Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 09:59:40 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
  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 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 346 »
641  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Nonce randomness on: January 16, 2016, 08:48:53 PM
So you are saying the nonce is pretty much a random value now when a new block is found. And if it's not truly "random" there's no way to determine a bias anyway, making it "random".

Put it this way, if you were to bet on a nonce value, would you say 1 has as good a chance as any other value < 2^32 of being the next block's nonce?

No, I think lower values would have higher probability. Even if miners go through the range very quickly, they're going to be going 0, 1, ..., 2^32, 0, 1, ..., 2^32, ... repeatedly, and the place where they stop will almost always exclude some of the higher nonce values, making lower values more likely overall.
642  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: Bitcoin Core #REKT on: January 16, 2016, 08:46:37 PM
This topic has been moved to Altcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330351.0
643  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: I support "Bitcoin Classic" (2MB), if the activation threshold is over 95% on: January 16, 2016, 07:35:29 PM
There's no difference between an activation threshold of 75% (or 51%) and 95% because pro-fork miners can just start rejecting blocks from anti-fork miners to increase the percentage. Miner voting is a stupid concept for hardforks -- it's the economy that matters in a hardfork, not miners.
644  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) on: January 16, 2016, 06:43:00 AM
Looks like Classic isn't so "democratic" after all: https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6
645  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hearn's "Faith in Humanity Shaken" after People Awaken to His EVIL Plan! on: January 16, 2016, 01:10:23 AM
Has anyone with high technical knowledge taken the time to deconstruct his post point-by-point? He does make some interesting points that even I (not by any means a "big blockist") feel should be addressed.

Pick out a few of the more interesting bits and I'll respond to them.

Quote
Why would Satoshi not sign his post, thus proving that it really is him? Surely that would be a big blow to the ph0rkers, no?

- Satoshi never signed his posts.
- He likely wouldn't want it to look like he was dictating Bitcoin's future.
646  Other / Archival / Re: Theymos you have 48 hours on: January 15, 2016, 10:43:13 PM
Please, do fill us all in.

As far as I know, Paraipan died and took the 250 BTC he was holding for the forum with him. I put some effort into trying to locate his family or something, but I couldn't.
647  Other / Meta / Re: Is this a bug or what? on: January 15, 2016, 05:28:51 PM
That's annoying. Don't do that. People who do that might be banned. (If people start doing it habitually, I'll stop it technologically.)
648  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hearn's "Faith in Humanity Shaken" after People Awaken to His EVIL Plan! on: January 15, 2016, 08:10:18 AM
Love to hear the old-timers' opinions.  It's only been like 6 years, but 2009 seems so long ago in bitcoin-time. 

My faith in humanity has already been shaken and that's why I don't leave my abode much.  I shall make this my reading for tonight--I didn't know who Mike Hearn was and why all these threads had been created based on what he's been spouting.  Oh well, people come and go.

Hearn's article is almost entirely inaccurate/misleading FUD.

It's possible that there will be some turbulence if we can't scale fast enough, but the Core devs have a plan that I think will probably alleviate problems in the short-term, and will almost certainly allow for massive scaling in the long-term. This plan includes an effective max block size increase to 2 MB in ~April. If any serious problems occur, it will be due to altcoins-in-disguise like XT and Classic trying to move Bitcoin development from something based on technical merit to something based on dictatorship or popularity.

Someone who could very well be Satoshi said:

Quote from: Maybe Satoshi
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
649  Other / Meta / MOVED: scammer alert HardcoreSuperstar (chipotle deal) on: January 15, 2016, 06:48:30 AM
This topic has been moved to Scam Accusations.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1328472.0
650  Other / Meta / Re: Whats the deal with Theymos? on: January 14, 2016, 08:48:30 PM
How/what would you advice someone to research or explore to get knowledge of at least 80% of the transactions,or simply they are not allowed to ?

I don't publish info about individual transactions. You can see more-or-less how much BTC the forum has by looking at the treasury addresses.

However, only about $50,000 was donated according to BTC price at time of donation. While I am appreciative to donators, the millions of dollars made later were from capital gains and ad income -- things that I am primarily responsible for. So don't go around acting like this is some big swindle, especially when I actually am reinvesting all profit into the forum and the community, as it says on the donation page.

For the /r/Bitcoin ad fund, there were three spends:
- A Reddit ad campaign
- Sponsorship of a Starcraft tournament
- Sponsorship of Axiom eSports

The "magic Internet money" ad is provided free by Reddit.

651  Other / Meta / Re: Whats the deal with Theymos? on: January 14, 2016, 06:28:49 PM
Maybe it was taking millions of dollars from reddit?

The Reddit ad fund received a total of 22.51357574 BTC, of which 12.15558457 BTC is still unspent and available, as stated in the /r/Bitcoin sidebar.

Addresses do not "naturally" send money or have balances: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/From_address . It's possible to make it so that an address's "balance" contains meaningful info, and some broken wallets do this by default, but I don't. For any of my addresses except ones that I specify, you should behave as if this is an address in a Coinbase wallet or something. All block chain information except for received amount is meaningless. I've explained this many times over the course of years...
652  Local / Philippines / Re: theymos on: January 14, 2016, 07:13:42 AM
AFAIK other mods too are on average here 2hrs a day, so that shouldn't be a problem. And this is a paid job, considering you are also promoted to Patroller(can moderate newbs in other sections) , if you moderate consistently you will get a good portion of the 25% of the ad funds.

There is a very small amount of payment, but you're going to be disappointed if you apply for just that reason. Also, local mods don't immediately become patrollers. That's a separate thing.
653  Local / Philippines / Re: theymos on: January 14, 2016, 04:14:16 AM
That seems like too many to start with. I'm not sure how popular this board is going to be. Maybe pick four of those.
654  Local / Other languages/locations / MOVED: Pilipinas (Philippines) on: January 14, 2016, 03:52:31 AM
This topic has been moved to Philippines.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=27736.0
655  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) on: January 13, 2016, 01:47:22 AM
As a firm supporter of Bitcoin Classic, I am honored to be a moderator of the official Bitcoin Classic subreddit.

I am however disappointed that smartfbrankings changed my original sidebar text.

Gavinista 9 months ago: "We need 20MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 6 months ago: "We need 20MB 8MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"

*Bitcoin continues to thrive*

Gavinista 1 month ago: "We need 20MB 8MB 2MB blocks Right Fucking Now, or Bitcoin is dooomed!!1!"


There is only one plausible/parsimonious explanation for such an utter lack of concern about their continual loss of credibility, which is that they are executing a 'thin wedge' strategy.

The Gavinistas would be happy with 1.001MB blocks, because such a hard fork would get their camel's nose into the tent.

The point isn't larger blocks will save Bitcoin from certain dooom, it's to undermine the socioeconomic majority's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient system.  It's about sending a message, that Bitcoin's engineering decisions can be controlled by manufacturing dissent.

LOL, very true. "Oops, I guess we would've destroyed Bitcoin if the last coup attempt had suceeded. But we definitely have it right this time, promise!"

I hope that they get 75% miner support right away so that I can watch their miners saying, "Oh shit, we just mined a ton of worthless altcoins!".
656  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: Is Bitcoin Unlimited another Bitcoin XT? on: January 13, 2016, 01:47:06 AM
This topic has been moved to Altcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1325418.0
657  Other / Off-topic / Re: Did you watch The<Star Wars: The Force Awakens> "? on: January 12, 2016, 06:39:24 AM
I saw it recently. I went into it very pessimistic because I hated J.J. Abrams' Star Trek. I thought that this Star Wars movie would be similar: mindless boring action, completely unlike the originals, and packed full of stupid references. I was pleasantly surprised, however. It captured a lot of the feeling of the original trilogy. I loved it. I especially like how it focuses so much on the characters. Some say that it was a copy of A New Hope, and while there are definite similarities, I didn't find it distracting at all. All of the criticism is just nitpicking, really. Everything has flaws, and there were a handful of brief moments where I cringed a bit at something stupid, but I definitely recommend seeing this film if you like the original trilogy.

I think this is the first film I've seen where I've wanted to watch it again so soon after seeing it. I'm tempted to go see it again once it hits the cheap seats. And I'm (cautiously) very excited for the sequels.
658  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Nonce randomness on: January 11, 2016, 04:27:27 AM
I think that some (most?) miners start at 0 and go through them sequentially, so I'd guess that lower nonce values are more common in the block chain.

If you're trying to solve a block, any nonce value will have equal probability of solving it. If you can find any bias or pattern, then you've demonstrated a weakness in SHA-256.
659  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: bitcoin "unlimited" seeks review on: January 09, 2016, 02:10:13 AM
Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

It's a softfork of XT which makes it compatible with Bitcoin, and also removes all of its other ill-advised changes. Wink
660  Other / New forum software / Re: New forum? on: January 08, 2016, 07:13:53 PM
Just took a look at new forum.Fast and Sleek Design!The End of Signature Campaigns ?

Signatures are going to be added back in at some point. Maybe the height limit will be smaller than here, though. I thought about removing signatures, since that'd really clean things up, but I decided that signatures (and especially sig campaigns) are too important to the culture here to remove.

The final theme definitely won't be this orange color. I think I'll probably start out with something vaguely blue as a callback to this forum, and see how that goes.
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 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 346 »
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!