chek2fire, i think i now know what you mean. That miners would not receive such a block because node block it and don't propagate it. But i think for hardcore miners this isn't a problem. They use matt's? network which means the blocks they fand are propagated in very short time. Even outperform 1 transaction block miners. So they would propagate simply to the biggest miners and the nodes that don't accept this block would stay on the sideline, building a fork. Together with the fork miners. But these nodes most probably would not affect the other chain very much. At least i think so. I'm no expert in this.  |
|
|
|
Doog, what's going on with JD this morning? It's been down for ~2hrs now?
Check out dooglus's last posts in the just-dice thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238613Something went wrong with the hardware and he is setting up a new server. Clams are all safe he says. |
|
|
|
Yesterday we hit another BTC block, as I expected the "dev" has already lost interest in this s*** coin,
had this not been the case there would have been some kind of post.
Anyhow the moment we passed the 50 K block my crap coin wallet went out of sync again.
I now have 209 K blocks remaining.
Don't get me wrong I haven't lost anything with this parody, I sold coins from 60 down to 20 sats upon it's
listing on Yobit, I am in other words 50% up from ICO with a ton of coins left.
But seeing as this will most likely never be worth more than toilet paper I can't muster the energy
to try to get this s*** to sync.
Interested in a wallet.dat file containing several hundred K c*** coins? PM me your offers.
I can only say that Lucky Blocks was in contact with me confirming the block signature of the winner for the block before the actual found block. The actual found blocks owner contacted me and i wait for an answer of lucky blocks. I can ask him to be a bit more present in this thread. I see it's certainly not helpful for the coin as it is now. Though this post is only a headsup that he was in contact with me a week ago last time. |
|
|
|
He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore.
When the internet speed is very fast for all the miners, the benefit of smaller bock (fast block relay speed) will diminish. All of them will include more transactions. It's not only the internet speed. The network, which means all of the miners, have to verify blocks and the bigger the blocks the higher the time needed to verify them. Which means bigger blocks need more time to confirm. I thinke the best way to solve this is more transactions, so higher fee and dropping block reward. |
|
|
|
|
I did not check it out yet but i really like the thought behind and when i have time i will check it out.
The only thing i'm not so sure about yet is that i would have to enter my api into the extension most probably. And i not really know if it's safe, was the code reviewed by someone already?
|
|
|
|
Hey 1broker team, we finally got around to creating our own BitcoinTalk account and thread, so we thought we'd pop in and say hello. We've been integrated into 1broker for a couple months, and with over 250 users now, we've only heard good things from them about your system. We thank you for everything and hope you continue to do what you're doing. Happy Trading  Interesting... i hear from this the first time and it looks pretty interesting when working. I like tradingview alot and it's community, especially the free indicators, is great. Will check out your thread when i find it.  Guess i only need to check your past posts. |
|
|
|
|
This is strange. Are no accounts given back at the moment at all or is something special with this account?
I think it would be nice to hear something from badbear or so about it. I mean no info brings uncertainty in the forum since everyone would need to ask himself what would be if his account would be hacked. Would he get it back then when he can prove it?
|
|
|
|
What amount of winning would NOT crash the market? I only ask because i occassionally use just-dice as a lottery replacement. With normal lotteries state will take around 50% of the investments as tax already. Only the rest is paid out. Then what amount would not crash the market? I guess to prevent that it would be the only solution to claim that the clams will be sold in an auction on bitcointalk. Even holding them at just-dice would crash the price since people would fear you still dump. Hmm, what's something people who win big could do with their JD winnings? If only there were things to do other than JD to use CLAM... Shall I lay it on thicker? vvvvvvvvvv Guess i don't get what you mean. In case you mean that a big winner should simply invest then i think this surely will not help against a market crash because everyone still would fear that these clams will be dropped. My question was how to avoid the panic crash. |
|
|
|
Guys.... you dont get scammed because of running teamviewer. You get scammed because of allowing some random stranger full access to your system. Thats two pairs of shoes.
I have running tv all day long and nothing happens...
Ok, it sounded like you meant that the other party can do it even when you did NOT give him remote access. When you only allowed him to watch what you do... Ok then, good to know that it's still safe as long as... |
|
|
|
Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)
Sorry but nodes mean nothing i think. I think an increase is inevitably as long as you want bitcoin adoption and not forcing users out of bitcoin into alternate systems like lightning network, but nodes mean nothing in the decision. Mining power coming from those nodes, that's import for sure. You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack. And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update. The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now. But if these nodes reject the block should not really matter since they would only be clients, not miners with a good amount of hashpower. They can reject all they want but only the hashpower would decide which chain wins, isn't it? You mean the block chain can not handle 2mb blocks because of this 10 minute verification time transaction? As far as i have read there is already a fix existing that only needs to get implemented. |
|
|
|
Of course exchanges will close until the fork has settled. Otherwise they will be in a legal sh*thole when they lost their users deposits due to completely irrational behavior.
What legal shithole? All they'd need to do is to announce beforehand which fork do they intend to follow (what they believe is a majority) and properly inform customers. Pre-split deposits would be withdrawable on either chain anyway. Which address/wallet you're withdrawing to (and which fork do you believe is the real Bitcoin) is entirely your problem. I dealt with alot of cases where i had to inform users taking part in a project or shareholders in an investment. It is practically impossible to reach everyone. Often after months you still have many open cases. So in theory, an exchange who only does this, might be in real trouble since the user could claim he trusted that they hold his bitcoins and they didn't. Or something like that. At least when they switch to another chain. Though then the bitcoins on the other chain should still lay in their wallet. No one could take them except the exchange. So in fact it would only apply to new deposits i guess. And that is something people have to check before. |
|
|
|
You could try giving loans, or playing ponzi games which are more risky.
Gambling is a bad idea to earn more as you will probably lose it all, quickly.
all of your sugestion is bad ponzi gambling is very bad way.. in my opinion giving Loans is wrong way, because interest in our religion is haram (just my opinion no more) None of his suggestion were bad, even it's very dangerous, but some people can earn profit that way. Many people in my country earn lots of money by gambling, give or make loans, play ponzi, MMM, HYIP and so on even they know the risk. Knowing the risk but still investing in those ponzi schemes, I see it's fine. But for others that really cry to the max when a ponzi shuts down really annoys me. They are expecting a long term goal in a ponzi scheme which is really not because ponzi are only for a risk taker. What do you await when there are other people that tell that it is possible to earn with that? In fact i knew a lot of people who thought they are smart and can earn from ponzi. Even when it worked for a time, invest early, drop out early... at one point in time ponzies started to collapse faster than you could look. Or did not even pay out anything. Only fake reviews. No one of these smart people was still havint their money afterwards. And no one should believe the stories of many people getting rich. If you take out single persons then ok, might happen. But for everyone of those there are many who lost, maybe lost all. It is plain stupid to only look on those who got lucky. In the long term it is better to not do it except you are fine with eventually ending like one of those gambling addicts who lose family, job and everything at the end. Really, better be smart than believing other person that dream their life instead actually do something real. |
|
|
|
I think too that it's risky. And it should be avoided. Unfortunately it seems the network has not included real decision making besides forks. And i think it's relatively sure that, when one client starts at 0% of the network and reaches 75% that this client has an advantage that is recognized. It would be unlikely that those supporting it would suddenly turn back supporting the other chain then. At least not as long as serious problems show up with the fork once activated.
It looks to me like everyone staying in the old chain would simply be stupid, regardless of which fork it is. The chance to lose everything mined after that is very high. Or does he might be able to create a valueable altcoin out of the losing chain then?
Not how it works. You cannot create an altcoin based on bitcoin, and convince everyone to switch to the altcoin by telling them they are stupid. Especially when the altcoin is a retardation compared to the real coin, and has alsmost no developers behind it. I don't think the users will care much about what the majority of the miners are doing at that point. They will just keep using their superior coin. Well that is a very biased opinion. The original bitcoin went through a couple of forks already and following what you said then we would have lost the real bitcoin long ago already. Still, what decides what the real chain is is the believe of the people because they give the coins the value. If the fork wins then the new chain is the chain with advanced settings and the losing chain the one with the outdated tech that was upgraded. Pretty normal. Anyway, mining in the losing fork means blocks being found every 25 minutes?, which lowers potential reward even more. And this mining can take weeks. Deadly for a mining business. On the winning chain instead the blocks will be found every 13 minutes or so. (Obviously i'm no mathematician. ) Obviously.. For a given hashrate, the chance of finding a new block, and therefore the reward, will be the exactly same in both forks. After difficulty readjustment the success rate will increase. So miners don't have any economic reasons to switch. The chance is the same, sure, but the hashrate not anymore. The hashrate can't double like the chains double. 75% of the hashrate is in the winning chain then. A long fork is extremely risky business. During the next few weeks, the standard Bitcoin side of the fork can easily overtake the other side again. Actually the most profitable strategy in this game to a miner would be to announce the intent of switching, then not do it when the switch is supposed to happen. Many other miners will then waste their resources on the wrong side of a fork, while you keep mining on the side you know will win. One or two large miners or pools who do this will be enough to tip the scale.
This is a possibility, especially with the collection of hashpower in single identities hands. Though it would be a pretty sneaky behaviour since those mining at those pools probably would support their attempt to mine on the fork too. They would be gone for good and mine in the new forks pools. Which would hurt the other pool alot. Might be that miners can do it that own the miners. Ok, i don't know if there are such miners that would have a huge impact at all or only 10% or so. It would stilly be risky. The most safe outcome for miners would be to trust that the other miners don't lie and follow them. The masse will win the game. I think you may base this assumption on your flawed theory about profitability above. As long as most merchants still use the real bitcoin, and indeed almost 90% of all nodes run real Bitcoin now, Bitcoin is the safest choice. The success of a hard fork, and therefore the value of it's coins, does not depend on the miners. It depends on the users. I think so too. At the end it depends on what those believe who give the coin its value. Since other miners will watch each other closely just after the fork is supposed to happen, you can mine a few fork blocks before switching back again, covertly mining standard Bitcoin blocks. If one or two miners switch side after mining on the fork for a few hours to days, and then silently switch to standard Bitcoin again, the standard Bitcoin blockchain will overtake the fork. So a closure of exchanges is pretty much 100% certain, at least if the fork has support from anything less than 90% of the mining power.
Man, i really hope nothing like that would happen. It would be like a war in the community and it would bring a deep deep canyon between user groups. But i think exchanges have ways to protect themselves. They don't have to set on one chain alone. I mean they can own the same bitcoin addresses on both chains. They can run both chains. The only risk they would have would be to chose one chain only, then receive bitcoins that were not sent to them on the other chain. When the chain that they chose is dying then they are screwed and left with no bitcoins. But this risk can be completely eliminated by only accepting bitcoin deposits whose coins show up on the same deposit address on BOTH chains. Then they are completely safe. They would not even have to care which chain wins. They would always hold the right bitcoins. Right? This will work for one block maximum. The first sport of a fork is doubling your coins by getting one transaction confirmed in one chain, and a different version in the other chain. Coins spent as normal bitcoins won't exist in the "classic" chain and vice versa. People will split their coins to make sure they can spend every coin they have in both chains separately, with no risk of getting the transaction confirmed in the other chain. Eventually this will happen by itself when coins are mixed by coinbase coins which doesn't exist in the other chain. I only say that as long as an exchange receives the bitcoins in both chains there is no risk for them anymore. The weakness of the forks is the fact that if the standard bitcoin chain overtake the fork, all mining effort and transactions on the fork will be wasted and lost forever. The standard Bitcoin chain can not be overtaken by a fork however, since the blocks from the forks will be invalid.
Though that would be correct for the standard bitcoin chain too. If a fork reaches 75% and miners would still mine on the standard chain and the fork becomes the new real bitcoin then all mining on the standard chain after the fork will be gone to waste since the standard bitcoin chain blocks found after the fork happened would be invalidated. Additionally blocks would be found way way less often. Mining there would be economical suicide because the difficulty only would change each 2 weeks. Again, this is based on your mining profit fallacy above. The profit in terms of coins per day for a given hashrate, will be exactly the same after a fork as before, until a difficulty adjustment. After the adjustment the chain with the lowest hashrate will pay the most. Though only theoretically since the 10 minutes are not hard set but dynamically created by the diff adjustment, judging from the amount of hashpower. And the hashpower will be way less in a losing chain. Anyhow, I don't believe there will be a hard fork. Now "Classic" have released binaries, which has lead to a sharp increase in "Classic" nodes. At the same time the number of "BitcoinXT" nodes is falling as if it went over a cliff. Bitcoin Core has the same share of nodes on the network as it had before "Classic" binaries were released. About 88%. The last 12% are divided between "XT", "Classic" and "Unlimited".
I think the Number of nodes can be completely forgotten. It can be faked easily and it most probably is faked since there are obviously fanatics who would do such things. There are not only cool headed discutants on each side. You mean by running Bitcoin Core and pretend to be "Classic" or vice versa? Sure, but why would anyone do that? It has so far only been done for mining. Some blocks are mined as "BitcoinXT" blocks, but those have been shown to be created with Bitcoin Core with a small change to the coinbase transaction. Since "Classic" has based their fork on an old version of Bitcoin Core, without many of the improvements for block generation, I think miners will do the same in the future as well, unless "Classic" get developers who are capable of rebasing their patches against 0.12. I meant that some people create nodes just to show that their side has the most support. Setting up a node an a vpn or so and voila they have an argument of being backed. Though it is not a real hard argument in fact. Anyway, what matters is how the hashpower decides. And it really would be interesting to see what happens. In my opinion there is a majority for segway and for a raise of blocksize for 2mb at least for now. Stopping the delays in peak transaction amount times. I think the lightning network is not really loved by most. I mean it is a different system to use again. And all systems beside bitcoin had a lot of trouble finding it's acceptance.
Well thinking about that is obviously purely speculative.
I don't see any majority for raising the blocksize via a hard fork. Quite the opposite. It seems the majority is very clear on maintaining backwards compability, and increase the capacity by moving the signatures outside the 1 MB blocks. Especially among the developers of Bitcoin and various bitcoin wallets. Most of them have implemented segregated witness already. It is very simple, and will be faster to deploy. Yeah, segwit has broad support. I think it's a good thing. Though it is stil limited and can not solve adoption hindrance in the long run as far as i understand. The solutionat after that is the interesting thing. |
|
|
|
Anyone have some news here?
You need to watch out for new details coming from the case against KnC. The sueing parties can not reveal anything, otherwise they would risk to lose any chance of winning the case since they had to sign papers. Non disclosure agreements. I really hate that these kind of papers are allowed. It should never be forbidden to speak about the truth. |
|
|
|
<snip>
So, Eric reneged, eh, hence the dox?
That's what it looks like, though I haven't seen an update on whether anyone has used the dox to any effect. People were clamoring for it and then once it was dumped there was only the sound of crickets. So I'm hoping for an update from people who are pursuing...involuntary reimbursement and beyond. It looks like no one can or will pursue. Reason is the low amount scammed and inept police in scammed users countries. And it would not be worth it to go behind for some small money. The cost for running behind would be higher. But victims should join forces with those scammed in the previous bigger scams. Then they could join for low costs. |
|
|
|
Hi guys. Last week, I was banned from the trollbox for a day because of a penis joke (my fault, I know). The next day I logged in to find my account frozen. I contacted support, and they're claiming that there was 'attempts to compromise my account/email(?)' Support says I must complete level 3 verification in order to unlock my account. I fail to see the logic behind how handing my address, social security info, drivers license, etc. is proof I'M the owner of this account, when Poloniex does not have any information about me to cross-check this with. I received another email from support in response to ^: There have been some recent attempts to access your account and fraudulent claim of ownership, we absolutely cannot unfreeze the account until we have confidence all have been done to protect the customer money.
If your account were compromised you would not have the means to find out on your own until the money was gone. I was never kicked out of my Poloniex account. Why would someone 'fraudently claim ownership' of my account if I was able to (and still can) access it? Aren't there IP logs? In case the hacker submit false documents we are able to validate that and not release the funds, contact with law enforcement is made immediately and all evidence that is logged on our servers is passed on to the authorities to arrest the hacker.
Can someone tell me how Poloniex can 'validate' how a hacker isn't just uploading legit documentation on himself - if my email were compromised as well? If my account were truly compromised, and a hacker goes through the same process I'm apparently supposed to, there's no way to prove I'M actually the owner, instead of some random person controlling my account and uploading legit SS#, etc. themselves. This coincidental account freeze after a one-day chat ban makes no sense whatsoever, and the 'proof' I must suddenly submit just doesn't sit right with me, considering Poloniex doesn't already have any information about me already...there has to be other ways to prove I'm the legitimate owner of my funds. Anyone care to shed some light on this matter? Has this happened to anyone else? Thanks in advance... They know you can access the email address attached. Someone probably claimed you hacked his email address. You sending your details could proof your identity or that you try to fake something. In any way it would make it easier to find out the truth or easier for the police to find a scammer/hacker. |
|
|
|
Where and how will i get that signed message?
You will never. You don't own the addresses poloniex is using. And when you sent from poliniex you most probably was asked to only send from an address you can sign a signed message from. You can't do that for poloniex addresses. |
|
|
|
i think the best solution would be to code something in the core that rejects a block if it has no transactions.
this way the pools that mine empty blocks get NO REWARDS.
Not a bad idea in itself, but they could just create 1 satoshi transactions to put in those blocks. Hence they wouldn't be empty anymore ^^ What's could maybe help, would be to only allow to mine full blocks no? If only full (or let's say 80% full) blocks were minable, it would make transactions a bit slower but would also answer the size problem for now no? it's impossible adopt this solution and even is not democratic. there is a natural solution about a block empty... simply in the long time it will become more difficult find one and not insert some txs and the fee process will help in this process... all miners probably could be more interested in fee txs than block itself (fee > block reward) Hmm... I don't understand, why wouldn't it be possible to implement such a solutions? Seems rather obvious to me that you can put limits to the system no? Maybe I miss some technical grasp about that though ^^' He means that this problem will solve from itself once the block halving happened often enough. Then the fees for a block will be a bigger part of the reward for finding a block and no pool can include no transactions anymore. |
|
|
|
I am not with increasing the block size, that was just a one-time incident and it's very rare for pools of transactions to accumulate like that, normally my even small transactions doesn't need more than one or two blocks to confirm. I think the current system already proved it's efficiency overtime. No need for a very big change currently.
If a mega merchant as Amazon is accepting Bitcoin as payment option, then all blocks will be full nearly instantly. That might be a reason for them NOT to accept Bitcoin payments as 1MB is simply not enough. 2MB is what we need if we want to attract mega merchants. Exactly... the risk for big companies like amazon would be way too high that they can not use it after developing it. But you know what... those who say 1mb is sufficient claim that bitcoin was never intended to be used by amazon. Bitcoin is only a high amount transfer system for the rich. Didn't you know that?  |
|
|
|
It was some kind of gambling for investors... at the end i think it can't be considered unfair since one can't claim it unfair that some gamblers take a higher risk to earn higher profits too. Something like that. I wish we could keep at least a 25x offsite in the end, even after the staking only option is implemented. It would have been a good average regarding the results of the poll. As much as I trust Just-Dice, I'll always be more comfortable having the majority of my coins secured in my wallet  . But overall I welcome the changes. They were definitely needed. 100x and even 50x multipliers were way too much. Good work as always doog. All the utility i saw of the full offsite is to get more profit than investors that believe that it can easily end in a loss, since no bet over 30k was made if all investors were 1x the profit/loss per bet would be the same as if all investors were 100x, yet if all the investors were offsite 0 the house edge should have harder effect since limiting bets. I think no one but dooglus and atleast on the beginning used the feature "properly". Edit: not sure about the "harder house edge" part so correct me if im wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
