17421
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the split and when?
|
on: March 18, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
|
what people forget is.. making 2 different chains/coins. may not actually happen. With supporters on both blockchains, it is likely that both would be kept alive, making the schism in the Bitcoin community official. likely but not guaranteed. if a majority goes one way. the minority then have many struggles. EG will exchanges accept it. will scrpt kiddies do replay attacks by copy/pasting unconfirms from one side to the other to cause disruption. will spammers intentionally bloat a minority so that along with having less haspower (delayed blocks) the minority coin then has many more tx's it has to deal with causing delays. plus numerous other attacks on the minority. also. the whole 'naming it BTU' has ben exaggerated too. As exchanges, we have a responsibility to maintain orderly markets that trade continuously 24/7/365. It is incumbent upon us to support a coherent, orderly and industry-wide approach to preparing for and responding to a contentious hard fork.
in a CONSENSUS event the majority is then BTC and the minority is named something else. thus if dynamic blocks got consensus majority. segwit, the minority becomes SWCoin. and the majority is simply named bitcoin. it is already known that all the dynamic proposals wont do anything controversial. even when segwit devotee's have begged and pleaded them to split away. in the couple years of these non-segwit teams running on the main net. they have not done a controversial split, not gave any timescales or demands to do one either. they want consensus. and if they dont gt it. then that to is still consensus of not wanting it. thus they actually are following bitcoins ethos for change. by adhering to consensus by not rocking the boat. once you look passed the scripted rhetoric of controversial splits. you soon learn it is core demanding it and core with all the banning/orphaning tools to cause it. but core have to be on the losing side(minority) to trigger it. so dont be fooled into thinking 2 chains is a guarantee. the dynamic node users may just leave their settings at 1mb and just be second tier downstream nodes of the same network as segwit. meaning no split.
|
|
|
17422
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness
|
on: March 18, 2017, 05:26:33 PM
|
but BU have also its bad side, it's not about what part has no problems, it's about what part has the less bad problems, and BU is worse than segwit, and with i'm not saying that seg wit has no flaw, but BU has more, i think this what he mean
lol. you do know why something deemed "backward compatible" is not simply activated instantly. after all if really backward compatible. its just as valid now as ever right... (but read the small print and you see the holes) you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away... you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after. you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes. not only that but the sigop quadratic spamming is not solved due to it not stopping native tx's the malleability is not solved because it does not stop native tx's the tx count wont reach expectations because it does not stop native tx's once you look passed the scripted half promises. and look at how it works.. you see the promises are empty. you also start to see new attack methods aswell as the old ones that still exist. also. litecoin transactions have been fully running and used for 6 years. all tested by thousands of people.. .. but introduce them onto bitcoins mainnet. no one knows what will happen. and segwit transactions are the same 'many tests and been running on alternative networks for x month' but never on bitcoins mainnet.. (some attacks have been highlighted. even i highlighted the main one last year, which led to the whole ordeal of not releasing the segwit key wallet until way after activation. but even then there are still attack vectors that can and will happen with segwit tx's and native nodes after activation). hint: though segwit nodes mess with ban lists and not auto relaying unconfirms to native nodes.. some script kiddie can manually copy the segwit mempool and push segwit unconfirms into their native nodes mempool and have a nice play around.
|
|
|
17423
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness
|
on: March 18, 2017, 05:05:16 PM
|
SegWit isn't the final solution to scaling Bitcoin. It's a small one time capacity increase, but it also fixes a bug that will allow for easier scaling in the future.
i see you have read the failed script. i dare you to actually explain the fix lol hint: you have to explain how it cannot be countermanded or used as a new attack method itself ... i expect silence or lack of knowledge and just another paste of a salespitch of empty promise
|
|
|
17424
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)
|
on: March 18, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
|
AD (Acceptance Deepth): BitcoinEC set it always to infinite, so your node can not automatically fall back to bigger blocks than your EB setting. But the BitcoinEC going to monitor where the longest proof of work (PoW) chain is and providing a warning when your not following longest PoW chain anymore because of your low EB setting.
Personally I see it step in the right direction as well.
https://bitcoinec.info/Will you also have an AD(Accept Depth) parameter like Bitcoin Unlimited?
Instead of Accept Depth we will implement a warning system to alert users if they are not on the longest chain. Implementing AD in the way BU has done appears to be fairly complicated and hard to do correctly, a warning system is simple since we only need the block headers for that.
i still think that non-pool nodes should really utilise policy.H more.. EG Consensus.h node hardwarelimit = something set by the nodes performing its own speed test of what it is physically capable of for example 8mb then policy.h is the PREFERED size the network should work with. EG 1mb today and maybe 2mb on activation day. whereby pools see all the policy.h (prefered) in the node useragents. and pools then set their own policy.h just below what the majority of nodes prefer. EG 0.999 today and 1.000250 day of activation. and pools then test the water of orphan risk and other unforseen bugs and increment up to 1.999 before the 'majority/minority' preferences kick in thus a minority would accept the block but have their policy.h altered by warning system
|
|
|
17425
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)
|
on: March 18, 2017, 03:46:29 PM
|
That version didn't gather much support if any. Bitcoin scales very inefficiently on the first layer, that's why it requires a secondary layer.
This is why I propose to use BOTH SegWit and Adaptive Block Size (Bitcoin ABS? XD ) I think only the following client implementations make sense for *compromise*, *consensus* or whatever: Core: Segwit Bitpay: SegWit + Adapative Block size - although I don't know how resistant it is to being gamed. BitcoinEC: SegWit + Emergent Consensus - Already *praised* by ViaBTC (see here: https://twitter.com/ViaBTC/status/842748341767290880) [1]. bitcoinEC.. lets just see hmm i wonder.. yep another DCG portfolio oh look bitcoinec maintained by blocktracker.... https://keybase.io/blocktracker/ oh Barry silbert.. of DCG sems to be a follower (edit: now not) let me guess lauda is ok with.. core (->blockstream ->DCG) KNots? (luke JR->blockstream ->DCG) bitcoinEC(silbert->DCG) i find it funny how lauda shouts loudly in favour of all these DCG portfolio corporations/teams. yet hasnt read the lines of code yet of any implementation though bitcoinEC is a 'in concept' a step in the right direction wise to move bitcoin forward. by having dynamics. im shocked at the ones jumping in advocating it without peer reviewing first
|
|
|
17426
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)
|
on: March 18, 2017, 03:38:46 PM
|
load of waffle about ifs and maybes of a centralised network.. blah blah
bitcoin needs to remain decentralised. multiple pools. and also the NODES killing off blocks it doesnt like. that way the pools are not just reliant on each other but the nodes too. if we start going down the rabbit hole of one codebase of nodes then one pool then we might aswell just be using fiat. bitcoin is different and revolutionary due to diversity where there is not nor should not be any point of failure or control. EG if one pool drops off the other pools continue. if one codebase has a bug the others continue while the issues are being sorted by those affected. consensus is the mechanism that self regulates the network by majority consent . as long as the majority is not a sybil/shill corporate party, all running the exact same thing(making bitcoin weaker).. but instead diverse independent consensus. then bitcoins revolution can continue. and bitcoin becomes stronger. core wanting to split the network or baiting and switching to falsely state all non-core will do it. where by what core have left is their software and using BTCC & slush (their DCG partners) as pools. is centralisation.. it wont matter how good or bad the code is.. by being all part of the DCG portfolio. bitcoin loses its ethos of being revolutionary and will just turn into something like paypal/banking system. bitcoin should rise above the greed of the banking sector corporate control and stick with consensus by independent diverse community.
|
|
|
17427
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters
|
on: March 18, 2017, 03:14:17 PM
|
Ultimately if you are willing to support a centralised idea controlled by 2 individuals who use social engineering and fear to drive their agenda, with bad code. You need to reassess how you see the world.
oh your talking about barry silbert and adam back..
|
|
|
17428
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters
|
on: March 18, 2017, 03:01:31 PM
|
Certainly, I don't mind if someone decides to give me BUcoins for free. Whatever their price may be after the fork I'll sell them and increase my BTC stash.
knowing any dynamic proposition isnt going to activate unless majority.. leaving core to even become dynamic too or be the ones banning nodes to keep their minority alive.. your statement should also read as "Certainly, I don't mind if someone decides to give me SWcoins for free. Whatever their price may be after the fork I'll sell them and increase my BTC stash."
|
|
|
17429
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited = btcunted ???
|
on: March 18, 2017, 02:12:35 PM
|
We all know, unlimited bitcoin is not the best option, it does not really bring much effect, and currently it is causing the BTC serious price cuts. Segwit was the best and most optimal choice for bitcoin; however, it was not adopted, it was because of the greed of the miners, and again, because of their greed, they had proposed BTU, this just to satisfy their greed, I really feel aversion to them. They are greedy and selfish.
CORE gave pools the vote.. blame core for trying to skip the safe steps of real consensus. if nodes voted first. to then give pools confidence of what pools producing would get accepted. then pools would have flagged desire. but core new it couldnt reach its "fix" promises. pools and node users seen that cores promises were empty half gestures. thus no point changing to something of a complete rewrite, which requiring 100% movement of funds to new tx styles just to even attempt to disarm the issues that were 'promised'.. nowing that 100% would never be achieved was yet another failure by core. dont blame the pools. it was core that decided to sidestep the community.. the pools didnt do anything. (and thats cores problem)
|
|
|
17430
|
Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin dropping like a stone
|
on: March 18, 2017, 01:59:29 PM
|
Because of BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) Bitcoin has been dropping since more BU blocks were mined than Segwit. Then yesterday the exchanges announced a joint plan to incorporate BU. The reality of BU is causing the drop.
The market HATES BU but was fine when Segwit mined blocks were in the ascendency.
I have seen this play out in multiple crypto-currencies that push through a major change that doesn't have the support of the market.
BU has done nothing new that has not already been proposed 2 years ago. no deadlines. no agenda's no ban hammering of blocks or nodes. no intention of splitting the network. they want one single network of majority where many diverse nodes collectively continue running on the network. its actually blockstream(core) that have been vocal about causing splits and such.. but just baited the stories like they are the victims. not the perpetrators the drama recently is from these guys http://dcg.co/portfolio/ - DCG is owned by barry silbert. and the corps that received VC funding are in debt and barry wants his money back.. soooooon. here is how much he threw at them https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments
|
|
|
17432
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Welcome to the BUcoin republic of China
|
on: March 18, 2017, 01:50:25 PM
|
core want only core to be the code running the network.. (centralist control)
other brands want to have a open network of many diverse brands working together utilising consensus and keeping bitcoin diverse and decentralised
so there is bitcoin core-porate btcoreporate
and then other brands that want to keep the chain as a single mutual chain of open diversity which could be seen as bitcoin united btc unlimited (playing the childish games of making new words by removing a few letters)
|
|
|
17433
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why BU should be correctly classified as an attempted robbery of BTC, not a fork
|
on: March 18, 2017, 01:42:30 PM
|
im laughing at the article.. it actually debunks itself.. No project seems to have any history of the forkers stealing the forkee’s name nor property, no matter the circumstance. Yes, even when large amounts of funding were involved. .. Plenty of these projects felt that their parent “sold out” or “lost its way,” just like those who have lost their faith in Bitcoin’s core developers today. Did they impersonate them?
There is simply no precedence for a fork stealing it’s parents name. When they steal the parent’s marketshare or customer base, it is because they, as separate entities, out perform their parents, not pretend to be them.
There is no precedence for this attitude anywhere in the world of open source development that I can find
where does: BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin, bitcoinj, bitcoinruby, btcd, ever suggest that they are stealing "core" i have not seen any brand called core2.0... thus debunked.. bitcoin is an open project.. there have for years been many brands running on the network. so where is the proof that other brands are stealing "CORE" brand. core actually rewrote their entire codebase recently and the other brands have not followed that. thats cores problem. the other diverse brands have not followed core so you cant even claim they are stealing code. even though the code is opensource and licenced to be allowed to be used. so the "attempted theft of "core" is debunked. and then separately if you think only core "own" bitcoin.. you are fooled by the notion, by which your then pulled into the corporate agenda of core wanting dominance and centralism
|
|
|
17435
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we be aware that a Hard Fork is imminent?
|
on: March 18, 2017, 01:02:26 PM
|
they('collective of the digital Currency Exchange Industry') are just desperate blockstream is in debt to a tune of $70m-$90m, the exchanges are in debt too here is a lowdown of who they owe money to and how much https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investmentsP.S barry silbert is DCG (owns coindesk amunst others and ties to blockstream(core)) and is getting really edgy about getting his returns. so he is pushing hard to cause drama http://dcg.co/portfolio/however the real bitcoin community (ignoring the corporation dictatorship) are not pushing for a split, they want real consensus and one single consensus chain without the dev overlords calling the shots. where nodes grow based on the mutual consent of the network majority of diverse codebases. the community consensus has no deadlines and no overzealous ban hammer code to cause a controversial or bilateral split. but the corporate tribe wanting dominance are the ones that have thrown the baby out the pram, and begging the community to split up..
|
|
|
17436
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Another miserable alt BTU
|
on: March 18, 2017, 12:50:04 PM
|
I have no idea about bitcoin,
and thats why what you say next is wrong with bitcoin core, code that is so familiar to everyone. Bitcoin is so stable and evolving that we need to keep promoting it, we need to upgrade its technology, but that does not mean we have to change it completely,
have you read the code. compare cores v0.12.. to core 0.14...... then compare cores 0.12 to classic, xt, or BU.. and ask yourself which is closer to the original.. you will see that cores 'segwit' is the altcoin, total block redesign, different merkle, different tx design. a total rewrite basically try to learn about bitcoin. and spend less time with the propaganda scripts of wanting to get bitcoin in the sole hands of the corporatations funded by DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/
|
|
|
17438
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU
|
on: March 18, 2017, 12:19:18 PM
|
this can be solved quite easily. knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...
No, that won't solve things besides disabling even more use-cases. lol 20k blocksigops and 4k txsigops is already inplace since atleast v0.12... (maybe worth you reading the code once in a while)the 40k blocksigops and 4k tx sigops. allows more transactions without risking quadratics. by keeping tx's at the same lean level as acceptable today. lastly who the hell needs to have thousands of input/outputs... wait hang on. arnt you a advocate of bitcoin just being used as a settlement layer for LN.. if so, then knowing that LN is a 2in 2out 40k blocksigops and 200 txsigops more than enough for LN tx's and reducing the quadratic sigop timing to milliseconds /tx
|
|
|
17439
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU
|
on: March 18, 2017, 12:06:23 PM
|
That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.
not as bad as the leveldb exploit of 2013. oh.. and diverse nodes of different codebases mitigated the BU exploit. so the actual effect was only a few nodes went offline.. and the network carried on unhindered. now imagine if the network was core only... and core had a exploit that took core nods offline.. boom. now do you see why diversity is good
|
|
|
17440
|
Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU
|
on: March 18, 2017, 12:03:50 PM
|
this can be solved quite easily. knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all... old fear This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash. going to 2mb and having 40,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigopsmeaning someone CANNOT make 5tx of 8000sigops. but can make 10tx of 4000sigops. makes the timing 2mb: 2-8 seconds 1mb: 4-16 seconds
|
|
|
|