Bitcoin Forum
July 18, 2019, 02:18:29 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 823 »
1801  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A simple proof that Bitcoin has zero value on: September 17, 2018, 08:53:35 AM
You gave us a very good example. But there is one point that is overlooked. What determines the value of iPhone, Dollars, or IBM share? You have to think about it. There is an issue in economics. Demand and supply! The value in the market is where these two meet. So, you can handle the value of Bitcoin in this way. For example, I will not sell my Bitcoin without $ 50,000. If everyone thinks so, the price rises until the buyer offers $ 50,000.

its actually deeper than supply and demand.
when you take in the cost of acquiring bitcoin. and then thats the underlying value no one would be willing to sell below because they wouldnt ever dream of selling for less then they acquird if for.

its then where people speculate a profitable PRICE above bottomline costs which they would sell for. and thats the speculative PRICE above value.
read my post above to explain that part known as 'value' (bottomline acquisition cost)
1802  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: A simple proof that Bitcoin has zero value on: September 17, 2018, 08:39:39 AM
what you dont understand is this

1. if the database was secured using a signature, (PoS) then the costs to secure it is zero. but bitcoin actually has a real hard cost to secure the database (PoW) which is commonly called mining.
in 2009. mining could be done by one persons PC and he would broadcast the database out to other and the costs were negligable.

2. over time the security increased, it became difficult to secure it with single machines. people started to calculate that the electric required to secure it was as such
if electric was 5cents an hour. and 6 blocks were created in that hour. and a block contained 50coins in 2009
then a cost per coin was $0.000016666666666667
then it started requiring more power. and thus when 10 people were using their electric only one got to secure it meaning for every 10th block a person got rewarded. thus the cost rose 0.00016666666666667
then it started requiring more power. and thus when 100 people were using their electric only one got to secure it meaning for every 100th block a person got rewarded. thus the cost rose 0.0016666666666667
then people started using GPU's and the costs rose. they started pooling their workload together and sharing the reward and the costs increased.

by 2011 the amount of electric and time put into securing bitcoin got to $1.
by 2012 the amount of electric and time and equipment needed made it cost $6

the the reward halved so that doubled the costs because there was then half the reward. so 2012 had a $12 cost
more people started to join pools and the security difficulty increased. so costs to secure it went up

by 2013 ASICS became a thing and vastly increased the security and difficulty. to a tune of $100
by 2016 the cost went up to $300
by 2017 the costs went upto $900
by 2018 costs went up above $5000

yea the costs dont match the price.. but thats speculation. thats random drama above the underlying value.
it like housing.
it cost $80k to build a house but the builders sell it for a bit more to profit so houses price in at over $100k. and then speculators add on more.

housing has real costs and so housing is not free. and yes when the PRICE hyper inflates above VALUE/COST
that excess is a bubble because the price is "inflated" like a bubble inflates.
the housing market had a 'housing bubble' not because housing is fake but the price was inflated way above value

so yes with bitcoin although we did see a $1200btc in 2013 although the value was ~$100. did not mean btc was worth zero.. its VALUE was $100 and its PRICE was an inflated bubble of $1200

so yes although we did see a $20k btc PRICE in 2017 although the value was ~$2k. did not mean btc was worth zero.. its value was $2k and its price was an inflated bubble of $20k

and now in 2018. by looking at the cost of mining. there is not much of a inflated layer(speculative layer) above value. bitcoins VALUE is actually around the $6k costs and so compared to the very thin % of speculation. is deemed good value as the price and value are close to each other.

bitcoins have a cost
housing has a cost
tulips has a cost
but the price fluctuates above cost.
you can still buy tulips even now.. astonishing right? you would think tulips are fake or not worth anything. but they are worth something.
you can still buy houses even now.. astonishing right? would think houses are not worth anything. but they are.
you can still buy bitcoins even now.. astonishing right? you would think bitcoins are fake/worthless but they they are worth something.
1803  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Whale Movement Belongs to Mt GOX on: September 17, 2018, 06:49:45 AM
wrong wrong wrong

the address in august had and spent 0.009btc

the address held more in 2014.
no large stash of coins moved from that address in 2018

so now you all can relax
1804  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Stop being pessimistic. The potential of bitcoin is still immense! on: September 17, 2018, 06:12:10 AM
Lightning is also very much in early beta.  There's so much more to come.  People need to be patient.

lightning is not bitcoin
lightning is a separate network that will be used by multiple coins.

but after the mega laugh i had about your twisting of crap in the other topic earlier. i see you stil not ready to learn. so go in peace and have fun.
but.. please do try to learn the fundementals atleast for your own sake
1805  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Stop being pessimistic. The potential of bitcoin is still immense! on: September 17, 2018, 06:08:21 AM
There's too many newbies on board yet. The hate for bitcoin must be real, we need to see all the casuals that entered in the last FOMO season out, because these guys aren't thinking rationally, they don't understand the fundamentals and they don't therefore understand the inherent value of bitcoin.

the problem is that the 2014-2018 FOMO's are now riding a train they think they need to convince others to jump onboard so that they can jump off..
they over promise and underadvise. they spout a utopian dream but not the reality. and as such many newbies want a utopia but find that the devs are saying blockchain is broke and only counter pary signing accounts are the future.
thus get dis heartened.

we really need to get rid of the paid devs who are stiffling bitcoin to push in the other networks of banking 2.0 .. to reinnovate bitcoins mainnet for mainnet use. and reinvigorate the maiin net utility. then bitcoin will grow like it was doing years ago
1806  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin ETF Proposals on: September 17, 2018, 05:48:54 AM
the SEC dont want little boys to have first mover advantage. so holding them off while the big institutions prep is the gameplan
1807  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why arguments against Bitcoin are wrong... on: September 17, 2018, 05:42:25 AM
0 - "bitcoin is ratpoison2"
it is ratpoison2. but the real question is... who are the rats bitcoin is poisoning
ratpoison doesnt harm good normal people it harms rats.
in the UK if your working in the busy finance sector it is called living the "rat race" lifestyle. meaning the fiat sector are the rats.

as for the 'squared' well the original 'ratpoison' meme was said years earlier. when the price was 100.. and then buffet called it squared years later and at that very date it was $10k.
i think buffets reply was more of the maths side of it.. meaning he was saying it is the same thing as years ago but the price has squared
1002=$10k.. the price of bitcoin vs the price of bitcoin when the original quoter called it.
so although it sounds bad to give it a derogatory title. the meaning and the value are both deeper hidden meaning. which if you think about it hard and deep, he is right.

1 bitcoin is slow
first of all bitcoin is slow for certain things. but it seems too many people are reading the same scripts and mantra that want to kill off bitcoin utility and hand it over to another network.
LN is not a bitcoin feature. LN is a separate network that will be used by multiple coins. and required bitcoin to be transformed to fit LNs network rather than LN transforming to fit bitcoins network.(i found that funny)
bitcoin can innovate to be better onchain. but those saying its slow, cant scale, cant buy coffee. are literally saying its broke and stop using it.. then offering a different network.. so to those saying use something else like LN or an altcoin.. please sod off. get away from bitcoin yourselves, go play with other networks and let real bitcoiners remain an re-innovate bitcoins network.

2 bitcoin wastes energy..
wrong. but i wont waste energy reexplaining why. ill just quote myself explaining why from another thread
power plants do regulate. and at night they do shut down some generators.
but they do try to keep some excess between produced and consumed.
it does take 30mins-1 hour to restart a generator. so they like to keep a gap. and they also like to sell some of that excess to other countries**  that have less of a gap and suddenly had a surge of consumption that was unforecasted.
**OR INDUSTRIES hint hint

and as part of my post with loads of maths i was going to add a sarcastic comment to the reddit propagandists who scream "china 51%"

so here goes
lets imagine out of the 20.7twh that 50% was just in china (10.35)
china consumes 5683
china produces 6529
=836 difference (13% safety gap)

10 vs 836 excess.. = no impact to residences lives
bitcoin uses 20.7twh a year. and that does not cut into other peoples lives. its actually farms buying up the excess energy that would have gone to waste if not bought. so bitcoin actually saves waste.
EG like buying up out of date produce in a grocery store before it goes to landfill so that less goes to waste

and as for your comment about using PoS.. again you seem very hard nosed to actually talk about bitcoin and how its broke and needs LN, PoS.... seems you sound more like a anti-blockchain/antibitcoiner that instead wants a differnt system where it requires middlem men signing for stuff on others behalf...

3. transaction costs are very high
funny part hre again you are trying to sell other coins with cheaper fee's rather than address the cause of the high fee's being devs who want people to stop using bitcoin and to use things like LN..
again i must ask why are you so pro LN, so pro altcoiner, and so antibitcoin...

4. this part i agree. bitcoin is very safe. its the other networks and offchain solutions like LN and exchanges that can be hacked. even the LN devs warn you not to use it with too much funds because it can get stolen. but the onchain funds if you have the only key to the funded address. means you have the only way to move the funds.

5. payment convenience
the use of a conference not accepting bitcoin. is because the conference organisers were not bitcoiners they were fiat handlers who wanted fiat.
the same problem would occur if an american wanted dollars but he was incharge of organising a EURO event with Euro participants. but the organiser didnt want the hassle of exchanging euro to dollar
there have actually been many conferences where by deals were done that all those involved in organising it wanted bitcoin. and thus the fiat demand/worry was of no concern. those conferences were good and worked.
bitcoin is not the problem its just the people involved are the wrong type of people or not skilled to do whats needed

6. used by criminals
all currencies are used by criminals.... yep even cigarettes. (prison currency) criminals will try anything as a currency. its why they re coriminals because they dont follow rules. and cant be controlled not to use anything. they will steal cars. does that make cars bad because criminals use them. no.

7. bitcoin is a bubble
nothing "is" a bubble. nothing in history has ever been a bubble.
EG the housing bubble, this does not mean houses are bubbles and worthless. it meant the price is INFLATED way beyond its natural value.
EG the tulip bubble, this does not mean tulips are bubbles and worthless. it meant the price is INFLATED way beyond its natural value.
you can still buy tulips today. they are not fake. they are actually real flowers. yes dont be shocked hundreds of years later and you can actually still buy tulips.. but here is the thing. the price is not inflated
you can still buy houses today. they are not fake. they are actually real houses. yes a decade after the housing bubble and you can actually still buy houses.. but here is the thing. the price is not as inflated

the key word is inflated. like a bubble. its about the price speculation which changes. not about the medium/unit/product/asset itself, just its price at a certain given time
1808  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 17, 2018, 03:59:11 AM
The funds that you spend in Eltoo (..and L1! for that matter) are locked up in an on-chain transaction that ONLY you and your counter-party can spend (or re-spend in this case) for a given amount of time. It is not possible to have 2 provably valid transactions that you show to 2 separate parties that have access to the block chain.


it is possible.
again learn factories
firstly the only TX thats onchain is the deposit INTO to the factory address.
the tx from the factory to a hub is OFFCHAIN
the tx from the hub to the personal channel is OFFCHAIN

anyway. while now knowing the payment out of the factory and down the ladder to the hub and then down the ladder to the personal channel is offchain
the personal channel can see (within LN) the up ladder 'payment' of the hub
but they have to trust that the factory or the hub have not secretly made their own tx where the destinations differ.
which can be done easily. (learn schnorr for that part)

and remember alice is not the factory or the hub. the factory and the hub are middlemen.

the whole point of factories and watch towers are to give trust to middle men to watch funds for others..
watchtowers and middle men are not alice. but other people above and away from alice who can do things for alice..
do things good.. and yes, dare i say it, bad

ill quote the ln PDF talking about factories in basic concept
Quote
..
Channel Factories
As our main contribution, we introduce a new layer between the blockchain
and the payment network, giving a three layered system. In the first layer, the
blockchain, funds are locked into a shared ownership between a group of nodes.

The new second layer consists of multi-party micropayment channels we call
channel factories,
which can quickly fund regular two party channels. The re-
sulting network provides the third layer, where regular transfers of currency are
executed
so above is a quote from the LN pdf. and i even colour coded it

no where does it say that the payments OUT of the factory to the 'hub' and then to the regular channels are onchain..  because thy are not onchain
but if you want to think they are onchain. then there would be no reason for factories

now please learn factories, run scenarios. and then understand the process. dont be stuck with old concepts. and dont be stuck with weird concepts of 100% self control of funds.. learn multisig

.. at first i thought it was jsut people not wanting to learn from me. so thats why i ask people to learn it themselves by actually learning it themselves and run scenarios..
but then even when asking them to learn about it. it seams people dont.. so i still try to ask them to learn about it..

then i get the drama of them trying to insult and twist words purely as an excuse not to learn about it themselves.
oh well all i can say is
learn LN . if you dont want to thats fine, but if you dont know LN dont get involved in the development discussion.
try to learn about it first, try not to just call it the utopian dream even when you have no knowledge of its function. it helps no one
1809  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 17, 2018, 03:29:41 AM
I think we should all run franky1's scenario where he thinks being in full control of your balance means you still control it after you've spent it.  He's clearly an authority on the inner workings of the Lightning Network.   Roll Eyes

Every time he says "run some scenarios", what he actually means is "make some shit up that doesn't accurately describe how LN works" and then tell other people they have a utopian mindset when they explain how it actually works.   Cheesy

doomad. your quoting yourself quoting me and trying to make it look like i said its how LN works...
where as if you bother to take it in its full context of the post... im actually trying to use a flawed theory which i beleive that you are presuming to be true.... and im correcting you.

i was showing how YOUR understanding of what is presumed your wrongful percention of a 2016 concept .. is wrong
it was YOUR presumption that a user has 100% signing authority.. YOU said the other party has no part of the funds
Multisig in LN doesn't mean they have equal control over your portion of the funds in the channel

if its just you signging. then its not a multisig..   i really think you need to really learn what multisigs are. and what factories and channels do

in the part you quotd me..  was not me 'imagining' how LN actually works. its me showing how YOU have not understood it and i was trying to step into your shoes and 'imagine' things from your shoes if 100% control...  and then explain that your wrong. as the other party does have to be involved.

what you quoted.
Quote
anyway. lets simply talk about the channel partnership (old 2016 concept.. which is where i think your stuck in).
imagine if i deposited 1btc into a channel direct. and i retained 100% control of that.
....
that was me going along with your mindset. i even put it in brackets of it being a theory YOUR stuck thinking


what you didnt quote
Quote
now here is a big hint. smart contract.. emphasis .. contract.
contracts are multiparty

that is me giving you a big hint.. contracts are multiparty.

..
anyway it seems your more interested in social distractions and drama. and yet to actually use or research or learn LN.
so again try to actually put an effort into it.
and stop trying to cause drama
by causing drama doesnt make you right it just means you have made an excuse not to bother learning.
1810  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Power Consumption on: September 16, 2018, 02:18:46 PM
Power consumption of bitcoin mining keeps going up. And will continue to go up as bitcoin usage and price increases. This have harsh enviromental implications. Is there a way to reduce power consumption or are there plans to switch to a more eco-friendly way of mining bitcoin?

I think this problem could be solved by the RIG developer itself.
Such as nvidia and amd, they should create a powerful vga with low power, so bitcoin mining will not consume not so much energy

that has already addressed 5 years ago. ASICS are more efficient than GPU's. your about 5 years behind in the research.

and as for others.
solar is cleaner than coal. but not as effective. as others have said. when its winter there is less sunlight (shorter daylight hours) the roof may be covered with snow so need ongoing cleaning. thus the season that requires more energy due to more dark night hours needing houselights on for longer, heating, etc..   is actually getting less energy production due to less daylight and snow and left over autumn leaves covering roofs

where as hydro is better. because even when a reservoir uses the water to turn a turbine. that is not the end of the story for that water.
that same water can be reused. it doesnt have to just be released to a river by law. it can be re-stored downstream and then pushed through another set of generators... repeat repeat repeat.
meaning 1 gallon of water is not just 1x electric. but that same water can be recycled  x*y with y being the number of generators downstream
1811  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 16, 2018, 01:39:41 PM
Is that limited to Lightning mobile apps? What about Lightning Network nodes like LND?

Quote
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Do you really believe Lightning developers would be so stupid to allow something like that to happen? Haha.

Quote
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ...

A "Fort Knox" that a user can close a channel and broadcast the latest state of that channel like a normal on-chain transaction is not a "Fort Knox". Hahaha.

1. keep in mind. LN is broke right now. the devs admit its broke and warn people to only use small funds and to be very careful what they do and who they channel to.

2. its not just mobile apps. but we all know in the future the majority of users will be mobile users. so the risk is on the majority. but with that said even desktop apps are not fixed. people can modify their desktop software to do many things that the counterpart is unaware of. which is why its best that all apps even mobile retain the ability to review raw transactions and not just be 'autopilot' with limited info on the GUI
the reason being. because there is no community rule. and no community vetting, reviewing of transactions within LN. one party of a channel can be attacked by the other party. and the community is not there to protect them.
its why bitcoin works. a transaction is not a transaction until its community reviewed and locked into a blockchain that proves it met all the rules.

3. LN will never be as secure as a blockchain.

4. the idea of a factory is that a factory is level X, a hub is level Y and a user is level Z
the user level when they are channeled alice to bob they have a transaction that shows as

onchain 1aliceaddress(0.1) to factory(0.1)
offchain
(factory gets funds from 10 people paying 0.1)
so the funds are then routed to get to alices channel
factory(1.0) -> hubA(0.5)
                  -> hubB(0.5)
offchain again
hubA(0.5) -> alice(0.1)
                -> bob(0.1)
                -> chuck(0.1)
                -> dave(0.1)
                -> eric(0.1)

so in the user channel
in: alice 0.1 -> bob
                 -> HubA (funds return up the ladder OFFCHAIN. and NOT broadcast onchain to alices legacy address onchain)

that way without broadcasting. the hubA can be told to put the funds into a different channel to a new alice channel.or be up laddered again so the factory if the HubA is settled as Hub A settles to the factory. not a onchain address the factory can then be told what to do with the funds.. again all offchain.

now alice and bob they can see that a transaction exists that shows
factory->hubA->alice and bob

but.. factory can also have secret transaction of Factory(1.0) -> 1factoryonchain(1.0)

as i said by putting steps/gaps/levels moving the user away from the onchain funds. where the user channel is withdrawal/change/closing address is not their own onchain address but the hub/factory up the ladder. those up the ladder 'transactions' are NOT broadcast. are not immutible and not set in stone thus alice has to trust the hub and factory

this is the same process as what banks call 'promisory notes' the end user has lost touch of the gold. and can not see a audited immutible confirmed report end to end of the gold to the promissory note. so they have to trust the input they get to play with(output from one ladder step above them) is ethical and honourable.

again try running scenarios of the concept of factories whereby alice and bob dont settle onchain. they close channel back to a hub/factory before then trying to settle onchain.

again try to think with a critic mindset of a broken system and not a utopian mindset of it works perfectly and there is only one way it can work. remember the communications of one node is not challenged by the network in a community wide consensus. it is therefore free for him to tweak. EG use a schnorr process to hide who actually gets to sign and whereby each participant within their channels and up the ladder holds their own copies of transactions that can be tweaked. especially if you cant see what is being signed and just autopilot agree.

ill give you an example.
imagine a hub sets up an address that alice thinks she has a 5 of 5 (20%) control of. and she has to be part of signing the hubs settlement. but in reality its actually a 1 of 5 multisig using schnorr that makes the hub in full control.

as i said if a mobile app cant check the onchain tx or the raw offchain tx data or even if they could the details of the raw tx data do not reveal its a 1 of 5...   alice is left to "trust" the counterparts involved.

but hey. i just spend time writing this and predict you wont run scenarios of a critic. you will just sheep heard pretend its all utopia and not learn the downsides of the concepts.
1812  Other / Off-topic / Re: What Makes Bitcoin So Special? on: September 16, 2018, 12:37:09 PM
but as long as the rest of the interested parties are ok with how they approve code they will continue to be allowed to do so(Or rather, people will continue to run their node).  Isnt that how it works?  

double edged question
1. if your not running their rules your not on their network
2. core only had 35% acceptance of the segwit changes. but the devs who love segwit proposed a mandatory accept or get banned/rejected off the network that was mandated to occur in august. so its not a free spirited system as you presume.
3. yes its how it works today. but thats not the correct way. its not the way it always worked or the way it worked in satoshi's day.

a few years ago it used to be multiple software bases with no mandated date of activation of their proposals. but if a majority consensus of utility was seen of a different software then the proposals of that software would get activated. but now it all has to go through core. and any other proposal attempts are required to go through core. anything not acceptable to core is deemed as an attack.
the important definition of true decentralisation is that there is no single point of an attack and nothing to be attacked. so having the mindset that something is being attacked. is admitting there is a point of attack. thus not decentralised.

as for the interested parties. well the whole 'consensus roadmap' was designed to get certain businesses funded by a certain group to be the interested parties. and all pull rank to maneuver the process of 35%->100% along before november 2017.

again even the interested parties are one sided, whilst everyone else is left to just follow the interested parties or go play with a different network coin elswhere.

bitcoin went from no control anyone and everyone is treated as an interested party and everyone have an equal level of participation. to being a ranking system/monarchy.

its one of the reasons satoshi left. he didnt want to be the 'go to' guy that vetted it all. he didnt want to review everyones code. he wanted consensus to decide, not him. though many twisted his words to say that he was not happy with so many differing versions of the software which he could not review, as their way of pushing towards a central hub as their solution.
1813  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Would you still invest in Crypto related projects, if you know it was a scam? on: September 16, 2018, 12:20:14 PM
HYIPS and MLM schemes are the better example for the question

bitcoin itself is not a scam but there are individuals using the currency to create pots of btc coin hoardings and then juggling this small stash they hold to try keeping in as many victims as possible while siphoning out profits to a few lucky exiters

and yes many fools do invest in them even when being fully aware that they are scams. their mindset is that if they are first-in they can exit being  first-out with the fruits of other people entering them schemes and as such the early exiters are not the victims
1814  Other / Off-topic / Re: What Makes Bitcoin So Special? on: September 16, 2018, 12:12:35 PM
Quote
In early 2018 a second layer network on top of bitcoin began to run, the Lightning Network.

ill try to keep this one short

the lightning network is a separate network and not a feature of bitcoin. as you concluded that the lightning network allows other currency swaps.

bitcoin has been modified to be LN compatible* so that multiple coins can function on the lightning network. LN was not created to only support bitcoin.

*(rather than LN modified to only be bitcoin compatible)

1815  Other / Off-topic / Re: What Makes Bitcoin So Special? on: September 16, 2018, 12:03:07 PM
Quote
and since then the software that runs the nodes are developed and maintained by thousands of volunteers and contributors. Even its development is the most decentralized.

Decentralization also means there is nobody to ask permission to use it, nobody who can sensor it,

the software that RUNS the nodes = bitcoin core reference client. the "core" of the network
vs the software that uses the network = litewallets that follow CORES rules

try not to confuse the two

now lets be unbiased and actually be realistic
Core software is not decentralised. there is one github. when satoshi was around developers helping satoshi were using many sources. their own github repos, sourceforge and other places. they all formed idea's and posted code on this forum, in IRC and other places. and it all came to a consensus..   

since satoshi's departure it all got centralised into the one github. and now proposals are not simply programmed in and then activated if a high majority used them and accepted them by seeing there was not much if any orphans/rejects occuring based on consensus of using different features. or by pre announcing activation using flags of activation. via many differing repo's proposals
these days it has to go through a moderated process centred inside the single github repo. by certain devs of "the reference client" called core

so although core network may be distributed. it is very much centralised

ask yourself this. are apple phones decentralised or distributed. many millions of people use it around the world. but its code and manufacturing is controlled by one brand who set the rules.
the developers of apple phones are wide spread over multiple locations and warehouses and offices. but ultimately are under one brand.

please do not rebut with the instant reaction to defend or deflect. take time to have a coffee and relax and think truthfully, deep and hard about the reality. and not just reply to try sweeping/deflecting the issue under the carpet like its an issue you would prefer to be swept under the carpet and not dealt with

i am not of a different team trying to attack. i am just raising the awareness of reality so that people dont over promise and under deliver. i want people to be aware that things are not as advertised so they can realise the reality. and ultimately the goal is to ensure core does not let their power go to their head and continue becoming the monarchy of the network. but to actually keep them on their toes and to actually allow and help the community come to consensus agreements independently in different teams outside the core github. rather than act as a monarchy where any change regime they disagree with is treated as an attack before the community even get a chance to decide
1816  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitGo Becomes Officially Qualified Crypto Custodian in United States on: September 16, 2018, 02:33:15 AM
when DCG contracted its portfolio'd devs(blockstream(SWx1) and bloq(SWx2)) to get segwit in by november 2017. which they did.. we seen how they responded by buying up a load of coins to pay the devs the price rise from mid november 2017-december

when DCG contracted its portfolio'd devs(bitgo) to get custodian licencing in america.. well.. i see bitgo getting their tranche of funds released to them too meaning another buyup of coin
1817  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SO MUCH FUD!!! on: September 16, 2018, 01:48:18 AM
dis information can flow both ways. the utopians can provide as much dis-information as the critics

you will find alot of people trying to shut critics up because the utopians want to over promise and under deliver the benefits of bitcoin purely to scramble in as many people as they can so the new people can buy what the utopians are selling

some of the critics are actually long term holders that see too many naive people enter being told utopian dreams of riches and its best to give them the hard truths so that they know what they are actually getting..

but with that said on both sides. there is also the complete obsurd fake news stuff.

so when you do read something. dont just search out if its being repeated by multiple places or certain groups to decide if its valid. look for the source, the bases of whats being said. do proper research if its something that may interest/affect you.

look for the code, look for the statistics and look for the source. dont just take peoples word for it
1818  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network Discussion Thread on: September 16, 2018, 12:59:53 AM
But are Lightning nodes = banks? Do the users surrender all control of their Bitcoins to open a channel? Is there a fractional reserve?

There is no fractional reserve on the Lightning Network. Opening a channel means locking up bitcoins in a multi-signature address. Both parties have the same level of control as long as they are online - you can get your coins back any time you want except when the other party is offline. Anyone can set up a Lightning Network node so even if banks attempted to hijack the network, it would be possible to exclude their nodes from routing your payment.

i might aswell interject here
when people use mobile apps for LN. they are not checking the blockchain. they are not even going to get to view the raw TX, all they get to see is a balance.. so many many things can be played about with behind the scenes.
and because the LN locked funds. and the separate unconfirmed transactions are not validated by anyone. they can be manipulated.
i know people believe in utopian peace of perfection. but in the real world greedy people will abuse a system of no outside validation.

and with factories. the factory gets funded onchain. the factory then channels to a hub and the hub channels to a user. so again the user only see's funds it presumes the other party actually has. based on what the hub provides as proof.

after all. i could lock funds into an address and then from my factory show one transaction paying starbucks hub to then open a channel.. while also showing a tx paying a walmart hub who who could channel to me.

the more jumps(layers) between the real funds shown onchain vs the end use. and the less the end use has access to checking it, which allows for more chance of manipulation.

Quote
..
Channel Factories
As our main contribution, we introduce a new layer between the blockchain
and the payment network, giving a three layered system. In the first layer, the
blockchain, funds are locked into a shared ownership between a group of nodes.
The new second layer consists of multi-party micropayment channels we call
channel factories, which can quickly fund regular two party channels. The re-
sulting network provides the third layer, where regular transfers of currency are
executed

also wind_FURY
banks are counter party. you cant just throw funds at anyone. you need your bank to be open and the destinations bank to be open to send a payment and you need them to agree to send it. why do you think banks say 3-5 days payment. because funds have to jump between many hoops.
LN is not a system of paying a destination any time of day using just one lump of funds thats guaranteed to reach the destination day or night. in milliseconds without anyone elses signature.
P.S what i actually was addressing was the fortknox. of locking funds in. not the fractional reserve
you know ... thunderdome.. 2 may enter. but none may leave, if you survive. you exit one thunderdome and realise you entered another thunderdome.. just like how gold got locked into fortknox by making it harder to just get back what you put in
it was you and only you that mentioned the fractional reserve thing.. not me. i was debating fortknox fed reserve.. FEDERAL reserve. not FRACTIONAL
but if you want to talk about fractional reserve. then please take some time to learn about factories first as its better to explain something once you know about what im talking about. so learn factories run some scenarios. but dont run utopian scenarios. run critic/greed/theft style scenarios. then we can talk

and to Doomad
utopian praising and kissing ass something with flaws. (even the devs say things are broke) helps no one
actually being critical and pointing out failures does 2 things: 1 warns people 2. kicks devs ass to fix them

no point with utopian adverts when people use it, see it has issues, gets disappointed and thinks they have been lied to creates more negative adverts and conversations. than to just admit there are issues and limits.
its about not over promising and under delivering.
but hey you call it tinfoil hat. but id love to see you actually rebut how a statement is wrong using lines of code and actual content. and not insults. insults dont disprove or fix the issue.

have a nice day
1819  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Developer Interview Questions on: September 16, 2018, 12:28:56 AM
over 150 numbered questions but some of them have more than one question per number.. Dang thats alot.
but it still doesnt really test true knowledge. any random person with no code knowledge could get the answers.

as others have said. get some broken code on a github repo and get the recruit to submit a solution to the problem.

also with those questions, there are more than one correct answer. some may answer it correct in jargon some may answer it in waffled science and some may answer it in ELI-5(common speak)

also your questions, they are too generalised. for instance: "what are bitcoin terms"
possible context the question can be read as:
'what are bitcoins common buzzwords' EG: FOMO, to the moon, REKT, HODL, LAMBO
'what are bitcoins terms and conditions (ethos)' EG: open transparent decentralised
'what are bitcoins consensus terms (rules)' EG: 21mill coin cap, 1mb legacy block 4mb sw weight block

anyway, its far better to see a persons coding by requesting they do something. or show a project they already done

and the best devs also comment their code or have supporting ELI-5 documentation so that if they are sick, injured, resign or retire. its easy to understand what they done so that when you find a replacement. the work can continue without much rewriting/restarting issues
1820  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: What are the steps to take to publish the solution for blockchain scaling? on: September 15, 2018, 11:31:52 PM
@franky1

Where have you been Frank, by the way?

Nowadays, we are short of true bitcoiners, the kind of people who have not given up with bitcoin and are still committed to the cause: an electronic p2p cash system. Where the hell are other guys?

I feel so lonely sometimes here the stupid block size debate has polarized this community in the worst way ever and we are short of true bitcoin advocates, keep posting more.

As of tx/s throughput I would say like 100 tx/s suffices for near future and is achievable by few improvements definitively including
1- a block time decrease
2- using schnorr signatures
for mid term we need decentralization by getting rid of pools to be prepared for sharding.

We should never ever trust  any second layer protocol/solution for scaling or other serious issues which bitcoin is designed for. Putting utilities on top of bitcoin is not bad, actually it would be very helpful as long as such utilities are not designed to compete with bitcoin and alienate people from the core system.

1. a blocktime decrease doesnt help. it actually affects many other things and has to many impacts on other things to outweight a pro:con balance to make it plausible.
its far better to stay at 4mb per 10 min than do 1mb for 2.5min

2. schnorr sigs are useful for multisigs because it compact multiparties signatures to show as just 1 signature to hide who signs it. there are security risks as people can make a 2of 5 multisig. pretend its a 2 of 2 address and get someone to deposit funds into it (thinking they have absolute 50% control) and then the 2 of the 4 conmen sign it without the user who deposited funds knowing who actually signed it. and the transaction then appears like he consented to it. thus no legal route of recovery due to lack of proof that he didnt consent.
in a normal lean legacy payment system, you dont need dual signing or second party authorisation. thus no multisig, thus no compacting.. that was the point of bitcoin. not needing others. like i said going back to simple lean transactions is best

3. other things can be done instead, like opcodes that just need 1 sig even if there are 500 inputs from the same address.
so that if 500 different people paid into one address i wont need to sign all 500 times. but just once because its all in one address.. which is done by certain opcode not a schnorr

4. other things like new rules that if a mempool is more than 1mb but a block is less than 1mb then the pool is doing an obvious 'empty block' and thus gets auto rejected. thus ensuring pools are incentivised to fill blocks or not get a block reward. and thus help prevent pools backlogging transactions or trying to bottleneck the network by delaying confirmations of transactions by avoid adding them.. which is also a solution to one of the '51% attack vectors'. after all no one is silly enough to 51% a network just to reverse their coffee purchase. so the only 'threat' of a 51% attack is to bottleneck the network by not including tx's

5. if you want to decrease the blocktime to make it more user friendly for the 'i dont wanna wait at a cashier desk for 10 minute' argument.. well sorry but 2.5mins is just as lengthy a wait and doesnt really solve a queue build up at a retailer.
but that can be solved easily by funding a address a retailer owns(bartab analogy) and then let the retailer deduct balance internally on their system.

6. as for sharding. well thats just 2nd layer again. sharding is just LN factories of many tx's and multiple parties when you rub away alot of the buzzwording. sharding is from a banking analogy just like regional bank branches .. id say its better than reducing blocktime. but at the same time its then formalising the infrastructure into what banks do by forcing certain peoples activities being routed to a specific small pool of nodes

after all its far easier to deposit $90 into a starbucks legacy address and they just give you an in app balance of $90(30 coffee's) then to do all the convoluted effort of, make 5 LN locked channels funded with $18 per channel for good 'connectivity'/chance of success, but has the risks of channel offline situations(not able to spend $18) .. just for you to be able to buy at most 30 coffees(as long as all routes are avalable on the days after each $18 channel funds are spent).
think about it 10 onchain tx's to setup and eventualy close 5 channels. and no guarantee of being able to spend all $90.

where as just paying starbucks $90 in 1 legacy tx and they give you an inapp balance is so much easier for everyone and the network and even onchain fees

and especially with the risks that OTHER LN people will spend those $18 channel values by routing through you.. in short LN doesnt guarantee your $90 gets you 30 coffees.. but just depositing $90 (prepay) into a legacy address does

and thats the real funny part. those 'it cant scalers' think that the debate is about buying 1 coffee 3 times a day cant scale so needs offchain systems forced on everyone. when infact it just needs regular coffee drinkers to bulk buy(bartab) their coffee, but done simply using legacy transaction. rather than alternative networks requiring everyone to be online allday every day and where routing is required thus many people signing and agreeing to be part of your payment..

devs are over complicating solutions to issues they stifled and created themselves, all so they can own one of the precious future hubs/shards of nodes to get loads of fee's to repay their investors
Pages: « 1 ... 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 ... 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!