Bitcoin Forum
September 19, 2019, 07:27:38 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 ... 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] 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 ... 827 »
3161  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Definition 1: A Real Bitcoin USER is a MINER on: July 14, 2017, 03:22:08 AM
In other news, Walmart shoppers are trolls

i was curious so google image searched "walmart shopper"
hmmm..

i dont think ill be eating dinner tonight after seeing what i seen
(this post is made purely for humour purposes)
3162  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 14, 2017, 03:07:59 AM
dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.
he takes things out of context alot because of all the reddit scripts he gets spoonfed

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

i feel sorry for him as he seems to have wasted the last few years not learning the real utility of bitcoin and is just penny grabbing to stay afloat
i tried helping him but then he just cries "walls of text".. so you cant teach an old cat new tricks
3163  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Retailers Turn Their Backs On Booming Bitcoin: Trade Magazine on: July 14, 2017, 02:29:31 AM
...

Merchant acceptance of Bitcoin is the "other thing" that has to happen before BTC becomes big.  We of course need more interest from the public, and we need more merchants to accept it.

One thing that would certainly help is if they arrive at a sensible agreement re BTC's scaling problems.  They solve that, and the public (and merchants) will likely be more interested in taking a look.

Falcon Private Bank (of Switzerland) has just announced that they will offer BTC to their customers, a nice little plus today.

IMO, the next few weeks are important to get things done right.
I personally think it is the other way around, once people have bitcoin and are willing to use it, then merchants will accept bitcoin for the simple reason they do not want to be left out of the action, think of this in the same way as credit cards, at first no one accepted them and now is very rare to find a store that does not accept credit cards.
But as stated in the article, merchants doesn't feel the pressure to accept payment via bitcoin because it's function as a currency is being overshadowed by its appreciating value. So people tend to just hold and and let their money grow instead of looking for ways on how and where to spend their bitcoins.

well the tx fee war (not bitcoin price) is the real killer.
3164  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 14, 2017, 01:23:49 AM
Stats from my node :

- limited to 25 connexions (working days)
- 3Gb per day (upload blocks to others in sync. job)
- Less than 1Gb per day if not (week-end, for example ... fall to 15-18 connexions)
- core 2 duo 2,9GHz (less than 15% of CPU) + 2Gb RAM
- full node (260Gb partition allowed)
- 7 years old machine (780 USD price, same machine now = 480 USD)

That's why i want SegWit and not a Block increase.
Block increase is an idiotic solution with the developper brain possibilities.

do you even know segwit..
i think you need to look at the empty promises vs realistic scenarios and see your hyping up something that offers very little
3165  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Definition 1: A Real Bitcoin USER is a MINER on: July 14, 2017, 01:09:42 AM
Nope, anyone who owns Bitcoin is already a Bitcoin user. Period. It doesn't matter if you run a full node, mine or just hodl, what really matters is the market, people will judge what chain is worthy, and miners will have to mine it if they want to operate in profit. So, if August 1st will result in a split, users will decide what chain is the real Bitcoin, not some privileged miners. What you are proposing here is just increase of centralization, and the current situation is already not very good.

having coin on a privkey and thats it..  is meaningless.. no matter what the vote is your always going to have 'coin'
having coin makes no difference to the network structure direction or security.

it definitely doesnt make you as important as being a miner, pool, economic or active node.

EG if there was a split. even satoshi who has not been around for 7 years will have 'coin' on both sides
3166  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Definition 1: A Real Bitcoin USER is a MINER on: July 14, 2017, 12:57:21 AM
lol

hv_ you are mostly on the correct lines. but lets clarify things for those stuck in the past

1.
miners (ASICS) DO NOT CONTAIN A HARD DRIVE(that ended in circa 2013) nor do the see the blockchain. all they do is receive a block hash plus some very minimal data, to create the solved block hash.
they do not form blocks, do not validate transaction and do not collate transactions into blocks.. a miner just hashes a bit of blockheader data in simple terms.

2.
a POOL does the previous block validation, transaction validation, collate tx's for current block creation. but a pool does not directly create the hash of the block.. thats what miners(asics) do

3.
economic nodes are active nodes, but where the person running it has a economic part of the network by running a business/service/exchange that adds utility to bitcoin for users

4.
active users just run nodes that validate and relay blocks, validate and relay transactions (think of them like torrent seeds)

5.
users are mainly anyone with funds, whether they use any kind of wallet available and usually just leach off the network by not actively being part of the network security symbiotic relationship of the above 4 parts (these are prunned/outofdate/lite/no witness/cludgy/spv node users)


so if you want to be a fully vested and involved user, be part of all 5 elements of the symbiotic relationship (well atleast 1,3,4,5)
3167  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 08:41:25 PM
I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

well lets take copper wire ADSL that the UK averaged a DECADE ago

0.5mb upload(2mb down)

0.5mbit/s = 5.4 GByte daily UP
2mbit/s = 21.6 GByte daily down

because of bits to bytes and then 1second to 24hours.. easy maths is to take whatever mbit speed you have and multiply it by 10800 to get the mbyte per day
(x / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24)=10800

thats mbytes per day.. or more simply multiply your xmbit per sec by 10.8 to get gbytes per day...

so say you had 1mb up on fibre
10.8gbyte of data can be sent from your pc per day
3168  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why would I? on: July 13, 2017, 05:24:48 PM
Can someone explain to me why I should avoid creating my own coin and use bitcoin for my projects? Being a software vendor we want to give people a newly created coin for buying our software in hopes of creating value in that coin. Thoughts?

unless your a brand with many platforms / games/ software packages that can be interconnected via a singular currency
unless there is a purpose / NEED to use a coin that fiat or bitcoin cannot handle. then there is no point.

EG
imagine walking into a store and being told if you want to buy microsoft office you need to first buy MS coin. most people will think WTF and just walk out the store.

however if the store had 1000 software packages then you could offer allowing people to buy one of those packages using coin due to some discount it may offer or because it automates registration of the software licence or some other advantage.. then people would happily buy the coin because it has more than just a one time use
3169  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Decentralized micro chat similar to Twitter is coming soon on: July 13, 2017, 04:58:32 PM
been tried and dumped

seems people dont research and are instead just trying to grab any empty excuse for an ICO which eventually wont even bother making an end product because they finally realise the issues of past attempts

reporting this to be thrown in the altcoin section along with the other altcoin failures
3170  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible.

says the guy that thinks someone paying 40 hours minimum wage labour for 1 tx is 'normal' and 'bitcoin is running fine',  'just pay appropriate fee'  and 'just pay more'

now to wake you up:
cost of using bitcoin (tx fee) is more of a curse than running a node cost
3171  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 04:43:10 PM
the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem.

Yes, NOW it's not a problem. But with blocks 10 times bigger and a blockchain 10 times heavier it will be. And really ... real big blockers don't conform with 10 MB blocks, they want 32MB or even 1 GB to handle billions of users on-chain. That's complete madness. Let sidechains do that for us Wink

lets first address the sidechains (i facepalm)
sidechain is an altcoin.. go play with litecoin or zcash or ethereum if you want that..
go support and protect a differnt chain/network...
honestly if another chain can handle 10mb then bitcoin can too.
simple reason: altcoins use computers.. altcoins use the internet so whatever an altcoin can handle bitcoin can too..

lets address the other part of ur comment
stop sniffing the reddit scripts of "gigabytes by midnight"

i continually laugh at the dooms dayers that know 32mb is manageable and any number below that is more then manageable
yep even 8mb is "RaspberryPi +ADSL (0.5mb upload /s)" safe.. so now the doomsdays try shouting
stay at 1mb or else gigabytes per block because they cant argue about 2-32 so have to exaggerate to 'gb by midnight' to scare people

this is not nor ever has been gigabytes by midnight proposal nor has there ever been a proposal for GB in hours days or months.
the main progress proposals onchain have been, natural growth over time that will eventually be xxmb IN DECADES
the stupid thing the "gigabytes by midnight" FUD scripters forget is that nodes choose what blocks are acceptable and so will not make such stupidly high leaps too soon. the nodes will challenge things going too fast. thus there is no problem. its self regulating because if the nodes cant handle it, they wont allow it. its the most fundamental part of bitcoins true consensus!!!


the reality is that TODAY 8mb is safe.. actually alot more than that is safe, but to calm down the doomsdayers it was suggested 16mb instead
of 32mb
then 8mb instead of 16.. then 4mb instead of 8mb then 2 instead of 4.. but then then the doomsdayers still cry they want 1mb

their explanations for 1mb are empty. no logic, no meaningful reason, apart from crying

every time i see a small blocker demand 1mb stays in effect all i read is
"no Call of duty/twitch live streaming due to ATI server rack data centres"
"no HDTV on demand due to server farms attached to household tvs"
in short they are stuck in the 90's

the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
That's a minor problem. While a "Lite" mode could be desirable (some altcoins already have something like that) you always can use a SPV wallet for your urgent buys/transactions.

what im talking about is instead of core syncing and then prunning, no witnessing, stripping to become lite.
im talking abut core run in litemode. making the syncing part a background thing.

imagine it this way
imagine if microsoft instead of loading windows for people to use and then do updates in the background, microsoft decided that all windows updates needed to be done before letting people log into their computer.

people would hate waiting hours just to send an email or access a web page..
same goes for core and other nodes.

let people open the client and quickly get a utxo st of the keys they use to see a balance and be able to spend, and then the full sync just occurs in the background while people are using the node.

its not about turning off syncing. its about allowing users to use their node on the same day they download it..
because thats the part people are really peed off with.. not being able to do a thing for a couple weeks
3172  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing on: July 13, 2017, 03:25:55 PM
there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

.... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB .......

BTCC used to offer free transactions to its customers as did xapo. all because they had control/links to pools, so could name their own price of what gets accepted into blocks.

obviously IF other pools were causing issues BTCC would still of remained the cheapest pools.. still offering free transactions and helping... but...

when looking at the stats.. it wasnt BTCC being "conservative".. it was actually Via and bitmain which had the average cheapest blocks. meaning while BTCC decided to get greedy and go for the highest tx's and screw even their own customers as well as being part of the "just pay more" crowd.. there were other pools still offering blockspace for free or even blocks with no fee's

btcc- DCG portfolio and BScartel supporter
3173  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing on: July 13, 2017, 08:24:26 AM
when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"
3174  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 06:34:27 AM
If you do, then you may as well start building Paypal 2.0.

LN will become paypal2.0
go check out the idea of hubs.. then check out the meaning of multisig and then check out CLTV (3-5business day maturing after confirm) CSV revoke (chargeback)

lauda please research the finer details. stop relying on reddit scripts
3175  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 13, 2017, 06:25:42 AM

sounds like some people are stuck in 1999 trying to scream at twitch/skype that their business model of live streaming just wont work

anyway onto other points

the problem is the initial block download/verification (first sync) and the propagation and verification of new blocks.

the synchronisation is not a problem. the actual headache is that cores UI is not set up to function until synchronisation is complete.
as thats the real headache people gripe and moan about in regards to syncing
EG
no user balance or being able to spend until node has downloaded certain blocks that contain the users UTXO.
this can be fixed by having the UI function in Lite mode where it grabs a UTXO set first. or even just requests UTXO from peers of the keys the user owns. and then synchronisation becomes a background issue that can be done as and whenever the user pleases.

thus making a node spendably functional from the first hour

again the mindset is not about hinder bitcoin growth for the 99% purely for the 1% with limitations,
if it was the case, then core should not have removed fee controls that have wiped out utility for about 33% of the world*

(analogy time of dumb mindsets)
whats next. scream that employment wont work because most jobs are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport
whats next. scream that retail shops wont work because most shops are more than a mile from people houses and not everyone has decent transport

*i do love the snobbery
"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"
3176  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 12, 2017, 06:45:20 PM
Internet connection speed isn't biggest problem here, the biggest problem in this case are metered bandwitch and low-end/cheap computer won't able run bitcoin full nodes anymore. Mini PC such as Raspberry Pi 3B will struggle since they have small RAM.
It's no problem if most of people who run full nodes can afford better computer to run full nodes.

solution for users independantly
(same solution for torrent seeds)
reduce number of leachers(connections) = less bandwidth draw*

solution for dev implementations
reduce sigops and max txbytes = less ram/cpu demand

afterall with todays 4ktxsigops with 20k max block sigops
and segwits 16k txsigops 80k blocksigops.. that means a base block can be filled with just 5 tx's

and the max tx bytes of 100kb = 10 tx fills base block..

WHO THE F*CK deserves to have 10%-20% of the blocksize for just 1 tx..!!!!
reduce the greedy stupid, artificially high numbers, meaning transactions become leaner. and you will find that bloat, bottlenecking and processing time REDUCE all while allowing the block size to increase.

*i see many people with 'capped' internet that have 50+ connections. i facepalm them and tell them to learn "6 degree's of separation" and reduce their connection count.
not everyone needs to be a 'supernode' (multiple dozens of connections)
3177  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 12, 2017, 05:55:44 PM
It's not blocksize that is the bottleneck. It's block generation time. Bitcoin needs to find a way to generate smaller blocks much faster if it wants to become a major payment system rather than a store of wealth.

there can be side services to handle the niche market of 'instant spend' .. but that is no reason to try doomsday the blockchain using propaganda to stifle natural growth.

segwit cannot solve the promises it promises. and you cant segwit a segwit after segwiting it.. so the last 2 years of promoting and pushing for segwit has been nothing more then an empty gesture

itss time we move passed "segwit hope" and realise the trths about it.. and start actually getting bitcoins real and productive code running such as dynamic blocks (there are many different brands with different proposals so dont shout BU as your doom cry)
3178  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 12, 2017, 05:49:34 PM
Ok yeah. That is something i did not think of. Any idea on the specs needed to process a 1mb transaction with a lot of inputs? I didnt think it was that significant for the modern day processors but i dont know that much about that side.
Lauda has already posted some data - RAM seems even more a show-stopper for big blocks on consumer hardware than CPU. If you want the details, the source, a Bitfury study, is here. (It's from 2015, though; but also 2 years later it seems everything >8MB blocks is simply too much.)

lol the stats lauda / bitfury have are out of context

firstly its stupidly silly maths to promote "sgwit linear"

without segwit, changing things like
maxtxsigops to 4k has REDUCED the ram cpu usage

in the future dropping it again to 2k can further reduce the ram/cpu usage, yet even with 'bigger blocks' you can reduce cpu/ram usage aswell as over time having an average computer that has more ram in it. EG Raspi1 vs Raspi3.. vs todays basic desktop pc
3179  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 12, 2017, 05:43:21 PM
So is everyone here running a node then? Shouldn't we be? I am not saying anything about centralizing anything... I just showed some quick math that shows any average person in any western country can run a node and there is basically no cost. If you already have a gaming rig you can run a node for awhile and there are tens of millions of gaming rigs. If there is only 5,000 nodes right now doesn't some blame belong on all of us for not promoting node usage more?

I am questioning why we all aren't running nodes and showing the math is there that many people can afford it, even if it was 10MB or 20 MB or 30MB right now and was always full, we can still afford it. I am not saying it is the best way to go.

the real reason people dont run full nodes is not about restrictions of technology.. its about their crap GUI (user interface) and the social use of not needing to have something running 24/7 if they only personally use it once a day.

its about UTILITY that makes being a full node not attractive.
if bitcoin gained utility they would use it more often

current tech limitations is not the problem. its the fact that core dont seem to care about utility or care about users. all they care about is leadership and dominance
3180  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. on: July 12, 2017, 05:34:47 PM
No thanks, i still want see bitcoin decentralized where people can run bitcoin full nodes without expensive hardware or very fast internet. I would rather see small block size upgrade regularly every year by seeing actual nodes capability and hardware growth.
If you really think 10MB block size isn't problem and won't hurt decentralization too much, i want you try it on testnet where the nodes use inexpensive computer/server/VPS.

10mb per ~10 minutes

lol
i remember 1999 where two mp3 songs (10mb) took 10 minutes... now its seconds..

does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that Call of Duty cannot function bcause online gameplay just cannot work due to hardware/internet
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that skype ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that youtube Livestream ....
does anyone see MILLIONS of people crying that twitch ....
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 ... 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!