Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2019, 08:28:54 AM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ... 827 »
2561  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin.org Reverts Back to 2010 on: April 29, 2018, 05:39:40 PM
should read

thanks to gmaxwells partners in a mixer and pools for no longer intentionally spamming the blockchain.
every time core wants a BIP implemented, spam attacks happen.
then when core get what they want the mempool has died down.
but next time core want the community to do something, expect an increase again and expect fingers to be pointed in every direction apart from core partners who cause the spam as their way of suggesting new feature X is desparetly needed as it will help reduce spam

funny how the spam event of mid 2015 coincided with needing to get a bip activated
funny how the spam event of late 2016 coincided with needing to 'get segwit activated by christmas 2016'
funny how the spam event of 2017 coincided with getting segwit activated

yet UTILITY of segwit is not even 15%..
yep not enough to cause a dent

and even funnier. if 95% of community actually wanted segwit. there would be 95% of tx's now using segwit addresses.. but they are not
so segwit has no claim to being the solution
2562  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC Warning on: April 29, 2018, 05:21:58 PM
op use full links
op dont use old links that are sourced to bloggers.

the articles you chosen are not well wrote articles by reputable reporters, they are articles found in what is known as the blogging sections of brand sites, but not endorsed or editorialised by editors of the main site

in short

one story is about 'trending anals' screaming a trend of 'death cross' based on historic chart data (in march!!)
sorry but you cant crystal ball someones future/bitcoin prices by showing history. all you can do is convince people/bots to follow history again to hope it causes your prediction

its been 50 days since that article so the moving average of that article is gone

anyway lets make up a stupid random new predicting story
in the month saturn passes the sun people sold.. so everyone should sell
.. that month approaches
.. everyone panics because of my dumb mantra
.. everyone sells
now i proclaim im psychic.. though if i kept mouth shut it wouldnt have happened

but now everyone is stupidly stuck in a self fulfilling cycle.

its like dont walk under a ladder as it is bad luck.
yet more people have accidents due to the worry of that myth, than would have if they never heard it.
eg walking under a ladder, remembering the myth. then walking backwards to undo the myth. only to then trip up because they walked backwards

(again.. in march!!)
the other linked story is about a small town with hydro power only enough for 20,000 residents exceeded its power capacity and needed to 'purchase' electric from other grid sppliers due to bitcoin mining. so the town decided to ban commercial sized bitcoin mining.
after all one ASIC can use as much electric as some residents whole house.


the third linked story is about criminals using monero. this opinion is based on market caps (facepalm).
firstly you cant identify who is criminal or legit user of monero or bitcoin basd on market caps
secondly the article then moves on to waffle about criminals then using game credits and paypal.. i guss the blogger cant make up his mind and overall just wanted to post an articl to suggest less crimals are using bitcoin. without showing definite proof, but only supply suggestive opinion
2563  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin has it's limitations. NSFW <Just a little bit of humor> on: April 29, 2018, 02:12:58 PM
On the other "clever" things I'm still with the ohmibod features  Wink
expanding on that, blockchain explorer checking vibrator..
vibrates for 60 seconds for just 0.001($9) (full orgasm of bunnygirl expected in 0.01($90))
(excuse the lack of knowing the going rate.... never been to strip club, i get my action at home with a person not asking for payment)

anyways
hmmm.. lets expand on it..
for more fun

for couples that have code words to stop because they like to be pushed to their limit.
fund locktime = current confirm blockheight+6 before it wil stop vibrating, unless revocation key used

yep if you stop before the hour is up, you dont get paid
2564  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin has it's limitations. NSFW <Just a little bit of humor> on: April 29, 2018, 01:13:46 PM
or does other clever things like go transparent at a certain balance

You want to get a patent on that quick before someone steals your idea.  Grin

take it. i havnt got time to make it myself. i have thrown many idea's into the community. so its all fair play
2565  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin has it's limitations. NSFW <Just a little bit of humor> on: April 29, 2018, 12:55:03 PM
instead of a latex thong... how about strippers wear a flexible "smart paper" thong so that it displays balances on the thong, or does other clever things like go transparent at a certain balance
2566  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the Lightning Network centralized? on: April 28, 2018, 10:05:41 PM
People that run Bitcoin Nodes are routing transactions , they are not creating their own separate note for the transactions.
However people that run LN Hubs
are holding/locking bitcoins and using their own hub created LN Notes to make transactions.
Both hold something of value and then make their own notes to make transactions.
LN Hub is by definition a bank as it was designed to be.

no, that's inaccurate. intermediaries on LN are not creating new transactions. they are not issuing "notes" or "checks" or anything like that. they are only routing transactions, like bitcoin nodes. the only difference is they are routing transactions via their established channels rather than propagating them to any and all connected nodes.

actually zin-zang is kinda accurate

for instance
a paypal dollar is not the exact same as a bank account dollar.
you cant pay anyone thats not a paypal accepting merchant with a paypal dollar

much like you cannot pay someone not using LN with an LN time locked multisig

it has to be authorised and broadcast into the normal 'community'(national banking) system and fully settled before a customer can then pay a merchant outside of paypal.

same as a american express dollar is not the same as a dollar bank note..
many amrican express usrs have to find an ATM get their paymnt authorised to get bank notes to then pay a bill with a merchant that does not accept american express

so if we were to say bitcoin was a decentralised "be your own bank" then LN is a centralised paypal2.0 network
.. but thats just going an extra layer deep into the anaology of analogies

so to keep it simple without multitudes of analogies inside of analogies

in my view
LN is a banking network like swift(US) or 'fasterpayment(UK)
a hub(hundred to thousands of channels) is a bank branch..
a user(node with just 1-3 accounts) only using it to spend is a bank customer
though it appars like a traditional bitcoin transaction. the locks and new features of 2014+
means that while inside the LN network. a tx cannot be handled by the blockchain (the locks)

anyway

the other parts about withholding funds (CLTV)
reversing/punishing users with chargebacks(revocation keys/CSV)
fee's for service
requiring authorisation
are all things that banks do. which is not what traditional bitcoin does

LN is the banking network for a currency that used to be 100% decentralised



the problem with trying to compare crypto to fiat in analogies of banking is that the fiat banking is a farse/scam.

take credit unions vs banks
credit unions do not create credit out of no where. they actually do use other account holders funds to give to others for loans
banks do not actually use other account holders funds to give others loans. they actually do create credit out of nowhere

which is where the banks have been for decades been lying to people about how FIAT and banking works, which is part of why satoshi dsigned bitcoin. to get away from banks/places that people have to store funds and require second partys authorisation.

yet LN it bringing it full circle back to being like the farse of banking(reality of credit union)
2567  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win" on: April 28, 2018, 09:24:56 PM
so all in all its not a gandhi quote that we are experincing. its a
first they ignore us, then they invade us, then they limit us
So what you are trying to tell is that they will invade and limit us, i know it is really hard to predict what the future would be, but they could try to invade us, but they cannot win all the time, they only thing i see coming up in the future is that every country starting to come up with centralized digital currency in a block chain and we might see a clash between decentralized and centralized currency.

banks dont care about bitcoin.. to them its jsut business as usual.. a buyer buys a item and hands fiat to a seller.. to a bank its just fiat moving from a buyers bank account to a sellers bank account.
no fiat is actually destroyed due to bitcoin

also the bitcoin community is not destroying fiat laws. not creating a new community of anything better than fiat. infact the community of 2009-2014 has declined and it has become mor regulated less oppositing of fiat. and more accepting of regulations while still not bothering to protect itself from scammers or others that try to steal funds.

as for banks making their own coins.. well that will have little to no impact. after all no one knows or cares about what database structure a bank has, nor the banking network security. in the end dollars and euros are still digits on a computer. that occasionally you can have a piece of paper that rpresents digits on a computer.
but if banks use blockchain. it wont make any difference to citizens. all it will do is reduce the banks running costs because they no longer need to employ auditors or security staff becuse their blockchain is self managed.. that is it. a banker blockchain will only benefit the bankers and will only be noticable by those who stand behind the banker walls

as for bitcoin being decentralised.. that too since 20014 has declined. with it turning from satoshi-qt.. to core.. things became more centralised. where there is only one roadmap that was designed by one group and anyone that loves bitcoin but opposes the one groups roadmap are to be treated as attackers and need to be thrown off the network
the roadmap only had 35% community consensus(satoshis election coded invention) but the cores group decided to avoid consensus and do a bilateral split to kick out any core opposers. yep core got to 95% by kicking out 60% to an alt by using their partner BLOQ to do the bilateral split under the trojan horse that the split was a fair election... when infact it was a deportation

there have been 4 REKT campaigns and 1 bilateral split all to ensure one team becomes the monarchy.. where the devs that are paid. who wer part of this tyranical monarchy creation are all ultimately paid by the same group (https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b)
but hey. while this is all happening.. they wanna throw some kardashian drama about unimportant poeoples glory hounding story.. (craig wright, the fraud and nobody) all done just to distract you from the invasion
2568  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win" on: April 28, 2018, 08:32:40 PM
ignoring the "price orgasm" everyone has about bitcoin

thinking about the function/utility and mainstream adoption(merchants) bitcoin has NOT grown. its actually declined

as for the "they fight us"
actually i see that as they "invade us"
after all every time i see a topic about a country adding regulations. nearly every fiat loving profiteer that doesnt understand what bitcoin is really about cheers that it is a benefit for bitcoin.

businesses that use bitcoin do not need regulation. what is actually needed is consumer protection. which is totally diffrnt from regulation.

yet i see no community spirit fighting off bureaucratic regulations nor do i see any community spirit trying to attain consumer protection..

so all in all its not a gandhi quote that we are experincing. its a
first they ignore us, then they invade us, then they limit us
2569  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver To Face Lawsuit on: April 28, 2018, 07:50:07 PM
Yeah Bitcoin itself can in no way be considered an altcoin, from any perspective. It is the main chain originating from the genesis block. Bitcoin Cash is forked off of the main chain and is running its own version of the blockchain now. Bitcoin cash is the altcoin, Bitcoin is still the original chain with the original consensus rules.

While I can't say Ver getting hit with a lawsuit is a good thing, I do think it could be the only way of showing him it's not cool trying to hijack Bitcoins brand.

core does not use the original consensus rules
try using the original client satoshi-qt-0.1 on bitcoin core network

LEARN definition of FORKS

both core and cash are not the original satoshi invention. they both forked off
2570  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver To Face Lawsuit on: April 28, 2018, 07:46:04 PM
“Bitcoin cash is an alt-coin that has its fans just like many alt-coins. I don't think anyone who uses bitcoin's name and applies it to an alt-coin like bitcoin cash does is adhering to acceptable business practices. In other words, bitcoin's brand is being stolen by a competitor that calls itself bitcoin cash and this is outright fraud in my opinion, just like it's fraudulent to use Coca-Cola and Nike's name to sell soft drinks or shoes,” said Max Keiser

Even Linux distributions forks have their own names.

bitcoin is also an altcoin it depends on the perspective. and  weather the media system still supports it, which i doubt it will, since the cryptomedia is completely different then the fiat media, there is no banking system that sustainably supports then,

everything is different now.
"Bitcoin is also an altcoin"? Lol I want to smoke what you're smoking. Bitcoin is not an altcoin, Everything other than that is.

core is actually a fork. just like cash
its not like clams where a script kiddie just made a separate ntwork

the BILATERAL SPLIT event that split core from cash seen to that

its not a
_________________core
            \_________cash

or a
             _________core
_______/_________cash

but a
           __________core
______/
          \__________cash

it was a bilateral split not a unilateral split..

core DO NOT OWN brand bitcoin............ no one does!!!
2571  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
2572  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
2573  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
2574  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
2575  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
2576  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
2577  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
2578  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
2579  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
2580  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)
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 ... 827 »
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!