Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2019, 01:11:04 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 ... 823 »
1741  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How can lightning network help Bitcoin? on: September 23, 2018, 09:51:38 AM
The cost of sending the bitcoin will be significantly reduced. will help bitcoin faster in the second transaction will allow us to make micropayments with low cost, we can drink coffee and the cost for us is 2000 satoshi or less will confirm that not made charge doubles since they say it will be out of the block bitcoin chain

lightning is a separate network.
many coins will use it.

lightnings concept is similar to the 19th century bankers gold concept

"using gold for coffee is cumbersome.. here lock your gold into these vaults (LN factories) and ill sign you a transaction promissory note that you can then play around with. and if i like the recipient and see my signature i will authorise my payment to them. because its faster easier and cheaper than handling confirmed gold"

and now..
"if you dont want the promissory notes. here have a bag of copper, brass, tin and nickel coins"

think about it...

history has shown that gold is no longer a payment method. a medium of exchange or a common currency. but something held and owned by the vaults(ln factories)
1742  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Released on: September 23, 2018, 09:33:05 AM
i did try to keep this topic away from certain people replying. but that certain kitty in sunglasses must not have read the grey writing

anyway, moving on

if people cared for the network more than a certain dev. they too would actually want
diversified codebases in consensus and decentralised
instead of a
monarchy 'reference' codebase and distribution.
as the two concepts are vastly different

but hey. some has a long way to go yet. and many have tried reminding them to learn about the network and code protocols but stil see some only reply protecting developers
Then why don't you start developing your own implementation or start running one of the other implementations available?
Plus we care enough for the network to support the best developers. But they are human, and maybe they also deserve some criticism for leaving a bug unseen for that long. It should also be taken as a sign that smart developers like you, franky1, should keep an eye on the code. Cool

i do read and review their code. but my interest is more in looking for issues that change the bitcoin networks purpose. not to debug a codebase i do not use

i have though informed them of bugs before. i can even remember achowe and myself arguing for months about the 'anyone can spend' issue pre segwit if using segwit transactions before activation
and eventually and funnily enough. core eventually without admission succumbed to the realisation and they done a work around by not letting people actually make a segwit formatted tx until weeks after it was activated. to ensure the issue i addressed would not occur. (though he will not admit remembering such conversations nor my input had any impact on that workaround yet forum post dates and quotes can be found)
its also why segwit would have only worked with 100% segwit compliance instead of their weak 35% flag.. but thats been discussed endlessly in other topics about their methods of getting 100% compliance

so moving on

 i personally do run my own node and it has not crashed and does not have that bug and it's my own code. because i did not use c++, thus i did not just copy and paste it from core.
it was wrote from scratch and does validate transactions and does validate blocks and relays transactions and blocks but i say this
(pre-empting  standard core defence replies)
 it is not xt,classic,bu, abc based either. nor am i part of the cash group.
i am independent and believe in a diverse network of multiple teams that use consensus as it should be used
certain some who again are defending core by thinking diverse codebases being on the same network are the enemy. will not tolerate such sacrilegious code. so i just use it for myself, happily

again lets keep this about the network diversity and not the picking of names and insulting (i know, they poked the bear and i bit. but lets get back to concentrating on the matter at hand)

edit to avoid spam but address the comment below ill repeat whats already been said:
certain some who again are defending core by thinking diverse codebases being on the same network are the enemy. will not tolerate such sacrilegious code. so i just use it for myself, happily

that has been tried for years by other teams that wanted a united network of multiple implementations (not altcoins)
all using real consensus to activate their proposals or just plodding along.. using current consensus rules if no majority preference is seen... not using mandatory bilateral split bips

end result were endless REKT campaigns and 'go F**k off, and "your not wanted here" statements
(ill let you decide if ** = UC or OR)

having the mindset that xt, classic, bu and (as theymos shows in other topic) btcd and other implementations should not run on the network.. shows how defensive and core cuddling some people are.
1743  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Released on: September 23, 2018, 09:12:37 AM
Or at least actively support/promote another implementation/client Roll Eyes

that has been tried for years by other teams that wanted a united network of multiple implementations (not altcoins)
all using real consensus to activate their proposals or just plodding along.. using current consensus rules if no majority preference is seen... not using mandatory bilateral split bips

end result were endless REKT campaigns and 'go F**k off, and "your not wanted here" statements
(ill let you decide if ** = UC or OR)

having the mindset that xt, classic, bu and (as theymos shows in other topic) btcd and other implementations should not run on the network.. shows how defensive and core cuddling some people are.

i did find it funny that theymos in the midst or a core bug was still saying other nodes that did not have the bug, were buggy..
1744  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: CHINA, RUSSIA, USA IN RACE TO USE BLOCKCHAIN FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS on: September 23, 2018, 08:44:23 AM
same with the palm oil example in the OP

you do not need a single blockchain that needs to last for eternity to hold every movement of palm oil barrels from 2018 to 21xx
instead it just needs a chain of blocks to represent each 'season'
1745  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: CHINA, RUSSIA, USA IN RACE TO USE BLOCKCHAIN FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS on: September 23, 2018, 08:30:11 AM
it can have advantages
before military treasuries had to trust that when a procurement department ask for $5m.. that the $5m actually went to buying 2 engines of $2.5m as oppose to 2 engines of $2.4m and $200k in someones back pocket.

this way. the engine manufacturer can price the engine at $2.4m.. and add a identity for the engines. and send an invoice to the army base who then hand it to the pentagon who then hand it to the treasury. knowing no one can falsify the invoice while all departments agree that the items are needed

the pentagon, armybase and the temp working in the warehouse are then not handing funds. but instead the payment is locked to the engine manufacturer company and is only released when the engines are received by the armybase.

the downside of blockchain WAS. is that not every transaction needs to be kept forever. but because the blockchain in this example is not about a fixed supply currency where the origins of the funds need to be tracked back to its creation years prior the blocks can be prunned away after every 6 monthly treasury budget review

EG the treasury has $200b to hand to DoD. so the treasury creates 200b treasury credits.
they get transacted around the different departments. and within 6 months the engine manufacturer  and can show the path back to the DOD, pentagon, army base so gets the 4.8m treasury credits. and then sells the credits for $4.8m

after 6 months a new chain of 200billion treasury credits is made

there doesnt need to be an eternity existing single chain that keeps hold of decades of data on one chain forever growing

too many ICO's think that it has to be 1 chain and having to predict a token supply that will last a lifetime
EG a DoD chain of 40trillion credits to cover 100 years.
instead it can be 200 chains of 6 month budget worth of tokens per chain(created at each 6 month budget meeting). thus the system is covered for 100 years. where not all 200 chains need to exist for 100 years but can be deleted after 6months-10 years(whatever is practical)
1746  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is anonymity the future for bitcoin??? on: September 23, 2018, 07:48:33 AM
OP, I believe not, not for a network as mature as Bitcoin. Changing the rules now to make it more "anonymous" and "private" would have consequences.

The Bitcoin blockchain's transparency has its advantages too. It proves, with our own eyes, and without trusting that some privacy technology "simply works", that the ledger is balanced and auditable.

Adding more anonymity and privacy might also attract government agencies to discourage it more, or make more unfavorable laws against using it.

Plus if the Core developers truly wanted a more "private Bitcoin", then maybe do it off-chain, in the Lightning Network. But leave the blockchain alone.
finally some great thought from wind_fury
you have definitely earned 10 merit for this

i may add some points to the 'consequences' and explain the 'simply works'
some privacy concepts being discussed by devs are to hide the VALUE being moved.
this alone can make bitcoin UNauditable and thus challenge the point of a transparent trustable chain where people can see that coins at Z are real because they can be seen right back through the chain back to their original mined block A
many dont care about WHO.. but they still want to clearly and simply know the coins have a clear visible path from A-Z

these privacy codes actually add bytes of data to a transaction and only work when multiple parties mix funds. meaning its not only a bloated multisg transaction. but a multisig with extra bloat for the value privacy.
which means less transactions per hard drive space. which is not an optimisation of transactions vs space. but a de-optimisation

then theres the fact of adding too many features to something that should just be about send A to B. that it opens up risks of bugs where certain checks are not instantly done because theres just so many checks to do. thus causing risks by skipping a check initially to attempt to optimise relay speed, and do checks after. that then cause bugs of their own

as windfury said. if you want privacy that your name wont get attached to a transaction on the chain that you do not want seen. use other services/networks that do not publish details that need to be checked.

bitcoin is about checking and validating data. if we stop checking and validating data. then blockchains become pointless
1747  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You think we're deviating from bitcoin's philosophy? on: September 23, 2018, 07:29:39 AM
putting aside the social /community attitudes.

if you concentrate on the code/network affect of what developers are doing to the actual network. that too is actually deviating away from the original ethos of what bitcoin was about

decentralised
 is becoming a monarchy codebase (core reference client) that is distributed.
we have lost the diverse code bases of multiple teams separately making full nodes. hense why this months 'bug' has proven to be a risk. decentralised and distributed are 2 different things

borderless
 is becomeing walled up and bordered. we seen the fee mechanism ripped out. causing a fee war, which has caused a barrier of entry to 3rd world countries where the fee of even just 5cents+ is more than a hours labour for some countries. thus they have been chucked to the side.
the monarchy/hierarchy mindset of trusting core has made a barrier of consensual unity of different idea's. instead theres now a singular roadmap that the community fight over and created a barrier where if people dont like the monarchy's roadmap they are told to cross the border and use something else "F**k off" basically (ill let you decide if **= UC or OR)

permissionless
with developers themselves saying bitcoin is broke and cant scale but commercial side services are the future, requiring smart contracts of co-signing parters, is eroding the permissionless part of handling funds. also the reliance people have of preferring to have funds held by custodians. and ofcourse where new developers and interested parties now have to leap through a 3 hop process of moderated venues just to get a code proposal listed before it even reaches the 'reference' client

..
we need to get things back to the simpler more diverse times of 2009-2013 where things were not so manipulated/influenced by certain entities. as bitcoin was never supposed to put anyone into a referential, preferential higher pedestal as anyone else
1748  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A possibility to reverse bitcoin transactions that under 200 confirmations? on: September 23, 2018, 07:05:00 AM
I don't have enough knowledge about that matter but i doubt if it is thru, bitcoin transaction is irreversible, it is unforgeable and could not be tampered, so how is it possible. Well, that was just my point of view, i am still here like a noob, i am reading and asking questions and would love to learn from what you would say.

look into orphans/rejects

transactions are deemed as 'confirmed' but not 100% immutible..as that takes time..
it just means it passed the first quality assurance checks, but thats not all of the checks/risks covered/ruled out

bugs can make blocks get rejected, thrown away and thus the transactions of that block are not part of the chain anymore. thus no confirms no existance. and not immutible.

once all the FULL checks are done
once enough good blocks are added to good blocks the chances of a transaction in the past being of issues becomes nothing.
(more blocks=more confirms=more confidence= eventually milestoned as immutable.. eventually(not instantly at 1 confirm))

its why some say dont trust a 1 confirm transaction as solid/definite as there is a 0.5% chance the block containing it can be rejected
its why some say dont trust a 2 confirm transaction as there is a 0.0025% chance the block containing it can be rejected
and so on

so only risk instantly accepting  (during a no known bug period)
a value of ~chewing gum for 0 confirms
a value of ~ a meal for 1confirm
a value of ~ a weeks salary for 2 confirms
a value of ~ a second hand car for 3 confirms
a value of ~ a lambo for 4 confirms
a value of ~ a house for 5 confirms
a value of anything for 6 confirms

but because of the bug. treat 200 confirms as the milestone as orphans/rejects can keep happening. for upto a day until the network cannot tolerate/allow constant interruptions of orphans/rejects

1749  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A possibility to reverse bitcoin transactions that under 200 confirmations? on: September 23, 2018, 06:47:36 AM
the  "<- important point" in my last post

the optimisation bug. was that it does not check for duplicate inputs in the initial 'optimised check' of a block. but does check when the node thinks its download new block sequence is done and can rest for a few moments.

so there is a gap in time where a transaction can reuse a input of funds of say xbtc hundreds of times in a block and it show as confirmed at the first important point. but rejected at the second important point

usually all of this happens in a few seconds. but some people may have systems inplace that if they see something have a confirm. that instant they authorise some goods to be delivered or a service to be honours.

 
1750  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A possibility to reverse bitcoin transactions that under 200 confirmations? on: September 23, 2018, 06:36:35 AM
But the headline says that this exploit is already in the system since before and devs js just hiding it,  sort of.  Is that true?

the exploit has existed since the blockstream devs re-wrote the bitcoin codebase to be including certain features and what they believed were certain optimisations (from 0.14.x)
bitcoin nodes that did not include those certain features are immune automatically from having themselves become victim of becoming DDosed.

but while nodes that are immune wont get DDoSed by a malicious block. the network, while it continues to have a mix of vulnerable nodes could see a chain of blocks broadcast to it containing the malicious block and see it get rejected and cause havok with transaction confirmations

EG
imagine a chain of 5 blocks
block height X12347
block height X12346
block height X12345
block height X12344
block height X12343

imagine x12343 was a malicious block exploiting the bug
the network of immune nodes reject it. and accept a different pools y12343
there are now 2 block height of 12343  (x and y)

the immune nodes add a clean y12344 to their clean y12343 and life goes on. y..5 y..6
but behind the scenes the malicious pool adds on a x..4 of their own to their bad x..3.. and then a x..5 and then a x..6

now imagine that the malicious pool gets to add on a x..7 before the clean pools win the block creation race
the malicious node announces they are the winner. broadcasts its CLEAN x...7 and all nodes see its good.

the immune nodes then because this winner has differing y..6 y..5 y..4 y..3 request the 4 differeing blocks the immune nodes dont have.
and optimised check x..3 is good. keep it and delete their y..3 <- important point. ill explain in next post
and optimised check x..4 is good. keep it and delete their y..4
and optimised check x..5 is good. keep it and delete their y..5
and optimised check x..6 is good. keep it and delete their y..6
and optimised check x..7 is good. keep it.. now all caught up

so now they have seen transactions in Y that had upto 7 confirms that are now gone
and now can see transactions in X that have upto 7 confirmations suddenly show as confirmed

now the immune node thinks it has caught up, it can regenerate a new set of the confirmed transactions which requires a full check of the blocks (unoptimised)
and bam.. x..3 is show to be bad.     <- important point. ill explain in next post
meaning x..4 5 6 7 are also bad.
suddenly the x blocks are rejected and the transactions are unconfirmed.

and the immune nodes ban any conversation with nodes broadcasting a x chain.
the immune nodes then rebuild the y chain. and suddenly the transactions in the y chain re appear as confirmed again.

...
this game can continue every new block the x pool wins the fastest block race. of making confirms disappear and reappear. until the entire network either
a. outpaces the x pool to never win a block again
b. the entire network bans communication with vulnerable nodes broadcasting x (causing a altcoin fork)
c. there are no more nodes or pools that accept/create/rebroadcast x blocks

which is a case where a solution is usually found and implemented within 200confirms, as having x continually disrupt and causing a headache of rejections wont get tolerated

in simple terms
if some people keep gifting you the same crappy (10min)birthday present, within 200 birthdays you will stop inviting them to your party(option b)
1751  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A possibility to reverse bitcoin transactions that under 200 confirmations? on: September 23, 2018, 05:49:07 AM
some nodes have a checkpoint of 200 confirms that lock a chains state as immutible. meaning anything less than 200 confirms if something was off about that block is able to be rejected and its subsequent blocks of that 'iffy' chain can be rejected.

many people state this bug is 'fixed' for the network. however. the real wording is that a vaccine has been provided for the vulnerable (nodes based on core 0.14.x-0.16.2 code) and it still requires everyone who is not already immune via having a diversified codebase (not core 0.14.x-0.16.2) to upgrade, so that there are no more (core 0.14.x-0.16.2) vulnerable nodes left on the network

until the point of which the network has removed the vulnerable nodes, there is still some risk. especially for those running such

many people also think that the mining reward is a defense in itself to not try it. however trying to assume that miners wont do something because of a 12.5 reward is flawed.

there are over 20 pools and only 1 pool gets the 12.5btc every ~10 minutes.
the other pools still mine blocks knowing that its not a guaranteed outcome of every pool wins. but a fight.
they still mine anyway.

knowing on average across the network its a 95% chance they can make a block, work on it and not get 12.5 anyway. every 10 minutes they continue working anyway. so a malicious pool could take the risk... because they are used to not always getting 12.5btc every 10 minutes anyway.. thus its not really a loss if they dont get it. they will just try it, and worry about getting income in later blocks
1752  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin prediction on: September 23, 2018, 05:15:52 AM
...
At the beginning of 2018, the price of Bitcoin has been marked by fairly competitive volatility. Both from the price factually and from the predictions of speculators. Since the price of Bitcoin has soared, many ads filled various pages. Even Google has removed some advertisements related to cryptocurrencies. But in contrast to the end of the year that will return to soaring as in previous years, just wait for how the real development will indeed occur or not, this is all just a prediction

and all you have done is predict the PRICE waves will go up and down.. not much of a prediction...

but ignored my content completely at looking at the bottom line growth of a sustainable rise of value.
each day i can easily write ' i predict this week the price will go up and down due to.." and i would be right, but who cares

the ups and downs are meaningless prediction goals. whats important is the bottomline value that the community refuse to go below. as thats the line we all can stand above and take advantage of.

as for the ups. only less than 1% are online/fast enough to take advantage of the tips of the mountain(ATH). so why even concentrate on the ATH tip that we all will not gain from. but all can gain from standing at the bottom and riding the waves and let the bottom grow taking us along with it constantly.

yes enjoy the waves and profit from the waves. but just dont concentrate on waiting for the next tsunami, because when it hits, 99%+ would have missed the chance to ride it, or fellioff due to a wrong move
1753  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Released on: September 23, 2018, 05:02:37 AM
firstly some do not wish to protect and defend the network, some only wishes to protect a team of developers
i find it funny in that regard as the proof is clear when you look at some attitudes about the assert ddos bug of yesteryear compared to the block ddos assert bug this year.

neither of which did some sound like network defending arguments.. but sounded like arguments to why some want to hug a core dev and smother them with affection

one day, its been 3 years so far some will learn about the the network concepts of consensus and decentralisation that have become lost, and hopefully learn that when devs retire the network should live on and that caring about a certain dev is a meaningless pursuit as it does not help the network

if people cared for the network more than a certain dev. they too would actually want
diversified codebases in consensus and decentralised
instead of a
monarchy 'reference' codebase and distribution.
as the two concepts are vastly different


but hey. some has a long way to go yet. and many have tried reminding them to learn about the network and code protocols but stil see some only reply protecting developers


*i removed names in replacement for 'some' to avoid the auto reply of the ad-hom buzzword, of which has been a over utilised defensive argument to avoid addressing the content about caring for the network more than a developer point of my post. if anyone feels that 'some' equals them. than do not reply just realise that they have just confirmed to themselves that they care more about a developer than the network and thus no point trying to reply to sway that argument. as replying is just confirming it more. i also greyed out this statement to ensure some really concentrate on the care of the network content of which we should all want diverse codebases instead of a monarchy codebase. rather than have some reply only to rply with persona attack defense posts that distract the point about the network
1754  Other / Meta / Re: Will the Quality Post Really Get Merit? on: September 22, 2018, 06:54:16 PM
if the poster is just
plagiarising someone else, no
just repeating something thats been common knowledge for years, no
just saying something they have an opinion on, no

but if its something notable. like something that makes people feel like they just been hit by a wisdom stick.. then yea it can be worth a merit.

but then.. its like youtube. number of views does not always equal number of likes/ subs/ shares.
and you will find begging for merits actually counter acts getting them. so dont expect a merit per view even with a well wrote wisdom giving post
1755  Economy / Speculation / Re: Predictions if Bitcoin ETFs are approved on: September 22, 2018, 05:58:43 PM
as avikz hints with the physical ETF, expect a spike.

but to know the impact/magnitude. you need to first find the details.

unless you can look at the details of a ETF proposal to know how many coins its trust currently holds, how many shares it equates to.. to estimate how fast all them shares will get sold before the trust needs to buy another basket of btc to offer more shares... you have no way of even estimating
you just end up throwing a bunch of numbers in the air like confetti and just grabbing a random number.

it might be best for people to research

EG
take the winklevoss.. i remember years ago they had 200k coins in trust (1.2bill value today)

now imagine that of 320m americans only 32m customers of a certain investment company wanted to 10% diversify their investment

Quote
According to the research, the average retirement savings for families aged 50 to 55 is $124,831. For families aged 56 to 61, it's $163,577.
..
Americans in the early 40s have a median of just over $67,000,


lets call it 100k average .. so $10k is diversified for btc etf per person
.. thats $320,000,000,000 (320billion)

ok lets say only 1% diversified as BTC.. thats 32billion

ok so we know that if only 10% of a population (lowball)
and they only invest 1% of their funds into btc (lowball)

the amount of funds looking to buy a bitcoin ETF share is 26x more than the winkles currently have
screw it lts low ball it again. lets say its a 0.1% diversification into btc.

thats still 2.6x more demand than the winkles can offer. so the winkles will need to grab up another more than 300k coins just to meet the lowball demand of 32million retirement portfolios looking for 0.1% holding
1756  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Bitcoiner's Life with bear market and market price volatility discussion. on: September 22, 2018, 05:25:29 PM
alot of people think when a bear appears in open farmland it scares away the farmers bulls.
when the truth is the bulls charge at the bears and scares the bears back up the hill into the mountains

its why you dont see bears often in the open fields

so if you see a bear in your field. dont sell your bulls in fears. instead buy more bulls to protect and sustain your field

too many people are stupid and sell their bulls too young and to cheap and then buy lambos to make it look like they made profit
downside is the lambo ends up costing them more up the road and they have no more bulls to sell to cover the costs
1757  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hello BCH: 2.26 MB & we keep 1MB on: September 22, 2018, 04:11:39 PM
now here is something to think about thats not anal about math or techno jargon.
so it easy to think about.


but please without anyone wearing the core team fan defence cap
and with instead the bitcoin network innovation hat (and i dont mean separate networks like merge mined coins, side chains or second layer services wanting bitcoin fame)

think about this

Hmmm....this is really great

How sweet could it be if it will be and continue like this.
Yesterday i wanted to send 200$ to my trading wallet and i saw just 0.27$ as the transaction fee.

Unbelievable!!!

when the fee wars began in 2014-2015 people were hating that fee's were approaching 10cents. developers promised a solution to scaling that would allow more transactions than the average 2000 transactions and a mechanism to bring fee's back to a level of only a couple cents at worse

role on 3-4 years later
and we see this topics OP celebrating that27cents is great value (facepalm)
and another topics OP celebrating that a block is 2.27mb but only holds 230..

WTF has happened to the community.
seems many have lost their marbles

reference to other topic
Did you know that we were able to achieve 2.26MB block size
Thanks, #segwit.
Hash: 00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab

if someone gave you a banana that could only give 2000 nibbles of nutrition and it cost 10 cents per nibble, which used to only cost under 1cent per nibble before a GMO messed with the delivery pricing structure

and a GMO company said it would take a couple years but we can give more nibbles per banana and delivery would be less..

would you after 2-3 years when presented with a segnana which is physically bigger but offers less nibbles per mouthful
and now costs 27cents for each nibble. and then handed a glossy leaflet for a LemoN that is segnana nutrient compatible as well as LeTtuCe nutrient compatible that promises to do more, but will take a further few years

would you still celebrate the GMO's on their initial promises?
1758  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Recently reduced transaction fee on: September 22, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
Hmmm....this is really great

How sweet could it be if it will be and continue like this.
Yesterday i wanted to send 200$ to my trading wallet and i saw just 0.27$ as the transaction fee.

Unbelievable!!!

when the fee wars began in 2014-2015 people were hating that fee's were approaching 10cents. developers promised a solution to scaling that would allow more transactions than the average 2000 transactions and a mechanism to bring fee's back to a level of only a couple cents at worse

role on 3-4 years later
and we see this topics OP celebrating that27cents is great value (facepalm)
and another topics OP celebrating that a block is 2.27mb but only holds 230..

WTF has happened to the community.
seems many have lost their marbles

reference to other topic
Did you know that we were able to achieve 2.26MB block size
Thanks, #segwit.
Hash: 00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000021868c2cefc52a480d173c849412fe81c4e5ab806f94ab
1759  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Crypto-Community Debates Bitcoin Core Bug and a ‘Forced Upgrade’ on: September 22, 2018, 03:20:48 PM
problem
core + distribution NOT = decentralised consensus
solution
diverse variations + distribution = decentralisated consensus

in short core being the "reference". the "core" the "center" the "main" the "only" is the fault

we ned to get back to diverse code bases of different teams all working to consensus and using consensus as is meant to be used, its been less than 18 months and already core devs have screamed that people need to "mandatory upgrade or else" twice

core fans believes in apartheid distribution (dont like it get off the network)
true bitcoiners believe in diverse decentralisation(all are welcome to move freely)

the two concepts are different

P,S
84,000 is their defence that it will never happen?
..
i laugh.
pools do not get 84,000 for every 10 minutes of work they do

there are 20+ pools ALWAYS working non stop. they all do not get 12.5btc every 10 minutes only 1 pool per 10 minutes gets 12.5

meaning 19 other pools attempt to create blocks but dont get a reward.
so there are 19 pools that know that there is more then a 95% chance they wont get a reward for their efforts anyway but they still try making blocks.
so there is a 95% chance that a pool could say "F**K it im not getting a reward anyway, lets remote DDoS core nodes

saing $84k is a reason not to do it is not a good reason/excuse for people to relax. because 95% of pools do not get $84k for 10 minutes of work anyway. but they still work
1760  Economy / Speculation / Re: Billionaire Tim Draper Stands By Bullish $250,000 Bitcoin Price Target For 2022 on: September 22, 2018, 06:12:05 AM
3 years hmm

$6k to $250k.. hmm

math time
if bitcoin is to stay at $6 this year
it only needs to *3.46681 each year
end of 2018 $6000
end of 2019 $20800.86
end of 2020 $72112.63
end of 2021 $250000.79

i think a ~3.466x price increase is normal, healthy and achievable after all if we done the same number historically
EG
lets take a conservative low of 2012 of just $3.50 and then yearly *3.466 it
2021: $252,653.36
2020: $72,894.79
2019: $21,031.39

2018: $6,067.91
2017: $1,750.70
2016: $505.11
2015: $145.73
2014: $42.05
2013: $12.13
2012: $3.50

seems to play out alright (ignoring the volitile wobbles of a few ATH and just thinking of the lows of the years.)
so id say its a healthy estimate for a sustainable LOW value increase
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 ... 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!