Bitcoin Forum
April 24, 2018, 07:09:38 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.0  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  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 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 354 »
841  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin XT on: January 01, 2016, 08:33:01 PM
XT takes Bitcoin and modifies some of its core consensus rules. Right now, it happens to be compatible with Bitcoin in most cases. But because it uses different rules, it can (depending on what miners do) split into a totally separate currency. Therefore, XT is not Bitcoin. A similar sort of thing was done with Feathercoin, which split off from Litecoin.

Some sort of block-size limit is necessary because if miners make blocks too large for a long period of time, then this makes it difficult for people to run full nodes. (In other words, block size is a negative externality suffered by full nodes due to the actions of miners and transaction-makers.) If not enough of the economy is backed by independent full nodes, then Bitcoin is totally insecure for everyone (see here and here). And there's no reason to think that miners would voluntarily keep blocks small enough -- they don't have the right incentives. So the network needs to enforce some limit. In the long-run the limit can't stay at 1 MB forever (and Satoshi acknowledged this), but this works well enough for now.

People often think that Bitcoin is ruled by miners, but this is wrong. Miners are merely employees of the network. Even if every miner decided to make 2 MB blocks right now, everyone running a Bitcoin full node would simply ignore their blocks. Bitcoin is composed of immutable rules (called "consensus rules") that all full nodes enforce no matter what. Modifying these rules requires creating a separate currency and having everyone else move to this separate currency. If pretty much everyone agrees in advance that it's OK to do this, then this is a consensus hardfork, and the result is still Bitcoin. If there is significant controversy, then the new currency is not Bitcoin. See this diagram.

Quote
And to me it seems that the block size limit would be a problem right? Wont it either dramatically increase fees and/or causr transaction favoritism/selection? Bitcoin is special because all transactions are treated equally?

If blocks sometimes get full, then paying a too-low fee might significantly delay your transaction. If blocks are consistently full, then if you don't pay a sufficient fee, your transaction might never confirm. The exact fee required will depend on how many other transactions are being created and how much block space is left. Increasing the max block size will allow for lower fees.

Bitcoin is special because it is decentralized and to a very large extent incorruptible by humans, not because it might in some cases allow cheap transactions. If it can be done safely, the max block size should be increased if fees become a significant problem. But if the max block size is at the maximum safe size, then we shouldn't abandon the decentralization, security, etc. of the base Bitcoin system in order to achieve lower fees. We should instead look for some other solution. And there are in fact a variety of solutions in the works, both to make max block size increases safer (eg. IBLT and/or weak blocks) and to reduce the number of on-blockchain transactions that people need to perform (eg. Lightning). And if these "perfect" solutions are insufficient, there are various imperfect solutions which increase scalability at some security cost for its users. There might be some hiccups along the way, but I am very confident that the Bitcoin currency/ecosystem can both remain secure+decentralized and eventually scale to encompass all world transactions if necessary.

The max block size is planned to be effectively increased to about 2 MB sometime this year with the SegWit softfork. See: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases . An increase to much more than this is not viewed as safe by many experts.
842  Other / Meta / Re: Can't see new msg when logged in. on: December 30, 2015, 09:58:13 PM
Are you talking about the link that looks like this: ? I don't really see how that could break. I think that it's always constant. Maybe your ad-blocker is messing with the page?
843  Other / Meta / Re: Are carding discount offers allowed on this forum? on: December 30, 2015, 05:08:58 AM
That's illegal pretty much everywhere and therefore not allowed here.
844  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is there any PHP-MySQL full node implementation ? on: December 30, 2015, 12:20:53 AM
Implementing a full node in any language is extremely difficult because you need to match the behavior of Bitcoin Core exactly, even including bugs and unknown behavior. Don't try it.

It has occurred to me that it might be useful to do payment processing or a wallet by writing a non-verifying "node" in PHP which talks exclusively to a trusted full node over a secure connection (note that Bitcoin network connections are not by themselves secure). I wrote some working PHP code for Bitcoin protocol communication back when I was running blockexplorer.com. It's not that difficult.
845  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: UTXOs with Expiration Dates on: December 24, 2015, 06:08:35 AM
This is a very old idea which has been discussed to death.

People joined Bitcoin knowing that bitcoins would gradually be lost over time. This is an important part of how the Bitcoin currency works. Therefore, reassigning "lost" BTC would be extremely similar to increasing the money supply beyond 21 million, and so it is an absolutely prohibited change. Nothing that does this can ever rightly be called Bitcoin, no matter how much consensus it has. If we ever run low on satoshi, the solution will be to increase precision, not to add more satoshi.

Expiring very old UTXOs but not reassigning their value is acceptable, though. In fact, this can be done in a softfork. I think that doing this would be a good idea:
- If apparently-lost BTC is at risk of being recovered illegitimately due to cryptographic weaknesses. The release of so many lost coins would be a major blow to the the economy. Once it looks like ECDSA will only be secure for 5 more years or so, I think that a timer should be started to expire all ECDSA-secured UTXOs at the expected point at which they will become too insecure.
- If storing the UTXO set becomes a very major bottleneck for full nodes and there are no other good alternatives to UTXO expiration on the table. Several years of advance warning should be given before the first expiration.
846  Other / Meta / Re: Watchlist - Wrong sorting on: December 24, 2015, 12:23:04 AM
Edit 2: I see the error now, there is a "?" missing, shouldn't be hard to fix

Fixed, thanks.
847  Other / Meta / Re: Watchlist - Wrong sorting on: December 23, 2015, 07:09:25 PM
Hm, I can't believe it took until now for someone to notice that bug. Fixed.
848  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 22, 2015, 06:38:03 PM
Quote from: Wladimir
Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 Grin
849  Other / New forum software / Re: Will Position and Usernames be transferred to the new forum? on: December 19, 2015, 04:26:53 AM
Everything except passwords. IIRC it was disclosed that users would need to reset their passwords via email prior to logging in the first time.

That's how it'll be during the beta, but after total migration there'll need to be a somewhat-hidden page for using your old password. Otherwise people with invalid emails would get locked out.
850  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What unit do you find more comfortable when measuring BTC values? on: December 16, 2015, 03:49:33 PM
I'm most comfortable with BTC, though I think that "bits" might become the most common unit in the future.

"satoshi" is too much of a mouthful. I wish people would just start saying "sat" for that unit.
851  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 15, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
When I heard yesterday that btcdrak was made a moderator of /r/btc, my first thoughts were "Maybe /r/Bitcoin finally has a bit of competition" and "I wonder how long that'll last". The answer: probably not very long. As someone (iCEBREAKER?) predicted, these people will just keep forking themselves into oblivion.
852  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 15, 2015, 07:00:31 AM
You make it sound like Core just resurrected Hitler and reinstated the third reich.

IIRC that's not planned until 0.14.
853  Economy / Auctions / Advertise on this forum - Round 162 on: December 11, 2015, 05:39:26 PM
The forum sells ad space in the area beneath the first post of every topic page. About 25% of ad income goes to the forum moderators as thanks for all of their work. (There are many moderators, so each moderator gets only a small amount -- moderators should be seen as volunteers, not employees.) The rest is stored in the forum's treasury (verifiably), where it sits until the forum needs it.

Ads are allowed to contain any non-annoying HTML/CSS style. No images, JavaScript, or animation. Ads must appear 3 or fewer lines tall in my browser (Firefox, 900px wide). Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

There are 10 total ad slots which are randomly rotated. So one ad slot has a one in ten chance of appearing. Nine of the slots are for sale here. Ads appear only on topic pages with more than one post, and only for people using the default theme.

The ad lasts at least 7 days starting from when I put it up. (However, if you look at the ad history you'll see that ads usually get at least 8 days, and sometimes as many as 12, but this is random and definitely not guaranteed.)

Stats

Exact historical impression counts per slot:
https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adstats

Info about the current ad slots:
https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adinfo

Ad blocking

Hero/Legendary members, Donators, VIPs, and moderators have the ability to disable ads. I don't expect many people to use this option. These people don't increase the impression stats for your ads.

I try to bypass Adblock Plus filters as much as possible, though this is not guaranteed. It is difficult or impossible for ABP filters to block the ad space itself without blocking posts. However, filters can match against the URLs in your links, your CSS classes and style attributes, and the HTML structure of your ads.

To prevent matches against URLs: I have some JavaScript which fixes links blocked by ABP. You must tell me if you want this for your ads. When someone with ABP and JavaScript enabled views your ads, your links are changed to a special randomized bitcointalk.org URL which redirects to your site when visited. People without ABP are unaffected, even if they don't have JavaScript enabled. The downsides are:
- ABP users will see the redirection link when they hover over the link, even if they disable ABP for the forum.
- Getting referral stats might become even more difficult.
- Some users might get a warning when redirecting from https to http.

To prevent matching on CSS classes/styles: Don't use inline CSS. I can give your ad a CSS class that is randomized on each pageload, but you must request this.

To prevent matching against your HTML structure: Use only one <a> and no other tags if possible. If your ads get blocked because of matching done on something inside of your ad, you are responsible for noticing this and giving me new ad HTML.

Designing ads

Make sure that your ads look good when you download and edit this test page:
https://bitcointalk.org/ad_test.html
Also read the comments in that file.

Images are not allowed no matter how they are created (CSS, SVG, or data URI). Occasionally I will make an exception for small logos and such, but you must get pre-approval from me first.

The maximum size of any one ad is 51200 bytes.

I will send you more detailed styling rules if you win slots in this auction (or upon request).

Auction rules

You must be at least a Jr Member to bid. If you are not a Jr Member and you really want to bid, you should PM me first. Tell me in the PM what you're going to advertise. You might be required to pay some amount in advance. Everyone else: Please quickly PM newbies who try to bid here to warn them against impersonation scammers.

Post your bids in this thread. Prices must be stated in BTC per slot. You must state the maximum number of slots you want. When the auction ends, the highest bidders will have their slots filled until all nine slots are filled.

So if someone bids for 9 slots @ 5 BTC and this is the highest bid, then he'll get all 9 slots. If the two highest bids are 9 slots @ 4 BTC and 1 slot @ 5 BTC, then the first person will get 8 slots and the second person will get 1 slot.

The notation "2 @ 5" means 2 slots for 5 BTC each. Not 2 slots for 5 BTC total.

- When you post a bid, the bids in your previous posts are considered to be automatically canceled. You can put multiple bids in one post, however.
- All bid prices must be evenly divisible by 0.05.
- The bidding starts at 0.50.
- I will end the auction at an arbitrary time. Probably the end time will be 7-12 days from the time of this post, though it could be anywhere between 4 and 22 days from now. (I will probably end the auction 1-3 days before the ads are scheduled to go up.)
- If two people bid at the same price, the person who bid first will have his slots filled first.
- Bids are considered invalid and will be ignored if they do not specify both a price and a max quantity, or if they could not possibly win any slots

If these rules are confusing, look at some of the past forum ad auctions to see how it's done.

I reserve the right to reject bids, even days after the bid is made.

You must pay for your slots within 24 hours of receiving the payment address. Otherwise your slots may be sold to someone else, and I might even give you a negative trust rating. I will send you the payment information via forum PM from this account ("theymos", user ID 35) after announcing the auction results in this thread. You might receive false payment information from scammers pretending to be me. They might even have somewhat similar usernames. Be careful.
854  Economy / Auctions / Re: Advertise on this forum - Round 161 on: December 11, 2015, 05:33:03 PM
Auction ended. Final result:
Slots BTC/Slot Person
2 4.50 victorhing
2 4.35 MariaQin
1 4.30 idsb2b
1 4.30 bitok.com
1 4.10 FortuneJack
2 4.10 betcointm

2 @ 4.2

Sorry, I'm not so sure about your service, and it seems to be down right now.
855  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi returns, says he's not Craig wright on: December 10, 2015, 09:57:11 PM
I didn't check the headers, so I didn't notice this. That is very convincing that it is not Satoshi. But how can that domain name be spoofed? Does the sender set that name or is it done by the receiving server?

Here's apparently the person who sent it, explaining how he did it.

In SMTP (the email protocol), you start your connection by saying who you are via a command like HELO bitcointalk.org ("hello, I'm bitcointalk.org"). Most servers will then check that the IP address you're connecting from actually matches the hostname you give, and if not will immediately drop the connection. But the mailing list's server is apparently really stupid, and just blindly believes that any given hostname is actually accurate. So you could tell it HELO whitehouse.gov and the server will believe that you're whitehouse.gov. Or whatever.
856  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi returns, says he's not Craig wright on: December 10, 2015, 04:05:09 PM
This is spoofed.

Code:
    Received: from mail.vistomail.com (cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com
    [104.231.205.87])         
    by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 01BCADF
    for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
    Thu, 10 Dec 2015 06:53:42 +0000 (UTC)

104.231.205.87 is not mail.vistomail.com. It's some residential IP, cpe-104-231-205-87.wi.res.rr.com.

I feel like the mailing list must be seriously misconfigured to allow this sort of spoofing... You could exploit this to send mail "from" any of the devs, for example.
857  Other / Meta / Re: Legendary one day? on: December 10, 2015, 12:02:24 AM
Here are the luckiest and unluckiest Legendaries so far:

Code:
+-----------------------------------------+--------+
| realName                                | alimit |
+-----------------------------------------+--------+
| teukon                                  |   1029 |
| klondike_bar                            |   1029 |
| foggyb                                  |   1028 |
| jl2012                                  |   1028 |
| jbreher                                 |   1027 |
| DarkHyudrA                              |   1027 |
| zvs                                     |   1024 |
| bitpop                                  |   1024 |
| JoelKatz                                |   1024 |
| LightRider                              |   1022 |
| mc_lovin                                |   1022 |
| Portnoy                                 |   1022 |
| PsychoticBoy                            |   1021 |
| Raoul Duke                              |   1020 |
| fsb4000                                 |   1020 |
| organofcorti                            |   1019 |
| marcus_of_augustus                      |   1019 |
| markm                                   |   1018 |
| shmadz                                  |   1018 |
| Serge                                   |   1017 |
| tacotime                                |   1017 |
| notme                                   |   1017 |
| ewibit                                  |   1016 |
| ocminer                                 |   1015 |
| bitfreak!                               |   1015 |
| Hyena                                   |   1015 |
| theymos                                 |   1014 |
| CrazyGuy                                |   1014 |
| elux                                    |   1014 |
| CanaryInTheMine                         |   1013 |
| da2ce7                                  |   1012 |
| BitcoinEXpress                          |   1010 |
| ThiagoCMC                               |   1010 |
| b!z                                     |   1010 |
| jtimon                                  |   1009 |
| acoindr                                 |   1009 |
...
| Tigggger                                |    795 |
| sardokan                                |    795 |
| sgbett                                  |    795 |
| Mabsark                                 |    795 |
| Biomech                                 |    795 |
| Eisenhower34                            |    794 |
| bitcoin carpenter                       |    794 |
| BurtW                                   |    794 |
| siameze                                 |    794 |
| markj113                                |    794 |
| Chalkbot                                |    793 |
| derpinheimer                            |    793 |
| Richy_T                                 |    793 |
| stahanovec                              |    792 |
| runeks                                  |    792 |
| eleuthria                               |    792 |
| vokain                                  |    791 |
| BTCat                                   |    791 |
| ninjaboon                               |    790 |
| chungenhung                             |    790 |
| siulynot                                |    790 |
| killerstorm                             |    790 |
| wknight                                 |    790 |
| Benson Samuel                           |    790 |
| Pieter Wuille                           |    790 |
| TTBit                                   |    789 |
| Grumlin                                 |    789 |
| nikkus                                  |    789 |
| Azrace                                  |    789 |
| DiabloD3                                |    788 |
| MemoryDealers                           |    788 |
| 600watt                                 |    788 |
| giszmo                                  |    788 |
| Gabi                                    |    788 |
| cyclops                                 |    788 |
| weex                                    |    787 |
| dreamwatcher                            |    787 |
| nwfella                                 |    787 |
| Justin00                                |    787 |
| haploid23                               |    787 |
| Abdussamad                              |    787 |
| film2240                                |    787 |
| ethought                                |    787 |
| andrehorta                              |    786 |
| Nagle                                   |    786 |
| friedcat                                |    786 |
| saddambitcoin                           |    786 |
| marcotheminer                           |    785 |
| crazyates                               |    785 |
| sunnankar                               |    785 |
| MicroGuy                                |    784 |
| klaus                                   |    784 |
| phelix                                  |    783 |
| Miz4r                                   |    783 |
| Xenland                                 |    783 |
| cypherdoc                               |    783 |
| Bytekiller                              |    782 |
| loshia                                  |    782 |
| icey                                    |    781 |
| klee                                    |    781 |
| Adrian-x                                |    781 |
| shitaifan2013                           |    781 |
| rpietila                                |    781 |
| dexX7                                   |    781 |
| ajareselde                              |    780 |
| BayAreaCoins                            |    780 |
| cinnamon_carter                         |    780 |
| ulrich909                               |    780 |
| piramida                                |    779 |
| gizmoh                                  |    779 |
| GIANNAT                                 |    779 |
| eldentyrell                             |    779 |
| MysteryMiner                            |    779 |
| BitThink                                |    778 |
| monbux                                  |    778 |
| BitcoinForumator                        |    778 |
| muyuu                                   |    776 |
| Grinder                                 |    776 |
| mogrith                                 |    775 |
+-----------------------------------------+--------+
858  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 09, 2015, 11:41:54 PM
So reduce the actual block limit to 500KByte? (effective max 2 MB).

I was thinking 1 MB normal blocks + 1 MB witness. Apparently most transactions are nowadays about 50% witness data, so we'd be able to pretty much fill up both the normal blocks and the "witness blocks".

You're right that typical blocks would only fill 1-2 MB of witness data (2-3 MB total) with sipa's proposal, so maybe it's OK. But I'm not 100% sure yet.
859  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 09, 2015, 11:22:30 PM
Finally cleans up issues with signature TX malleability, makes fraud proofs viable for real SPV security and incidentally frees up some capacity breathing room for the near term (2-3MB per block), who could argue against it? Unless there is some truly objectionable security risk discovered it should be soft-forked in ASAP. A few niggles about 'cleanest' way to do that but hopefully that wont turn into too much slide-rule swinging.

One issue is that if the "effective max block size" with SW is 4 MB, then the maximum bandwidth that a full node will have to deal with is the same as if we had a hardfork to 4 MB blocks. With the current way that the network functions and is laid out, this might be too much bandwidth. Maybe this could be somewhat addressed with IBLT, weak blocks, and other tech, but that stuff doesn't exist yet.

I think that there's basically agreement that 2 MB would be safe, though.
860  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Gmaxwell proves Craig Wright is a fraud on: December 09, 2015, 05:52:07 PM
Were hash algorithms 1 through 11 added to any well known OpenPGP implementation before 2009?

All software would have supported it, and it even would have been possible to manually force GPG into creating a key with those preferences in 2008.

But we already have a key for Satoshi. Everyone knows that it's accurate. It was created on Oct. 30, 2008, and it used the default GPG cipher preferences at the time.

Now we're asked to believe that Satoshi had a secret additional key also created on Oct 30, 2008, but it used the default cipher preferences of today's version of GPG. Why would Satoshi create two keys on the same day with different cipher preferences (one of which is conveniently the default for modern GPG versions), and keep one totally secret? It's theoretically possible, but it makes no sense. By far the most likely explanation is that it was back-dated (easily possible with stock GPG) in order to trick gullible people into believing that this person is Satoshi. The other "evidence" is similarly worthless: Satoshi never used satoshin@vistomail.com (only satoshi@vistomail.com and satoshin@gmx.com), and the blogs were obviously back-dated as well.

I am very disappointed in the community for (largely) being fooled by this obvious imposter.
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 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 354 »
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!