you have admitted you cant read c++
How much C++ have you contributed to Bitcoin? Oh yeah, zero. more then you think and can ever know. compared to your spell check just for name glory sake. you have admitted your attention span cant go beyond a few paragraphs
This is a lie. I have stated that I do not want to read your mumbo jumbo walls of text riddled with false information. lol goodluck in life. you would do well in a career at fox news many many times i have SHOWN you quotes from your own clan leaders who have shown how things actually work. and i have even highlighted parts of links which you fail to read beyond the first few paragraphs to grasp the whole thing.
No. yep the segwit users guide. you only read it partially. your only fooling yourself because the flaws in your utopia are:
1. everyones funds are on native keys now. so stopping the acceptance of native key use is literally killing fungibility and also making the 16mill coins on 46mill native utxo's useless and unspendable
2. the fee is less with segwit. and also it adds more processing time of having to create the 2 area blocks and then having to strip the 2 area blocks into 1 to filter down to native implementations. thus not giving pools any advantage to only accepting segwit tx's.
There is a difference between native -> native, native -> Segwit, Segwit -> Segwit. This you would know if you, if you understood Bitcoin, but you don't (or are paid not to). Prioritizing one thing != stop accepting the other one. learn the word fungibility lauda spend less time sucking up, and more time researching. learning. |
|
|
|
the "weight" is meaningless.
False. It is very much important. even you grabbed some "hopeful" maths from your clan claiming 2.1mb is the hopeful expectation meaning the 4mb weight is meaningless number to quote. yes its a number thats wrote in code. but its utility is in question I am not the one who needs waking up. Your understanding of Bitcoin is severely flawed, almost at an level that is irreparable.
you have admitted you cant read c++ you have admitted your attention span cant go beyond a few paragraphs many many times i have SHOWN you quotes from your own clan leaders who have shown how things actually work. and i have even highlighted parts of links which you fail to read beyond the first few paragraphs to grasp the whole thing. you love the 30 second sales pitches but you do not do the research to understand the reality beyond the sales pitch. you have had so much time to grasp it. i am really laughing though. if you think that pools are going to: 1. stop accepting native tx's 2. only accept segwit tx's your only fooling yourself because the flaws in your utopia are: 1. everyones funds are on native keys now. so stopping the acceptance of native key use is literally killing fungibility and also making the 16mill coins on 46mill native utxo's useless and unspendable 2. the fee is less with segwit. and also it adds more processing time of having to create the 2 area blocks and then having to strip the 2 area blocks into 1 to filter down to native implementations. thus not giving pools any advantage to only accepting segwit tx's. oh and do you think spam cannot happen using segwit keys. it can. even carlton realises this |
|
|
|
Segwit is the compromise. A lot of people fail to understand this. The claims that Segwit is "too little, too late" et. al. are complete nonsense. There is no data backing up the need for 2x TX capacity or more right here right now. Compromise between what?
People that actually want to scale bitcoin (like the plan was the whole time)
vs people that want to force everyone off the main chain?
Compromise for increasing on-chain TPS. Correction: People who actually want Bitcoin to become Paypal 2.0 (e.g. you, Roger Ver, Andrew Stone, Peter R. Charlatan) vs. people who want a robust, decentralized and uncensored network. What if the Core developers make a compromise of having dynamic block sizes but with a limit of up to 4mb and have Segwit activated at the same time?
So what are you saying, 4 MB base and 16 MB weight? Good luck with that-  seriously lauda the "weight" is meaningless. its there only for the segwit wannabe's not the native transaction users the funny part is core have made it 4x more generous to SPAMMERs to spam the 1mb base. but done NOTHING to fix the spam. the only people that will use segwit are those that want to disarm themselves. but then they will realise they are fighting spammers who have more attack vectors to exploit and also their own volunteers trying to move 40+mill outputs just for the HOPE of ~2mb. WAKE THE HELL UP!!!! its been a year and you have yet to show you have learned a damned thing |
|
|
|
Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks?
by not being so generous with the txsigop limit can discourage it by having more space in the base block so that it takes more effort can discourage it by even inventing a new priority mechanism thats not just a rich vs poor preference but a real bloat +young age costly thing.. can discourage it. but core have not increased base block. but core have not reduced txsigop limit, infact they increased it to be absurdly more generous to spammers and core have removed any kind of priority barrier even funnier. core say the onchain fee is good for pools. even though pools dont really 'need' it this decade. but at the same time discounted it as a way to tempt people to use segwit. thus not really offering more 'bonus' to pools due to a discount. and not really offering a real discount by pre-emptively increasing the fee's 10-100x the cost of 2015 |
|
|
|
of course , because it will be more expensive as we discussed earlier.
Right. Let me divert the topic a little. Who do you think is spamming the network and for whose best interest is he acting? All we see are cries of "Oh someone is spamming and flooding the mempool" but there is no mention of who or what group is doing this. In theory it could be someone who has a commitment to Bitcoin Unlimited but I do not want to go there and be biased. That is why I am asking you. looking at the dates of when the most spam spikes are june/july 2016 and then a long constant go at it from october onwards.. it appears obvious that anyone offering something from those particular dates that want to sway people into thinking their features are needed to remedy the spam would benefit from creating spam to then point out that something needs to be done. https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1yearjune/july 2016 = core CSV october+ = segwit |
|
|
|
Anyone that reads the LN Whitepaper , can see stealing BTC from LN, requires nothing more than evading their time locks.
So you know , you can shove your No where the sun don't shine.
there are a few techniques even i wouldnt risk more then $60 and definitely not with someone i didnt trust. and even then i wouldnt be comfortable to me its just a side service. not something that should be treated as bitcoin. just a side service.. like escrow segwit on the other hand. now that is a think of empty gestures and a shambles of code just made to set up a tier network and delay real onchain growth to try to push people into thinking LN is the end goal... .... right up until the point that people use LN and then realise its limitations and then transfer out to sidechains(altcoins) |
|
|
|
.. it's pretty awesome. ( Come on Franky.. even you must be a little impressed..?)
..
( Just thinking about Vegas, and all those casinos.. )
never had issues with LN.. AS A VOLUNTARTY SIDE SERVICE but i also see passed the utopia |
|
|
|
2in 2 out... not that heavy
With LN, in order to open a channel, a minimum of two inputs will need to be signed, however LN gives incentives to open many channels, channel is 2in 2 out.. many channels = many 2in 2 out transactions. many channels does not mean 2channels = 1x with 4 in 4 out 4channels = 1x with 8 in 8 out it means 2channels = 2x 2in 2 out 4channels = 4x 2in 2 out |
|
|
|
LOL, 21 btc. That's what most of the old time miners earned their first few days or week of mining. There's a ton of people around here that have a lot more than 21 coins.
shhh, or the sigspammers earning pennies a month will get jealous and start plotting |
|
|
|
|
id suggest vote. but dont admit to such in comments or your messages inbox will get spammed with lots of people wanting to be your best friend and offering you links to go visit
|
|
|
|
real funny part core use the quadratics scare as a reason not to do it.. here is the thing. a tx with ~4000 sigops. take 10 seconds a tx with >20000 sigops takes 10 minutes. https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522This Block Isn’t The Worst Case (For An Optimized Implementation)
As I said above, the amount we have to hash is about 6k; if a transaction has larger outputs, that number changes. We can fit in fewer inputs though. A simple simulation shows the worst case for 1MB transaction has 3300 inputs, and 406000 byte output(s): simply doing the hashing for input signatures takes about 10.9 seconds. That’s only about two or three times faster than the bitcoind naive implementation.
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. If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not. But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming… now the funny part core v0.12 maxtxsigops 4000 core v0.14 maxtxsigops 16000 ... (facepalm) easy fix consensus.h maxblockhardlimit= 8000000 bytespolicy.h (dynamic adjustable preference) maxblocksoftlimit=2000000 bytesmaxtxsigops 2000 sigops |
|
|
|
bitcoin unlimed has been around for 2 years. no deadlines no threats no obligatory forced mandatory activation, no PoW nukes..
just an open option for people to choose.
oh and there are a dozen implementations. give it a month or so and blockstream will find another diverse decentralised group to REKT
"Obligatory forced mandatory activation" damn that's a lot of synonyms. The PoW nuke is not going to happen, it's just an extreme scenario in which there was no viable solution. BU would be issuing these threats and more if they weren't acting all nice because they're not the current development team. funny part is. if BU did implement the 'anti-replay' feature core is demanding BU do... core would then start calling it an attack. much like core demanded diverse nodes bilateral split ages ago, which the diverse nodes refused.. then core screams bilateral splits are bad then core screamed bu have to bilateral split. then core screamed if bu bilateral split it is a dictatorship then core screamed that core all along had code to bilateral split and core would initiate a bilateral split if BU become popular... hypocrisy is funny |
|
|
|
The Lightning Network is in early days and is a good concept. Fortunately, it's not the whole of Core's solution and is not SegWit. Unfortunately, BUgcoin actually is the whole solution.
lol care to try reading beyond reddit.. you might learn more |
|
|
|
Is there any real case of double spending in LN so far?
No. Ignore the fear mongering. If there are certain risks, they will be clearly explained and publicly known. there are risks the address re-use signing (sideattack) risk the blackmail to invoke a revoke (chargeback fraud) the risk that the close LN tx wont confirm(ONCHAIN fee locked into the values hours,days,weeks, before its ever broadcast) the particiants of a multihop dont broadcast in the right order causing a few revokes. hense those using LN are told to only use around ~$60 just to be safe. remember its not a lock in forever utility for everyone to throw their entire hoards in. and no one can predict what they will want to buy months in advance so expect more channel closing and openings than the utopian sales pitch forget the utopian sales pitch of LN forever onchain never. and think LN voluntary side service. bitcoin forever |
|
|
|
P.S they were invited to attend t reach an agreement. and signing to agree on something. then they need to DO it.
They don't need to do anything considering that 1 party broke the agreement. Luke-jr ended up creating a HF proposal on his own. 1 party: yep luke did (in february. f2pool then went back to classic mining in march due to the agreement already being broke) and lukes HF proposal was not a fair one that would have got consensus approval. he intentionally made a screwy one to poke the bear and just be an empty gesture. its like asking a car mechanic to service a car. and the mechanic then proclaimes he is just the oil changer. so he goes and changes the oil by putting vegetable cooking oil into the car and saying he did his job by 'changing the oil' lauda.. stop defending core.. start thinking about bitcoin as a whole. |
|
|
|
Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU?
Because there's no need for a fee market right now...maybe in a few decades, because right now miners get the block reward (12.5 BTC). And its not even clear if fees would be bigger with small blocks anyway, because small blocks limit growth and limit the number of users paying fees. So it makes the most sense not to worry about fees right now, and instead just focus on letting the network grow. Hmm, Currently Miners receive ~$1000 in transaction fees alone per block. So that is almost like they are receiving an extra BTC per block, with no extra effort required on their part. its more of a mindset of 'if you do cretain things you can have a 8% bonus' yes they will try to get the bonus. but its not treated as basic income. the flip between the reward:fee becoming bonus:income, wont happen for decades |
|
|
|
Most of the miners are in China .
Price is Very Cheaper ( Manpower, Electricity, Goods, Etc... ) and they have Universal Marketing, and also the mining hardware companies are domiciled in China.
More and More Incomes and Sources in china.BTC
^this guy forgets about georgia,mongolia, etc and other countries^ take slushpool china ~8peta europe ~80peta america ~115peta https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc |
|
|
|
even if the code is modified it need to be run by the miners/node users else, and miners/node users else don't run bitcoin code that are node checked first
FTFY however core are using a backdoor exploit to bypass the node consensus by having their codebase only need a pool to creat a block and then 'filter/strip' the data down to resemble something that is then compatible with other diverse nodes, without allowing those nodes to independantly and fully verify the altered transaction type. there is no way someone could silently change something without none noticed it, because everything is open source for a reason...besides that if you run a modified code without consensus, you are effectively running an altcoin
FTFY if it runs on bitcoins mainnet and accepts bitcoin native keypairs its not an altcoin. its just not sanctioned by the centralist core grew managed by gmaxwell. however core are using a backdoor exploit to bypass the node consensus by having their codebase only need a pool to creat a block and then 'filter/strip' the data down to resemble something that is then compatible with other diverse nodes, without allowing those nodes to independantly and fully verify the altered transaction type. usually they say that bitcoin is centralized, when referring to the mining aspect, because almost all miners are chinese big farm
this is statistically challengable. the 'china' rhetoric is just social politics played on the lazy crowd who dont check sources. for instance slushpool has been characterised as 'chinese' yet the pool is managed in thailand, stratum servers in different countrys and most of the hashpower is in europe/america https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc
to OP. to answer your question. by people believing that CORE* should be the sole implementation of bitcoin.. they are admitting they have been brainwashed into thinking bitcoin centralisation is a good thing. *(not available prior 2012, managed by blockstream incorporated 2014) an open diverse independent decentralised international PEER network is much better than the core at the top of a TIER network. its that simple |
|
|
|
now to answer the OP's question there are over a dozen implementations that are all running on bitcoins network for years. this is called a PEER network where there shouldnt be any powerhouse. bu and other independant implmentations set no deadlines made no threats, just plodded along letting people have a free choice but blockstream(core) have tried REKT campaigning any implementation that is not sanctioned by gmaxwell and his employees/unpaid spellchecker interns. trying to call BU an altcoin even while its been running on bitcoin for years. yet segwit started as an altcoin (blockstream elements) is hypocritical. especially when segwit hasnt even made a segwit block or transaction on bitcoins network. the hypocrisy is loud. calling BU or any other implementation 'centralisation' attempts is also hypocritical especially when core are not independant due to REKTing anyone who makes an implementation independantly away from core. the hypocrisy is loud. calling BU or any other implementation a china coin by suggesting it gives miners the sole power is also hypocritical.. it was CORE that decided to go against node consensus(hard).. because core intentionally decided to give pools the only vote by going soft the hypocrisy is loud. calling it "china" and being racist. is just the power play on the social sheep that are easily swayed by social politics(aka foxnew /reddit croud). the funny thing is statistically china do not have power. most of the pools management is actually done outside of 'china' though they have a chinese website. their stratum servers their ware houses and management are spread out. EG slush(deemed as chinese) is managed in thailand and most hash powr is in europe and america https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc |
|
|
|
the agreement was broke in hours due to luke jr himself backing out of what he signed by pretending he is powerless
Incorrect. The agreement was not properly described by the media and was quickly revised ever after. A lot of the time spent in it was luke-jr and the others explaining to the miners what they could or couldn't do. lauda you really need to stop defending blockstream(core) and start thinking about bitcoin as a whole.
As soon as you stop accepting payment for your posts. i dont get paid for this. but i do like that you were "staff" and now reliant on sig-spam income.. most revealing P.S they were invited to attend t reach an agreement. and signing to agree on something. then they need to DO it. if they cannot do something they shouldnt have been part of it and shouldnt have signed it and instead just ask their janitor and window cleaner turn up(effectively). ps F2pool didnt do crap the night it was broke. f2pool done stuff long after it was broke, afterall why even bother abiding by a broke agreement thats broke |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
