Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2019, 07:28:36 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 823 »
1101  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Project Financing Dilemmas (bigger fool theory) on: December 06, 2018, 03:58:13 PM
We have had too many failed project in the recent time. There was this project I followed and I even fell in love with it oooh! Poor little me! they had promised to deploy a high technology in the military sector and they were going to start by user of the token been able to wear their various coins on the wrist and many other gadget to be produced. They hit soft cap (only God knows if they were the ones who bought the tokens), with less than 24hrs after which they listed the token for trading, they were delisted from trading due to lack of volume, and the exchange classed them as misleading. As we write, the project is dead and preparing to refund investors who can proof they invested. ETH will eventually kill ICOs and scamming projects will send ETH to it grave

should have asked what military they have established themselves with.
1102  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin mining is a PR problem that the project cannot escape? on: December 06, 2018, 03:13:16 PM
imagine the energy wastage used to secure a bottle of pepsi's temperature stays at a cool refreshing level.
billions of bottles sold a week need refrigeratures...
1103  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why do we have to choose Open source software? on: December 06, 2018, 02:51:42 PM
We know that holding Bitcoin is better when users have full control over their funds. What makes an open source software better? Is there any advantage on using it than using close source wallet.

imagine a situation whereby you open a wallet and it has automatically created payment addresses for you to receive funds.
how would you know that the code behind it is simply a list of made addresses by the developers that have a copy of the keys.

in closed source wallets you wont know.
......until one day your funds go missing.
in open source you can check the code and see if the address generation is genuinely random, created from within the software locally on only your computer, to a high standard that in a billion years of maybe creating 1000 keypairs a second no 2 addresses would be the same.
1104  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 06, 2018, 02:43:31 PM
2 idea's devs ignore simple because i dont kiss their ass:

1. fee priority
though i personally am a white brit. i can see the impact fee's have on multiple countries because i actually went and visited countries. when thinking of decentralisation its best to think about others. not just a typical rich wall street american

imagine a country where 25cents/pence was 5 hours labour for a dozen countries
saying 25cents is not acceptable as its ruling out the desires of a dozen countries
saying $1 is cheap is ruling out several dozen countries desires

if the rich want to pay more because its still cheaper than other methods. then they should pay more

EG bring back a fee priority mechanism
fee =
total sats=(bytes + (total input value/1000))*(144 - confirms of inputs)

this formula would make it so that
a. if someone was to spam the network everyblock(1confirm resend) they pay 143 times more than someone that only spends once a day.
b. those that send more, pay more.. they can all afford 0.1%
c. if someone had a bloated tx of 2.5kb vs someone with only 250bytes the bloater pays 10x more for the 10x space they consume
d. this just gets a easy to automate fee. while still allowing people to add more if they want to wave their hands in the air that they want priority.

2. initial block download headache
these days 200gb is storage the size of a finger nail. its not "servr farm". these days a 4tb hard drive is less than a single persons grocery bill for one week. so again no debate about size of price needs to be FUD'd

the real issue people actually have is having to wait.
yep thats the real complaint. having to wait hours to spend funds.

the solution is simple. dont do block download first before displaying balance. do a quick wallet check and get the addresses of local node and SPV/bloom details about them.. that way within seconds of opening up the node people know a UNVERIFIED BALANCE, which is better than nothing. if they spend and find out the bloom data was faked. then no harm the tx wont relay and wont confirm.. but atleast users can actually do something when they open their node.
then the initial block download becomes a background activity people dont notice because they are not having to wait for the IBD before even seeing a balance verified or unverified
1105  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Project Financing Dilemmas (bigger fool theory) on: December 06, 2018, 02:30:18 PM
the first secret of an ICO is that th project involves making tokens. if the projects token has no utility outside of just buying token then its not sustainable

if the token has utility its sustainable so you dont need investment. just release the project and be part of the project and earn through the utility of the project, not from begging for funds upfront.

EG if the project is for, lets say medical records ledger. if the ledger has not already been designed to be functionl for the medical industry and no medical industry groups are going to use it in the first month then its dead before it begun.

a functional medical ledger would be to give it out to the medical industry and earn via mining to secure the ledger for them.
it works out cheaper for them then current systems management thus they would happily use it. and then the development group get ongoing returns by mining/bug fixing/bespoke upgrading needs.

so in simple and short terms.
if a project which is obviously a script kiddy fork of another coin pretends to be something for a particular industry but the team involved has not relationship with the industry.. its a failure from the get-go.
1106  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 100,000+ BTC moved into segwit addresses on: December 06, 2018, 04:20:01 AM
i didn't say it is your claim, that way of thinking is a silly way that has existed before SegWit even started and it is true but not possible! basically it is an FUD that was designed to prevent SegWit activation. it is true that miners can decide to steal SegWit outputs but in order to do that they have to fork bitcoin and be on a new/different chain which the rest of the network will never follow! and also this possibility is true about all other outputs when a fork is the first step. so it is not even SegWit related.

to explain. segwit would need to be deactivated and regress the rules back to 2016 rules. thus making segwit outputs become 'anyonecanspends'
which is the worry if there was a bug. where anyone sending funds from segwit addresses could be spent by mining pools when pools add them to their block in such an event.

however if you really want to know how trusted segwits addresses are.. just look at the very guy that invented and coded segwit
(pieter wuille aka sipa)
https://bitcoin.sipa.be (bottom of website on the right).. still using legacy addressess
also even on his bitcointalk profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786
seems he is yet to trust donations on segwit addresses
1107  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Does Bitcoin Core in prune mode support mining? on: December 06, 2018, 03:53:55 AM
to be a full node you need to offer a full service
validate AND archive

if your just a validator thats for your personal utility. as the next peer would also validate so you are not really serving them in regards to just validating.

other peers care more about being able to provide them with any/all archive data. thats the main part of the p2p network.
with knowing ~144 blocks a day are mined 550 is not really that much data. ~4 days.
some nodes are set to the 288 minimum (~2days)

many transactions hang in mempool limbo far longer. so if a peer comes online wants to build a block when it receives a blockheader. of 5 days ago..but a peer has removed data beyond 4 days ago. some tx's cant be bloom filtered to the peer wanting tx's from 5+days ago

thus its not offering a full service. thus not a full node.

maybe terminology needs to advance
think food

fullnode=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
               =does it all including archiving and has segwit data
satisfiednode=NODE_BLOOM, NODE_WITNESS, NODE_NETWORK_LIMITED
               =self validates. then prunes data. then only relays recent data
hungrynode=doesnt validate everything, just wants to feed off others
                =spv node/litenode
compatible=NODE_NETWORK, NODE_BLOOM
                =stripped(downstream filtered) legacy node(no segwit)

basically if ur not flagging all 4 flags, your not a full node
1108  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Cannot wait for the Lightning Network to go mainstream!!! on: December 06, 2018, 02:36:04 AM
I don't blame merchants and exchanges for not yet looking into LN, because there isn't much to gain yet, especially with how the main-net is doing a pretty decent job keeping the fees low.

I expect Schnorr to free up even more block space, and I expect this upgrade to be taking over rapidly with how beneficial it is to any sort of service receiving tons and tons of smaller inputs from users/customers. It would even say that I consider Schnorr to be one of the best on-chain upgrades to the network ever, especially with how its impact will be felt immediately.

Innovation right there. No bullshit gimmick features, just what you really need and benefit from.

schnorr doesnt help with lots of different inputs. schnorr only helps with multisig contracts.. where funds are put into one multiparty address.. where schnorr then hides how many signed it by making it one signature

end result is segwit already moves signatures out the baseblock to not count bytes(fake math) ..
thus segwit would have done some/maybe impact on the tx count
but schnorr because it only messes with signature data..makes no difference in tx count because schnorr just reduces the sig data sat outside the base block, thus it doesnt count anyway

analogy for the non-techs
imagine them trains in india where you see people sitting ontop the roofs because the cabin compartment is too packed
50 years ago:
a child and the proof of the childs origins ('witness'/signature) mother sit in the cabin.
years later it gets crowded. train conductor suggest segregation. get the mothers to sit on the roof so more families (children) can sit in the cabin seats.
not offering more seats in the cabin. just removing some entities to make a few more empty seats by not counting the mothers on the roof  
that is what segregated witness does.

next comes smart contracts where a father of the same child gets involved(multisignature) he too sits on the roof. ofcourse no more children fit in the cabin area, but now the roof is getting crowded... so schnorr hides how many people were involved with the conception of the child. by making the mother appear as parthenogenesis (self impregnateable) thus only one parent is on the roof again as no father can be seen
thats schnorr

schnorr doesnt make more seats in the cabin.. segregated witnesses job already takes mothers out of the cabin.
schnorr just cuts down on how many UNCOUNTED entities are involved outside the cabin.. the train conductor never counts the people on the roof anyway. so no impact on passenger(tx count) due to schnorr

....
but here is the thing people dont realise about LN
to actually get a reliable service on LN. most users need to open 5+ channels (onchain tx's) to have chances of reliable routes.
which is like imagining 5 indian children in the cabin with 5 parthenogenesis parents on the roof. just to have a good chance that 1 child gets to its desired destination

then once they done whatever they wanted. and want to come home again. 5children in cabin and 5 parthenogenesis mothers on roof

thats 10tx's worth of data per person.

even going one step further.
visa stats show that the average person only does ~1tx a day. and thats using a currency that can buy anything.
reality shows people wont risk more than 2 weeks worth of income in LN (even devs dont rccommend it) also psychologogy of average person does not plan/predict each and every spending habit beyond a fortnight.

so an average 14 tx's only end up turning into 10 tx's if lucky. for average joe.
this is why LN is not a "solution for everyone". its only a niche SERVICE for gambling/spammers who spend to same known destinations more than once a day
1109  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Decentralized System Disadvantages on: December 06, 2018, 01:50:59 AM
Currently, the main disadvantages of decentralized systems are low transaction throughput and poor scalability. These problems inhibit the development of decentralized systems.

that is not a problem of decentralisation. that is a problem of a centralised group deciding not to change the code that has put limits in to prevent scaling.

blockchains can scale if you alter the limits imposed
At the moment it is a major problem until the limit to the code is altered. But my fear is that, if it's altered and scalability sets in, what then happen to transaction charges, do you think it would increase or.decrease?

allowing more transactions in. takes pressure off the mempool
also if a fee priority is put in place where by a user spending more often pays more. then spam decreases
meaning people dont just make transactions for the sake of it (mixers/tumblers/de-tainters) or who just run their coins through just for the sake of running coins through (spam up mempools)

so seeing a reduction in people spamming the network with bloated transactions, spending every 1confirm will become something rarely seen. allowing for others to transact easier and cheaper.
1110  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 100,000+ BTC moved into segwit addresses on: December 06, 2018, 01:42:27 AM
if you actually check

the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments

i don't have the energy to verify, but if so, it sounds like a really crappy "mixer service". there's really no way to tumble that number of coins anyway. no mixer service has that kind of liquidity. they'd just be taking in and paying out the same coins to different addresses.

yep when a mixer doesnt have reserves to mix, it just ends up being a tumbling. or as i call it a de-tainter service. just hoping the coins along.

but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending

it doesn't really demonstrate that since it's just one anecdotal example. Wink
i was counting addresses used and yea quite alot went legacy->(loads of) bc1q ->legacy
so not one example but thousands of bc1q addresses used just for that particular stash
even if you dont count/check
66k/200=330 allotments. * 5+tumbles=over 1000 easy
1111  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 06, 2018, 12:35:51 AM
bitnodes.earn.com
under 10k nodes.. (less that 7k are full nodes)
over 3000 of all under 10k nodes of mixed ability (full and not so full) are on servers

gotta laugh.

you cant be decentralised if you all who are running one of the 1400+ nodes on amazon.. are running a node on amazon.
if your running a node on amazon and ur not a business.. your just not seeing the point of running a node

anyway https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=1037
less than 7k are shown as being full nodes
1112  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin network jammed? on: December 06, 2018, 12:17:01 AM

In truth, blockchains don't scale well. Adding exponentially more throughput to the mainchain would encourage mining centralization to sidestep latency problems (or otherwise cause high orphan rates and regular unintentional forking) and would discourage full node operation due to bandwidth requirements.

Sharding is one approach to solving this problem. Offchain payment channels are another. Tree chains are another. Why do you think so many people are working on ways to achieve exponential scale? Because blockchains can't do it. They scale linearly, which is extremely limiting. The Core developers have done a great job optimizing for better scale, but there's only so much they can do.

look passed the usual "must defend a dev" mindset.
it gets soo funny when people revert to defend a certain dev group rather than defend the network

its soo obvious
LN is not a bitcoin feature. it is its own independent network that happens to let multiple coins that are made compatible to function with it. bitcoin being just one

LN is just using bitcoin as the test coin to glory hound some investment.
as for scaling BITCOIN (not finding ways to tether altcoins and altnetworks to bitcoin) but to scale bitcoin can be done easily
and if you think its so linear. then i guess your just reading the standard scripts of "bitcoin is broke LN is the future" promo posters

it reminds me of history
digital photography wont work because floppy disks or servers
digital photography wont work because linear scaling of solid state media

people with that mindset are like kodak at the millenia
1113  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many Full Nodes Bitcoin online ? on: December 05, 2018, 09:42:01 PM
The thing is I don't think non-mining nodes add much security or decentralisation to the network. If you already are a major economic player, ie: an exchange, then yes, running a node adds security for both the network and yourself. Other than that I don't see much advantage. This is not a democracy, no one is gonna care if my node reject a transaction but if Bitstamp node rejects it, that has some real impact. On the other hand are nodes at the front of major pools which obviously have a great impact on the network but those do have an indirect incentive being a fundamental part of the miners behind.

if a full node was run just by mining pools. of course they would ignore their competitions efforts and just want their own blocks to win. so there needs a unbiased outsider group deciding what gets added to a chain.

normal home users that need to monitor just 1-5 addresses dont need to monitor every transaction of every block every day. and normal home internet would bottleneck the propogation if a home user was to foolishly want to connect to 120 nodes.
infact mathematically its better for home users to only connect to 10 nodes

however merchants that need to validate hundreds/thousands of transactions they are more needing to have a reliable ledger. so businesses are more important. because if they dont relay transactions of their customers then the merchant wont get paid if a pool doesnt add a transaction to a block.

where as users would prefer not to relay transactions and hope pools dont receive it. because they hope merchants would see a unconfirm and react, while hope a pool dont receive and confirm. so users are not actually needing to have a reliable ledger, users prefer slow networks because they hope the merchant act on the unconfirmed transaction so a user can double spend

with all that said..
if all users are just running core. unedited.. they are not decentralising th network. they are just distributing the chain
distributing and decentralising are 2 different things
1114  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Decentralized System Disadvantages on: December 05, 2018, 06:15:45 PM
Currently, the main disadvantages of decentralized systems are low transaction throughput and poor scalability. These problems inhibit the development of decentralized systems.

that is not a problem of decentralisation. that is a problem of a centralised group deciding not to change the code that has put limits in to prevent scaling.

blockchains can scale if you alter the limits imposed
1115  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 100,000+ BTC moved into segwit addresses on: December 05, 2018, 05:56:12 PM
if you actually check

the user used LEGACY..
pushed the funds into a de-tainter/mixer service that split up the funds.(the mixer used segwit) and the funds then re-accumilated back to LEGACY addresses of 8000k allotments

but it does show one thing
alot of segwit address utility is just de-tainter/mixer spam.. not actual user holdiing/spending
1116  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin network jammed? on: December 05, 2018, 05:06:09 PM
the only thing bad about bitcoin is the lack of development. the developers want people to think bitcoin is bad because they have $$millions involved in promoting other networks

Who is promoting other networks?

the same developers shouting blockchains cant scale and LN is the future.
i say if a bitcoin dev cant develop bitcoin. then they need to move out of bitcoin contributing and move into LN contributing full time. and to fully stop putting code into bitcoin that is only being added to make bitcoin compatible with alternative networks

bitcoin devs should be bitcoin innovation devs. not alternative network promoters and converters
1117  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin network jammed? on: December 05, 2018, 04:59:41 PM
The fee priority mechanism was just node policy. As I recall, miners had mostly all removed it from their nodes so it was eventually removed from the reference client. Developers aren't really in a position to force new fee policies on miners.

they forced segwit......................

No, they didn't.

Miners activated Segwit. If miners were "forced" by anything, it was the threat of BIP 148, which was never part of the reference client. Many Core developers were opposed to merging the UASF -- on such a rushed timeline or at all -- and it never was.

Miners made a conscious decision to activate Segwit to prevent a chain split with users enforcing BIP 148. Core nodes would have sided with majority hashpower either way.

bip9 did not have a august deadline
bip9 would not have caused a controversial split/fork. it would have been an accept or reject. where
if 95% agreed 5% are left receiving stripped data.
if there wasnt an agreement, things just carry on under 2016's ruleset
in short
bip 9 would have meant core devs would have had to put their tail between their legs, and gone back to the drawing board.

however the other bip. forced a fake vote. where nodes had no choice(compatibility) and pools objecting were just not counted/not included in the vote

the august event was not consensus. but as you twistingly admit. miners under threat of an august event where they would end up thrown out the network unless they comply.
if you think that there was no august event. you might want to do some research
the miners conscious decision was not a free choice it was a gun to the head decision to remain conscious on the network or be made unconscious outside the network

secondly you twistingly avoid the fact that core nodes didnt need to have it in because they pre-programmed their nodes to not even get a vote due to "compatibility". meaning the few nodes that would cause a controversial split would just supply the "compatibles" with stripped block data. meaning no need to put it in core because they already done what was needed so that they can shift the blame, while also still wave their hands in the air they want segwit.
1118  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many Full Nodes Bitcoin online ? on: December 05, 2018, 04:37:35 PM
Quote
* Full nodes download every block and transaction and check them against Bitcoin's most up to date consensus rules.
* Independently validating all formats of transactions
* Independently validating full unstripped/unprunned block data
* Filtering transactions and blocks to light node peers so as not to download all transactions in the network.
* Sending historical blocks to nodes that have been deactivated for a while.
* Transmit all formats of new transactions and relay all formats of valid transactions via peers.
* Running a full node is the only way you can use Bitcoin in a trustless way.

fixed that for you
1119  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Decentralized System Disadvantages on: December 05, 2018, 01:58:30 PM
transaction fees for high sums are definitely cheaper

^
is like saying: "it seems high fee's are ok because the rich dont mind them"

that there is the mindset of excusing the issue because it favours the rich of developed countries.
think about the 5 billion people NOT in the rich/developed countries

then you might understand.
though i personally am a white brit. i can see the impact fe's have on multiple countries because i actually went and visited countries. when thinking of decentralisation its best to think about others. not just a typical rich wall street american

imagine a country where 25cents/pence was 5 hours labour for a dozen countries
saying 25cents is acceptable is ruling out the desires of a dozen countries
saying $1 is cheap is ruling out several dozen countries desires

if the rich want to pay more because its still cheaper than other methods. then they should pay more

EG bring back a fee priority mechanism
fee =
total sats=(bytes + (total input value/1000))*(144 - confirms of inputs)

this formula would make it so that
1. if someone was to spam the network everyblock(1confirm resend) they pay 143 times more than someone that only spends once a day.
2. those that send more, pay more.. they can all afford 0.1%
3. if someone had a bloated tx of 2.5kb vs someone with only 250bytes the bloater pays 10x more for the 10x space they consume
1120  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Decentralized System Disadvantages on: December 05, 2018, 01:12:33 PM
disadvantages:
1. people:
when people think a network is decentralised, they get stuck in the mindset that even if centralisation happens and the rest of the network is just distributed. they still think its 'decentralised'. which then makes it harder to actually redecentralise the network because the central power will just force the decentralists off the network, using the distributed sheep that dont realise they are following centralisation.
(distributed and decentralised are two different things)

2. organisation:
when a centralised group forms or a attack occurs.. trying to convince distributed people which is the right or wrong path, action to follow is not straight forward. a well paid development group with $100m to throw around and code things that bypass individual voting/revokes individual decentralised 'vote' power. leaving the network as 'distributed' not decentralised.

3. excuses:
anyone coding new rules can use the 'decentralised' argument as an excuse to ignore communities needs and say even when there is a consensus of the community, that the developers dont need to follow the consensus because of whatever excuse they can find that consensus is wrong and they are right. thus bypassing consensus to get what the developers want as new rules rather than the communities compromises and commitments to get to a fair majority consensus, by which time the community are just left as distributed compatibility non voters or thrown off the network when people oppose centralist decisions.

basically if decentralisation gets diluted too much it then becomes easy to over power the 'individual' to then centralise the network
Pages: « 1 ... 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 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 ... 823 »
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!