Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2019, 09:48:28 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 ... 833 »
3301  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)
3302  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)
3303  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
3304  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
3305  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 ....
3306  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, 05:18:10 PM
here we go again..
nonsense propoganda from the bscartel* that the only future is hubs..

bscartel want LN hubs and cry that blocksize increases = centralised upstream nodes (hubs). in their mind all they can see is centralisation
all because they want people to believe that everyone wants to run bitcoin on a raspberryPi 1a board(about a decade out of date nearly) and a memorystick


boring fools like that are stuck in the past. the internet has got faster since 2009, hard drives have got bigger and the average ram on basic home computers is more then the past.

real funny part is data for data of a fully validating full archival usernode is the same.
4200 tx's is still ~2mb whether using segwit or legacyx2

what will actually kill the network is the pruning and -nowitness options that then kill off the amount of full nodes (analogy: torrent seeders) and just leaves a cludge of a network of SPV/prunned/no-witness nodes (analogy: torrent leachers)
meaning what Gmaxwell called downstream nodes and what luke JR calls stripped nodes.. become the lower tier (cludgy leacher nodes)

meaning what Gmaxwell called upstream filters and what luke JR calls bridging nodes.. become the higher tier (full seeder nodes) hubs

maybe its time those that adore gmax and core actually do the research, yes some of you i have actually told to do this research atleast a year ago, but yet you still cant get your head passed the buzzwords, gmax and co have spoonfed.. and that leaves you unable to understand it.

segwit causes more breakdown of the full node count.
wake up

*bscartel(barry silbert, blockstream, core, btcc,litecoin, and DCG portfolio, (all loving segwit))


as for the mempool bloat graphs.. all the spam spikes relate to times the bscartel want their new bips activated by drumming up how change needs to be made ASAP
check out june 2016, october/november 2016 and then more recently when the other segwit activating bips popped up..

its all just drama to try getting segwit activated
3307  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing on: July 12, 2017, 04:03:53 PM
You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time.

and core wanted a november code activated by christmas without giving a damn about usernodes symbiotic relationship validating said blocks..
3308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing on: July 12, 2017, 02:41:04 PM
so pereira4 is crying because garzic is running tests on btc1 on a separate testnet.

well there are thousands of devs, who can just run btc1 on a public testnet.
lol
it doesnt need everyone to sit on their hands and wait for garzic to test it on his own.. anyone can
so if you want to cry about someone privately testing something, go run the code and test it publicly

..
but anyway i mentioned it before in another FUD topic by pereira4. so here is a summary
using a separate testnet specifically for a new bip is not new, and not garzic setting a precedent

hint: SegNet

have a nice day
3309  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: What does 'Pump and Dump' means in crypto trading ? on: July 11, 2017, 02:59:11 PM
pump and dump is not simply about making the price go up artificially(pump) with empty reason or making the price go down artificially(dump) with empty reason

its about making it go extremely high and then extremely low in a short period. usually only really happens with the pointless crap coins that have no utility that can be pumped and dumped easily.

for coins with utility they are usually referred to as speculative spikes and dips. rather than pump and dumps.
3310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Funding a movie with Bitcoin possible? on: July 10, 2017, 05:15:37 AM
before thinking about budget / funding.. any decent movie team starts with the basics.. which is a script/story line

most producers make a 'short', which is kind of like a trailer. or a storyboard, which is like a comic strip and they distribute it out to the major movie VC's who then fund the full production.

so before thinking about being a middle man money manager (sounds scammy) atleast think about the movie first. money last
EG actors, story, plot, script, locations,

you cant just shout out you need $Xm without even knowing the basic logistics like costs
you cant just shout out the basic logistics like costs without knowing who is going to star/direct to know their salary
you cant just shout out who is going to star/direct to know their salary without them seeing a script/plot to think its good
you cant just shout out a script/plot to think its good without writing it and knowing of locations and time needed to film

so start at the basics and dont try being a money grabber of empty 'vapor' projects
3311  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Basic noob question about hashrate % among top pools on: July 09, 2017, 08:43:20 PM
.........
if their changes do not meet the rules that nodes/merchants also have then those blocks would get rejected in seconds..
its not about hashrate.. its about rules and whats acceptable to the symbiotic relationship of the network

a block of data is not accepted simply because more hash power was used.

what would actually happen is if the rules were too controversial.. the pool with more hash power could produce more blocks but find the majority of the symbiotic network just rejects more blocks more often.. its that simple.

the end result would be if the nodes that were part of the collaboration would end up in an orphan fight with its peers objecting... which normally ends up with nodes banning communication with each other to avoid the drama.

..

but the end result is .. if a block is not accepted with a merchant, which the pool wants to use to cash out its reward. the pool will realise it has wasted its time and then give in and follow what its favourite merchant prefers. otherwise its just making foreign blocks that the merchant cant accept/understand. and thus the pool cant spend its winnings

its not a simple hash power wins.. there is a symbiotic relationship... best known as CONSENSUS

many people lack understanding of consensus and lack understanding of what makes bitcoin so special.
its multilayered with multiple possible results depending on scenario
3312  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Activation of segwit via BIP141 = $10,000 overnight on: July 09, 2017, 05:55:06 PM
It was all indeed Roger Wu spam attack as well,

did you even check the dates of the spam
june 2016 (core bip needed activating so they spammed to cause drama to rush it through)
october/november->  (core bip needed activating so they spammed to TRY(but fail to)cause drama to rush it through) thus they had to keep it going hoping time would be extra pressure..


pereira4 &billy.. you keep on pointing fingers in the wrong direction.. cant you atleast see your reddit scripts are old/unbacked up by stats/ and debunked and outdated.

3313  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Activation of segwit via BIP141 = $10,000 overnight on: July 09, 2017, 05:50:32 PM
the whole fee/malle/spam/ promises is only achievable if (especially the malicious) users actually move funds to NEW KEYPAIRS AFTER activation..
If the malicious users are miners trying to keep the fees high (quite possible) then a larger block size would not stop them at all.  Neither SegWit nor increased block sizes would do anything to someone with a lot of money to spend (or "invest") on spamming the network.

firstly CORE removed the fee controls and screamed "just pay more".. dont blame pools.
secondly 'miners' are just asic users..
what you need to be defining is malicious 'pools' that collate the data into blocks. not the miners which just hash out a hash and have no control of block content or fees..
miners and pools are separate functions of the symbiotic relationship of bitcoin

the main fee damaging tactics are those of the core developers with their new fee war pressure code, and pools only accepting the high fee's first.
(funnily enough its BTCC and other bscartel pools that do this more)


as for segwit which still relies on a 1mb base block(141) so the fight for space is not really reduced.(segwit keypairs dont just sit in witness without touching base)
...

personally the segwit2x is just as empty a hope as segwit1x(141) because as soon as the segwit aspect of segwit2x is activated (which actually activates segwit(141) early)

..the node count capable of accepting the 2xbaseblock part needs to happen for the 2x base to actually flourish within 3 months.. otherwise all that happens is segwit(141) and then mempool hell of everyone trying and failing to move funds to new keypairs as the bloat would cause many people waiting days and having to resend with higher fee's just to try getting funds into new keypairs.. (stats show months of mempool headaches as a minimum)

..
the real solution would have been a legacy4x and also limit txsigops to 4k or less forever to mitigate the 'linear v quadratic' crybabies.
 then without having to shift majority of funds to new keypairs, users will get more capacity.
other bloat code could be added to reduce the greed of allowing single users x% of blockspace
EG why does anyone need 100kb of blockspace for a single tx... thats just bloat causing greed.. that needs reducing/ making leaner
3314  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Activation of segwit via BIP141 = $10,000 overnight on: July 09, 2017, 04:45:51 PM
But believe me dude, its not about hard or soft fork, it is about the present status of bitcoin and awful fees. It is pretty sure activating any proposal will going to push up transactions speed and lower fees significantly.
So out of present proposals, Segiwt (BIP141) is best one. No matter where chains and split gotta go but it has become necessity for bitcoin.

activating segwit DOES NOTHING!!!

the whole fee/malle/spam/ promises is only achievable if (especially the malicious) users actually move funds to NEW KEYPAIRS AFTER activation..

the "activation" itself does NOTHING
however the 'promises' are about getting peoples funds over to new keypairs.. and then and only then POSSIBLY see benefit is only gonna happen if a good percentage of people spend their UTXO's and never use legacy tx's again

think about the bloat on the mempool if everyone tried moving their funds to new keypairs... with 55million UTXO's sat their on legacy keypairs

it not about activation.. its about keypairs.

which is where i laugh about litecoin, where even the pools advocating for segwit dont want to move their own funds to segwit keypairs.
its a total laugh..

segwit is an empty promise of social drama
3315  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Activation of segwit via BIP141 = $10,000 overnight on: July 09, 2017, 04:20:35 PM
pereira4

wake up and stop spewing reddit scripts

even softforks can cause splits

trying to assume hardfork=split is the old debunked script of atleast 12 months ago. its time you updated your mantra..

consensus will keep things togther..
soft and hard is just about pool triggered alone (soft) or node and pool triggered(hard)

infact by having nodes part of it nodes are then ready to accept the data from pools so infact there are less chance of issues due to nodes existing to validated the data rather then just playing hot potato relaying data they cannot fully validate

maybe spend less time on reddit and more time reading code/running scenario's you will learn something


core shot themselves in the foot with their clumsy pool only activation
yea they tried bribing pools. but pools care more about block acceptability to the network than they do about all-inclusive paid weekend parties.
the safest way to activate is a node consensus first pools consensus second.

and thats why 141 was not getting much growth, because pools know about the consensus/symbiotic relationship of the network
3316  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Activation of segwit via BIP141 = $10,000 overnight on: July 09, 2017, 03:40:19 PM
 pereira4 and billybob
there is no point you sing 2 accounts to say the same garbage
if all you care about is the bitcoin price then you are just FIAT lovers.
go check out litecoin.. the pools that pretended to support segwit are not even using it.. they are still using legacy tx's for their coinbase
you have no clue about how segwit works, what it cannot achieve or what it is suppose to achieve.
all you ever shout out is "activate=speculate"

everyone with brains knows that malicious users will continue spamming using legacy, so segwit solves nothing

its like trying to reduce gun kills in certain neighbourhoods by offering to voluntarily move everyone out of the neighbourhood into a gun free zone.
the only issues is.. the ones that dont have guns will move. but even then the ones without guns and never attempted to use guns still have to drive through and leave their parents in the gun ridden neighbourhood.
where the few now vacant apartments in the gun ridden neighbourhood does not really help overcrowding. nor does it solves the double spending drivebythugs who will continue to doublespend driveby(malle attack)

so stop your "activate for $10k speculation" and all your fake graphs and finger pointing.. atleast grasp logic and show something real and justified
3317  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain-Ver agenda exposed on: July 09, 2017, 06:41:31 AM
Bingo franky1. Funny that he would try to pin the mempool spam on Ver, obviously it was Core/DCG/Blockstream shills FUDing for Segwit adoption. It didn't work so they switched to the UASF tactic. Peter Todd is working behind the scenes (shaolinfry) as Ethereum takes more and more Bitcoin market share away.

LOL
your wrong about the bold part
the market CAP is a empty bubble number of empty maths and no financial backing. and has nothing to do with REAL MARKET SHARE

until ethereum shows real stats of USERS.. MERCHANTS and also public knowledge/utility.. ethereum is meaningless

i can set up an altcoin in 10 seconds with 5trillion coins. sell one coin on a exchange for $1  and bam, $5trillion market CAP
but my alt will have no users, no financial backing, no merchants. no public knowledge.. thus is NOT taking away from the REAL MARKET SHARE

the market cap is taking a price of a SINGLE TRADE and multiplying it
not by the volume processed that day.
not by the volume of users
not by the volume coins spent, moved

but by the empty number of coins created.

as i explained with the scenario of creating an alt in 10 seconds.. anyone can fake a market cap
the market cap is not a market share statistic. its just a speculators empty bubble number to scream about
3318  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The main and obvious reason Craig Wright is not satoshi on: July 09, 2017, 05:57:34 AM
- couple BScartel people back him up.

got some reference for that?
maybe I missed it but I can't recall anybody apart from Gavin Andresen to back him up.

and I did a search right now and found 2 names only: Gavin Andresen and Jon Matonis who flew to London in order to meet CW. and surprisingly (not really) Jon Matonis now has the executive position (Vice President) in the nChain firm!


COUPLE.. seems you answered your own question
however more of the BScartel were 'invited' but declined to get involved
(google can help you, as you have learned when answering your own question)
you may think gavin is not part of the BScartel due to him leaving core and going with XT/Classic in 2013-2014
yet that was just more social drama distractions to point fingers at XT/clasic while blockstream and Barry silbert(dcg) took the reaigns of core
check out DCG.io/portfolio   BLOQ.. then look at who is in bloq


and to everyone else.
here is another kicker of why CW is not satoshi
CW explanation of why he chose "satoshi nakamoto"
https://youtu.be/v1_gxvx_QGo?t=1h5m31s
'i have a single mother and one of the guys that helped raise me was japanese'
and then went on to waffle about some 17th century philosopher
..
but the real answer is
in 2006 the entity that created bitcoin was entertained by other game theories of decentralisation and anonymity, puzzles, cryptography and other things
there was a game which was part of perplex city. which part of it was 'finding satoshi' which had a prize.

(no the perplex city 'satoshi' in the game guy is not bitcoin inventor)
and thats where bitcoins inventor got inspired by the name and used it, much like people now have the word bitcoin as their twitter handle even if they were not around in 2009.. they just like the name of something they find interesting.
3319  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The main and obvious reason Craig Wright is not satoshi on: July 09, 2017, 04:34:42 AM
[chronological order]
- there is a block size debate going on.
- BScartell need distractions so pull a social drama out of their bag
- CW goes big, contacts big news sites to publish his claims around the time of the 2015 round table
- CW contacts a couple of known bitcoin devs and asks them to privately see his proof and publicly announce they have seen it and his claims are true
- couple BScartel people back him up.
- later we find out the signature or proof provided by CW was a fake and a big lie
- to cover up the lie he refuses to provide public proof but promises to soon move coins
- this bluff is also becomes clear with passage of time
- delay in time is to coincide with distracting people with social drama while other 'round tables' are occurring
- to cover that up he says something about community treating me bad so I am going away and won't move anything.
- things remain silent for a while
- scaling debate grows bigger. turns into fight over taking over bitcoin by BU camp and a deadline set by UASF
- CW comes out again with his buddies and his nChain trying to use the fake lies to his advantage

fixed timeline for ya
remember CW whistleblew on himself while he made his australian exit, then had the dev 'proof' meetup in the uk after
then had it all put on delay 'hush hush' NDA till specific date which coincided with a couple 'round tables' . even the 2017 'roundtable' tried to re-raise the CW social drama

whenever the name CW pops up.. dont take notice of it.. instead try to look in the other direction and find what is NOT being talked about such as why is no one talking about the consensus 2017 details of may2017, money 20/20 and even london fintech week happening right now..

oh wait.. because talking about CW is so much more important right (sarcasm)

check out the "satoshi roundtable big news" at the start of the year from the media owned by BScartel
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-new-satoshi-nakamoto-rumors/
(title says it all)
3320  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain-Ver agenda exposed on: July 08, 2017, 06:48:15 PM
lol

segwit2x = barry silbert

barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,

check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..

and if you dont think that barry is a puppetmaster. go check out his portfolio of companies he has OWNERSHIP stake in
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
blockstream
coinbase
BTCC
bloq


people can point fingers in different directions all they like, but if you follow the money and drama, its clear to see the strings

nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research



Pages: « 1 ... 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] 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 ... 833 »
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!