Bitcoin Forum
July 23, 2019, 12:32:03 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 ... 823 »
1761  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A Bitcoiner's Life with bear market and market price volatility discussion. on: September 22, 2018, 04:08:56 AM
the ATH price is a spoon
"one of the first things you need to learn, there is no spoon"  child potential, matrix 1999

never stand at the top of a mountain lookin down thinking everyone else is standing where you are living along side you

less than 1% of people were online and active to take advantage of exchanges offering upto $20k
99.9% of people never got to experience, gain from the $20k price. they never seen it. touched it..
all they can see is a history graph they seen after the supposed event occured that said it happened.

so why now care so much about something that never happened to you personally.
imagine there was no spoon

imagine the price is the matrix. it moves and changes effecting people differently. but not everyone is attached to itand interacting with it the same way.

now imagine the bottom line value. as zion. the real world
ready for the red pill?

at this present moment 65% of coin holders will not sell for less than roughly $6k
bitcoin UTXO set shows in the last 10 months where the price has been above $6k 65% of coins have moved and interacted with prices above $6k. and they are not willing to sell for less than the price they interacted with.
miners have a mining cost at or above that too. again they wont sell for less..

now imagine everyone was not standing ontop of a mountain peak that only 0.1% experienced. but everyone emptied their mind and accepted the reality of $6k bottomline wont go below value. and we all stood at $6k bottom line. looking up at the speculative illusion that is the price..

2016: always above $300 BLV
2017: always above $900 BLV
2018: always above $5800 BLV

we are in a long term bull market in zion..
but the matrix is playing games of speculation of calves(small bulls) and cubs(small bears) above ground

1762  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What would you say is Bitcoin's biggest weakness as an industry? on: September 22, 2018, 01:28:57 AM
Why transfer your change out? Why not just use the lightning wallet as a spending wallet. Transfer in and use all just transfer in and refill when needed. There isn't much pre-planning required just oh I usually spend $20 a week on coffee I'll throw $30 bucks in and when it's low just toss more in. 1tx for the 10 coffees.

a million people are not going to be directly connected to strbucks in LN. they are going to be presented with hubs a few hops away from starbucks (imagine it like cloudflare. middlemen ensuring starbucks dont get DDoSed and also where the hubs do the btc<->fiat swaps. for starbucks)

2 because people wont be directly connected and will have times where their channel partner may not be online. might have run out of funds themselves with thier channel partners. or the route doesnt work in that direction. people will need more than 1 channel to guarantee payment reaches the destination..
devs are already assuming 5 channels. (already explained that in your quote of my quote)

3 because of point 1 and 2 its not just a pay in $30.. its a pay in$30 but its split as $6 into different channels. after spending the $23 total of the other channels/routes are depleted they have to close the channel so the counterpart is made whole.
and the last channel with $6 goes offline have to either wait for them to come back on. or just broadcast the transaction to get the funds back .

too many people think that its just a have $30 and it can be pushed in any direction. to those that think that please go learn LN. learn about the copartner multisigs and go learn about lock ins. and also learn about the issues LN devs have already noticed where people do go offline. and money has to be split. and cant just jump channels like magic.

everyone dreams the utopian dream but doesnt rsearch the practical realistic limitations.

anyway ln is still just a outside network for multiple coins and not a bitcoin sole feature.
bitcoin needs to innovate and not let people obsess about side services that take utility away from bitcoin
1763  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Wall Street And Crypto: A Brief Overview on: September 21, 2018, 11:49:01 PM
institutions are waiting out the financial year.
those that bought at the wrong time are actually enjoying their positions. they can claim losses and write off some taxes(while still holding the assets).
and start the year fresh with their ETF's and be in a good position for a 2019 big rise in their shares and profits.
so they are just waiting out year end.

they have buddies in the SEC whos trying to delay and hold off the small guys from starting ETF's so that the big institutions can be the first movers and be the big names. so again waiting out year end

2019 will be the year of institutional subsidiary startups in the bitcoin ecosystem. . its just a waiting game now for them to get their eggs in a row
1764  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin prediction on: September 21, 2018, 08:36:03 PM
A high percentage of so call predictors predicted this year that bitcoin will drop to some ridiculous price like 1500$, 2000$  and so on I hope the can see that bitcoin is an established coin and stop causing panic amongst traders

dont do market trend analysis people. you wont get anywhere apart from acting lik a sheep because bots are programmed to act like sheep

instead look at real analytics of cost of acquisition (hashrate and UTXO coin-age)
since 10 months ago more than 65%(10million btc) has moved and set above a barrier of $5800 priceline
thats over 10million coins that people value at more than $5800 as thats the lowest price of that period when people got them
mining costs have been around that pricepoint too again even miners getting fresh coins would refuse to sell below their costs

a good high percentage of the community are treating the area of $6k+ as the value bottomline. and as for the rest. 18% of coins have not moved for years. and if they wanted to sell for under $6k they would have done so.
even when the prices speculated over $6k for the last 10 months. those coin holders have not took advantage of the highd of upto $20k
so its definetly more than 65% of coins that wont sell for less than $6k (or more relaxed $5800)

trend analitics of just looking at the market price to make predictions is flawed
but when you take a look at the UTXO's of coins (the unspend coins) and look at their coinage(confirmations) to see where coin holders stand against time and price. you start to see what value the community put on their coins based on the price it was when they got their coins
and same going for the costs of the freshly minted coins cost..
1765  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain on brink of bankruptcy on: September 21, 2018, 06:36:43 PM
all this news even the inews QQ is about a report done pre-june

bitmain have actually got new asics being tested. they sold off their old rigs at a pleasant discount of $850/rig
and over that period their hashrate did not go down(which would be the case of liquidising all stock)

the hashrate went up because they are now using (cough i mean QC testing new rigs) before releasing them later this year
and in june they also accumilated investors

in 2018 bitmain made 22 investments themselves into other companies
such as giving Circle $110m in May 2018

and also $14m as recently as september 10th to a company called 1000video

but here is the real funny part.
has anyone noticed BTCC..
1766  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hello BCH: 2.26 MB & we keep 1MB on: September 21, 2018, 03:04:10 PM
Probably. However, people either don't understand, either don't care or just fine with that. I am "just fine with that". I see it as a service people can use if they want to. And an useful one (when it'll work) and one that should get the overload, hence help with the scalability. I see it as a better option than another fixed block size.

i see LN as a niche service outside the bitcoin network and something that only gamblers faucet raiders and multispenders per day will benefit from.(if they ever sort out the issues)
i see it sitting in the same 'layer' as coinbase.

LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network/service and will be used by people holding multiple currencies

however LN is being promoted as "the" bitcoin feature that everyone will have to use as its "the" scaling solution and problem solver for the bitcoin network.

LN is buggy. i have informed them of many bugs and although they wont admit the source they have tweaked a few things to stop a few things.

but if you ever happen to listen into some of the hidden chatter between devs and their banking partners. and if you ever learned about the banker contract with devs from november 2016 november 2017 and its true purpose of how the bankers are to eventually make ROI of their investments (phase 1 segwit phase 2 LN) you will see a shocking roadmap of central control and deception that is turning bitcoins open community ethos of what people thought bitcoin was about in 2009. into a future banker fortknox replication of what happened to gold a century ago
in short
too many people are promoting that LN is the central network everyone will need to use. rather than a side service outside the network for those niches that may want to use it

the 1495 tx block you mentioned would only be 540kb. if segwit did not exist

Here I need a clarification: I think that you counted only bc1 addreses as SegWit, while many (me included) use 3* addresses for SegWit purpose, to avoid issues with various services that don't handle SegWit yet.
Also, I know that SegWit is not as widely used as it should be. But hey, it's only some 1 year old?
actually i was very anal
there is actually a difference between a legacy 3* multisig and a segwit 3*
and i did factor that in.

OMG saved 40kb in base but added 102kb into witness
It looks indeed like a waste, but again, you may have missed 3* addresses (which I know, may or may not be SegWit).
Also, on the bright side, it still saves space where it matters.
as i said if they were all pre segwit formats. we could fit in 60k of more transactions in and still have the same 606kb block as you shown.
again legacy segwitmix of the 606kb block = transaction size average 405byte
de-evolving the segwit transactions to their reciprical legacy format retaining input and output and signature count
= a 540kb block of same transaction numbers. = 361 byte average transaction size
which means if the (base block) was happy to hold all 606kb would result in 1678 transaction simply by devolving the segwits into legacy

think of it this way.
a FISH bowl of fish(inspired by your name)
a lgacy fish is 3.6cm long from nose to tail
segwit does not make fishes leaner to allow more fish into the bowl.
segwit cuts off the tail and puts the tails into another fishbowl. but now the tail-less fish need to be fatter to balance and able to continue swimming. so then if you reattach their tail would be 4cm long each
meaning if you looked at the 2 bowls as a whole. each fish is 4cm long because of segwit.
the deception is the glass wall making people think the tail bowl does not exist. and tails should not be counted.
but on the mantle piece the bowls sit on. the weight does matter. and both bowls do count
(but on the hard drive the 2merkles are stored on. the megabytes do matter and both merkles do count)

and when you calulate the weight on the mantle/actual mb on the hard drive vs the number of fish/transactions
the cutting the tail but bloating the fish does not = more fish

if you think its still good to celebrate the OP's title that 2.26mb only = a couple hundred transactions.. then you've missed all the issues with "2.26mb for only a couple hundred transactions".. to me thats NOT something to be proud of

I guess that we look at the bright side and you don't Smiley
In my opinion, the great thing is that we have again blocks that are not full and the fees are most of the time very low. And when LN will be ready, then I'd think to throw out a competition, since people seems love them. Until then, I know, there are plenty of altcoins that can handle more transactions per day than Bitcoin. So what? We'll get better Smiley

2.26mb for only a couple hundred transaction is a positive! ! !
im facepalming right now

as for your hope for LN. well thats the reliance of people hoping for moving their funds to then lock them into fatories and take away bitcoins ethos of a payment network. and thus destroy bitcoins revolutionary concept. and let people think the only way to pay is co-signed accounts.. (backward thinking)

remember LN is not a bitcoin feature, its a separate network. many coins will use LN. its not a sole feature of bitcoin and is not promoting bitcoin. its killing bitcoin and the propaganda of saying its part of bitcoin is purely to make LN famous while saying bitcoin is broke.

they are just pretending its a bitcoin thing to get attention on LN(aswell as investment)
1767  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hello BCH: 2.26 MB & we keep 1MB on: September 21, 2018, 02:33:21 PM
If I ignore the usual Bcash commercial that surrounds your explanation,

i am 100% a bitcoiner
the issue is too many people think CORE is bitcoin.

i dont mean cash is bitcoin.
i mean no one should be bitcoin

i am not a cash promoter, i dont spend it i dont use it i dont mine it.
i simply dislike the devs of core.

if you can separate the human devs from bitcoin core network.. because its those devs who are saying bitcoin is broke, cant scale and ln is the future. you will understand
i dislike the human core devs

but i am 100% in and devoted to the bitcoin core network

.. as we can see. the core devs are not perfect. they had a bug in the code for 2 years that not only caused the same assert() crash that they dramatised against BU last year. but the bug core devs introduced 2 years ago can actually cause EXCESS coin creation

so i say this (remember this is about the monarchistic team not the network)

can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

diversity + distribution = decentralised network
distribution alone does not = decentralisation

(expect my post to get deleted as its not core friendly)
1768  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 Released on: September 21, 2018, 02:22:28 PM
can all core fans now admit core are not perfect and diverse teams of multiple code bases all on the network as a consensual level playing field would have been beneficial than the monarchy core has became

expect drama similar to last years assert() but this time core being on the receiving end
and may core react as the opposite side of the argument of last years assert() drama last year

its time the community admit, its time to diversify the network and release core from a leadership(reference) position

diversity + distribution = decentralised network
distribution alone does not = decentralisation

(expect my post to get deleted as its not core friendly)
1769  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and Mass adoption on: September 21, 2018, 04:22:13 AM
the government approves already.
by not disapproving!!

we dont need regulations.
regulations are for businesses to monitor, police and tell and limit what customers can do with their own funds.
we dont need regulations

we need consumer protections.
which are penalties for businesses who wish to steal,, run off or pretend they were hacked. that way business owners cant easily retire with people funds.

i really wish people learned the difference between regulations and consumer protections..
but here is a short lesson..

how much help did regulations ever do during the 2007-8 crises!
banks were regulated but still screwed millions of people

regulations are not a badge of trust. its a rusty sherrifs badge of authority that allows them to police normal people but allows them to be corrupt unpunished. and also get to do it because people WRONGLY think a sherrifs badge is a badge of honour
1770  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Opinions On Crypto Custodial Solutions? on: September 21, 2018, 03:57:29 AM
$20bill is only 300k btc

reading the article and letting it swirl in my mind like the coffee in my mouth..

with the winklevoss ETF they have 200k sat there sidelined. but they as the article says because the ETF will be over $150k of customer assets they will be offering will need to have a institutional 'custodian' for their 200k coins. rather than them just settling themselves up as a 'trust' which was their first filing years ago.

so thats 200k covered, and so i think its more than another 100k coins set aside waiting

and now its just a race for the best custodian service that SEC will honour as being institutionally high calibre worthy of being intrusted with billions of $$ of coins.

any way we all know the winklevoss and other non institutional ETF plans wont get green lit easily. those in authority already have their short list of best buddies who are nearly ready with their institutional services to grab the 'first mover' advantage of bitcoin trusts/custodies and investment funds

im thinking goldman and jp morgan are front runners
goldmans ceo recently done a techcrunch interview. and the buzzwords were not about margin trading or investment comities or trading algorithm's.. it was about risk management and security when talking about future services they will aim for. so they are prepping to ride the custodian gravy train
1771  Other / Archival / Re: The Founder of Bitcoin on: September 21, 2018, 03:42:05 AM
Many believed that the inventor of Bitcoin wants to remain anonymous to avoid legal consequences as what happened during 2007 about E-Gold, one of the first digital money (Bernard, 2017). On the other hand, I think it would be better if the founder of Bitcoin will reveal his identity since many countries recognized the essence of this cryptocurrency.

If this might happen, it will contribute for more development of digital currency and regulations in Bitcoin procedures. Also, the acknowledgement must be given for the person who invented the most efficient digital currency in our society.

What are your thoughts?

his mindset was not really about staying hidden and worried about authorities arresting him for counterfeiting. yea it was a concern in 2008-2009 for him. but it wasnt why he left in 2010-2011. he wasnt so much caring about identity.
for instance he never commented to halfinney, mike hearne, gavin andressen, etc that they should be careful about using their real names.

parts of his final few months were more about not wanting to be the head decision maker he didnt want to review peoples code and vet what should go in or not. he didnt want the fame/leader role. he didnt want to be the go to guy. he wanted people to develop their own code and work as united to discuss the best options available and to develop code that would acivate if everyone (majority) used it

so i dont think he will come back and try to declare leadership. if anything he is probably already involved some where offering tips and tweaking code or spotting bugs or submitting proposals like other do. but just using a new pseudonym
1772  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin and Mass adoption on: September 21, 2018, 02:26:11 AM
self improvement
lesson one
bitcoin is not a person. it is code. it has no voice, no arms no legs.

do not wait for bitcoin to provide you with shops that offer food for btc.
if YOU want YOUR local store to sell food for btc, then YOU have to help convince YOUR store to accept btc

bitcoin cannot phone YOUR local store, arrange an appointment, get on a plane to YOUR town and talk to YOUR local stores manager. its something YOU are going to have to be involved in.

here are some tips.
1. organise a local meetup of like minded bitcoiners in your area. the more that turn up the better as it shows there is a demand for wanting local stores to sell things for btc.
2. find the confident ones that can talk about the benefits of bitcoin.
3. organise or research how that store can swap its BTC back to fiat or pay staff/suppliers in BTC. this might be as simple as one of the meetup members who wants to buy btc often just buy it off the store manager hand to hand. or just learning how to sign a store up to a payment/merchant service like bitpay/coinbase.

then approach the store with the advantages, including demoing how easy it makes things
1773  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin Mining Really Causing Environmental Damage? Maybe not that much... on: September 21, 2018, 01:09:55 AM
Franky it's about the laws of physics

That guy who goes to the 100floor will spend more energy caring that extra 500ml of 'water" to dump on his neighbor than the energy that "flow" of water will generate.

That chain of yours will only work when there is enough water at a reasonable altitude, and even with Colorado which is one freaky river, how much does the Parker dam generate? 10% of Hoover's capacity?
firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...

get them foolish idea's out of your head.
the idea is water is already up stream by this funny thing called the weather....
it all goes downstream
but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM

by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.

the reason parker and davis dont make as much is because they are bureaucratically not allowed to be as big as the lake preceding hoover damn.

again not physics.. but politics is the restraint
luckily china and other countries dont have the same political problems as a nevada/arizona debates.

If you don't have the relief needed then you will not be able to extract even 1% of the first dam power.
This is why we have so little hydroelectric powerplants in Europe and this is why the largest river (the Danube) has only one set of two dams in a gorge at the Iron Gates.
the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river

You simply can't build those damns everywhere and the energy gain is minimal.
Even the eco-warriors are acknowledging that we have reached 50% of the hydro capacity this planet can produce, there is simply too little left untapped.
the amount of electricity produced is enough for there not to be a NEED. so the priority politically of more electric vs other things the rivers are used for have not had a need to sway the debate.

Don't you think those solutions would have been implemented everywhere if they would indeed be feasible?
it is feasible. its just not needed.
EG in 1920's only X electric was needed. so only hoover and parker was made.. lots of fighting over if should they be made happened back then..
1950's demand rose. but wait.. stompix says it cant happen there just aint enough..
i imagine stompix having a vision of the river is saying "im trying captain im giving it all she got(scotty startrek)"
 but then miraculously. davis dam was build.. OMG how is that possible. stompix must have asked himself
.. the answer
because politicians weighed up the politics of relocating people, cost to build. vs the real need of more electric. and it was decided. its worth the cost.(physics was not the problem

I really don't understand why you're so stuck to Asic performance an hashrate..
The thing is pretty simple, the energy consumption is only influenced by the price, nothing else.

You have 10 million in daily rewards then miners will afford to spend 9 million in energy and get some profit.
Bitcoin goes to 60 000, then they will be able to consume x10 more...
It goes to 1 million before the halving ...we're f***.

actually you will find this mindset strange but.
when a miner is willing to pay $6k to mine 1btc. what he also sees is he is commited to $6k for a year. because he has already prepaid the asics and the electric equivelent to that for a year

now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week

now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...

heres a thought for you
if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)
then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that..  so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'

sorry but no. it dont work like that.

if you get a salary. and then suddenly get a pay rise. if your just going to use your pay rise to work even harder always chasing the oppertunity and hope of a pay rise.. then thats you stuck in a perpetual cycle of only ever 'living to work'..
smart people keep the profit. and go on vacation. invest in things. treat their kids to new toys and gadgets. renovate their homes.
if you got a 3x payrise and you only use that to then do 3x more work.. i feel sorry for your family

you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)

they would go on vacation. and keep at their slower progressive hashrate..

ill give you a hint. sustainable price rises that dont crash is due to mining pushing up prices and then buying up coin if the price goes down...
not where the price makes the hashrate jump.

heres another hint.
october 2013 happened because miners pushed the price up becaus everything switched from GPU to ASICS.
asic miners were making a profit and going on holiday. GPU miners cried as they couldnt profit gpu mining. so they just bought coin..
(bitcoin history asics released october 2013)

now the december 2017 spike (caused by banking institutions buying up coin to settle with certain bitcoin entities contracts that completed midnovember) the spike of that buyup DID NOT cause mining pools to ramp up their hashrate to 120 terrahash in december.

again price does not ramp up hashrate. but hashrate does ramp up sustainable price...

1774  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hello BCH: 2.26 MB & we keep 1MB on: September 20, 2018, 07:07:11 PM
So the questions are:
1. All inputs legacy (1*) - where do the signatures stay? In the 1 MB, right?
2. All inputs legacy (1*) can't we use Schnorr sig and make space for more transactions?
3. All inputs 3* (P2SH nested SegWit) where do the signatures stay? Can't we use Schnorr sig and make space for more transactions?
1. yes
2. that would help. but looking at the devs proposals they don't want to break legacy transactions as thats another hard fork (oops i mean another mandatory ban/reject or else convoluted threat pretending to be a 'soft USAF)
and only looking to soft fork schnorr in to be used by segwit multisigs (only multisigs benefit anyway. and modifying segwit multisigs are easier to trojan in modifications than it is to modify legacy multisigs(3*(emphasize legacy 3* not the segwit version of same prefix))

3. if its segwit, signatures sit outside the 1mb base

(i tried not to go math anal in previous posts) or be too biased. or be too complicated.. but here goes (sorry to say this)
as for the block that you mentioned at the time of you posting
out of the 606kb only 102kb sat outside the baseblock (16% data)

oh and doing more math
a legacy 1in 2 out is ~225byte
a segwit  1in 2 out is ~250byte

yeo ~25 byte difference.
the reason being that a segwit signature is ~80 bytes not 70(82 vs 72 to be more exact)

and the input address bc1q uses a few EXTRA bytes (plus a few other details that waste a few bytes)
yep they are making signatures/addresses more bloated (i laugh when they say they words like 'efficient' leaner')
just to swap and twist things around to be able to move signatures.

but this whole game they are playing is not for scaling onchain purposes.. but for transaction formats that are compatible with LN
LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network that many coins will use. (something most dont realise and just co-brand it with bitcoin to give it attention)

anyway.. knowing that segwit adds bytes to inout addresses and signatures

i did further maths. and converted all the inputs and outputs to be just regular 1*addresses byte usage instead of bc1q* byte usage
and i also brought the actual segwit signature back to regular legacy (72 as oppose to 82)
(note yes i went anal and only touched the addresses/signatures that were segwit... i wasnt lazy to just deduct Xbytes from all inputs outputs and signatures.)

and guess what.
the 1495 tx block you mentioned would only be 540kb. if segwit did not exist
so although the data as it sits in the block on the network with mix of legacy and segwit has
504kb in base and 102kb in witness area,
if segwit did not exist. that same data of number of inputs, outputs, sigs would sit at 540kb total (not 606k total)
meaning. the "omg segwit saved 102k in base.." is actually
OMG saved 40kb in base but added 102kb into witness

yea. that data would have only been 540kb if all were legacy
so the base block saving is only actually 40kb

kinda funny when you look at it from that perspective, right..

so a 1495 tx block. where the base saving is only 40k. is less than 10% actual scaling utility

hope the math or the explanation hasnt confused you

but hey..
if you think its still good to celebrate the OP's title that 2.26mb only = a couple hundred transactions.. then you've missed all the issues with "2.26mb for only a couple hundred transactions".. to me thats NOT something to be proud of

1775  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hello BCH: 2.26 MB & we keep 1MB on: September 20, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
You mean blocks, not transactions, right? But did the 40% Segwit adoption graph from, before it went down, mean transactions? I believe it did.

But it helps in scaling. "Scaling" a decentralized network should start in finding solutions for better network latency and data propagation before block size increase proposals. But if you want a short cut, Bitcoin Cash is ready.

1. i mean transactions where if one input(UTXO) out of say 4input(UTXO). the whole transaction is classed as a segwit transaction instead of 0.25. then out of all transactions over one block or one day or one week whatever they say 40% are segwit and 60% have no segwit inputs at all

however. if they done it properly and said of all inputs(UTXO) being spent of (what the currently call a segwit tx) only 25% of a transaction is actually segwit.. then the result would be only 10% of all inputs(UTXO) being spend either per block or per day or per year, whatever would only segwit utilised

2, the halt on removing/increasing the base block limit is not about scaling bitcoin. its about making different networks famous by making bitcoin look bad enough that people should use other networks
for instance. 2 years have been wasted on features not to scale bitcoin. but to push people into using other networks.
yep 2 years to twist bitcoin to work with LN (ln is not a bitcoin feature. but a separate network for multiple coins to use in the future where LN will be seen as the payment tool for bitcoin and litecoin.

bitcoins whole purpose was that you dont need counterparties. you dont need the counterparties to be awake and responsive and requiring their authorisation to make payments..

but while 2 years+ have passed of doing nothing else but keep bitcoin where it is and just tweak bitcoin to be compatible with that separate network. nothing has been done to scale bitcoin.
1776  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Was Satoshi Nakamoto visionless? on: September 20, 2018, 02:30:08 PM
banks lock in funds and they have control of the funds. they can freeze your account, make you wait 3-5 days to send a wire. chargeback, etc.. many issues

LN is a separate network from bitcoin and is a proposed solution. but being a separate network it need. locking in funds, counterparty control. the counterpart can go offline thus freezing your funds. makes you wait before you can close a channel without penalty.. they can chargeback(revocation) and the destination needs to be online as well as all the middle men inbetween to all using the payment is done. .
oh and you will need to have multiple channels(accounts) splitting your funds up as a way to mitigate risk of lack of routing. meaning many onchan tx's/outpt bytes to deposit into each.... thus many issues

again LN is not a bitcoin feature but its own separate network.

a good solution for those screaming:
"bitcoin is broke it doesnt scale"
"bitcoin is broke it cant pay for coffee on bitcoin"
is this

imagine LN concept of preplanning spending and moving funds in before spending... but without LN. no need to lock funds up into coparty accounts(channels) who can go offline before spending your money. no need to have multiple channels where your funds are spread.

you simply preplan spending habits.
you simply pay starbucks a months worth of coffee onchain, in one transaction. and they update starbucks app with a month of coffee credit. job done
1777  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Crytpomarket conditions - A correlation between bticoins and ethereum on: September 20, 2018, 11:55:32 AM
alot of hype and speculation can temporarily move the price. but i always like to look at the underlying cost of obtaining coins

ethereum is not at a 10% rate of production per coin. (mining) so obviously wont get the 1:10 ratio of
btc$6k :$600eth

its more like a 1:30 ratio for underlying costs. which when looking at the market price. shows to also be correct.
yea there might be temporary events where btc went to 20k and foolishly sheep traders, trade patterned eth up via arbitrage although there was no real world cause to give eth reason to climb outside the arbitrate cycle.
and yes eth jumped to $300 .. but all of that was temporary drama

these last few months btc underlying costs have been testing $6k
these last few months eth underlying costs have been testing $200
anything else is just market driven speculation/profitering/hype

many have found that the mining costs(minimum(cheap electric)) is a good metric to use for the bottomline.
miners wont sell for less. and if they can buy bitcoin on a market below their mining costs. they will. which keeps the market price above mining costs a large percentage of the time. (only a couple occasions in a year did is slip below and only by a few dollar

so when you take the medium term mining cost as your underlying line of value. you then see when the price is highly hyped or very little hype and right now both btc and eth are not that highly hyped.
unlike eth's january and may period
unlike btc's winter period
1778  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is your plan for the next world wide recession. Are you planning on such? on: September 19, 2018, 09:28:05 PM
pay down any debt on a variable rate first. when a recession hits that rate will go up and kick you over and over

if fixed. then as long as its low interest. relax. thats great. when inflation hits your repayments get 'cheaper'
EG if $10 a month interest buys you 10 loaves this month.. in hyper-inflation it will only buy you 1 loaf so why pay 10 loaves this month that you can pay off with 1 loaf later.

but again if you have variable interest rates. get that paid down first.

another option. if your not employed you could just put all your eggs hidden away into crypto. and then file bankruptcy.thus kick the debt out of your life and give yourself a clean slate. (its what trump and the clintons do)
or atleast threaten to go bankrupt and arrange freezing interest and lowering the debt to something you and your creditor can agree on

(best check with a financial adviser how it will affect your life for next few years(hide your crypto well))

then try to only make financial decisions based on amounts you consider disposable. EG if you spend $30 a week on fast food that just end up as a toilet flush the next day after digesting.. then use $30 as funds you dont care to lose
1779  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What is bitcoin core? on: September 19, 2018, 09:08:05 PM
Bitcoin Core is a reference client of bitcoin. Initially, the software was published by Satoshi Nakamoto under the name Bitcoin, then Bitcoin-Qt and later renamed to Bitcoin Core. It is also known as the Satoshi client. It is a full client used by bitcoin nodes that create the bitcoin network.

satoshi's client was called satoshi-QT.. even core call it that now
bitcoin core is the buzzword brandname of the team that came about in 2013. 2-3 years after satoshi left the community.
(its like people say something is using apple software, but underneath the codebase is called IOS ver x.x)

the history:
satoshi's own client 2009-2010, before he left was only stored and upgraded code via sourceforge not the github

it was gavins client of 2010 which is the github that everyone followed and now follows. satoshi never touched the github

gavin was pushed aside as project manager in 2013. but he already mentioned many time he was only going to give it X years before moving aside. so it was a planned retirement from the github anyway.

then the team moderating, deciding the rules branded their team bitcoin core from 2013
1780  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Critical Bug Found in Bitcoin Core on: September 19, 2018, 08:33:55 PM
right now only 10% of the network is using 0.16.3
meaning over 80% of the network is still at risk

10% upgrading in just 24 hrs is pretty good in my opinion. Especially the precautions that wallet operators must take when upgrading (Backing up, testing, etc).

Also, do you mean 90%?

nope. bcause theres a few hundred nodes(10%) that were not core 0.14-0.16.2 even before 24 hours ago...
meaning if 90% were 0.14-0.16.2 now with 10% of those are now 0.16.3 thats only 80% that are stil 0.14-0.16.3

the network was not 100% 0.14-0.16.2 (though those few hundred nodes outside of the risk are still sheep to core in other ways)

however we need to make it more like 20-50% all the time diversity.. not 90%
and we need to make it so that core is less of a kingdom/monarchy and bring back diverse consensus.
dare i say it without getting the or defenders riled up

we need diverse decentralisation to return.. not biased distribution which is what we have been experiencing for the majority of 2013-2018

technically the older nodes(blow 0.14) shouldnt cound as they are not part of the 'inner circle' of the kingdom or being a block/transaction relayer. they are more defined as the 'downstream(gmax buzzword)' or 'filtered nodes(lukeJR buzzword)' on a outer circle of the network.
so crazy craig. your right the percentage i quoted of 80% is technically higher if you brush the older nodes out of the stats
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 ... 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!