|
First of all this is a moderated topic, so if your responses are insufficient or pointless, I will remove it.
This question may be extremely simple, but I have watched conferences on youtube
and read explanations of SegWit and I could not find the answer stated plainly.
If the purpose of SegWit is to separate the signatures from the transaction data,
and in theory it will be done by having two different merkel trees,
where is the second merkel tree for verification being stored?
From my understanding it seems to be held outside the Bitcoin blockchain.
Any clarifications are greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
...and suggests that if it gets big - the government will stop it.
...
What do you think guys? Will governments stop Bitcoin?
The point is, when it gets that "big", the government can no longer stop it. We have to worry about attempts to stop it now, not when there are tens of millions of users. This guy doesn't understand the fundamentals of Bitcoin/bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
12-13k tx pending is nothing... back in October 2015 we had over 80k tx waiting in the mempool for 3 weeks straight.
|
|
|
|
Strange that I cannot Quote the poster before me (I get an error stating that I don't have permission despite this being my topic).
I don't know why, if true. It may have been a temporary bug. @franky1 has been proven to be a liar (until he can prove otherwise and he started this crap).
I'm sure at some point he will be made aware of this thread and will either address your accusation or not. As a side note, I don't know Franky (or anyone here for that matter). I, and I think OmegaStarScream, were just answering your question. I have no beef with anyone and have no interest in your battle with Franky. |
|
|
|
Screenshots posted show that the program should be written in Visual Basic .NET
It did not show any code at all - only class definitions. If you are going to defend him then please show me the *code*. I didn't see OmegaStarScream defending him. He seemed to be only attempting to answer your question. It seems Franky is using VB, but yes, the screen shot he provided does not show actual coding. ...
When someone is that dishonest I don't think you should pay much attention to anything else that they have to say.
It doesn't really matter if someone is dishonest or not, in the Bitcoin/bitcoin sphere, there is no trust between parties outside of the network, IMO. Everyone should believe and trust at their own risk. |
|
|
|
Screenshots posted show that the program should be written in Visual Basic .NET
Yes, looks like Visual Basics. |
|
|
|
...I wonder what their next NSA-fork will be named like?
I'm calling it now, "Bitcoin Pure", will be a potential name. |
|
|
|
|
The article doesn't seem to explain how the system actually works.
From my simple understanding, it is not a sidechain, but an off-chain "insured" settlement partnership.
It is like a private ledger between the partners and BitGo has agreed to "check" and "guarantee" the transfers.
|
|
|
|
...
... Multibit, Electrum or online wallet like blockchain.info
It is most advisable, if OP is already downloading clients, to download Multibit or Electrum. https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-walletOP should stay away from blockchain.info until he is more knowledgeable about the risks of its use, outside of watch-only addresses that you generated seperately. |
|
|
|
Theymos has stated he is against contentious hardforks and won't support anything without "consensus".
When asked, he defined consensus as "no significant disagreements".
...
Thoughts?
I think there will be "no significant disagreements" when it is very evident it must be raised. One day, the time will come and we must raise to avert a obvious visible danger/disaster. Currently, a blocksize increase doesn't seem necessary for a preventative protocol measure for future use/anticipation. If this is true, it is possible we won't see evidence of consensus for a raise till around 2018-2020, IMO. The question is, do we continue to wait till necessary or do we act now in anticipation? Only time will tell. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is related to CLAM coin.
CLAM coin is an altcoin that was distributed by whether you were holding BTC, LTC, or DOGE, in a address on a certain date.
If you do, that address can be "harvested" or "dug" as they call it, to get the CLAM coins.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the real issue between the parties is that:
Has the experiment now ended, agreed to be a success, and now the current model is the perfected final form?
Is it impossible now that there will be a point in time, when the current model will be changed to create larger blocks?
Is it too late now, mostly because of security and the vast financial interest in BTC, to change the model?
Is it too late now and all that is left to do is optimizations, bug fixes, and bitcoin associated side projects?
I think the real issue is whether Bitcoin/bitcoin can still radically evolve or should only conservatively adapt.
Is there the possibility of a middle ground here? If so, what would it be and when would it be implemented?
I think this is one of the main issues, in regards to this blocksize civil war.
|
|
|
|
Im getting a message "Access completely denied as you have reached your attempts limit " The hold all of my private keys and their support seems unresponsive. I have about 2 bitcoins so about 700 dollars in their any ideas how to help me? I can post any other info if that would help
The exact message is "Access completely denied as you have reached your attempts limit = 3.
Please contact your system administrator."
Did you enter the wrong password into your account too many times? Is it possible someone else attempted to gain access? How long have you waited for a response from support? |
|
|
|
Why do you keep posting about Hearn over and over in different threads?
Your not adding to any conversations. Your just posting nothing over and over.
Are you manic?
no im not bouncing off the walls im sitting quietly on a chair tapping a screen, it was just 4 Mike Hearn threads get over it, everyone should have a crack at making one and putting some comedy in  wat do you make of it? I make it to be worthless crap. Please add a signature campaign on your account so your ramblings make more sense. |
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep posting about Hearn over and over in different threads?
Your not adding to any conversations. Your just posting nothing over and over.
Are you manic?
|
|
|
|
|
Good find and interesting to see them say this about Hearn before New York Times published.
Seems like these groups really do enjoy and lust for any news that Bitcoin is/has/will fail.
For people who think Bitcoin/bitcoin has no future,
they sure do love attempting to understand, discuss, and posses it.
|
|
|
|
What happens when my gpu or cpu hashes?! What is mining? How do anyone make coin with a gpu? Is it something illegal?! I do not understand a word about mining?! If my gpu solves any puzzle why will it make some money?? What is all about?!lease answer me
Have you done any research online yet? All these answers are easily accessible to you with a google search. |
|
|
|
...
He was killed serving Project Mayham, sir. |
|
|
|
You realize Powerball tickets are $2 each. How could you buy a $65 package?
Also, are you going to post proof of the bought tickets? Doesn't really make sense to me why someone would trust a random stranger not only to purchase the lottery tickets but to split the money on the one in billion chance he actually has the winning ticket.
In addition, how would the taxes be paid? You will pay the government the taxes on the $800 million, then buy $480 million in bitcoin, then pay and send equally to all the participants? I'm sure that if we don't know who you are, the participants won't see a cent of it. |
|
|
|
This doesn't make sense to me.
What it is saying is that, to get around a hard fork (and a soft fork), some miners will mine a new block type.
This new block is at 1MB, but can "expand" to bigger than 1MB, by allowing included txs to fall outside of that 1MB limit
and into the "mushroom" section of this new block. When you are in this section, you can not see, verify, or spend (technically).
That means when people use bitcoin, they won't know if their tx will be within the 1MB or the mushroom section.
This alone will cause too much damage to the market place, especially with merchants.
Bitcoin is based on a provable tx. Your now saying we won't be able to prove or see some txs.
It would require that all miners have upgraded, and they all produce a new type of block that can contain more than 1MB of transactions. People with updated software will be able to view/spend transactions in the new type of block, but people with the old software will find that some of their transactions fail. Any damage this proposal would do, a hard fork would do too, but probably worse. A hard fork could result in a merchant caught on the wrong side of the fork sending out an item they think the've received a payment for, when the transaction never existed on the winning newer fork. In this mushroom blocks scenario, the merchant would just think they had never received the payment if it ended up in the mushroom block, but as soon as the software was upgraded, they would then be able to see that a payment had been received and dispatch the item - without the risk of losing Bitcoin. Everyone would pretty quickly upgrade you would imagine once they were not receiving payments, and the people sending them told them they need to upgrade. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when all the miners "upgrade", aren't they actually just using a new Bitcoin protocol, to get around the current protocol. What is the difference between what you are proposing and what XTers and BigBlockers, are promoting? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
