Bitcoin Forum
August 23, 2019, 09:24:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 825 »
2281  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: After delivery of the last bitcoin, how wll blockchain validations be motivated? on: May 31, 2018, 04:11:25 PM
each block gives mining pools a reward in the form of new coins + transaction fee's

however right now, pools dont care much about the tx fee's as its only about 10-15% extra of the new coin production. thus they treat the new coin as income and the tx fee as a bonus

at the moment the reward is 12.5btc new coins(income) and ~1.5btc(bonus) in transaction fee's   (12.5:1.5 (new coin:tx fee))
and so (rounded to this years average $8k), this means each block gives roughly ($100k:$12k) $112k

every ~4 years the new coin amount halves. so in
~2020 it will be 6.25btc new coins
~2024 it will be 3.125btc new coins
~2028 it will be 1.5625 nw coins..

now based on a sensible price continuing and not much changing about the number of transactions per block. if we imagine that the transaction fee's remained at 1.5btc per block..
then in ~2028 the newcoin:tx fee ratio will be like for like 1:1 (1.5btc:1.5btc to be more exact)

after 2032 mining pools will care less about the new coin production and care more about the transaction fee.
this will be the time where the tx fee becomes the income and the new coin becomes the bonus (psychologically)

so if we imagine the price of bitcoin was 10x more then it is now in a decade
(1.5btc:1.5btc) $120k:$120k

but with that said in ~2028 if the price of bitcoin was $80k($120k for 1.5btc)  . and the blocks were still only performing 2000-4000 tx a block (2000 legacy or 4000 full utility segwit with the blocksize/weight remaining as it is today)
each tx would cost $60 legacy or $30 segwit
(yea ignore the 'discount' the devs say segwit will give. based on tx count the segwit will actually produce if fully utilited. and divide the $120k(1.5btc) by the 2000 to 4000tx)

with all that said.....

so the problem is not that pools will not get any funds in2028->2140->2140+.. they will. so relax..
the problem is how much it would cost each tx, to make the funds the pools would receive/need.

which is where the debate of 5 years+ ago began about scaling onchain to allow more transactions so that instead of 2000-4000tx a block. it becomes in a decade(not over night) slowly growing to be 20,000-40,000tx a block so that fee's are only $6Legacy  $3Segwit

after all who would want to use bitcoins blockchain if it cost $30-$60 a tx in a decade. when other currencies would offer cheaper tx fee's.

and please dont rebuttle about LN. because LN will not be a feature exclusive to bitcoin. the LN devs have already publicly admitted that LN will be used by other coins. thus onchain scaling has to happen in less than a decade to keep the fee per tx down to keep the ntworks utility attractive and useful.

and please dont rbuttle about 'gigabyte blocks by midnight' no one is suggesting gigabyte blocks tomorrow or this year. so it can be slow stead increases over time to nsure that the btc network stays cost effective, useful and without barriers
2282  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: May 31, 2018, 03:25:33 PM
franky1, I know that you made that argument to make yourself believe that Bitcoin "bilaterally split" into two so that you can call Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core" and Bitcon Cash "Bitcoin Cash".

But if we look at the history of ALL soft forks and hard forks of Bitcoin in the past,

Do we then have the right to call Bitcoin "Bitcoin Something" post fork?

No because there was no chain split when the soft fork to Segwit happened, which was what the Core developers were avoiding right from the beginning, the same as there were no chain splits in the soft forks of the past. Bitcoin remains intact.

It was Bitcoin Cash that forked away and became an altcoin.

ha ha ha such a comedian
grabbing blog posts full of twisted buzzwords

how about read real data. like the blockchain itself
how about speak to the main devs. not the SPV wallet core fan wannabe's

bitcoin CORE, on august 1st  rejected any blocks that were not signaling for segwit.
basically bitcoin core rejected all legacy blocks.. thus bitcoin core did actually split AWAY from the past.
yep bitcoin core went in a different direction. and so did bitcoin cash.
hense it was a 2 way split. where both sides decided to go in separate directions compared to the past.
thats the very definition of a bilateral split.

and it was not a consensus upgrade because that would be where no split occured, everyone continues on the same network and no legacy blocks get rejected but new formats get accepted aswell as legacy blocks.
but a consensus event did not happen
core only had 35% vote under consensus.. so they gave up on waiting for consensus. and got their partners to organise the mandatory bilateral split.(again check the blockchain, check with the devs, both show it. (hint:blogs dont outrule real data))

yep.. and dont take the word of your propaganda pals. look at the data, its in the blockchain.. talk to the main devs (not the SPV wallet guys you have been hugging lately)

gmaxwell, pieter wuiile, luke Jr, etc all admit it was a bilateral split event on august first.
it was not a consensus event. so the propaganda blog you displayed is foolish nonsense of misrepresentation.

i think i have had my fill of laughs for the day,
its real funny that you been fooled into thinking that mandarorally demanding that nodes reject blocks  that would be valid under normal rules is a softfork.
windfury. if there ever was a bitcoin conference, and you become a public speaker. if you say what you have been saying recently, proper people that know whats really happened. that have been around alot longer then you. will ask who wrote your script and is your segment the comedy night part of the conference.

i think its time you go find other opinions and new script handouts away from the core defence league. because the core defense league is not the bitcoin decentralisation league. which is more reason to ensure people know about the bilateral split and how/why/when core gained controls of the network.. and why the community should name the network now empowered by core as bitcoin core.  
core should not own brand bitcoin.. no one should.

but i already know. as you admitted already you sheep follow core. so all arguments about
bitcoin decentralisation, vs core defense. you will always aid the core defense.

but dont reply until you have looked at the blockchain and done some proper research. because you are just slipping further and further away from understanding decentralisation. and definetly sounding like you are not desiring or defending decentralisation

have a nice day.
2283  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain Must Adapt to Build Trust in the Internet of Things on: May 31, 2018, 02:10:04 AM
public blockchains are just called blockchain

private chains are now being deemed as distributed ledger technology(DLT) because they are not using the concept of decentralisation but instead distributed(within authorised/centralised entities)
2284  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When will Exchanges pay us interest for our risk? on: May 31, 2018, 12:19:24 AM
We don't have to adopt the bad of the banking industry - the creating of money based on credit is a cancer on the wealth of society. There's no place for it in cryptocurrency.

exactly. and thats why exchanges are not banks. they do not create money to offer interest.

that faucet is a ponzi

in short the faucet is a HYIP(ponzi) SCAM.

without any contractual agreement for the funds receiver(faucet payout) to re deposit anything +interest to then repay the initial depositor
the faucet is a ponzi because its then a end game for those that initially deposited if no new depositers keep the ponzi alive
By your rationale and logic here every bank in the fiat world is a ponzi scheme because you and your bank don't have a contract that defines exactly how much interest they'll pay you on your deposits.
banks do have contracts. LOAN CONTRACT. loanee must repay debt+interest
same with depositers you get a booklet of terms and conditions that lay out your interest rate returns on your deposits
banks get loanees to hand banks more money(or suffer consequences) to then use that (loan interest) as the pot of funds for the depositor interest

If you're going to attack me, do so via PM. Your off-topic rants aren't welcome on this forum. I have no vested interest in the faucet site I mentioned, and their 4% per year is hardly "High Yield". Let's keep our comments factual, thanks frank!
if talking about the faucet is offtopic. maybe you should take it out of your OP, and i wasnt comparing it based on % i was comparing it based on the mechanism of how HYIPS(scams) get the funds to pay out, which is not via money creation

Banks started offering interest (150-200 years ago) to compensate depositors for the risk they are taking. Fractional lending is a perversion of the banking industry that didn't evolve until the last 100 years or so (since fractional reserve banking was introduced).

Cryptocurrency exchange depositors take on the greatest risk of ANY bank customer - these depositors give up the right to have private keys because they are uneducated about the system. These people should get compensation for taking on this risk, yet the exchanges offer nothing for us.

The exchanges aren't for the cryptocurrency industry when they aren't for rewarding customers for their trust.

exchanges are not banks
exchanges do not create money out of thin air.

people should learn not to treat exchanges as banks
people should learn not to expect exchanges to function like banks
people should not use exchanges as banks

people need to learn some self control. thats what private keys are for

in the fiat world
bank accounts/chequing accounts are insured and have the fractional reserve money creation and loan repayment mechanisms to be profitable and only able to do this due to depositors, so depositors deserve returns.
but in the fiat world
TRADING ACCOUNTS are not insured the way you think and are at risk of loss and do not earn interest and should not be treated as bank accounts between trades unless you day trade and its too much hassle to withdraw to a bank account and back to a trade account each day

in the crypto world exchanges are TRADING ACCOUNTS.
if you are trading daily then yes its easier to not withdraw after trading and deposit again tomorrow.but your funds are at risk between trades

for emphasisi
people should learn not to treat exchanges as banks
people should learn not to expect exchanges to function like banks
people should not use exchanges as banks

people need to learn some self control. thats what private keys are for
2285  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash on: May 30, 2018, 09:30:04 PM
Then that is where you should look for good developers to follow.
follow.. like a sheep
Unlike you we know who to follow. We know who the good developers are. You follow Roger Ver and believe in his propaganda. You are the sheep.

Yes to follow, like how you follow Roger Ver. You are the only people who call Bitcoin "Bitcoin Core".

i dont follow ver.. which again is your failing to understand. you think people need to follow.. (facepalm)
you are so stuck in the follower mindset that you think its the only thing available. you need to learn the concept of decentralisation, urgently.
thats the problem with sheep they think if your not following the farmer you must be following the sheepdog.

what the sheep dont realise is the farmer and the sheep are working together

Bitcoin development is not centralized. The Core developers have no power over the users, the miners, the WHOLE community? If they did then Segwit would have been implemented in a few days without the drama.
segwit was implemented in a few days.. with their MANDATORY consensus bypass crap on august 1st!!

prior to the august event they didnt want to admit thir power. but at a cost to them only having 35% consensus.. so instead of backing off and finding a compromise that consensus would agree with.. they instead revealed their power.

real funny part.. you cant ignore the data, as its wrote into the blockchain.
you cant denie the core devs admitting their corruption. they even made pictures of it to make it obvious..

all you can try and do is to pretend im a ver fanboy..
what a silly pointless rebuttle that makes especially when its not the case.

P.S why are you not talking about BLOQ, the bilateral split.
why are you not taking about the up/downstream filers/bridging that TRULY makes segwit not backward compatible (in a network bug event. where segwit nodes cant translate, thus the segwit blocks are not compatible with legacy nodes)

and dont bother replying with just a point finger at a ver fanclub as your answer to anything anti core

when core defenders cannot rebut the obvious. all they can do is pretend a core opposer must be pidgeon holed into a fanclub of someone else..
but never do these core defenders ever consider that people can be decentralsied and hate cores centralisation.. all the core fanboys can comprehend is fanclubs of x or y. centralisation is all they understand because they have not experienced decentralisation.
the reason i dont follow ver is simple.  i have explained it SEVERAL TIMES to you specifically.
ver is on the same team those that want core to own bitcoin. (

its reserve psychology..

lets try it in another analogy. because real data, real quotes from core devs themselves seems to blow right past you.
womens hair.
no one should own the brand "blonde" but one brunette bleaches her hair blonde and wants to be the centre of attention as the one true and only blonde.
she gets her sister VERa whos a red head to scream out that strawberry blonde is the new blonde. all so that friends of the bleach blonde can argue that ginger is just ginger and will never be blonde and that bleach blonde is the one true blonde.

in my eyes neither are blonde.
there is
strawberry blonde
bleache blonde
but neither should own the brand blonde. and neither should say only they are THE blonde..

other blonde in the blonde community would get rekt and their hair forked out with scissors by the bleach blonde if they tried to say they were THE blonde. they would get told to dye off their hair to another colour if they tried to take blonde brand away from bleache blonde

so with bleache blonde now controlling the blonde community with her forks and scissor powers. we should still not let bleache blonde own the brand blonde.
and instead call the community she monarchs over bleache blonde until she backs down and declares to drop the rekt campaignes and forks and scirrors against other blondes. thus allowing othr blondes to as a community consensus go back to how things were a few years ago
2286  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even more Confusion now, Bitcoin Core has been created on: May 30, 2018, 08:47:40 PM
more social kardashian drama to distract the sheep

meanwhile the core devs want to implement more features that can risk peoples funds, especially if people dont read the sighash/op codes of transactions to see if funds can be manipulated by others.

but it seems no one will talk about the risks of the new features but instead divert attention away from core implementing new features without a level playing field of consensus. by talking about these social drama crap that has nothing to do with code/risk

this new drama. is to try to this time give another fork the name bitcoin core.. so that people cannot call the network that the REAL core team control and own that same title.

thus pushing for people to call the network which the REAL CORE TEAM control just bitcoin. because bitcoin core is taken by a crapfork. even though core still should not own bitcoin brand..

CORE do control the (btc) network, and thats why the network should be called bitcoin core.(i mean btc should be bitcoin core.. not this new distraction $BTCC)
after all.. think of it this way, imagine if armoury/ btcd (other clients on the btc network) tried to suggest that they were the reference/centre of the network like core does. core would not be happy and REKT them, fork them.

other implementations are not on the same level as core so its not a level network to give it the network a broad open name like the old 2009-2017 network had

the bilateral split of august 2017 seen to it that core gained control of one copy of 2009-2017 network and another team gain (BLOQ) gained control of another copy of the 2009-2017 network. and BOTH went different directions.

it was not a unilateral split. it was a bilateral split. thus both have no claim over the brand . an no one should lay claim to the brand. so to easily identify which network is which. make it clear
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

just like the fiat world. no country can lay claim to the "dollar" . so make it clear
U.S dollar
canadian dollar.

in common communication people can abbreviate it to just 'dollar','bitcoin' if the content of the conversations is obvious which currency/community/network they are inside. but nethier should say that they are THE dollar / THE bitcoin. because no one should own "bitcoin" brand.

if you wish to deny that core are making the claiims that core own the network. take a hard look at and cores github.
everything points to saying that bitcoin is a core project.. and that anyone can take part by joining cores project
and then saying that other clients are other projects and the github are centred around core as THE project

thus the network should be defined as bitcoin core until these things happen:
core declare they will never again bilateral split or unilateral split off any opponents to cores bips.. meaning if the community do not majority agree with core.. then tough luck core, compromise and unite the communty next time.
core declare they use proper community consensus as it was intented
core declare to allow other clients to release new features and require consensus without REKT, fork campaigns.
when needed core and other clients work together to take a bit of feature X feature Y from the community where by the whole community CAN come to a consensus upgrade agrement where all clients, including core would include code for. to upgrade the network without rekt,fork,bypassing consensus.

but until core declare this, and denounce their monarchy. then the (BTC) network by cores own admission should be known as bitcoin core. but not let core own the brand bitcoin. no one should own the brand

anyway.. whil we all see the sheep play out thir social drama  finer pointy crap. whats happening at code/protocol level of the network the real core devs control will not get discussed and core will slide in new features which could put peoples funds at risk if they dont check out raw tx data before broadcasting.
2287  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When will Exchanges pay us interest for our risk? on: May 30, 2018, 07:26:48 PM
that faucet is a ponzi

people put funds in and the faucet owner uses those funds to give other people "interest" hoping not everyone does a bank run and gets all their funds out again for the faucet(ponzi) to collapse
in short the faucet is a HYIP(ponzi) SCAM.
and shocking to see habBear advertising a scam under the pretense of a topic about exchanges.

banks give interest because- edited for realistic numbers
when 10 people deposits $10,000 each for a year ($100k) offering 2% return for example
a bank is allowed to create $90k as "credit" (90% of deposits) that year to give out as a loan demanding 5% APR

thus from the time the loanee signs a loan until they spend it. they bank has $190k on its accounts(assets). AND $90k debt(liability)
it does not want depositors to remove all $190k in one go(bank run) because it puts the bank into minus $90k and the bank is dead.
so only allows customers to withdraw ~$500 a day from ATM's per day to prevent mass bank runs of full deposit removals.(amungst other tactics)

back to the loan signing
the liability is then put into the loanees name
the loanee would have $90k to spend.. AND $112500 DEBT(plus interest) to repay ($90k ex interest)
so would have to pay back (pen and paper math) $10k+$4.5k in the first year($14.5k)
the bank draws down the loanees debt by $14.5k(or $90k to $80k ex interest) thus destroys the $10k ex interest liability

and from that $4.5k 'profit'.. the initial depositors would get $200 each (if their deposit account offered a 2% return)
the bank keeps $2.5k as PROFIT

thus although deposit interest is 2%.. loan interest is 5%.. inflation($2.5k generated money retained) is only 2.5%

but here is how bitcoin is completely different to banking
in bitcoin no one can CREATE new bitcoin based on deposits or individual credit agreement.

so to offer interest. the initial depositers funds would need to get used to pay other people.(ponzi)

and so the scammy faucet habBear is advertising
without any contractual agreement for the funds receiver(faucet payout) to re deposit anything +interest to then repay the initial depositor
the faucet is a ponzi because its then a end game for those that initially deposited if no new depositers keep the ponzi alive

anywahy. back to the exchange "interest" part of the topic.
people should only deposit funds into an exchange for more then a day. if they are to use the exchange daily to trade for profit. because withdrawing and redepositing each day becomes a hassle.
but if your not trading each day. DONT treat a trader 'account' (exchange) as a bank/wallet.
its like stocks and shares. your not suppose to use a trader/exchange as a bank account. your funds ARE at risk and you can lose them. in bitcoin and in fiat its the same thing.
a fiat trader account does not have the same 'depostor' insurance as a normal bank account.

so only use an exchange if you intend to use an exchange for its purpose.. to exchange.
and the 'interest' part of the argument. well bitcoins dflationary nature (2016 >$300, 2017>$900 ,2018 >$6000) means youll get back more that you initially had, even without having to use and exchange.
then if you want to risk your funds for more greed. then day trade for a few percent.

in short
dont trust third party services to hold your funds and have them give you empty promises of profit, while you do nothing but just leave the funds in thier possession. rmember they are probably just as greedy and lazy as you. and would happily take your funds and leave you without.
2288  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash on: May 29, 2018, 08:59:58 PM
Then that is where you should look for good developers to follow.

follow.. like a sheep

much better to have a open network of multiple node implementations of all different languages and all offering features on the same network which if they dont get consensus alone quickly they accept that not everyone likes it and then they all discuss in the community a compromise where they all can agree on a bit of this and a bit of that and a bit of the other.. then all produce software for all their implementations that the majority can agree on..

none of this follow one team centralised bullcrap you have decided to defend
you seem to stuck in the mindset of, if you dont like teamA go walk sheepishly over to team B

since you are a post 2013 bitcoin user where the only thing you have experienced is civil war.
many of use remmber the times before 2013 when there were more then one node type and there was no battle..
when decentralisatin and consensus was truly used

but anyway.
"to follow" now thats the comedy punchline that made me laugh today..
one day you will see the big picture

2289  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Help me understand the cryptocurrency market on: May 29, 2018, 05:13:53 PM
you will find many coins people term as crapcoins. because they are premined/not mined. no cost of creation. their purpose or function is not proved.
99% of coin announcements and ICO (initial coin offerings) are in this 'crap coin ' category

next is to look at which coins have stood the test of time of sustainability. look at what they do, how they are used and by who. the three main functional coins that have purpose are bitcoin litecoin and ethereum.

bitcoin and litecoin are more like currencies and are MINED (actual cost to create)
ethereum is more like contract agregators/ escrows for other functions.. ethereum is moving to PoS(costs to create are going to be near zero)

i wont go through the whole list of coins as there are 1500+ of them and 99% of them are crapcoins as i said,

next would be to look at the prices of the coins. if you dont want to do the maths of cost of mining. the simplist thing would be to IGNORE the all time high(ATH) price of a coin first.
and instead when looking at the charts. take any period length.. EG 6 allotments if only a couple years of chart-12 monthsallotmnts of many years of charts
and find the all time LOW of each period and draw a line between each of those ATL's .
there you will find good indication of where 'VALUE' is. because no one is foolish to sell for less than it cost them to obtain it.

again for emphasis ignore the ATH (bubble price).. look for the ALT(value waterline)

then that will help you guage comparing ATL of most recent period, evaluate if all periods are on a upward or downward movement.

then compare the most recent ATL to the current price
and then comparing the current price to the ATH price

you can then see if the price is at a nice discount (near value) or if its way too much of a premium(near ATH)
2290  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Help me understand the cryptocurrency market on: May 29, 2018, 04:58:24 PM
From my little knowledge. Cryptocurrencies are primarily used to buy and sell goods and services, though some newer cryptocurrencies also function to provide a set of rules or obligations for its holders.They possess no intrinsic value in that they are not redeemable for another commodity, such as gold. Unlike traditional currency, they are not issued by a central authority and are not considered legal tender.
I need help in understanding the crypto market and investment advice in order to  invest effectively  on bitcoin market

first i think you need to learn the basics of finance.. excuse any sarcasm.. its meant as humour not arrogance, so smile while reading what im about to say.

traditional currency redeemable for gold? .. umm.. hello 1930's where have you been?
'intrinsic' value. is based on the labour needed to own it..
EG cost to mine gold/btc/crypto. and also its function or purpose adss some intrinsic value to the currency held.

for instance traditional currency. USED TO (generations ago) be backed by gold which value came from the cost to mine gold.
these days traditional currencies intrinsic value is only backed by minimum wage. EG US/UK min wage is ~$7.50 meaning a $10 bank note is intrinsic value of 1 hour 20 minutes of sweat laabour.
where by law if you do 1 hour 20 minutes of obvserved/provable labour (employment) you will get $10 atleast
yes in traditional currencies, and in gold markets the PRICE is not exact and fluctuates. but that is called speculation..

speculation is the bubbly bit of foam ontop of a value waterline. speculating can inflate or pop which is why PRICES change, but the underlaying VALUE is more stable
this is why at times of massive speculation. they say something is in a bubble period. because there is more bubbles than underlying value (price is more then double value)

a bubble does not mean a currency/property/market is fake. it just means the PRICE is over inflated.
houses are real and houses have and always will have value. but the housing market has had bubble periods

what you will find is that in crypto's HOW the coin is released to the community shows its intrinsic value and gives you a good starting point to calculate it.
periodic release coins are not all thrown out in one go. they are released slowly. giving it value as there is not a full supply right from the start
pre-mine coins are a term where the coins already exist befor public release and literally thrown out to the community. usually worth less value because of it

mined coins. involve actual computational work to be done. this can add costs like electric, equipment and time.. which usually means value would be higher(imagine robot labour) we call it (PoW) proof of work

stake coins. involve no 'work' as such. just proof of minimum investment to then be trusted to sign/validate. whereby its not labour lost but if the signer makes a mistake they lose the investment they used a proof. usually this means the coins value is less because the labour/cost is small. (imagine pre-nup/divorse papers, cheat and the wife takes it all) we call it (PoS)proof of stake

then there comes the featurs and utility.
some features are defined as unchangable(indelible, natural, esssentia) set in stone features. such as the coin supply(scarcity) which can add to the value.

but then there are features that can change and that then starts going into the speculative 'foam on top the water area'
2291  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Do We Need To Change Bitcoin Logo ₿? on: May 29, 2018, 03:47:33 PM
anyone can have artisitic freedom of the symbol. after all take a look at the many different versions there are for the UK

but with that said, here is an idea.
to stop the squabbling between those that want to evolve the symbology, vs those that dont..

leave the BTC generally as is.
but because the valuations are getting large. many people will move to 'bits' (100 satoshi / BTC0.00000100)
so how about think of what the symbol for 'bits' should be as we still are not quite at a overall utility of bits for it to be much of a change
2292  Economy / Speculation / Re: Someone pumped the price of BTC Today: approx 250 USD on: May 29, 2018, 03:30:17 PM
it looks like you enter cryptomarket yesterday from stock market Smiley
Correct me if im wrong please Smiley

Cheesy i thought the same about the OP when i first read his post.
typical trend anals trying to sound good and create buzz about something thy have yet to understand.
(i call them trend anals because they are not looking at technical data, just trends.. and they are anals.. not analysts)

20 bilion. Nice. Where did you hear that? Just use math mate. Todays total bitcoin volume is 5 bil. How the hell did someone pump 20 bil to make this pump if only 5 bil was traded in last 24h. Whole market volume is 18 bil today (all 1600 coins). I think that 6 000 btc is more than enought. 44 mil in current price.

i too laughed at the OP's numbers too.. against typical trend anal frsh off the stock market boat
anyway, it doesnt even need that many coins.
its called arbitraging.

imagine having 10 coins. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=20btc)
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=30btc)
repeat this process again. convert them to an alt like litecoin. sell litecoin for dollar. use dollar to buy bitcoin (val=40btc)
and so on

you can create alot of 'volume' without having to have that amount of volume as actual coin total.
2293  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: On Segwit not being backwards compatible question on: May 29, 2018, 03:06:17 PM
segwit is not backward compatible
segwit as is, is not understood by legacy nodes. copy a segit block into a legacy block AS IS in full proper segwit format. a legacy block will not enjoy or accept it.

legacy nodes cannot RELAY A stripped legacy formatted segwit block back to the relay network of segwit enabled nodes for them to validate
if you grabbed the blockchain as is in 2018. and copied it into a directory of a legacy node. the legacy node will NOT find the data compatible

imagine it this way. imagine there was a bug in segwit nodes that shut them down as soon as they run.. in no way can anyone say 'its fine the blockchain is fully understood and validated by legacy nodes and the network will run fine without distruption'.

what really happens is that segwit nodes who choose to allow legacy nodes to b conected to them, strip and translate a segwit block into something a legacy block will STORE but not fully validate
if anything segwit is "legacy translatable on request".

that way it does not confuse people to think that legacy nodes are a backup if segwit nodes fail. bcause if segwit nods fail. they wont be available to translate. so people need to be aware that there would be network disruption should segwit nodes have a bug

the bitcoin devs admit this.
they went to great efforts to explain that legacy nodes are not part of the relay network. instead they are treated as second layer nodes
which require a segwit enabled node to do the translating for the legacy node.
greg maxwell calls the segwit nodes that translate "upstream filters"
luke JR calls the segwit nodes that translate "bridge nodes"

here is even a picture of the process, provided by those that coded segwit

analogy time
segwit is wrote in dutch and the blockchain prior to august 1st is wrote in english. the legacy nodes only understand english. and anything dutch they will not accept. it requires a dutch node to translate ON REQUEST the dutch blockchain into pidgeon english. though its not 100% graammatically valid the english will blindly accept it, under the prtense that the dutch node has validated it and knows what its talking about

i use dutch as an example because of pieter wuille's native language and the fact that segwit is pieter wuille native project.

so will people stop with the propaganda that legacy nodes are on the same level playing field as segwit nodes. because its not just propaganda. its actualy a security risk to the network to make people believe that legacy nodes are fully compatible and will continu running even if segwit nodes had a bug.

and if you want to argue how much of a part legacy nodes are in the peer-to-peer network. by pretenting its all intercommunicable and everyones on the same level playing field.
take another long look at the image. then have a few coffee's, sit and think about it for a bit. ask youself why the 'older nodes's are separate. and then go read code wrote by pieter wuille, go read stuff by gregmaxwell and luke JR. go speak to the devs. and stop just taking the word of these fanboys (achowe/carlton) who care more about promoting and ovrpromosing but dont care about security/bugs.
yep ill even call out achowe who has profited in the bast from a core bug, without then reporting the bug to the core devs.

have a nice day.
be sure to sit back and have coffee.. remove the core defense cap, take off the overpromoting shirt. and relax for a bit before replying
2294  Economy / Speculation / Re: Someone pumped the price of BTC Today: approx 250 USD on: May 29, 2018, 02:31:24 PM
1. price moving up by ~$250 s not a pump... calm the hell down
2. saying it cost 20 billion to achieve, is nonsense. calm the hell down
3. expect prices to move 10% up OR dawn a day.. expect it as the norm, not something that needs reportiing/hypingsevreal times a day.  calm the hell down

and lastly
calm the hell down
2295  Economy / Speculation / Re: A new ATH on: May 29, 2018, 09:09:07 AM
Plus their minds have not yet registered how lucky everyone they are in having another opportunity in buying Bitcoin below $10,000. I hope it stays below it for some time. Cool

id say with ASIC mining costs to mine a btc coming down. (some pools are already using the next gen ASICS, which are going to have a public batch release in june), that as long as the network hashrate is below 90exahash you will se many pools/mining groups happy to sell below $10k, so chances are (without a speculative pump) prices could stay down for a while
2296  Economy / Speculation / Re: A new ATH on: May 28, 2018, 08:24:10 PM
all that really matters when it comes to the price that people should ever care about. is not the 10 minute fluke events of ATH..
but simply this:

2016 bitcoin never dropped below $300
2017 bitcoin never dropped below $900
2018 bitcoin hasnt dropped below $6000

once you grasp that mindset. people can learn to chill
2297  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash on: May 28, 2018, 05:34:23 PM
Max Transaction Capacity

Bitcoin Core Onchain Transactions per second , If they could scale up to 4meg, then 28 transactions per second or 2419200 transaction per day
, but in truth they are most likely less than half at ~12 transaction per second or 1036800 transactions per day.
In Theory LN Offchain Transactions will allow a scaling of transaction to exceed Visa, but offchain only.

Bitcoin Cash Onchain Transactions with a 32mb block : 224 transactions per second or 19353600 transactions per day

Using multiple 3rd parties offchain transactions also allow Bitcoin Cash/(any coin) scaling to exceed visa.  (No segwit or LN needed.)

LN is not a feature locked to bitoin cores network. the bitcoin core developers admitted this as part of their segwit address format BC1q proposals for LN

as for bitcoin cores ONCHAIN tx/s. again. admitted by the bitcoin core devs. even with 4mb "weight" allowance. the dependancy of the legacy restraint on the blockchain, has stistically made it so even if there was 100% transaction utility of segwit format tx's. only expect 2.1x tx capacity boost compared to the norm.

as for the 7tx/s(never achieved in 9 years by the way)
thats based on 2009 theory of IF every transaction in a legacy block being a lean 1input 1 output tx to allow for 4200tx(=7tx/s). but the reality is that will not happen. on average its only ~2100tx a block(3.5tx/s) not 4200tx a block(7tx/s).

thus IF everyone used a segwit tx format expect (~2100 legacy*2.1) segwit at ~4500 tx a block.. but again thats only an IF everyone used segwit tx format.  so again dont expect 7tx/s as a norm

the reason for "weight" being x4 but not offering 4x capacity is for other bloaty features to come. which dont help transaction count increase but will fill the remaining "weight" buffer without havingas much impact on decreasing tx capacity.
take this as an example. of how you wont get 4x tx capacity.

2mb data. but only 225 tx's in the block

and what i just said is words from those in the core team. thus feel free to laugh if core fans try to rip their own teams stats apart to then try over promoting features the propagandists dont even understand.
2298  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Development of Blockchain in future. on: May 28, 2018, 05:12:04 PM
Blockchain is the term for open community version of data that is linked together and publicly distributed in what is meant to be a quasi decentralised way

Distributed Ledger Technology(DLT) is the term for the closed community version that linked together and selectively distributed in what is meant to be a quasi centralised way.

there are projects like hyperledger which the FIAT banking sector are developing (using the DLT buzzword)
there are thousands of blockchain projects (high majority pump and dump non sustainable) developing (using the blockchain buzzword)

there are some cross over developments around the area of sidechains/sideledgers(DLT):
where a region/country has a chain. imagine it like a bank branch of 8000 customers account history. which link to other regions/countrys chain of the same design. function, just done as separate chains to regionalise and cut down on having one chain abused by millions of people.
whereby these side chain/edgers link to a master chain/ledger(IMF/central bank) which then audits the chains as a whole

there are "off chain" services/networks:
well thats just swapping funds/data without a blockchain/DLT involvement at every usage, which can be done in thousands of different ways because they dont have to rely on chains/DLT as much as people think

there are also multichains/multiledger(DLT):
similar to sidechains. but where each chain/DLT is completely different offering different options. EG one chain/DLT for currency, one for ID. but both chains/DLT are linked/relationshiped together

there are also hyperchains/hyperledgers:
where each chain/DLT is completely different offering different options. EG one chain/DLT for currency, one for ID. but both chains/DLT are linked/relationshiped together but not via a master "chain/ledger" but by a offchain/off ledger

then with all that said. theres the whole big discussion about whattyp of data is then used.
currency data (tokens/transactions)
Identity data (names and addresses)
voting data (polls and votes)
property data (deeds and Wills)
logistic data (source to destination of produce)

the list goes on
2299  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Announcement for all the newbies who follow Bitcoin in social media and Reddit on: May 28, 2018, 04:43:13 PM
The BCH including Roger Ver claims only Bitcoin Cash conform to the version of Bitcoin as described by the creators Satoshi in his white paper.

The BTC including theymos claims only Bitcoin CORE conform to the version of Bitcoin as described by the creators Satoshi in his white paper.

both sides are wrong. both were part of the bilateral split on august 1st, both diverted and both went thier separate ways.
its literally wrote in the IMMUTIBLE blockchains of both networks

bitcoin can be owned by NEITHER side.

and thus it must be clarified that its
bitcoin CORE
bitcoin CASH
2300  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: Roger Ver to be sued for defrauding bitcoin newbies. on: May 28, 2018, 04:34:14 PM
Unfortunately, this won't be going anywhere. These people need to be fought with their own techniques, not in courts. Otherwise we're no better than Faketoshi and his blockchain patents. Anyways, the point is that we need to play their game. We need to a collective effort to show everyone (truthfully) why bitcoin cash is a scam and why the people behind it are frauds. Suing people over stuff like this kinda goes against the spirit of crypto.

you do know this whole propaganda thing of core vs cash is all just finger pointing social drama. both bloq who made cash network and blockstream who made segwit which is now the core network are both funded by the same group right.

you must also know by now that everything ver is doing theymos has done
everything adam back is doing craig wright has done

its all one big masquerade

cash is the pimple on the left arm
core is the cancer on the right arm

and deep pocket investors want people looking at the hands while they take the whole body in the middle
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 ... 825 »
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!