional level. It is destined to experience periods of very slow blocks and then very fast blocks, as difficulty readjusts. In order to circumvent this, asymmetric mining (bumps difficulty down every once in a while when blocks are slow - but has no counterbalancing slowing down to cure the extra emission) has been employed which increases the inflation rate a lot. In BCH's short life, it has already pumped out 120.000 more coins[1] to become "more attractive" for mining. This is not sustainable for multiple reasons. If you fix the much-increased inflation rate to become more viable for the future, then you lose your attractiveness as a mining option - because all things being equal, the coins mined are less valuable. Plus BTC also offers fee incentives (3-4-5-6 btc per block). The only hope that BCH has if it wants to survive (without a non-viable inflationary emission), is to increase its value. A lot. This pump might have been related to trying to make BCH a bit more viable prior to its next hard fork that will supposedly "fix" the asymmetric inflationary emission. But if this gets fixed, then you go back to being unattractive for mining - and thus getting a slow chain that can only be maintained by the "charity" of miners who operate at a loss, or rape-mined when its difficulty is low enough to attract mining attention (and then left hanging at a high diff again). I don't see how this can get fixed... [1] Bitcoin 16,675,925 BTC Bitcoin Cash 16,796,225 BCH (+120300 coins) |
|
|
|
Lol #2 503313 0000000000000000081819ff158d06e56c00845298eca6fd398fa32c81e20e5e 2017-11-12 03:59 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 15 3,699.06090444 4,864,265.09 0.00297455 3.91 0.95 4.380 503312 0000000000000000061b67746c9e3513698bdded041d2241e587915f12927715 2017-11-12 03:59 ViaBTC BIP9 57 1,681.15484215 2,210,718.50 0.00966104 12.70 0.47 27.567 503311 000000000000000003380a4d26f053b7f203d8619917ef1321db2006b440ef66 2017-11-12 03:59 BTC.TOP BIP9SWNYA 1 12.50000000 16,437.50 0.00000000 0.00 0.00 0.255 503310 00000000000000000382daa2888a98c2e3078b0466b8eae0771346b1c54e8254 2017-11-12 03:59 AntPool BIP9 1 12.50000000 16,437.50 0.00000000 0.00 0.00 4 blocks per minute... "Vision of Satoshi"  |
|
|
|
|
1 Bithumb BCH/KRW $2,551,300,000 $1748.28 35.37% Recently
2 Bitfinex BCH/USD $1,029,540,000 $1734.90 14.27% Recently
3 Coinone BCH/KRW $541,280,000 $1739.36 7.50% Recently
4 Bittrex BCC/BTC $473,024,000 $2285.60 6.56% Recently
Lol....
|
|
|
|
A POW change is maybe the last step to fire the disruptive element. The appetite for POW change may have lessened with the failure of 2X, but now is the time we must prepare for it, and build a consensus for what should trigger it in the future. That alone should bring the disruptive element into line. The penalties for future disruption would be clear.
The miners use their hash power as a weapon, the non-miners also have power over that weapon, as we determine the POW.
A POW change is a complex issue as new things and attack vectors have emerged over time. I mean what's the possibility that Satoshi had envisioned "lack of cpu power for the pow function" due to the pow not being done by CPUs but instead becoming ASIC-centralized, and then a rival implementation (which he specifically told that is a bad idea) claiming the hashpower with short-term incentives and pump/dump actions on the markets? Near zero. Even if you go for a cpu or gpu pow, what's to ensure that this pow function won't experience disruptions from other cpu or gpu coins that are pumped and become more attractive to mine? So pow-mining stability has to also be factored in. But since anyone can fork bitcoin and make a clone, then how can you navigate around this? The only solution I can think of is a combination of multiple pow functions that can run on cpu, gpu or asics / fpgas, all working in parallel / in turns / perhaps each with its own difficulty adjustment. So even if one or two types of pow hashpower leave, you can still have another. This type of system can also allow sha256 mining to co-exist but not dominate the mining. There are probably other issues arising from multi-pow, as well as possible weaknesses, and then you also have to start thinking about futureproofing in terms of quantum computers... I mean if you are going to make a change, make it QC-resilient also... IBM is currently at 50 qubits, intel will launch 49-qbits cpu this year. But I'm not a cryptographer so I can't say with any certainty how different ordinary hashes can combine with QC-resistance and what the threshold of danger is for this type of "threat". Anyway... ...Meanwhile the market is trending near 6666 levels |
|
|
|
This turned out to be pretty accurate, and I had no special insight, anyone can invent conspiracy theories.
Exactly... I was writing something similar too, around the same time: When Bitcoin is going so good, with valuation of near 4.5k USD, and people want to attack the main chain in a contentious way (=shitstorm), I can't really see them as having good intentions. Perhaps they stand to profit more from the destruction of value by positioning their "options" accordingly. After all if you can control the "good news" and "bad news" of a market, then you can benefit financially. And this is what they've been doing with all the forking scenarios, fud, or real since the price was at 200$. They create the news and the sentiment. They have become a market force that indirectly dictates prices. "Oh they are forking it, sell"... "Oh they cancelled the fork, onwards to 10k!!!", etc etc. This is bullshit on so many levels it's not even funny. No wonder Segwit2x was decided in a closed-meeting with financial companies.
No insider info, just common logic: BCH is not a coin that is sustainable in the long run. It's created for short-term speculation or upsetting the hashrate of BTC, or for market manipulation. Why is it non-sustainable? Because there are no fees paid to sustain the network, as mining reward goes down over the long run. The promise of large blocks and near free txs is unsustainable for the security model (=there is no incentive to mine). Abundance of block space = no reason to pay fees. BCH blocks right now have like 1-2-5$ in fees. The entire block  The short-term focus on BCH is also proven by the way that this thing is mined in order to issue blocks faster - which brings reward halving even closer, which in turn compounds the fee-incentive problem due to blockspace abundance (which in itself is compounded by lack of actual use), which all screams "non-viability".... These are pretty clear, from a technical / economical standpoint... but whales gonna whale anyway |
|
|
|
Yeah well, he also called Wright as Satoshi, so who cares |
|
|
|
bang on
The whole narrative is fud. Even the creator of bitcoin cash doesn't make the absurd claim his altcoin is bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
τι έπαθε η ισοτιμία και πέφτει; έγινε κάτι;
Οι traders θελουν τη διορθωση τους... δε μπορουν να ζησουν χωρις αυτη... |
|
|
|
I was looking at the bch explorer to see when blocks are issued... this is like ...instamine 2017-11-10 22:49 ViaBTC BIP9 41 1,816.33895806 1,198,783.71 0.00374590 2.47 0.21 11.891 2017-11-10 22:48 ? BIP9 69 3,081.47482474 2,033,773.38 0.01041017 6.87 0.25 28.190 2017-11-10 22:46 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 19 448.43593714 295,967.72 0.00335625 2.22 0.31 7.454 2017-11-10 22:45 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 184 24,848.60844757 16,400,082.00 0.03564467 23.53 0.31 75.665 2017-11-10 22:40 AntPool BIP9 1 12.50000000 8,250.00 0.00000000 0.00 0.00 0.202 2017-11-10 22:40 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 52 34,289.34623476 22,630,968.00 0.00609218 4.02 0.22 18.604 2017-11-10 22:40 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 115 5,244.19293214 3,461,167.25 0.08181011 53.99 0.44 123.591 2017-11-10 22:37 BTC.TOP BIP9NYA 255 48,133.58321588 31,768,164.00 0.03977321 26.25 0.28 92.752 8 blocks in 12 minutes... seriously? That's near dogecoin territory... edit: Pretty near dogecoin actually ...8 blocks in 11m. Block Time Transactions Miner Difficulty 1,964,158 less than a minute ago 10 DSc5tHGt... 412,501.25 1,964,157 about a minute ago 7 DNi9LiZ7... 391,876.19 1,964,156 2 minutes ago 2 DNi9LiZ7... 352,688.53 1,964,155 3 minutes ago 12 DB7widwq... 346,810.32 1,964,154 3 minutes ago 1 DMr3fEiV... 335,249.97 1,964,153 4 minutes ago 3 F2Pool 324,074.93 1,964,152 4 minutes ago 50 DSc5tHGt... 486,112.40 1,964,151 11 minutes ago 8 DNi9LiZ7... 494,214.07 |
|
|
|
I just watched this video where Jimmy Song says 2018 will be the year of the Bitcoin fork, similar to how 2017 was the year of the ICO. The only problem is, after the SWx2 fork I don't see any more forks on the horizon. What we need is a service like https://build-a-co.in/ to make it easier for any noob to create a Bitcoin fork. The user would only need to enter a name and desired start date. It would generate everything you need - a wallet app, a professional looking promotional website, announcement thread, Reddit forum, twitter account, emails to the major exchanges to get them on board - you know - all the usual bells and whistles. It's obvious from the Bitcoin Gold attempt that these guys need some help. Why call them bitcoin forks and not ...altcoins. I mean after dogecoin it was all about the altcoin boom. It's just that after tampering with the parameters, they also changed the "brand". There are plenty of altcoin generators for this kind of stuff. As for Bitcoin Gold, well: -BCH launched and changed one thing: The difficulty adjustment. The one thing they changed, is broken and has to be forked again to fix it... -Segwit 2x is absolutely reckless and irresponsible: No replay protection... -Bitcoin Gold guys wanted to add but don't even know how to build a replay protection... Who in their right mind would even care for this type of crap? BTC has plenty of good devs to support it as it moves forward. The other coins are amateur-ish (at best). And that's why BTC will be king... |
|
|
|
Comment a bit below 07/Nov/2017 @VitalikButerin on brink of second bailout for dumb contracts
|
|
|
|
As I type BTC prices are bouncing between $7200 and $7400 - so I am going to use $7,300 as a price reference. So let's look what is our current price appreciation that has taken place since the "scaling debate really got heated":
1) $250 - 29.2x
2) $350 - 20.86 x
3) $450 - 16.22 x
So, yeah, these nut job big blockers have been arguing doom and gloom of bitcoin since before $250 and arguing "scale or die" until they have been blue in the face, and the market does not seem to give a ratt's ass about their supposed doom and gloom assessments.
In part, it's because bitcoin is scalable beyond the transaction per second metric. A blockchain might be doing 50 tx/sec, with 10$ average value per tx. Another blockchain might be doing 5 tx/sec with 1000$ average value per tx. Over a year, the first will have done 15.7bn USD in volume, while the second will have done 157.7 bn USD in volume. There are plenty of blockchains out there who are resembling the first case: Potential for a lot of tx/sec but they are either unused or have very low value. Bitcoin is escalating the avg transaction amount, upwards, thus scaling how much it transacts on a daily, weekly, monthly, or annual basis. Estimated tx volume, per day, in USD: https://blockchain.info/charts/estimated-transaction-volume-usdAccording to the stat, we've gone from transacting 200mn per day to ~2bn USD per day. That's 10x volume scaling in a year, with pretty much the same tx/sec (the bump from Segwit to 4mb is relatively recent so I'm not accounting for that). At 2bn USD per day, we are talking about 730bn USD per year, which is >2 times what paypal did in 2016 (354bn). Needless to say that this is also achieved in a manner more economical than paypal, since paypal gets 2-3% of the transacted amount. For 730bn USD transferred it'd take something like 15-25bn USD in fees, plus another 3% for currency exchanges for people transacting in different currencies. |
|
|
|
But really, if S2X emerges the victor, is that really a 'worst case' for you Core acolytes? Seems to me that there ain't more than a RCH difference between S1X and S2X. Sure, a handful of overly-entitled neckbeards either whiny-ragequit or have their bluffs exposed. Other than that, what?
You are missing the point. If a bunch of people can meet and redefine what Bitcoin is, then that's the major problem right there - because at that point it has been proven that Bitcoin can be controlled or co-opted. Disagree. In my understanding of Bitcoin, the economic majority decides which is the One True Bitcoin. You don't even need 'a bunch of people'. Anyone -- collectively or individually -- can code up alternate protocol rules and offer it to the community. But the One True Bitcoin is only the one that that the economic majority adopts. We all redefine it together. By definition. Network protocols are not a democracy. They need near universal agreement in order to work. The reason is simple: If for every contentious choice, there was a 52% group that said "yes I like that" and a 48% group that said "I don't like that", then you have two protocols. In the second contentious choice for each fork, of similar dynamics (52-48), you have four protocols. In the third, you have eight protocols - which all do not recognize each other. If there were, say, 8 DNS protocols, your router wouldn't even know where to begin with in order to convert a name to an IP address... Bitcoin is trying to compete with assets like Gold. You can't "fork" Gold or redefine what Gold is and that has value. Bitcoin's resistance to re-definition, likewise has value. Some people are trying hard to damage this resistance in order to say "see? Bitcoin is crap, it can be forked, it can be inflated through forks, uncertainty can be introduced on what fork will be the "right" one, etc etc... gold doesn't have all this bullshit, I'll stick with gold / stocks / fiat". This is why all the forkers are cancer. They are undermining bitcoin, or are actively trying to control it, under any narrative like "bigger blocks". Even when they had their "big blocks" with BCH and the 8mb fork, now they are trying to take BTC to 8mb as well with S2X. Why don't they simply stick to BCH? It's simple: Because it was never about big blocks, it was about CONTROL. |
|
|
|
But really, if S2X emerges the victor, is that really a 'worst case' for you Core acolytes? Seems to me that there ain't more than a RCH difference between S1X and S2X. Sure, a handful of overly-entitled neckbeards either whiny-ragequit or have their bluffs exposed. Other than that, what?
You are missing the point. If a bunch of people can meet and redefine what Bitcoin is, then that's the major problem right there - because at that point it has been proven that Bitcoin can be controlled or co-opted. Why would anyone need a coin which is controlled by a group of guys who meet behind closed doors and take decisions for its future? We have FED and ECB currency for this. Bitcoin has big inertia in order to change its rules, and that is ok because the alternative goes against the decentralization which Bitcoin stands for. |
|
|
|
It is indeed a well written piece of FUD. Let's face it, the Bitcoin Cash opposition is growing and will not be stopped any time soon. There are more and more Bitcoin Cash shills every day. I think Bitcoin Cash will continue to gain steam up until the fork, but what happens after the fork is anyone's guess. My guess is the Segwit1x fork will be crowned Bitcoin. Just hedge your bets and you will be OK.
If you've ever used BCH you'd realize there's nothing to hedge. Personally speaking, it's one of the most problematic altcoins I've ever used - and the only one where its marketcap stood out as insane compared to its inherent qualities. -There are virtually no nodes to sync - you connect to bitcoin-core of the BTC chain and you get disconnected all the time. -Blocks can take hours. -On top of that exchanges require several confirmations, compounding the delay problem. Anyone taking BCH for a spin cannot reach any other conclusion than "this is so broken it's not even funny". I don't know if they fixed anything in the software since launch, but the 0.14.something-abc I tried, was f'ed up pretty badly. In terms of investment fundamentals, the threat of massive dumps if price becomes attractive to dump, again isn't funny. But that's what happens when people get "free coins". They are very happy to dump them if they are worth something. Some have strategically kept their BCH to inflict maximum damage to possible BCH pumping - and that's also not a good prospect for a potential investor. BTC has just 4 mn coins to mine and that's it. With forked coins (whether BCH, BTG, S2X etc etc) the store-of-value-proposition is problematic because first they have to mine another 4 million coins as well (just like BTC), but the market also has to absorb millions of coins that will get dumped for BTC. And every time the price rises, the more incentive there is to dump free-fork-coins-for-BTC. There's an inherent uncertainty of unloading the bag first or holding it while it gets devalued by others dumping, so the game theory regarding store-of-value for forked coins is not very good... |
|
|
|
Due to the constant high fees and network congestion, they introduced an anti-feature called Replace By Fee (RBF)[ref]. The aim of this was to allow users to pay a higher fee for transactions that were stuck and unconfirmed. This broke a critical feature called Zero-Conf which meant merchants could reliably accept a low value transaction with no confirmations as long as it was the first transaction seen on the network.
"Reliably accept".... "critical feature"...."with no confirmations".... lol... I guess Peter Todd didn't get the memo when he double spent coinbase's zero-conf, without RBF... https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/686365181241212928?lang=enSeriously, who writes this bullshit? These people are delusional thinking bitcoin needs zero confirmations for transactions. |
|
|
|
Somebody knows how the hell S2X (futures) managed to get to 2k+?
I am getting paranoid that this fork is a system for whales to 'print more bitcoins' and might be used in the future... Like... Ours are too expensive so they make an add on...
Whales value scarcity. It's not a whale thing. It's a corporate thing. Like stealing your Bitcoins and replacing them with Garzik-coins and saying "hey, here's your ....bitcoins". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
