Bitcoin Forum
July 17, 2019, 03:31:12 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 823 »
1201  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 27, 2018, 06:58:59 PM
what id love to see as a code solution to de-tag bitcoin from the PEOPLES vision of $america control

imagine exchanges(local decentralised) all agreed to stop measuring bitcoin in $ and instead measure it as
minimum wage hours

imagine right now all exchanges measure bitcoin as being 533 hours
just that 533 hours
and exchange move up or down in minute or seconds (not cents)

now people using the Rial can convert that to what their minimum wage per hour is to get a rial value

.. heres the international revolution part.
in america it would cost americans $4000
in iran it would cost iranians r882

meaning where-ever you ar in the world it only costs you 533 of your local hard labour employment to get 1btc
instead of having to work 2415 hours due to converting dollar to rial to get 1btc

benfits: labour equality world wide
detags peoples perception that $$ rule
people can then arbitrage the forex markets and flood forex with dollars as they buy rial to get cheap coins so that $/r imbalance occurs and brings the rial inline with $.. lifting iran out of 'poverty'
1202  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining BTC is centralized. on: November 27, 2018, 06:37:22 PM
[color="green"]greener mining alternatives.[/color][/b]

at a recent hashrate of 36exa, thats:
36,000,000 terrahash
36,000,000,000,000 megahash

if we stuck with PC (cpu) mining that would be
trillions of PC's needed. imagine a PC with a 500w Power supply each

but with asics thats only 1.28million ASICS using near-off 3 PC power supplies
so the equivelent of just ~4mill PC's worth of power

4mill vs trillions... which is greener?

i know some foolish people think signing blocks using PoS is greener. but they have no cost/risk in signing. it doesnt cost a penny to sign a block. meaning there is no cost for people to pool up 'stake' and syndicate themselves into controlling block creation which is a SECURITY RISK

by having a cost to mine prevents outsiders from attack and also makes bitcoin have a viable bottomline value because it actually costs funds to mine it. thus those mining it will not sell at a loss and wont sell it down to a penny

altcoins using PoS have no underlying cost of production and the price is pure speculation
1203  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is Physical Worth of Bitcoin: Energy Consumption and Equipments  on: November 27, 2018, 05:50:36 PM
(edited to stay relevant with recent prices)
some lucky pools running new gen s15 asics. and with bitcoins hashrate going down to 34exa.
puts the break even cost for those LUCKY limited number of miners at
which at recent LOW hashrate is 36exa..
S9=3744(delivery started this week)
s9=3996(previous batch already mining)
T15=3939(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)
S15=4216(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)


but this $3744 is just a break even for the lucky few running cheap second hand s9's
and for the very bottom hashrate recently
emphasis again its the BOTTOM LINE break even for limited amount of people with most efficient miners with the very bottomline hashrate recently
(majority of public not getting delivery of s15 until late december)

i done some math so that while hardware prices stay the same you can use a magic multiplier number

as for those running s9's bought at $450 last month multiple of hashrate is 111 $3996
as for those running s9's bought at $850 in summer multiple of hashrate is 154 $5544
as for those running s9's bought at $2000 late 2017 multiple of hashrate is 270 (not bothering with most shut down by now)
as for those running s9's bought at $400 now the multiple of hashrate is 104 $3744
as for those running T15's bought at $950 now the multiple of hashrate is 109 $3939
as for those running S15's bought at $1450 now the multiple of hashrate is 117 $4216

how this was calculated to find the magic multiplier number for easy cost bottom line of a previous hashrate and certain ASIC model (s15 @ $1450 and power as 1.6kwh and electric cost of 0.05c)

hashrate 36exa = 36,000,000thash
36m thash / hashrate of asic(28thash)

36000000/28=1285714 ASICS

1.286m asics * $1450 cost of asic unit
1285714.285714286*1450=$1864285714.29 of hardware

$1.86bill of hardware 26 fortnights / 2016 blocks /12.5btc = cost of hardware per btc
yes i based it on spreading hardware cost over average year lifecycle of hardware
1864285714.285714/26/2016/12.5=$2845.368917 of hardware cost for pools using S15

now the electric (based at 5cents... yea some can get cheaper but include facility lease and labour. 5cent reasonable)
1,286 asics *1.6kwh * 0.05 = electric $ per hour at 5 cents
1285714.285714286*1.6=$102857.14 (now multiply it by 24 then by 14 to get a fair fortnightly cost)
102857.14*24*14=$34560000 for a fortnight (now divide that by 2016 blocks and 12.5btc)
34560000/2016/12.5=$1371.43 electric per btc


now hardware and electric=cost of mining using S15's
2845.36+1371.43=$4216.79 cost per btc

you may see me multiply by 24 then 14 then divide by 2016 divide by 12.5
instead of just divide by 6 divide by 12.5
i done this because bitcoins rule is 2016 blocks a fortnight. not 6 blocks an hour(10min)
some people multiply by 24 multiply by 365 and then multply down by 26 fortnights then 2016 blocks then 12.5btc
which gives a ~$3 variance. thats because theres a difference of a few days. of the year compared to 26 fortnights
(you can choose how anal you want to be over the math)


now this ~$4216 is based on a variable of the exa hash.. so if you divide how many exahash. your left with a constant
of cost per single exa hash.. which is the magic constant to do easy mining cost of T15 mining
4216/36=117.133

so 89.88 is the magic constant for T15 mining.
you can double checking with the lengthy math of different hashpower.
but youll still see the same result if just taking the hashrate in exa and multiplying by 89.88 give or take a few pennies


now with that said
$4216 is the BOTTOMLINE break even per btc for the lucky few with the most efficient NEW miners known as S15.
the range of mining costs is
s9@$400(104)=$3744
s9@$850(154)=$5544

so that is the majority of range of mining costs. so dont take $3774 as average or majority. just think of it as the minimum BASELINE for 36exahash mining for a lucky few

in short
whil hardware cost per asic remain the same. you can use the magic multiplier numbers of 104-154 against the hashrate in exa hash to work out the mining cost range

EG
36exa * 104 =$3744
36exa * 154 =$5544
1204  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do some people still believe that Bitcoin "Core and Cash bilaterally split"? on: November 27, 2018, 05:31:08 PM
Tell me, what makes you think users and miners can't do what gmaxwell described?  Show me in the code where it says that users and miners can't change the activation threshold for a fork.  Oh right, you can't, because the code can change depending on what people run.
here you go. forgetting your own "compatibility" flip flops

nodes that are "compatible" did not get to opt-out. they were sheepishly treated as accepting without option
those that chose to use nodes that oppose and want something else were thrown out.

(block rejections) (ban node)

consensus is not about rejecting blocks/banning nodes.
consensus is about having proposals. and those proposals only activate when there is majority community agreement

banning nodes and rejecting blocks first is not consensus. its about apartheid. (splitting the community and only accepting votes from one side) to fake a consensus

EG apartheid analogy
july 2017: 2 black people, 4 mixed race, 4 white people on a bus.
august1st 2017: get the 2 blacks off the bus and then not be concerned about the 4 mixed race
mid august: get the bus driver to count the votes of white people who want only white people on a bus.(4/4)
november 2017: now buses are only for white people


july 2017: 20% nonsegwit, 45% compatible, 35 segwit ready.
august1st 2017: get the 20% nonsegwit off the network and then not be concerned about the 45% compatible
mid august: get the corecode to count the votes of segwit1x flag who want only segwit1x on the network (35/35=100%)
november 2017: now the network only has segwit1x

remember 45% "compatible" were not voting. they were sheeped as abstainers
1205  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 27, 2018, 05:15:56 PM
franky,

I have  a point: AML/KYC discourse is weakening bitcoin and my nation at the same time and there are potentials for the two to become allies. For this to work, both sides have obligations? Yes! Iranians should adopt bitcoin and bitcoin should improve in terms of privacy and decentralization.

Any objections franky?

bitcoin has privacy
  show me a command/line of code that asks for your name and house location
  show me on the blockchain anyones name/house address

bitcoin the currency is decentralised.
  show me a command that says do not relay/confirm transactions intended for iran/china/korea or anywhere.
  show me a command that says only transact with americans

iwill say this though. the fee war has priced some countries out of wanting to use bitcoin for daily use because the fee's are higher than a hours minimum wage for some country. (this needs changing)
but thats about stop using the business that developed the code for removing the fee formulae
you cant ask bitcoin code to self edit. its not AI
you need to stop using a certain dev team(business/people)  and instead get other PEOPLE/teams to develop code and have people decide to activate a fee formulae code that makes it cheap to use for all countries

bitcoin doesnt kill people.. people do

its the people/businesses around bitcoin(but are not bitcoin themselves) that need privacy and decentralisation.

the solution. dont use businesses that require regulatory complience.
code cannot do this. people can
1206  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 27, 2018, 04:57:45 PM
Bitcoin is seized and we have to choose sides:
either being happy with the seizure and to push for full regulatory compliance (like what Faketoshi Wrong is fighting for) or we need to enhance privacy and decentralization and stick with the resistance. My observation suggests we are getting short of chairs in the middle.
Again we are not talking about how Iranians should trade locally, it is about international trade for the Christ sake, focus!

if PEOPLE stop using regulated businesses. then people wont see bitcoin as regulated.
because it isnt.

also the topic is about IRANS situation
so people of iran should stop using businesses that are regulated
again if your bank imposes rules. stop using your bank

people are the resistance because bitcoin is already not complying because bitcoin has no fiat complience code

take the alcohol prohibition era.
alcohol is alcohol. it cannot decide where it gets deliverd and who gets to drink it. PEOPLE DO
when governments prohibited businesses from selling it or asked businesses to set up sting operations to offer it just to report people who asked for it.. the solution was simple. people stopped going to those businesses.

people started their own local brewing groups and clubs. and they had parties drinking all the alcohol they could wanted.

you cannot ask a bottle of beer to not comply to regulations. its for the people who want a bottle of beer to find a way to get it locally so that they can then drink with international friends and family.

the reason i say locally is because how are you going to get the fiat in your pocket into bitcoin as the first step to internationally trading using bitcoin.

its baby steps
convert your fiat locally. then trade your btc internationally. then the international recipient can convert their btc thy get locally into thir local fiat in their pocket.

so if you stop worrying about american exchanges by avoid thinking, using, doing business with them. then american fiat regulations dont apply to you..
so if you stop worrying about iran banks by avoid thinking, using, doing business with them. then iran banks regulations dont apply to you..

bitcoin is the solution and doesnt need change because bitcoin does not have regulation. people just need to stop using BUSINESSES that are regulated
1207  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 27, 2018, 04:35:39 PM
Once US imposes sanctions against Iran banking system including Iran central bank, it implies blocking their access to their deposits in global banking system, it is censorship and censorship is what bitcoin is supposed to resist against.

bitcoin is resisting because bitcoin has no fiat regulatory complience code.

its PEOPLE that need to resist
EG
if your FIAT bank tells you that you cant deposit into a certain FIAT bank of an exchange. only YOU have access to YOUR fiat funds of the bank YOU bank with.
so YOU as a person can:
take your fiat out and find someone local to trade fiat to btc.

only YOU have the power to take YOUR fiat out of YOUR bank and go to YOUR local bitcoin meetup. its YOUR bank account aftr all
i as another PERSON cannot get to YOUR bank account and withdraw YOUR fiat and attend YOUR towns meetup to convert YOUR fiat to BTC.

so help your fellow iranians. start something local so your not affected by american decisions. because code cant do what humans can do.
1208  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 27, 2018, 04:08:31 PM
To resist this bullyism, bitcoin needs more privacy and more decentralization and censorship resistance and it should migrate from centralized exchanges to decentralized ones, otherwise with AML/KYC getting tenser every day how is it possible for Iranians to use bitcoin for international trade? And without international trade who cares about bitcoin right now in Iran?

bitcoin is just code
it has not coded itself to coinbase and coinbases KYC

bitcoin does not ask for people addresses.
if you in iran want to avoid COINBASES KYC.. just dont use coinbase
if you in iran want to have freedom just find someone in your area to trade with

bitcoin is not regulated
american businesses are.
so simple solution dont use american businesses

find someone local to you

i do not want regulatory compliance.
but it seems you need to understand you cant sit and cry that american businesses(not bitcoin) have regulatory compliance. without actually realising that you can simply avoid regulatory compliance by avoiding using american businesses

find and create something local to you. and you will have your solution

bitcoin cannot create a business because its just code. its the PEOPLE and businesses that use bitcoin that need to use their arms legs, mouths.

so you as a person should not ask code to detach itself from businesses because bitcoin is not attached to it. its just code
again
its just code that does not know fiat laws. has no lines of code or commands that comply with fiat laws and does not ask for fiat law KYC stuff

its for PEOPLE to detach from BUSINESSES that kyc.
again
you as a person should find someone local and trade with. its that simple
you will then find out that bitcoin code and bitcoins blockchain has not revealed that you and someone else traded in a coffee shop because bitcoin does not ask or demand KYC or demand you comply with fiat regulation

lets make it simpler
say your allergic to peanuts. you simply avoid going to a peanut factory
1209  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do some people still believe that Bitcoin "Core and Cash bilaterally split"? on: November 27, 2018, 03:36:04 PM
lastly it was the cores side that were not happy with thier 35% spring 2017 support. which is why core devs (luke JR) proposed the mandatory activation.

you do realise there is this thing called the blockchain. its a immutable archive of events and transactions.
if you were to actually check the blockchain data you will see that core triggered it at block 478558.

the funny thing is core supporters actually shouted that cash didnt trigger until hours later.
(core only accepted segwit flagged blocks at 13:23)
(cash only accepted cash blocks at 18:12)

the code that achieved this split was wrote by core devs (luke JR UASF)
https://www.uasf.co/#uasf-signaling
Quote
What is BIP148?

BIP148 is a UASF that is designed to cause the existing SegWit MASF deployment to cause activation in all existing SegWit capable node software (which currently is 80% of the network nodes). How does BIP148 Work? From August 1st, 2017, miners are required to signal readiness for SegWit by creating blocks with the version bit 1. This will cause all SegWit ready nodes, which make up over 80% of the network, to activate and begin enforcement. Link for reference: luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/segwit.html. Miners must also check blocks prior to their own and ensure that they also signal for SegWit, and only build on those blocks.
please do your research next time

lastly. its the mindset of some that bitcoin(network) should be owned by one team brand. wherby they go on the 'defend the dev' parade and try to make it sound that anyone who is against a dev is against bitcoin. purely to continue their mantra that bitcoin should have one central team.(facepalm)

its a real shame that those people cannot distinguish the difference between one dev team control from the concept of a whole network concept of consensus of teams.
have a nice day.
1210  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do some people still believe that Bitcoin "Core and Cash bilaterally split"? on: November 27, 2018, 02:03:55 PM
Franky1 is the biggest advocate of this idea in the forum. I respect that, but it is very debatable. What if Bitcoin Cash increased its block size and doubled its monetary supply? Would that "bilateral split" idea be easy to accept? I believe it won't.
actually it was the devs that advocated bilateral split... its their buzzword
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.
I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

i am against throwing opposers off the network so minorities get a faked consensus. but the devs advocate it (UASF)
 If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% .. then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

i am against the idea of mandatory forks.

i am against single brands of software deciding whole network decisions,
i advocate consensus of community acceptance via joint communication to find healthy compromise which a majority can accept on and stay one network

i am against splitting the network just so one team can get their way.

WAKE UP and stop the fud, atleast research consensus
if you dont want to research what actually happened network-wise

atleast research your topics and stop the social finger pointing unless you can prove it

show one post where i say i love and advocated bilateral split and ill show many  where i am shunning the devs for performing one

also throwing my username into the same sentance as cash is foolish too. but i can see your motivations are clear now
you really have gone full FUD.
1211  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining BTC is centralized. on: November 27, 2018, 07:50:44 AM
computers are centralised

there is only:
intel
AMD

ahhhh kill all computers
(^note sarcasm^)

mining is not centralised because although some reddit/twitter PR campaign screams "china51%".. thats fake news
even 'antpool' which suggest to have 12.8% at time of post. is actually:
half a dozen stratums in half a dozen countries with half a dozen different coin reward addresses

some of these separate entities tagged as "antpool" do different things, such as:
some do empty block mining
some do rewards to bech32(bc1q segwit) addresses and add segwit transactions from mempool
some just handle legacy.

all revealing that "antpool" is diverse in power/decisions/location
things like slushpool is tagged under the "china51%" yet they are managed in thailand and world wide stratum for asics anywhere
F2pool is world wide gateway for asics anywhere
btc.com has stratums and farms in many locations

so.. dont take reddit/twitter screams too seriously unless you background check/find the source stats.
in short
DYOR(do your own research)
1212  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin for Less Than $4000 - Welcome Everyone That Missed the Jamie Dimon Boat on: November 27, 2018, 07:40:59 AM
So from all of that, am I right in assuming that you'd confidently say that the bottom will be somewhere around $3000? The only interesting thing to note. What if the miners that were priced out instead decided not to buy bitcoin, meaning the price doesn't increase above mining cost, wouldn't we then see difficulty decrease, lowering the mining cost?

im saying a limited few can afford to be whales and should they decide thy could push it that low.
im saying limited few.
i am not saying confident the price will drop that low as the buy pressure from others is at play too.

EG those that have higher mining costs wont want to waste electric mining at higher costs. so they will use their money to just buy cheap coins. thus resisting against the whales.

anyway. this is all temporary data and it shifts alot.
already i have rechecked bitmain and now there is this
T15(asic boost) = 23thash @$950~
S15(asic boost) = 28thash @$1450~

so using the now advertised S15 now has a magic multiplier of 118.. similar as previous cheap s9's
and the T15 magic number is 109.
and second hand S9 sold at $390 is magic number 104

which at todays LOW hashrate is 36exa..
S9=3744(delivery started this week)
s9=3996(prvious batch already mining)
T15=3924(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)
S15=4248(delivery christmas+ but "QA testing" gives whales coins)

yep they want people to buy up their old S9's so lowered the S9's and ramped up the the s15's(savvy)

so we are already staying above $3000... and infact moving a lil higher(mining hash/cost) and away from $3000. even when there was a chance(market whales) of going down to $3000

again anyone making a loss mining will start to put some buying power into bitcoin to move prices up while cheap

my summary point
watching the mining costs has shown more correlation to bottomline markets.. than them people who self draw their own trend lines by hand (no stats just eyes and hand drawing) on market history charts
1213  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: How would you describe decentralization as concisely as possible? on: November 27, 2018, 04:51:40 AM
But the "man" himself said,
Quote
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

I believe the essence of "rejecting" other implementations is not political, but more technical, to the convenience of the people who like to spread misinformation.

Franky1, can we have your opinion on Satoshi's thoughts on having another implementation of Bitcoin? I believe he made it very clear that it would be very bad for the network.

Maybe the debate is more technical than political, than what the anti-Core group believes it should be?

but thats the beauty of consensus. to reject rule changes unless majority agree
its the whole point

its why satoshi solved the byzantine generals issue.

by having consensus rules there can be alternative brands on the network. they all follow current rulesets.
. as for upgrades the network has to choose what they (whole community) jointly go for.

but if there is only one general making orders and holding and writing the rulebook(one brand) then there is no choice. its just follow the new rules this single general has written or end up being left out.

also read the entire context. not just someones 'cut' of a quote
read this
Quote
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.[/b]
read it. and then without bias. read it as if satoshi was the minority. so you can see both sides of his argument.
HE cant simply upgrade if he is the minority.(EG imagine he wanted to remove code to cause a fee war or promote a non-blockchain network)(EG imagine he became corrupt/malicious)

notice how HE is talking about how its a hassle for HIM (sole controller/general/central point) cant just upgrade if there are alternative versions.
again thats the beauty of consensus. no one should have central control


the november 2016-spring 2017 was a good show of it in action. (65%no : 35%yes to segwit1x)
events in timeline order
late 2015: core proposed segwit1mb. community wanted more than 1mb. some wanted 16mb, 8mb, 4mb....
a consensus agreement came in a variant of segwit2x. ill call it segwit2mb to seperate the agreement from the later variant called segwit2x

the segwit2mb would have got high majority acceptance. and was the consensus/compromised agreement of late 2015

early 2016: luke JR backed out of segwit2mb by saying his initial agreement of segwit2mb was a empty non contractual agreement and he no longer wants to abide by it because he is not in power enough to code anything to enforce core can put it into code.
(yet a year later lukejr releases mandated code(UASF) as well as other 3 card tricks.. to force in segwit1x(hypocrite))

november 2016: core released a consensus vote of segwit1x with hopes of activation by christmas.....
spring 2017: still no majority. core was sat at 35% and struggling to move

core got a no vote for segwit1mb because core backed out of an early varient of segwit2x which was the communitys agreement of compromise from 65% wanting more baseblock (some originally wanted 16mb, 8mb, then 4) and the 35% wanting a 1mb baseblock and segwit..

if there was 1 brand. core would have got segwit1mb activated in christmas 2016
but would have had 65% unhappy community left stalled out and a "menace to the network".

but instead of core going going back to a segwit2mb agreement. core doubled down on only wanting segwit1mb

(luke and his colleagues released the other kardashian drama of a possibility of segwit2x but only if segwit1mb is activated first(NYA agreement (DCG.CO)).. this is the reference to luke being a hypocrit above where the USAF+NYA MANDATED segwit1mb and threw off the 65% out of the vote because of "backward compatible" nodes dont need to opt-in to segwit1mb.. and any opposers not "compatible" are banned/rejected)

summer 2017: core got what they wanted. yet the community is still divided

bitcoin is not meant to be one general making and updating the rules. its meant to be the army of generals(community) upholding the law and the community to decide on new laws
a reference client should not be a rule MAKER. but a holder of current rules so that people can refer and know the rules

the idea of bitcoin was that everyone was a general. rules stay the same unless the majority agree on a new proposal. yes it makes it harder for one general to change the rules... but thats the point of it. there should not be a single general.

satoshi later realised that he had become the single general and everyone was going to him. which is why he left.
yet 5 years later it went full circle where core is now the single general(central point)

it should never be made EASY for one general to change the rules. mandating changes and splitting the community.
having multiple brands should prevent there being a single general so that the community have power not a single general

if core want to be a reference client then thats being a reference point of only CURRENT RULES
separately if they want to PROPOSE new rules. ok. propose them as a separate version to a REFERENCE CLIENT.. but dont then use mandated stuff to enforce their proposal with threats of banning nodes and rejecting blocks.

instead of single brand. instead of mandated rule...
let the community consensus around it. and if a majority is not found, compromise..

the 65% against core compromised down to segwit2mb in 2015. yet core have not shown signs of listening to the community to compromise their roadmap. thy instead evicted opposers(usaf) and sheep herded the compromisers(NYA segwit2x).. and once segwit1x got activated. killed of the 2x to just stay with the 1x
1214  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The situation with IRAN on: November 26, 2018, 08:39:03 PM
I guess, it is no more possible for bitcoiners to live in the gray zone, it is just fading out, the gray zone:

Trump needs even more centralization of power for running his version of Fascism, Putin has already centralized everything in Russia (again) and Chinese have no clue about what a non-centralized form of power could ever be.

In monetary systems, AML/KYC discourse is getting more aggressive on a daily basis, It is about Orwell 1984 rather than Satoshi Nakamoto 2009. The true force behind bitcoin falling down is this trend and the fact that bitcoiners are doing almost nothing about it other than sticking with their few coins and waiting for dick heads in regulatory agencies to show merci and absorb them in the so-called 'legal system'.

As a smart con artist, Craig Faketoshi Wrong has understood the situation and made a decision: "Don't be shy Craig, you've never been, choose the wrong side as usual and figure out a way to keep talking in public."

The rest of bitcoiners? They are just shy!


in all your post above you have laid out pointing the finger at people and businesses that exist thousands of miles away from iran.

again. if iran want to trade in bitcoin. find a bitcoiner within 50 miles and trade... its that simple.
organise something in your town.

dont set yourself up to fail by saying "cant 'coz coinbase KYC's".. say "can 'coz adbul down the street has bitcoin he wants to sell"

dont blame the rest of the world. first of all make the first step. organise something local and build on it.

bitcoin is not coinbase. its not bitpay, its not coinify.. bitcoin is just code.
coinbase, bitpay, coinfy are just american businesses.. if you dont like what they have to offer. dont use them. instead stay away from american businesses. and then in your town organise something in your community.

you cant start a protest/strike/revolution by saying "but america want some paperwork if we ask a american union to strike for us". start your own strike. ask locals where you live to get together

no point saying american businesses dont like iran so iran will stand still and do nnothing waiting for american businesses to stop being american.
instead say, lets start iranian businesses and not wait around

 
1215  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin great idea bad execution on: November 26, 2018, 06:27:38 PM
1. whales controling large amount
  the thing is holding large amounts is meaningless.. holding does nothing. as for selling. well thats temporary. once they sold it they dont hold it any more to do anything again. so just let the temporary event pass.. enjoy the discount and then after the dip recovers. you are the one benefitting because you now have cheap coins and a profitable price due to the recovery.


3. if a disagreement occurs altcoins are made.
  those actually wanting to make altcoins can do so whenever they like. no drama.. but when consensus events of new proposals happens it should not result in an altcoin split. its either
feature doesnt activate, whereby proposer goes back to drawing board to design something the community would accept..
or
consensus majority upgrade and stalled minority(stuck)..

what should not happen again:
fork off majority to force fake head count of a smaller community where half population left to vote to seem as a majority

yes people have the freedom anytime to make their own altcoin without drama. but if an upgrade is proposed. its not an oppertunity to cause an altcoin to push opposers out. thats not consensus that just control mandating a feature in

1216  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... on: November 26, 2018, 07:41:25 AM
LN is not the solution for bitcoin. because LN is not bitcoin

LN is a separate network <- emphasis

LN is a separate network which many coins will use.

im surprised that people would prefer to defend developers by saying bitcoin is broke and wont scale and the only option is another network
even when it has been made clear that LN have flaws that wont be fixed people continue to push the defend a dev, call bitcoin broke and then promote an alternative network that is not even a blockchain and not even directly tied to bitcoin.

LN is just.. and in simple words a separate project that is just using bitcoins as its trial test coins. but not a bitcoin feature itself

bitcoin has been modified to be LN compatible. much like litecoin, vert coin and other coins.
LN has not been made to only fit bitcoin (whereby being a feature of bitcoin) which is why its not a bitcoin feature. but a cryptocurrency feature.
they are simply currently using bitcoin as their test coin to play off the fame of bitcoin

EG if LN used vertcoin as the initial testcoin. LN devs wouldnt be paid(as much) to develop LN but LN would still be the same network it is today. again for emphasis. its not a bitcoin feature its a separate network thats just playing off the fame of bitcoin because the LN network allow bitcoin access to the network (now bitcoin has been modified to fit LN)

im not saying LN doesnt have a niche. but clarifying that those that want bitcoin to remain the main currency of utility are not realising that LN will hurt bitcoin.
(imagine all the locked UTXO's)
anyway heres a video of the LN dev's themselves actually trying to remind people that the utopia of LN is not as perfect as promoted.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
(do not reply about my post unless you have watched the video)
(do not reply about my post unless you are replying to defend the bitcoin network(not devs but the bitcoin network))
(do not reply about my post to derail the conversation into personal attacks of me. as the video itself is doing the bashing. not me)
(do not reply about my post just to promote other networks. because that is not about scaling bitcoin)
1217  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... on: November 25, 2018, 07:06:10 PM
here is another way how i see a system where shards could be used, (dismissing my own concerns of masternode monitoring inevitability)

imagine one chain as the master financial audit chain. where the transactions are smaller
FFFFF AAAAAAA -> FFFFF AAAAAAA
                            FFFFF AAAAAAA
in byte count
5 7 5 7
     5 7
=36 bytes

the F is a byte and are an identifier. 5 bytes allow over 1 trillion identifiers
the A is a byte and are coin amount.7bytes allows 72quadrillion so easy to store numbers upto 2.1quad satoshi

and then a shard stores an ID chain
   EG:       FFFFF = bc1q.... lets say less than 50 bytes per entry
and then another shard stores the signatures
  lets say under 100bytes per entry

essentially making the financial chain that audits coins right back to the coinreward(creation)
only using 36bytes of data per minimal tx instead of 225bytes and a multisig of 2in- 2 out being 48bytes instead of 300bytes+

this not only lets more tx's per mb. but brings down the utxo down to 12 bytes per 'address' and coinage

Nop. Bitcoin doesn't need to evolve because of security. Who says that? It is already secure ways more than necessary,

ok imagine it. everything got locked down tomorrow. hashrate doesnt evolve. difficulty locks, developers retire and we stay with 10,000 full nodes..
how long do you think it will be before things start to go bad
1218  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... on: November 25, 2018, 04:35:38 PM
this is not about 32mb blocks.
(...)
this is not about EB

How do you propose something and then basically say "this is not about the thing I'm literally proposing right now".   Roll Eyes

Perhaps it would allow us to forego the continual hardfork drama, but it's still not remotely as simple and clear-cut as you're making it out to be.  There are very good reasons why people are opposed to such a system and if you aren't even going to attempt to overcome the objections and only talk about the positives, then don't expect people to take this proposal seriously.

because "EB" is a buzzword
EB is for a particular limitd proposal

the way EB handles increments is one way. but i can think of dozens. so again its not about EB.. but about increments without hardforks.
just like mentioning 32mb. suddenly your mind instantly thinks of an existing proposal.
this is not about those specific proposals.

the 32mb is about something entirely different. which is technical. by which certain proposals latched onto. now if you ignore the proposals which came second to the 32mb thing. and then concentrate on the 32mb as its own thing. where many concepts and proposals can develop from. you will see that i am not talking anything about resurecting old proposals. but getting to the root issue of hardforks and the 32mb issue.
again try not to make is a thing about old proposals. but about how to scale bitcoin with known things that need to be addressed.
1219  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... on: November 25, 2018, 03:31:42 PM
anyway once people play scenarios around that sharding will eventually lead back around to needing masternodes (full nodes)
and then once people play scenarios of if a masternode is needed that stores all shard data. why have it separate because the regional nodes are now just lower down the network and of less importance.
and play around with scenarios of if not separate we are back to a single nodebase of code monitoring everything.. it just full circles. that the strongest network is one that is united under one ruleset

It doesn't have to be an integer, so let's get rid of that myth too.  Why not:

1.25mb base/5mb weight, requires hard fork to move to
1.5mb base/6mb weight,  requires hard fork to move to
1.75mb base/7mb weight  requires hard fork to move to
2mb base/8mb weight requires hard fork to move to
and so on?  

It's not just about it happening "over time", it's also about sensible increments.  Based on what you've witnessed to date, it should be more than obvious that most BTC users are in no rush to double or quadruple the base.

fixed that for you.
however having a case where we remove the witness scale factor and have code set in consensus of
4mb pool policy /32mb consensus,
4.25mb pool policy/32mb consensus,  
4.5mb pool policy/32mb consensus

means no hard forks pre increment. and then just some code of when the blocks soft increment by 0.25
again to demyth the PR campaign.
this is not about 32mb blocks.
this is about avoiding 3 years of debate just to perform one hard fork. then another 3 year debate to perform another hard fork
blocks will not be 32mb. they will increment at the pool policy amounts. all monitored and adhered to by nodes enforcing that pools dont go over the policy amount until a coded thing happens that soft activate a 0.25 increment

again to demyth the PR campaign
this is not about EB (trying to turn the debate into mentioning a certain group of people)
this is about allowing progressive growth without hard forks and 3 year debates per increment
1220  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Scaling Solution Without Lightning Network... on: November 25, 2018, 03:18:17 PM
There has been misinformation attempts on the Lightning Network everywhere, made by the people who want all transactions to be processed on-chain, in big blocks, and by all nodes. That is not scalable.

But I will ask around and find a good answer for you.

or... thre are issues. that the LN devs themselves admit. but some people that want LN to be a success dont want the positive PR train to stop. so will argue endlessly that LN is utopia

here are LN devs themselves saying about issues with LN that wont be fixed.
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

and yes factories is the next evolution of LN concepts where factories will be the new masternodes housing lots of peoples data and also monitoring multiple chains because they know LN is not bitcoin. its a separate network for mutiple coins where LN wishes to be the main system and leave bitcoin and litecoin as just boring shards/data stores
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 ... 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!