Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2019, 02:26:28 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 ... 824 »
2001  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin price live: Latest updates as cryptocurrency holds firm at $7,000 on: August 09, 2018, 10:10:59 PM
alot of people foolishly and stupidly stand at the peak of $19,500 and look down.
yet not even 1% of the community got to see-use-benefit from the ATH because it was an unsustatinable fluke.

what people need to do is not sit in the clouds and look down but stand at ground level and look up.

after doing some maths th long way round and then trying to look for a way to simplify it.. imagine this.
take the network hashrate (in exa). and multiply it by 135 and you will start to see the ground level where people will refuse to sell below

EG
take the highest hashrate this month. 52exa = $7020
on that day the price was over 7020

the next day 39exa=$5265 on that day the price was in the high $6k
latest hashrate 42exa= $5670 which we are seing today we are still in the $6k range

so instead of standing in the clouds. stand at ground level. knowing no one is stupid to sell below the cost of obtaining bitcoin and so if a mining pools costs are 135* their hashrate thats their bottom line.

then you will start to see where prices are near that point. and you can class that as a low price and good oppertunity to buy. and if the price is way way way above that bottom line. then it is a sign of speculative hype/emotion/ empty reason. thats not sustainable and many people will want to sell so expect those high prices not to sustain for long (EG dcembers temporary fluke bubble price of $19.5k which burst and settled back down nearer to real value)

..
the 135 multiple came from looking at the latest ASIC equipment cost and electric per btc and other factors.
back in 2017 asics were not $850 but nearer $2k which is where the matrix was over 200. bet right now this quarter while asics and costs are where they are 135 is a good ground level multiple without having to go the long way round working out costs of producing a btc
2002  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: here you have it economists speak against bitcoin on: August 09, 2018, 09:31:34 PM
reading the article here is my opinion.
the dude wants to introduce a "carbon emmisions per gigahash" (lets call it CEPGH)

well ASICS are the most environmentally friendly method per gigahash. all the CEPGH will achieve is ban altcoins that CPU/GPU mine because their CEPGH ratio is far worse.
its basically a call to rule out CPU/GPU mining which is more Carbon Emmissions per Gigahash
so i dont see it as an article against bitcoin. i see it more as a argument against other coins that are PoW based but dont want asics.

..

what i do find funny though is has anyone calculated the CEPYTKV.. Carbon Emissions Per You Tube Kitten video
what if i told you there were  
under 100million kitten videos of 4-20 minutes long
under 600k bitcoin blocks of 4-20 minutes long

meaning there are atleast 100x more kitten videos than bitcoin blocks

now lets take the bitcoin hashrate
50,000,000terrahash= 3.5million asic miners

lets say an average pc uses 450watts. an average asic uses 1.3kw ... an asic is the power of 3 PC's
screw it lets round up some more. that means that if a 10 minute kitten video has 10mill views or more. it has a more negative ecological impact than mining a bitcoin block

now remember there are 100x more video's than blocks. so just the category "kitten" on just the website youtube is wasting more electric per view than bitcoin does

...
as for my first thought
a 450w PC doing CPU mining.. scrw it lets say 3 PC's to stay on the same power usage ratio. 3 PC's CPU mining do not even do a gigahash/s
a 650w PC doing GPU mining.. screw it lets say 2 PC's to stay on the same power usage ratio. 2 PC's GPU mining do not even do a terrahash/s

an asic does ~14 terrahash/s. which as my first thought concluded makes bitcoin mining more efficient than any other altcoin that PoW's  based on the articles proposed CEPGH
2003  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightning network stats: 96 BTC 3.0K nodes 11.2K channels on: August 09, 2018, 01:26:36 PM
Until we have major merchants running their own LN nodes and people having direct access to their channels, this will only grow at a very slow rate. We need some Killer App that are focused on cheap micro payments for this to go viral.  Roll Eyes

The LN wallets/software will also have to be made more user-friendly than other wallets/software for people to shift to something else. The growth is impressive, but there are no driving force to push adoption of this second layer solution.  Huh

devs are now seeing the pitfalls. flaws and broken promises.

to receive funds people need to keep their channel online. this has come to a debate about using servers and lightwallets so people can use their phones as the payment method without needing to carry a laptop/desktop around to buy coffee on a full node. and to allow the server to manage the channel while people sleep or have their phone switched off/on charge/airplane mode/out of signal range
summary of devs: it will be more centralised than previously promised, but convenience comes at a cost

because transactions are not relayed/audited/verified by the community. and only the counterparty(s) in the channel check and sign. there are ways for malicious tweaking to occur. and unless people are checking the raw tx data of what they are contracting to. its much like signing a contract without reading the small print. thus third parties will play a bigger part in it and also KYC.
summary of devs: by avoiding blockchain there is no community consensus. thus a KYC system may need to be added for personal due diligence and to help avoid phishing and other risks of party to party malicious acts

with network stats showing that if everyone just has 2 channels open (one inbound one outbound) where the network looks like a long snake of a large single route. if the head of the snake wants to make a payment to the tail. in a 1000 node network is 1000 agreements and micro fee's to get the payment through which if someone at the stomach goes off line everyone is effected. so a average 2 channel per node is dangerous and expensive for all involved.
the average for 100 nodes is 4 channels which equates to upto 20 agreements/microfee's but offers more than one route
the average for 1000 nodes should be more around the 14 channel aim(of 3-4 hops) to keep the agreements/microfee's below 64 'hops'(2-4 channels)
summary of devs: the more people that join. the more hops are needed or the more channels per node are needed. so the hop model doesnt work without central hubs of multiple channels or each node having multiple channels to be well connected. we see things moving more towards the central hub manager model as it is more convenient than users setting up multiple channels

stats already show that although the 'contracts' are set for 2 months+ average, people will not keep their devices on 24hours/71days.
yes out of LN's 3k nodes most do. but these are majority the devs/merchants. not regular home users
EG beta game testers spend days/weeks jumping at the same wall, testing every vector. but regular users spend seconds jumping at a wall and only a couple hours before getting bored
as you can see by bitcoins mainnet.
with millions of bitcoin users there are only a dozen thousand nodes on all the time most of which are merchants/devs. but the mass majority do not stay on for months on end(under 1%)
this can cause issues. especially around node update releases where it ends up that(for full nodes) whole blockchains need to be re synced/indexed offering a malicious timed attack for some users to exploit while their counterparty is asleep. on vacation, at work or re-indexing their mainnet node due to an update, thus unable to monitor broadcasts.
summary of devs: requirement to extend the revocation period by days instead of hours or cencentrate on server management for convenience

some merchants will not want to have their internet connections occupied by 8000-1million channels direct with their customers nodes. and having to secure the connection/monitor such amount of channels day and night. so they will use third party node services to become hubs around the merchant where the hub takes all the strain and the merchant just has a couple 'trusted' service gateways it connects to.
summary of devs. like how cloudflare or bitpay take the brunt of customer demand to reduce risk of loss of funds or even DDoS the end merchant/site

there are many other risks/factors too(hyips/ponzis). although mainnet is a push network. thus those involved in HYIP/Ponzi schemes are themselves handing funds into these schemes(their own fault). but with LN's routing autopilot. hyip/ponzi's can loop random people in and extract funds out of people without them realising they have been looted via a ponzi just by the routing autopilot trick.

dont get me wrong. LN has got a niche market for a certain userbase. but it is not the solution for everyone.
where visa stats show visa is used under 90 times in 2 months per user.
having to set up 14+ channels (28 onchain transactions to open and close)  means people on average would only do 3 LN payments per onchain tx. but when the network surpasses just a few thousand nodes and more channels per node are required EG 28 channels(56 onchan tx) for 1-2 tx per channel
under 45 channels then its a 1:1 real life usage and normal people see no point in pre-planning 2 months of spending habits and setting up 45 channels when they can just send funds to the merchant onchain as and when they please at the same overall cost but without the pre planning.

lastly although LN is promised as the cheap solution. thats just the bait. come on how oftn do you see any service, whether it be train rail, bus, postage, theme park queue.. where a faster service is cheaper. we all know the market will flip where the fasters service will get expnsive de to convenience and the old slow confirmation onchain would then be still expensive but cheaper than LN, once the dynamics change due to real life consequences
2004  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: whats the point with bitcoin donations? on: August 05, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
donations, even if you ignore the currency type. is a flawed income generation model.

even these mainstream news sites try to avoid putting up a 'paywall' but then do a donate request. they dont get much and thats from a national fiat currency.
donations of bitcoin in the past were much higher. but that was in the time where people didnt think it would surpass $20. now people are afraid to donate and even afraid to spend bitcoin because they feel if they donate/buy coffee this year, they could have used that exact amount of satoshis to 'buy a lambo' in 2 years.

if people want income. there are many other better ways to get it
2005  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin dominance threatening the existence of most cryptocurrencies on: August 04, 2018, 02:20:20 PM
a few others have hinted it.. but not laid it out as bare as i will

stop giving a crap about market cap
i can make a coin with 21 trillion coins. sell just 1 coin for $5 and instantly have a market cap of $105 trillion
thus making it the top of 'coinmarketcap' and making bitcoin less than 1% in comparison... all for the price of $5

what actually should be done is take some FEATURES that the majority of crypto have. and give them a point system for how important they are.
and then show the points total for each coin.
then this actually might start directing bitcoin devs to see what direction the devs need to go towards to keep people excited by knowing what bitcoin lacks that other coins have..thus identifying what is needed to then earn bitcoin more feature points to stay ontop
2006  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Rootstock - Smart contracts for bitcoin, is it to be trusted? on: August 04, 2018, 11:08:51 AM
bitcoin doesnt have an actual sidechain.

side chain = altcoin

basically you swap a bitcoin for a rootstock coin and then do some contract stuff on the rootstock chain and if certain conditions are met you get the bitcoin back.
the rootstock coin is NOT bitcoin. its a separate system that wants to peg their coin to bitcoin.

the contracts do not run on bitcoin. they run on the separate altcoin called rootstock

2007  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin vs ApplePay on: August 03, 2018, 01:04:33 AM
remmbering that applepay is not tendering Apple currency. but is tendering fiat. so users need to connect their fiat account to applepay
and merchants although they tender fiat. to accept applepay they need to be clients of applepay

so its not an automatic just walk in and everyone is happy. users need to set up their applepay accounts and merchants need to set up their accounts

so
lets pretend coinbase is applepay. (the gateway for the currency)
to avoid the need to use lengthy publickeys or lengthy LN URI's. hopes of having available LN channel routing, and/or avoid lengthy onchain confirm times.
user funds their coinbase account
a user just needs to know a ID of the merchant EG stabucks#12344#02/08/18
imagine both merchant and customer have a coinbase account and use a coinbase app
merchant sends the customer the merchants ID via NFC(rfid) and the users coinbase app does the rest where coinbase does the balance transfer instantly (they do offchain balance transfers) and informs the merchant that its done.

ofcourse convenience and speed comes at a cost of relying on services such as applepay or coinbase in this example. which is why its normally best to only put in $30 value to cover 'convenience' spending. into these managed systems. and keep your main hoards/ value/salary separate.

even LN's current design is not as good as what applepay/coinbase could offer.
but due to oncoming legislation about 'custodian wallets' whereby people could just send funds through balances held on exchanges/merchant tools.. the investors behind coinbase/bitpay and xapo. are scared to implement the scenario i shown above about coinbase transfering balances. as that would be a regulatory nightmare (but convenient for users and mrchants).. and that there is why LN is being created so that merchants can link to services like coinbase and to customers. in a way that regulators cant hold coinbase accountable as the 'balance sheet' coinbase hubs manage are not centralised to coinbase but distributed. thus allowing coinbase to make fee's without paying expensive licences.

emphasis LN wont be as promised or as convenient. but will stil be co-managed by third parties. to be able to offer something devs dont want to fix on the mainnet.
2008  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: August 02, 2018, 11:51:13 PM
back to the topic question

the blockchain format is not compatible backwards.

old nodes are not just relaying blocks along with everyone else byte for byte the same. they are not even relaying transactions the same.. the old nodes have been re-jigged around the network topology where they are just the tails/border/outer nodes of a network. that require segwit nodes to bridge/filter them data.

lukeJR, sipa, gmaxwell said it themselves.

also to prove it
if there was a fault with segwit nodes and they had to back date/downgrade back to a pre-segwit node
guess what.. problems would arise.
as their would not be any segwit nodes to translate(filter-bridge) the blocks
if people then accidently sent out segwit transactions whereby the network defaultd to non-segwit.. those transactions could be manipulatd.
(this is why although they pretend it was all soft and backward. the devs didnt release the wallets for segwit until after the mandatory split)
P.S.. by bing madatory and being a rule change requiring acceptance or rejected off the network.. that is not a soft fork. its a hard fork

and again ill emphasis it was a segwit block format that occured first in the timeline to change the concensus rule and direction.. which triggerd the rejecting of blocks and throwing people off the network
2009  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: August 02, 2018, 11:11:25 PM
blame the miners?

did you even wake up and look at the events of summer 2017
signal for segwit by august first or get your blocks rejected

lets word it differently..
open your legs in the next 10 seconds or get shot in the head..
is it then the womens fault for getting raped?

as for saying no one can orchestrate it.
lukeJR and samson mow USAF - lets call them the threateners
barry silbert (who pays Luke JR, samson mow, blockstream, bloq)
gangraped the women(network)
one part offering the rough painful option. another offering a slow consensual option. and a third offering a compromise if she doesnt scream she wont gt scrwed... well she got screwed.

it was all a three seashell/card trick game of fake choice.
i also found it funny that the propaganda machine was at such a level that they actually stopped reporting orphans
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2years
check when they turned off the orphan checker to hide it  (hint 21st june)
then check your history of what happened
Just so you guys know USAF is cancelled. Miners finally realised that this would be risky to let USAF happen.
This is why all major mining pool started to signalise SegWitx2 yesterday, currently, we have more than 80% hash support for this proposal.
Everything should be fine in hopefully August 1 we would have upgraded chain with SegWit running on it - and withing next 6 months hard fork 2MB will be activated.
this is where by the pretense of offering a 2x version.. it falsy gave cores segwit % a jump from 35% to above 80%
kind of funny how fast 2x discussion dropped away as soon as 'segwit's bip91 got the lock it needed weeks later.  but then you look at who paid th 2x shell and you see the picture clearly

and lastly..

it was a bilateral split. the rules of segwit ARE DIFFERENT than the rules befor the mandatory split
its literally wrote in the blockchain at 478559

oh and bitcoin cashs version of different ruled blocks created a different block hours later.. meaning core rules changed first in the timeline. although it was same block numbers.
both core and cash had the same 478558
then core changed.
core even got to block 478601 (7:05pm uk time) before cash even made block 478559(7:12pm UK time)
yes core was pushing out segwit only accepted blocks for 42 blocks before cash..
(i told you weeks ago to check the blockchain before rebutting....)


maybe look at block data before defending certain people.
it is getting obvious you dont care for the network or the protocol changes or events. you just want to defend a particular team of people.

P.S jeff's 2x implementation was never sustainable, not due to bad coding. but due to it just being a ruse to coax miners into being raped under false consent.
jeff is another guy paid by barry silbert.
its all one big kardashian drama of pretend in-family fighting to get people to choose which family member they love the most. but in the end its all the same family and the drama would have played out in one pre-planned direction no matter what

atleast rmove your lips from a developers ass long enough to read some facts and even some blockchain data.. because you are starting to become obvious you care less for the network and only care for the desires of a few paid men
2010  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Poll reveals 2% of American investors own Bitcoin on: August 01, 2018, 10:30:39 PM
A recent Gallup poll shows the early adopters of Bitcoin among American investors.

2% might not sound like it's a lot but it's a very good start for such a new investment category. The question is what else needs to be done to get that 2% number higher?

You can read about the poll and the other results of the survey here: https://bitcoinist.com/quarter-us-investors-intrigued-bitcoin-poll/

2% for the world's largest economy is actually an encouraging number for a new asset class like bitcoin. The population is 1.3 billion and it is estimated that around 0.8 million people own bitcoin, so the percentage is around 0.61%. So comparing this, 2% is certainly an encouraging numbers. However, with time it needs to be increased.

where is your maths.
where you getting 1.3billion.. where are you getting 0.8mil own bitcoin.

its 2% of american investors.
so 325mill population(america).. 54% are investors.. which is: 175mill american investors.
2% of that basd purely on that article results in 3.5 million americans have bitcoin
2011  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Poll reveals 2% of American investors own Bitcoin on: August 01, 2018, 09:21:44 PM
all depends on who was polled.
go to a fiat investment firm that legally can only invest in regulated FIAT investments. your guaranteed low results.

go to a place where its individuals doing penny stocks, shares, assets and commodies and other investments where they have more flexibility of choice and the poll would be different

its like going to a gay bar. 99% of people that drink beer are gay
go to an average bar.. 15% of people that drink ber are gay
go to a bar designated for racists and homophobes.. 0% of people that drink beer are gay

a better poll would be to find out how many americans are investors
gallop says 54% of americans invest(separate poll)

then work out how many americans own bitcoin
survey monkey says 5% of americans have bitcoin

making it over 9% of american investors have bitcoin
2012  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fake volume in exchanges on: August 01, 2018, 03:07:27 PM
This is disturbing, it makes the case for regulated exchanges...

It doesn't affect the market cap or price directly, but higher volumes can have a few effects:

All these new exchanges are looking to attract new customers, so they try to fake their volume to appear higher in lists of top exchanges.

Altcoins too will try to pump up their daily volume to try to appear to be a good and stable coin.

Scammers trying to make a coin appear to be good or bad can generate a steady stream of fake buy/sell to themselves to try to push the price in the direction they want.

The moral of this story is: don't trust the volume!


you forgot to add if an exchange only does say 200btc volume a day thats usually only 1btc in fee's. no VC is going to buy shares in the the ownership of an exchange that only makes 1btc a day. so some exchanges fake volumes, not to make a coin look good. but to grab some VC money

its also not just exchanges. its wallet custodians faking the 'new walet' per day stats to make it seem that its a good VC prospect for advertising income of a nice increasing customer views site
2013  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: August 01, 2018, 06:45:34 AM
OMG its delusional. kodak said how digital media wont scale up and how they will stick with film media because floppy disks can only handle 1.44mb of photos...... look what happened to kodak

if you want to argue that users cant handle more thn a couple mb of data very 10 minutes.. then you should do a kodak, but modernise it.. go tell twitch.tv that streaming video wont work. tell youtube users cant live stream. go tell EA sports that online gaming wont work. tell skype. even go and tell netflix that users wont get to watch HD movies.

..... oh wait. users can...... hmm

Ehh.. all of your examples are centralized databases.

um. you might want to read it again. its from the prospective of the users.
the argument for not increasing the block size is that users computers wont be able to cope with processing and sending data out. becasue upload speeds are bad (they lost the download speed argumnt years ago, which is why they retracked and now have this 4mb weight(yet not allow it to be 4x capacity) .. (netflix argument)

read again. its not about just users VIEWING netflix. its users LIVESTREAMING. meaning their computer taking 32-64 HD webcam images a second,  and sending them out.

these days hundreds of millions of people can play a game on their computer. sending all the player position, angles facing. gun height direction and bullet timing OUT. while also talking to their friends on teamspeak or skype.(voice data OUT) while having a webcam on so they can overlay their facial reactions ontop the gameplay and have that sent OUT to livestream, twitch or youtube..

think about all the data being processed every second for all the vector positions of gaming. the overlaying of webcam footage and overlaying of groupcalls to a seamless constant stream of data to twitch. aswell as simultaniously sending out parts of that data as individual streams to skype to EA..

now go tell twitch that their service does not work because users cannot send out megabits/second for twitch to receive. oh wait, people can send out many mbyte/10min

1mbit/s = 1*60*10 /8 = 75mbyte/10min
.. i know i can feel you itching to press the reply button to rebut about developing countries being slow and also relaying out data to multiple node= multiplying the data amount. also many dveloping countries have nver been in the nod running requirment because their internet is cellular. which no matter what speed their internet is. core is not functional as a full node on a cellular (programming issue not speed issue) and also the tx fee surpassed 1c a tx. thus rulling out good utility for developing countries.

but if you take time to check the stats we are in the era of fibre and 5g cellular. not adsl copper wire and 2g cellular

global average
http://www.speedtest.net/global-index
46down 22 up
22mbit/s up = 22*60*10/8 = 1.6gbyte/10min .. or the average node with 8 connctions = 200mbyte per 10mins
2014  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 09:23:05 PM
but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00


And then he gives the solution. The most basic was staying online, but with segwit it was no longer needed as another person could monitor your channel and potentially earn some money if the other party decides to close it early to steal the coins. Since we have segwit now I think it's all fine and dandy. Also, if you don't trust the system you can always use the old fashioned way of sending the coins, without LN. LN is great for those payments that are small and thus have to be cheap and fast, like paying for a meal.

i mentioned the economics. a fair system would be slow but cheap or faster but expensive. that way it becomes obvious that people gt a good freedom of choice. but if onchain is slow and expensive.. who would use it.. (and thats the commercial game plan)
as for staying online.. do you sleep?.. again instead of fixing an issue to not need to worry about staying online. they decide to invent factoris and third party managers. (and thats the commercial game plan)

do you ever question how the bitcoin devs like rusty russel, gmax.lukejr, sipa. were suppose to repay back the over $100m investment they got.
ofcourse they dont want bitcoin to remain a cheap fast option thats better than fiat. they want people to move their coin into commercial services like LN so investors can get fee's. and have the funds cycle round in those factories without exiting so they can get repeat fee's long term

if you ever get the chance to listen into communications between the big players. you would be shocked at their ignorance of care towards normal community(users) and their passions for pleasing investors/corporations. it truly is an awakening
2015  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 08:40:48 PM
So you want schnorr and not LN...
schnorr is being mis-sold as a witness size reduction. .. but it only benefits those using multisig and segwit transaction formats.. not a benefit to bitcoin onchain legacy transaction users. and its size rduction is not that much.. the hidden utility is that it hides how many parties are in th multisig.. which is a security risk for those thinking one thing.. but under the hood its another.
imagine thinking its a 50-50 cosign.. then realise its a 2-3 multiparty where your signatur is not actually needed. and their was a hidden 3rd party managr (or your counter party with 2 keys), you would not know

the point is convenience at a cost of loss of independance and reduction of security is something we should not advocat for.
all this stuff like LN.. people lose funds for speed. (i have only highlighted a couple of ways out of dozens more that people can take funds)
segwit to allow third part monitoring because txID's cant change thus third party can monitor
all this stuff like schnorr for witness size reduction, by not revealing who signed what
all weaken the security and trust of bitcoin and loses whole point/ethos of blockchain security/trust.

all this 'convenience' stuff is just turning people into using fiatesq services. at the cost of making bitcoin onchain unattractive to use.
bitcoins onchain ethos was to not be fiatesq but to offer something better than fiat. things seem to b going backwards.

do you realise there are even new opcodes which do not even sign the amounts into a tx. so that usrs can edit the amounts at the last minute to adjust for tx fee's (or take the whole lot) without needing a new signature from the 2 parties to revalidate the new who deserves what.
oh and guess what. these new opcodes actually re-introduce malleability..
so it reveals segwit was not about malleability. it was about allowing other things in. and ahve managers, co parties etc all of which make sending a transaction more risky.
but all peopl care about is 'faster/cheaper).. which could have been solved years ago without security risks by not stifling onchain innovation

normal people wont know how to read a raw transaction. nor will they know what they are signing. infact users wont even know they are signing for something as it will be on 'autopiliot' (but maliciaous parties can tweak their node to their favour)

bitcoins original vision of self control 100% push to anyone you want without barriers. and all the other ethoses that made blockchain and bitcoin tech so revolutionary. has been stifled/limited/twisted for commercial gain

Did anybody even make an estimation of how much faster and cheaper would the network become with it? AFAIK it could be implemented along LN, so we might see it one day too.  
schnorr wouldnt make LN faster. but would open more malicious loop holes to allow people to steal funds.
as for bitcoins mainnet.
segwit has a 2x capacity and about 2.1mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)
segwit+schnorr has a 2x capacity and ATLEAST 1.5mb-2mb size(IF EVERYONE used segwit and NO ONE used legacy)

core devs set the 'weight' as more because other scripts wil be added later to bloat up the witness area as these scripts do need 3x data compared to the basic in/outamount part of a tx
2016  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 08:04:27 PM
as for the economics of offchain vs onchain..
usually convenient fast services has a premium higher price and the slower system has a lower price. allowing a fair trade off of speed vs saving.
unless your trying to kill off the slower old system, by making it as unattractive as possible

core devs have made onchain both slower(limiting onchain scaling) and more expensive. thus de-incentivising people from wanting to return to bitcoins mainnet. then along with factories with their extented locks beyond the channel locks. keeps people in LN for longer.

again think about the old 19th century banks..saying:
gold is heavy.. hand it over and PLAY with these receipts which are not 100% your because it needs the signature and verification of the bank manager.
how many people actually cashed in thir paper receipts(bank notes) for gold
2017  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 07:59:30 PM
It's still a better situation then with an escrow, wher a third party has total control and has to be trusted by both sides, yet people are trusting escrows and don't see them as a threat, but rather as a useful service.
If I don't have 50% control and the other party has the same, neither of us can steal the money. We have to come to an agreement. I'd say that's a fair system, much safer than the one we're stuck in now with our fiat money.

I don't know why this thread turned to be a pro/anti LN discussion  Undecided

but there are flaws. one side can use to steal from the other. so its not a fair 50-50
also even as far back as 2016 they were talking about due to the issue about needing to be online to ensure the other party doesnt mess around. they already envisioned third party managers.
here is andreas talking about it i skipped to the important part where he starts talking about the latst concept
https://youtu.be/wqbQJ82Hf0s?t=1m37s
1:37-3:00
this was him using a LN flaw about unfair stealing... and advertising that thirdparty managers will be needed.. as a way to try selling why segwit was needed.
you start to see them admit flaws in one concept to advertise another concept.
learn factories. as thats the latest bit about keeping funds from broadcasting when channels close and also third part managing chanels.
oh and one fun fact.. schnorrs concept is to hide WHO signs what and hide if its a 2-2 or a 2-3 multisig. meaning that when you open a channel you will know even less about the channel partner and manager and not realise that if partner and manager hve 2 keys. they can over rule you.
you wont know who signed it. and wont be able to prove you did not agree. because of how schnorr hides all that validation signature stuff into one 'witness'

2018  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 07:38:00 PM
where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc
This is hilarious!  In what world do you live in where you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that having 100% control of your funds means you continue to retain control of the funds AFTER you've spent them and they're not yours anymore?  Why would anyone design a system that worked that way?  Grin

Comedy gold!  You literally have no clue!  Cheesy

But keep going, please.  This is amazing.

you ar the one saying 100%.. and guess what.. if you read the post.. i was telling you that YOU DO NOT HAVE 100% CONTROL even BEFORE they are spent.
maybe next time i should reqest you read it 5 times. have a break to let it sink in and thn rad it 2 more times again. as it seems your not comprehending. even when i did highlight it to make it even easier for you

oh and you highlight more. even when you PLAY with your txB and chang amounts ovr to your partner.. guss what. they do not have 100% control of the funds after spending either.
its a co-managed / co-sign system.. NO ONE HAS 100% control
2019  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 06:25:46 PM
*sigh*

I suppose I asked for this by trying to be reasonable and giving you the benefit of the doubt.  I gave you an inch and you took a mile, or several miles, even.  Won't make that mistake again.  It's zero-tolerance for franky1 bullshit from here on in.  



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. when i buy a coffee... star bucks needs some security that it will get those funds.
guess what. starbucks gets control of the original 1btc...

this is the chargeback.. (oops i said a dirty word...) .. i mean revoke punishment
think about it. if i always had 100% control of the input from the blockchain of 1btc(utxo). and starbucks never had control of that 1btc blockchain UTXO
i could buy 3000 coffee's and then broadcast my UTXO as if its a a standard tx thus get my coffee and kep my 1btc.

Quoting this for posterity just so you can't go back and edit it later.  I literally... can't... even... words fail me.  Wow.  Best "scenario" yet.



I've got a scenario for you to run.  If LN really is as horrendous as you make it out to be, no one in their right mind would use it.  As you point out, it will be cheaper, more convenient and more secure to use altcoins if what you're saying is true.  So why would so many independent developers now be working on this concept if it was obvious that we'd be handing BTC's #1 position in the market on a plate to some other coin?  Why would they dedicate their time, knowledge and expertise to making BTC worse?  Why would so many people, including all the ones who are clearly far more knowledgeable about this than you are (which is basically ALL OF THEM), be enthusiastic about the potential for this technology if they thought even for a split-second that you were right about any of this?  Maybe the scenario you need to run is the one where you've turned into a conspiracy theorist who has isolated himself to the point where no one takes him seriously anymore.

More to the point, why am I even dignifying your "scenarios" by calling them that?  I can make up a crazy story that isn't possible in the real world and then call it a scenario.  Doesn't mean it could actually happen, though.  Stop running hypothetical what-ifs from la-la land that clearly wouldn't play out like that in practice.  Give us proof.  Go ahead and buy 3000 coffees and somehow manage to keep your BTC.  Show us that's possible.  I would love to see how that works out for you.



read it 3 times.. go on read it 3 times
this was me saying how based on what i feel is YOUR 2016 limited idea.. where > > YOU < < think the person retains 100% control .. then i could buy 3000 coffee's and keep the 1btc

i highlightd it..
remember it was you that said you have 100% control of the funds
for two years my pretense is that users do not have 100%.. that they actually are co managed. like having a bank account
the black bold/underlined was me explaining where i think YOU are stuck...
the green is me arguing the opposite
so if you think you kep 100% control.. its actually you that needs to prove you can buy coffe and keep control of the funds to get the 1btc

i even went into the depths of showing that even when you get to PLAY with the AMOUNTS of a tx. you are not 100% in control as it requirs 2 signatures. you cannot solo sign the tx YOU PLAY with.

i am not going to insult you im going to just do what i done before. ask you to do som research, learn LN, learn factories, update yourself on the concepts and run some scenarios.

oh.. and rusty russel has pointed out many many flaws.
what i have found out is the bitcoin community(users not devs) are very quick on reddit and this forum to scream out utopiam positives. but dont actually understand LN.
hense why i need to pull them back into reality by rvealing the flaws

there are already thousands of utopian optomists. echo chambering themselves and so there does actually need to be a few people out thir to not be ass kissers who are not afraid to mention the faults.
2020  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN: Bitcoin could theoretically scale beyond VISA. on: July 31, 2018, 08:19:38 AM
another thing.. moving forward to 2018 concepts. when you learn factories. these are also multisig. so your funds are even less your control.
yes yo can play with amounts. but you need other people to sign them.

..

now all thats said.
im going to presume that you will say that locks wont be a month long for just the channels.
well knowing the 100 node image scenario i providd you the other day. 4 channels per node is still iffy even for just a village of 100 population.
the average is suggested 4-8 nodes for 100 node network and 14 channels for a 1000 node network. and ven mor channels for more population to be reliable.. (under an old hop decentralised network without factories/bank hubs)

now real life thinking. are you going to make lets say 4 channels and make 4 onchain tx's to fund them channels knowing it will be 4 settlemnt onchan tx at the end (8 onchain transactions) for just a couple days of spendiing.
think about it

real stats
visa card users only do 42tx a month (~1.5tx a day) each
so will you open these 4 channels for a reliableish routes around your small village with only a 4 day lock knowing you will only on average spend your funds 6 times.

nope.
you end up thinking with the time wasted setting it up and ultimatly having 8 onchain tx's just for 6 coffee's not benficial.. so you end up planning out a month lock in.. (devs say 3-6 months.. but the reality is no one can preplan beyond a few weeks to 1 month.. so lets go with a month)
which if advantagious that LN has saved you funds. you woul put funds back in..
(this uis undr the 2016 concept)

..
now move on to the 2018 concept of factories. to not have the hassle of redistributing factory funds(which would have been settle onchain but now just curculatd through factories) you will keep your channels at a month. and then to secure the factory the factory tx would need to be longer then a multiple of months... other thing to note. is that instead of a month of just coffe you put in all your salary.. or atleast alot mor thn just coffee

now look at real life
the early 19th century with the gold scenario.
putting gold into (banks)'factories' and then they give you bonds. and you use those bonds with local bank branches and then play around with local bank branch notes.. yep many banks had their own design of bank notes.

how often do you think people ended up getting their gold out of the vaults...

last point
i would not have had to make such long posts. if you ran some scenarios to have seen the issues for yourself.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 ... 824 »
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!