Oh you absolutely cannot just send 300MB, your peers could just lie to you and it would be greatly in their short term financial interest to do so (because they could make you accept inflation or spends of non-existing coins). But you can produce this trusted state for yourself and you don't need to store anything else. ECDSA is cheap, with libsecp256k1 my i7 desktop here validates at almost 6000x the maximum realtime rate for the Bitcoin network.
Thanks for your very helpful replies. There are two issues we are discussing: 1) Cost of downloading & validating full chain 2) Cost of "keeping up" a full node I guess your machine is 6000x more than adequate enough for task number two  My original concern is with number 1. For #1 you don't "need" anything more than the UXTO plus set of pruned merkle trees. The same optimizations which improve the efficiency of #2 can be used to improve the efficiency of #1 as well. |
|
|
|
First in, First out. That is how they should be doing it, it is the only fair or equitable way of doing that.
I'm confused. Does that mean the newest orders are filled or the oldest? Oldest |
|
|
|
No it isn't possible because unlike some Bitcoin exchanges banks learned about the concept of ACID compliant transactions about forty years ago. BTW there is no money "in the card" just like there is no car hidden inside your car key. The key and card are just access mechanisms.
Well said sir ! I just wonder if it is possible for a hacker to use 3D printer to replicate a VISA/MasterCard ? Well I am not going to help you engage in credit card fraud but it is trivially easy to make bit for bit exact duplicates of magnetic based credit cards. They have absolutely no security. It would be like a bitcoin wallet with the private key written right on the front and broadcast in plaintext to anyone you buy goods from (or anyone else who happens to be listening). This is a big reason the industry is moving towards chip & pin based cards, magnetic based cards are horribly insecure. |
|
|
|
|
OP never do your own taxes. This is very basic taxes and accounting. Income = Revenue - Expenses. It is called an income tax not a gross revenue tax for a reason. This isn't Bitcoin specific. If you made disposable barbaque lighters you would be taxed on .... the income (profit) not the gross sales.
Also there is no magic 25% tax. You pay income tax and depending on the level of your income that might be as little as 0% or as much as 49.7%.
|
|
|
|
|
First in, First out. That is how they should be doing it, it is the only fair or equitable way of doing that.
|
|
|
|
Good initiative!
I already have a node, the only problem is that I want to contribute even more to the network, I mean, I have set the maxconnections to a very hight value but I only get <100 connections, I have a lot of spare bandwith (100Mbps) and 2GB of ram.
You can't contribute to the network more than what is needed. Nodes connecting outbound randomly select other nodes with open inbound connections. They favor peers with higher uptime, low error rates, and good latency. Outbound connections are limited to eight per node so if the pool of available inbound connections is larger than the number of required outbound connections not all nodes will be "maxed out". That is actually a good sign, it indicated the network has expansion capacity for new nodes in the most important attribute, available inbound connections. If all nodes accepting inbound connections were maxed out it would make if very difficult for new nodes which aren't accepting inbound connections to find peers. So even the excess unused capacity is helping to strengthen the network. |
|
|
|
|
No it isn't possible because unlike some Bitcoin exchanges banks learned about the concept of ACID compliant transactions about fourty years ago. BTW there is no money "in the card" just like there is no car hidden inside your car key. The key and card are just access mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
Also, a .22
A .22? In case you get robbed by roving gangs of paper targets? |
|
|
|
If one trader trades 50 times a day, which is nothing for a professional day trader, think of all that money being transferred on the exchange itself that should technically be transferred by the miners, not the exchange!! We're being robbed out of thousands if not millions of dollars a day because the exchange is making the profit from the trades. Self entitled much? The transaction occurring off network aren't using your service, it isn't costing you anything. Are people who pay by Visa stealing from you as well? What about people who keep funds secured in cold wallets and don't move them? Most people fund their brokerage or forex accounts by a single bank wire, are all those trader stealing from the banks because they don't use the banking network for every trade? Where do you get the idea that you have a right to profit? Profit is earned. If you want more transactions than encourage more adoption. You aren't entitled to a specific level of profit or even the guarantee that you will profit at all. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the replies, I'm still only upto 48 connections (max set at 200)
There is no guarantee you will get to 200. Nodes making outbound connections will only make eight connections to the network. They will favor peers with better uptime. So depending on how large the pool of available inbound connections is relative to the number of outbound connections and your uptime relative to other peers will determine how connected your node is. |
|
|
|
From the code, I gather it has a list of initial seed nodes to download updated lists from. I assume that it is important for the integrity of the network that these hardcoded seed nodes are not compromised or can't easily become subject to persecution from hostile goverments / agents. Not really. They could all be taken down tomorrow and existing nodes would be unaffected. New nodes would have difficulty bootstraping but that could be worked around temporarily by having new users manually adding known nodes to the config file. All a new node needs is a few nodes to connect to as part of the connection handshake involves both nodes sharing their list of known nodes. So if you known 3 or 4 nodes, you soon know thousands. All networks have to be bootstrapped in some way. Of course the goal would be to ensure there are enough bootstraps (both in dns seeds and hardcoded nodes) to make disrupt nearly impossible. In addition to the dns seeds there is a list of very active high uptime nodes which are hardcoded to the client https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/b8d9058a4d1ce28eefa65aa3339bcc52b3c014e9/src/chainparams.cpp#L21This list is updated from version to version. Peers are monitored to find the ones with the most connections, uptime, and synced bandwidth. This ensures that even if the dns seeds are offline, new nodes can always find a few reliable, well connected nodes. Maintain good uptime and large number of inbound connections and you might find your node on that list. As for miners. Nodes don't advertising if they are mining or not. The network doesn't treat miners any different than other nodes. You don't (normally) send transaction to a miner. You just relay them to your peers who relay them to their peers, etc. Within a few hops every node knows of the new transactions. |
|
|
|
I guess what I'm really asking is along the lines of something like this: suppose someone creates a Lock_time transaction open until a certain XX block, now if a certain event doesn't happen before said XX block, they want to cancel the transaction by broadcasting a replacement set to close at an earlier block (and suppose there is someone willing to accept the higher sequence transaction and mine it) is there a chance that a major pool will in fact receive the first (lower sequence version) of the transaction, store it in memory until said XX block but not accept the higher sequence replacement?
No. IsStandard() returns false for any tx which is not final (next block is less than lock value) or if it doesn't have max sequence value. They won't be relayed or stored by any client by default. |
|
|
|
|
No need to "roll your own" (always a bad idea in crypto). There is already a solution called Password Based Key Derivation Function (PBKDF2) which properly performs multiround hashing to increase the work required to hash a password. However the larger problem is humans are simply horrible at selecting strong passwords. Most passwords (even ones users believe are secure) have very little entropy. When you have something secured by a single weak factor, it usually ends badly.
|
|
|
|
That is pretty bizarre ruling and hopefully they have the resources to fight it. That is what I get for relying on a "news" site to summarize the issue rather than reading the actual complaint. http://www.ssb.state.tx.us/Enforcement/files/1731.pdfBitcoin is barely a footnote and the primary thrust of the complaint is securities fraud which would still exist regardless of the payment method. |
|
|
|
|
Don't use a webhost. Use colocated hardware you own and control.
|
|
|
|
Before people throw good money after bad you may want to consider that bitfloor is the operating entity and Roman the owner and employee. Corporate shield is pretty tough in the US. You can file suit against bitfloor but that is only useful if you genuinely believe bitfloor has piles of cash and is simply not paying. A judgement against an insolvent company is nearly worthless. Liability doesn't pierce the corporate shield unless you can prove an overt act of fraud. Prove doesn't mean internet "we all know he did it", it means beyond a preponderance of evidence by the rules of evidence in a court of law.
Surely though there is clear evidence of fraud though... I mean, he owes money and is deliberately failing to pay solely because he feels no-one will do anything about it. I am aware of corporate liability rules, but in this case wouldn't Roman be criminally liable? Just want to point out I am no defending Roman and you may have a case but understand from a legal point of view Roman doesn't owe you a single penny (yet). Bitfloor, LLC a limited liability company registered in New York owes you (and others) money. Maybe bitfloor has run out of money. In which case your judgement against bitfloor while successful is ultimately of no value. To pierce the corporate veil and go after an officer of a corporation personally is a very high burden in the US. It generally requires an irrefutable overt act of fraud or gross negligence. I am not saying don't file a suit. The good news is that a suit in small claims court is a nominal fee and doesn't require legal counsel. You have no direct standing to sue Roman though the first step would be to sue bitfloor and have a judgement entered against the company. However it bitfloor is insolvent you would then need to pierce the corporate veil and that is going to require a real legal team and discovery to obtain evidence. A judge is going to want to hear about specific overt acts and see evidence to support them. Simply being a horribly bad business person who mismanaged a company into the ground is not a criminal act. I mean, he owes money and is deliberately failing to pay solely because he feels no-one will do anything about it. This may seem surprising but legally not paying someone you owe money isn't fraud. If it was then the jails would be full of delinquent debtors. The court can award a judgement of damages to protect the claim of a creditor but understand as of right now bitfloor not Roman owes you. It would be up to you in court to prove that he acted fraudulently so the court would rule the corporation does not protect his actions and makes him personally liable for the damages. Then your claim (already secured by a judgement against bitfloor) could transfer to him personally. |
|
|
|
Banker 1: We're inflating as fast as we can! It's not helping the poor.
Banker 2: Kick the machine into reverse also known as inflation warp speed! It will make the rich richer faster and drive up prices. That's sure to help.
On which planet did this conversation happen? On Earth I have never known a central banker making policies to help the poor. I am not sure they even know the poors exist. If they don't want to be poor they should just get more capital like banks do. |
|
|
|
|
If you are going to open source the code in two weeks why not wait two week and launch with open source code? To any user considering using the client, wait two weeks for the source code first.
|
|
|
|
Why can't a node only download, for example, only blocks that begin with 'A' as the first Alphabetic Char.
...
Is there a solution to this ?
No. What you describe is a very crude DHT but even a proper DHT doesn't provide for independent verification. The purpose of full nodes is to acts as INDEPENDENT verifiers they can't do that if they aren't independent. If you just want to reduce your personal resource requirements use a lite client (SPV). |
|
|
|
Isn't there some way of limiting blockchain download so that each node only need download a portion. It's so obvious that it must be what you developers are working on. If the Blockchain is to be handled by miners or other limited users, then, Bitcoin becomes centralised and open to attack as any centralised entity. How about Clients only acting on 3 first characters worth of the Blockchain, randomly. IE, My client will only process transactions that begin with XYZ........ If this were hidden from users and done randomly, there'd be no way for anyone to know who was veryfying what portions of the Blockchain and the blockchain would then itself effectively be decentralised. So, the idea is, have each client only download transactions that begin XYZ and will only verify transactions that begin XYZ. It only means that when you send Bitcoin, the transaction sends out a verification request......ahhh, but how does it know where to send the request.... It would have to trawl the entire net to find a node that will verify it's XYZ transaction, and so would slow down verifications. And so Ideally, Any node should be able to verify a transaction, but of course it can't, because it doesn't have the entire blockchain. (why do I get the feeling I'm painting myself into a corner here) What about then, if when you boot up the client it actively seeks out only those nodes which will deal with and verify XYZ transactions. It might mean a sync delay initially while it finds enough XYZ nodes to verify your transaction but once it's found them, anyway, My thoughts on the Blockchain size problem. A distributed Blockchain, I'm sure that's what they are working on anyway since it's obvious so I've just wasted 5 minutes of my (and your ) life, sorry about that  No. What you describe is a (poorly designed) DHT but DHT in general is a poor security structure for the blockchain. A full node is a full node. It has to be independent. If it need to rely on other nodes then it isn't independent, if nobody is independent then that is a huge problem. Not everyone needs to be a full node but the network needs independent full nodes. If you don't want to run a full node then look to an SPV client. The blockchain can be pruned. The pruned size is ~1/3rd of full blockchain and will decline as a % of full size over time. That is the solution which is being worked on. A pruned blockchain doesn't reduce the security of a full node, they can continue to operate independently. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
