Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2019, 03:07:01 PM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 ... 834 »
4241  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proposal to add "trustee" escrow-layer larger ledger blockchain to save bitcoin. on: April 14, 2017, 09:36:22 PM
.

i know your pre-empting an announcement of an altcoin called core+ where people hand you(and friends of yours) real bitcoin and they then get given core+ coins to play with on your altcoin..
but thats been tried before.

much simpler to understand is to learn multisig/escrows that have been available on bitcoin for years. once you understand that, your 90% at understanding Lightning network.

which isnt about altcoins or trusting a 'trustee' but instead just putting funds into a 2of2 multisig. and then in private communications agree on who owes who as you spend between each other

at a later date when a final agreement amount on who owes who what allows you and other person to sign the funds and then transmit it to bitcoins public blockchain

EG you set up a multisig with starbucks and put in $60 of btc into it . then privately offchain when you buy coffee you agree you only want $56 back for a $4 purchase.(you both sign but dont transmit). next day you agree you only want $52 back for another $4 purchase.(you both sign but dont transmit). after 2 weeks you agree to sign all of the $60 to starbucks.(you both sign this time you do transmit).

and the only thing that shows up on bitcoins network is the $60 in from you to a multisig 2 weeks ago. and $60 out of the multisig to starbucks (non of the 2 weeks of purchases in the middle)..
4242  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin implants? on: April 14, 2017, 08:56:28 PM
implants no

first gen hardware wallets no

i see the solution as something inbetween (as posted weeks ago)

a smart watch that only transmits public info such as a signed tx.. (not private key)
4243  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proposal to add "trustee" escrow-layer larger ledger blockchain to save bitcoin. on: April 14, 2017, 08:51:51 PM
this keeps everything in check. in other words. a larger faster network creating more and larger blocks can still operate with the authenticity of the value being confirmed on the original ledger.

if another network can be created using blockchain that is larger .. then obviously there is no 'internet' issues with bitcoin just being larger.

anyway it might be worth you reading about lightening networks and multisigs (no need of blockchains at all) you will soon catch up with the latest idea's that are coming to fruition
4244  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We are going to be devating the scaling issue until we are old on: April 14, 2017, 08:47:58 PM
iamnotback

you set your own opinion, yep opinion.
then when people try to correct it you try to defend your opinion by quoting yourself.
same goes for your 'nashian' debates of talking to yourself.

quoting yourself does not make your opinion stronger.

but please try to learn about bitcoin, because the more you talk about FIAT prices the less interested you seem to care about bitcoins sustainability and only seem to be watching for an exit price back to the land of a fiat holder.

anyway goodluck with your life. and i hope one day you do go back holding alot of fiat.
4245  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proposal to add "trustee" escrow-layer larger ledger blockchain to save bitcoin. on: April 14, 2017, 08:38:32 PM
1. the going larger wont affect the network. because unlike those who are trying to scare the community with reasons to not grow the network at all.. the growth does not need to be gigabytes by midnight neither.

nodes set the rules.
knowing node can cope with 8mb a block. we could have 8mb capable.. but 4mb preferable a block this year for extra safety. and then reassess the status every year and grow dynamically based on what the node CAN cope with and prefer naturally..

2. LN is a side service which is less managerial then the OP's idea but allows extra functionality for those that need it. though its not permissionless like onchain bitcoin is its still better than the OP's throw all your funds at one person and hope that person throws them back
4246  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We are going to be devating the scaling issue until we are old on: April 14, 2017, 07:53:00 PM
Given 600 blocks per day,
..

..
 Don't stop learning.

144 blocks a day..
but dont stop learning
4247  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We are going to be devating the scaling issue until we are old on: April 14, 2017, 07:31:36 PM
as for the fee/spam thing
here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does)

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it
4248  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We are going to be devating the scaling issue until we are old on: April 14, 2017, 07:05:09 PM
Meanwhile BTC price will continue going up and so will the fees. BTC will continue working.

I just hope the fee never becomes so high that people can't even move 1 BTC!!! that would be stupid.

But as long as the price goes up the fees will go up too.

The question, when does bitcoin become useless for us? when do we dump because the fee will become higher than our holdings?

I think when you can't even move 1 BTC per coin because the fee is higher than 1 BTC, the price must be super high or it will collapse.

ignoring the first sentance (im didnt include in ur quote) you have a very level headed question

my opinion
we are already at and passed the utility point.

if your basing it on moving 1btc... the answer is naturally when it becomes costly to the point of over 1% (so 0.01btc fee) to move it people will lose preferential desire to hold bitcoin.

of course bitcoin fee's dont work as % and most people are not moving funds in 1btc amounts. usually in real life of going to an ATM and banking its $10-$100amounts on average 'spend'. that people withdraw/handle/carry around/spend.
so based on a 0.01-0.1 spend amount .. 0.0001-0.001fee

in developing countries its $0.10-$10(0.0001- 0.01) amounts so (0.000001-0.0001fee)

i have been to a few countries trying to drum up bitcoin support and the main objections is the fee.. $0.60 is about 12 hours labour in some countries so when you tell them they need to work 12 hours just to move funds.. yep you guessed it they are not interested.

bitcoin has become too american economist minded (only for the rich wall streeters) and has been shaped by those refusing to allow onchain growth to keep pushing fake narratives of 'but pools need higher fee's tonight' propaganda. which has made it unattainable to the unbanked/developing countries (unless your a rich nigerian prince/oil baron)

though onchain transactions should not be a world history report of every doughnut bought. it should not cost hours of labour to use it either.

im sure if LN had a $0.0001 LN channel fee and an onchain $0.01 people who spend often will naturally volunteer to use LN. and then we can code a better fee priority mechanism to slowdown/stop spammers onchain from spending every 10 minutes by using CODE not economics.
EG coinage under 144 confirms. fee is higher
4249  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spam attack again on: April 14, 2017, 06:36:26 PM
So you fancy living to 120+ years. In an old people home trading BTC or chilling out enjoying your retirement when 1 BTC = $1m+. Agree with the long-term outlook which is more important than the current fiasco. How would you solve the current dilemma for the next two years, in order to allow a long-term plan to debated in a mature manner?

a version with all the bells and whistle.
this means all the new keypair types blockstream want (still opt-in voluntary)
but because its a proper node and pool consensus..
1merkle block (everyone sees and handles the same data..)(non of this 1mb base 4 weight crap)
just a single block limit that is dynamic based on non mining node capability..

the non mining node
consensus.h (adjusts over time dependant on speed test averages) EG 8mb block limit
policy.h user variable amount (dynamically variable) EG 1mb-> consensus.h
useragent displays these amount to allow a network over view of whats possible

that way it doesnt go over the top out of control straight to 8mb and stays within reasonable tolerances of what nodes can handle/prefer
EG 75% of nodes show c:8mb p:2mb+, so pools only go upto 2mb and it prompts the users below p:2mb to update their policy preference(what useragent displays)

..
other features
- txsigoplimit 4k or less forever - mitigates native key txsigop quadratic scares
- nodes have a speed test measuring: a new block appearing, downloading and verifying. and the score is then averaged over 2016 blocks to get an average propagation time to then help discover what can be handled.
- users have more personal control of their node settings at runtime without needing to download new versions just to change a limit
- new priority fee formulae that actually does something more fairly
- at initial load/sync. nodes request a UTXO set FIRST to run as a lite client. thus the syncing is not felt like 'wait till complete to spend' and more of a 'spend while you wait' thing. (solving the main gripe of waiting to sync(lack of utility))
4250  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spam attack again on: April 14, 2017, 04:32:42 PM
blockstream wanting to cause drama to make UASF look like its needed
I think that Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream CTO) opposes BIP 148. You should probably do your research before you start throwing shit around.

i know gmax says he doesnt like it but...
the USAF hat wearing advocate samson mow is now as of 2 days ago a blockstream employee. so i feel its gmax saying he doesnt like it so people stop attacking him personally while (his company) blockstream push it through with samson mow taking the heat.

EG hire a hitman so you can still get someone killed but blame it on someone else for pulling the trigger
4251  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spam attack again on: April 14, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
Boom!.... enter the BU pumpers and spoils a good discussion again.  Roll Eyes ...... Bitcoin being pseudo anonymous, makes things difficult for people

to pinpoint who are behind these attacks. We might even have someone without "hidden" agendas doing this. There have been companies doing

tests on the Blockchain for other projects not related to the BU vs BTC Core fight and these tests were causing spam.  Tongue

BU pumpers. funny part is im a dynamic bitcoin from DIVERSE (multibrand) nodes.
(true decentralisation)

so dont throw me into the BU or core or any other camp. my mindset is about the 120+ years of bitcoin not the temporary price drama or the temporary mempool attacks or the temporary dev teams. i care about things which are restraining bitcoins LONGTERM sustainability

once you get passed the band camp mindset and care about the bitcoin network and the long term view. you start to be critical abot all these one time gestures and changes that do harm, and care less about kissing ass
4252  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 60,000 Unconfirmed transaction and counting on: April 14, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
It is a rather common situation these days to have around 50k+ unconfirmed transactions.

When you are using a wallet, it is recommended to send about 0.0005 to 0.00065 btc to be sure that the transaction will be confirmed soon enough.

I made a bit of researchs, and a few cryptocurrencies like DGB and Litecoin for exemple, are testing the Segwit. If it become a success, it will be way more better than Bitcoin Unlimited, more transparent, and less decentralised.


I using blockchain.info wallet for more than 2 years and from the recent days. After blockchain people had meeting with the US commercial department. minimum fees has been increased to 0.0005 btc and confirmations every takes more 2+ hours to get completed.
These kind of altcoin araising to overtake the bitcoin. This is international political plan which moving bitcoin a side and over take the blockchain technology alone.

CORE removed the priority fee - no free tx if matured (meaning the every block/hourly spammer vs mature holder pay the same)
CORE removed the reactive fee - meaning it doesnt drop as soon as there is no demand
CORE added average fee - meaning it stays up based on the last 25+ block average fee
CORE stopped doing the usual lower the dust limit amount by a decimal when the price rises 10x (was 5000sat at $6 should be 50sat dust max)
CORE added more rules to reject relaying tx's unless certain fee is included

core literally removed all the coding things and just screamed "just pay more"..

so dont blame the pools.
4253  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Greg Maxwell doesn't support BIP 148 UASF on: April 14, 2017, 03:35:30 PM
lets wait for lauda and the blockstreams suddenly back track and start saying bad things about USAF now their overlord has said it bad
4254  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 60,000 Unconfirmed transaction and counting on: April 14, 2017, 02:31:06 PM
june/july 2016 mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make CSV look like its needed

october 2016+ mempool longer bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make segwit look like its needed

april 2017+ mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make UASF look like its needed

all mempool drama occurs when blockstream need to make people react and get frustrated that old code doesnt work.

..

meanwhile other implementations with no deadlines no threats no mallice no Nuke pool blackmails, simply plod along and have no reason to cause mempool bloat at specific times.

the specific timing of the mempool bloat is very revealing
4255  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: F2Pool: "Segwit will be a disaster." on: April 14, 2017, 02:12:13 PM
Jihan Wu is the only problem Bitcoin is facing. Lets get together, and get off of the antpool and his cloudming at hashnet. He has imbedded so much garbage on his chips, how do we know that he has not inbedded worms, trojans, viruses, and other malicious bugs?

What is it going to do? Infect the stratum server, then the blockchain?  Roll Eyes

His equipment works on a network. What if, in very small amounts, he was able to divert your payments to his pockets, covertly, just like he is using a similar technology to AsicBoost?

what you are talking about is schnorr signatures(more precisely mimbleswimbles OWAS).. but guess who really really really wants them as part of bitcoin
4256  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spam attack again on: April 14, 2017, 02:07:50 PM
spam or not, raise the blocksize dummy.  That's the only option.

blocksize increase without segwit is stupid dummy

unless you have read the code for segwit FULLY. and understand how it functions FULLY. and run scenarios. without just "i trust blockstream". then please spend more time learning and less time with empty arguments/insults to people.

you would laugh at yourself if you actually went and looked passed the 20 second reddit sales pitches and really had a critical look at the code.
4257  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Spam attack again on: April 14, 2017, 02:03:22 PM
june/july 2016 mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make CSV look like its needed

october 2016+ mempool longer bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make segwit look like its needed

april 2017+ mempool bump = blockstream wanting to cause drama to make UASF look like its needed

all mempool drama occurs when blockstream need to make people react and get frustrated that old code doesnt work.

..

meanwhile other implementations with no deadlines no threats no mallice no Nuke pool blackmails, simply plod along and have no reason to cause mempool bloat at specific times.

the specific timing of the mempool bloat is very revealing
4258  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: This scene at a mainstream level is impossible without segwit+Lightning Network on: April 14, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
LN can function right how, happily without needing segwit.
I think your paid gang needs better organisation. Kiklo claims LN can't work without Segwit, you claim that it can. Get your act together. Roll Eyes


learn to read code, and learn to read facts beyond the 1 paragraph reddit post you love to script copy from
and you will see that LN can function without segwit.

do you know what the funny part is
by saying segwit is "needed". to fix bitcoin
by saying that multisigs cant work without sgwit..

is you trying too hard to promote blockstream, yet doing so by actually saying that blockstream have had broken code for years. that all the stuff gmaxwell done since 2011 has got flaws and gmax is not perfect.

after all if everything core does shines with sparkly roses, there would be no flaws for segwit to supposedly fix....
so which is it, gmax has a proven track record of flawless coding.. thus not needing segwit
or gmax has flaws and bitcoin is broke and no one should do multisigs right now

..
wake up to logic
..

multisigs are not broke and people use them every day. the dual signing requirement alone mitigates any malleability deception risks. so it doesnt need segwit to do it.

also because its a dual signing multisig. the first party(malicious) cant then just get the second party to re-sign a new tx unmalleated to beat the first tx into a block.. as thats just obvious.

thirdly both parties agree on the totals and who deserves what when they sign so whatever gets accepted into a block with both signatures is what gets accepted.

fourthly.. worse case.. CSV revoke (chargeback) if one party was being malicious..

the truth is segwit is not about making LN work now. its about opening more backdoors ("easier to deploy soft changes in future") and schnorr LATER so that that when LN channels think their doing a 2 of 2 channel. secretly schnorr allows a third party to have a key without any party knowing who signed what..because its just a single signature in the end. thus many hubs could secretly sign out a channel.
..

if only people started reading the real code and the real lengthy documentation and spend time untwisting blockstreams subtly buzzword games and actually understand the real features beyond the reddit 20second sales pitches. by running scenarios and tests they would see the real things going on.

but no the blockstreamists will just blindly trust gmaxwell because he is uber-god of code that has always been flawless.. (even when gmax says the code from 2011+ is broke and needs segwit(debunking his own work, just to try selling segwit as a fix for what he calls a broken bitcoin))

TL:DR;
if your opinion is based on "i trust blockstream".. but you have not actually read the code/ ran actual or even mental scenarios.
then stand back and refrain from commenting until you actually know whats going on by reading the real information beyond the 20 second wordgame sales pitches

LN has a place in the ecosystem as a voluntary side service. that people can choose to use. but hindering onchain growth to force people into using LN is foolish. P.S LN does have limits too so onchain REAL growth dynamically and naturally over time should happen too.
4259  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ELI5 UASF and explain what if ... on: April 14, 2017, 11:30:46 AM
UASF is about NODES
and yes them nodes users need to upgrade yet again by august (that makes 4 downloads just to try different things related to segwit activation(facepalm), before even getting to the real segwit keypair wallet download which is the real 'feature' gesture(wont be available until weeks after activation))
Quote
A UASF forgoes the need for miner signalling because economic nodes are given more time to upgrade to the new rules and begin enforcing in the future.

UASF (bip 148) is CODE so it IS about nodes. not some website that people socially say yes to.

but right now because UASF is not ready, the only way to show support is by 'social flagging' (old nodes displaying a comment in their useragent)
(sybil attack risk) and lame websites where 'consultants' that dont even need to run nodes can sign many times as different subsidiary of their consultant business (for instance: bitcoin embassy, satoshiportal, bylls are one business with multiple subsidiaries pretending to sign independently to gain support count 'socially')

although the CODE is not ready. blockstream/core/uasf are telling people to change their useragent comments to flag for it if they want it
Quote
Successful User Activated Soft Forks require a strong consensus from the economy to be successful. BIP148 also is subject to changes as it is reviewed, so some minor details may change before it is ready. Until there is sufficient consensus, it is not advised to use any binaries that implement BIP148. However, the BIP148 reference can be applied for testing and review purposes. If you want to signal support, change your user agent comment to be “UASF-SegWit-BIP148”, along with communicating with other Bitcoin users that you support BIP148.

again proof that it is about code and nodes (software) (that is not ready yet)
Quote
Can BIP148 be cancelled?
Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148.




and now for the technicals.
UASF requires 85% hashpower by august to be sustained where by if still at 85% near the end they will start orphaning off nay-sayers/abstainer pools blocks to then (trick) the block count into thinking there are less nay-sayers/abstainers(this 85% may change before the CODE for UASF is publicly available)



remember you cannot reject a block in the network by just having a signed message on some polling website. so it IS about nodes that have code that does the rejecting (not available yet).
Quote
Soft forks rely on the economic incentives of the majority of miners and economic actors to reject invalid blocks based on the new ruleset. Since the new BIP148 rules are a stricter set than the old rules, any chain split means the chain with the old rules would be in danger of being wiped out. If the majority of miners enforce the new ruleset, all blocks produced that are invalid in the new ruleset will become orphaned.



and yes, by rejecting blocks. its not about pools doing funky things like throwing random data.. its simple (word twisted) that if your pool is one of the 15% nay sayer where the block actually contains valid transactions and the blockreward follows the current 12.5btc amount.. but is not wearing the segwit sponsored version bit.. its biasedly orphaned and treated as a naughty boy and thrown aside.
this will cause chain splits. again not based on bad data but based on rejecting blocks purely because they are not kissing segwit ass.
(thats the funny part 'segwit is backward compatible' but try making a normal old block and get orphaned)


TL:DR;
UASF
actually means hard consensus(if you untwist the blockstream shep stroke to sleep 'soft' wordplay games) with 5-15% block rejection/split of network if it gets to a sustained (currently proposed 85%) minimum in august-november



the real funny part is.
blockstream believed that a november 2016 rule change could have been active within a month via only pools
blockstream believe that august rule change could be active by november via a node+pools

so if we actually, back in late 2015 done a proper node and pool (hard)consensus of a 1 merkle upgrade for the entire network with a 4mb baseblock(no weight) where that 4mb was dynamic after that.. we would already have had a united community where everyone gets what they want.
+ real blocksize growth even for native keypair users (because 1mb baseblock no longer existing)
+ those that want to use segwit keypair can
+ all nodes on same peer network fully validating old and new keypairs equally (no TIER upstream filter/stripping block nodes)
+ and hopefully other common sense changes like a lowered txsigops limit of say 2000, that does NOT increase even if the blocksize increased to truly mitigate quadratics.
- (though native key users can still malleate(which is still possible even in soft segwit))

all without wasting 2 years and 4-5 downloads in that timespan



even funnier. even if segwit still gets rejected for the half gesture it is.. they wont just accept it as a no, and then ask the community what would work best to get a nited community.. they will just try again and delay things for another year with segwit in its current form but with yet another deadline
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.

so if the community say no this year(for good reason) dont expect any new/alternative community uniting re-code from blockstream devs before 2019. they will just re-push the half baked segwit as-is today with a new deadline and new buzzword play to stroke ego's to sleep
4260  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: (humor) what the folks at Blockstream are REALLY thinking on: April 13, 2017, 11:54:34 PM
I wish I could shake their hands, though.

you can for a price, or if your part of the right group of insiders


Quote
Construct is CoinDesk's[DCG] first blockchain developer conference, curated by and for technologists.

This 350 attendee, invite-only event will include leaders from all major blockchain communities: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Hyperledger, Blockstack, Zcash, and more. Construct was designed to promote cross-­community collaboration and to help ensure the “internet of value” is built on an open, secure and interoperable foundation.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 ... 834 »
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!