|
461
|
Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Lost my coin very confused plz help
|
on: May 08, 2015, 08:19:07 AM
|
Yeah at this point I'm pretty positive I was hacked but my coin is still there so that's wierd
There is nothing weird. The coins won't disappear and there is no reason for the hacker to move it immediately. And there could be other possibility, e.g. nothing hacked but you C&P-ed a wrong address |
|
|
|
|
462
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / Re: Bitcoin 要能夠容納更大的交易量
|
on: May 07, 2015, 06:21:34 PM
|
为什么改到20MB而不是一开始的32MB，有什么依据吗？
"我們有很多其它方法可以提升 Bitcoin 的交易量, 例如 Lightning Network / Sidechains / ChainDB / Treechains / Factom, 因此我們無需要上調區塊容量"
"如果我們今天可以增加區塊容量, 為什麼將來不會增加 Bitcoin 的總發行量?"
最关心这两个问题。既然有替代的办法为什么要做“改善”，今天改善下区块大小，明天改善下确认速度。。。这样合适吗？
20MB是 Gavin 經過測試後, 認為是一個安全的數值. 有機會我會再解釋. 而你關心的其它替代方案的問題, 我已翻譯了 Gavin 的答案 |
|
|
|
|
463
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / 即使必須發展其它擴充交易量的方案, 都不能完全應對當下的問題
|
on: May 07, 2015, 06:18:44 PM
|
以下文章翻譯自 http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea . 為了令中文讀者及非技術人員能容易理解, 在不破壞原意下翻譯可能會有改動. 原作者: Gavin Andresen 中文翻譯: XBT.HK 版權: Public Domain 公有領域 ------------------------------- 以下有兩個反對提昇區塊容量的論點: - 我們有其它方法解決交易量的問題, 例如 Lightning Network / Sidechains / Impulse / Factom, 所以無需要提昇區塊容量
- 如果我們提昇了區塊容量, 人們就不會再費神去發展其它解決方法
要回應第一點並不困難: 如果真的有一個解決方案, 已經過測試, 實際在網絡上運行, 而且已得到各種不同的錢包軟件支持, 那的確沒有逼切性要提昇區塊容量. 但不幸地, 現在並沒有一種方案可以做到以上的要求, 詳請可以參閱 Mike Hearn 的文章 ( https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e). 再要經過多年的發展, 我們才有信心可以建立一個高交易量而低成本的即時微支付系統. 這不能解決眼前的交易量問題. 要回應第二點也不困難. 現時 Bitcoin 交易需時平均 10 分鐘才能得到確認, 因此難以達到即時交易, 微支付, 以及高頻交易等要求. 因此無論是否提昇區塊容量, 我們也絕對需要在 Bitcoin 區塊鏈以上建立第二層交易系統, 以提供更多元的支付服務. 提昇區塊容量是一個短期而可以快速實行的方案, 讓我們有更多時間繼續發展其它解決方案. 雖然並不理想, 但卻是必須的. ---------------------------- 以上文章同步發佈在 http://blog.xbt.hk/ |
|
|
|
|
464
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / 提昇區塊容量已經是刻不容緩
|
on: May 07, 2015, 03:20:52 PM
|
以下文章翻譯自 http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent . 為了令中文讀者及非技術人員能容易理解, 在不破壞原意下翻譯可能會有改動. 原作者: Gavin Andresen 中文翻譯: XBT.HK 版權: Public Domain 公有領域 -------------------------------- 在反對提昇區塊容量的意見中, 我最常聽到的也許就是 “區塊還沒有滿, 我們(還)不需要作任何改動". 事實上, 我們的確還沒有到達那個 1MB 的上限. 平均來說, 區塊空間現在只用了 30-40%. 但如果使用量接近 100% 時, 又會怎樣? David Hudson 有一篇很好的文章 ( http://hashingit.com/analysis/34-bitcoin-traffic-bulletin), 分析當區塊空間的使用量接近 100% 時會發生什麼事情, 如果要知道詳情你需要看他的原文. 基本上, 他指出人們進行交易的時間與礦工生產區塊的時間會有錯配的情況; 當 1MB 的區塊空間接近被填滿時, 這種錯配就會導致非常不良的後果. 人們進行 Bitcoin 交易的頻率, 基本上是穩定的. 雖然會有每天及每星期的周期性波動, 但在短期內應該是平穩的. 從現在算起 10 分鐘的交易數量, 應該和剛過去 10 分鐘的數量接近. 然而區塊的產生卻是一個隨機的泊松過程 (Poisson process), 意思就是我們雖然知道平均每 10 分鐘會有一個區塊, 卻是完全不知道下一個區塊在什麼時候出現: 可以是下一秒, 也可以是超過一小時. 因此會出現一小時內有大量區塊產生, 也會出現一小時內完全沒有區塊產生的情況. 而事實上這種情況並不罕見, 也是在預計之內. 當平穩的交易頻率遇上隨機的區塊頻率, 就會出現錯配. 這錯配意味著區塊不可能一直是 100% 被使用. 當礦工幸運地連續找到多個區塊, 積壓的交易就會被完全處理, 甚至會出現一些只有極少量交易的區塊. 但如果情況倒過來, 便會有很壞的後果. 當礦工不幸地長時間沒有找到區塊, 交易就會開始積壓成一個隊伍, 令所有 Bitcoin 全節點 (Full node, 也就是所有運行 Bitcoin Core 的電腦) 的記憶體用量持續上升. 有些全節點可能會把隊伍上部份未確認交易棄掉 (新版本的 Bitcoin Core 可能會這樣做), 令交易的確認便變得不可靠. 而當用戶的錢包發現自己的交易在幾個新區塊出現後都不被確認, 就會嘗試重新發出交易 (這是 Bitcoin Core 錢包的預設功能). 當大量交易被積壓, 就會令所有錢包在短時間內重發交易, 令網絡帶寬的壓力突然大增. 如果積壓的交易數量上升到一個程度, 就會令整個網絡完全飽和, 但只是大家把交易不停重發, 而不是進行任何有用的工作. 其實我並不認為會發生這情況: 因為交易確認將會愈來愈不可靠, 結果人們會乾脆不再使用 Bitcoin. ------------------ 以上文章同時刊登在 http://blog.xbt.hk/?p=232 |
|
|
|
|
465
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / Re: Bitcoin 要能夠容納更大的交易量
|
on: May 07, 2015, 09:30:07 AM
|
提高区块大小，肯定会使更多的人不愿意运行全节点，这也意味着去中心化程度会被削弱。这是肯定的。但是不提高区块链大小也是不现实的，因为如果需要比特币处理越来越多的交易，这是唯一可行的。
"更多"人不愿意运行全节点是肯定的, 但這個"更多"究竟是多少? 引用經濟學的概念, 這涉及"彈性"的問題, 不能說運行的成本高了一倍, 運行的人就只餘一半. 20MB是否比1MB"難受"20倍? 我看未必. Gavin也有解答這個問題, 我需要點時間翻譯 |
|
|
|
|
466
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11
|
on: May 07, 2015, 09:08:24 AM
|
About time! Anyone whining about this need to get their marbles examined.
The blockchain size is already turning into a serious problem... Don't speak with such a vicious tone when you don't know what you are talking about. BlockChain is already almost 40 GB of size, but this change is inevitable. There is no problem with our current terabyte hard disks to storage it. And you dont have to run full node wallet like Bitcoin Core at all. Electrum or MultiBit will do just fine. With a 20MB block size limit you'll need a full TB per year if the network ever runs at full capacity. With a 1MB limit we're talking a more manageable 51GB/yr. A 2TB HDD is selling at around US$70 currently. That's $0.096/day, or $2.92/month. And don't forget the cost will go nowhere but down. |
|
|
|
|
467
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / Re: Bitcoin 要能夠容納更大的交易量
|
on: May 07, 2015, 05:43:09 AM
|
以下文章翻譯自 http://gavinandresen.ninja/time-to-roll-out-bigger-blocks . 為了令中文讀者及非技術人員能容易理解, 在不破壞原意下翻譯可能會有改動. 背景資料: Bitcoin 要能夠容納更大的交易量 http://blog.xbt.hk/?p=224原作者: Gavin Andresen 中文翻譯: XBT.HK 版權: Public Domain 公有領域 在比特幣的標準客戶端軟件 Bitcoin Core 最新的 0.11 版本中, 我將會提出一個變動, 以容許礦工生產大於 1MB 的區塊, 以容納更多交易. 而這變動將會在一年以內生效. 為此我會撰寫一系列的文章, 以回應反對上調區塊容量的意見. 以下是我打算會回應的題目: - 現在每個區塊平均只有 0.4MB, 我們沒有需要現在就把 1MB 的區塊容量提升
- 我們有很多其它方法可以提升 Bitcoin 的交易量, 例如 Lightning Network / Sidechains / ChainDB / Treechains / Factom, 因此我們無需要上調區塊容量
- 使用 1MB 的區塊可以令系統更安全, 因為有限的交易數量會促進競爭, 令人們付出更多交易費用給礦工
- 提昇區塊容量會帶來更多交易, 因此需要更多網絡帶寬, CPU 運算, 及資料儲存成本. 這會令一些人難以負擔, 結果系統會被操控在較少人手上, 導致中心化
- 在人民被政府嚴密監控的地方, 交易量上升會令他們更難繼續秘密地運作 Bitcoin
- 對於提升區塊容量, 我們沒有足夠測試 / 沒有對其經濟學影響充分地研究 / 沒有對其風險與利益作充分的評估
- 任何放寬 Bitcoin 規則的"硬分叉"都會破壞人們對 Bitcoin 穩定性的信心. 如果我們今天可以增加區塊容量, 為什麼將來不會增加 Bitcoin 的總發行量?
- 我同意增加區塊容量, 但為什麼不這樣做?
如果你認為我們不應在未來數年內上調區塊容量, 而以上的題目並不能準確反映你的意見, 請電郵至 gavinandresen@gmail.com 告訴我. (按: 中文讀者可以在此反映意見, 我會把適當的意見轉達至 Gavin) --------------------- 以上文章在 http://blog.xbt.hk/ 同步刊登 |
|
|
|
|
468
|
Local / 中文 (Chinese) / Bitcoin 要能夠容納更大的交易量
|
on: May 06, 2015, 06:14:00 PM
|
當 Bitcoin 在 2009 最初出現時, 其每個 10 分鐘的區塊最高可以有 32MB 容量, 換算約為每秒 200 項交易 (200tps, transactions per second). 但不久以後, Bitcoin 的發明人 Satoshi Nakamoto 為了防止系統被攻擊, 把限制降為 1MB, 自此 Bitcoin 系統最多只能處理 7tps. 相比支付寶的 1000tps 及 VISA 的 4000tps, 可謂微不足道. Satoshi 原來的計劃是當系統變得更成熟後, 就會把這個限制放寬, 但他並未有做到這一點就消失了. Bitcoin 的規則改動可以分為 “硬分叉" 和 “軟分叉" 兩大類, 前者涉及放寬規則, 後者則是收緊規則. Satoshi 當初把限制收緊為 1MB, 因此是軟分叉. 但如果現在要提升, 那就是硬分叉. 軟分叉只要大部份礦工支持就足夠, 但硬分叉則除了礦工外, 還要得到大部份用戶和商戶支持方能成功. 由於於寬容量涉及技術及經濟風險, 有關的爭論已經困擾社群多年, 一直沒有平息, 事情也沒有進展, Bitcoin 的交易量卻愈來愈接近每 10 分鐘 1MB 的上限. 最近, 比特幣基金會的首席科學家 Gavin Andresen 提出要在不久將來擴展 Bitcoin 處理交易的能力. 為此他會撰寫一系列文章, 以解釋為何我們有必要這樣做, 也要對反對者的意見提出反駁. 因為硬分叉需要大部份礦工, 用戶和商戶支持, 而眾所周知中國人正控制著相量份量的挖礦算力及交易量, 因此本人和 Gavin 溝通後, 會把相關的文章翻譯為中文, 讓更多人明白為何我們必需要增加 Bitcoin 的交易容量. --------------------- 該系列文章會在 http://blog.xbt.hk/ 同步刊登, 該網站收錄了大量由本人原創的技術及評論文章. 本主題會由本人直接管理, 灌水回應會直接刪除. |
|
|
|
|
470
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Question Re: Block Size and Time
|
on: May 06, 2015, 10:08:33 AM
|
As per my original question, which nobody has really been able to explain (and has nothing to do with any of your replies since you were caught up trying to avoid reading my statement and just making false inferences) is how this is different than halving the block time/rewards and leaving the maximum block size at 1/2 whatever they're going for (10Mb instead of 20), which would ALSO benefit in giving faster transactions while at the same time fixing the original problem.
It is you now ignoring my reply: I think it also depends on the block size. I suppose most of those 1min blocks are empty. As the block size approaches the network bandwidth limit, the adverse effect of short block interval will be more obvious.
Those alt-coins with 1 min blocks work fine because most of their blocks are empty (correct me if it's not). If most blocks are full and it's close to the network bandwidth limit, many forks could happen during the propagation and the network will not converge. And you are actually proposing 2 protocol changes at once: a) shorter block interval and b) more tx/s. Either one of them is already too controversial. Ah, I saw your post before, but LTC doesn't have a orphan rate, and it's 5m with a lot of users/power backing it, isn't it? Bringing up controversial changes does make sense, though... it seems like the community really hates change. LTC is 2.5 min, not 5. Are you sure there are a lot of users backing LTC? Just go to the page http://explorer.litecoin.net/chain/Litecoin and you will see most blocks are nearly empty. Although I believe we should raise the tx/s, I feel hesitate to decrease the block interval. Having a slightly lower block interval (e.g 2.5 min in LTC) is not particularly helpful. 2.5min is still way too long for buying newspaper on the street, and we all know why it couldn't be 2.5sec. On the other hand, for online shopping, 10min or 2.5min makes no difference because it will always take at least several hours for merchants to deliver. |
|
|
|
|
471
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Question Re: Block Size and Time
|
on: May 06, 2015, 09:56:48 AM
|
As per my original question, which nobody has really been able to explain (and has nothing to do with any of your replies since you were caught up trying to avoid reading my statement and just making false inferences) is how this is different than halving the block time/rewards and leaving the maximum block size at 1/2 whatever they're going for (10Mb instead of 20), which would ALSO benefit in giving faster transactions while at the same time fixing the original problem.
It is you now ignoring my reply: I think it also depends on the block size. I suppose most of those 1min blocks are empty. As the block size approaches the network bandwidth limit, the adverse effect of short block interval will be more obvious.
Those alt-coins with 1 min blocks work fine because most of their blocks are empty (correct me if it's not). If most blocks are full and it's close to the network bandwidth limit, many forks could happen during the propagation and the network will not converge. And you are actually proposing 2 protocol changes at once: a) shorter block interval and b) more tx/s. Either one of them is already too controversial. |
|
|
|
|
472
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why was block 52,000 generated on April 2010 and not January 2010?
|
on: May 06, 2015, 08:46:08 AM
|
The network difficulty can not go below below a minimum level (Described as "1" these days... I.e. "the minimum", all normal difficulty numbers are expressed as multiples of this minimum value), so due to lack of sufficient hashpower the network under-produced during its first year or so.
I see. I was actually going by Blockchain.info's charts which shows the difficulty stayed at 1 during all of 2009 and also reports that Satoshi mined pretty much consistently throughout the year using multiple machines. What was the reason for enforcing a minimum difficulty? If the network hashrate is too low and the previous blocks took too much time to generate at the prior difficulty, wouldn't it be better to change the protocol so that the difficulty is retargeted to a value under 1? The difficulty must not be too low or an attacker may rewrite the chain very easily. The slow period in 2009 also suggests that Satoshi did not try to maximize his bitcoin holding in the early day. He was mining only because he wanted to keep the system alive. There were only 4 blocks on 18/07/2009, while that should be 144 in the normal case Just 1 year later, on 13/07/2010, we had 692 blocks. And that cycle is the only one with 4x jump in difficulty |
|
|
|
|
473
|
Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: WTF is this? Someone found a trick for fast mining?
|
on: May 06, 2015, 07:30:07 AM
|
Whatever, but nonces appear uniformly distributed contradicting the arbitrary claims of some people that pretend to be knowledgeable.
Anyone is free to interpret the data and the facts as he wish. From my part I will only provide data and no comments.
("Technical Discussion" vs. "trolling")
With all these data, how do you arrive the question in your topic, i.e. "WTF is this? Someone found a trick for fast mining?" |
|
|
|
|
474
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11
|
on: May 05, 2015, 06:10:10 PM
|
Bigger blocks  I think the block reward decrasing every year , can you please explain more what's coming Kind Of Respect , Bitcoin Boy . It's about having more data stored in the block. It has noting to do with the block reward |
|
|
|
|
475
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11
|
on: May 05, 2015, 06:08:54 PM
|
but the blockchain is getting more and more centralized, what kills the initial concept o Bitcoin.
Uh, what? Substantiate your claim, provide proof. There are over 6100 full nodes, and more added every day. Making blocks bigger has no correlation with "centralization". My home PC is one of those 6100 and I will have absolutely no problem to maintain it even the block size becomes 100MB |
|
|
|
|
476
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BIG question that affects all of us
|
on: May 05, 2015, 06:05:49 PM
|
i got a bitcoin paper wallet that i protect with my life.
wot if at some point in the future say 10-20 years can i still redeem the funds?
the tech will have advanced way beyond today and able to suit the consumer howether i am concious about redeeming that peice of paper in the future into the blockchain i want to know that the money i put in that wallet TODAY can be redeemed in 10-20 years into the future (as long as i have the key & BIP password).
with growing concerns of BIP38 to BIP99999 and SHA256 to SHA9999999 changes and quantum computing it has put me on edge a bit wot if in the future blockchain dont accept BIP38 passwords how am i supposed to decrypt the key to SWEEP the money.
i am very concerned indeed
I don't see such incompatible change will happen, but if it will happen, it will be planned and announced years in advance. Yeah but, what if a successful attack was made on Sha-256. I am not saying it's going to happen, but let's just say it did. And changes need to be made immediately - move on to Sha-512 for example. What if a person had a paper wallet, and was not aware of these immediate changes, for whatever reason. What happens then? If SHA256 or ECDSA will break down, it will be most likely a slow process taking many years. And if you are not aware, ALL modern e-finance systems are based on the same or similar cryptography used in bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
477
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
|
on: May 05, 2015, 04:14:05 PM
|
Why would that happen? The halving means that there will be only 1800 BTC per day to be mined rather than 3600. Many miners will have to stop mining, starting with those with smaller efficiency (hashes per dollar of electricty and other recurrent costs). It is not clear whether these miners will be small or large. My guess is that mining will become more centralized, and more China-based.
The price of bitcoin has halved 2-3 times since the ATH. In terms of mining profitability, effect of price halving and reward halving are just the same, since miners are paying bills in fiat. Therefore, a planned reward halving should not have a very dramatic effect on the hashing power (see what happened after the first halving in 2012). Also, price is expected to raise after halving due to decreased supply, which will compensate at least part of the loss of reward halving.
I have seen a proposal by an Israeli mathematician to change the way miners get their blocks from pools, that he claims willo reduce the risk of centralization by letting individual miners choose which transactions to include in a block. Perhaps.
There is that "21" company that apparently intends to put mining chips inside domestic equipment. Let's see...
Probably you are staying in the speculation forum for too long. We already have that for a long time. It is called "getblocktemplate", the BIP22 and 23. At least the Eligius pool supports GBT. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0022.mediawikihttps://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0023.mediawikiAs a professor in computer science with academic interest in bitcoin only, I suggest you spend more time in the technical forum rather than the wall observer. |
|
|
|
|
478
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Can the Winklevoss twins actions be explained?
|
on: May 05, 2015, 03:59:00 PM
|
It's widely speculated that they own 1% of coins in circulation. Which means during the rally their BTC holdings were worth at least $100 million. When their combined net worth is about $200 million why would they not sell out. It would have increased their net worth by 50% overnight.
Why should they want to increase their net wealth, in terms of USD, by 50%? |
|
|
|
|
479
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BIG question that affects all of us
|
on: May 05, 2015, 02:16:30 PM
|
i got a bitcoin paper wallet that i protect with my life.
wot if at some point in the future say 10-20 years can i still redeem the funds?
the tech will have advanced way beyond today and able to suit the consumer howether i am concious about redeeming that peice of paper in the future into the blockchain i want to know that the money i put in that wallet TODAY can be redeemed in 10-20 years into the future (as long as i have the key & BIP password).
with growing concerns of BIP38 to BIP99999 and SHA256 to SHA9999999 changes and quantum computing it has put me on edge a bit wot if in the future blockchain dont accept BIP38 passwords how am i supposed to decrypt the key to SWEEP the money.
i am very concerned indeed
I don't see such incompatible change will happen, but if it will happen, it will be planned and announced years in advance. |
|
|
|
|
480
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bigger blocks coming in release 0.11
|
on: May 05, 2015, 09:42:18 AM
|
Satoshi promised this 5 years ago It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
