Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2019, 04:09:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 ... 833 »
4181  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: targeting and assassination of crypto currency researchers and developers on: April 17, 2017, 04:07:44 AM
oh no,
the user "bitcoinPro" is back under a new username.

4182  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 17, 2017, 03:57:01 AM
Wow, you got every single point wrong.

1. I want Bitcoin to be uncontrollable p2p cash as described in Satoshi's white-paper.  (Not just a settlement layer)

2. Decentralization is the tool Bitcoin uses to achieve its censorship resistance.

3. Read the white-paper and you will see that unlike Blockstream and Core,  I'm advocating for the very thing that Bitcoin was designed to be from day one.

In the situation you described, where only miners run nodes, Bitcoin is highly controllable.

what if, just what if you thought logically

100% node = mines and validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
90% node = validates latest rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
80% node = validates newish rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
70% node = validates old rules, stores, relays, creates transactions
60% node = validates latest rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
50% node = validates newish rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
40% node = validates old rules, prunned, relays, creates transactions
30% node = mines, stores, relays, creates transactions
20% node = relays, creates transactions
10% node = creates transactions

now imagine he was describing the 100% node to explain a node that does everything.
but for instance a 30% node was a SPV pool node
and a 'economic node' was the 40%-90% nodes depending which version number/how long ago you upgraded EG core, BU, classic,xt, knots, etc

and the 10%-20% were more like web-lite wallets such as multibit/electrum, bitcoinJ, etc
4183  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto on: April 17, 2017, 02:30:01 AM
again - wright HAS money

NOT HIS MONEY

its money from the shell games that all started from lies

its all about fake valuations that then used to get VC funding then he moves on and re-valuates another shell based on the last two shells.

and so on..

once the shells crack open and realise there is no pearl inside you realise its a shell game of ponzi's and fraud and he will have many investors and governments wanting their chunks of the pie back
4184  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Regenerating lost bitcoins on: April 17, 2017, 02:06:03 AM
i have coins that havnt been touched since 2012.

if the OP thinks its ok to destroy my coins(for instance of a 5 year limit) and allow a pool to generate a coinbase that includes an amount of my coins because of lets say a 5 year threshold.

then lets first ask anyone that thinks its a good idea.. to first delete their own private keys and see how they feel when they suddenly cant have their coins.
4185  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 17, 2017, 01:32:31 AM
...economic nodes...

"economic nodes" is estimation only.  rough idea of who supports what.  its not actual buying/selling/transacting coins.

just sayin.

We might have different ideas about non mining nodes.  i'm more along with roger and Satoshi in that i dont see a
huge value in tons of them.    its good to have some but dont need a lot.

yep as soon as you get to a point of say 100,000 validating, archival, relay nodes(lets just use blockstreamists 'economic node' to shut them up by using their buzzwords).. the amount of 'hops' to get the block data to every economic node starts to become a hindrance rather than a benefit. so yep there needs to be a natural equilibrium thats diverse and distributed without going too 'wild'

but 'economic nodes' have a crucial symbiotic relationship with mining nodes. that should not be downplayed.

im not talking about node count. im talking about the physical validating and relaying of data that adits mined blocks to ensure the network accepts only a certain block that passes the test. where no single location or team has control
4186  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 17, 2017, 01:29:03 AM

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"


No. The tweet said Only a node that is mining is a true full node. And he said that other nodes are useless, therefore my post was correct.

Are you a bot? Your master should change the config; your posts are too long: TLDR  Cheesy

TL;DR;
no mention of useful.  only full (but now thats just entering another conversation about semantics)

forums are not like twitter or reddit. expect more text per reply
4187  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 17, 2017, 01:09:26 AM
LOL

If Asicboost-compatible BU wins, then there will only one "useful" node left on the planet, called BITMAIN, because no one else will be mining (at a profit).

So according to Roger we only need one node.  Grin

Guys, remember that Satoshi did not know ASICs and certainly not ASICBOOST, when he called nodes miners. The brain of a parrot is enough to recognize that in order to make the network censorship proof, more nodes are better.  Smiley

your missing the context of the tweet and now speculating based on reddit FUD scripts

the tweet said "FULL" not "useful"
but again its just a game of semantics

where by "FULL" does EVERYTHING

since 2010 (cpu/gpu) days a FULL node was one that validated and mined.

now we have a separation where we have what some call economic nodes that do the validating and storing of the blockchain but dont mine, that work symbiotically with mining nodes

many people call these economic nodes(people call full nodes in social conversations) due to the simple differential of lite nodes(electrum/multibit) vs fuill validation+archival nodes(that dont mine)... though rationally you can see why some would call the validation+archival nodes something other than full, for instance 'economic nodes' rather than full nodes due to the lack of the mining aspect.

maybe this explains why even blockstream and those behind UASF are mentioning the term "economic nodes" to describe the non-mining-full-nodes because the terminology has changed since 2010 and people are confused about what an economic node is. especially if the term 'economic nodes' is being buzzworded even by the blockstreamist groups more than before

but without knowing what prompted roger to explain the only nodes doing all the tasks of bitcoin, being mining nodes. all you can do is speculate.

in my eye, mining nodes(full and spv and other) work symbiotically with user nodes(full validating/archival nodes aka economic nodes) and all are important for the benefit of the entire network.
4188  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It's about time to turn off PoW mining on: April 17, 2017, 12:15:17 AM
the only reason people want to get rid of PoW is because they are the gys that only have a little bit of fiat to their name and think they can get rich quick if mining changed.

the thing is.
give it just a couple months and whatever distributed mechanism replaced it would get gamed by those that can.

EG if it became a thing related to proof of node. then people would synicate loads of nodes (likea sybil attack) to get an advantage
EG if it became a thing related to proof of stake. then people would would stake alot and spread the stake over many keys to increase their chances
EG if it became a thing related to proof of IP. then people will load up proxies and remote services to increase how many ip addresses they control

so within a couple months the game would be back in the hands of the big players.
so forget changing PoW based purely on distribting the rewards, because that will never happen how people think.. even LN wont make every LN node 'get rich quick' the LN DNS seed will make sure only a chosen few get listed as the main routed hubs.

what people need to think about is the actual SECURITY of the chains and the risks of outsiders trying to break the security of the chain. and PoW has shown to be the best way to offset risks of outsider takeover
4189  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What computer do you lot use? on: April 16, 2017, 10:23:47 PM
Quadcore from 2008, 8 gigs of DDR2 ram, 1 TB 7200 rpm, 9 mb internet connection. If they raise the blocksize to 2mb i will probably give up on running a node because today I can deal with it but I cannot be bothered if I have to download twice the amount and store twice the amount. Let alone higher blocksizes.

Not everyone here is wealthy, some of us are modest working class guys. Its not in my plan to upgrade my computer, it does everything I need just fine.
I will also be dumping BTC when I cant run my own node, since if you cant run your own node then bitcoin is pointless (by the time I will have upgraded, but the moral of the story is, conservative blocksize is preferred so as much people as possible can run nodes).

the minspecs of bitcoin is still based on raspberry Pi.

so your pc is not gonna feel a thing.
also the 100gb is 8 years of data. and only recently gonna grow at 52gb a YEAR (not a week).
at 2mb it will grow at 100gb A YEAR(not a week)

seriously. you have bitten the fake scare stories of gigabytes by midnight. fake reddit scripts.
if you think rationally logically and naturally you will realise that you wont have any worry for a few years

and by the time your 1TB hard drive fills. it will be a few years and time to naturally upgrade your pc anyway
(average pc upgrade: gamers 12-18 months, office users 4-6 years)

in a few years a 4tb hard drive based pc and specs that will last 4-6 years will be the economy brand pc (working class pc)
2mb=104gb/year=624gb/6 years
4mb=208gb/year=1.3tb/6 years
8mb=208gb/year=2.6gb/6 years

so imagine say a year of 2mb and then 3 years of 4mb (4 years or 2021) your hard drive would be under 800gb of bitcoin data so ur current pc would be fine

then in 2021 you can upgrade to a better pc with say 4TB-8TB to last you many years



as for the internet
as long as your not gonna go full wetard and have 70+ connections then standard ADSL is more than capable. and with Fibre optics popping up everywhere, it wont be an issue in a few years.

even the 'great firewall of china' can happily play with 8mb blocks based on multiple connections node.
4190  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 16, 2017, 09:10:07 PM
Why can't everyone move to segwit within say 2 weeks to 1 month. Is that not possible?

lets say the base block was completely empty. no one doing their regular business..
to move 46m utxo's could take 3 months+

and thats if EVERYONE was to change over.. the issue is.. malicious people that want to quadratic spam.. wont.

so even if 99.99% of people did change across.. only 1 person making a dozen tx's could screw with quadratics.
especially if they now have 16k ops to mess with instead of 4k. meaning expect lots of validation delays and also
alot of mempool issues of the innocent people moving across
4191  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Big Banks Profit challenged on: April 16, 2017, 08:42:51 PM
1. when people buy bitcoin with fiat.  the fiat is not burned. it just moves from one account holder to another. in short banks do not lose anything.

2. banks forex trades are not done at 'consumer level' . banks make their profits in the back offices trading on wall street. most bank 'consumers' use commercial services like bureau de change at airports or even some supermarket retailer do foreign exchange for the consumer level stuff

3. banks do make 'profits'. but they spend it on bonuses, dividends, and hidden gratuities to their board/share holders before tax day to then show no 'profit' to then pay no/little tax. while the top employees and board members have upgraded their houses and cars
4192  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [F2Pool and SegWit] What do we think of the "Wang" on: April 16, 2017, 02:40:01 PM
funy part is
when people start using the segwit on altcoin price arguments

what i have seen this month..

when vert is up litecoin is down
when vert is down litecoin is up

so when litecoin moves up segwit fanboys look for any positive blockstream segwit news they can... if they find it they mention its up bcause of segwit. if they cant find any. they dont mention litecoin. but then talk about vertcoins drop and then find negative news from non-blockstream and blame verts drop on non-blockstream.

same goes the other way
so when vertcoin moves up segwit fanboys look for any positive blockstream segwit news they can... if they find it they mention its up because of segwit. if they cant find any. they dont mention vertcoin. but then talk about litecoins drop and then find negative news from non-blockstream and blame lites drop on non-blockstream.

creating their own narrative.

but overall.. the price moves de to nature of trading and low liquidity.
in short it just goes up and down for multiple reasons and doesnt take much to cause a change. anyone can spin any narrative for any coin

trying to use the market price as a indicator is an empty argument.
market price is just temporary drama
4193  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 16, 2017, 02:27:07 PM
Anyone who thinks Core is to blame for blocking Segwit is ether a shill or a fool.

segwit 2merkle soft. is just a half baked gesture that does not live upto promise.

segwit still allows qadratics.
native key users can still quadratic spam the base block and cause hassle for everyone.
infact segwit makes it worse by allowing a tx to have 16,000 sigops instead of 4000

the EASIEST solution is to have sigops per tx limited BELOW 4k and ALWAYS kept below 4k no matter what the blocksize/weight or whatever become

core just dont want proper onchain scaling via diverse nodes and dynamics. so are happy to waste years delaying crap.. yep even up until the end of 2018

http://www.uasf.co/
Quote
Can BIP148 be cancelled?
Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

dont expect blockstream to give up and finally listen to the community if the result is no by november.. they will just push delay push again. not change to a different solution that can unite the community
4194  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto on: April 16, 2017, 02:09:58 PM
Wrigth in the UK and the Aust passport he has means that they COULD get him. There is no fled, they can grab him if they want to - they just cant.,

lol
finance = CIVIL

the aussie government thing has not yet got to the point of criminal yet, to invoke extradition
4195  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 16, 2017, 01:54:32 PM
Roger ver is blocking exactly that since we need segwit for LN to work at full steam.

LN can function WITHOUT segwit.

blockstreams LN wants segwit because THEIR LN is pre-programmed to work with segwit.

but multi-sig is not broke and has no issues with malleability or quadratics.
its just that blockstream want their LN compatible with their segwit.

lightning is not quadratic risk because its only a 2in-2 out.. thus no quadratic delay risks (its not thousands of inputs in simple terms)
lightning is not malleable risk because it requires other party to sign off/refuse.. thus other party see's and know what has been signed to counter malleability risk
4196  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 16, 2017, 12:30:57 PM
You have plenty to do with the centralization attempt by BTU.

centralisation attempt by BTU?
your just mad that many implementations are not kissing blockstream ass, by not following blockstreams lead. so you deem them as not bitcoin. which is so lame. you actually think that blockstream is bitcoin and bitcoin is only blockstream

wake up. to all the REKT campaigns
BU is just one implementation amungst many.

its blockstream that want sole control.
even you have the mindset of thinking only blockstream should be the sole controller, and you know that you think only blockstream should have that control

if you want something from greg about how he wants to split the network and get sole control
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

the non blockstreamers want a single network of diverse implementations all working on the same single network using real consensus
only blockstream are the ones that have made slit threats
only blockstream are the ones that have made deadlines
only blockstream are the ones that have made pool orphaning threats (samson mow (UASF hat wearer) works for blockstream
4197  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto on: April 16, 2017, 12:00:01 PM
Wrigth had planned a move BEFORE the raid. The raid was AFTER he left and they were too late. The tax ppl wanted to get him but just misswed when they figured it out

craig recieved legal documents of demands from AU gov about going court/repaying, with deadlines and dates and such.. well well BEFORE the raid
craig then emailed gizmodo to spark the rumours of him being satoshi before the raid because he knew that not dealing with the legal actions would result in a raid

it was not a one day he was not in trouble and then suddenly a unprovoked raid where suddenly the raid was the only contact craig had from aussie government.
craig was in trouble for months before the raid. he knew it

the government dont just snd the cops in without making demands for court/repayment first.
they do a raid when the courts/repayment demands are ignored and the raid is last resort.. not first option

he planned his escape and all the drama of trying to find ways to get out of having to repay aussie gov
4198  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 16, 2017, 11:48:13 AM


lol
more empty "thats speculation"
when its your comments that are propaganda

you are soo deep defending blockstream that you cannot see bitcoin as a diverse network of many varieties of software actually running on the network for years without making demands or threats.

you only see blockstream being bitcoin and even when blockstream threaten other non blockstream implementations you defend blockstream
wake up

4199  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto on: April 16, 2017, 11:37:34 AM

seems your account was created purely to reply about wright drama..

anyway
hotwire was about tax refund

demorgan was about "credit" for advanced R&D for certain industries where the industry gets 45% of their research spending.

for instance. the difference is, like UK law
a tax refund is where you pay X tax..  but you can claim certain things off your tax like having to obtain, replace and wash work uniform and get a refund at the end of the year. this is a tax rebate

separately
no matter what tax you pay. or your bills or expenses.. you can get tax "credit" just for having a kid

the hotwire was a rebate - couple million
the demorgan was a credit - 54million
4200  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 16, 2017, 10:46:22 AM
Some of those people are either actively harming Bitcoin (see Ver), sold themselves to the CIA (see Gavin), sold themselves to the banks (see Hearn), etc. Their latest 'evil' pretty much terminated most of their 'good' (if they ever had any).

you forgot to mention gmax sold himself to the banks too... i wonder why you left him off the list.

research: blockstream-> hyperledger

i now await the usual "dont troll me", "your wrong but cant explain why your wrong, but your wrong" empty replies.

sometimes i laugh at the hypocritical comments you make
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 ... 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!