|
922
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 27, 2016, 10:28:34 PM
|
Well, what should I say about the level of communication on here. Fighting paroles claiming to be the majority, insults, naming... very grown up. Though I guess that level of communication can be found on both sides. Some simply doesn't know how to discuss.
LaudaI surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore.
The security of the mainchain is not needed? Great, you will enjoy transacting on the secondary layer then. Again you try to twist words. The security of the mainchain IS needed of course. What not is needed is 100 times the security that would be need to secure the network. Luckily this will solve over time. But for now mining is so rewarding that the bitcoin network is an environmental nightmare. And surely that should not be supported with higher fees so that the markets at work are disturbed to hold more miners than normal in the mining game. Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim.
It isn't. I was talking about raising the 'fee limit', i.e. recommended fee artificially. It should be possible if a person clogs up the network with a lot of transactions in the higher fee range. The fee that we are paying right now is the result of the market/people. No, surely the fees that are paid now are NOT the result of a free market. It is the result of an artificial market shortage. Imagine some country would decide that from now on we have enough daily bank transactions because... whatever. Fees would rise but that is an artificial market shortage. Transaction supply was limited. An the actual fees already are higher in average than some time ago. Why? We had full blocks from spamming and now based on times of the day. People complaining about non confirming transactions usually get told to raise the fees. And yes, they do. I did so too. But they did not do so because the transactions are limited because of some natural reason, no the market was hold down from developing further because the allowed transactions were artificially held down. Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar.  Wrong; it's obvious that you don't have any relevant skills. If you make a single mistake while scaling Bitcoin, you risk severely damaging it. The real question is why are people unaware of this. Sure... the ominous skills that you gave in, don't own yourself too. Though you believe that it is true because those others, you believe having these skills, say so. Even though they are only coder. And even many coders of that original team though differently. You simply chose a side and "believe" that they are right. Well, this is not a religion. And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold.
Of course you are in control.  I was told Classic was just Core with a 2 MB block size limit, but now I see SPV mining too. Was I deceived  Care to explain what you mean with that? As far as I know SPV mining is done on core chain too. At least miners promised to switch to an chimera approach. Starting to spv mine but while mining start to confirm the transactions in that block. That GREATLY reduces the chance of an accidental fork.
It's quite sad that you're cheering for a team that does not even have comparable manpower nor skills.
You realize that bitcoin core has the past lead developer of bitcoin core on his side? Gavin Andresen. I guess his skills must be doubted because he acted against the first law of the bitcoin core religion "You shalt not have another blockchain besides the core blockchain." He still has the second most commits on core. Even after all that time. |
|
|
|
|
923
|
Other / Meta / Re: BitCoinTalk hidden pages - undocumented features
|
on: March 27, 2016, 10:00:42 PM
|
Edit: Found another link that I did not know yet. https://bitcointalk.org/gettopics.php?user=1 (replace with your user ID) It shows the threads a certain user created with his user. Interesting. Didn't know alot of these links. Guess you find something new even after years of being online at bitcointalk. Edit: Wasn't there a link that shows all the recent unread threads that you get notifications for? The feature in the profile shows all links but I want to see the threads with new answers. I can't find it anymore or wasn't there such a feature?  First line highlighted. Is that what you're looking for? That shows ALL the new posts from the whole forum. But I was told in the meanwhile the link that I was searching. It was https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=watchlistIt shows only posts you are in relation with. Which is quite usefull. Till now I always used the emails I receive but for some reason I occassionally miss an email or an update. Which led to me checking the notifications tab in the profile. Though that shows all the threads I get notifications for, regardless of if there is a new answer. With 65 pages it was a hassle to click through. So that link is a timesaver.  I'm not sure if it's worth to put it in the first post here, I did not found it on my own though I thought I have seen something like that before. Might be others search such link too and I think it is really usefull... |
|
|
|
|
924
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Epic, monstrous post of Jihan Wu (AntPool)
|
on: March 27, 2016, 09:55:23 PM
|
Fees are calculated per kB. Some stupid wallet implemetations use a fixed fee, which is either very high or very low depending on how the transaction ends up. Blockchain.info used to be one of them, and may still be. A 252 byte transaction and a 1000 byte transaction will pay the same fee of 0.0001 BTC. If a spammer sets his fee per kB to 0.00011 BTC, she will pay a higher fee than those wallets would calculate for a transaction of 910 to 1000 bytes. Effectively blocking seemingly (to users of stupid wallets) random transactions for ever at a cost of maximum 0.11 BTC per block. The real cost is lower, of course, unless all transactions in a block are from the spammer.
Yeah, at least fees should be calculated by the size of transaction. Would be even better when taking the mempools into account. Though I mentioned "Spamming would not be usefull with zero fee transactions" because 2mb blocks would not make it cheaper to spam. Assuming people would not suddenly lower their fees a lot then spammers would still have to pay the same fee as before too because otherwise the normal transactions would take priority. So I think spamming should not really become considerably cheaper. I think it would become alot more expensive since the amount of space they would need to fill is way higher. It would cost less again when the 2mb blocks are nearly full. If I could make my transactions on a sidechain instead, however, I could avoid the problem completely. If the "classic" supporters think large blocks is a good idea, why not create a sidechain using very large blocks, merge-mined with the bitcoin blockchain, and suggest everyone just move their economic activity over to the sidechain? It will work with the same security as Bitcoin, they can hard-fork to a different block-size, lower transaction size limits, and support whatever features the community wants whenever they feel like it. They can even fork to multiple sidechains. Why isn't this even discussed in the "Classic" community? Simple: The hard fork has nothing to do with block size. It has everything to do with Coinbase wanting to gain control over Bitcoin to implement their KYC stuff.
A side chain would mean having another wallet and other coins, right? You have to exchange bitcoins and so on. I'm not fully sure but what is moved on the sidechain can be called a bitcoin IOU at max, right? No, you can freely move bitcoins between the blockchain and a sidechain, and back. No need to exchange. With a little work on a client, you can plug in a sidechain and use them interchangeably. If you have coins in the sidechain and want to send on the normal blockchain, it will be two transactions. One on the sidechain and one on the normal blockchain. If you have coins on the right chain, it will just be a single tx on the right chain. Here is a good explanation of how sidechains work. As always I appreciate your calm and explaining discussion culture. It's something you have to search on bitcointalk. I see now how it is meant. It sounds a bit like it has advantages over lightning networks technique since you can always take the remaining bitcoins, you own on the sidechain, out of the system. Coinbase and classic? I have read that some times now. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. I don't see anything pointing to classic getting something implemented that hurts anonymity and such.
Coinbase is the only noteworthy business supporting "Classic". Coinbase makes much of their money by doing blockchain analysis and confiscating the funds of people using gambling services, etc. Just google for "Coinbase froze my account", and see their terms of service. Coinbase knows that segregated witness will destroy this business model by enabling technologies which make blockchain analysis much harder to impossible. Instead Coinbase wants a larger blockchain, and they use all kinds of dirty tricks to make that happen. There is evidence of Coinbase spamming the blockchain as well, to generate artificial need for larger blocks. Coinbase probably can't make money with the frozen accounts. That would be outright theft and they would face lawsuits. Or is the problem that US customers can't sue them because they would have to admit that they gambled on illegal websites? If that is the case then they surely would be low. Well, coinbase is creating two transactions per withdraw. I don't really see the need for the second one yet but to assume that they do this to raise the blocksize sounds a bit far fetched. They would have no advantage. You mention that segwit makes blockchain analysis way harder. How can that be? All the details about every transaction still would be available to everyone wanting to do a blockchain analysis. Or what do you refer to? Besides that... how should coinbase gain control at all.
Well, doesn't sound convincing. Care to give some details to convince me?
Gavin Andresen works for Coinbase. Ok, and didn't some core dev lately switch to work for a bank? Besides that, one could see a conspiracy theory behind lightning network and the negation of a raise of the blocksize too. Since what will happen when a minimum transaction will cost $1, $10 or more at one time? I mean LN plans to make bitcon the settlement layer for LN. Which makes companies will decide the fees to be paid in the bitcoin network. The more transactions can be put into one single bitcoin transaction the higher the value of the bitcoin transaction and the higher the fees on the bitcoin network can rise. So what will happen once the fees rise very high with bitcoin? Nearly no normal user will be able to afford it. Which means it won't take long until we see offers like offers from a bank offering to buy bitcoins directly in the lightning network. Only pushing bitcoins around on there, using a service connected to lightning network. I mean how does this sound? Like bitcoin being practically in the hand of corporations and bank like businesses? At least it sounds like the very opposite of the initial plan for bitcoin. A pseudonode is very hard to detect, unless you have a sybil attack running, and manage to get the suspected pseudonode to make an outbound connection to one of your nodes. In that case you can make an inbound connection to it from another IP, ask for data from the suspected pseudonode, and check if it sends a request for the same data to one of the nodes it has outbound connections to. If it does, it is probably a pseudonode.
Hm, sounds like one would need a pretty big amount of time, work and money to do this. So the theories that practically all classic nodes are pseudonodes are nothing but a theory yet? Of course. It is supported by the fact that the "Classic" nodes on Amazon seem to use a disproportional amount of my outgoing bandwidth, but that is not proof. I have worked around the problem by throttling my outgoing bandwidth to "Classic" nodes to make my ADSL line usable again. Hm, that sounds like a hint at least. Did you check if the traffic is something like "loading blocks to build a blockchain" or does it only look like the behaviour you described for fake nodes? Otherwise it might be that they only were sat up lately and tried to get up to date. Though I guess you already checked. And is it not possible to host real nodes on amazon? I mean if you do the work anyway then why not create a real node from the start. Why use a fake node?
Because it use a neglible amount of resources and no diskspace. You can use the rest of the resources of your Amazon instance to mine for an altcoin or something. Ah that... though it is possible to run a full node or a normal one, right? If you buy enough storage, then yes. Ah ok, I was of the impression that is somehow a free service that allows a full or normal node on that space. Which means it isn't fixed. Yes, segwit fixes it.
Well, if coredevs do not want to include a fix then yes, it is not fixed. But the fix exists and only need to be implemented so anyone bringing out 2mb blocks is safe. Not worth to mention a problem when the solution already exists. The only other "fix" I know of is to impose a hard limit transaction size, which would take a hard fork to lift. Considering the amount of noise the current hard fork attempt is making, why do you want to create reasons for more? Segwit is a much better solution. It allows for faster validation overall, and it doesn't add extra hard limits on transaction sizes. Wasn't there a hard fork needed in the near future for classic too? Besides the soft fork for segwit? Besides that... a fork only on core would surely not bring such uproar like having to go against core. The uproar only comes from people disagreeing with the way the things are handled. A fork for a fix that is not needed yet would be useless of course now. But when other important things would have to be implemented anyway then implementing that fix would be nothing that would bring up trouble. |
|
|
|
|
925
|
Local / Mining (Deutsch) / Re: Welche Steuern auf Einnahmen durch Coinmining?
|
on: March 27, 2016, 12:57:55 AM
|
Einnahmen nicht anzugeben und sich vielleicht sogar größere Sachen zu kaufen obwohl man offiziell kein Geld hat, manchmal klingt es im englischsprachigen Bereich so als ob das manche machen, ist sicher keine so gute Idee. Wirft Fragen auf die derjenige nicht beantworten kann.
Ist ja nicht der Fall. Solange Mining ein Verlustgeschäft ist, hat man mehr ausgegeben als eingenommen. Für die Ausgabe von bereits versteuertem Geld muss man üblicherweise keine Fragen beantworten. Ja klar. Das war auch nicht mehr auf den Miningfall gemeint sondern eher allgemein. Wenn keine Profite dann ok. Nur wenn allgemein Einnahmen auffallen dann sollte man die Ausgaben erklären können. Das Finanzamt macht sonst ganz schnell Einnahmen draus denen man nichts entgegensetzen kann. |
|
|
|
|
926
|
Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Idealistische Bestrebungen in der Bitcoin-Welt contra Kursenttäuschung
|
on: March 27, 2016, 12:54:59 AM
|
... Payment Channel ...
Wenn eine Transaktion die vorherige einschließt, was hindert einen Empfänger dann daran die erste und oder die zweite Transaktion ins Bitcoinnetzwerk zu stellen? Beide geht nicht, das wäre ein Doube-Spend. Ansonsten hindert niemand den Empfänger daran eine der Transaktionen (erfolgreich) ins Netz zu stellen! Die Miner werden nur eine TX aufnehmen. Damit schliesst der Empfänger dann ganz einfach den Payment Channel und zukünftige Zahlungen des Sender über diesen Channel sind wirkungslos. War es nicht die letzte TX, dann hat er sich selber um das Geld der nachfolgenden TX betrogen. Du meinst die Transaktionen sind alle fertig signiert? Und wie wird das Doublespend hinbekommen? Dadurch, dass alle Zahlung im Rahmen eines Payment Channel die identischen Outputs (der Erröffnungstransaktion) als Input haben. Das Bitcoin Netzwerk sorgt dafür, dass die Output nur einmal ausgegeben werden können. Bei bösartigen oder nicht mehr verfügbaren Empfängern muss der Zahler warten, bis die Lock-Time vorüber ist. Dann kann er allerdings über die gesammte Summe ohne Abzüge verfügen. Vorher ist er auf die Kooperation des Empfängers angewiesen, um den Payment Channel zu schliessen. Also kann der Empfänger jederzeit den Channel schließen solange er bereits eine Transaktion erhalten hat aber der Sender kann das nur wenn der Empfänger mit macht oder LockTime vorbei ist? Das System an sich finde ich ja interessant, ich hab LN noch nie von der Seite betrachtet. Einzige Nachteile sind für mich die gebundenen Coins. Ich meine der Paymentchannel macht ja nur Sinn wenn eine größere Anzahl Transaktionen durchgeführt werden kann. Sonst kann man sich den auch sparen weil eh eine Bitcointransaktion draus wird. Wenn ich also einen Paymentchannel zu bitstamp aufmache. Ich schicke jede Woche 500€ an bitstamp um mir die Auszahlen zu lassen. Dann muss ich, damit sich das überhaupt lohnt, ein mehrfaches von 500€ im Paymentchannel einschließen. Denn nur mit mehreren Transaktionen die man zu einer zusammenfassen kann macht das Sinn. Und welcher Bitcoiner würde das schon wollen? Wenn ich 10000 mal 500€ in bitcoin hätte, ok, dann würde es mich nicht stören. Aber die allerwenigsten bitcoiner werden so sein. Der Paymentchannel ist ja auch nur in eine richtung, hat nicht mehrere Empfänger oder? |
|
|
|
|
927
|
Local / Off-Topic (Deutsch) / Re: Spiegel:Bundesjustizminister will zwingende lebenslange Haft für Mord abschaffen
|
on: March 27, 2016, 12:48:16 AM
|
Wie das mit der Entschädigung funktionieren soll weiß ich nicht. Wer soll bezahlen?
Der Mörder. Wenn er z.B. jemanden umbringen, der eine finanzielle Verantwortung gegenüber Dritten (Kinder, Familie, Gläubiger) hat, dann schuldet er meiner Meinung nach diesen Dritten fortan erstrangig seine gesammte Arbeitskraft im Rahmen der Verpflichtung, die das Opfer hatte. Aber ich weiss schon, dass der Opferschutz bei der Bevölkerung wie auch bei der Staatsführung hier keine besondere Priorität hat. Letztendlich ist ein Menschenleben weltweit meist deutlich weniger wert als ein (Nutz)Tier oder eine Sache. Ich persönlich finde das arm. Na ich weiß nicht ob das jetzt so ein Fortschritt ist. Sklavenarbeit? Na ich frage mich welcher Mörder sein Leben lang die Millionen abzahlt die das braucht. Wer mordet und sich erwischen lässt ist ganz sicher nicht dazu bereit und wird bei der nächsten Gelegenheit nach Bali umziehen. Ansonsten... Opferentschädigung ist doch immer ein tolles Wort. Da kommt plötzlich die bucklige Verwandschaft die sich vorher nie gekümmert hat und beklagt dann seelische Schäden weil Reichtümer winken. Ganz im Sinne amerikanischer Verhältnisse. Das ist was ich unwert nenne. Was hat man denn bei einem Mord? Leid. Dem Opfer selbst kann man nicht mehr helfen, der merkt nichts mehr. Bleibt der Täter und seelisches und materielles Leid der Opfer. Wie mit dem Täter verfahren? Er muss behandelt werden wenn er krank ist oder Zeit zum nachdenken bekommen. Was üblicherweise hinter Gittern stattfindet. Ausschluss aus der normalen Gesellschaft. Und seelisches Leid? Bezahlbar? Welche Ehefrau fühlt sich besser wenn sie ein paar hundertausend Euro bekommt? Eine Ehefrau deren seelisches Leid dadurch weniger wird oder verschwindet... na ich würd mich im Grab umdrehen wenn ich so eine geheiratet hätte. Und materielles Leid, klar, da müsste was passieren. Nur wie? Du glaubst doch nicht dass ein Mörder sein Leben lang für andere arbeiten will oder? Versicherung? Na welche Versicherung würde Mord versichern? Bleibt also nur dass man Glück hat und der Täter ist reich. Dann sofort das Geld einziehen damit es für die nächsten Jahre(?) reicht. Sonst kann er abhauen. Und arme Täter... was gibt's da zu holen? Na vielleicht muss man die Pläne nur genauer kennen um das besser einschätzen zu können. |
|
|
|
|
928
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 27, 2016, 12:22:05 AM
|
adamstgBit You giga block supporters are naive if you think Bitcoin can grow by 100 fold in the next 15 weeks or 1k fold in 4 years. We simple do not have enough users to support low fees at this time.
we dont need 100 fold growth in the next 15 weeks.... we need more like 30% price increase and double the fees on blocks in the next 15 weeks. in that case the reward halving will be mitigated with higher BTC prices, and slightly more BTC fees on each block. if segwit was ready 6 months ago i'd feel more comfortable... there a balance between driving fees high and driving a high number of low fee TX bacily if we look at block space as a good miners produce, the pricing of that good is the TX fee. how do we find the best price? somthing like this.  i believe we dont need to artificially limit supply miners have a real cost to including TX in blocks in the form of orphan risks then demand can be roughly calculated with like avg number of TX bytes to include every 10mins then miners can calculate the optimal price for a TX fee then they can simple choose to not sell block space for much less than this optimal price. Don't forget that the amount of hashrate can drop due to miners leaving the game. And miners becoming more efficient. Which raises reward for miners that still stay in the game. If miners drop out because the reward is too low then the remaining miners will earn a bit more than before. So even when the fee reward now might be $27 only per block, it only matters for the future when we stay with this max amount of transactions to be included into each block. Adoption was THE key to raise fees over time and to lower the effects of block halving for miners. In fact the only hindering thing in this is the capped amount of transactions. By the way, your logic regarding the safety of the network connected to the bitcoin price is true on one side. Miners will drop out. Though attacking is not worth anything anymore then too. Why attack when the reward does not matter? It would only be a problem when it is pretty sure that the bitcoin price will rise again.
LaudaI wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step.
You are technically paying for the security of such a large network. Everything else doesn't even come close to Bitcoin. Right, paying for security. But the plan was that the block halving will be supplied by more and more transactions happening so that fees slowly become a considerable size. With 1mb blocks it is absolutely not possible over the longer timeframe. Besides, I would prefer halving and way more of the miners. It is not that we users don't pay enough. It is that the market is way way too oversaturated with miners. Which means mining is way too rewarding so that too many miners are in the game. I surely don't like to pay for unneeded security that does not bring any advantage at all anymore. Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly.
The point is that it was expected. Anyone with a lot of money could artificially raise the limit right now. Yes. And why? Because of that artificial limit. It IS artificial. It is not a base setting of bitcoin like some 1mb block fans like to claim. In fact the thing that was awaited by those being here since years was that bitcoin transactions rise and rise. Fees are growing because of more transactions and fees become a size that pays miners. Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification.
Basically you're opting for "let's rush growth because that matters the most" and I'm opting for "let's be conservative and add TX space when it is safe to do so". If you really think about it, Bitcoin does not need to grow. Bitcoin works and will work fine at a 1 MB block size limit. The fee will never be absurdly high due to the self regulating cycle. Besides, once you have LN deployed you have a theoretically infinite limit. Let's be conservative... well, that sounds like bankers speech. "We limit the amount of transactions that can be done because we want a stable price to establish." Well, no, that is not how it should work. Bitcoin should be a free payment protocol for everyone. And not something for people that decide how much transactions they should allow. That is so wrong on so many levels. And then those guys are wondering why bitcoinfans get in an uproar. This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite.
There won't be any vision if you rush into untested waters with untested forks. Additionally, if you let 1 controversial fork succeed it is most likely that it won't be the last one. Well, I have to laugh when I read these two sentences. You realize how you speak here? Fear. It doesn't matter that it was no problem in the past but in the future it surely must be a problem because... tree. And no, we can't allow anyone to raise his ugly head to oppose our own blockchain. We are in control and all the other guys are the bad ones that try to disturb the peace and control we hold. Well, I wonder when fear took over in the bitcoin world.
|
|
|
|
|
929
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 26, 2016, 03:10:16 PM
|
I believe the growth forecasts for Bitcoin could be overly optimistic.
You might be right on this and in fact it would be no wonder. What serious company would now put work in something like bitcoin? It is way too unstable to put money onto that topic. Not confirming transactions? Great, means these companies accepting bitcoin would have to put a lot of suppot on that topic. And the payment would be unreliable. Besides that the constant fight about the direction of bitcoin. I know if I would own a big business I would hold back funds and see how bitcoin develops now. If it recovers then I might invest. But at the moment it does not look like a worthy thing to gain. |
|
|
|
|
930
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Epic, monstrous post of Jihan Wu (AntPool)
|
on: March 26, 2016, 03:06:06 PM
|
And why on Earth do you think a larger blocksize would solve the spam problem? It will only make the consequenses worse. Bitcoin clearly needs a way to transact unobstructed outside the blockchain, and only commit to the chain when needed. If miners want to promote normal transactions over spam, they should use spam filters. Some pools do, e.g. Eligius. If spam is the problem, you should attack the spam, not allow more of it. When my mail server got attacked by spammers, I didn't run to the shop to buy more disk.
The problem is how to define spam. There are enough people that claim transactions with a low fee are spam by default. Who are those people? I have only heard people claim that other people claim this. I have never once heard anyone claim transacctions with low fee are spam by default. Ever. Your straw man doesn't exist. I never thought someone would doubt that so I don't have a clue who answered that to me but I heard that pretty often in discussions around this topic. Though I'm not sure if some bigger person claimed that. Like a pool owner or something. Spam is pretty easy to spot. The same coins moving in circles, usually using a fee adjusted just large enough to block a few percent of transactions from wallets paying a low fixed fee. Then there is the gambling type of spam and the transactions which are pure data-storage, which aren't moving any coins. Just a fee and an amount of data followed by OP_RETURN.
If it is so easy then why didn't circulate a script around pool owners to block these transactions? It could have rendered the spam useless. But it didn't happen. Gambling as spam? They are normal transactions or what makes them spam? Datastorage... don't you include thinks like colored coins into that too? And bigger blocks are a solution to spam when it means you have to create way more transactions, including higher fees per block, just to spam these blocks. The recent spams only worked because the blocks reached their limit nearly. So a spammer would have deep pockets and a good reason to spam away his bitcoins to fill bigger blocks.
But why should I allow spammers to fill up my data storage and ADSL line in the first place? This is the non-solution of trying to pay yourself out of the problem by buying more disk space. This non-solution will only allow the spammer to pay lower fees. The total amount of fees the spammer pay to fill a block will not increase, unless you suggest to enforce a minimum fee. I'm not sure, isn't the minimum fee already reality? Besides that, the spammer having a lower fee than the normal users with their transaction would not fill the blocks and block normal transactions. Regarding your ADSL line... there are possibilities all the time. Doesn't matter how big of a block size. If I could make my transactions on a sidechain instead, however, I could avoid the problem completely. If the "classic" supporters think large blocks is a good idea, why not create a sidechain using very large blocks, merge-mined with the bitcoin blockchain, and suggest everyone just move their economic activity over to the sidechain? It will work with the same security as Bitcoin, they can hard-fork to a different block-size, lower transaction size limits, and support whatever features the community wants whenever they feel like it. They can even fork to multiple sidechains. Why isn't this even discussed in the "Classic" community? Simple: The hard fork has nothing to do with block size. It has everything to do with Coinbase wanting to gain control over Bitcoin to implement their KYC stuff.
A side chain would mean having another wallet and other coins, right? You have to exchange bitcoins and so on. I'm not fully sure but what is moved on the sidechain can be called a bitcoin IOU at max, right? Coinbase and classic? I have read that some times now. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. I don't see anything pointing to classic getting something implemented that hurts anonymity and such. Besides that... how should coinbase gain control at all. Well, doesn't sound convincing. Care to give some details to convince me? Pseudonode is an example of a fake node. It can emulate all popular versions, and some unpopular like "Classic" and "BitcoinXP", using almost no resources. It just acts as a relay to fetch the requested data from another node which (hopefully) stores it. Unless it is another psaudonode, which fetch it from another node, etc. Perhaps there are only a handful real "Classic" nodes on the network. We will never know. The operator who run hundreds of "Classic" nodes on Amazon to attack the Bitcoin P2P network probably want to do it as cheaply as possible, and Pseudonode is the obvious solution. I always wondered about that point. Are these pseudonodes not detectable through some requests? Should be easy to find out. A pseudonode is very hard to detect, unless you have a sybil attack running, and manage to get the suspected pseudonode to make an outbound connection to one of your nodes. In that case you can make an inbound connection to it from another IP, ask for data from the suspected pseudonode, and check if it sends a request for the same data to one of the nodes it has outbound connections to. If it does, it is probably a pseudonode. Hm, sounds like one would need a pretty big amount of time, work and money to do this. So the theories that practically all classic nodes are pseudonodes are nothing but a theory yet? And is it not possible to host real nodes on amazon? I mean if you do the work anyway then why not create a real node from the start. Why use a fake node?
Because it use a neglible amount of resources and no diskspace. You can use the rest of the resources of your Amazon instance to mine for an altcoin or something. Ah that... though it is possible to run a full node or a normal one, right? I wonder if it's worth at all anymore to use these hosts for mining. I doubt somewhat since it should be a VPS, so you will have not a lot of cpu power. By the way... that attack vector is already fixed. There is a BIP that only would need to be implemented in core. Developers didn't till now.
Which means it isn't fixed. Yes, segwit fixes it. Well, if coredevs do not want to include a fix then yes, it is not fixed. But the fix exists and only need to be implemented so anyone bringing out 2mb blocks is safe. Not worth to mention a problem when the solution already exists. |
|
|
|
|
931
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Attention! Scammer from this forum - demodemo - 82,03 euro
|
on: March 26, 2016, 02:50:18 PM
|
Only if you loaded funds using a CC, you would be able to chargeback but as per your second post, you did not use a CC to load funds. If that's the case, there is no way to reverse the payment.
I have had a deal with demodemo before for a small amount $3.2 and he sent first. Without an escrow, any deal can be dangerous if users have a low rank and no trust ratings.
Do you say that skrill is safe for scammers? You can't claim a dispute or something and won't get your money back through skrill directly? Only asking because it would be good to know when someone requests me escrowing skrill. Not exactly. If the funds are uploaded via a stolen CC/Debit card, it can be chargedback. In your case, you will act as an escrow and hence you will receive these skrill funds and send it to the other person who is the buyer. In that case, the funds cannot be chargedback as the skrill funds are not in your account and it is in the buyer's account and hence Skrill cancels the chargeback claim. I hope this solves your query. Is there nothing like a negative balance like paypal has? Anyway, I will not get into that situation since I would not use personal accounts for such purpose. I surely don't want to get included into some shady deal and I get questions from authorities afterwards. Besides, I don't have such accounts anymore at all. I pay trusted users in bitcoin to pay for me when I need it. |
|
|
|
|
932
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 26, 2016, 02:46:08 PM
|
I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore.
I never sent a transaction without a fee, nor would I. As was demonstrated last year, it is easy to spam the network with such transaction. The minimum fee makes this attack more 'expensive'. Nothing in life is free, deal with it. I wouldn't complain if the fee will stay low. Since that was one of the promise bitcoin was giving. And bitcoin is losing that advantage step by step. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago.
You're telling me I need to pay 10 cents to make a transaction? Wow, this is really a expensive system! Your sarcasms is not appropriated. You know quite well that the fee is not high with that amount. The point was that the fee is rising constantly. I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me. Logic which you lack. It is a self regulating cycle: fees rise -> people who can't afford it leave -> fees lower -> people join. There is no doomsday scenario and a 2 MB block size limit fixes nothing. Well for someone who does not want bitcoin to grow your logic is pretty fine. Well think for yourself why should someone use bitcoin when it is expensive? I think your vision of bitcoin will become something politicians feel the need to stop by blocking acceptance, going after miners and such. Because the reward of using it will go into illegal directions more and more. Anonymity bought with high fees. Or transporting money over borders without notification. This "the strong will survive" is surely not the "let's free the people from the banks" that satoshi envisioned. The people surely are not only the rich guys that push away the normal people from bitcoin because they feel this is a place for the elite. Be it like it be. Your vision is surely not mine so I think it won't make sense to discuss on that point. |
|
|
|
|
934
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 26, 2016, 11:11:59 AM
|
It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new.
False. This isn't something new, it was always like this. If the recommended fee is 50 satoshis/byte and you include a fee that is 5 or more times lower than the recommended one then you should expect nothing. Since zero fee transactions won't have a effect on the people, the attacker was sending out thousands of transactions in the 1-10 satohis/byte range. Keep in mind that even though this range is way below the recommended fee, there are still some people transacting with such fees. The attack negatively affected those people and thus complaints arose. As a user it is your duty to include a proper fee. You can't blame the miners, the developers nor the network if your transaction does not get confirmed in X amount of time if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean but a year ago or so I regularly sent zero fee transactions without any problem. Later the minimum fee was needed and now I mostly pay 5 times that high for a fast inclusing. There definitely changed something. And that is nothing that needs a spam attack on the network anymore. Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold.
Doomsday 'fee event' coming, all panic now! Hyperbolic as always. I wish you would apply simply logic. Since when the amount of transactions is constantly rising but the amount of transactions being able to include in a block in a certain timeframe stays the same... then this is an unavoidable thing to happen without a mayor change. I won't even say "mark my words and see how it goes in 6 or 12 months. I doubt that segwit can make a mayor change till then. But maybe segwit surprises me. |
|
|
|
|
935
|
Local / Mining (Deutsch) / Re: Welche Steuern auf Einnahmen durch Coinmining?
|
on: March 26, 2016, 11:06:28 AM
|
Und dann hängt es auch noch vom FA. Soweit ich weiss gibt es dazu noch keine Grundsatzentscheidung, wobei Einkommen aus Mining wohl grundsätzlich, wie jedes andere Einkommen auch, steuerpflichtig sind. Diskussionswürdig wäre, dass es in DE kein Einkommen aus Mining gibt, da Mining praktisch immer ein Verlustgeschäft ist.
Da es bei mir damals ein Verlustgeschäft war, habe ich es einfach als Hobby betrachtet und weder die Ausgaben noch die geringeren Einnahmen angegeben. Keine Diskussion anzufangen scheint mir persönlich in diesem Fall die beste Möglichkeit zu sein.
Danke für den Lacher. Und ja, das kann man dann als Hobby sehen da keine Einnahmen. Trotzdem wäre es gut, für den Fall der Fälle, die Ausgaben aufzuschreiben. Beim Finanzamt muss man grundsätzlich die Ausgaben nachweisen die man hat, das Finanzamt muss die Einnahmen nachweisen die man hat. Einnahmen nicht anzugeben und sich vielleicht sogar größere Sachen zu kaufen obwohl man offiziell kein Geld hat, manchmal klingt es im englischsprachigen Bereich so als ob das manche machen, ist sicher keine so gute Idee. Wirft Fragen auf die derjenige nicht beantworten kann. Auf der anderen Seite... wie viel Schwarzarbeit gibt es in Deutschland ohne dass da irgendwer denunziert. Manche kaufen sich sogar Häuser davon. Ich verstehe nicht wie manche darauf ihr Leben aufbauen können. Ich würde ständig in Angst leben. Na vielleicht denken die nicht an mögliche Konsequenzen. |
|
|
|
|
936
|
Local / Trading und Spekulation / Re: Idealistische Bestrebungen in der Bitcoin-Welt contra Kursenttäuschung
|
on: March 26, 2016, 10:59:39 AM
|
... Payment Channel ...
Wenn eine Transaktion die vorherige einschließt, was hindert einen Empfänger dann daran die erste und oder die zweite Transaktion ins Bitcoinnetzwerk zu stellen? Beide geht nicht, das wäre ein Doube-Spend. Ansonsten hindert niemand den Empfänger daran eine der Transaktionen (erfolgreich) ins Netz zu stellen! Die Miner werden nur eine TX aufnehmen. Damit schliesst der Empfänger dann ganz einfach den Payment Channel und zukünftige Zahlungen des Sender über diesen Channel sind wirkungslos. War es nicht die letzte TX, dann hat er sich selber um das Geld der nachfolgenden TX betrogen. Du meinst die Transaktionen sind alle fertig signiert? Und wie wird das Doublespend hinbekommen? Durch Nutzung von Changeadressen so dass auf der ursprünglichen Adresse keine Coins mehr sind selbst wenn ein Input darauf gewesen wäre der groß genug gewesen wäre um beide Transaktionen auszuführen? Ansonsten, dass nur eine Partei den Paymentchannel schließen kann sobald wenigstens eine Transaktion existiert habe ich noch nicht gehört. Es würde zumindest das Problem lösen Coins gebunden zu haben an die man ansonsten nur mit Hilfe oder Zeit ran käme. |
|
|
|
|
937
|
Local / Off-Topic (Deutsch) / Re: Spiegel:Bundesjustizminister will zwingende lebenslange Haft für Mord abschaffen
|
on: March 26, 2016, 10:56:02 AM
|
Man muss in Zukunft sich nur ordentlich reizen lassen und schon ist der Mord nicht mehr ganz so schlimm?
Soweit ich das im Kopf habe war eine Affekthandlung bisher schon Totschlag und kein Mord. Ob die Änderung gut oder schlecht ist, hängt stark von der Ausgestaltung ab. Bei Wiederholungsgefahr gibt es allerdings noch die Sicherungsverwahrung. Wenn die Entschädigung an eventuelle Hinterbliebene (also Opfer der Tat) stärker in den Vordergrund rückt, wäre das ebenfalls nicht verkehrt. Eben... Mord ist doch eigentlich immer mit Heimtücke verbunden oder? Wie kann man da auf die Idee kommen dass das irgendwie nur 5 Jahre Bedenkzeit bedeuten kann? Und die Sicherheitsverwahrung... die ist ja auch keine so sichere Sache wenn sie der europäische Gerichtshof angreift. Wie das mit der Entschädigung funktionieren soll weiß ich nicht. Wer soll bezahlen? Die wenigsten Mörder haben so viel Geld. Und wenn das ein Spiel um Reichtum der Hinterbliebenen werden sollte dann finde ich so einen Prozess unwert. |
|
|
|
|
938
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN][XCP] Counterparty - Pioneering Peer-to-Peer Finance - Official Thread
|
on: March 26, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
|
if xcp runs on top of btc, then wouldn't overload and pollute the btc blockchain if it became successful? or is it like ftc, that only locks in one chksum of the sidechain every 10 minutes, reducing the effect on bitcoin?
Luke-jr may not like it, but if they're paying their transaction fees... with just transferring BTC in the BTC network, the tx fees become burdensome fast. this is the problem that occurred when the price went up to $1200. All of a sudden it became "cheaper" to use Visa/Mastercard. imagine having to pay a large group of people with BTC, the costs would be very very high. now imagine that all of those people have some meta-token using XCP. the XCP system knows who they are and only requires 1 BTC transaction to do a pay all payment to the entire group http://counterparty.io/docs/pay_distribution/this saves a lot of tx fees and unnecessary BTC transactions. so yes perhaps XCP does "pollute" in some case, but in other cases it allows for efficiencies that help BTC network squeeze more TX into 1 block that it otherwise could never achieve. another use case, which has not been developed is the payment of recurring subscription services. in this case a user address would send a "subscribe" type message to another address, or a smart contract, which would mark his address with a subscription token which presumably would be used to give access to some online service or content. the contract would then deduct some amount of XCP (or SJCX or BCY ) at set block intervals specified in the contract. The contract would also know to delete the seubscription token if the subscriber address ever defaulted on payment (did not have enough funds to make the scheduled payment). in this case, it would allow the bitcoin network to support possibly millions of subscription transactions over long periods of time, without needing to do a btc transaction each month. that allows BTC to scale to handle more transactional capacity without having to do large increases in blocksize which some people are again. Couldn't one create a "send to many" transaction in his wallet? I think every wallet offers that possibility now. Does have counterparty advantages there? I think the resulting btc transaction should have the same size like it was done on the bitcoin network only, right? Regarding fees... the blocksize restriction will make fees only worse when price is rising. You surely can say that the fee structure will not be sat down since too many people feel we need higher fees to pay the miners. In fact we would need less miners because the too high reward led to the current situation of too many miners competing. |
|
|
|
|
939
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Attention! Scammer from this forum - demodemo - 82,03 euro
|
on: March 26, 2016, 10:47:18 AM
|
Only if you loaded funds using a CC, you would be able to chargeback but as per your second post, you did not use a CC to load funds. If that's the case, there is no way to reverse the payment.
I have had a deal with demodemo before for a small amount $3.2 and he sent first. Without an escrow, any deal can be dangerous if users have a low rank and no trust ratings.
Do you say that skrill is safe for scammers? You can't claim a dispute or something and won't get your money back through skrill directly? Only asking because it would be good to know when someone requests me escrowing skrill. Well there is a way to get the money back even if you did not use your CC, but i will not make this public here or scammers would use it. And no there is no official way to open disputes like in paypal. If there is a way then I will see it as chargebackable. Well, it would be a risk anyway. A scammer could charge back by using his credit card for payment too. You know if there are ways to charge back PM too? I was told a couple of times that PM can't be charged back so it's safe. I'm not so sure about that though. |
|
|
|
|
940
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BLOCKS ARE FULL!!!!
|
on: March 26, 2016, 10:43:04 AM
|
|
maokoto
Nope, bitcoin is not working like normal anymore. I think you did not check the newbie subforums and similar places and saw all the complaints about bitcoin transactions that suddenly don't work anymore like before.
It doesn't matter if the blocks are not full in average since there are times on the day where blocks are full all the time. Which means high fees are needed otherwise you have to wait. That is something new. And the current $0.10 fee per transaction are double the amount it was some months ago. For no other reason than bitcoin not being able to meet the capacity requirements anymore. Bitcoiner do not suddenly decide to pay higher fees. It was enforced.
Now ask yourself how long it takes that we reach the paypal fee threshold. And try to ask yourself how you want to convince someone on the street why he should not simply use paypal instead. He does not need anonymity, he sends legal money anyway. And very few of them need to send money over borders.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
