|
Great idea, i've few improvement/idea such as :
- clear rules about deposit/withdraw/trading limit for unverified and verified users
- transparency about user compensation if their server is breached
But frankly i'd rather push the community to use DEX (at least for crypto-to-crypto trading) and atomic swap once it's available.
|
|
|
|
It's obvious the answer is they accept 0-conf/zero-confirmation, but most likely they do/check these things (since there's few second delay on the video) before the system decide to verify the transaction : 1. Check fee in the transaction is sufficient to get confirmed 2. Check the bitcoin network if there's double-spend attempt 3. Broadcast the transaction to many other nodes to reduce double-spend attempt chance But, there shouldn't be any problem with double-spend attempt if the "attack" transaction is broadcasted few seconds slower. More info https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819 |
|
|
|
|
No, what we really need are Bitcoin legalization as currency/payment method and making sure everyone can buy/sell Bitcoin easier, even in small amount
|
|
|
|
|
IMO there's nothing much we can do. People these days prefer HODL their bitcoin over spend/use it because more people realize the potential of Bitcoin which could make Bitcoin price skyrocketing while many newcomers only think Bitcoin as investment.
I guess Bitcoin legality as currency/payment method or/and adaption by merchant/service are most efficient way to make Bitcoin transaction have economic value.
|
|
|
|
|
I've used Electron Cash and there's no problem, but i move my Bitcoin to another address on another wallet (different seed) just to be sure.
Bitcoin ABC or other full-nodes client isn't recommended unless you want to waste your storage/bandwitch and AFAIK bitcoin.com wallet isn't open source.
|
|
|
|
As usual, bob123 already explain most things why are they committed to only 1mb (or ~ 4 mb with segwit)
FYI, Bitcoin now use block weight limit with 4.000.000 weight limit. So, the maximum block size we can see is from 1MB to 4MB. But 4MB only happen on very specific case and usually the biggest block size is about 2MB. Why can't core scale as some f(x) = S curve so that you would get a % increase that increased supply and demand?
why are they committed to only 1mb (or ~ 4 mb with segwit)
I am assuming you are talking about the block size? Well, the most critical point probably is that increasing the block size is just a temporary scaling. Doubling the block size brings a small benefit (lower fees) for a short period of time (until transactoun amount doubled). But the price for this 'scaling' is, that you are sacrificing the possibility of decentralisation. If the block size would increase heavily, smaller nodes wouldn't be able to verify a block fast enough until another one has been mined. This would lead to a (heavy form of) centralisation where only big data centre could allow to run full nodes. This would then require average user to trust some public nodes, without the possibility of fast and efficient validation. Additionally, it is hard to perform proper testing on bigger blocks (e.g. 8mb or 16mb). I agree, but there's possibility of increase maximum block size weight with considering majority nodes or people still can run full-nodes without mid/high-end device. But most likely that won't happen because Deciding The line of mid/high-end device and backward-compability. The next steps toward scaling in terms of transactions/block are
(1) the lightning network (which will allow to make an 'infinite' amount of transactions without paying the on-chain fee, as long your channel is open and filled) and
(2) schnorr signatures, which heavily reduce the size of transactions using multiple inputs (which most of the tx's are). They allow you to combine multiple signatures into one (and therefore saving space in the blockchain).
Additionally, there are also : 1. MAST, which compress script/simple smart-contract while improve user privacy on some cases 2. BLS Signature, an alternative to Schnorr Signature. No idea whether bitcoin will use BLS though More info : https://bitcointechtalk.com/what-is-a-bitcoin-merklized-abstract-syntax-tree-mast-33fdf2da5e2fhttps://medium.com/@snigirev.stepan/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716 |
|
|
|
|
If you have intention to run full-nodes, want to have full blockchain copy or don't mind spend your storage/time, you should wait until sync process is finished. Using SSD make the process faster if you have fast internet connection.
Otherwise, just export your private key to SPV wallet such as Electrum.
Also, don't rely on "Total:" or your history when it's on sync. If you insist to sync the whole blockchain, but want to know your current balance, you can use getaddressesbyaccount "" commend on Bitcoin Core console to get list of bitcoin address on your wallet and check it on any bitcoin blockchain explorer.
|
|
|
|
1. There are theoretical models out there that predict a return of 60-80% returns for well connected nodes. Where are these theoretical models? Surely the low barrier of entry to creating a node would prevent running one from being so profitable? No idea about theoretical models, but surely that means you could have more income by charge fees when people route transaction through your channel/nodes 2. You can become the 6th most connected node with an investment on only $2,000 What is the barrier to becoming the 1st most connected node if the cost is only $2,000? Is it extremely time intensive to set up channels? Marketing? If you have more Bitcoin on your LN channel/nodes, that means you can route transaction with big value and you even can even charge small fees. The fastest way to become most connected nodes is by becoming merchants or services, that way customer would connect to your channel/nodes if they couldn't find any route to your channel/nodes 3. This persons real life returns are at a rate of approximately 20% per month. Why isn't everyone doing this and driving the returns down at rates like that? Because LN isn't ready for mainstream users and even LN developer don't encourage user to use LN on mainnet. I know that genuine gold rush opportunities exist as I have had the opportunity to exploit a couple in the past and risk is not always proportional to return but I feel like this guy would not be posting this article if the opportunity was really as good as he makes it sounds. Thoughts?
My thought is you shouldn't use run LN channel/nodes solely for profit by charge fees when people route transaction through your channel/nodes since LN supposed to have low/zero fees and i doubt it's worth your time unless lots of people connect to your channel/nodes. |
|
|
|
So is this how it's going to work?
You get yourself an address and a private key, and you store the info in an envelope in their vault. You then buy loads of Bitcoin, and send it to that address. You don't tell anybody about it, and when you die, the bank moves the coins into their own wallet.
You could store only encrypted private key (starts with 6...) which mentioned in BIP-38 instead. Surely they won't able to crack the encrypted private key as long as you use strong passphrase/password. If they don't know your public key and your address never re-used, they can't crack it even when quantum computing is available for corporate. |
|
|
|
|
The problem is majority exchange uses BTC/altcoin trading pair while most cryptocurrency market price list uses fiat which means altcoin price always follow Bitcoin price.
That makes most altcoin price behave the same way, while the altcoin price in BTC don't change too much.
In this case, traders and exchanges should be blamed for supporting BTC/altcoin pairing rather than fiat/altcoin.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin.com never give detailed/accurate news  But, most likely they meant 5% of XMR hashrate came from hijacked device or 5% of XMR coin supply was mined with hijacked device. Also, verify total coins mined from private/fungible cryptocurrency such as Monero isn't difficult since they don't hide the amount of mined coins in their coinbase transaction. But coins such as Verge isn't really private since every transaction is transparent just like Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
If they don't have to change GitHub into next Office365 aka Github365 and really focusing developing GitHub for developer just like what they did with Visual Studio Code, i would say it's not bad idea to keep using GitHub.
But using personal Git server for development process or use another service such as GitLab might be better idea.
|
|
|
|
I don't see any reason to decline as long as the AI isn't hostile, dangerous or manipulative. But i doubt there will be any true AI in our lifetime. I mean there already are bots and no they don't tend to last long in forums.
Surely there's huge difference between bots and AI. Bot is hard-programmed while AI can improve itself over time. |
|
|
|
Let's not rely on whitepaper or Satoshi's idea since it was created long time ago under different condition. Things such as one-CPU-one-vote have too many obstacle to be realized even if Bitcoin only can be mined with CPU. While it's true that "non-mining node" isn't as useful as as "mining node", "non-mining nodes" are required to verify many things such as : 1. Know which one is longest chain, it's really useful when chain-split occurred unintentionally. The example is Bitcoin-qt upgrade 0.8 in 2013. 2. Detect invalid transaction in block, since you can't detect it only from block header which SPV uses. 3. Know that other nodes/miners change their Bitcoin protocol intentionally. But people should note that not every user should run full nodes, but user should be able to run full nodes if they want to without expensive/specialized hardware. More info : https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/All full validating nodes, mining or not, validate all the transactions and blocks in the network and check if they follow the rules, correct?
Then I assume that that my node is as good as a miner's node.
But why do some people believe that only the miners' nodes matter and are very quick to cite this?
Yes, your node is useful, but no, it is not "as good as". The blockchain really only takes a step forward when a block is created. You cannot create blocks. Theoretically you can create blocks, but only lack the amount of PoW needed. |
|
|
|
If you're only looking for "visual" version of blockchain and don't want to think about technical details, website such as http://ethviewer.live/ is good enough. But don't forget that each cryptocurrency (or other blockchain project) have different blockchain model/technology. Keyword such as "blockchain linked list" can give you visual with simple explanation such as this image :  |
|
|
|
|
That's assuming the attacker decide to do 51% attack by purchase lots of ASIC/GPU, but it's not really accurate number because :
1. There's no way you could get thousand of ASIC/GPU units easily
2. Even if they could, i'm sure the price of ASIC/GPU will be more expensive due to high demand and low supply
3. Unless you have connection, i doubt you could use lots of eletricity and big mining location easily
I think adding backdoor to ASIC, take control over mining poll or release Botnet malware are cheaper/easier solution for the attacker.
|
|
|
|
Voting for election with blockchain is difficult since we need to rely on 3rd party (such as government in this case) to ensure only eligible people can make a vote, only can vote once and can't create another "account". But for your problem you mentioned, it can be solved by : 1. Require user to prove their identity is match by password or sign message with linked address/public key when user register which contain vote option. 2. Ensure people can run full nodes with open-source client to ensure the blockchain isn't redo by bad people for public permissioned/permissionless blockchain or 3rd party run several full nodes at different location for private blockchain. In the end, the weakest security/link always human factor |
|
|
|
We already know LN or other 2nd layer are the good solutions for cryptocurrency (and some decentralized blockchain) scaling while maintain decentralization and ensure people can run full nodes without very high cost, even though most people haven't realize this yet. But without user-friendly wallet/client/nodes, LN isn't really useful. But some developer already make one, even though i think it's not friendly enough. But the part of news that i like is : Missing from all these speeches, was the idea of increasing the block size to infinity, much to Roger Ver’s chagrin. |
|
|
|
Simple, abandon the concept the ICO and replace with : 1. Venture Capital if the developer aim to make centralized service 2. Forcing the developer to make/develop few percentage of the project and can be shown/accessed before do ICO/VC. 3. Use community funding system such as what Monero use ( https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required) |
|
|
|
Yet another "expert" who even don't know how bitcoin works at all. He don't even why Bitcoin use PoW as it's protocol consensus & difference between required mining electricity and electricity used to mine. Furthermore, Bitcoin (and most cryptocurrency without complex feature) can be understood and used easier just by make a wallet with good UI/UX and open-source |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
