|
4461
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Will bitcoins no longer be mined after 2024?
|
on: April 24, 2018, 02:55:36 PM
|
No new Bitcoin will be mined/generated after 2140, but miners still make new Block (which contain transaction and maybe smart contract in future) as usual. With ethereum moving towards Casper Proof of Stake you wonder if or when Bitcoin will follow suite. With the environmental impact and increasing cost of mining it's probably inevitable.
I think mining activity don't impact environmental too much (at least for now), but AFAIK PoS is less secure than PoW. Read this article ( https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-the-wrong-engineering-mindset-15e641ab65a2), even though i disagree with few points such as risks of checkpoint. Miners will be rewarded with transaction fees only when that happens.
Well if they are not mining coins and rely on fees then should we not just rename them to something more appropriate like "Bankers" to save all the confusion. Using coins instead of gas to maintain the network in financial terms is "Leverage" and can make you very rich or very poor very fast and this should had been avoided in the first place since it can lead to trouble and i have been reading about Bit-Cash miners sending coins into a black-hole to manipulate the price today. The network and the coin need to be separated like is happening in more advance networks like EVO and to some degree with ETH but Bitcoin is stuck in the dark days and needs a re-think instead of keep attacking the messengers who point this out. Do you imply that most cryptocurrency use "Bankers" system since the protocol force user (or wallet include fee by default) to pay fees on transaction? |
|
|
|
|
4462
|
Other / Serious discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin Destroying the Planet?
|
on: April 21, 2018, 02:33:43 PM
|
Just by see total energy used to Mine bitcoin (or any PoW-based cryptocurrency) isn't enough to prove that mining is destroying earth, since there are few question such as whether miners use renewable/Eco-friendly energy source and how "Eco-friendly" is their mining activity. If most miners use renewable/Eco-friendly, i don't see any reason Bitcoin is destroying Earth. Even if miners use lots of electricity to the point where there's electricity shortage, there are solutions such as increase electricity price for miner as high as industrial electricity price in medium-big scale. Also, i think PoW is the most secure consensus protocol. More info : https://medium.com/@hugonguyen/proof-of-stake-the-wrong-engineering-mindset-15e641ab65a2 |
|
|
|
|
4464
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network ideal for in-game currency in MMO games?
|
on: April 17, 2018, 05:46:45 PM
|
|
1. If on-chain fees which used to open/close channel and refill balance isn't too high ($.1 or less), i think LN is fast and cheap for in-game currency or micro-transaction.
2. The real question is finding developer who wants to implement LN on their online games and find out which online game community who would use Bitcoin in LN layer.
3. IMO, I think LN isn't ready since there aren't any friendly LN wallet which can help user on unexpected cases such as can't find route and too low balance/fee where most user can't understand.
4. Great idea. I don't see any big problem for user if they only sent bitcoin (one-way) since that means they don't need to online 24/7 (or use 3rd party services) to see whether other peer try to cheat by broadcast earlier HLTC.
|
|
|
|
|
4466
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network / Bitcoin scaling question
|
on: April 15, 2018, 05:30:07 PM
|
|
My personal thought :
1. It's obvious Bitcoin need larger block size weight limit, even LN whitepaper mention this.
2. When block is full (with decent unconfirmed transaction) even when majority people use LN, increasing block weight is needed.
The hard part is find the right limit to make sure it don't risk decentralization (people still can run full nodes after increase the limit without expensive device) & getting community approval.
3. Side chain (off-chain, extension-chain or other terms) isn't the only solution, but surely many side-chain will make user confused.
4. There are another technology that also can help scaling solution such as Schnorr Signature, MAST & Bulletproof which can reduce transaction size on specific case.
5. I also agree that LN isn't the only answer/piece for Bitcoin scaling.
|
|
|
|
|
4467
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Pay
|
on: April 15, 2018, 03:15:37 PM
|
Hi! As I am new to whole thing I actually didn't look into this topic for some time. Thanks to everyone, who answered. Here is a link to the project: https://www.bitcoinpay.com/en/aboutNevertheless I have more experience now and I did mix up this with lightning network. For now it looks to me strongly fraudulent or at least extremely underdeveloped. If you have more information on the topic just write me  Thanks again and I will try to answer earlier than in 120 days this time 😣😣 I thought you was talking about BTP which is one of bitcoin fork. But in this case they don't do anything innovate, all they do is make a payment service (where BitPay, CoinBase and others already do it earlier) and accept zero-confirmation transaction to make their system looks fast which already accepted by some payment service/merchant since few years ago. |
|
|
|
|
4468
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Can you think of ways to use LN offline?
|
on: April 14, 2018, 06:05:28 PM
|
|
I only think using LN offline only can work when these conditions are meet :
1. The sender (Bob) and receiver (Alice) make channel through local connection (WLAN, NFC or Bluetooth most likely) or reconnect through local connection.
2. Both party trust each other and won't broadcast earlier transaction (considering earlier HTLC already meet the timelock requirement)
3. If Bob only send and Alice only receive all the time, Alice must trust Bob won't broadcast earlier transaction (also considering earlier HLTLC already meet the timelock requirement)
But AFAIK, using offline LN would be safer if both party make HTLC with time far in future and both of them can going online later. CMIIW.
At this point, simply make regular transaction with mobile wallet (if the wallet store required blockchain file) and send signed transcation to receiver and broadcast it online is more simple.
|
|
|
|
|
4469
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Any other Operating systems with a built-in Crypto wallet?
|
on: April 14, 2018, 05:50:41 PM
|
|
Cryptocurrency demand is very low compared with other features for any Operating System and developer wouldn't add features which have minor demands since that will make development time longer and increase installer/OS size. Especially since small installer size is important for lightweight OS.
Also, i think it would be difficult to prove the developer don't add malicious code or backdoor to the wallet or the integration might not done properly.
Only cryptocurrency OS or OS which have privacy/anonymity/security who would cryptocurrency wallet for their operating system.
Download the wallet installer and verify it before install is more reliable/safe anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
4470
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Will a failed transaction get included on the chain?
|
on: April 13, 2018, 04:56:36 PM
|
|
In Bitcoin, if nodes/miner receive invalid transaction, they won't broadcast the transaction or include the transaction in the block. Even if miners accidentally mine a block which include invalid transaction due to buggy software, others node simply reject that block.
But in Ethereum, you still need to pay some Ethereum/Gas even if the transaction/smart contract is failed since ETH network already use their computational power to verify that transaction/smart contract.
However, there's no way to reverse smart-contract which is valid (have correct scripting/format and can be run on ETH VM successfully), but have logic error.
|
|
|
|
|
4471
|
Other / Serious discussion / Re: Why force me to spend?
|
on: April 13, 2018, 09:40:26 AM
|
|
HODL isn't bad things, but people must aware that if early bitcoiners don't spend their bitcoin and convince people to do same thing, i think Bitcoin price won't reach that far.
Obviously no one force you to spend your bitcoin, but i (and some people) spend bitcoin sometimes would help/convince more people to accept bitcoin (or at least keep accept bitcoin).
Also, bitcoin deflation model indirectly cause people to HODL. Personally, i think tiny inflation (0.1% or less) in bitcoin would be better and indirectly make HODL not too useful and make people spend their bitcoin even though majority community is disagree with my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
4473
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: double spending questions
|
on: April 11, 2018, 04:13:29 PM
|
to clarify my questions.
from blockchain explorer what I see is:
from wallet to wallet amount
------------- ---------- ---------
wallet_address1 wallet_address2 0.1
.....
.....
I don't see anything associate to a crypto coin.
if blockchain explorer doesn't show all transaction info, then what exactly a transaction looks like?
Thanks
Actual transaction don't have info about sender or receiver address, you can use Bitcoin core with getrawtransaction commend on it's CLI or http://chainquery.com/bitcoin-api/getrawtransaction to see RAW transaction. An example of raw transaction with 1 input and 1 output (which decoded from hex format) : {
"result": {
"txid": "b6e6cc6b9cd80f8de2ac85cfeedea51ac5068e3c20f92a992145e6a46c97e9c4",
"hash": "b6e6cc6b9cd80f8de2ac85cfeedea51ac5068e3c20f92a992145e6a46c97e9c4",
"version": 1,
"size": 192,
"vsize": 192,
"locktime": 0,
"vin": [
{
"txid": "6ad5523d0e7994372d5d18199ce99494cf20bf947e74ee3aef1952b7a803c267",
"vout": 54,
"scriptSig": {
"asm": "3045022100f09c8e2095fdb0a52a723b146660dc9a85ee4cff4a907263a43cd894051c34a302203f34ee6332ca955d6feeaa8a97179b5d6f2ce443f37b2ebc2bcc33e5538320d5[ALL] 033b63ae8bc8a95a6fa777f6c61247adec7e2fad8f9a8e96d58129ed8d79d9460c",
"hex": "483045022100f09c8e2095fdb0a52a723b146660dc9a85ee4cff4a907263a43cd894051c34a302203f34ee6332ca955d6feeaa8a97179b5d6f2ce443f37b2ebc2bcc33e5538320d50121033b63ae8bc8a95a6fa777f6c61247adec7e2fad8f9a8e96d58129ed8d79d9460c"
},
"sequence": 4294967295
}
],
"vout": [
{
"value": 0.07630000,
"n": 0,
"scriptPubKey": {
"asm": "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 26741a34fc541e7f1098f5bd3a88fc75fb7b8429 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG",
"hex": "76a91426741a34fc541e7f1098f5bd3a88fc75fb7b842988ac",
"reqSigs": 1,
"type": "pubkeyhash",
"addresses": [
"14WKmDyacWoGiExA8fkqYPxMk7LuQryTHK"
]
}
}
],
"hex": "010000000167c203a8b75219ef3aee747e94bf20cf9494e99c19185d2d3794790e3d52d56a360000006b483045022100f09c8e2095fdb0a52a723b146660dc9a85ee4cff4a907263a43cd894051c34a302203f34ee6332ca955d6feeaa8a97179b5d6f2ce443f37b2ebc2bcc33e5538320d50121033b63ae8bc8a95a6fa777f6c61247adec7e2fad8f9a8e96d58129ed8d79d9460cffffffff01b06c7400000000001976a91426741a34fc541e7f1098f5bd3a88fc75fb7b842988ac00000000",
"blockhash": "00000000000000000044edfb976653cedf4b43a69e673d428f9acb342a231f51",
"confirmations": 1,
"time": 1523460631,
"blocktime": 1523460631
},
"error": null,
"id": null
} If you're interested or want more info, you can check : 1. Mastering Bitcoin, 2nd Edition chapter 6 2. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions3. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#raw-transaction-format |
|
|
|
|
4474
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: double spending questions
|
on: April 11, 2018, 08:56:53 AM
|
|
Miner/nodes will check the input in the transaction if it's already spend by check UXTO list or tx on mempool. If the input already spend, the nodes/miners will reject the transaction and won't be broadcast.
Even if double-spend attempt happen, the first transaction broadcasted or have lower timelock will be accepted. Also, the receiver simply can wait for a confirmation (or more for big transaction) as security.
That's also reason why there merchants don't accept zero-confirmation for big transaction or the fee is too low.
|
|
|
|
|
4475
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Shower thoughts on a 2nd layer Bitcoin network and why big blockers are scared
|
on: April 10, 2018, 05:43:07 PM
|
It's true that Bank might run their LN nodes and charge fees for each transaction which hops through their nodes. But they can't make new coin from thin-air since AFAIK there's verification about balance in the HLTC, CMIIW. The way I see it, is that they fear that Lightning nodes might be dominated/centralized by a few strong Lightning nodes or payment hubs and that the rest of the nodes will be unable to compete. I think what Bitcoin needs is strong competition and the fact that anyone can host a LN node, means that competition is still possible.
You can still open a direct channel between two individuals or entities, so nobody is blocking you to participate. You are also not creating new bitcoins from thin air, like it is done in fractional reserve systems, but merely transacting directly with people with the same bitcoin on a off-chain channel. The balance after all the transactions are done are just distributed to the participants and later added back to the Blockchain. <The same amount that was used in the channel>
That's true, but their argument is acceptable since user will be faced with 2 choices (considering the only routing channel is through strong LN nodes) : 1. Use strong LN nodes which have routing channel that user need, but with additional fees (this is what they really fear). 2. Make a new channel which consume time and on-chain fees. --snip-- Sorry of this will break the chain of discussion but I had unanswered questions from previous threads that seemed to be about LN grievances, citing nodes as banks charging interest - something I couldn't find reference to.
Is this possibility OP discusses (and achow clarifies) where this idea of interest bearing loans come from? I guess "nodes as banks charging interest" refers to LN transaction fees? Seems like a weird comparison though, as we already have a similar thing going on in the form of miner fees for on-chain transactions. Difference being, that in the case of LN nodes the fee market is much more favorable for people trying to transact money. Their biggest argument isn't about how much the fees, but the one who receive the fees which is Banker who run LN nodes in this case and how Banker will convince user to connect through their nodes. |
|
|
|
|
4476
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Resurrecting the Champ: PoW to become Bitmain/Buterin resistant
|
on: April 10, 2018, 05:31:14 PM
|
I've made thread about similar problem at Do you think Bitcoin need to change it's PoW algorithm?. But changing/tweak/modify PoW algorithm is difficult once ASIC is available for public, hashrate dominated by ASIC or the algorithm isn't designed to combat ASIC (such as SHA-256). For Monero, tweak CryptoNight algorithm isn't difficult since mining with CPU/GPU still profitable (which means ASIC haven't take over the network/hashrate), tweak CryptoNight don't change hash speed of CPU/GPU and most importantly majority community agree with their Core team decision. For Bitcoin, it's hard task because : 1. ASIC completely dominate Bitcoin mining. 2. Changing algorithm to ASIC resistance is difficult since the network hashrate would be very low which makes block generation very slow and make Bitcoin network vulnerable during transaction since that means attacking bitcoin network 51% attack will be far easier. Even when considering there are ways to "tweak" SHA-256 just to break ASIC 3. Getting community approval over tweak/change which require hard-fork is difficult, especially from ASIC miners. I think tweak Ethash algorithm at this point is good idea since the ASIC isn't available for public yet, but without Ethereum Foundation or majority community approval, your idea won't happen (at least without chain-split). But i think enforcing dedicated memory requirements won't do much since ASIC/FPGA manufacture simply can add more memory, unless your solution is similar with CryptoNight which force high-speed/low-latency for efficient mining such as L2/L3 cache which is expensive in big capacity. CMIIW. |
|
|
|
|
4478
|
Bitcoin / Hardware wallets / Re: Ledger releasing native Desktop and Mobile apps
|
on: April 08, 2018, 05:59:26 PM
|
Considering their good reputation with hardware wallet which have good security and good community/customer service, i'm sure this wallet will be favorite among user who needs cryptocurrency wallet or/and don't want run full nodes.
Jaxx and Exodus popularity could be beaten by Ledger if the application at least as good as their hardware wallet.
The app still requires you to have a Ledger. You don't need to buy a hardware device to use Jaxx and Exodus, so you can't compare both of them with the new Ledger app. But there's no info whether the wallet give user full access to their cryptocurrency private key or seed.
It should be pretty obvious that you will have access to your seed, which you can use to import your wallet into a different wallet (like Electrum). My bad, i thought "Native desktop application" means standalone/fully independent wallet which don't require Ledger's hardware wallet. |
|
|
|
|
4479
|
Bitcoin / Wallet software / Re: First Crypto Hardware Wallet for Smartphone ?
|
on: April 08, 2018, 05:44:09 PM
|
|
That's unique product since there aren't many hardware wallet with mobile device support, but it would be better if XEEDA support both mobile and desktop devices.
Also, people who wish to buy device should wait until they make their OS/app/firmware open source in May 2018 and audited by professional/trusted auditor and there's no information when the product will be available or shipped for those who preorder which is worrying.
|
|
|
|
|
4480
|
Bitcoin / Hardware wallets / Re: Ledger releasing native Desktop and Mobile apps
|
on: April 08, 2018, 05:38:49 PM
|
|
Considering their good reputation with hardware wallet which have good security and good community/customer service, i'm sure this wallet will be favorite among user who needs cryptocurrency wallet or/and don't want run full nodes.
Jaxx and Exodus popularity could be beaten by Ledger if the application at least as good as their hardware wallet.
But there's no info whether the wallet give user full access to their cryptocurrency private key or seed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
