Bitcoin Forum
September 21, 2019, 01:24:44 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ... 827 »
3041  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Big blockers exposed: $500,000 moved with a $5 cents fee on: September 12, 2017, 03:53:50 PM
Then whoever advertised it advertised it incorrectly. That's always been the case.

When people turn up here moaning about how it was billed about being free and instant I have to wonder whether they bothered to check how it works before taking the plunge. A fee market is definitely premature but it's inevitable and necessary as is costing the amount of data.

forget instant and free.

180sat/byte equates to about $3/tx average

stop thinking about the propaganda, and think about real utility.. paying an average $3 to move funds of any size makes bitcoin something for only the rich. which goes against the ethos of being a currency that has no barriers of entry and able to b used by anyone

its time the BScartel get out of the corporate mindset and atleast think about bitcoin as something for world wide utility.

its already priced out of average utility for developing/third world countries/unbanked.

atleast sniff a bit of reality and stop trying to oversell the limited utility that is left in bitcoin..
too many people are harping on about bitcoin being utopia while letting it stagnate and lose utility, in the end all the utopian dreamers have left is a FIAT exit goal. which again goes against bitcoins original ethos

going back to FIAT after using bitcoin is the opposite idea of bitcoin
3042  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Big blockers exposed: $500,000 moved with a $5 cents fee on: September 12, 2017, 02:45:36 PM
What a huge pile of bullshit, just like youre keypairs fud...

try and learn segwit. infact learn bitcoin.. infact learn to not read reddit fud propaganda..

3043  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Big blockers exposed: $500,000 moved with a $5 cents fee on: September 12, 2017, 02:40:58 PM

The fact that $500,000 were moved with 5 cents proves Bitcoin works. $500,000 were moved in a decentralized-thanks-to-small-blocks network.

If you want to transact shitty amounts of money, wait for LN or use a shitcoin.

Only deluded big blockers would bring the race card to shill their shitcoin.

Sorry, there will be no hardfork, BTC will stay 1MB legacy chain for the time being. If you want to use a shitcoin to pay less fees and feel good, use Bitcoin Trash which was already created so big blockers stop crying.

dont like racist analogy? then lets try another analogy
the fact that only a couple families have octuplet pregnancies, shows that its possible.. but does not mean that every family that gets pregnant should expect octuplets when they get pregnant

and as for the racecard.
the BScartel lovers are the ones with the race card "chinacoin this" "chinacoin that"

i was simply speaking bscartels mindset to get it into their heads using a subject matter they love.

just because a couple tx's of cheap fee's get added does NOT mean everyone should expect to pay only 5cent tx's from now on.
the reality is the average person pays between 180-200 sat/byte and no fudged propaganda can change the reality.

p.s yea other coins are other coins and they are shitcoins if they have no merchant utility. so there is no point in you trying to suggest i prefer shitcoins on other networks. i personally want bitcoin to do what it should. which reality is showing is failing/stagnating.. even if you think you can fudge reality, people can see through it.
oh and by the way. there is no point in you trying to fudge bitcoins utility stagnation.. people on this forum already know about bitcoin. they already use and are researching bitcoin, so trying to preach to the converted is stupid because people actually using bitcoin already know it has issues caused by the bscartel.

you might aswell take your fudged propaganda over to the MLM and numpty forums. because your propaganda wont work here. true bitcoin believers know and want bitcoin to succeed, they dont care about the fake fluffy stories found on reddit, they want the reality.

its better to admit there is a problem and get it fixed, than fudge information and pretend utopia has arrived
3044  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Big blockers exposed: $500,000 moved with a $5 cents fee on: September 12, 2017, 12:27:52 PM

and yet the pools are selectively putting in tx's with large and small fee's into blocks just so numpties can pretend its alright by seeing small fe's in a block.

its like racism being hidden in the 50's

60 white people want to get on a train, 60 black people want to get on a train, the train can only hold 20 people at a time
for years the trains preferred white people first... meaning it would take 3 trains before letting black onboard

but now each train is set to have 10 white 10 blacks. meaning even if the whites paid a higher premium they dont get priority because policy has changed to suite a certain story the train company wants to promote.

now some of the high paying tx's are not getting priority because cheap tx's are getting slid in to pretend there is not a problem

gotta love the crap/propaganda that the bs cartel love to do to fake their narrative
after all.. still show 180-200.. not 0-5!!!

even funnier part is the amount of tx's that are actually segwit is very limited, meaning the conversion rate is not even high enough to actually impact real utility to cause real (unfudged) results

again bscartel over promising and not delivering, but fudging and doing cludgy things to make people think something is happening.

if only the bs cartel spent less time on reddit making propaganda and less time playing politics for control. and instead just code something the community want instead of their corporate elite.. then bitcoin would not be stagnating (im talking about utility not price)
3045  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Adi Schamir (the 'S' in RSA) predicts Bitcoin's death in 2040 on: September 07, 2017, 04:53:58 PM
by getting rid of utility (via high onchain fee's which cause using bitcoin to purchase daily products/services hard/impossible) means that all that is left is a reserve currency which ends up being holding and only selling for profit. basically buying at X to sell to someone else for X+Y to recoup losses.. in short peter paying to pay paul..

bitcoin really needs to remember its a currency and not a reserve. otherwise it will end up in trouble.

as for anyone that tries to naively say LN solves that.. those naive people need to really spend a few hours away from reddit and actually spend time understanding LN and realise LN becomes a 'managed' service.. and understand its not as unlimited/trustless/open/free as reddit promotes
3046  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin november hard fork? on: September 07, 2017, 10:19:24 AM
So you know a replay protection is required, because a split may happen.
Do you really think the Core dev will let a bunch of political lobbyists hijack Bitcoin ?

the main core devs are part of the "political lobbyists"
the NYA (segwit2x) is headed by barry silbert who owns
check DCG portfolio.... oh look bloq (jgarzic) and blockstream(sipa)
what you need to realise is the lobbyists BAITED segwit2x because the majority of the community wanted 2x, but the lobbyists wanted segwit.
so now they got their segwit. they are now refusing the 2x part
its called a bait and switch

but as the links in my past post showed, the devs decided THEIR direction for bitcoin WITHOUT the community.
3047  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin november hard fork? on: September 07, 2017, 05:37:09 AM
lets clear this matter up

replay protection is not needed!

whn a implementation wants to utilise consensus to upgrade the network when it activates there would be only ONE network, meaning no double coins.. just a majority continuing on one network and a minority stalled with orphans unable to sync. end of

when core demand replay protection they are basically saying they want to create an altcoin by refusing to be part of the upgrade(new implementation(bip)) and will force a altcoin generation if people run the new implementation(bip).

what core should be doing is not being dictators and cause an altcoin. but instead let consensus do its job.

core have bypassed consensus a couple times now to follow the dictator roadmap designed by blockstream and tried pointing fingers elsewhere

EG avoided consensus and then gave the vote to only pools and then hypocritically blamed the pools.

in november core will have code to avoid communication with the next bip yes CORE putting in code to avoid communication with the next bip implementations.. but core will again blame the implementation when infact its core causing the split.

i really wish more people would understand the technology, code, rules and whats actually going on, instead of reading the reddit propaganda
3048  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin november hard fork? on: September 07, 2017, 01:39:36 AM

the devs of core have already ruled out making core compatible and done everything they can to force it to be an altcoin.

this is why blockstream employees can no longer deny that they control bitcoin

sipa closed it the same day it was opened, giving no chance for the community to review, interrogate, consider or choose

real funny part
they pretend upgrades should only happen with community support yet do everything to avoid community involvement/choice
3049  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Congress plans to regulate cryptocurrencies on: September 05, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
'Congress submits bill making it illegal to hold cash, Bitcoin, or other assets outside of a bank without informing them in writing'

What is your thoughts on this ? Could this happen ?

the section you quote has NOTHING to do with crypto

"digital currencies" are things like a coinbase DOLLAR balance, or a loyalty card DOLLAR balance or a paypal DOLLAR balance... not crypto
3050  Bitcoin / Legal / Re: "ICO ban" in China: not about ICO, but about crypto at all on: September 05, 2017, 05:58:24 AM
standard finance warning about running a Fiat using money service business without a licence
and the risks of investors putting money into such things
3051  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Russia Opens First Criminal Case Involving Bitcoin on: September 04, 2017, 03:10:57 PM

its not about holding or using bitcoin
its not about selling products for bitcoin

its about operating a FIAT money business (exchange) without a FIAT money business licence

you can be a crypto-to-srypto exchange and you can sell products for bitcoin..
but if your exchanging for fiat as the middle man.. you need a money business licence.

even facebook can break the law if it tried swapping facebook credits for rubles without a fiat licence..
and thats been the same law in existence from even before bitcoin existed.

its not about bitcoin. its about handling fiat
3052  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: If bitcoin has enemy (except altcoin) what is it? on: September 03, 2017, 05:36:27 PM
direct enemy now = BlockStream + Barry Silbert aka BSCartel

indirect and future long term enemy = hyperledger
3053  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thinking about making a Bitcoin mixer - suggestions? on: August 31, 2017, 08:08:34 PM
in short.

a mixer is a TX spammer
these services serve the few(for anonymity) but end up causing congestion and mempool bloat for the many.

if your going to do it charge your customers a large tx fee as it causes alot of hassle for everyone.
3054  Economy / Speculation / Re: Marketcap & BTC Dominance on: August 31, 2017, 05:24:36 PM
market cap is meaningless.. the maths of getting to the marketcap is meaningless.. its based on the price of 1btc multiplied by coins in circulation.
it does not explain real demand it does not explain utility..

anyone can create a new altcoin with 300 trillion coins and sell a single coin for $1 and beat the market cap

what people need to care and monitor is the utility. for instance merchant acceptance. such as
if merchants start using other services such as allowing a litecoin ATM in their establishment instead of a bitcoin ATM
if coinbase jumped over to using litecoin for its merchant shopping cart API service
if bitpay jumped over to use BCH

so stop caring about market cap as thats just a bubble number for fiat lovers..
and instead keep an ey on utility/market share
3055  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happened to the mempool? on: August 31, 2017, 04:37:14 PM
The development is not currently controlled by anyone, and it will not be controlled by anyone then either.

Luke Jr(blockstream) moderates the bips. -
Gmax(blockstream) moderates the tech discussions -
rusty russel (blockstream)controls the mailing list -
other blockstream employees decide without any large consensus to close pull requests

take a look at this example

sipa closed it the same day it opened because he and his colleagues decide its not following the blockstream 2015 roadmap


Anyone can run whatever client they like at any time.
and have you seen the biased code added by blockstream employees that auto ban any other client that wants to do things that are not blockstream roadmap

just wake up

take the november bip for growing the baseblock. blockstream have already decided to make it an altcoin and in all ways possible avoid letting consensus decide. they are already building walls to stop anyone using satoshis consesnus mechanism of decentralised voting and avoid changes being made unless blockstream allow it

3056  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Satoshi just sold his mined Bitcoins from 2010 on: August 31, 2017, 05:25:52 AM
probably theymos moving his coins

(known as sirius-m) back in those days
3057  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1mb per block and scalability on: August 31, 2017, 01:36:27 AM
To those who are saying lightning network is bad :
1) Some people think that LN only lower fees for those who are doing a lot of transactions. If you stay in the lightning network a very long time, you will be able to do little transactions per unit of time and only paying once onchain transaction fee to get to the lightning network and once to get out. You will also pay for using lightning network every time you do a transaction but very little.
Even if Alice is doing one TX per month, If she stays 1 year in the channel, then, she will pay only once onchain transaction fee to get to the network and half onchain transaction fee (split between the two channel users) to get out.

firstly a channel is usually set up with a lock time.. thus not eternal.
secondly people are not dumb enough to put their lifetime hoardings into a lock that never expires
thirdly its only deemed safe to put in an amount that would last you a certain time, and human nature is people can only predict spending habits of a few weeks..

there are other aspects and reasons why LN channels would not be eternal which will become clearer after i clarify your other points below.

2) some people think that you have to create a channel for every user you send money to. But no, you have to create only 1 channel with another user. Then you will be connected to the network and your transaction will find its way through the network to the user you want to pay. Your wallet finds a route through the network to those people as explain here

please run some scenarios.. your missing many aspects.
i said before for private direct payment to someone in your channel you dont need to open more channels. but if you want to be part of a route/network to pay anyone you do need more than one channel.

EG alice paying bob.. 1 channel alice:bob
but if charlie gets involved either alice or bob needs to open a channel with charlie so that the chain/route can be established
EG alice paying charlie
alice:bob     bob:charlie   as you can see bob needs 2 channels for alice to pay charlie.
thinking bob does not need more than one channel would leave bob not part of the route network and only able to interact with alice, no one else, same goes for alice,

using an earlier post i made ages ago i will explain Alice Bob Charlie Dave Edward based route/network

the reality people need to realise is
FIAT spenders use debit cards 40 times a month on average, but because bitcoin is not acceptable in every retailer
the average spender only uses bitcoin once a week/once a year.(5 a month average)  based on person-merchant

the only real niche LN has is the faucet raiders and exchange day traders that will want to arbitrage daily. (average 10 a day)

knowing people cannot predict spending habits beyond a couple weeks and wont risk locking entire hoards into year/eternity long channels. the reality is channels will only get funded with pocket money amounts and for only a couple weeks lock periods.

these things limit the available funding for route hopping to occur

LN is not.. and i emphasise this.. is not about the funds of [A-B] $120 actually moving out of the channel. LN is about having 'pockets' of funds that 2 parties share. and they have a couple pockets dedicated to share

think of it like a 3 legged race where the legs are tied together with a fanny/bumbag. where the money stays in the fanny/bumbag. but who owes what % of whats inside the fanny/bumbag is agreed by the 2 people tied to it.

so get 5 people and play a game

[A-B]    [B-C]     [C-D]      [D-E]
imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks
A need to deposit $60 (1 channel with B of $60)
B need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with A and C)
C need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with B and D)
D need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with C and E)
E need to deposit $60 (1 channel with D of $60)

now imagine if A wants to pay E $60
[$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120] now finally after 4 hops E has $60 extra thanks to the 'routing'/hops

technically B, C, D still has $120 but its not spread over the channels
for instance B has $120
but has $120 in [A-B] but $0 in [B-C] channel

meaning if B wants to pay D.. B can no longer user the [B-C][C-D] route because B doesnt have funds to pay C to pay D.

instead B needs to go backwards through [A-B] because thats where B's funds are, so...
B needs to give A.. then A needs to find a completely new route or create a new channel that is funded and has a new route to E to get E to pay D. or B needs to set up a new channel to fun that has a new route to E.

.. it may seem complicated but its alot easier visually if you just get 5 friends and 3 fanny/bumbags and put $120 of monopoly money in each bag ($60) each person... and without physically taking the paper money out.. agreeing who owes what inside each bumbag and then finding the best chain of hops to fund the group..

and see how long the 'payments' last by making up scenarios of buying each other things.. you soon learn the limitations of LN
next time you are at a bitcoin meet-up.. try it with the other attendee's. as its a very helpful visual display

as you can se.. not only does B need a channel (tie) to A bit also a channel to C
as you can see if A wants to pay E.. then B,C,D have less funds on their side to play around with in the future because its already been moved one sided for the route payment
meaning that some parties need to close their channels early to the start again by moving funds from second channel into first channel to then be able to be part of the route

3) LN will lead to centralization. why? If a LN is too centralized and make decision that make its user unhappy, then its users vote with their feet and leave the network, close their channel. They create a new network on their own. No big central entity will be capable of controlling this. Meanwhile, the blockchain remains with small size blocks enabling plenty of nodes that keep the system decentralized.

The way I see it is : Blockchain : the place where you store your value
                            LN : the place where you use your value to pay for things  

lol you might want to look into the DNS seeding or route seeding that will control who connects to what and how routes are discovered/created.. then you will see more than you realise
also to reduce the amount of channels needing to be created by lets say bob to connect to different strings of routes floating around. hubs will be created.. think about that
3058  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1mb per block and scalability on: August 27, 2017, 08:23:47 PM
trustless way.

do you even understand multisig contracts
do you even understand duel/second party agreements
3059  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1mb per block and scalability on: August 27, 2017, 07:31:38 PM

firstly lightning may decrease the individual tx fee for those doing LOADS of transactions a month. but it wont sort out the onchain fee because people need to eventually settle(close channel)

I know this is more complicated than that. I don't understand everything here. I am not specialist. This is why I am participating to this forum telling how I see things and maybe being corrected by those who know more. I want to be sure BTC is the way to go.

When you settle (close channel), then only one transaction is registered on the blockchain. To me the fee generated by this transaction is divided (or spread proportionally) between the channel users. So even if the fee is 50$ and that there are 1000 users in the channel, then on average fee will be 50 divided by 1000 equal 0.05$.


LN is about being given a multisig address between only TWO parties
alice makes a transaction to fund her side...  1tx
bob makes a transaction to fund his side.. 1tx

now the channel is set up
when closing there is indeed just 1 tx and bob/Alice (hopefully and fairly) split the cost... 1tx

meaning for each channel there are 3x onchain fee's split as average(hopefully) as 1.5x the onchain fee rate.

.. now if alice just only ever wants to pay bob. great alice only pays 1.5x onchain fee rate for the session(open AND close)

but if alice wants to be part of a route, to pay other people and be on a link of others. she needs to open other channels too

To this is added fee to participate to the channel and here you say that LN decreases individual transaction fee only for those who do a lots of transactions. Please can you explain to me why is that?

not directly decrease but indirectly
EG say onchain fee was $50
alice pays $75 'premium' for the open and close sessions as described above
now LN fee imagine that was just 1 penny
if she makes only 1 tx a month to bob.. thats costing her $75.01 to use LN which is $75.01 per tx.. (its just simple maths)
if she used it 7500 times a month. then it costs her $150 total($75 session/premuim/subscription.. $75 for 7500 penny payments) = 2pennies per tx

thus making it indirectly appear that its a $75 vs 2penny cost difference.. but only 'cheap' if you are using it alot to dilute the overal cost down
3060  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1mb per block and scalability on: August 27, 2017, 06:05:42 PM
I will fully support the one that can lower the transaction fee and make it faster every transaction and also for a longterm period of time

So you have got to support lightning network because this will do exactly this.

firstly lightning may decrease the individual tx fee for those doing LOADS of transactions a month. but it wont sort out the onchain fee because people need to eventually settle(close channel)

if you actually run scenario's the 'financial utility model' of bitcoin becomes:
 people pay a 'premium' / monthly fee subscription(analogy of opening channel)) just to get funds locked into a service to then have cheap daily fee's

the only people benefiting from this are people that spend often. people that hoard and only make one off purchases will not benefit.
you really need to run some scenarios.

you are subtly trying to over promote central services.. your comments in this topic today can be subtly translated to:
blockchain has failed, only handing funds to second party contracts can work
no need to run a full node in the future, just run a SPV lightning node
dont think about natural capable onchain growth over time. jump over to second party contracts and resist onchain innovation, stifle onchain growth because second party agreements are the only way.

in short your brown nose is just trying to promote that paypal2.0 is the only way

take a step back. stop over promoting.. run some scenarios and do some proper research. you will soon see that lightning has limitations and costs which you are not mentioning (either intentionally or ignorantly)

LN should be seen as just a side voluntary service for a niche amount of users. not the be-all-end-all solution for everyone
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 ... 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!