Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2019, 07:10:13 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ... 833 »
3321  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 08, 2017, 01:20:59 AM
The contention is "what comes after segwit?" On the Core side is "nothing" (i.e., just segwit)
lol

In fact, the Core has many things after segwit; some of which are already done (compact blocks), signature aggregation, weakblocks, flexcaps, etc.

All anyone else has is MOAR BLOCKSIZE REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES and some heads on spikes.


in short core is not promising to copy the 2mb base within months of segwit.. thus expect big issues in regards to the 2mb event 3 months after segwit, due to lack of node support.
(expect major orphan drama)
hey gmax, how about re-implement a new fee priority formulae and stop this mindless 'just pay more' mantra
3322  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Puzzle - Challenge yourself! on: July 06, 2017, 02:54:00 PM
for those without a QR code reader

1231154114454330 0391279044894345 0556266374112278 8696551050230412 1229246084358588
3323  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Brute forcing temporary passphrase. on: July 05, 2017, 12:17:25 AM
nano s website says: temporary passphrase. (max100 characters)


well it depends how long you made your temporary passphrase and if its just alphabetic, or a mix

if its just lowercase alphabetic and only 3 characters long.
found within 78 attempts

the longer and more complex. the longer it takes
3324  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit on: July 03, 2017, 10:35:43 PM
it might help the discussion if you two ^ actually read the quoted material; the twitter convo and the few emails

ive read it ages ago, i have also seen many many many many more attack vectors.

as for todds OLD 'fix' of requiring pools to add a few tx's to a block has his way of thinking it proves pools 'validate' blocks is false hope of trust/belief.

a pool can easily fool this 'fix' of belief of validating.. simply with a template of a block where they, on many blocks ahead of time know which tx's are not already confirmed, to know what to add to meet the threshold...
this is done by a pool not broadcasting unconfirmed tx's to the network but only build blocks with new unspents from their own stash of coins. spending them to themselves. thus then having extra tx's in a block to fool the "we validate because we have tx's" test. but. totally missing the actual flaw of 'empty block(validationless) mining

i have already stated ever since segwit is a thing that there are issues.
even their tier network cludge doesnt solve it
even their dns seed changes and filter/stripping and other things doesnt solve it
even killing off non segwit nodes and pools does not solve it.

the only way to truly prove that a segwit tx was added to a block and that its validated and wont cause issues in the cludgy tier network is to do away with the 2 merkle (1*b, 3*w) block inside a block and just go straight for a single blockspace where segwit and legacy tx's sit side by side fully serialised and in full. and where the entire network is ready to validate the full data

meaning a hard fork to a proper 4mb blocksize

that way the spv and 'backward compatible' nodes are not having to rely/trust that the stripped block they get has been fully validated first then stripped second.. because the blocks would be full and the full nodes would have upgraded to properly validate a serialised block. rather than pushing around stripped/filtered base blocks that are 'presumed' valid.

my point though is that the 2017 'sgwit is utopia' bubble is being burst and people are admitting it has issues
3325  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit on: July 03, 2017, 09:43:39 PM
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012185.html:
Peter Todd seemed happy that the issue went on to be fixed.

"Incidentally, based the positive response to fixing this issue w/
segregated witnesses - my main objection to the plan - I've signed the
Bitcoin Core capacity increases statement:

-> https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 <-


That gives us all a 'strong' confidence into SW and testing that a long KNOWN issue is not fixed.
What about the iceberg ones? Sorry I stop here for now....


 Undecided
lol
that ACK was from 2015.. before a line of code for segwit on bitcoin was actually wrote.
yep peter todd loved segwit before it was wrote but is now saying it has flaws..

seems it took 2 years for the sheep to wake up and stop promoting things before code was actually available. because later they retract their promoting once they see the code.
atleast they are open to now point out the flaws and stop shouting utopia
3326  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. on: July 03, 2017, 01:10:23 PM
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)  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


EG
[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)
[$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$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
3327  Economy / Trading Discussion / Re: USA Banks Recommendation Bitcoins Friendly on: July 03, 2017, 11:34:45 AM
The source of my money come from My PayPal account . the goal is to send this to bank account and from there buy a bitcoins

any bank Recommendation for this case ? I'm talking about $10k / day

moving $10k a day from paypal to bank... then bank to other service(exchange) will raise a AML flag no matter if it was bitcoin or non bitcoin related

your best bet is a business bank account because personal bank accounts will definitely be super super critical over where the funds came from and where its going to.

even if you think that moving $9,500 a day is below the reporting threshold. banks have other policies such as regular 'undervalue' transfers happening frequently. meaning 1x $9500 a year=no report.. $9,500 every day= a report or flag WILL get raised and cause some bureaucracy nightmares

i say this because most banking issues is not really about "bitcoin" issues but about

1. personal bank accounts being used to move more than $500+ every day (unless you can prove your earning over ~$200k a year)
2. the physical shuffling of funds same day going in and out without having chance to even breathe/sit in the account
3. the main thing that actually causes issues was in fact 'localbitcoin.com' traders getting scammed via chargeback/bank reversals which gets accounts frozen

3328  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why SegWit2X is on developement If it's the same as SegWit? on: July 02, 2017, 04:47:33 PM
the code is not the same

btc1 includes increasing the base block.. something core refuse to include.

it also pressures the community to activate segwit sooner at a lower threshold which then rejects non segwit blocktemplate blocks to then get to the 95% to then activate the other bip
(80% activation causes a 20% reject/orphan of non segwit blocks, which then activates bip9's 95% activation)

here is the thing though.
pools can false flag the segwit activation to activate segwit without having to care about node counts of nodes actually having segwit code.. but the 2mb blocks part (3 months later) does require nodes to actually have code to accept blocks over 1mb. so code is needed BEFORE activation to start getting to a point where there will be sufficient node counts available to actually accept blocks over 1mb to not cause any orphan drama later

but core dont really care about if nodes(users) do or dont have code for segwit let alone 2mb.. all they care about is getting pools to activate it by any means

the stupid part is that people are false block flagging before actually running the actual code. which means its a false flag sybil activation. no pools or nodes should flag for something unless they are actually running the code to actually do what they are flagging.

even litecoin hasnt bothered much about segwit. even now the pools cant be arsed to even use segwit kypairs for their blockrewards.

but its better for the community to have the code first before activation so that there is no drama..

its worth people actually reading code and stop reading reddit
3329  Economy / Speculation / Re: will bitcoin fall to 1000$ please prediction crisis on: July 02, 2017, 09:19:04 AM
price crisis?

many people when the price spikes they cry it moved too high
many people when the price drops they cry it moved too low

learn to chill
if it goes to high sell a little at profit
if it goes to low buy a little at discount

stop thinking bubble or burst
stop thinking pump or dump

think profit(up) or discount(down)
3330  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is BTC only for middle and upper economic class? on: July 02, 2017, 06:37:29 AM
bitcoins original ethos was a no barrier borderless currency for anyone and everyone.

but developers, stuck in their first world mindset have not thought beyond their snobby noses..
so things like taking AWAY fee control's and screaming "just pay more" has effectively turned bitcoin into something only the middle/upper classes would use.

they say using LN will be the solution for the third world unbanked, but those that only want to buy $2 (a weeks salary in some places) will face having to put funds into locked contracts with counterparty control and even managed by commercial hubs. making the point of bitcoin, pointless
3331  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightening Network is a Trap. on: July 02, 2017, 05:38:49 AM
you should take a look at Peter R's talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8gWv5lqG9A&feature=youtu.be&t=1500

Pretty interesting stuff.

Most interesting is at the end how he's saying if miner steal segwit coins, you wouldn't even be able to prove; conveniently the signatures would be missing.

look into schnorr too
it hides how many people are involved in a multisig and hides which signers signed. thus you may find what you thought was a 2-of-2 ends up being a 2-of-3 where the counter party has 2 keys and you only have 1
3332  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 02, 2017, 03:55:35 AM
This is almost scary enough to make me consider going into FIAT until 148 is buyable.
148 will be 141 which will be 91 which will be bit 4 which will be bit 1 which is NYA.

In other words, there will be no 148 as a separate coin.

So if I hold BTC on Bittrex and Poloniex I can be sure they'll be the same BTC a year from now? The BTC we see now will be 148 by default and the fork Bitcoin will be nuBitcoin?

nope
best to store funds your worried about losing on private keys you control.
even if there is no network splitting altcoin creation, your still at risk of the "we been hacked" retirement plan which many exchanges have
3333  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 02, 2017, 02:41:41 AM
Either these guys are incompetent, or they don't really like the decentralized nature of Bitcoin. Core is right on that one.

luke JR is grasping onto straws
arguing about version numbers of 1.14.3 vs 0.14.1 is meaningless social drama. there was a 1.14.1 which was 'like-for-like' but then it had some alterations and now its 1.14.3 naturally. you cant change code but stay with 1.14.1. but to be honest due to a baseblock HF it should actually be x.15.x
maybe if core added in some segwit2x code to core's 0.14.3 (not released yet) and then.. (drum roll) make a 0.14.4 that has everything and more, core can then regain leadership of the minor version number then he cant cry and cause the social drama of version numbers because core is ahead.

as for testnet5 hmmm he needs to explain to himself why last year segNET first then established testnet second... instead of straight to testnet last year and why he prefers other implementations to start their own separate testnet first to prove its not a testnet killer before joining a established testnet. (arguing with himself will give himself the answer)
(hence im laughing that btc1 is doing exactly what he wanted last year)

i have to agree the sigop limit is stupid to increase. .. yes increase the blocksize but dont increase the txsigops
that said a raspberry Pi could handle more than that but dev's went anal by going ultra safe
devs now argue about using raspberry pi as the 'min specs' goal but fail to keep legacy txsigops and maxtxbytes low to make it workable.
its as if they want to cause quadratic sigop issues again just to cause drama. so strangely i see luke JR doing the right thing for once and asking to keep txsigops low.

then he rants about the 80% block activation.. yet its him that decided only pools should vote.. yep his idea back in late 2015 with his pool only shortcut(going soft) to avoid a full network of symbiotic pool and node consensus... only going for pool consensus was his own fault and why 95% would not have worked. due to his, at the time mindset that he was creating a shortcut which backfired.. yet he was ok with 95% but now strangely against 80%... (facepalm)

as for the bit4, well he was arguing for it as it helped dns seeds/nodes to identify different versions, aswell as arguing for different servicebits too..
but now grasping at straws...

strange that he thinks segwit2x will stall segwit.. lol actually it will cause segwit to activate sooner. but atleast luke is now admitting that segwit is cludgy
"As for the hardfork itself, it includes an 8 MB max block size limit (with the code obfuscated to make it look like 2 MB), a 160k max block sigop limit (obfuscated to look like 20k), and an 8M max block weight limit (ie, typical block size around 4 MB). To address the sighash scaling issue, a new 1 MB limit is imposed on each transactionís non-witness data"

oh well luke does love his drama.
segwit2x and the NYA has nothing to do with bitmain. infact barry silbert pays lukes wage not bitmains.
3334  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: i have proven the Lightning Network can't provide decentralized scaling. on: July 01, 2017, 04:03:22 PM
Apparently this guy read the blog and made a comment on Twitter.  I just wanna see a counter argument from jonald_fyookball and what his other thoughts are.  



https://medium.com/@bramcohen/in-this-analysis-nodes-arent-bothering-to-make-sure-that-they-have-any-connections-at-all-1fba7115e61d

3 channels per user
guaranteed routing
LOL

guess he hasnt done much of the "x degree's of separation" theory.
3degree's of separation requires 21 'hops' to cover 10billion people so that everyone can connect to everyone

now think about it 10billion people with 3 channels, thats 30billion funds onchain tx's needing to be broadcast ONCHAIN to open such channels
...
also each of those channels need to have sufficient funds to flip within the channel to fund the route
also each of those channels need to be online to sign funds. which not everyone will be online 24/7 to 'accept' the route

and ofcourse with each channel costs a 'payment fee' meaning if 1 wants to pay 10mill. he has to find the route and then make 21 payment fee's
relying on all 21 participants to remain online as they payment snowballs through the 21 channels

..
3335  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Bitpay release Bitpay wallet App Windows Phone on: July 01, 2017, 02:47:19 PM
A waste of time from them. It's better if they invested that money somewhere else. No one is really using windows phone anymore.

in third world/developing countries they DO use windows phones.
also by having the whole payment/wallet/exchange to fiat under one roof is a service the third world developing countries need.
after all paying $2(40 hours min wage there) is impractical to use onchain tx's and having to then move funds around again to cash-in/out.

so there is actually a niche for this... (once you put first world mindset to the side)

but this niche is only created by them bs cartel removing fee controls onchain to make such side services like LN/coinbase/xapo preferable.
which is just re-inventing corporate bank control all over again requiring second party agreement/management

The total market shares is between 1%-2%.
there is actually a niche for this... (once you put first world mindset to the side)

And people in developing countries would think 100 times before going through all those services.
... yea like they think much about VODAFONE, yep vodafone manage mpesa
bitpay is basically going to be the vodafone credit(mpesa) rival

Remember Kipochi ?
It should have overthrown Mpesa since 2013 when it was launched and....2015 when it went bankrupt.

And just like you mentioned I don't like at all the approach.
So not only you're going to store your bitcoin with a 3rd party but... attached visa card?
What the hell happened to being your own banker?

being your own banker is being eroded away due to the devs who removed the fee controls of bitcoin and just shouted "just pay more" slowing causing the only utility of bitcoin to be done via 2nd /third party mechanisms
3336  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin will have Lightning Network soon? on: July 01, 2017, 02:32:06 PM
spammers are always gonna spam
1. they will avoid using segwit transaction types and avoid using the LN side service.

2. segwit does not address spammers. it needs to stop letting 1tx have 100kb of space allowed. it needs to stop allowing more than a few thousand sigops per tx.(needs dropping lower than 4k (16k cludgy maths)

segwit is cludgy and doesnt fix the issues it promises. it stupidly HOPES malicious people will use segwit keypairs/ln.. yet psychologically spammers wont.

3. LN is not going to be useful as a 'throw all your hoard in' service or a 'lock your funds forever' service.. it will end up with channels opening and closing every fortnight on average holding just enough funds for them couple weeks average spending, which means that onchain blocks will still get filled, due to all the open/closing sessions

4. as for the utility of LN. it all depends on channel connections(routes) which is the game theory of "the 6 degree's of separation". this involves people having to have more than one 'channel' funded and accepted as a route on certain LN dns seeds.

do not accept LN as the ultimate solution of utopia. atleast research and understand its niche and limitations.. not just the reddit false adverts of utopia
3337  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Bitpay release Bitpay wallet App Windows Phone on: July 01, 2017, 01:18:14 PM
A waste of time from them. It's better if they invested that money somewhere else. No one is really using windows phone anymore.

in third world/developing countries they DO use windows phones.
also by having the whole payment/wallet/exchange to fiat under one roof is a service the third world developing countries need.
after all paying $2(40 hours min wage there) is impractical to use onchain tx's and having to then move funds around again to cash-in/out.

so there is actually a niche for this... (once you put first world mindset to the side)

but this niche is only created by them bs cartel removing fee controls onchain to make such side services like LN/coinbase/xapo preferable.
which is just re-inventing corporate bank control all over again requiring second party agreement/management
3338  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightening Network is a Trap. on: July 01, 2017, 12:37:43 PM
You are funny.
Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.
you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.
if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.
evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.
yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.
it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud
You are fake news. How much are you getting paid?

dont use reddit.
instead, google it

000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5

Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
gone in 3 seconds


as for the topic, for the other people that want to learn

LN is a side service, like coinbase/xapo where you have to hand funds into an address that is no longer 100% in your control
(research multisig / smart contracts)

then put some logic/psychology into some scenario's.
EG if your no longer using the blockchain many MANY wont care about protecting the blockchain because they will prefer to just run an LN SPV node for their daily use.

EG those using coinbase/xapo as their daily use wallet.. do they bother using a full node aswell(answer: majority no).. i guarantee you the numbers of using side services as the daily wallet and running a full node is not high


LN is not the end solution to scaling nor is it the side service that can be trusted with your entire hoard.
just think of it as a daily spend side service which you only trust with just a small pocket money amount and you will / should be ok
3339  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. on: July 01, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
95% consensus levels

SegWit alone does not have such support, not even close. The same can be told about blocksize increase. Only because these two are bundled, it is acceptable solution, but even this cannot get 95% levels. Thats why it was decreased to 80% when activating both, SegWit and 2M. While 95% levels would be preffered, it is unrealistical here. Not only about 85% miner support is guaranteed to activate SegWit2x, but also acceptance from the majority of Bitcoin economy, including exchanges.

segwit2x is a false flag of 80% to then start orphaning off the other 20% to then get above the 95% to activate the bip9 from the pools prospective
(afterall the code is not even released yet the flagging has already started (facepalm))

the part about the 2mb involves usernodes actually running code to accept >1mb blocks. which we have yet to see the node count actually get established to be ready to accept >1mb blocks

so all that is 'possibly' guaranteed is the segwit tier network aspect and not so much the >1mb block aspect
3340  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Lightening Network is a Trap. on: June 30, 2017, 09:53:54 PM
You are funny.

Just that the node consensus will then be in the hands of the majority, AKA Bitmain, because they will be the only ones left mining...and they have the resources for gigabyte blocks.

 Roll Eyes

you are even funnier
it doesnt matter if a block was solved with 50,000,000,000 hash attempts or just 50 hash attempts.. the mining side is useless without the symbiotic relationship of the usernodes.

if the entire network rejects a block because its bigger than the nodes like. then that block is rejected.

evenBU learned that lesson in about 3 seconds after trying it by accident.

yep they made a block bigger than what the nodes prefered so within 3 seconds of seeing the block.. it was gone... drama over.
no argument of hash, no argument ovr brand. just simply, it didnt fit the general rules of consensus, so wasnt accepted.

it appears people simply do not understand consensus but will stupidly follow the reddit scripted fud
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 ... 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!