Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2019, 08:59:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 ... 824 »
2061  Economy / Speculation / Re: RECENT BITCOIN BULL RUN GOOD BAD OR UGLY on: July 21, 2018, 01:41:18 PM
i have to laugh. when people see a 10%(~$600) drop or rise they scream bull or bear.sorry but 10% is just dancing around a field.

a bull or bear run is not something as temporarry as a hour/day. it the average direction over a longer period.
short term movements of a few hours or days are just rises and falls.. and if th rises and falls are significant % then thy are spikes and dips.

but a bull run or bear run is more of the long term marathon not the short term sprint.

dcember/january was not a bull thn bear. it was a spike/drop
february-june was more of a stangant dance of rise and fall

we have not really seen what the medium-longterm direction of 2018 is.. but the long term of 2009-2018 has definetly shown to be very bullish
2062  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin Mining Really Causing Environmental Damage? Maybe not that much... on: July 21, 2018, 01:16:15 PM
If that energy wouldn't be used for bitcoin mining it would be used for another purpose that right now is using coal energy. Pretty simple. Let's say that all the energy from the three gorges dam is going to be used for bitcoin mining, what are the people that currently are using that energy going to do? Turn to coal!!!!

BS
as for the idea that utility companies import electric due to over capacity is another flawed notion.

imagine electric generation.. like a car journey
right now coal gnerators take so long to set up, warm up and get on the road(send electric through the cables) that they end up just staying on the road and act like Uber, taking other people and leasing out their spare seat.. because its wastes so much fuel warming up the car each time you turn on and off the key, it ends up easier to leave the engine on

 the truth is more likened to the concept of car sharing. imagine every day your car has 4 seats but only 1 commuter (the driver).. imagine your neighbour knows you can get him to the destination and does not want the hassle of warming up his own car. checking the car is fit to drive and then taking the journey alone. so asks because you are already on the road if he can take a spare seat and share in the running cost.

now imagine if a big industry comes up to the neighbour and says. il give you a contract to lease out the spare seat of your hydro/solar hybrid car for a year AND we still have 2 back seats so that Mr Coal can tag along in the hydro-solar car.. making the hydro-solar car the Uber and so now the coal car can finally switch off its engine and get phased out.

think about that
have a nice day
2063  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin Trivia on: July 20, 2018, 11:30:52 AM
3. 1 Million Bitcoin Was Pre-Mined By Satoshi Nakamoto (4.75% Bitcoin Max Supply)

wrong

premined is a term for where coins are released WITHOUT mining  (pre-mine)
satoshi's coins where created VIA mining..

secondly. the code was released publicly and if you look at the hidden techy stats of the blockchain. you will see that multiple people were mining it. and yes that includes hal finney mining it in the very first days

thirdly although between 2009 and 2012 although 10.5 mill coins were mined. meaning in year one 2.5mill coins were mined. guess what. satoshi was not a third of the population in 2009. there were actually dozens. so the 1mill coin number is not accurate. even the nonce analysis shows this
2064  Economy / Economics / Re: Blockchain and Medicine in Africa on: July 20, 2018, 12:35:38 AM
<snip>
That's a great explanation.  I'm no blockchain expert, as everyone here knows, but when I hear stuff like "blockchain and medicine" it makes me think of ICO claims that can't be fulfilled.  The medical records aspect of medicine does indeed sound like it could lend itself to a blockchain solution.  Makes me wonder about patient confidentiality and hacking, but again I'm just having those thoughts as a non-expert in crypto.  Edit:  I'm not talking about hacking as though bitcoin could be hacked; I'm talking about people with the information getting their computers hacked, just like bitcoin owners have.

hacking..
remember. the database is not stored in one location. its in multiple clinics/ hositals in multiple regions. so no one can (excuse the pun) doctor the records.
as for how the records get into a block. imagine a blood test result is not simply added as a tx signed by 1 doctor. but instead relayed out and requires upto 5 doctors/signatures... great.. automatic 'second/third opinion' EG lab tech in region A. blood/haemotologist specialist in region B and then the patients family physician(GP) which increases accuracy of diagnoses due to second/third opinions.

whereby that data is not stored in clear text but encrypted using the keys of upto 5 people
lab tech,
blood specialist.
patients physician
patient
patients closest hospital

now a hacker would need to have both/atleast 2 keys to unencrypt the data.
also the "computer" (node) does not need to be a standard PC but a secured device in a lockbox (aeroplane black box idea(extra strong lockbox for a raspbery Pi)) that is tamper proof unless you physically got hold of it and broke it open to then .. as i said still need the 2 of 5 private keys just to viw that data of that specific result..

Quote
I would love for there to be some sort of revolution in Africa.  A large part of the continent has been living in the tribal ages and doesn't seem to have evolved much.  Sure they have cell phones, but they also have dirt roads and kill people in the streets with impunity--kind of like some countries in South America.  Most of that has to do with government, but those countries need to move forward.  I don't know of there's a blockchain solution, or even if it could help at all, but it'd be nice.

i think you have been reading too many fox news reports. things have moved on since the emotional OXFAM videos of the 1980's where you see crying babies starving, where oxfam never actually bothered to answer the question.. if it takes12 hours to walk to clean water, why do thy not just camp at the clean water.(have a deep thought about that question)
if you had to walk 6 hours to work.. 6 hours from work.. you would end up selling your home(more specifically pack up your tent) and move camp next to your work, right?

what is not shown is a high majority of these oxfam appeals, if the camera's just turned 180 degree's would see that these shanty towns border large cities where people are forced out of the city due to high rents. and usually waiting hours in a queue for the water truck..
instead they video people using local rivers(making it seem only the rivers are available and those rivers are dozens of miles away, to play on our heart strings)
aftr all would you donate if the camera panned around and seed a skyscaper just 1 mile away. nope. so oxfam set a scene that wells are needed so that oxfam can make money making the wells and save money by not needing to daily deliver watr trucks to the homeless on the outskirts of cities
remember the 1980's tear jerking charity drives for ethiopia.. then check out this image
https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/addislandscape.jpg


also the shanty towns further into the deserts/jungles (where you see the guys with guns) are usualy villages set up temporarily for gold mining and or nature preserves where the blockades you see are the land owners making sure their land is protected from uninvited miners/animal poachers.
they chose to be there.
after all.. is sandy desert or tree's something worth shooting ovr. nope.. but valuable land suh as gold plots. and endangrd animals ned to be protected. they dont have guns and live in the wild for no reason.

these people do have access to vehicles and guns so a cell phone to receive a text about if they are diabetic.. is not much of a stretch
(might be worth you researching M-pesa as their cross border/local electronic payment system)

as for the area's that are "tribal" and not evolved. have made the conscious choice to avoid evolving. (like some Amish/indian comunities) they infact even avoid modern healthcare and still believe in only using their shamen healers.. to which i say. allow them to heal themselves in they ways they believe
2065  Economy / Speculation / Re: What do you Think the True Value of Bitcoin Is? on: July 19, 2018, 11:35:42 PM
you actually can calculate VALUE

imagine you had the $7500 PRICE.. and then split it up into segments.
by comparing different factors, events, you can get a pretty good idea of measuring different factors and putting a value attached to it.

imagine every feature, benefit, function, ability as a separate entity.
you can look at 1643 other coins out there. and look at the majority of coins that have the same element. and meaure its values

EG PoW is easy to measure. and across all the 541 coins that use PoW. that measure shows a pattern.. you then deduct that value away from those coins.
EG yesterdays hashrate went upto 45exa, compared to last weks average of 38.
meaining yesterdays cost of mining was ~$6950 as oppose to last wks average of ~$5850.. which when then looking at the PRICE chart you can see on average there is an extra $400 average of other features, benefits and speculation that make up the difference betwen bottomline cost vs price

whats best to do is take the stats of days when the PRICE is at its lowest for a period. as thats the times of less speculative emotion and leaving only the "Valued" elements where people refuse to sell below.

lets take the 29th june. the average hashrate was 35exa ($5400 mining cost) and the average price was at the periods rock bottom of ~$5800

so knowing theres no big positive hyp news, emotion, speculation. you can then equate the $400 to be certain feature/utility attributes
now out of the 541 PoW coins you can then look at how many coins have a 10 minute blocktime for instance and then see if there is a noticable pattern to "value" comparing it to other PoW coins that have less blocktime or more blocktime compared to other coins of near similar other features
you can then quantify that.
then you can take the coins/block... or total end supply target and find other coins with the same.. and quantify that.

then once you have that. you can see the layers.

whats left over is the more volatile temporary emotional elements that can change at a moment notice. like the emotion around something being promoted heavily one wek but then not heavily for day/months. these more emotional temporary events are the speculation EG december was very very speculative

i have made a chart.


remmber
the yellow area is emotional stuff.. of hope, hype and belief..
the orange area is features stuff.. of value of tx/s.. blocktime, total eventual coin supply, etc..
th blue area is cost of mining

i have kinda worked out, based on data of other coins of similar features. and ignoring the speculative hypes.. that FEATURES are worth about 7% of mining cost. ontop

what you will also notice(if you looked at all the same hidden data) is that the while hashrates continued to rise, cost of mining began to drop at the start of the year where a new batch of CHEAPER miners (the now $850 s9i) replaced the old ($2k s9 miners).. (yea i know the cheaper batches were not PUBLICLY released months ago but at that point the main pools did get their hands on early releases and the pools/manufacturers did actually lower the prices of the old batch to sell them off.
this is why as of january although hashrate rose. it did not react to a mining cost rise as that was offset by the asic unit cost decreasing over time to level it off. which is why there is a not a slope down or a sudden drop either as it took months for pools to get their hands on and re-evaluate their new costs).

anyway, enjoy
(short version. right now there is little to no emotional speculation this summer. so treat it as a good discount/low price to buy in)
data is stil a work in progress but you start to see that the price (tip of speculation and includes speculation and costs/value/feature can easily show when something is at an unsustainable HYPE and when something is at a low PRICE which should be demed as a great value time to buy before new hype/speculation or even increase of cost/value baseline

..
using chart data of blockchain.info of 18th/july/2018 breakdown
mining cost: 6898.17
features 7%: 482.87
value total: 7381.04

which if you then check th price if bitcoin on 18th july PRICE $7399
leaves only ~$18 of speculation/emotion
2066  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin follow statistics on: July 18, 2018, 11:59:03 PM
bitcoin is not AI. it has no voice, no legs, no arms. bitcoin doesnt follow anything.

the price follows whomever limited population is logged into an exchange. in most cases its day traders using bots.
in many cases these bots are not following real cost controls/support (technical analysis)
instead these bots are lazily programmed to sheep follow trend anals.

trend anals vs technical analysis are 2 separate things.

following trends, is not smart. is not based on anything realistic. its just going in circles insanely for no reason but to repeat the past
if we get bots to stop trend analing. and instead actualy be smartbots that sek out real value support stats. then things can move on, and progress




2067  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who are these nuts? on: July 18, 2018, 08:31:27 PM
OP, you forgot to add the part where alex jones then tries to sell you thyroid aiding liquid.

stuff that if your body doesnt need it, your body pee's it into a toilet in 24 hours.. basically he's selling a product that end up flushed away the next day and cant be held onto or utilised by your body longterm and has no resell value once sold.
..oh and those that do have thyroid issues, have thyroid issues due to the body not wanting/able to convert iodine. thus you could drink litres of it and your body still just pee's it out

.. which sums up pretty much how little he knows about a good investment
2068  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver on: July 18, 2018, 07:06:54 PM
ok lets set this matter straight.

TL:DR;
summary
hashrate- meaningless bigger hashrate does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos it has lots of hashrate
non-mining usernodes: meaningless more copies does not force a node to reprogram itself just cos many copies exist
non-mining mrchant nodes: has sway. because if a merchant can s a payment. then a pool can spend its reward and users can daytrade/buy stuff

waffle version:
mining pools can change the format of a block to anything they please and within thier community get their friends to download node versions to accept such new block styles. but when other nodes receive the blocks, if they dont fit the others rules the blocks get rejected. ... and it does not matter how much hash power went into the creation of the block. if it doesnt fit the rules, its rejected.

random guy 'jimmy' with just a node in his basement doesnt have sway over the community direction the network changes. and mining pools also cant just send out a new block format that nodes automatically accept new blocks (blocks do not AI rewrite the rules of nodes)

node users need to download a version that accepts the new blocks. again. pools cant just make a new format and magically make old nodes accept it

now heres where the non-mining community do have sway
what needs to happen is the merchants/exchanges which the pools and users use have more non-mining sway. because if a merchant/exchange is not seeing transactions then pools/users cannot spend their funds. so as i said little jimmy cant sway the network but if the majority of merchants/exchanges accept block B format. usually everyone else follows
...
flipping the argument
anyone can set up 20,000 littl jimmys that accept block B format. and also set up a pool of 56exahash accepting block B.. but in the end if coinbase, blockchain.info, bitstamp, (list many othr merchants) and the pools are still block A, merchants and pools will just reject blockB and ban nodes sending out blockB. thus making block B an altcoin that is unspendabl due to no mrchant adoption

end result is no disruption to the block A network. and block B jimmys and 56exahash pool of block B .. but ends up only communicating with their own kind as a altcoin.

the non-mining nodes DO have sway.. but its not home user sway of majority.. its who will accept my money/sees my payment (merchant) sway

believe it or not back in 2012. MTGOX and silkroad.. just 2 nodes had more non-mining community sway than 4000 non-mining nodes. they could have collaberated and said they will only accept blocks/tx of X format/fee/value. and you would have soon seen the pools adapt to it so that the pools could spend their rewards on mtgox. and the 4000 users would have downloaded the new rules so they too could day trade/buy drugs.

take most crap coin scenarios. when an exchange drops a crapcoin. it does not matter how much hashrate that coin had.
or what amount the user node count may rise or drop to. the usernode count made no difference
if theres no where to spend it. that crap coin dies off, miners switch their asics over to another coin that is acceptable to exchanges. and unless the community can hold out and rally other exchanges to take that crap coin on, the community moves to another coin too. crying that they are left with a bag of crap thats now worthless

it does not matter if there are 2million copies of the same blockchain or just 7000 copies. if the 7000 copies are merchants. then the 1.999,300 user nodes could decide to reject blocks. but then they are rejcting blocks of tx's that merchants recognise. thus the usernodes are just separating themselves from being able to spend thir own funds.. basically punishing themselves to download and hold blocks that cant be spent
2069  Economy / Speculation / Re: What do you Think the True Value of Bitcoin Is? on: July 18, 2018, 01:28:12 AM
The true value of bitcoin is not constant. Sometimes high and sometimes low but last year the month that the highest value of bitcoin is december as my frend told me. Maybe this year, the value of bitcoin rise in december again.☺

true VALUE is more stable then you think..
but PRICE is not constance. sometimes high sometimes low.. last year the month with the highest PRICE was december. but last december had alot of speculation in the PRICE which could not back up the underlying VALUE. thus the PRICE corrected down nearer to the underlying VALUE

learn difference between price vs value
2070  Economy / Speculation / Re: What do you Think the True Value of Bitcoin Is? on: July 18, 2018, 01:11:21 AM
dont look at the bitcoin price and ask what is the value.

instead do some maths on the cost of creating bitcoin. (mining)
EG take the hashrate and divide it by the amount of asics needed to get that hashrate
work out the electric costs needed.

then once you have the XX electric/hour.. divide that by 6(amount of blocks per hour)
then divide that by 12.5 to get the cost per btc.

now you have electric VALUE cost.... also imagine the asic equipment has a years shelf life. so take the initial amount of asics needed and cost them at ~$850 each.. then divide that by 657000(12.5*144*365 is bitcoins mined per year) to get the physical rig cost per btc

..
scrw it. ill give u an exampl based on todays stats
hashrate: 38exahash  (38million terrahash)
2714286 asics(38m /14) (because each asic is 14thash)
each asic is 1.3kw/h
3528571kw/h

lets say electric is 5cents an hour = $176428.57 per hour
=$29404.76 per block or electric
=$2352.38 per btc for electric
now add on physical cost of rig
2714286* $850=$2307143100 per year shelf life
=6320940 per day
=$43895.42 per block
=$3511.63 per btc

so 2352.38+3511.63=$5864.01

and now you see the bottomline average cost of mining btc this month..$5864
which explains why the btc price did not dip below that value
(take into account my maths is rough/bottomiline, costs can be higher for area's that are not 5cent/kw)

now ill leave you to do some maths if the hashrate went up to 42exahash which will start to become a new hash average soon
(simple hint for lazyness.. take the end total... divide by 38 then multiply by 42, if you dont want to do it the long way round)

then you can start thinking about hashrate of the future and calculate costs..

.. then and only then look at the markt price and see how close to the cost (near bottomline value) or how far above(lots of over valued speculation) there is
..
2071  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: July 18, 2018, 12:25:57 AM
In comparison, BTC is implementing things that should alleviate demand on the blockchain.  If Lightning can handle some of the load and other improvements can make transaction sizes smaller, this delays the need for any hardforks.  So far, that approach appears to be working.  I certainly hope that when the time does eventually come for a hardfork, we seriously consider an algorithmic method that would help negate the need for any future hardforks.  But, chances are, we're still a long way off having that discussion.

in comparison LN.. a separate network or any coin.. is implementing things that could alleviate demand on btc blockchain.. however BTC is implemnting bad code to cause strain on the blockchain to promote LN

the need of certain things to make btc work on LN actually caused BTC to need to hard fork to allow LN features. at the time of the august hard fork. devs should have rationally thought.. "hmm seeing as there is a hard fork we are mandating for august lets do the things that can only be done at a hardfork. like logical growth onchain for legacy"

i really do laugh they say they needed to avoid a hard fork.. but then went on and actually caused one, but only for the benefit of pushing LN forward. whil ignoring what the comunity wanted for btc's blockchain
2072  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: July 18, 2018, 12:20:28 AM
Magic numbers are hard coded numbers with no proper reason - like the 1 MB hard cap - this should be rather time adjusted param like you have in the halving process.

Except that no fork, to my knowledge, has implemented it in that way.  If it was algorithmically adjusted in the code, like the halving process is, you wouldn't need to hardfork every time you change the size of the blocks.  Every single fork out there in the market right now has a "magic number" (some of them just happen to be larger integers) and will need to fork again in future to change the cap on the size of blocks that are permitted.  It's effectively an endless necessity for hardforks.  

difference being.
if core done things as a consensus, and didnt delay for YEARS (even satoshi in 2010 mentioned raising it.) it could be done where the hard cap is 32mb and then the non-mining nodes algorythmacally have policy rule where the non mining nodes treat the policy as something they should consider. which then moves algorythmaccilly(without download requirement) up by 0.25mb small increments once XXX blocks are 90% near the policy limit. and so then the hard limit of 32mb changes in the background when blocks are 50% at that limit. thus giving plenty of time for people to naturally upgrade their nodes before the actual time where blocks actually reach 32mb

thus it never even gets to hit a wall and then never gets these debates occuring.
EG
imagine a 32mb consensus 2mb policy.
2018 q4: policy moves to 2.25mb without users needing to physically upgrade the nodes. as it moves algorithmically
2019 q2: policy moves to 2.5mb without users needing to physically upgrade the nodes. as it moves algorithmically

54 policy algorithm changes later (many years)
policy moves to 16mb without users needing to physically upgrade the nodes. as it moves algorithmically
the devs then release a node version where consensus.h is now 64mb. but that is still another 64 policy algorythm changes(0.25mb changes) away from users even needing to physically upgrade a node bcause theres still years between 16mb and 32mb

imagine it like 64mb consensus.h becomes hard coded in ALL future versions of core from 2024 but the blocks dont reach 32mb until 2036  thus anyone using a downloaded version from 2025-2036+ will be already set and they wont even realise it.. yes anyone in 2036 using an old 2024 version will get told their node is no longer supported.. but being 12 years out of date, its expected.. id say users of bitcoin from 2025-2036 would have upgraded before 2036 anyway. thus they would not hit a wall/debate like what happened in 2015, as it would all be pre-planned, pre implemented years before its needed

analolgy
to PC gamers.. its as simple as
if a PC game says it needs 1gb of ram do you just buy a PC with a motherboard thats max cap was 2gb.. or buy a PC with 32GB upgrad capacity and then has more than 2gb instslled or knowing you can put more ram in without needing a whol new system as and when needed.. knowing by the time a game says it needs 16gb. you can still have freedom of choice to kp on incrementing up the ram or start saving up for a MOBO that can handl 64gb ram+ knowing its years befor getting to 32mb limit
2073  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: July 17, 2018, 11:22:50 PM
at current coding. core and cash accepts anything below consensus.h limit.. and then core freely allows the mining pool to make the blocks bigger than policy which will still be acceptable to core as long as the new blocksize stays under consensus (meaning to non-mining nodes) policy is meaningless to core users as its something pools decide solely by themselves
Maybe I misunderstood but how would it be "meaningless" if it is enforced to stay under a limit even if pools can decide but only if up to that limit?

meaningless to non-mining nodes
EG imagine a law that says its illegal accept 2000 banana and another law that says its illegal to GROW more than 1000 bananas.

growers(miners) follow the do not grow more then 1000 law AND if anyone passed them 2000 banana batch. they would rject that too..
howevr CUSTOMERS(non-miners/nongrowers) do not grow banana's so they dont need to worry about the 1000 banana growth rule. they only follow the 2000 acceptance rule

however take bitcoin unlimiteds proposal a few years back (core rejected it) where by the policy.h becomes somthing non-mining nodes vote on by having s a value in their node identity and then mining pools only move forward making bigger blocks if a high percentage of nodes wave a flag to say its ok to do so.. they said it was a bad voting mechanism

kind of funny that devs that said no to it.. becasue it was them same devs that actually then went on to beg users to put "nosegwitx2" or "yesUASF"  in their identifier to see how many people wanted the core roadmap. they even promoted people put it into thier twitter usernames and other non-code social stuff such as 'buy a UASF hat and take a picture on social media and get people to share it'.. (facepalm)

Yes it is very bad because it would be open to Sybil attacks. It would be easy for some group of people to set up and run nodes in Alibaba cloud service.

you do realise the events of august.
you do realise that the pools that waved the versionbit to say yes to segwit were not even running nodes that were actually fully segwit ready.
even now today BTCC the biggest suporting pool for segwit still is not using segwit addresss for their coinbase rewards
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/000000000000000000251e0ea67c4fa7998df7e024d35dbadb25f943cbda2beb
13TEThZNnKPk34HYAuo1QqYMwDdjF3qeHx
try looking for BTCC using a bc1q address
then go look at bob lee and samson mow with their silly UASF hats and endless promotion since end of 2015 that "segwit is great"... its funny. that they are now too scared to even use segwit for thier own pool rewards.

nearly a year later and they stil havnt vetted their own code to have a strong enough belief its safe to use segwit themselves. but were happy to simply change the versionbits in their block sybil ID and to wear silly hats on social media

all they had to do is use whatever client(yep even old client) and just FLAG a version number.. without actually having the code in place. oh and wear the hat..

this is why the whole mandatory bilateral split was so controversial. core only had ~35% vote from november 2016-spring 2017.
so at that point core should have backed off and went back to the drawing board to find a alternative compromis the community using consensus would accept..
but instead then it was just a flagging event or threat to be pushed off th network. and done th 3card trick
that there is what even you should realise it waa a sybil attack performed to get segwit activated.

also check the block number of august first. you will see core nodes shiftd first. and it was the non core nodes that didnt move off to an altcoin until HOURS later

devs love their social drama campaigns but try to avoid code voting (avoided consensus upgrade and done the 3shell trick of a MANDATORY bilateral split) which they thought was OK because all the social media and social identifiers said it was ok (facepalm)

The Core developers should not be pressured by fraudsters like Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or the mining cartels. Do you agree or disagree?
the core developers should not pressure the community by calling anyone else the opposition/attackers/invaders/REKTers.. core should realise that its a decentralised network and if core dont get thier way using consensus, then they should have AVOIDED sybil and mandatory crap.. and instead gone back to the drawing board and they actually use thier ears to listen to the community wherby an agreement that meets the communities desires is met.

or.. if you wish to stick to the mindset that btc is core.. then stop cryng when people call it bitcoin core.
if you want the network to be core controlled then actually man up and be happy to call it bitcoin core.

you cant keep pretending its decentralised whel also campaigning anything not core should be treated as invaders..
stop flip flopping.. have a cup of coffee.. sit back and spend some time truly thinking about what you care most about
bitcoin decentralisation and consensus of multiple teams on one network. all on a level playing field of no control
or
bitcoin core centralisation with user distribution of core nodes that use mandatory upgrades

you cant have it both ways

P.S
what your stil not realising.. is.. if you stop reading reddit.. you will realise that vr, wright are not code developers. so while you point fingers at SOCIAL drama you avoiding what actually occured at code level.

whats next. wil you blame oj simpson(losely linked to th kardashian social drama)
yes ver and craig are drama queens.. but your just bleting lik a shep at faces of distraction. all whil bitcoin CODE is bing changed without consensus and into a direction that the dvs are litrally shouting "bitcoins blockchain is dead, it cant scale. so instead lock your funds into LN fortknox, and play around with unaudited/unconfirmed tranactions with hub bank managrs authorisating every pyment you want to make

LN is not a freedom of PUSH payments
LN is not a sole custody system
LN is not a guaranteed payment system
2074  Economy / Speculation / Re: Great news everywhere today and Bitcoin price goes vertically up, again!!! on: July 17, 2018, 10:02:54 PM
This guy is crypto-friendly let's say and this is huge news because trillions will be pumped soon.
Yeah buddy stopped reading after this because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The total market cap isn't even at 300 billion and you think trillions are going to be pumped by one investment firm?

I just repeated the headlines. Not one investment firm only two biggest once and latest news were great when we take into consideration the last week. I haven't seen so many good news from months. Only hacks, regulations, scams and a lot of FUD.

From what I see the market is reacting great and we have almost 300 billion which is 60 more as yesterday. Yea this is big news.

i personally laugh at anyone that even bothers mentioning the market cap.
the "billions" are not actually billions held in bank accounts.
its just the price of one bitcoin multiplied...

i can make a altcoin with 5trillion coins sell 1 coin for $5 and bam.. $5 trillion cap.. all with just a iinvestmnt of 5 dollars.
market cap vs funds invested have no correlation.
infact if the market orderlines are filled up like this

USD $7500      0.001       $7.50
USD $7501      0.001       $7.501
USD $7502      0.001       $7.502

someone could move the market cap by $34,305,126 for just $15
2075  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hell is coming to those that do not endorse Bitcoin! on: July 15, 2018, 12:48:17 PM
Buffet is a scared bitch!
Running like a crazed dog
When the DOW goes down 90 percent he will be exposed as a dog: Opinion but more than likely!

you think buffet keeps fiat?
no. he manages other peoples fiat in accounts where that fiat is insured and he skims 1 share for every 100 shars his client purchase.
he then sells those shares for proper assets.

you will not find bank notes under his pillow.
also to add,, if fiat hyper inflates many bitcoiners will see their $6k price(call it 5k loaves of bread value) jump to $12k price (but still only buys 5k of bread) and everyone will be rushing to sell bitcoin for fiat as if they are winners.. yet when they go shopping with thier fiat. realise they are no better off

thats why i dont care about fiat valuations anymore. because OMG bitcoin is worth quadillions of zimbabwe dollar

my pc has bitcoin that values against the cost of living. not fiat. .. and thats the way i prefer it
2076  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hell is coming to those that do not endorse Bitcoin! on: July 15, 2018, 12:20:08 PM
as for warren buffets 2018 comment..

it was a retort of somone elses claim that bitcoin is rat poison..well honestly it is..  you just have to ask yourself who are the rats
(hint: wall street and londons square mile call fiat trading lifestyle 'a rat race')
thus rat poison will kill the fiat rats

also the original guy said rat poison when the price was 100...   warren was questioned when the price was $10k

so ratpoison squared is $1002
easy math 100*100=$10k

so even the addon warren made about 'squared' is correct too..
but neither rat poison nor rat poison squared is considered negative. if you really think about it
2077  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Hell is coming to those that do not endorse Bitcoin! on: July 15, 2018, 12:06:10 PM
i smell the old "bitcoinpro" user https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=16327 has returned yet again..

big P.S
an ETF is not a bitcoin exchange.
its a COMPANY who are selling SHARES for FIAT. and simply BETTING thee value of the shares against a lump of btc.

by having an ETF investors are not buying bitcoin. they are buying and selling shares.. thee BTC in the trust never move, never change.
2078  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: July 15, 2018, 10:40:45 AM

i actually bothered to read the bitcoin cash codebase.. and actually. if you read the code. the 32mb is known as a consensus limit.. but they also have a "regulated" limit of 2mb called the policy limit
https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h#L19

this is the same as what bitcoin core had  before 2013.. 1mb consensus limit but 0.5mb "regulated limit" (in policy.h)which then went up to 0.75mb
and then in around 2015 went up to 1mb.. all without needing to fork or have big discussions because the policy was a flexcap limit

check it out consensus.h vs policy..h


I want to get back to this, and I am embrassed to say that I am not sure how that works. Who decides when to increase the "flex cap" limit? Is it the miners only, or does it have to be in consensus with the non-mining full nodes?

at current coding. core and cash accepts anything below consensus.h limit.. and then core freely allows the mining pool to make the blocks bigger than policy which will still be acceptable to core as long as the new blocksize stays under consensus (meaning to non-mining nodes) policy is meaningless to core users as its something pools decide solely by themselves

however take bitcoin unlimiteds proposal a few years back (core rejected it) where by the policy.h becomes somthing non-mining nodes vote on by having s a value in their node identity and then mining pools only move forward making bigger blocks if a high percentage of nodes wave a flag to say its ok to do so.. they said it was a bad voting mechanism

kind of funny that devs that said no to it.. becasue it was them same devs that actually then went on to beg users to put "nosegwitx2" or "yesUASF"  in their identifier to see how many people wanted the core roadmap. they even promoted people put it into thier twitter usernames and other non-code social stuff such as 'buy a UASF hat and take a picture on social media and get people to share it'.. (facepalm)

devs love their social drama campaigns but try to avoid code voting (avoided consensus upgrade and done the 3shell trick of a MANDATORY bilateral split) which they thought was OK because all the social media and social identifiers said it was ok (facepalm)
2079  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: July 15, 2018, 10:27:06 AM
If a hub in the central network and talk of LN channels is known as a problem then people can start routing around it. And a bad actor performing a center is very limited in what kind of hijinks they can perpetrate anyway. Network deployment is really a good idea for everyone because it can save on high transaction costs. There are still questions that arise in my mind as there are still shortcomings expected to be encountered, So how can we solve that problem?

"just route it around"
thats called broadcasting to mainnet to get your funds out of the channel you have with the hub.
you[$30-$30]hub[$30-30]destination                          mainnet: you[$0]
you[settledmainnet]hub[$30-30]destination                 mainnet: you[$30]

and then making another mainnet tx to put funds into a new channel with another party to hop your payments without a hub involved

you[$0-$30]hop[$30-30]hop[$30-$30]destination         mainnet: you[$30]
you[$30-$30]hop[$30-30]hop[$30-$30]destination         mainnet: you[$0]

and ofcourse.. hope the HOP your now channeled to also are not upto the same hijynx as the hub was

anyway moving forward a few concepts..
new invention.  factory.. lets call it LN fortknox.. (idea is to put funds into factories so you dont ned to settle to mainnet because your initial funding channel funding is not from your own mainnet tx. but from your mainnet funding going to fortknox an they pay your channel partner who then pays you)

you put funds into LNfortknox. and lock it up for 2 years. you then set up a channel with a well funded hub whereby you dont put funds in. and fortknox then routes a payment to the hub via their relationship and the hub sets up the initial TX to give you part of their funds
EG
instead of
you[$30 - $30]hub where that $30 is your own value you lockd in from your own mainnet tx..
its like this
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK where the $30in in FK is your own value you locked into fortknox. the hubs $60 is the hbs UTXO (that he will have to settle)
and then this happens
you[$0 - $60]hub[$30 - $0]FK
you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK

now you have $30. but its not using your own initial UTXO you owned locked into the hub chnnel. the funds are a share of hubs initial $60 UTXO
your UTXO is locked in fortknox(factory)

moving on say your sick of hub and you want to move funds to hub2. and your new id Utu(you2)
.. now to get out of a channel you can do it without caring about rbroadcasting to mainnet. you make a payment back to fortknox and tell fortknox where you want to put that payment. so lts start with how it looks befor you dcid to leave the channel

you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
so
you[$0 - $60]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$0 - $30]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
you[$0 - $60]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$0 - $30]hub2[$30 - $30]Uto

now you have your funds in a new channel and dont care about the old channel bcause your mainnet UTXO is not lockd to that initial hub channel. so  you can forget about it and leave the hub with the problem of settling out their balance

but.. heres the rub, although you think you have less worry about closing a channel becaus your iinitial UTXO is not locke to that hub...you still have to get the hub to agree to pass the $30 out. meaning
at the state
you[$30 - $30]hub[$30 - $0]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto

if they are playing hijinks they can still hold funds to ransom. by refusing to sign your $30 back out of channel
also.. hub can spend the $30 the hub has with fortknox.. meaning the hub then has no value left in hub-fk to then pay to fortknox to then allow you get fortknox to rout your $30 to a new channel all offchain EG
you[$30 - $30]hub[$0 - $30]FK[$30 - $0]hub2[$60 - $0]Uto
as you can see hub spend it for hubs coffee. but now even if you give hub the $30 in you-hub..  hub cant then give another $30 to FK because hub-FK has $0 hub balance to do so

meeaning your again stuck with having to broadcast out the you-hub tx to mainnet. which hub could treat as an unsanctioned event and invoke a punishment

in short. if hijinks is occuring and even if you think using a factory will help reduce the amount of times you need to close a channel via mainnet settlemnt.. the end result is your still at the same risk of needing to settle to mainnet to get your $30 out of a hub is upto hijinks.

P.S there are far more vulnerabilities/ransoms/blackmail/hijinks risks that i can describe. but yea tryin to close a channel is not just a easy ok, done in 0.002 seconds no issues. the reason, even with factories.. well thats simple. DUAL AUTHORISATION RQUIRED every time. LN is not a simple single party push payment system so if the other party messes around. your stuck and may end up paying the cost of their hijinks
2080  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: How would you define the BLOCKCHAIN? on: July 15, 2018, 04:33:38 AM
' The blockchain is a global and decentralized ledger that stores information about a transaction and also verifies the data'

it is interesting that all these results from a google search about "what is blockchain" call it a "decentralized" ledger. like this one that you copied from Wikipedia!
well blockchain is simply a chain of blocks which is made using cryptography. it is used in a decentralized manner in bitcoin but from what i understand there is no reason to use it in a decentralized way. you can see that clearly in many centralized altcoins that are also using the blockchain technology. which leads me to say that a better word for it is distributed ledger.

what the community is doing is this.
for the open decentralised(atbest) definition.. they call blockchain
for the closed / distributed within authorised userset definition.. they call DLT (distributed ledger technology)

however the way things are going where only one team get to dominate the direction of protocol changes and make demands that an upgrade is mandatory.. yea the old definition of blockchain is starting to lose its 'decentralisation' ethos
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 ... 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!