Bitcoin Forum
January 22, 2019, 09:14:58 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  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 72 73 74 ... 304 »
461  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why not increase the block size? on: November 02, 2018, 10:25:57 AM
Increasing capacity by ANY amount is scaling. In the world of tech, we scale to the limit of technology and demand, we don't need to scale things to infinity to have a scaling solution.
Bitcoin Cash YESTERDAY, put thru blocks of over 10kb and even blocks of over 20mb to prove that it is feasible to process that many TX at low fees simply by not hitting the capacity limit and thus imposing fee competition. BTC is the cruel joke at such low limits so close to being triggered and setting off competitive TX fees.

With these trade-off :
1. Higher cost to run full-nodes
2. Leads to less full-nodes

Because it will not have consensus.

Because it will cause a chain-split again.

Because it will divide the community again.

Because hard forks are exclusive and they shut out nodes.

Bitcoin Cash is available, if you want the bigger blocks.

We just had a hard fork with the inflation bug, nodes that didn't upgrade got shut out. That's actually good. why would you want to include retarded nodes?

Actually, it's not hard-fork since there aren't any protocol changes, but fix bug which could make accidental hard-fork since older Core version accept invalid block and miner would build another block above it.
Even SegWit soft-fork had some problem that Wind_FURY mentioned.
462  Other / Meta / Re: [Anti-spam Suggestion] Forbid newbies to post URL's on: November 02, 2018, 09:29:09 AM
Between 1/5 to 1/3 reports i made because spammer share referral, suspicious or phishing link. So i think it's good idea.

Genuine newcomers might a bit annoyed, but select and copy URL text isn't difficult.

I'd include juniors in the restriction as well. One merit is too easy to get.

Even better if there's no signature for Jr. Member
463  Economy / Services / Re: [Open] 🚀 Sportsbet.io 🚀 [Signature Campaign] 🚀 [Up to .01/week on: November 02, 2018, 07:27:31 AM
Btctalk name : ETFbitcoin
Rank : Legendary
BTC Wallet Address : 1PPA7bmBaT3YFHxzHTTRnoLu5qx2fqFBbH or bc1qukm497eqrf2f24k5l8sghz5uewpyszmcu696cu
Wear Appropriate Signature ✅
Wear Personal Text: Make winning bets on sports with Sportsbet.io! ✅
Wear Avatar:  ✅  
464  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Eduroam blocks tor, vpns and bitcoin core! on: November 01, 2018, 02:13:18 PM
Can I host a DNS service on a raspberry pi? Is there a link as to a way I can do that and help decentralise the Internet?

Yes, but i only tried use Local DNS with BIND (https://www.isc.org/downloads/bind/) on Windows OS to bypass ISP blockade. It's heavy and the configuration was difficult, so i remove it and decide use Tor.

I've heard MaraDNS and Dnsmasq are lighter, even though i've no idea if those works on Raspberry Pi. Besides, i doubt Raspberry Pi is sufficient for huge DNS request.
465  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to ensure time in bitcoin or other blockchain tech? on: November 01, 2018, 12:20:48 PM
By default, nodes/client will reject any blocks which timestamp difference is more than 2 hours.
[...]

Almost! For a block to be valid, the timestamp has to be less than 2 hours into the future and higher than the median timestamp of the last 11 blocks.

For reference: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_timestamp

Thanks for the information. Assuming all last 11 blocks have exactly 10 minutes interval, does that mean block with timestamp about 1 hour in past still accepted?
466  Other / Serious discussion / Re: SEC decided to amend the Bitcoin ETF proposal, which was postponed by October 26 on: November 01, 2018, 12:16:02 PM
Who cares if they accept or not. I'm so glad the market is getting mature nowadays and not responding to fake/bad news causing FUD by dipping.
Bitcoin has survived almost 9years without ETF and can survive even more years to come without the so called ETF so don't think the whole hype put on ETF is even worth it.

So disappointing;
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7FyXupf.jpg[img]

2009 Bitcoiners were 11-12 year old children, in 2018 they are adults and understand how the real world works.

Btw, did any of your anti ETF guys ever heard about ''keep your enemies closer''?

What bitcoin need is legality as currency (or at least payment method) where people have full access of their coins, not ETF where bitcoin only can be used as investment to be and investor have no control over their coins.
467  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Eduroam blocks tor, vpns and bitcoin core! on: November 01, 2018, 12:09:55 PM
Unless someone could send me the ip addresses for tor and private internet access (they accept bitcoin).

You could use website services such as https://ipinfo.info/html/ip_checker.php to get website's IP.

However: If sites get blocked via domain name rather than via IP you should be able to simply use Google's DNS servers instead of the ones provided by your local network or ISP

Alternatively, you could manually configure your hosts file on your OS, even though it's pain in ass & you need to add all subdomain of website unless you make your own local DNS server.
468  Other / Meta / Re: POWERFUL SUGGESTION TO FURTHER IMPROVE BITCOINTALK FORUM on: November 01, 2018, 09:39:21 AM
Anyone who suggest KYC in cryptocurrency space shouldn't use cryptocurrency in first place and keep using fiat (exception for centralized exchange and few merchant). I would rather leave this forum rather than give my identity.
Even CloudFlare implementation is enough to make good member who want preseve their anonymity left this forum.

If we want to prevent spam, scam or merit farming, disable signature and remove bounty child board are better option.

TLDR : Your idea can go to hell.




Rather than blocking newly created accounts through IP addresses tracking, I would suggest that a thorough KYC should be done for newly registered members (such as email and ID verification)

Hey Mike.  Smiley

You really should check out bitcoin - it is an anonymous decentralized currency. 

You meant pseudonymous Smiley
469  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why not increase the block size? on: November 01, 2018, 09:37:22 AM
Anyone who claims increasing the blocksize is a good way to scale, didn't research enough regarding this topic
There haven't been any tests made on how the network reacts to bigger blocks.
Calling the increase of the blocksize a scaling solution without proper testing (e.g. for new vulnerabilities) is simply retarded.

Or they don't care about required cost to run full node, even if only high-end computer or server which could run full node.

If you want to read more arguments, with a more detailed explanation, use the search function.

I strongly suggest this. But beware there's diverse opinion/perspective regarding this matter and few of them share lies.
470  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How to ensure time in bitcoin or other blockchain tech? on: November 01, 2018, 04:51:03 AM
By default, nodes/client will reject any blocks which timestamp difference is more than 2 hours.
Additionally, they can't do pre-computation since previous block hash is required to construct a block.
471  Other / Serious discussion / Re: Another of my hdd mining topics on: November 01, 2018, 02:35:51 AM
You mean use HDD to mine Proof-of-Capacity such as burst coin? If so, then the answer is no. Mining calculator such as https://blocks.fastpool.info/calculator & http://burstcoincalculator.com/ show that you only get about $1-$2/month, without calculating electricity cost.

I don't know much about decentralized cloud storage, but https://storj.io/ homepage mention you will get $0.015/GB/month which mean you could earn up to $120/month.
472  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: BlockReduce: Scaling Blockchain to human commerce on: November 01, 2018, 02:21:18 AM
We're glad to see another scaling proposal. Some of my thoughts :
1. Part 4.3 have good idea to reduce bandwidth usage,
  • Sending TX hash to know whether a nodes already got transaction is great
  • I doubt self-identifying as sub-group is reliable solution since not all nodes online 24/7 and it might make transaction propagation become slower. Besides i doubt there's any reliable way to know everyone in a sub-graph has received transaction.
2. In general, IMO merge-mining and splitting/categorize blocks and transaction would increase Bitcoin development complexity and open far more attack-vector.
3. You forget to research verification time (for block & transaction), RAM usage and storage speed growth which are important when we're talking about scaling Bitcoin.

Gonna read your paper thoroughly later and give my thoughts later.
473  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Multi-sig Message Signing on: November 01, 2018, 01:38:13 AM
I was curious to know if there were wallets or any simple way to sign a message by multiple parties who have rights to a multisig address? I have seen multisig transactions, but not multisig messages.

According to https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/32811/how-can-i-sign-a-message-with-a-multi-signature-address, it's possible but quite complicated.
Edit : IMO no standardization makes it complicated.

Conversely, would there be a tool to decrypt this message to uncover who signed the multisigned message? I am imagining I would only be able to initially decrypt in as much to uncover the multi-sig address. Any way to derive the underlying public addresses for those participating within the multisig?

Bitcoin message sign isn't about message encryption/decryption, but make sure anyone can verify that it's created/signed by whoever own private key to a Bitcoin address and prevent message tampering.
474  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Flaws in LN (Lightning Network). on: October 31, 2018, 06:44:40 PM

New Flaw in LN Network ,


Technically, it's on-chain flaw where miners can choose specific transaction to be included/excluded.

Wu & Antpool have just recently started refusing to include segwit transactions in their blocks.
Since they are a major player this can delay the onchain redefinition of bitcoins and
INCREASE the potential for the LN funds to be stolen by a counter-party.
* Interestingly enough they could potentially cause segwit transactions to cost more than normal onchain transactions. *  Wink

Where's the source? There's no such information on twitter or reddit. Even if it's true, i doubt they would do that for long since it's MAD scenario since they could lose value of mined Bitcoin since people might be panic (unless they don't care about wasting money or losing profit).

But AFAIK when there's 2 valid conflicting transaction which have different height timelock, the transaction with lower height timelock included on-block.
475  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are there some natural random events that could serve as a source of consensus? on: October 31, 2018, 04:21:40 AM
(To be clear, this is an academical / theoretical proposal, I don't actually want to say that any real coins should use this.)

No wonder i feel your idea isn't suitable with PoW/PoS

ETFbitcoin

1. That sounds like another FOMO3D  Tongue
2. Not sure I understand this idea?

1. Except the winner is random which can't be predicted because everyone attempt to manipulate the system and the cost is far lower. This is assuming random data selected based on transaction/blocks that already confirmed.

2. Basically :
  • Each nodes block with height n create list of winner for blocks with height m
  • Random data chosen based on block/transaction from block weight between n and m

This is just my random thought
476  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Are there some natural random events that could serve as a source of consensus? on: October 30, 2018, 03:43:51 PM
I doubt randomness that comes from real world which can't be verified without human involvement/input is practical for any decentralized consensus method. But i have 2 thought about this problem (in PoS coins) :
1. Assuming randomness source comes from blockchain/network data. If anyone can know who will selected as the one who create next block or/and get the reward, then many individuals/party will try to abuse the system by add necessary data to make them as winner and that would make each other calculation/prediction become incorrect and thus no one can manipulate it.
2. How about each nodes have same list of coins stake address, but the source of randomness of data randomly selected from upcoming n blocks and only address from list before n blocks could be selected as winner?
No one could know/predict transaction which will be created on future and it should be able to resist winner manipulation.
477  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Consensus, the key to decentralisation POW,POS,PO?... on: October 30, 2018, 03:19:11 PM
Quote
Then the problem lies within person with bad computer literacy (aka computer illiterate), not how hard to install/run nodes.
IMHO This is a dangerous way to think. We are trying to build systems for everyone, not for the sliver of humanity that feels right at home sitting in front of computer most of the day toying with code, having our micro epiphanies and hanging out in chat rooms. The SW we produce should target users for whom programing a VCR or an oven timer is not immediately successful. That is my idea of idiot proof.
I think we should never consider a piece of SW is now reached its easiest to use state. This is a constant target to work toward.

That's a tall order, especially full-nodes/client developer such as Bitcoin Core's developer focus on back-end.
While i agree with your idea, IMO regular user shouldn't run nodes or full nodes, but SPV wallet which is user-friendly and open-source. However, IMO should able to run full nodes at low cost and don't have hard time using it.
478  Other / Meta / Re: A couple of quick questions related to forum rules on: October 30, 2018, 12:29:58 PM
-   Can someone get banned for plagiarism (or else), for a post written let’s say two or three years ago? (or even longer).

Yes, especailly since i asked "Should i report old post/thread if it's plagiarism and there's strong proof?" to a moderator via PM and the answer is "Yes"
479  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Consensus, the key to decentralisation POW,POS,PO?... on: October 30, 2018, 04:23:27 AM
Quote
Past thread about consensus algorithm has proven it's impossible
Can you please link to this thread, and sorry it IŽll ruffle your feathers here, but the word "impossible", in this context is used by those with a lack of imagination and/or a desire to limit other's imaginations.

What i mean impossible is having constructive discussion, without spammer (who says common info or plagiarism), trash talk or attack each other. There are plenty threads, but i'll give few recent threads :
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3789535.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5056705.0;all

Quote
My feeling is that PoS and its variants are flawed approaches due to their reliance on staking, meaning the more coins you have the more you will earn by staking, and this, I fear, will lead to less and not more decentralisation.
I have the strong feeling we must explore options outside the PoS and PoW duopoly.

Can you please link me to more info on PoCW. I am curious and have not been able to find anything online about it yet. Which coin is using it? Any links would be appreciated.

To be fair, i can't think other way which is more secure/have less attack vector compared with more coins = more reward/stake incentive. I don't know much about consensus method outside PoW and PoS though.

Also, i forget to mention that PoCW still on works and AFAIK haven't tested with any public coin/test coin. You can see it at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4438334.0;all

Quote
Quote
NO, transaction verification should uses little computational power to make it scalable.
My bad, this was obviously going to mislead now I re read it. What I am getting at is that it is not sustainable that most of a nodeŽs CPU is invested in simply determining who will mine the next block. This should be the other way around. Transaction verification should be the main CPU role of the node and this should also be optimised to be as streamlined as possible. i.e. max throughput.

All nodes has always been and will verify all transaction & blocks.

I assume you're talking about PoW. If so, computational power to solve PoW puzzle isn't used to determine who mine the next block, but whoever solve the puzzle first are the one who will get their block accepted by all nodes.
Do you mean finding ways to prevent computational power isn't wasted since only the winner get mining reward?

Quote
Quote
Only can be achieved with Sharding where each nodes don't broadcast or verify all transaction. But there's plenty of disadvantage, have some degree of centralization and IMO it can't be considered as full nodes.
I agree, but I think the term "full node" as taken from the bitcoin network is the most robust but the least efficient way to describe what a node is or should be.
I think there is a very large latitude available in the fullness of a node while retaining decentralised security and speed. Why could it not be that hundreds of nodes participate in each block creation and share/overlap the work, and in overlapping they also cross verify each other.

I disagree, IMO the definition is full node is node which verify all transaction and block.

Besides, i can't think ways to cross verify each other nodes (other than Sharding) besides by verify all transaction and block (which also uses similar amount of computational power and internet bandwidth)?

Quote
Quote
Isn't install and run application (with default configuration) already idiot proof?
When my wife can install something and run it without my help, then we have started to reached the realms of idiot proof (my wife is far from an idiot, but when it comes to computers I am sure she would not mind being the hapless benchmark here)

Then the problem lies within person with bad computer literacy (aka computer illiterate), not how hard to install/run nodes.

Quote
Quote
CMIIW, but AFAIK few cryptocurrency such as EOS works in similar way.
Again, what I am trying to discuss here is a non PoS consensus algorithm.

Then you should look for another consensus method which mentioned by Zin-Zang.
480  Economy / Gambling discussion / Re: betting method profit guaranteed no paying on: October 29, 2018, 05:06:37 PM
What a weak attempt to scam people's money/time. At least, most gamblers already knows about house edge where gambler will lose their money over time Tongue

well test it and check.no cheat no nothing..smiply tennis betting system

Why don't you wager your money on the winner on casino which allow you to share each user's wager along with necessary proof? There's no reason not to do it since you would get big winning and earn trust from the another member, otherwise we'll keep calling you scammer.
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 72 73 74 ... 304 »
Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
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!