Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2019, 01:12:35 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 ... 824 »
2501  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver To Face Lawsuit on: April 28, 2018, 07:18:00 PM
I hope he loses the case. While puting BCH that he's promoting at the top is fine, but changing the name Bitcoin into Bitcoin core is not. Especially when combined with the site Bitcoin.com. A typical user will visiting bitcoin.com and looking for Bitcoin won't be able to find it. He'll find Bitcoin Core that sounds just like another forked coin. It's misleading however you look at it.

no team own bitcoin..

neither side
the truth is it actually is
bitcoin core
bitcoin cash

much like dollar is open to all countries
american dollar
canadian dollar
australian dollar

if the currency you use commonly is in your pocket then you can use it in common conversation as an abreviation
.. so yes
if you are australian you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any U.S dollars'
if you are australian you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any canadian dollars'

if you are american you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any Australian dollars'
if you are american you can say 'i have a dollar in my pocket, but i dont have any canadian dollars'

that is why.. core need to accept that bitcoin is trademarked by no one and accept that they too will be called bitcoin core by outsiders

that is why.. cash need to accept that bitcoin is trademarked by no one and accept that they too will be called bitcoin cash by outsiders

but those who use core, will in common conversation but without staking claim of trademark will say they have bitcoin in thier wallet
but those who use cash, will in common conversation but without staking claim of trademark will say they have bitcoin in thier wallet
2502  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver To Face Lawsuit on: April 28, 2018, 07:01:50 PM
i can see the defense as:
(use of 'dollar' for analogy)

dollar is owned by no one.
america can use it
canada can use it
australia can use it

if america want to make a lawsuit about how people have been told that australia has the dollar, then i would laugh
if a european paid 0.62 for a dollar and handed a australian dollar. then there is no fraud (0.62 is AUS price)
if a european paid 0.82 for a dollar and handed a australian dollar. then there is fraud (0.62 is AUS price)

its just america(core) trying to grab the brand. so that brand becomes tradmarked, and no longer un-owned.

the "victims" would have a case if they paid $8000 for something worth only $800 at the time.
but if they paid $800 for 'a bitcoin' then that is not deceipt or fraud.

i wonder how many people actually paid >$7000 this month for 1 bitcoin cash.

EG
person: i want an apple..
merchant: ok thats 50 cents.. hands person a fruit
pereson: no i wanted the phone. im gonna sue you
merchant: laughs, goodluck

Vs
person: i want an apple..
merchant: ok thats $500.. hands person a fruit
pereson: no i wanted the phone. im gonna sue you
merchant: oh crap
2503  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How the genesis block triggered on: April 28, 2018, 09:54:58 AM
Hi Frank,

Thanks for reply ...

when you say

/*my name is bob
00000*/
can I ask why you need a 5 bit space ?

ok, I will try to explain my spot ..

Quote
00000000   01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00   ................

the first column is a 8 satoshi bit long ( base 2 )

ps-> ed; I know it sounds kind silly ... but for engineering field they will show on their oscilloscope screen how my code can be awful..  
Cheesy
8 "satoshi" bit long...

im not sure what satoshi's has to do with my nonce example. im just taking it as you being humourous to just add the word satoshi into the conversation..
but lets address the nonce example then ill talk about satoshis, the block reward and the end of bitcoin fresh coin production
....
i prefer to dumb things down into laymans ELI-5 speak whenever possible. so that anyone/everyone can understand the basics without having to test peoples knowledge/skill level before giving them advice.

so my example of
my name is bob
00000

that is just me deciding out of the randomness of human decision to press the return key on my keyboard after bob, to put a integer nonce on the second line, yes that nonce is integer (normal human numerics, not binary) just for the sake of human readible demo. so in my demo the nonce would be 5 bytes (40bits)
but like i said i try not to over complicate things

but as my whole post was expressing, that if you are creating your own blocckhain from scratch. you have the freedom to make your own rules and set things up however you like.

if you are interested more in bitcoins function rather than setting up your own blockchain. the white paper and the very first bitcoin client (satoshi-qt0.1 would help you understand the original basics. then once you get the original basics. you can skip passed a few later releases and then look at the latest version to see all the new rules that were added over the years and the new methods of data store and calculating things

...

one thing i will say about binary vs long vs double
although the front end GUI of a program displays funds of peoples public keys as bitcoin
EG
1.05btc

at code level and data storage level. it is all measured in satoshi's
EG
105,000,000 sats

for instance. front end(gui) level says there will be 21m btc eventually.
but at coding level its
5,000,000,000 sats every block(50btc) for 210,000 blocks then it halves(to 2,500,000,000 sats)(25btc).. then every 210,000 blocks it halves again and again until it cant halv any more (in about the year 2140~)
so that eventually there will be around(but not specifically) 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshis
GUI: 21mill btc
code: 2.1quadrillion sats
2504  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How the genesis block triggered on: April 28, 2018, 12:42:43 AM
if you are thinking of making you own coin. you can set your own rules
EG
make a file(block) with the contents:
my name is bob
00000

the 00000 is a nonce/salt of a block. luckily it produced a hash at 00000 (first try)
the hash of that is: 03DFAF10BE8125AFB277EE34C63BEB52B03BCB69F6D9F047C9B11D0BC9CFEE6A
now thats your block 0

now you can code your client to start checking for rules (as of block 1)
screw it. you can set your code to start validating rules as of any block number you like. but lets stick with block1
EG (in laymans terms)
from block ONE(not block0) to current block height
if Prev blockhash begins 0=valid
if janice creates 50=valid

now to create block1 contents
Prev blockhash=03DFAF10BE8125AFB277EE34C63BEB52B03BCB69F6D9F047C9B11D0BC9CFEE6A
janice=janice+50
00021

now after 22 tries block1 has a hash of: 0DECF5A46665ADFD0C82187293CD92C81866A0A7B985AA14141D512854442FD3

the good thing about blockchain technology is that you can do whatever you want. you dont have to copy satoshi's code
you can set your own contents of a block and set your own rules to decide if such content is valid or not.

later you can set new rules, as you progress
from block ONE(not block0) to 209,999
if Prev blockhash begins 0=valid
if janice creates 50=valid
from block 210,000 to current block height
if Prev blockhash begins 000=valid
if janice creates 25=valid

now you have just set it so that at block 210,000 its requires more attempts to get a hash that fits the rule and you also made the reward decrease

again you can set the rules and block format however you like

some devs are making blockchains that concentrate on hashing an updated UTXO set (list of unspent funds) where the transaction
ledger(history) can just be thrown away after 6 months because their nodes dont validate transaction history part beyond 6 months
because it would have been thought that after 6 months. and thousands of blockhashes later. theres no reason to check old/out of date data
2505  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Relief In Crypto Taxation: France Brings Crypto Taxes Down To 19% on: April 27, 2018, 09:48:10 PM
It's a great news not only for France citizens, but also for all the people involved in cryptocurrecies. The news is the sign of accepting bitcoin France. France can play an important rule as one the most developed countries.

its not really about bitcoin at all.. its just ensuring people pay tax on euro's that enter their bank account
2506  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Relief In Crypto Taxation: France Brings Crypto Taxes Down To 19% on: April 27, 2018, 09:44:24 PM
How are they going to calculate the tax. The only moment I will show that I have cryptocurrency is when I convert it to fiat through a bank.
Are they going to force all crypto exchanges to tax every account?
This will effect everyday traders and it will slow the market. 19% plus other fees, and do they consider when a trader loses?

its not french resident profit until its in your french resident bank account

just remember though if it was bought at Euro 8k and you cash out at Euro 9k .. although you have Euro 9k arriving in your bank account.. the 'gains' is only Euro 1k
2507  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A critique on the Lightning Network from a regular poster. Long. on: April 27, 2018, 09:36:04 PM
Quote
There are only ~1500 LN nodes.
It's still in beta, what do you expect?

Quote
but already there are hubs being the middlemen for ~10% of the network
You seem to be ignoring the criss-cross of gray lines for all of the other channels.

The "hubs" currently on mainnet are due to people opening direct channels with merchants (i.e. performing direct P2P payments).

yes the merchant becomes the banker2.0
put all your funds into a richard branson channel so you can buy train, plane and space travel tickets. by the way you need richard bransons signature every time you want to buy something.. oh look richard branson is now a bank

as for other posts
some banks dont use customers funds for internal investing
some banks dont do mortgages
some banks dont do credit cards or debt

these hubs are not best friends you conect to p2p, they are centralised services(HUBS) that the LN dns seeds can send a certain preferential list of hubs to users.
yes you can manually request to join a friend.
but that does not negate the point that hubs do exist and are centralised authorisers of hundreds of peoples funds


a bank is a storage vessel of value that needs authorisation. a central bank is where a central authoriser has powers to authorise or reject payment of other peoples funds. if you wish to object. then i guess another of satoshi's ethos of bitcoin has died "be your own bank"

LN is not a "be your own" concept because it requires secondary authorisation but it is a "bank" because it stores value and requires authorisation

you can play symantics all you like
"dont call it a chargback, use 'punishment' buzzword instead to hide average joes understanding"

but to generalise it
LN is not fit for purpose as a scaling solution everyone should use.
LN is not a 'unlimited use' concept that never needs to close channels.
LN is not a service where it is guaranteed to work if you only connect to one friend(you cant pay anyone by only connecting to a friend(DDos/out of funds issues))
LN is not a service where you can pay anyone in the (imaginable future of 7billion LN users) for just 1-3 hop fee's and only needing 1-3 channels to do that.

HUBS is the concept of getting millions of users 'well connected'

100 nodes with 100 connections and EVERY connection had 100 connections..
then you can be lucky to pay anyone in 3.5 hops(lets call it 4 just for sanity sake)
...screw it 95 nodes 95 connections and every connection had 95 connections = more realistic 4
or
300 nodes with 300 connections and EVERY connection had 300 connections..
then you can be lucky to pay anyone in 3 hops

but not all nodes will be 95-300 channels to pay within 3-4 hops, meaning much more than 4 hops will be required(fee costs increase)
or required to connect to hub(keeps costs down but then use centralised authoriser)

there will be some users with 3 connections (accounts with 3 banks)
and there will be hubs(banks) with 300(or more) customers that the hub(bank) will need to sign for

now imagine each node/hub equally agreed to charge the minimal 1millisat(1MS)
would you prefer a DECENTRALISED network of users with only 3 connections each which would cost upto 22MS but no guarantee of routing
where sometimes route fail due to DDos and funds unavailable in the route of channels

or would you end up using a CENTRALISED system of connecting to 3 hubs(banks) where it could cost you upto 4MS

because some how achow101 has this DIS-belief that LN is a utopian dream of perfect limitless connectiveness of only needing to connect to a couple friends and having guaranteed payment system that costs literally nothing to pay anyone in the world.

before you answer. take the mindset of average joe that can only predict their spending habits for a couple weeks ahead so will only want to risk $60~
would they want to split their funds into 300 channels of $0.20 or have maby 1 or to channels with hubs of $30~ each
2508  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A critique on the Lightning Network from a regular poster. Long. on: April 27, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
Quote
all with the very same banking features of 3-5 business day settlemnt (CLTV
That is completely false. There is no 3-5 business day settlement. That is not what CLTV is used for. It is a timeout for if a transaction fails. Not a "transaction goes through after X time".

its a timeout to not allow a CLTV output to be spent until X time (usually days to allow time for someone to realise a tx got confirmed but have time to still send a new tx with a revoke code to chargeback
hense CLTV concentrates on the 3-5 day before truly settled

github: CLTV " until that block height or block time has been reached the transaction output remains unspendable. "

Quote
) and wire transfer chargebacks(CSV)
That is completely false. That is not what CSV is used for. It is used as a timeout during which time a punishment can occur which is not the same as a chargeback. Once an HTLC is resolved or once new commitment transactions are put in place, the payment is final. There is not charging back. Trying to perform a chargeback would mean that you are broadcasting an old commitment transaction which means that you LOSE ALL of your money, not you gaining back whatever money that you sent.
[/quote]

CSV  REVOKES aka CHARGEBACK = punishment
you can call it a "punishment" all you like but all your screaming is tom8o.. the reality of average joe is actualy tom@o(chargeback)
if your waiting to receive funds and it shows its destined to be yours in a couple days.. but then someone else takes it from you. its a chargeback

EG
today 27tth April    multisig btween franky1 and paypal2.0 bank
tx1 CSV allow paypal to spend else 5 days pay franky 1btc..  signed franky1 signed paypal2.0
tx2 CSV allow paypal to spend else 5 days pay franky 1.2btc..  paypal gets tx1 Revoke .. signed franky1 paypal2.0 refuses to sign tx2
because paypal is not being co-operative franky1 sends tx1 as its the only tx franky has fully signed.
its broadcast, gets accepted into block. but franky1 cannot SPEND tx1 until 2nd may as he doesnt have tx1 revoke key

paypal does. so before 2nd of May paypal spends frankys tx1 funds back to paypals pot of funds. franky1 lost out

yep paypal done a chargeback

because its open source and all handshaking is done in private without the community decentralised auditing...
paypal node can tinker with its sourcecode to be the one that requests franky1 is the first to give up the old key first. thus franky1 loses out

if LN was so flawless and trustless. the blockchain(2009 invention) would not ever needed to be invented. because people could just smart contract
in private. and the whole many decades of trying to find a solution to decentralsied money would not be blockchain but LN

come on achow.. are you really saying that decentralised blockchain technology is a dead technology and not required. because private smart contracts are flawless. come on. atleast admit LN has limitations and flaws

as said
its not about YOU making a payment and YOU getting a refund.. its about YOU wanting to withdraw funds from paypal2.0 and paypal taking the money. leaving YOU out of pocket
2509  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A critique on the Lightning Network from a regular poster. Long. on: April 27, 2018, 09:02:23 PM
Quote
LN is not a direct pay the recipiant(P2P).
It certainly is. You can open a payment channel directly with your recipient and avoid having to route your payment through anyone else.

Quote
its in laymans terms opening a channel(account) with a well routed(bank branch) hub. depositing funds into a channel(account) that requires co-signing(bank authorisation)
It can be used in that way, but that is not the only way to use LN.

LN is not the BANK..
LN is the swift network banks use.
hubs. one entity with authorisation power over multiple contracts of value store are the banks

yes you can set up a joint bank account with your wife(p2p) and never need to use the swift(LN routing).. but if you are just going to set up a payment system with someone you trust enough to be a counter-signer. you can just do that as an ONCHAIN multisig  and just use a piece of paper to tally who owes who what and just sign a final cheque/tx to finally settle up.

the purpose of LN is about routing/hubs and hops not about p2p
2510  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: A critique on the Lightning Network from a regular poster. Long. on: April 27, 2018, 09:00:47 PM
Quote
Core is also the centralised regulator of the rules. they set the policy. change the rules and nodes(merchants) are suppose to follow cores set rules and reject(ban hammer) users(nodes) that send dodgy transactions/blocks
Except Core does not have any sort of centralized authority to force any rules to go through. Otherwise you would see all of the forks that the Core developers propose to activate within a few weeks of the software supporting the fork being available. Case in point, segwit. Segwit took several months to activate, way longer than any previous soft fork. It took people threatening to perform a user activated soft fork before miners finally activated it. The UASF was not something that was officially supported by Core (i.e. no Bitcoin Core release containing UASF logic). If the Core developers had centralized control over the consensus rules, then segwit would have activated quickly and without contention, which is clearly not what happenend.

Quote
It used to be the case that anyone can alter their node and then promote their own new feature. and if enough users liked it they would add it to thier node and then the network would evolve.
This is still the case. You can do that if you want. No one is preventing you from creating the next Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Unlimited. No one can stop you from writing the software and running your own node. Just because the vast majority of users decided to stick with Core does not mean that Core can prevent you from doing this or that Core is forcing you do follow them.

lets just clear up achows101 core defense

1. segwit only had 35%.. based on bitcoins consensus.
core team got mad.. the main devs wouldnt have got paid their next tranche of investor funding if segwit got opposed.. so they employed samson mow(UASF) and bloq:-jGarzic(bitcoinABC) to do something that goes totally against consensus. which is called a bilateral split. as proposed by gmaxwell.

firstly. making core able to bilaterally split frrom its opposition by deception.. getting the propaganda rumours of everyone to upgrade their nodes to either core or bitcoin ABC (false election as it was rigged to avoid consensus)
problem is .. bloq is actually team core
(same investor as blockstream)(https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b)

then all those that opposed core, got pushed over to an altcoin. making cores bip jump from 35% to 95%, it reminds me of apartheid(race segregation) of the opposition to rig elections
apartheid:
core(white people) own a bus company. pretend there are seats for everyone..
"its ok, this bus is for everyone".. but
if you dont like core(white people), sit at the back of the bus.. core(white) people dont want you upfront anyway
....... then
shoot the people sat in the back of the bus or push them off the bus
 
now the front of the bus with the engine is only core(white people) so only white people get to the destination(polling station) and the back of the bus doesnt count..

so yes core does have control and now core can slide in as many soft forks as they like.. take the newest addition.. bc1q addresses..
this new address type did not require consensus or even bilateral split to win by default to add these new addresses. they just added it because now they have a back door to do what they like without consensus
Luke JR's backdoor

even things like Knots is another core defending node client. thus the community do not have a free choice.
if you check through history. XT classic and the others that opposed core all got REKT due to cores control.

anything oposing cores roadmap is always treated like an attack, not fair competition.. the core team do not take it as an honourable competition of consensus but scream out its an attack against "bitcoin" because they feel that core own "bitcoin". thus anything opposing cores roadmap should be thrown into an altcoin

even R.ver's reverse psychology is proving that. core absolutely hate of anyone saying that cores network is not bitcoin.. yet NO ONE should own "bitcoin".. and thats the point of roger vers subtle reverse psychology. by making the core defenders literally scream that core own bitcoin and anything else is just an altcoin.

fiat analogy:
dollar is not owned by anyone... australia can use it, canada can use it. america can use it
r.vers subtlety "i australia own real dollars"
core defenders "we america own dollars, anything else is a fake/fraud/misleading people"

thus its like america saying australia does not exist, australia is a fraud and should not use dollars

end result no one should own dollar and when people ask 'i want dollar' the reply is 'U.S, canadian or australian?'
end result no one should own bitcoin and when people ask 'i want bitcoin' the reply is 'core or cash?'

remember its not
_______________________ 1
                   \__________  2
(2 unilaterally created an alt)

its not a
                    __________ 1
____________/__________ 2
(1 unilaterally created an alt)

its a
                   ___________ 1
___________/
                  \___________ 2
(1&2 bilateral split)..

yes a fork. both side go in separat directions. where no side is a straight blade
no side is the same rules as 2009-2014
no side is "the bitcoin"

also
by core PRETENDING its not centralised by saying they are a team of individuals rather than one person. is like saying apple cant be a centralised because its more than just steve jobs.. EG apple isnt centralised because of wozniac's involvement and sometimes disagreement with jobs in the past aswell as there being hundred other people work who on apple products.. also yes apple had unpaid interns(volunteers) too

its still a team that has a roadmap(5 year business plan)

go on deny samson mow wasnt employed by blockstream
deny segwit wouldnt have activated unless the opposition were not moved away via ABC
deny ABC wasnt created by the guys that got paid by the same investors that pay gmax, wuiile and samson(blockstream).

the BScartel (Barry Silbert/BlockStream) really does have the puppet master strings.

(i expect may harsh cries of defense about this post from the core lovers.. but while they spend most of their time defending core.. they are not
concentrating on th big picture of dcentralised "bitcoin")
(i expect those core defenders who dont care about decentralsiation to tr pigeon holing me into another team. purely because they lack the understanding of the concept of true decentralisation and independance.. to them its only core loyalist or opposition)
2511  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Nasdaq is open to becoming cryptocurrency exchange on: April 26, 2018, 07:55:10 PM
they are realising that blockchain is not simply a mysql database of facebook credits, but a real distributed ledger of assets. and its not something that just fades away if a company doesnt re-register after 12 months. crypto is built to continue forever(as long as they serve a function, people will mine blocks of that coin)



and as for ICO's needing to be regulated.. pfft. does she really realise what she is saying.

regulation is a government agency asking a business to self-vet its own customers, and allow the company to create its own policies
ICO's dont need to be regulated. ico's need to become liable to consumer protection laws more strictly.(there is a difference)

its not the investors of ICO's that need to be investigated. but is the ICO's themselves that need to be investigated

after all how many bankers have you seen go to prison due to all the many banking scams around 'payment insurance' 'bad(subprime) credit loans'
regulations are meaningless to consumers and just paperwork for businesses.
2512  Economy / Speculation / Re: is bitcoin out of the bear pocket on: April 26, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
this time last month. the price of bitcoin went below the cost of mining 1btc. which does not happen often.
the cost of mining usually is treated as a good support line. but it appears many really dumped below that
(bears on a rampage)

as you can see by the red area on the right


but it has looked to recover but still not out of the woods. the bears are still hanging around

the cost of mining has gone a little wild this last month but $9133~ is the mining cost of 1btc today
if you ever want to calculate the mining cost. get the hash rate and then use this excel formulae

be warned different site show different daily hashrate averages. some say 23 ex some say ~30 ex

if hashrate measured in exa
=((HR/0.000014)*8.22)/1800                replace HR with hashrate: (28 for yesterday/taoday for example)

if hashrate measured in peta
=((HR/0.014)*8.22)/1800

if hashrate measured in terra
=((HR/14)*8.22)/1800

any way i dont think this trading below mining cost can go on for much longer before something happens.. the
day traders must be runnin out of old reserves, which will leave the miners fresh coins which they wont sell below cost
so new supports are due soon. just no one can predict the exact date when.
2513  Bitcoin / Press / Re: [2018-04-21] No, Visa Doesn’t Handle 24,000 TPS and Neither Does Your Pet... on: April 26, 2018, 05:25:02 AM
lets add my 3bits to this

1. visa does NOT store bank balance information on its servers and does not fully process a payment in seconds. here in the UK a bank branch has a sort code(americans have route numbers). what visa does is asks the bank branch server for a balance to ensure customer can fund the payment. and then tells the bank to put the funds on hold. it is then the bank that actually does the payment processing/fund movements

visa's operation is basically the unconfirms tx relay. letting a peer check balance and check the authorisation(signature) is valid..
so with fibre being available i can easily push through 24,000tx's to another node

2. even checking out visa info
"With Visa, you can scale your business to conduct speedy transactions in person or online, knowing the world's largest retail electronic payments processing network is behind you. VisaNet handles an average of 150 million transactions every day"

150m/24= 6,250,000per hour
6.25m/60=104166.6666666667 per minute
1736.111111111 per second

yep averages 1,736 TPS

3. also adding to point one about visa not making a settled payment....., the visa network is not one network
each country has their own separate entity (like a side chain) this is how america pretty much said for visa to stopworking within russia. because visa has a separate network for russia.
so adding it up may look big as in nearly 900million card holders world wide doing 150mill tx's a day..
but thats like saying bitcoin core bitcoin cash bitcoin gold can handle a dozen megabytes of data every ~10minutes by saying they are "all bitcoin"
2514  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: April 26, 2018, 04:42:33 AM
Also even Bitcoin itself has been centralized for years to the wealthy elite that can afford warehouse full of ASICS.
Chinese Mining Pools alone had more than 51% control for years.
Centralization of bitcoin happened years ago and no one seemed to care.  Tongue  

pools cant do much. if they sent out a nasty block.. nodes would reject it in seconds. and then the pools cant spend thir funds because merchants wont see that block.

however. since 2014. CORE have centralised the roadmap in their own direction. and any other team/community member that thinks of an idea that differs from cores roadmap gets treated like an enemy...

so yes centralisation has happened years ago. but no one notices because each time its highlighted, all that occurs is distractions of.. "look at craig wright. he owns no bitcoins, never coded a node, doesnt have any influence but look, look at him until you forget that core control the network"

much like USA is bombing syria.. "but look kardashian is on a 3 day clense"
2515  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: April 26, 2018, 04:07:39 AM
I think large hubs appear because people want to connect to nodes that are always online and already have many connections, since it can result in shorter routes and thus cheaper fees. So, if we think about nodes/hubs as some sort of payment processors, there are still a lot of differences between them and traditional payment processors - they can't freeze or steal your coins easily, because Lightning protocol has strong anti-cheating mechanisms. You don't have to use hubs if you don't want to, you can always choose some alternative routing or just connect with someone directly - this is not possible with fiat, since you can't just start your own small bank.

firstly
in channel. there is NO community audit/ checks of payments. is just counter-party A vs counter-party B

this leads to a few issues. counterparty-B can (because its open source) edit his own node so that it is the handshakee.. meaning cpA has to offer their hand first(sign first)
if cpB received cpAs signature of lets say tx3, but then cpB was to refuse to sign tx 3. and then cpB went on to DDoS cpA..
cpB can blackmail cpA because

if cpA broadcast tx2(the only fully signed tx cpA has) cpB could the sign tx3 broadcast tx3 and csv revoke funds away from cpA
..
secondly
you say its not like traditional banks.. pfft
there are 1600 nodes right now. and there are some hubs with over 100 channels.. (upto 10% co-signing control of nodes funds)

imagine a town of 160,000 population and there were 10 bank branches. people open accounts(channels) with a bank branch and then every payment they make the customer needs:
1. bank branch authorisation (counter party sig of the customers<->bank(person/hub) channel)
2. wire transfer authorisation (counterparty sig of the 2 banks(routed hubs) channel)
3. remote branch authorisation (counterparty sig of the remote bank<->recipient(hub/person) channel)

if you take away the buzzwords of channel and replace it with account.
if you take away the buzzwords of mutlisig counterparty smart contract and replace it with requires bank authorisation
if you take away the buzzwords of routing and replace it with wire transfer using bank route/sort codes
if you take away the buzzwords of CSVrevoke and replace it with chargeback
if you take away the buzzwords of CLTV and replace it with 3-5 business day settlement
even the letter C in CLTV and CSV is misleading
if you take away Check(its not meaning validate) and replace it with Cashiers Cheque

you will see exactly what business model LN is copying


....
thirdly
with the costs of initial deposit per channel and offsetting some funds for routing/penalties/onchain closing tx fee.. it is not
cheap to set yourself up as a well established 'bank'.. only the few well funded people will (which has already started to become noticable now)

fourthly
imagine average joe only wanted to use $60 in LN as a risk.. setting up 30 channels means only $2 can be spent. and not all of them will route to starbucks. also. the nodes he connects to that might also have done something similar may have already spent their $2 on th available route to star bucks meaning there is nothing in the routes to hop payments through even if a chain of channels could be found

meaning lots of channels then had to close(onchain) to then re open new channels to re-jig the funds around. which is all done on chain.
LN is not as seemless and open and limitless as people think. devs are still just knocking the kinks out of establishing connectivity(account application forms/handshaking). but yet to even consider/think/run scenarios of costs of running/maintaining and how often/how spread out peoples funds get to require closing/opening channels often

fifthly
thinking that if a node is dodgy. then its a split second decision to move on, is wrong. flawed and naive
its like finding out your bank messed you around. you funds dont instantly become cash in hand. they need to be thrown back onchainCLTV(3-5business day settlement). and then you need to open a new channel and fund the new channel via yet another onchain fee
2516  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I.T Professionals and bitcoin industry on: April 26, 2018, 03:13:03 AM
Hello guys, this is my first topic. Do you think i.t professionals or specialist has an advantage in bitcoin world? Why?
sorry about my previous post, i needed a rant.
but to answer OP

I.T professionals that know the buzzwords, will have an upper hand. after all they can understand "cryptographic" "decentralised" "peer to peer" instantly. where as average joe would need about an hour of youtube videos to get through the buzzwords and then hours and hours translating many things.

but with that said. right now. there are becoming more jobs available in the community that are not techy.
exchange corporate offices hiring cleaners, staff lunch room cooks. leaflet delivery guys. conferance ticket checkers. delivery guys, even some conferences have "bikini babes" walking up and down the sections.

bitcoin is moving beyond the technical.. and into the domestic/consumer arena. and so the possibilities are widening..
howver if you want to be DEEPly involved in bitcoin. then yes knowing the technicals helps, which is faster to learn if you already have a IT / technical mindset
2517  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I.T Professionals and bitcoin industry on: April 26, 2018, 02:53:37 AM
let me just butt-in to clarify things in regards to the danny hamilton vs anti-cen debate about LN
but as I understand it if a lightning wallet transmits an out of date transaction to the network then the banking hub can claim all the collatoral in the channel
You have MANY false assumptions about how Lightning Network works.  These false assumptions lead you to post a lot of misleading nonsense.  This is just one more example of that.
FTFY anti-cen because danny hates it unless people use the correct buzzwords (buzzwords that are meaningless to average joe i might add) which is where some of this community fail to understand that making up new buzzwords to sound cool actually causes more issues than helps.. as proven by this topic and dannys instant reaction to attack someone for not being technical enough with the buzzwording..

it is especially brutal when not using the right buzzword danny and others then argues too much on the bad use of buzzwords rather then the underlying issue your trying to communicate.
but atleast there are some people that can think out side of the box to know what is trying to be said

anyway..
lets rebuttle some of danny's comments
Thing is who do you call if it was not your fault
Why isn't it your fault?  Take some personal responsibility for your actions*. If you publish a stale state, it IS your fault.
That being said...  You can just call the person/business that you opened the channel with in the first place.

so now people are suppose to do due diligence and KYC who they connect to.. i call that a barrier to routing
i guess LN's "auto pilot" is less than auto.
seems all of LN's promises of limitless fast, cheap, barrierless promises start falling apart.
(as ill explain a few of those fallings apart if you keep reading)

and how can you compete against bankers rules since they have full access to the protocol that won't be available to normal wallets.
More nonsense.  The protocol is public.  Use open source implementations.
yes its open source.. it is soo open source infact, that the hubs('banks') can tweak their personal node to have the upper hand...
after all. in any contract. whoever signs first is usually the one that has more to lose/will get treated worse

a hub could set it so the user signs first. and thus the hub 'could' refuses to sign their part.. forcing the user to send a stale tx because its the only fully signed tx they have..
to which the hub then signs the new tx (the new one the user signed but hub refused to show sig), hub broadcasts it. just to get to CSV revoke the users (stale)tx so that the hub can take the collateral

offchain is full of flaws.. after all.. the whole purpose of blockchain is that thousands of people audit and no single point of attack.. but in LN there is no community audit. its just you vs the hub while inchannel. so they can mess with you, (and yes you can mess with them).

danny can you not remember many years ago. lesson one of why bitcoin and blockchain was so revolutionary in the concept of currency. come on think about it.. if transactions could be trusted peer to peer without a blockchain. without miners. without decentralised checks.. there would be no need for bitcoin..

Down the road I see the hubs being attacked if they start taking peoples wages
They can't take what isn't given to them.
i beg to differ..
ill link you an image.. and here is a hint
purple, red, green and orange are all 1 person(1 person, 4 nodes) attacking blue to double their money.
https://i.imgur.com/9FMMkdK.png
and as you will see it is possible to rob people, simple by using LN's biggest feature against people

and they are all single points of failure so looking at the LN map
If there is more than ONE, then (by definition) it can't be a SINGLE point of failure.
wow danny.. i can see anti-cen may not have the linguistics perfect. but your missing the context just to be a grammar nazi

whats going to happen if one of these big hubs gets taken down by Annon
Nothing. They just won't be included in the route.
and i feel anti-cens point is.. if they are taken out. then all the linked users ar then made to close channels and open new channels.
meaning:
1. sudden onchain mempool growth of users broadcasting tx's of a hub that had hundreds of channels that are redundant but have FUNDS IN THEM
- hint its not a simple, as you put it 'nothing'.. meaning you think "oh well lets move on in 0.01seconds... no harm, no loss no foul, no delay"
 
2. users having to pay onchain fee's to close and open fresh channels with a different hub to move the funds from the redundant channel to the new channel
3. imagine a DDoSer purposefully attacking the most popular hubs. as soon as they are taken down. it moves onto the next popular one
its not a split second operation to close a channel and then open a new FUNDED one.. (yes i said funded, meaning onchain delays/costs)

and to pre-empt obvious rebuttles
yes nodes will already have more than one channel open. but in a network of say 1 million users. having 2-3 routes is not enough for a hop model to b "well connected". thus having 30-100 channels open is not cheap or easy for avrage joe. (EG if someone only wants to risk $60 in LN then each channel would only have $0.60-$2 in it) meaning it limits spending per route. thus again hop model doesnt work

so thats where banker hubs get established where users only have 1-2 channels where one of them is a central hub(bank) that way users risking $60 only have to split $30 between them and the bank and them and another friend/relative/person. to allow a bit of 'play' in a differnt direction(route)

pre-empt obvious rebuttle
i guess the next empty reply is that not all channels need funding upfront. and you'll probably say nodes will set up 30-100 channels unfunded and only fund them when they need to spend funds in that particular route.
well ask yourself where do the funds come from.. oh yea onchain transactions.

oh and lets not forget that if connecting to another node unfunded then it opens up DDoS risks to occur without penalty because there is no funds at risk for the attacker..
which brings me onto the other problem. needing an entrance fee(yes LN devs have this concept) of needing to be funded to then lay out penalty fee's and also to know how much the channel participants can/wish to reserve for themselves and also to use for routing of others, etc which all dips into the $60 a average joe might want to risk in LN

(P.S i have run many scenarios, far beyond the devs. who have only ran basic "do they connect" tests.. not real world lifestyle/usage in the real world scenarios.. and yes the devs do not give a crap about costs/how often channels need to close and open. they will just blame users for not cautiously learning for themselves or depositing too much/to little or other excuses about how users themselves decided x,y,z so problems are not devs fault.)

afterall someone point out a flaw. and the reply was "*Why isn't it your fault?  Take some personal responsibility for your actions."
2518  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do I find out... on: April 25, 2018, 12:31:29 AM
im guessing you initially deposited 2btc.. and then decided you wanted to deposit another 1.5btc and got informed that the 1.5btc payment was not recognised.

if so:
this is usually because some services dont offer a address-reuse on deposits. meaning every time you want to deposit you need to generate a fresh deposit address.

the message you got that it was not recognised is probably an automated message. you would need to contact their support system and get them to check their USED addresses to then credit your account with the 1.5btc

and then remember to refresh and use a new address for every deposit to avoid their crappy system glitching

i could be totally wrong. but from the limited info in the OP and seing similar stories in the past with similar advice given as to the solution. its as best as i can offr as advice from what i can see
2519  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: should i copy the ID & PW on a paper? on: April 24, 2018, 11:12:55 PM
what ID & PW? if you mean in general, it's unwise to write down any sort of password since anyone could find it.
one way is that you could use some type of pattern in your passwords, just an example that isn't great would be using a password like:
bitcointalk_blabla_123
of course you need to add another element to it, otherwise if someone found out your pasword they'd be able to log in to all your accounts.

this is a good start above. but some websites store passwords in cleartext. so if you went to a phishing site of your email providor and used
myemail_blah_123
they can then get into your email. find out who your bank is with and then realise that your banks password might be
mybank_blah_123

instead have the easy reminder for your brain.. but then HASH the reminder before using on the website
so when you set your password for your email you use the hash
255a702d1e3df60f4a0db118c4ecf77f
now a phishing site wont know that your brain can easily remember how it got to that hash. nor can it work out instantly what your other passwords will be, because they are unique to each site

for instance
myemail_blah_123: 255a702d1e3df60f4a0db118c4ecf77f
mybank_blah_123 : 68a6eca313bd2d3fb147e958fcc32b07
myebay_blah_123 : f44c5b0991d8913ad2ac0f338698ae0d
2520  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bigger Than the Internet on: April 24, 2018, 03:53:00 PM
nope

physics
bitcoin needs the internet. if bitcoin was to become bigger than the internet then it would end up utilising every website, every IP and a new international communications platform would be needed to cope with bitcoins communication overflow.
also not everyone with the internet will have bitcoins.

bitcoin can become bigger than many services that utilise the internet.

analogy
you cannot have a bedroom thats bigger then the house its built within.. however it can be the biggest bedroom in the house
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 ... 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!