|
@OP. To be frank, I'm not quite understanding your solution. We already have SPV wallets(like electrum.) With an SPV wallet, you only have to get the data that you need to verify your own transactions. Also, I don't think mining pools are going to want to engage in having a sharded node. They will need access to the full block so they can properly determine that the block is indeed valid, and proceed to continue to build on top of it.
|
|
|
|
Also, I think it hilarious that the powers that be for BCH think a hash war is necessary, when Bitcoin already implemented more civil consensus mechanisms years ago.
More civil? By controlling the dialogue in all relevant channels such that alternatives could not be discussed? No thanks. Incidentally, hash war is the exact mechanism described in the white paper. I mean, I realize that Core-eans don't like Bitcoin, and think it is irreparably flawed, but at least recognize this for what it is. Governance via Nakamoto Consensus. Well, at least with the BTC way, real commerce could proceed without interruption. Are you sure Satoshi felt that if mining parties disagree, they should just go out an have a hash war and delay any safe and meaningful commerce for days or weeks?  |
|
|
|
And what about using prune mode?
I never installed a full node, i need to download the pruned node software in some place or for that i only setup the actual core and i can choose pruned mode?
All you have to do is either use the prune switch when opening the file via command line, or add this line to the .conf file in your data directory. (where N is the number of blocks you want to prune to and is equal to or greater than 550.) |
|
|
|
Look, be fair. It's okay if he wants to run. Really it is.
Avenatti? He's a clown.
Avenatti? That guy's just a clown.
I heard Avenatti is running for President.
I thought he was running as a joke.
 OMG, if he won the nomination, I think an epiphany on my part will come in short order. When I was a child, my favorite color was red.  |
|
|
|
hey guys I would love to get some merit pls..  And I would love to have 25 million BTC.  I'd ask to strike up a deal, but I'm afraid you will never be able to raise the 25 million BTC. However, if the reason you want a merit is so you can wear a signature, you may buy a copper membership. It's very reasonable, and you don't have to beg. |
|
|
|
I am not a fan or Ver either, but I don't think it has any "legal implications". He runs a pool, according to the TOS he can redirect the hashrate at will, the users of the pool are being paid in BTC anyways (out of his own pocket) and he even clearly stated in advance his intention to do so. No case there.
On the other hand it is probably the SV side is also running rented hashpower on top of their own.
So we have both sides burning money each day.... but my bet is ABC will win as expected. BITMAIN has much more on stake here.
Also probably both will LOSE (in terms of short term loses and ticker price) the more the longest this ridiculous "war" goes on without one of the sides folding or coming to an agreement.
Too bad that I don't have a newer ASIC to help Ver redistribute his BTC wealth my way. I suppose that I could rent hash, but I'm not going to dump my precious BTC to weigh in on this mess. |
|
|
|
Whoever is behind this genius move deserves award, how easily we escaped from BCH ticker. No more confusion as this has started to disappear already and in next few days there will be no BCH but ABC and SV. BCH has misguided lot of new comers those couldn't make difference in real and imposter version. Now there is only Bitcoin the real one and only BTC.
Perhaps a Darwin award. Unfortunately, I think only people who actual harm or kill themselves qualify. I don't think harming/ killing an electronic coin qualifies. |
|
|
|
You can't really know if "the vast majority of the network" is on the same page or not until the D day actually comes. We have already seen miners voting supposed "intention" to support something with their hashrate, then when the day come some of then backpeddle. You would also need all exchanges on board. And ultimately you would need all whales on board, and many of them may not bother to say their opinion at all, then the day of the fork comes and you see an huge dump on your forked coin.
You basically need 100% consensus for a hardfork to be a success and not end up with 2 coins, and I don't see how this is even possible ever when a project gets as big as Bitcoin is (I mean it's still small in the grand scheme of things, but open source software development/network effect wise, it's big enough to not be able to ever hardfork seamlessly again. Maybe im wrong and there is a consensus in the future for a hardfork, but again I don't see how.
What's this fear of having 2 coins? We already have hundreds of coins, most of them being more or less hard forks off of BTC. The free market will decide which coins persists and which coins go by the wayside. BTC has already demonstrated over and over again that it is the honey badger. If we honestly have faith that BTC is anti-fragile, pesky minority coins are nothing but a mere nuisance. |
|
|
|
Well, we wouldn't be in this situation if ABC would stop trying to add uneeded changes to the protocol every 6 months. SV=p2p electronic cash that scales on chain, ABC=WHC/PLASMA, PoS, and shitcoins. Oh and if you think btc will scale globablly, im afraid not my friend. Lightning network as a severe routing problem, GL with it in a few years  You act as though the direction of BTC is set in stone and incapable of making adjustments if it becomes obvious that the current direction is going the wrong way. Also, I think it hilarious that the powers that be for BCH think a hash war is necessary, when Bitcoin already implemented more civil consensus mechanisms years ago. Well, the good news is that if the powers that be end up bankrupting each other in this pissing contest, at least a new leadership could possibly step in with cooler heads. |
|
|
|
The main problem is that most of these scaling solutions that are being proposed will first require a hardfork. This means we'll have the drama of 2 competing bitcoins trying to claim that they are the real one (see the BCash ABC vs BCash SV ongoing war right now). This will not end well. Without consensus we will just end up with 2 bitcoins which are in sum of lesser value than before the hardfork happened.
Most bitcoin whales don't support any of the proposed scaling solutions so far so your scaling fork will end up dumped by tons of coins.
Unlike, BCH, the BTC network already has consensus mechanisms in place that they are willing to use in order to ensure the vast majority of the network is on the same page before proceeding. As demonstrated by the UASF, we can also implement ways to ensure the miners can be persuaded to go along with the wishes of the non-mining users. If someone doesn't want to wait for a high consensus in order to implement their "improvements," they are free to go fork off. That's why we already have hundreds of alt coins right now. As I have already acknowledged, the "bigger block" solution probably won't be practical for at least a decade or so. I have also acknowledged that the second layer solution would probably end up being more efficient with the resources. However, it is nice to know that there is a plan "B" to the scaling solution, just in case the problems with the LN cannot be overcome. |
|
|
|
That's not entirely accurate. 10GB blocks would be sufficient to scale on the level of Visa.
no it won't be enough because you can't spam VISA network but you can spam bitcoin blocks and fill them up. besides when it comes to block size it is not just about having more space, you have to consider that you have to download, verify and store 10GB of transaction data every 10 minutes on average and also upload even more depending on how many nodes you connect to and how much you want to contribute. ask yourself this, would you be willing to run or capable of running a full node that requires 1.44 TB disk space per day, an internet speed of at least 20 Mbps and an internet cap of above 3 TB per day? that is 43 TB per month. can your hardware (CPU, RAM) handle verification of that much data. First off, it would be nice if you quoted enough of my text to keep it in context... That's not entirely accurate. 10GB blocks would be sufficient to scale on the level of Visa. However, many nodes would find it hard or impossible to keep up with that kind of capacity. However, in a decade or so, handling that capacity will probably be trivial.
I've already acknowledged this isn't practical, right now. However, unless technology has somehow reached it's limits, it may be feasible in a decade or so. Also, in order to combat "spam," miners already have the option to not include transactions below a certain fee. They can make it very expensive for someone to try and spam the network. Also, with bigger blocks, it probably won't be worth the waste of resources for a miner to attempt to drive up the fee market by including spam in their blocks. Furthermore, in another thread, Greg Maxwell himself has acknowledged that a pruned node is a full node. There is really no need for every single full node to also store the entire blockchain, permanently. There are sufficient entities out there like exchanges, large pools, and hardware wallet providers, who would probably want to store the entire blockchain. I think the number of nodes that would run "archival" nodes would be of sufficient number to have the network remain decentralized. I also acknowledge in my original post that a second layer solution will always end up using less resources. However, the current LN carries large risks of someone losing their funds due to either system errors or human error. I'm certainly not going to hang my hat on the LN until the developers and network itself can show results that are acceptable. Right now, I wouldn't store 1 sat in a channel on the Lightning Network. The risk of losing funds is just too high. |
|
|
|
SV Cash catching up fast to ABC Cash  Thank god that I don't currently have any skin in that game. I wonder what happened. Did Ver run out of the resources he was willing to spend on this pissing contest? |
|
|
|
the problem with increasing block size as the only solution for scaling is that no matter how much you increase it, it will not be enough for a global payment system which has to process a lot of transactions per second.
you will eventually need a solution that doesn't need block space for increasing availability. and that is the second layer solution like lightning network.
That's not entirely accurate. 10GB blocks would be sufficient to scale on the level of Visa. However, many nodes would find it hard or impossible to keep up with that kind of capacity. However, in a decade or so, handling that capacity will probably be trivial. The LN network definitely will be less resource intensive. Unfortunately, I do not personally trust the LN in its current state. I find it particularly troubling that I could end up closing a channel in an earlier state due to a system issue on my end. Then end up getting penalized harshly like I was trying to scam someone. Edit: OMG, just did a little more research and found this gem. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/58124/how-do-i-restore-a-lightning-node-with-active-channels-that-has-crashed-causing Really? If my node crashes I can loose all of my funds???  That's even worse than my first concern. How long has this been in development? It appears that LN developers have a long way to go before than can make this pig fly. I'll keep the faith; I guess. |
|
|
|
I try to lookup Newly Launched Altcoins and while going through these threads there are Ico which i just pass through but sometimes it gets boring xD
Also,There are ICO Ann threads which have Already received significant views in The Altcoin Announcements section,Is it ok to report to the moderator to move the thread? Is it being enforced strongly ?
If the people have already added the thread to their watchlist, they will continue to watch it even if it moves. (I believe the default is that any thread you post in is automatically added.) Also, it is always ok to use the report to moderator function. The moderator can decide if it is good, bad or to not take any action. Do not worry about your accuracy too much; one accurate report is worth many inaccurate reports. |
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone who's not a bounty spammer can find threads actually worthy of discussion without having the following sections on ignore:
Altcoin Discussion
Announcements (Altcoins)
Tokens (Altcoins)
Mining (Altcoins)
Pools (Altcoins)
Marketplace (Altcoins)
Service Announcements (Altcoins)
Service Discussion (Altcoins)
Bounties (Altcoins)
Speculation (Altcoins)
If I didn't block those, my unread posts feed would be clogged with all of the moronic BS that the above sections spit out on a second-by-second basis. These sections IMO represent the worst of the worst here on bitcointalk, and sadly there are quite a few runner ups for that ignominious crown.
Well, unfortunately, if you like to dabble in altcoins, you do need to sift through much of these to glean information or try to get help. Mprep is doing the best job that he can. P.S.: I am not a bounty spammer. I've dabbled in the past, but I don't like the pressure of having minimum post requirements on this forum or multiple social media sites. I do have an eye on the one you are enrolled in ATM, only because it pays well and doesn't pressure people to post 20+ posts a week. |
|
|
|
|
People need to report the thread to the moderator and have it moved to the proper section. That is the only way to combat this, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
but how can we tell people can not copy and paste something we say and find an earlier dated post they made and copy and paste our post making it look like they posted it first? then reporting us for plagiarism? even if it was requoted they could own the puppet account.
If someone edits their post after a few minutes, you can tell because the timestamp is underlined with little dots and when you hover over it with a mouse, you will get a pop up message informing you exactly when the last edit happened. |
|
|
|
All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely. |
|
|
|
By the way, it's important to note that the Pintos did not actually "Explode." You are seeing a rapidly moving flame front based on a fuel mist, not detonation.
By contrast hydrogen is gonna actually explode. Giant difference.
I'm not certain that dying from a rapidly moving flame front is any more pleasant than dying in an explosion. |
|
|
|
Why do people fear hydrogen so much? It's literally safer than gasoline. It may seem that several myths were spread throughout the public (probably by big-oil).
Perhaps the dangers are a bit overinflated. But we do have a rather dramatic example of how hydrogen could be dangerous.  Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article. Most individuals died from jumping. Out of the 85 people onboard, only 35 people died. And there's no evidence anyone died due to the hydrogen. This thread covered the hindenburg hydrogen myth several times now... which shows you hadn't read before posting. First of all, the Wikipedia article on the Hindenburg does acknowledge that the most accepted theory is that the hydrogen was ignited by a static spark. The theory that hydrogen was ignited by a static spark is the most widely accepted theory as determined by the official crash investigations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Cause_of_ignition Second, I qualified my statement. Perhaps the dangers are a bit overinflated. Third, the people obviously jumped to their death because they were trying to escape the flames. Just like in the Titanic, the iceberg didn't directly kill anyone. However, the Titanic crashing into it definitely started the ball rolling for many to die. So I don't really see your point. Especially when you state that only 35 died, like its some insignificant number. However, I realize that gasoline is also a highly volatile substance that can also have negative circumstances if not properly contained.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
