Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2018, 04:22:54 AM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
  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 ... 307 »
1  Other / Meta / Re: THEME FOR THEYMOS on: September 21, 2018, 02:41:28 PM
The system of merit doesn't work. My example.

By design, rewarding the user with merit occurs when it will be useful for the forum and all cryptocommunity as a whole. A good comment or an interesting topic - and other users will gratuitously appreciate the efforts of such a user. It doesn't work! Where money keeps rolling, there is no place for philanthropy. Merits don't give simply just like that. Merits are selling.

Yes, you must write a good comment or create a useful post. But tentatively you must agree with the seller of merits, that he "appreciates" your efforts. Otherwise, your topic will drown in the world of spam BTT. Youíll say that's not so? Well, let's play this game.

Here's an example of my topic, that I created specifically for this experiment.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027519.msg45 .. - English forum

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5025367.msg45 .. - Russian forum

If after this article they aren't removed, you will see them. The topic in the Russian thread was listlessly supported. Apparently, itís difficult for the philistine, who came to do the signature, but he's not using his head for thinking. The topic in the English version simply drowned without the attention of society.

The system of merit works. My example.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4686439.msg42288508#msg42288508
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5029325.msg45717195#msg45717195
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4980960.msg44928914#msg44928914

You only look at few sections, the system works very well on most section.

Or users have nothing to say?

Users already do that on another thread, time to DYOR.
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Running bitcoin core 16.0.1 looking to upgrade to 16.0.3 on a mac on: September 21, 2018, 02:07:23 PM
I download 16.0.3

You had a typo there.

I am not sure why you need to empty your wallet and clone your hdd.
You can just install the new version and everything should work just like it did before.

Dude I always fear loss of info.

So I did a screenshot  of my choices   and I simply can not recall what option to pick

keep both bitcoin cores  or replace 16.0.1 with 16.0.3

I don't see any reasonable reasons to keep older version, just replace it with newest version. Even if you're paranoid, verify the validity of the installation and backup wallet.dat should be sufficient.

Also, there's no report that wallet.dat, blockchain or chainstate corrupted/missing after upgrade 0.16.3
3  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When Schnorr will be added? on: September 21, 2018, 11:44:21 AM
Looks like i misunderstood, however what if all miners use non-SegWit nodes, others use SegWit nodes and there's transaction from/to Bech32 address? AFAIK this will make such transaction never confirmed/included by miners.

If all of the miners decided to run non-Segwit nodes, I'm sure that would hurt the market value of BTC, and hurt their bottom line. I am sure there will eventually be at least one pool that will relent and go back to verifying segwit transactions. Or someone in this space will create a new pool that does run a segwit node. Since that pool would be paying out slightly more due to the transaction fees, many miners would switch to that pool. Other pools would probably be swayed to abandon their little boycott and start mining segwit tx again.

Interesting theory, but there are few things that i don't understand/agree,
1. Why would price of BTC hurt? I don't see anyone would dump Bitcoin (whether it's from pro-SegWit/anti-SegWit), unless they don't care about price of BTC/losses
2. I don't see correlation between SegWit transaction and higher fee transaction since SegWit have lower transaction size (which leads to less fees), unless SegWit supporters intentionally do that to attract people who actually don't care about the boycott OR block is far from full and mempool only contains SegWit transaction.



It's far simpler than SegWit, there's even less reason for controversy around it, and it won't be done using the BIP9 process which caused SegWit's unnecessary delays. I could see the Schnorr softfork completing next year.

So in order to add schnorr signatures, we will not go through another dramafest of mining wars fighting each other with hashrate signaling different things?

If I remember correctly satoshi used in the past softforks that didn't need mining signaling (basically a UASF? but there wasn't a name for it back then). Im not sure why segwit took that route. Was it simply to allow miners to have their say with their hashrate or was it because of technical reasons that needed it to be implemented that way?

That's because SegWit developer use "anyone-can-spend" and remove signature part of transaction as method for backward compability where it can be used to steal Bitcoin if majority nodes/miners don't support/use client that support SegWit.
And this is one of the argument used by opposition used to stall/disrupt consensus years ago.

AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.

Im aware of the segwit controversies and why it caused that. My point is, there are very conservative people in bitcoin and will basically reject forever anything that isn't a legacy transaction (addresses which begin with 1 only, and nothing else, as valid bitcoin transactions).

There is people that say the incentives to do an attack on segwit aren't there, and other's say that on a long enough timeline, the incentives will align and only these holding their coins in legacy addresses will be safe (therefore, the incentive to keep your coins in legacy addresses is already formed, unless you believe this to be nonsense and you are sure it will never happen)

I doubt their number is big enough to disrupt Schnorr implantation/activation
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Trying to get a deeper understanding of atomic swaps on: September 21, 2018, 11:01:12 AM
Hi together,

I finished my thesis now and have some results.

I put everything I accomplished in a git repo, so everybody can view my results. At the moment there is only the german thesis, but I will try to translate it within the next days.

I hope my work is usefull to somebody.

Git: https://github.com/noobWithAComputer/detect-atomic-swaps

Greetings.

Nice work, even though i barely understand the topic, looking forward for English version. Also, just to be sure, has it been tested or peer reviewed?

You might be interested with Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing
5  Other / Meta / Re: Latest drivel on bitcoin.com about bitcointalk.org on: September 21, 2018, 07:44:47 AM
But they are welcome to the banned plagiarists, account farms, bots, shit-posters and other rule breakers.

I doubt they're interested with that forum since i don't see any signature space (or similar) below user's post. Or maybe they will since many of them say this forum is censored and centralized Huh

Maybe i should ask their admin too add signature space and allowing signature/bounty campaign since it could help user's financial condition.
6  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: clone a coin on: September 21, 2018, 07:25:50 AM
Some coins source code (including bitcoin) have it's own script for unit testing which means you need to install library/IDE required to work with the source code.

But, maybe you (and myself) should familiarize ourselves with (automated) Unit Testing first.
7  Other / Meta / Re: [TOP-200] Members who support newbies - Thanks! on: September 21, 2018, 06:51:54 AM
My username on the list? That's unexpected Shocked. But i give merit solely based on post's quality/usefulness (and recent post history for low-ranked member).

Good work though, since we could find merit abuser easier while knowing generous member.
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 21, 2018, 06:41:40 AM
Is Bitcoin Cash also developing a layer-2, off-chain solution that would "sit" on top of the base layer? I believe that would make a stronger debate for the development of the Lightning Network. It is something that the big blockers might not admit.

https://twitter.com/jihanwu/status/1041691310367760384?s=21

Quote
BCH will continue its roadmap to build electronical cash on base protocol and encouraging permissionless innovation in layer-2. I see lots of buidlers are working so hard! Fake Satoshi can never stop us.

What would be the point of bigger blocks?


I'd bet they would make their own 2nd-layer which might be clone of LN/Raiden Network and forcing 0-fee on it's protocol, then claim they have better on-chain and off-chain scaling.

But i wouldn't listen to people with lots of controversial. I wonder what's opinion of actual BCH developer/contributor.
9  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Ledger Nano S safe? on: September 21, 2018, 03:07:40 AM
I think they would have to bruteforce your PIN..

AFAIK Ledger Nano S do factory reset (remove private key & seed as well) after 3 invalid PIN attempt.

Can you bypass the user interface by connecting/mounting the disk (somehow) then have access to the file system and private keys stored there?

Check https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/73708/how-are-ledger-nano-s-private-keys-protected or https://www.ledger.fr/2015/03/27/how-to-protect-hardware-wallets-against-tampering/

TLDR : the storage chip actually have it's basic OS where you only can get signed transaction of the stored private key and you must know the password/PIN.

CMIIW
10  Other / Meta / Re: Captcha without javascript on: September 21, 2018, 02:55:33 AM
That depends on how the admin/owner of the site configure their Security preferences. By v2 default setting, user must enable JavaScript in order to interact with ReCAPTCHA
But since this forum use CloudlFlare, i doubt it's possible unless Cloudllare allow it's client to configure that preferences.

References : https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/faq#does-recaptcha-support-users-that-dont-have-javascript-enabled (assuming the FAQ is up-to-date)
11  Other / Meta / Re: LoyceV's deMerit source application on: September 20, 2018, 05:43:35 PM
I get your idea, but this could be abused easily/misused in many ways. Increasing merit requirement for some ranks, limiting signature features for few ranks and permanent ban for obvious merit abuse are far better and should be easier to be implemented.
Report button on merit page and hidden list of trusted member (which only can be seen by moderator/admin when see reports) should be better.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: CryptoCreates an environment where violence or surpression is supported on: September 20, 2018, 05:21:22 PM
Even if without cryptocurrency, criminal still able to use fiat either by money laundering or using paper money where government also have little to no control over it.
Besides, most cryptocurrency is only pseudonymous and criminal wouldn't use it since that would make cashing out/sell process far more difficult.

Either way, cryptocurrency is just like another things/tool that can be used by good and bad actors.
13  Economy / Services / Re: [OPEN] ⚡BQT Signature Campaign | Member - Hero | 0.0007 BTC /Post ⚡ on: September 20, 2018, 03:53:03 PM
Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=359716
Post Count: 6044
Merit Count: 1093
BTC Address: 1DybCk14s9xVTe4ieRWpm8uj2hDYt6cyjg or bc1qukm497eqrf2f24k5l8sghz5uewpyszmcu696cu
Telegram Username: @etfbitcoin

I also switch from IOU, i don't mind Sr. Member rates since Hero/Legendary slot is full
14  Economy / Services / Re: [OPEN] 🔥IOU Signature Campaign | Member - Hero | 0.0007 BTC /Post 🔥 on: September 20, 2018, 02:53:34 PM
Hi guys, unfortunately, the devs have decided to end this campaign and move it into a token based campaign. Apologies if anyone didn't get paid for the 4-6 hour period.

That's unexpected, even though technically they still run the campaign. I'd like to switch to BQT signature campaign as well.
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Looking for an analyzer tool for blockchain on: September 20, 2018, 01:16:11 PM
There are some free or/and open-source blockchain analyzer tool/software, but AFAIK most of them don't have complex feature/analysis. Search blockchain analyzer tool -news on Google should give what you need.
https://github.com/citp/BlockSci looks like is the most popular open-source block analyzer

Don't bother reinvent the wheel unless you're not satisfied with/can't find analysis method you want
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: bitcoin core client blocked on my network on: September 20, 2018, 11:42:29 AM
There are few options including :
1. Change bitcoin default open port. Your ISP might block default Bitcoin Core port, whether it's intentional or not[a]
2. Make sure your Bitcoin Core comes from legitimate source
3. Check if your PC's firewall block connection made by Bitcoin Core or any software outside it's whitelist

But using VPN (or other forms of secure connection) is more convenient and could protect your privacy/anonymity.

a. https://www.ccn.com/isps-intentionally-blocking-bitcoin/
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When Schnorr will be added? on: September 20, 2018, 04:18:08 AM
AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.
Schnorr will be added via a new segwit version number. It will not require a transaction format change, there just be a witness version 1 in addition to the current witness version 0.


Just to confirm, does that mean we'll see address starting with bc1p (according to BIP page[1]) ?

1. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#bech32

Those were arguments that the anti-SegWit people used, but they're not true:
 - SegWit's security doesn't depend on miners, but rather on the economy. (Otherwise the UASF attempt wouldn't have made any sense...)

Looks like i misunderstood, however what if all miners use non-SegWit nodes, others use SegWit nodes and there's transaction from/to Bech32 address? AFAIK this will make such transaction never confirmed/included by miners.

- The signature is not removed. Between SegWit nodes, every transaction must be accompanied by its signatures or it's invalid.

True, but what i meant is the signature is stripped/removed when SegWit nodes communicate with non-SegWit nodes.
18  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Transfer Wallets - Desktop to External Drive on: September 20, 2018, 02:38:32 AM
When backup your wallet, all you need to backup are :
1. Mnemonic seed. You don't need to remember the password, but anyone can steal your coins if they find out your seed.
2. Wallet files. You need to remember the password if you set the files with password.

Backup wallet application and it's blockchain database (if it's wallet/client with full-nodes functionality) isn't required, but would save your time from re-downloading the application or/and blockchain database.
Also, there's no "login" when you use wallet, except you use centralized wallet/exchange.
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When Schnorr will be added? on: September 20, 2018, 02:29:06 AM


It's far simpler than SegWit, there's even less reason for controversy around it, and it won't be done using the BIP9 process which caused SegWit's unnecessary delays. I could see the Schnorr softfork completing next year.

So in order to add schnorr signatures, we will not go through another dramafest of mining wars fighting each other with hashrate signaling different things?

If I remember correctly satoshi used in the past softforks that didn't need mining signaling (basically a UASF? but there wasn't a name for it back then). Im not sure why segwit took that route. Was it simply to allow miners to have their say with their hashrate or was it because of technical reasons that needed it to be implemented that way?

That's because SegWit developer use "anyone-can-spend" and remove signature part of transaction as method for backward compability where it can be used to steal Bitcoin if majority nodes/miners don't support/use client that support SegWit.
And this is one of the argument used by opposition used to stall/disrupt consensus years ago.

AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: When Schnorr will be added? on: September 20, 2018, 02:20:11 AM
Aside from what other members already mentioned, there are few planned implementation (the idea either from user/developer) on :
1. Multi-signature address (this is obvious application/implementation)
2. Lightning Network, since 2-of-2 multisigature transaction is used when open and close channel
3. CoinJoin (along with various improvement/tweak such as SharedCoins, CoinShuffle, Stonewall and ZeroLink), since AFAIK it could break linking/analysis

And as theymos said, there's no actual BIP for Schnorr since i couldn't find any at https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

What DooMAD said, Schnorr is at least as big of a change as SegWit, and we all know how easy and smooth of an upgrade that was...

I disagree since those who would make ruckus already have their own cryptocurrency and few of them have their own fight consensus. Besides, unlike SegWit, almost no one know about Schnorr Signature/Signature Aggression expect those who interested with Bitcoin's technology.
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 ... 307 »
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!