Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2018, 05:16:09 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. 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 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 ... 311 »
341  Economy / Exchanges / Re: Security of crypto trading. Which trading platform and wallet are best to use? on: August 15, 2018, 05:50:10 PM
Decentralized exchange might be good alternative since the balance is managed by escrow, multi-siganture address or smart contract which means there's less risks of your cryptocurrency is stolen/hacked/frozen.
While their volume is small, a bit difficult to use and usually there's no fiat-to-crypto (or vice-versa) trading, it's good choice if you care about anonymity/full control over your coins.

Also, if you decide to use desktop/mobile wallet, always make sure the wallet are open-source and give you option to backup seed/private key. Always download/update the wallet from official website or application store.
342  Other / Meta / Re: Community generated suggestions to improve the forum (+ eventual voting on them) on: August 15, 2018, 05:24:40 PM
Few additional suggestion :
Adding "Altcoin Development & Technical Discussion" section/child board since there are many great technology that altcoin have/use and few members began to talk about altcoin technology anyway. But disabling signature might be necessary to prevent spam.
Implement automatic account recovery with signed message when user lost account access, but already set and verify their Bitcoin address on profile information.
Add 2FA security option.
More strict punishment for spam/sharing FUD on Development & Technical Discussion, Mining, Bitcoin Technical Support and Serious discussion (along with it's child boards)

Two report buttons/queues: one for sig spam and low quality posts and one everything else that is more urgent (hundreds of reports on spam posts are currently burying more important reports).

I think choosing category such a spam, wrong section, sharing FUD and others when report would be better.

A sub board for highly merited users to encourage constructive topics only by users who have proven their worth here over time (or make the Ivory Tower merit requirement much higher [OMG ITS LIKE SOVIET RUSSIA GULAG]).

With the amount of thread/post on Ivory tower, i think it's not needed for now.

I found it best to completely avoid any of the established captcha providers.  Back when I used to run a phpBB, I had a little-known visual captcha called KittenAuth.  It basically gave you 9 pictures in a 3x3 grid and the default setting was to select only the kittens.  But you could change the pictures to something more thematically appropriate for your site.  I found that far more effective than any other captcha I've ever encountered.  Only human beings got through after that.

The safest bet is to make a totally proprietary one.  The more obscure, the better.

I don't how long ago this was but captcha solving has really moved on in just the last 4 or 5 months I've been involved with trying to fight bots. Something like that with a 3x3 grid they would just brute force like they do with reCAPTCHA. There's only a certain number of combinations and they have a powerful backend server just trying until it gets a token to pass to a worker bot.

Back to the matter in hand we already know that these spambots can log in, so they must already have the ability to solve reCAPTHCHA so asking them to do it again to post will not make any difference to them. They just need to add a couple of lines to their script.

The bottom line is if there is a financial incentive to do so someone will find a way to defeat any type of captcha.

Implement cooldown (which increase each time if user/bot keep making mistake) when user/bot answer reCAPTCHA wrong should work/reduce the problem.
343  Other / Serious discussion / Re: How do these Bitcoin transactions confirm so quickly? on: August 13, 2018, 06:49:18 PM
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
344  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Random or user-specified ports on: August 13, 2018, 06:12:40 PM
Following up on the reply of @achow101:

You can also set the values for port and datadir in the Bitcoin.conf configuration file for instance for your main instance. Then when you want to fire up another one you can override those values from the command-line for a new instance:

bitcoind -datadir=<dir for second instance> -port=<port for second instance>

Do keep in mind having several data directories will take up a lot of space!

And don't forget that bitcoin.conf located on datadir location that you set, not on default location (somewhere in user OS folder).

But, I think storage speed, CPU speed and RAM speed/capacity are bigger problem if OP run multiple clients at same time, especially if some/all of them verify loaded blockchain.
345  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When is the time for Bitcoin to become a fork again on: August 12, 2018, 06:29:10 PM
There's no specific time to fork Bitcoin since anyone can do it anytime.

If you're asking because you want to earn potential free money, you should check this website They have detailed info which is enough to claim and sell the forked coins, besides they also have list of other cryptocurrency's fork.
But as other mentioned, most forked coins are garbage/worthless and you only waste your time by doing that. Besides, there's risk the developer put backdoor which could your private key/seed, which means the developer could steal your bitcoin (along with other forked coins).
346  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Consolidation sounds like centralization to me on: August 11, 2018, 07:30:02 PM
The unrealistic scenario you mentioned not strongly related with decentralization/centralization since Bitcoin don't use consensus method where total coins you own have voting power on consensus/governance directly such as PoS, dPoS, BFT or dBFT.
All these holders could do are manipulating Bitcoin price. Besides, looks like your math/calculation is inaccurate.

But i'd encourage Bitcoiner to spend their coins, even only for small goods.
347  Other / Serious discussion / Re: Bitcoin ETF, Is it really needed? on: August 11, 2018, 07:17:00 PM
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
348  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: August 10, 2018, 06:31:29 PM

Heart is basically diverged from bitcoin original idea: a p2p electronic cash system. He is a bitcoin-as-gold guy. Don't bother listening to him.

We need bitcoin as the monetary system of the future. Banks should back-off, any other proposal is void, imo.

Of course we ideally want both: A store of value and a way to make cheap and fast transactions, but can we have both with no tradeoffs? This is what seems impossible to me thus far.

And Bitcoin already works well as a digital gold. What you are proposing is: "let's try my untested ideas by changing bitcoin, with the risk of ruining the digital gold property which already works, in order to see if my ideas actually turn out great in real life".

Like I said, im not seeing any numbers, tests, research. You need a testnet and gather some data with your modifications. I don't think you will get much support for your hard fork proposal otherwise.

Something like this for starters:

FYI, that images come from Bitfury Research on 6 September 2015 -->

But IMO there are few problem with that image/research :
1. No info what kind of computer/server was used for research
2. Looks like daily/yearly traffic exclude traffic used when new nodes (don't have blockchain yet) connected
3. Since SegWit and newer Bitcoin Core version, block verification time should be faster

TLDR, it's outdated research and no longer accurate with today's condition

I've pretty much given up my pursuit of an adaptive/dynamic blocksize.  I used to think like you do.  I couldn't see a good reason why we shouldn't be pursuing what seemed like a really good idea.  But I can't code it, no one else is volunteering to do so, which means it's clearly not happening.  Consider that the same is happening with your ideas right now.  You can't force these things.  Either people get on board, or they don't.

I'm pretty sure few developer/contributor have made BIP about adaptive/dynamic blocksize few years ago. But we know it's rejected like most proposal.

Edit : it's BIP 105, 106 and 107.
349  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thoughts on node count for a decentralized network on: August 10, 2018, 06:08:16 PM
P.S. i strongly recommend you to move this thread to Development & Technical Discussion to avoid spam and get better feedback Smiley

The innovation in Bitcoin is decentralized consensus. Because of this, we are able to have a decentralized network that transfers value. I believe we all agree that a good number of full nodes (whether that be owned by miners or by users) are needed to keep the decentralized nature of this network.

I agree, however the community have hard time agreeing how much total nodes count considered as "good enough".

However, there are plethora of disagreements on how much is needed to keep this network decentralized. In my opinion, we should aim high in order to keep the network decentralized and thus should do all we can to make it easier for anyone to have full nodes. If the cost of running a full node is so cheap and so fast, SPVs wouldn't even be needed; this removes the need for many things such as the inefficient (and not working) Bloom filters.

I disagree since most Bitcoiner won't run full nodes even though the cost is cheap mainly because long initial sync time and continuously growing blockchain size. IMO what we really need to do is keep making sure the cost of running full nodes is cheap.

Besides, not everyone use PC or have big capacity storage. The cost of running full nodes on mobile devices is extremely high and that's why SPV wallet (with bloom filter and secure/private connection) are good alternative.

To conclude, imo, cost of full nodes should be so cheap that every wallet would be a full node that has its own full copy of the blockchain (you could prune if storage is the problem).

You still need good amount of storage on initial sync process.
350  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Opinions and Impressions about bitcoin on: August 10, 2018, 05:57:05 PM
Most of us won't be surprised since this happen due to FUD/negative information influence from media/government. Usually i'd not bring Bitcoin topic with this kind of people, even though i managed to fix their views of Bitcoin, but none of them have no interest on Bitcoin nevertheless. But there are few short/simple argument such as :

"Bitcoin? Bitcoin is used for transactions in deepwebs to buy drugs!"

1. Show few charity which accept Bitcoin, such as
2. Explain that Bitcoin actually is pseudonymous which make criminal don't want to use Bitcoin (and use privacy-focused/anonymous cryptocurrency instead)

"Its just a waste of time. You will not earn from it"

1. Show what you've earned/have through Bitcoin
2. Show news that early investor become rich from Bitcoin such as This is a bit misleading, but might work if you don't want lose in an argument.

"Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a scam"

Frankly i couldn't find short/simple way against this argument and usually i'd explain Bitcoin a bit technically.
351  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [Discussion]How to decentralize the price of the bitcoin? Self-moderated. on: August 10, 2018, 06:31:58 AM
IMO it's impossible to "decentralize"/prevent manipulation the price of the bitcoin. People who have lots of money (whether it's Bitcoin, altcoin or fiat) can manipulate bitcoin price easily, even making FUD/buzz news could make Bitcoin price move significantly.

Decentralized exchange or OTC could reduce current problem since exchange won't able to make fake volume/trade and most people don't bother with it yet.

But first we probably need a scalability solution, like LN or (or better: and) sidechains.

We already have the solutions, but it's far from ready/stable/user-friendly yet.

But current Bitcoin community only interested on LN along with channel factories and Eltoo. Other sidechain/off-chain such as nimblewimble are ignored and the developer eventually make their own cryptocurrency for the development.
352  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin adoption or scalability on: August 08, 2018, 08:39:48 PM
Some weeks back, there was a buzz around the LN going to help the bitcoin network become more efficient, hence it would drive adoption. Still, not much has changed to the whole adoption puzzle, it seems we are really stuck with so many complexities.

LN isn't buzz. It has been developed for many years and tested even on mainnet, few services even already accept Bitcoin as payment through LN. Lightning Spin and Bitrefill

New cryptocurrencies entering the market are offering lower entry barrier but only lack the popularity or dominance BTC has. I'm a superfan of bitcoin protocol but I still don't get why we can't have a tradeoff.

What do you mean by lower entry barrier? If you're talking about the ways to earn the cryptocurrency, surely Bitcoin have lower/easier entry barrier, excluding ICO/token/cryptocurrency which use airdrop.

BTC adoption (for mainstream merchants and highly sophisticated transactions) as against scalability.

And that's exactly why LN is developed, to increase adaption/usage while maintain scalability/decentralization.

It's not like everyone in the world owns gold, so why should BTC become a 'world-currency' either? The few people who can have it should cherish it and only use it for more exclusive financial functions.

Even if Bitcoin developer manage to overcome all scalability/decentralization problem, Bitcoin won't become world-currency because few reasons such as steep-curve learning to understand Bitcoin and legality problem.

I kinda have a feeling if I post this here, my head might get chewed off. However, Bitcoin adoption should be a hot topic as much as cryptocurrency adoption in general.

There's this adoption debate going on tomorrow (August 9, 2018), with Keith Wareing. And guess who's starring, Mcafee. Now I also get the feeling not too many people like this drama queen, but I'm pretty sure differing opinions about cryptocurrency adoption including that of Bitcoin will shed some light on the current situation of things, and most likely proffer a better solution to the decentralized community.

Here's a link to the intending debate:


I just wish more veterans like Satoshi, Vitalik, Lee, Jed McCaleb, Chris Larsen and some others on the 4% BTC rich list will give a collaborative insight into why we haven't really hit mainstream yet - cutting through the BS. I'm only watching this show because of Craig, MFChain's CEO. Those guys may be up to something; oh well, so are the other 1600+ cryptos in the space.

While this show is meant for cryptocurrencies in general, I'd like to see one with Bitcoin at the center of discussion, if possible in series, seeing that it's the first decentralized cryptocurrency technology.

IMO they will repeat what other's already said in past.
353  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] 🦁 CryptoDaily - A daily crypto newsletter with hand-picked news ! on: August 08, 2018, 08:24:59 PM
Just take a peek on your website and it looks interesting, but personally i prefer RSS feed (since i use it for few sites as well).

Also, i wonder the time your website send the email, since few that i subscribed on past send daily newsletter on midnight?
354  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Consensus Mechanism on: August 07, 2018, 06:29:35 PM
That depends on how the developer combine PoW and PoS onto their cryptocurrency. Some require miners have both computational power and coins while the others don't.

For example in Decred, miners (PoW) mine a blocks and then the stakeholders (PoS) make vote transaction to vote whether a block is valid or not.
355  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Up to Two-Thirds of Bitcoin Transactions Have No Economic Value on: August 07, 2018, 06:17:42 PM
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.
356  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Your opinions on all the Bitcoin forks on: August 07, 2018, 06:06:54 PM
Most bitcoin forks are a joke, they don't have any special/unique features and barely have any community support. Most of them tried make themselves looks unique by increasing block size/weight limit, decreasing block time, implements uncompleted technology (such as LN, Atomic swaps, etc) or add features such as Smart Contract which other cryptocurrency already have.

At first, it wasn't since bitcoiner could earn easy money just by download a wallet and sell the forked coin to exchange/OTC. But now, it becomes a joke and it's value is too small and simply not worth your time unless you have lots of Bitcoin.
Only BCH which can be considered as "successful" since it's market cap value isn't bad and frankly it's the adaption looking good compared to other forks/altcoin.
357  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Consolidating Unspent Transaction Outputs on: August 06, 2018, 08:36:34 PM
I don't bother Consolidating UTXO even if they fee is only 1 sat/byte since i rarely receive small payment these days due to privacy concern. Frankly, i would recommend anyone wait Schnorr Multisig/Signature Aggregation is added on Bitcoin since it can reduce overall TX size which lower TX fees and can increase user privacy.

The UTXO database isn't the largest concern since its still relatively manageable. Its roughly 2.6GB right now and the blockchain itself is more than 10 times bigger.
Somehow I thought the database was bigger. For today's standards, it is very acceptable even if it's entirely loaded into the RAM.

But don't forget that Bitcoin community and developer/contributor preserve decentralization. People even run Bitcoin full nodes (along with LN daemon) on Raspberry Pi which only have 1GB RAM.

Also, UTXO size was far smaller before Bitcoin Core 0.15, but changed for various reason. More info :
358  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: whats the point with bitcoin donations? on: August 05, 2018, 09:02:44 PM
While it's not about cryptocurrency/cryptography project, is one of the most famous donation/charity which use Bitcoin.

Besides, there's nothing to lose by accepting Bitcoin donation even if barely any people who would do it.
359  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: [ANN] PayKassa - the first aggregator of payments Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin! on: August 05, 2018, 08:53:58 PM
It's great to see Cryptocurrency payment processor/service, since it's dominated by BitPay and Coinbase. But i've few questions :
1. Do you accept/support 0-confirmation transaction when user pay sufficient fees?
2. Does your services support payment from Bech32/native address (Bitcoin) and shielded address (Zcash)?
360  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Blocking cryptojacking on: August 05, 2018, 08:42:34 PM
Most adblocker add-ons already block cryptojacking attempt these days, NoScript add-ons is even better if you have serious security/privacy concern. But few browsers such as Brave have great built-in features such as adblocking, forcing HTTPS, block 3rd party cookies and block dangerous/suspicious script so users just need to download and install the browser.

That's interesting, I've never heard about cryptojacking until now. But I don't think a laptop would have enough power to mine. It wouldn't even generate enough coins to be worth the effort of hacking into your machine.

How did you know that it was jacked? Did you see a process running excessively in the background? And you said by adding nocoin to your browser it stopped, so was it being run as a script?

Cryptojacking is actually pretty common. They tend to mine Monero, because that still gives them rewards if it's done on a very large scale.
The people who are running the malware could have up to 100k slave computers in their network, generating them thousands of dollars per day/week.

It's usually pretty easy to notice too, when your CPU goes through the roof.

Running noscript is also a solution btw.

Yeah actually I think one of my browsers fell victim to it now that you mention it. It wasn't too bad, but I noticed higher than usual load times and it was quite slow with page load times. CPU wasn't excessively high, but more than normal. I just installed nocoin so will see if there's much of a difference.

I saw this the other day at the bottom of the page at the Pirate Bay:

"By entering TPB you agree to XMR being mined using your CPU. If you don't agree please leave now or install an adBlocker"

It's like giving permission for cookies. What a crazy world we live in now.

At least they talk to their users about it, even the way to keep using the site while blocking cryptocurrency mining. Besides, it's better than seeing tons of ads.
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 ... 311 »
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!