|
making bitcoin do scrypt in the hopes of averting asic farms is futile.
it would take just a few months to make one and we would be in the position we are now in, in 6 months
the reason no one is bothering with scrypt asics is not technical. its economics.
litecoin doesnt have the same utility as bitcoin. no one cares about it much. so no on cares to make a scrypt asic.
the price of litecoin is crap, being able to spend litecoin is crap. so no on is bothered.
but if bitcoin went over to scrypt. people would be bothered and see the benefit of doing it. so it would happen quickly
|
|
|
|
but anyone who wants no central bank/middleman/intermediary. if i see you later praising LN as the only solution to bitcoin. you have already failed in wanting an open system. oh and dont give real bitcoin supporters the dooms day of data centres and data bloat. 7 years of data fits on a fingernail not a datacentre  lets cencentrate on growing bitcoin and expanding it while remaining permissionless. lets not feed into the banker paid drivel that bitcoin can only head in one direction. |
|
|
|
|
going with just segwit.
if 100% of peoples TX's were made using segwit. tx fee's of 20cents each ($500 @~2500tx) would go from ~$500 to ~$300
but
thats assuming 100% of tx are segwit.
then depending on how much pools open up their preferential settings within the new buffers. means more tx, which means more then ~$300 to offset the discount, you would see ~4500tx instead of ~2500
but thats assuming pools open up the preferential setting to fully use up the new allowances
ill try to explain
some think that all transaction data will be hit by a 4x discount. when in actual fact its just the signatures receiving the discount
some think that more space = less demand/less average fee, again wrong. pools wont jump straight to the max allowed buffer.
they would test the waters by opening their own safe preference allowance within the new buffer rules.
EG when the rule was 1mb for years, pools selected lower preference level over time to acclimatize themselves.
even in version 0.13.x of core there is a preference defaulting still at 0.7mb even though pools now raise it to 0.99x mb.
with segwit or even dynamic blocks. pools will try lets say 1.001mb weight first to test the water and then grow when they see the orphan risk is not causing issues.. they wont jump straight to max buffer rule on day one.
as for how much bonus(combined tx fee) will be, lets say 0.5btc combined was the old expectation / 20cents per tx old expectation.
you wont see a drop purely based on less demand. because pools wont open up the buffer fully.
so the 20cent per tx will still be expectant for legacy tx's, but if using segwit. only part of a tx gets a discount. which works out at a end result of paying 12.5cents total/tx instead of 20cents, which by allowing more transactions through over time offsets that discount abit, because the combined total will grow.
so because pools wont be jumping to max buffer instantly and users wont be jumping to 100% segwit usage instantly. dont expect much to change.
we are still going to see the fee war rising the price faster than the speed of users swapping over to segwit and pools to expanding their preferencial buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoin is NOT a commodity..
commodity is a raw material used to create other products.
EG
wheat->bread
gold->jewellery/circuits
oil -> car fuel plastic
bitcoin belongs in the currency grouping and then within that, the asset market.
definitely not the commodities market.
its like some people cant even pass high school economics these days to know the basics
the article seems to be wrote by someone that has no market knowledge.
first talking about commodities.. then jumping into bitcoin.. then into the corporate share market..
serious failings for the article writer.
oh and twitter is not a commodity either..
|
|
|
|
1) Secure
2) low fees
3) Decentralized
You can only pick two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If your priority is not security and decentralization then maybe you should be using a different cryptocoin.
Bitcoin was never meant to be free. High fees protect the network from spam and ensure the security of our mining network to protect us from double spends and government takeovers.
Small block size protect us from centralization and denial of service attacks on our network nodes.
I don't think lightning networks or side chains are a good option ether, they operate with lower standards of security.
Our only real option is to wait and survive long enough until the world wide internet can accommodate a low latency high bandwidth connection at low cost to all people.
This will take at least 10 more years.
Until then the community will have to micro manage block size to the best of our ability.
i pick 1 and 2.. because number 3 is not a problem.. i laugh when people say the blocksize is massive.. um hello. 7 years of borderless payments of millions of people is the size of..... dramatic pause....... a fingernail as for saying high fee's protect against spam.. well define spam. because it seems many think that developing countries hourly wage is spam. even a weeks wage should be deemed spam also CODE can avert real spam. such as not allowing someone to resend funds the same day/ within x blocks. or limiting sig-ops of transactions. and many other CODE techniques.. using economics fails because if it requires X just to get through the relay network everyone is gonna pay X. thus thats already pushing the fee upward. then the 'average estimate' mechanism, again everyone pay that so again pushes the price up without even considering spam. and then lastly "average estimates" are not instantly reactive to low demand times and thus keep the price up even when there isnt demand economic 'pricing' is not the solution to spam. its a barrier of entry/utility |
|
|
|
Hell there is that drug they use in south america when they blow it in your face and you lose free will, they usually take you to an atm and say go withdrawal all your money and hand it to us and it usually works or even you help them move the shit out of your home into their vans.
doesnt quite work like that but im guessing you have been watching a tv show that mentions it, possibly about conmen, gypsies and psychics No I watched a documentary about it, actually this one : https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/worlds-scariest-drug-colombian-devil39s-breath-part-1/55ef5be749b3d5591cf227c4I am sure it isn't 100% but point is they could probably get you to tell your password to any crypto wallet with the stuff. put it this way if they have to ask a street busker who has to play a bamboo flute to get enough pocket change to feed himself. he doesnt really know himself how it works, otherwise he would be rich. as for the story of the doorman saying the tenant helped thieves carry his possessions to the thieves car.. im more inclined to say the door man drugged the tenant and called his mates round to raid the apartment while the tenant was passed out. telling a little fib the next day to counteract his own involvement. it doesnt make you lucid/articulate and able to function normally minus freewill, it is a roofie/super drunk drug. it makes you passive and not fight back. like being stoned and just wanting to chillout/relax/sleep. not become a robotic mind controlled zombie. the reason its used is that unlike a roofie that requires you to get acquainted enough with a person to hand them a drink, you can blow it in their face just passing by, and within a minute they are drowzy and drunk even when drunk via alcohol. i could easily say "hey mate we got a taxi home but the driver needs to be paid. whats your debit card number." allowing the drunk person to, while inebriated type in their number. because even when drunk that seems rational/normal thing if you see yourself in a taxi.. ofcourse the person sitting with you sees what buttons you press to later take your card once the taxi has drove off this doesnt mean loss of free-will while remaining coherently/lucidly. its just being so drunk your easily sold on something that sounds rational. however if i said to a drunk person you need to empty your bank account or carry your tv down the stairs to my car. thats a different story, most drunks would laugh and say "f-u i just wanna sleep" and then leave the thief to carry it themselves. as for telling your password to a crypto wallet.. if the password is short enough for an inebriated drunk to spell it out.. then the entropy is not that huge anyway.
but this is why i still think wallets need to lock privkeys to something tamper proof and use public keys and signatures as the only publicly transmitted info. EG BitID as the 2FA for services where the service shows a unique message and you reply with signature of that message that can be verified to a public key registered to you. retailers see your public key and give your hardware wallet all the unspents of it. and your hardware wallet signs a tx, to only send the signed tx back to the retailer. thus the hardware wallet doesnt need an internet connection or desktop client with addons to act as a middleman |
|
|
|
Hell there is that drug they use in south america when they blow it in your face and you lose free will, they usually take you to an atm and say go withdrawal all your money and hand it to us and it usually works or even you help them move the shit out of your home into their vans.
doesnt quite work like that but im guessing you have been watching a tv show that mentions it, possibly about conmen, gypsies and psychics |
|
|
|
|
biased poll biased results
you might aswell make a poll that only includes gold and silver
and then ask a question what is the best investment ever. to later come to a biased conclusion that the population doesnt see bitcoin as a good investment.
all because you dont include the options.
typical core/blockstream tactic. dont give an option and then pretend because no one is using it that its not needed/wanted
|
|
|
|
|
altcoins are like penny stocks. so knowing a penny is 100th of a whole amount. best to stick with 1% altcoin holding.
yea play with altcoins daytrader style, to increase bitcoin.. but when it comes to hoarding. only hold 1% altcoin
|
|
|
|
I am running 2 full nodes at this point. I personally don't need/want any reward for doing so as I just want to help the network, but it might be a good incentive for people to run full nodes. It time on time again surprises me how low the number of running nodes is, and yes, it has been in decline for years. Another thing is that the number of nodes should be places all around the world, and not hundreds of nodes being hosted from just one data center. That would not really help to achieve some level of decentralization. And then you have the problem of which nodes you must reward. Other problems are how much would they get paid, and what will the pay schemes look like, who will pay for it, etc.
may i ask why you are running 2 nodes. are they on 2 PC's in two locations.. or one of them on a datacentre one on pc.. or both data centre |
|
|
|
-snip-
but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node.
I didnt do that. I just said full nodes that are not accepting inbound connections are still contributing to the network. Less so then nodes that accepting inbound connections or nodes that can help you sync, yes, but still contributing. Whereas the gavin quote suggest that unless you can hold 100 connections you are bad for the network. -snip offtopic sideshow-
full nodes are full nodes for a reason.
They fully verify data, not fully fill the default 125 connection slots. im not talking about connection slots. im talking about being a full part of the network. more so im on about validation and access to full data.
but to answer your opinion when it comes to connection counts the less connections you have the more hops(relays) data has to do to reach everyone EG if 74 nodes had 74 connections each. the data will reach all nodes in one hop.. 74*74=5476 anything below 74 wont be enough to reach all the 5400 in one hop. some will require a couple hops however there is a big leap with less nodes. 18 nodes connected to 18 nodes connected to 18 nodes can reach everyone in 2 hops 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes connected to 9 nodes can reach everyone in 3 hops 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes connected to 6 nodes can reach everyone in 4 hops so athough having 6 connections, and moving it to 9 connections (if they all done it) gets everyone having the data in 3 instead of 4 hops trying to get everyone having the data within the next hop requires 74 connections+ so many deem this as being a bottleneck if some of them 74 nodes are not then passing it onto 74 nodes themselves i personally dont see a reason to need 125 connections as a default but if everyone had just 6 connections.. they are just causing data to need to bounce around a bit longer then whats deemed most efficient.
though to counter that. only 75 nodes need to connect to 75 nodes each... meaning the other 5300 nodes RECEIVING it can do whatever the hell they like because the data would have already been received by the time the other nodes wanna play funny business about how many they should connect to and this is where i feel core are re-inventing the 'supernode' concept. using things like their 'fibre' brand. lets say they have 80 specific nodes with 80 connections each . everyone gets the data in one hop. leaving everyone else free to loop it through however many/little they want though good for data migration, it does then make 'fibre' the gate keepers of data if they are the centre of the distribution network |
|
|
|
|
the real foolish thing is. even if there was a way to eliminate all fake nodes.
we will see a fight over how much they can/should earn.
we will start to see nodes rejecting and refusing to relay peoples transactions unless they get some income.
then it will be a fight over how much income.
some will want ~$15/hr (0.02btc per hour for ~2500tx) which works out as 0.00000133/tx
but thats just for one nodes income. lets say there were 5400 nodes
suddenly that 0.0072btc just to pay the nodes to relay the transactions, before even thinking about it reaching a mining pools mempool and the mining pools tx fee for miners
id say let LN go commercial and be the paypal2.0 with its CLTV/CSV payment held(maturity)/chargeback mechanisms and fee's. as a side option
and leave bitcoins mainnet as far away from economic game theory as possible.
bring the mainnet back to using code rules for priority and slow down the fee war to work over decades not months
|
|
|
|
The node reward doesn't have to be big or a game changer, but even a small fee would give more people a reason to run nodes..
If the rewards were too big it would even risk centralization due to full node farms.
and how would they get paid.. suddenly a 1in 2 out becomes a 1in 5400 out transaction?!?. where 5398 outs are paying nodes a few sats each.. um no thanks im all for people trying to make a buck with LN. because that is just a side option much like using blockchain.info or coinbase.com... but trying to turn bitcoins onchain mainnet into something commercial will cause issues for real utility of the mainnet.. so again no thanks all i can see happening is a re-ignition of what happened in the mining pool emergence. instead of 1 node 1cpu.. we start seeing people running multiple nodes and multiple computers. and becoming node farms |
|
|
|
Bullshit. Most full nodes should be run at home as wallets and its perfectly fine to not accept inbound connections. The important part of a node is that it verifies information. If your node on a datacenter has no wallet (as it should) for who do you verify the information?
it is not bullshit the quote alone is out of context, you should read the reddit post. I've added a line above that quote which i think helps clarify things a bit. the argument was about helping bitcoin network or in other words contribute, and for that purpose the quote is right, you won't be contributing to anything if ....[connection and bandwidth are such and such] As I said, even if you are not opening port 8333, you are still relaying and verifying transactions and blocks for the network. Connection polarity doesn't matter, you will still be relaying nodes/transactions to your peers. The network will still benefit for that. You would just be connected to 8 peers to help to relay information to them. The reddit post is 3 years ago where the nodes are still plentiful. With the decreasing number of nodes, running a full node would help even if you do not open your port. Exactly, nodes accepting inbound connection are available to SPV nodes and contribute more bandwith resources. All other nodes, even pruned nodes help the network though. Quotes like the above (esp. without context) might have even contributed to a decressing number of full nodes. If you tell people running nodes the only way they can (e.g. due to ISP restrictions) is bad for the network they are inclined to stop. but declaring an spv node and a pruned node as being the same as a full node makes people not want to be a full node because they are lulled into the delusion that theres no point being a full node. much like core lulling people into the false belief they dont need to upgrade when segwit is activated. full nodes are full nodes for a reason. |
|
|
|
|
incentivizing nodes just makes TX fee's rise. adding barriers of entry.
incentivizing nodes just creates sybil attacks (one person running several nodes to increase earnings)
it doesnt cost alot to run a computer. you just turn it on and leave it on.
the only people it does cost are the childish mo-fo's that run it from a cloud service because they dont want their parents finding out.
if you dont have a basic computer at home. then dont run a full node. we should not be incentivizing people to run nodes on cloud services like amazon. otherwise it begins to defeat the point of being a distributed decentralized network if the majority are all running on amazon
|
|
|
|
Quantum Computers are a Sci-Fi fantasy and do not exist.
d-wave is real.. but the "quantum" sci fi story promotion is exaggerated if you peal away the science fiction and look at the reality. all it simply means is instead of 0volt=no 1volt=yes binary.. they are now instead of having an on off yes no 2 choice.. their "switch" is a dimmer switch. EG 0.33v =third option 0.66v=fourth choice thats it in a nutshell.. instead of yes and no. they have a third and fourth option. and now lots of people are thinking how to use this. its called a wave because instead of binary which on an oscilator looks like steps/platforms. by having a gradient in between its more of a wave shape 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 instead of 0 1 0 EG 8 digit binary(2 settings) 0-256 options 8 digit dwave(4 settings) 0-65536 options this can be useful where binary or hex logic can be improved 2 fold. 0000-3333 translates to 2 binary bytes(00000000-11111111) 00-33-00-33 translates to 4 hex (0-F-0-F) so as i said before d-wave only handles binary logic problems 2x fold but things like vectors and other non direct binary... going from 256 possibilities to 65536 possibilities opens more oppertunities. yea the d-wave CEO goes a little overboard in the sci-fi department. but i think that is more business magic to hide thier secret sauce to not get competitors while they are still experimenting |
|
|
|
No, it is not. Bitcoin works fine without any further changes. Surely it would be nice to have more TPS. Would Bitcoin die if it didn't attain that? No. Honey badger doesn't really care.
it works, but not fine... We have had queues that last for hours(10+) to confirm, and if every time that happens we have to raise fee's... give it a year and nobody will be using bitcoin. i remember lauda getting very excited about a game "world of tanks" accepting bitcoin as payment.. but soon after he went very quiet and dismissive when reality sunk in, that players would have a headache actually trying to buy things with it. lauda's mindset is a road with a pot-hole every 100 yards is still a fine and working road because all he can see is cars driving on it. he has no concept of the axel/suspension damage the pot holes can cause or the wheel rim damage. or even just the discomfort to the people in the cars. to him he would not care about repairing a road. he would rather make people be detoured to a parking lot and then commute by bus(LN) |
|
|
|
You can literally already do this exact thing with a NFC tag. Just cut open your arm and slap it in. Done. Oh maybe don't forget to sanitize the area before/ after or whatever. I'm not a doctor so idk the procedure!
downside of just an NFC chip is that it transmits one message at a time. so something in your arm without any 'processing' ability will end up just transmitting a private key. allowing any receiver to be the signer. a better concept is either wait for microchips to have the power to see an unspent, sign a tx and send out only the signed tx, to be implanted. or make a device that can do it .. like a wristband.. that doesnt need to be USB cabled to a PC and doesnt need browser plug-ins/desktop clients to manage the receiving/sending. that way the private key is always protected and also you dont need a pc for your own use to send a tx. also you dont need something implanted by your doctor. however. i dont see an implant right now being a payment mechanism itself.. i do see an implant in the wrist can be locked to a password so that your wristband only functions when you are the one wearing it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
