Bitcoin Forum
June 27, 2016, 08:27:39 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 950 »
641  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 31, 2016, 03:53:03 PM
Did this not answer your question?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14367997#msg14367997

the witness data (signatures) portion of a transaction usually makes up around 75% of the total transaction data size ... so by moving it out the main block and into a separate 'witness block' of data makes available approx. that much space in the main block for other data.

Nope.

Because despite the witness segregation in a separate block my full node will receive both txs base data and witness data to perform full validation.

And because my node will have to relaying both base data and witness data to any other full node to let them perform full validation.

So of the 3 main costs of operating a node RAM/CPU, bandwidth and storage the witness segregation will let me save in terms of storage and bandwidth only once I will decide to discard the witness part of a block, or "witness block" if you will.

The 75% witness discount will allow for more transactions per block w/o requiring a hard fork.  I don't think anyone is claiming that it will directly reduce resources required to run a full validating node.

Give it up sickpig, we all understand what your saying, but like everyone keeps saying at the end of the day segwit will nearly double capacity.
the 75% witness discount will make sure of that even if not all full-user-nodes dont upgraded.


This has a disadvantage though, namely I could not fully participating to the p2p bitcoin network anymore because I can't provide blocks data to new nodes once I delete the witness part.
no. the blocks can be sent around without the individual sigs on each TX, and that block can still be validated without these sigs.

642  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 31, 2016, 04:25:58 AM
643  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 31, 2016, 04:16:30 AM
i've ploted the blocklimit debate

my conclusion is we are close to forming consensus!!
644  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 31, 2016, 03:51:38 AM
back in my day things look like this



now things look like this



Cant complain!
645  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 31, 2016, 03:13:24 AM
what would you think if bitcoin stay at 400 range for- eva and other coin reach 200000 usd range instead Huh
Maybe someone will create a breakthrough coin that is a game changer
646  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do you honestly think Bitcoin toys would help us?! on: March 31, 2016, 01:20:22 AM
i think bitcoin is much easier to understand then fiat
a toy for to help kids understand bitcoin would be a piggy bank with a bitcoin logo on it.
money in, money out
try explaining to a kid what happens when you deposit money in a bank....

bitcoin is probably closer to what people BELIEVE money is, then what fiat money actually is.


I always found there to be similarities. Explain what Fiat is to you in your own words perhaps?

Fiat is money backed by debt, when you borrow money to buy a car or a house *POOF* that money is created out of nowhere, your promise to pay creates that money.

Remember after 9/11 when the bankers came out and said " we found 4 billion dollar to fund the war on terror " what actually happened there is 4billion dollars was created out of nowhere. *POOF*

when money is created and injected into the economy, the value of each dollar goes down, why do you think the price of food is always going up Up UP!!! the price of everything tends to go up yearly. its called inflation

infact the banks target a 1-2% inflation rate

what may look like a large sum of money today will not be a large sum of money tomorrow
so poeple try to invest in assets or otherwise which causes speculative bubbles and distorts the markets
remember the housing bubble?

the economy is subject to boom and bust cycles.

but the worst part, is that there's a limit on how much you can borrow, but there's no limit on how much the government can borrow.

the government can choose to put itself in a HUGE amount of debt and fund whatever projects it feels like ( WAR! )
and we all pay for it with inflation.

fiat is a system with arbitrary rules ( complex and numerous ) which favor the ruling class.
647  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Classic or Core? Which one is better? on: March 30, 2016, 11:38:39 PM
I realize i am in the minority and my opinion is not appreciated, and will never be accepted by this crowd... i'm going to leave you guys to your own devices.
bitcoin IS what YOU want it to be. who am i to disagree?
truly sorry for the endless debating, i had to at least try.
its been fun, altho i disagree with your position I respect all of you, even the poeple that seemed like assholes at the time, i was attacking their belief system, their arger is to be expected...
goodbye.
648  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Classic or Core? Which one is better? on: March 30, 2016, 11:30:26 PM
you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning.

You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it.

i did!  Cheesy
649  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Classic or Core? Which one is better? on: March 30, 2016, 11:24:11 PM
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?

That doesn't address the assertion that larger blocks contribute to miner centralization. Mining viability over time (due to subsidy halvings) depends on fees becoming a greater share of block rewards. You're then putting some miners between a rock and a hard place: 1) increase orphan rate or 2) decrease block reward. Either way, their viability is threatened, and this disproportionately affects smaller miners/pools, thus contributing to miner centralization.

See the link I posted: The group of smaller miners loses a % of relative income. If they publish larger blocks, their loss percentage goes up slightly further.

Perhaps more important: If a group of miners is willing to relay and build on a 1GB block, it doesn't follow that the rest of the network is willing to. Are we supposed to trust miners never to disagree? Sorry, but no thanks. I prefer that node software makes disagreement (hard forking) impossible.

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field.

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!
650  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 30, 2016, 11:08:58 PM


Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough?

That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine...


most website which handle bitcoins have custom wallets.
they cannot simply install core.
they will need to update their custom wallets with segwit code.
some of the bigger ones ( poeple like bitfinex and MtGox ) have agreed to do these changes.
they will use core code as a reference and copy, paste intergate.
651  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Classic or Core? Which one is better? on: March 30, 2016, 10:53:21 PM
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?
652  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 30, 2016, 10:50:23 PM

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit
Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).


Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  


BW is more costly than storage but nothing compares to the cost of orphen risk
the miner can discount the TX @75% because he won't include the segwit when propagating the block

i guess...

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding of SegWit's BIPs (*) blocks propagation will include also witness data. In fact it's impossible for a full node to validate a block without signatures data, only once validation is performed the full node operator could decide to drop (or keep) the witness data. Before that moment they seem mandatory to me.  

(*) segwit BIPs:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0145.mediawiki
segwit is a pun?
653  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 30, 2016, 10:33:56 PM

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit
Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).


Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  


BW is more costly than storage but nothing compares to the cost of orphen risk
the miner can discount the TX @75% because he won't include the segwit when propagating the block

i guess...
654  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Classic or Core? Which one is better? on: March 30, 2016, 10:21:54 PM
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?
655  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 30, 2016, 07:40:40 PM
BTC moving down, ETH moving up  Undecided

It's almost starting to look like ETH might take over.

I better go buy an ETH debit card then to spend all of these ETHs.

Or go visit an ETH accepting restaurant.

I can use them to buy things at Amazon for a discount right?

A convoluted way to use a debit card and Amazon coupons. I hope BTC has more going for it than that.

Being able to drop your bank and use an international currency that has a finite amount...I'd say that's quite a bit.

Can I do that with ethereums?

not yet...
656  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 30, 2016, 06:09:03 PM

remember us, remember why we died.
657  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 30, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
658  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: March 30, 2016, 05:51:40 PM
Bitstamp will be adding ETH soon, a source (a credible one) told me yesterday that the implementation is done and they are just testing and tweaking things at the moment... you know what is funny, I posted this on /r/ethtrader daily discussion and I got so many down votes, one went so far telling me I am trading my books Cheesy this just gives you a hint about people trading position.

this is getting out of hand!
whats next bitpay will add ETH payments  Undecided
659  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 30, 2016, 05:14:16 PM
I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.

It is. But what I'm often asking myself is not whether Gavin would adopt segwit, but if ...Satoshi would. Would he be pro or against such a change, and for what reasons...

Some will say Satoshi is irrelevant right now, so... but still, I have that question in my mind.
I think Satoshi would be for letting nakamoto consensus determine all future upgrades.
660  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 30, 2016, 04:50:30 PM
I've yet to see a single person who completely understands Segwit and is against it.

its hard to be really against segwit, even classic plans to adopt segwit.
segwit is awesome and a necessary first step for getting the second layer going.
i fully agree with you, you can't  fully understand segwit and be against it.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 950 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!