Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2018, 12:57:27 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 69 70 71 ... 311 »
401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: WOW! Cryptocurrency VS Visa Transaction per second (TPS) comparison on: July 22, 2018, 06:51:24 PM
LN is great 2nd-layer/off-chain technology and actually can reach 1 million TPS, however people should note that you still need good computer/server if your LN connected to many channels or often used to route LN transaction, even though only merchants/services/user with high bitcoin amount on their LN nodes who need to worry about this.

Besides, there are few inaccurate info on the pictures such as :
1. Ethereum with their 2nd-layer/off-chain technology (Sharding, Raiden, Plasma and Enigma) also can significantly increase their TPS
2. Monero use dynamic blocksize limit, so Monero TPS could be less/more than 1000 TPS. But AFAIK with today's block size, surely monero TPS is far below 1000 TPS.
3. They need to mention that higher TPS always sacrifice something such as usability, ease-of-use, privacy or decentralization

WOW! Cryptocurrency VS Visa Transaction per second (TPS) comparison.

If we missed something, please comment

That is capacity...
Would be really interesting and also far more realistic to compare actual transactions made in those chains.

For example, Tron is capable of 2000tx/s but is doing only...20532 a day , 10% compared to bitcoin.

I can create with 10$ a coin that has 10000tx/s capacity...but 0 usage.
Just like all the crapcoins listed there.




Few of these claim they already tested their coins and able to meet TPS they claimed, even though we will never know they use customer desktop, enterprise server (which mean they sacrifice decentralization) or make up the claim/test Tongue
402  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: ✴Limit of IPFS? on: July 22, 2018, 04:41:21 PM
How sustainable is the IPFS concept?

I do not understand how Personal Computers around the World can hold so much IPFS data without limit. Where will the remaining data go if people begin to have their computers filled up with data and they have no incentive to increase their harddrives.

Google data centers for instance can hold so much data from YouTube, GDrive, G+, Gmail, etc because Google has incentive to hold them and keep expanding the data centers.
What incentives are there for participants in the IPFS system to keep holding more & expanding their harddrives?

As other mentioned, there's none. However there shouldn't be any problem as long as the file/content is popular or really important to many people.

Besides, if majority/all nodes store all data, then the participants need expensive device to run IPFS. Also, IPFS is very similar with Freenet project, even though AFAIK Freenet has been around longer.

There is https://storj.io/ already working.
They don't have their own coins developed, but they have Ethereum based token.

Unfortunately, many people have problem when storing huge files such as no nodes would accept to store the data. Besides storj focus on personal cloud storage while IPFS focus on internet content, especially about mirroring/caching.
403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Government to own identity on blockchain in future ? on: July 22, 2018, 09:00:18 AM
With so many new blockchains coming on a daily basis, do you think there will also be a time when government will decide to open a public blockchain ? If yes, would they prefer to operate identity based blockchain or something else ?
I do not expect a complete abandonment of the paper money at the moment. If there is the possibility of using the Blockchain by the central banks, I do not think there is anything that prevents governments from creating their own cryptos.
Definitely will not be anonymous currencies and users will be linked to their ID.
Nor do I expect there to be a high transparency for each system.


3. Reverse/delete transaction, which totally kill the idea of blockchain

Basically, it's not much different with today's system.



How can they reverse/ delete a transaction. There is no such thing as editable blockchain ! Basic 101



Not when it's closed and permissioned blockchain where all nodes working together/controlled by someone. I'd bet closed and permissioned blockchain choose consensus method which make manipulation/control easier.

Even though it shouldn't be called blockchain anymore, but few government/companies already do this.
404  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Government to own identity on blockchain in future ? on: July 22, 2018, 06:37:00 AM
With so many new blockchains coming on a daily basis, do you think there will also be a time when government will decide to open a public blockchain ? If yes, would they prefer to operate identity based blockchain or something else ?
I do not expect a complete abandonment of the paper money at the moment. If there is the possibility of using the Blockchain by the central banks, I do not think there is anything that prevents governments from creating their own cryptos.
Definitely will not be anonymous currencies and users will be linked to their ID.
Nor do I expect there to be a high transparency for each system.

Besides, i'm sure government will :
1. Checking all transaction (just like bank today) and could deny/censorship transaction on specific case such as unusual high amount or send to people/organization with bad reputation in government eyes.
2. Only government could push/add new transaction, while citizens at most can see whole blockchain.
3. Reverse/delete transaction, which totally kill the idea of blockchain

Basically, it's not much different with today's system.


If governments own identity based blockchain, government will be able to monetize this data and help the world become tax free ? Anyways people are talking about 'basic universal income' in the world of Artifical Intelligence (future).


You should be able to monetize your data.. Government monetizing your data doesnt makes sense to me..

True, but that already happen today. Even if people know about it, most of them doing nothing anyway.
405  Economy / Service Announcements / Re: 👻Aren't you sick of the scams ? 👮‍♀️Here's the ultimate (and free) solution ! on: July 20, 2018, 04:33:48 PM
Nice project, even people who don't bother do research could avoid scam this way. But i've few question :
1. How do you classify a scam project? Sometimes project that fail isn't much different from scam project. Besides, just because it's official website, that doesn't mean it's not scam.
2. Any plans to show information on site that user visit and available on your database? Some proof/research would be useful for few users.
3. Any guarantee that you won't working with scammer and show the page as green/gray shield?

And what exactly do you have to gain from it? Do i give this tool access to read all my data/browsing history/browsing habits?

I'm a bit skeptical, especially since i suspect that this addon is pretty intrusive/needs to be pretty intrusive to work, (aka reading/scanning everything i do with the browser)..

Is it open source or anything?



Hello AdolfinWolf,

Those are perfectly reasonable questions and we're happy to clear things up.

First of all, I want to be very clear on this one : NO we do NOT store any of your browsing data, history and habits, that is specified in our detailed privacy policy that you can check here, if such was the case we would not hide it as that would be against Google chromestore's terms and we'd risk everything, on top of the fact that it wouldn't be inline with the vision we have for this.

Like many extensions that rely on the websites you're visiting to accomplish their job (Adblock being one of the most used examples) we do indeed need to read the url of the websites you're browsing and the content of the page in the case of Twitter in order to protect you in real-time.

The code source of the extension is visible to anyone but the part that verifies the data against our database is proprietary, however, you'll be happy to know that our extension has already gone through 2 review procedures by the Google Chrome review teams and came out of it approved Smiley

Our goal with this extension is truly to help make the crypto-ecosystem safer and offer something of value, our main product is https://deepcoin.com , a b2b tool that monitors everything being said everywhere in the blockchain world, the extension is a freemium born from the amounts of data that we gathered, we thought it could be very useful to many in this extension format, and yes, may be serve as a nice advertising to our b2b software.

This is the first version of a multi-featured extension that we envision being a part of the day to day life of every crypto enthusiast, you can be sure we will not do anything to jeopardize that for a quick buck.

Give it a try, and keep the feedbacks coming, we're in this for the long run, and you can expect a lot of improvements in the upcoming weeks.



Mehdi

TBH, i didn't expect you would make your extension open-source. However, i couldn't find link to the source code on your website/chrome store.
406  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 20, 2018, 04:02:00 PM
Yeah, I think Satoshi was smart enough to foresee this and he could've implemented the Core with 2MB or 4MB of blocksize himself but I think we knew back then that this would cause more harm than good so he stayed at 1MB and I think this is great as we dont need a cryptocurrency that is handled like fiat money where some big players controll the wealth of many many people. Bitcoin was created to give the people their wealth back because they work for it every day 9-5....

Some say satoshi expected consensus to be eventually reached in order to raise the blocksize, which seems pretty naive in retrospect, since it is clear now that it's almost impossible to reach said consensus, and most likely we are stuck with 1MB.

Other's say that this was completely expected by satoshi, and he knew perfectly well that the 1MB limit was set in stone, and this is just part of the Bitcoin game theory, so it can be immutable, while remaining open source and so on.

We will never know what his true intentions were, what do we know now is, no increases of the block size are going to happen anytime soon.
No matter what Satoshi did or said or intended to do, whatever. An increase in block size is not recommended because it won't help decentralization. I don't say it would escalate centralization (like what Core falsely claimed during the debate), it is just not helpful.

Instead I support block time decrease because of its proportional desired impact on decentralization.

Anyway, it is very important to understand, scalability is not addressable by either approaches because of nonlinearities involved, both should be considered like some complementary improvement.

Assuming block weight limit is still 4.000.000 weight, block time decrease also could lead to centralization on different way. Without proper research, block propagation could be slower than block time and increase block orphan rate.
Besides, this could tamper total coin supply/production rate (even though this can be solved easily) and could mess with Timelock script which use block number as it's duration/time.

But looking at the bright side, people will feel Bitcoin is faster and there will less waiting time.
407  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How satoshi could be anonymous when he was the only full-node ? on: July 20, 2018, 03:51:17 PM
This should be obvious, but surely Satoshi use secure/encrypted connection and with proper configuration, most application/services can run over Tor/I2P/etc.

AFAIK there's no information whether Satoshi use anonymous VPS, own physical server or the combination. Besides, i think Satoshi use/have/run more than 1 node.
408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mastercard and blockchain on: July 19, 2018, 06:42:34 PM
Blockchain without trustless, decentralized, immutability or permissionless is useless and basically only slow/obsolete version of any centralized database. They should use DLT (Distributed Ledger Technology) instead Tongue

Just like on most cases, MasterCard only use blockchain as buzzword. Besides, user won't see the difference.
409  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Smart Contracts on: July 19, 2018, 04:42:28 PM
That depends on the Blockchain/Cryptocurrency that you use. Bitcoin only have script aka basic smart contract, so Bitcoin even don't support token or turing complete scripting/programming.

It's possible to do what you want in popular smart-contract enabled cryptocurrency such as Ethereum, but you must write your own Smart Contract with features that you need since there's no "template" for what you need.
410  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin PoW alternatives? on: July 17, 2018, 04:11:38 PM
are there any efforts being made in order to fight against the ongoing centralization of bitcoin???

There are many, even though none are applied to Bitcoin due to various reason (community consensus, security concern, etc.). Few members on this forum also make an interesting idea such as https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334

With bitmain controlling way more than 40% of mining power and most of mining being in china  Im asking myself if there are any thoughts to actually switch to a PoS or a sort of hybrid system for bitcoin, or have an asic resistant fork that is accepted by the community.

There are many thoughts, but acceptance by community has always been difficult part.

PoS or hybrid (such as PoW & PoS) have security/decentralization concern and IMO there aren't any PoW algorithm which truly ASIC resistance, besides Bitcoin Gold already prove "ASIC resistance" algorithm don't stop centralization or 51% attack.
Furthermore, even though there are various consensus method and various PoW algorithm on cryptocurrency/blockchain world, but there's no consensus method that can't be centralized (at least on theory).
411  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why can Core not Scale at a 0.X% for blocksize in the S-Curve f(X) on: July 17, 2018, 03:46:20 PM
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-33fdf2da5e2f
https://medium.com/@snigirev.stepan/bls-signatures-better-than-schnorr-5a7fe30ea716
412  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.1 Released on: July 16, 2018, 06:41:51 PM
Was this new core version applied to Electrum wallet as well? I didn't see a new Electrum wallet version come out.

Since 0.16.1 update don't change any bitcoin protocol or features, Electrum don't have to upgrade their wallet to support the changes.

Besides, i don't see any reason why would new Core's update need to be applied to Electrum since both of them are different wallet with different features. All that matters that a wallet's implementation must follow Bitcoin protocol.
413  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: 4 more days until the Binance killer is LIVE on: July 16, 2018, 06:27:54 PM
Last time, Gemini exchange got hyped and people say it's killer to another exchange, but in the end Gemini turns out as regular/mediocre exchange without any special features/advantage. But let's see whether trade.io will be another mediocre exchange or truly can kill Binance Roll Eyes

I'd rather use decentralized exchange or exchange that don't require account though.
414  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash can co-exist on: July 16, 2018, 12:08:12 PM
As long as co-exist means not attacking each other, mind their own business and not claim as real Bitcoin while they already pick different name, then it's possible.

But honestly that would be difficult since both community have different ideology and some of the active supporters can be considered as Extremism/Maximalist.

I believe Bitcoin Cash is a good "experiment" for scaling using bigger blocks, the same as my belief as Bitcoin is a good "experiment" on how to scale with a 2nd layer offchain network.

an experiment is only good if the conditions are met. lets say I want to  test the temperature at which water starts to boil and I assume it is 80 degree Celsius, if I only increase the temperature up to 40 degrees that doesn't prove my experiment ever.

the "experiment" called bitcoin cash is the same. they say nodes will have no problem with bigger blocks and it currently has 32 MB blocks but only fills around 100 kB of them! it has to continue producing 32 MB blocks for at least 6 months and increase the total blockchain size first then be considered an experiment.

as for Ver, he is not the only menace in bitcoin. there are a lot of others on both sides....

I think that might happen later since anonymous group called BitPico (who attacked Bitcoin and LN in past) will attack/strees Bitcoin Cash network. And i also found this website https://stresstestbitcoin.cash/
The result will be interesting to see.
415  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Bitcoin wallet on: July 16, 2018, 11:43:46 AM
I never use wallet from bitcoin.com, so i only can suggest to look up for wallet's private key/mnemonic seed and import it on another wallet such as Electrum.

Bitcoin.com have mnemnomic seed backup, but i don't know if their wallet follow BIP 32/39/44.
416  Economy / Services / Re: [OPEN] PlayBitcoinGames.com Signature Campaign | Copper/Member-Legendary on: July 15, 2018, 06:07:07 AM
Bitcointalk Username: ETFbitcoin
Bitcointalk Rank: Legendary
Full Merit history: http://loycevsbasement.privatedns.org/Merit/history/359716.html
Number of Posts: 5819
Bitcoin Address: 1Av64raTYNoyDiPWwhMDR9gfdtr6ANDYbo or bc1qv7pz4j0aapx0xw3hmz9rm9snmrjyus666apx49
417  Other / Meta / Re: [PARODY] The Infinity Snap. Bitcointalk edition? on: July 14, 2018, 05:50:58 AM
As i mentioned many times, removing signature globally is the fastest solution. All spammer will leave by themselves (along with majority user traffic) and moderator/staff/admin don't need to "snap" them.
418  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Full Node and Lightning Node bandwidth question. on: July 13, 2018, 06:11:02 PM
Your internet connection is above minimum requirement for Bitcoin Core and AFAIK LN use/require less bandwitch since your node only manage transaction which pass/use through your channel. Things might be different if lots of people route their transaction through your channel or you're connected to lots channel, but you don't need to worry about this if you're not merchant or offer any kind of services.
If your average internet speed is still above minimum requirement for Bitcoin Core, run these full nodes with physical machine at your home.
419  Other / Serious discussion / Re: Squeezing the crypto owners for tax on: July 13, 2018, 06:04:51 PM
This will make users feel even more uncomfortable and make users decide move to decentralized exchange or atomic swap which would make tracking/logging harder.

Recent news in Cointelegraph bring a shadow on those that are happily holding their cryptos on a relatively unregulated limbo.

The "J5" is a group of countries, that I assume will grow in the future, that are sharing information cross-borders for effective Tax Enforcement. Under the typical biased accusations of "crypto being used by criminals", they are now putting the Exchanges in the oven and plans to have them sweating until they disclose the owners accounts and link these with identifiable users.

This article is not the typical dubious news - it is written by a specialized Tax Attorney. I am afraid that the freedom to decide we enjoy today will not last.

Now sure how this is news. It was never a good idea to keep money on an exchange for many reasons and not just taxation. Dealing with fiat in any way is likely to trigger a taxable event in many jurisdictions. And the exchange can only identify you if you supplied identifying data. This doesn't seem to affect anyone who uses crypto properly, i.e. in full control of their private keys etc. Am I missing something?

Don't forget the common way to get bitcoin these days is by buying it through exchange, which means majority bitcoiner could be tracked. I'm sure only minority who manage their crypto/privacy properly anyway.
420  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: July 12, 2018, 07:54:09 PM
I've been wondering about security mechanism/protection when a party refuse to sign new/updated HLTC (either because bugged software or modified source-code), do the other party simply broadcast "Penalty"/"Punishment" transaction?

Can you give us at least a flavor of how you propose to achieve on chain scalability?

One of the important factors in scalability is that not everyone can validate every transaction. The reasons should be obvious no? So thus we can never get maximum scalability on-chain combined with maximum security. The best we can hope for on-chain scalability is acceptable mathematically quantified security along with maximum on-chain scalability of both transaction volume and participation.

Off-chain can scale volume of transactions while maintaining maximum security on-chain for settlement, but AFAICT it can’t scale maximum participation in those non-fractional reserve transactions (for the reasons already discussed up-thread such as the liquidity weighted routing issue and AFAIK that layer 3 can only be non-fractional for groupings of participants, not every public address on the block chain). Thus, off-chain only scales participation via fractional reserves and Internet behemoths. (Note off-chain HTLCs can be employed securely for participants of any wealth in local groupings for example to accelerate battles in decentralized MMORPG games)

As an analogy, off-chain HTLCs actually create regions clustered around liquidity and sufficient wealth of market makers. Off-chain liquid routing ends up as centralized exchanges decorated with some secure settlement protocols which most end-user participants probably won’t be able to avail of on-chain. Thus off-chain moves the masses entirely off-chain to fractional reserves and keeps only the exchanges on-chain. Well isn’t that what we already have with centralized exchanges, except that off-chain HTLCs also enables those exchanges to transact securely off-chain. But my expectation is that most end-users will not be participating with on-chain settlement security (i.e. with non-fractional reserves).

So what I want to do is raise the average level of security for the end-user participants because they will all be transacting on-chain at maximum scalability of volume and participation, but the security will not be as high as Bitcoin. Yet most end-users will not be able to transact on Bitcoin (even with LN) for the reasons already stated. So that is why the average security can be raised even while the maximum security is lower. Yet by lower, I do not mean the current shit security of proof-of-stake which is guaranteed to be controlled by a parasitic oligarchy. Yet please note that Bitcoin is also ostensibly being surreptitiously controlled by a parasitic oligarchy behind the curtain, but that parasitism is masked (to some degree at least for those not stupid enough to be fooled into buying shitcoins or trading the dips) near-term by the gains in market cap due to onboarding onto the world’s future reserve currency that has maximum security.

If I give you much more flavor than that about the actual technological features I am exploring, then I will probably give away my idea prematurely. It will of course employ a open participation sharded design analogous to OmniLedger, but there are some significant differences. And no traditional proof-of-work but every user's client does some work but not what you would normally think of as a proof-of-work (i.e. not computationally significant and not a “fungible might is right” paradigm, i.e. the work is not measured by computational difficulty). OmniLedger and most other sharded designs I’ve seen divide up security level by the number of shards. My design idea in theory maintains a constant security level regardless of the number of shards. Note please take this all as unsubstantiated story-telling conjecture until you actually see a whitepaper with some formal proofs of security.

So, very basically it's similar with Sharding, but used on on-chain/1st layer?
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 ... 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!