Bitcoin Forum
June 23, 2017, 09:09:22 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 245 »
1  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: June 11, 2017, 03:26:22 AM
I forget the exact words used, but an analogy along the lines of "Going to an abandoned house and placing money in a dresser drawer" was made when I was going over the miner addresses that had been inactive both on Eligius and the blockchain for multiple years.
Aside from the specific matter, it sounds like the lawyer does not grasp how Bitcoin works. Addresses are only ever used by one sender (and normally should only be used for a single transaction), so their activity level is directly related to whether Eligius is sending bitcoins to them. They should never be used for anything else. So if that was the only factor, I would say they should be assumed to still be active - there is no comparison to an abandoned house, since there is no basis to think they have been abandoned at all.

Just for future reference, or in case anyone else encounters a similar situation...
2  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How is it possible to measure the amount of nodes that are just "listening" ? on: June 09, 2017, 07:07:41 PM
Here's a pretty neat tool in case you haven't come across it.

https://coin.dance/nodes
That's missing all the non-listening nodes.
3  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: BFGMiner 5.4.2: GBT+Stratum, RPC, Mac/Linux/Win64, Antminer S1-S5, solo stratum on: June 02, 2017, 06:23:56 AM
Representing BFGMiner and Bitcoin Knots, I officially declare these projects to hold the following positions:

  • Politically support Segwit and BIP148
  • Oppose BU's "emergent consensus" and tothemoon's Segwit-incompatible extension block idea
4  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 28, 2017, 05:57:03 PM
Hey guys, I have an old Eligius url and my password but I can't load the URL. How do I get into my account? I don't remember my address, just password. Any help? Thanks.
No, you don't. Eligius has never had passwords of any kind.
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How is it possible to measure the amount of nodes that are just "listening" ? on: May 28, 2017, 05:42:57 PM
My understanding is that the chart by Luke is also showing nodes that do not accept incoming connections...
In other words: Nodes that are only listening and do not forward transactions and blocks.
You have that backward. Listening nodes are that ones that do accept connections.
Also, whether a node is listening or not is entirely unrelated to whether it forwards transactions or blocks.

Those listening nodes still need to connect to the network. They usually, on first start, will connect to a DNS Seeder and ask it for some nodes to connect to. Generally these nodes are ones that have high uptimes and high bandwidth. The seeder will also record some information about the node that asked it for data in case it is a listening node so that it can send nodes to connect to that node as well. So there are then two ways to get information about non-listening nodes; run a DNS seeder, or operate a high uptime, high bandwidth node that gets lots of connections.
DNS seeding uses DNS because the server typically never sees the actual IP querying it. Running a DNS seed does not really get any useful information.
The data used for the DNS seeder (and also part of the data for my stats) is collected by crawling the Bitcoin network directly. Anyone can do this.
6  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 19, 2017, 06:20:21 PM
Good news!

Quote
[18:01:24] <wizkid057> alive... been unimaginably busy.  have not had access to my IRC VM for a while.  will touch base soon.
7  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 17, 2017, 05:24:46 AM
Luke-Jr when we can expect full functionality on Eligius pool ?
No idea. Still haven't heard anything from wizkid057.
8  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 17, 2017, 04:49:11 AM
Is anyone else minting new coins or just Elig?
P2Pool?
9  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 13, 2017, 05:35:13 PM
FWIW, he seems to have been on Twitter 2 weeks ago.

I also called his cell and left a voicemail asking him to pop into IRC and let us know he's alive when he gets a chance.

Hopefully everything is okay.

Did you ever hear from him?
-Dave
No Sad
10  Other / Bitcoin Wiki / Re: Add my site to bitcoin wiki on: May 09, 2017, 07:48:49 PM
Add it yourself.
11  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: May 08, 2017, 02:13:08 AM
FWIW, he seems to have been on Twitter 2 weeks ago.

I also called his cell and left a voicemail asking him to pop into IRC and let us know he's alive when he gets a chance.

Hopefully everything is okay.
12  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: April 17, 2017, 11:03:40 PM
I wonder if anyone might volunteer to help wizkid057 finish the migration?
13  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: March 18, 2017, 08:13:39 AM
Why could[n't] we have the old stats until the new are available!??
He's not just changing the stats. The pool's reward system changed too. The old stats never supported the new reward system.

Hey Luke, it says Eligius is one of your projects/didn't I read somewhere that you created it?  Could you help out with a temporary stats page if wizkid is too bogged down?  Grin

Do you still have a role on the admin side of this pool. Is it all wizkid now?
It might be theoretically possible, but I don't know how wizkid057 has changed things since I moved on, and I'm not sure it'd be the best use of my time.
(Keep in mind that when I ran the pool, I never had any web stats at all... that was always contributed by someone else)
14  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: March 18, 2017, 12:04:49 AM
Why could[n't] we have the old stats until the new are available!??
He's not just changing the stats. The pool's reward system changed too. The old stats never supported the new reward system.
15  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: March 17, 2017, 11:54:24 PM
If you're really worried, you could mine on another pool temporarily. There's nothing saying you have to be monogamous with Eligius. :p

(Not that I have any reason to doubt wizkid057 will make good on everything.)
16  Bitcoin / Mining software (miners) / Re: BFGMiner 5.4.2: GBT+Stratum, RPC, Mac/Linux/Win64, Antminer S1-S5, solo stratum on: February 03, 2017, 09:50:01 PM
What is the status or plans for support of altcoin algos? I'd really like to switch to bfgminer for the configurability and monitoring, but sha256 is not profitable on my rig.
If someone else wants to maintain different algos, we can merge it and cooperate, but I am not interested.
17  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: [ANN] Bitcoin Ocho aka The Future on: December 12, 2016, 03:01:38 AM
Note the submitted patch actually changes the max block size to 32 MB.

This is a hardfork and, as always, cannot be done without consensus.
18  Bitcoin / Pools / Re: [14000Th] Eligius: 0% Fee BTC, 105% PPS NMC, No registration, CPPSRB on: December 09, 2016, 03:07:43 AM
There shouldn't be any benefit to pool hopping with CPPSRB, so I'd stick to Eligius.
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: PSA: Miners SHOULD NOT signal segwit if the community is not in widespread agre on: November 20, 2016, 04:55:20 AM
luke how about your promise for an implementation for 2mb base 4mb weight??
It is still a work in progress. See my hardfork2016 branch on github.

[as an independent coder as i fear your employer and paid colleagues will refuse it in core]
I do not have an employer by choice. It certainly should be refused in Core unless the community comes to agreement to deploy it first - same as with any hardfork proposal.

your vote is unclear especially in concern of the word "blocksize increase" (you dont explain legacy blocksize vs base/weight)
There is no such thing as "legacy blocksize". Witness data has always been included in the block size, and there is no reason for that to change with segwit.

what should happen:
is node implementations are released first and the community upgrade. that way miners can see that a high percentage of nodes are running and able to FULLY validate and be ready to accept what miners will produce/allow later.
then when happy of a secure large % FULL validation by the network, the pools then and only then vote, due to being happy with the usernode adoption. and if pools reach the high percentage, then it activates. knowing the network is high majority fully validating
The problem is that nodes are anonymous and cannot be detected. We could add some system where they publish their agreement, but it would only work for new nodes, not the old ones which are just as important. (Note that listening nodes are not all nodes.)

phase one: users(full nodes)
a year is given for getting to 95%, when/if it is at 95% at any time within the year..(a)
a month is then given to ensure it stays at 95%, incase of temporary fluke/sybil attack etc(b)
and then a months grace(c)
95% is not consensus sufficient for a hardfork. The remaining 5% would continue Bitcoin and the 95% would simply leave into an altcoin.

please note:
the time between (b) and (f), ends up being many many months. meaning alot of time is given for the ~270 lingering user nodes to well surpass the 95%
thus only making the orphan risk well under 5%.
That's assuming those lingering nodes are actually lingering, and not actively objecting. If they are objecting, then they cannot be forced to switch.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / PSA: Miners SHOULD NOT signal segwit if the community is not in widespread agre on: November 20, 2016, 02:29:52 AM
Softforks require community support, and miners should evaluate this before signalling activation of them. If the community is significantly divided over whether a softfork should be deployed, miners should not signal support for the softfork until this contention is resolved.

Bitcoin Core and [segwit-capable] derivatives by default will indicate to segwit-enabled miners that they should signal for segwit support, but GBT's versionbits support (see BIP 9) is intentionally designed such that the miner may safely choose to ignore this recommendation and omit the signal - Core does not force anyone to signal segwit. Miners and pools should choose whether to signal for segwit (and other softforks or policy decisions) on their own, and not rely on defaults.

People using stratum mining pools should note that they may not be able to override the pools' decisions. If your pool does not disclose to you whether they signal for a given softfork, or they signal (or don't-signal) for one inappropriately, you should switch to a pool that matches your position.

Note that I am intentionally not saying whether or not segwit actually is controversial here. Personally, I support segwit and think the only rational objection is that the block size limit increase may be unsafe if we cannot trust miners to continue making 1 MB or smaller blocks for the near future. But the community should make their own decision (perhaps post your position here for miners to see), and miners should decide whether or not to signal based on the community's consent.
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 ... 245 »
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!