Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2019, 11:37:29 AM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 ... 834 »
4301  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
The fact that they see segwit as a real fix

but its not..

only those people who use segwit keys are disarmed from quadratic spamming . but native key users are not.
thus spammers can just stick to native keys and spam the base block ..

thats why keeping a tight grip on txsigop limits is still needed as a ultimate solution FOR EVERYONE native or segwit key users
4302  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:16:57 AM
Aren't those limits only enforced by miners? meaning if a miner mined a block that contained a tx over the sigops limit, nodes will still see it as a valid block and try validate it.

Anyway even if thats not the case, it still has the problem. You can still do 4x 1MB txes and cause a 2min validation time with a 4MB base block.

The easy solution is segwit's address format which scales linear instead of quadratic, so we don't need sigop limits or anything like that, it addresses the root of the problem and fixes it. Seems like even BU devs agree on that.


your maths on timings are not quite right.
EG

based on QUADRATICS (sigops not bytes)
a 4k sigops ~10 seconds
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 50seconds validation time

a 16k sigops under 8 minutes
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 32minutes validation time.
yep even i facepalmed that.

however if all implementations just allowed 2k sigops no matter what the size was.
2k= ~0.1 second.

so say the blocksigop limit was 20k(1mb) it would take 20tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 2 seconds
so say the blocksigop limit was 80k(4mb) it would take 80tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 8 seconds

which is much better than 32 minutes that core have imposed.
4303  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 02:56:22 AM
**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/consensus/consensus.h
Code:
BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;

**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h
Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS = BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS/5;

by doing the blocksize/50/5 maths for MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS.. ends up as

core v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
core v0.14 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 (1mb base, 4 weight) meaning 16kops, even when native keys are still locked to the 1mb limit

BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 4mb base (still spammy but atleast the base block is bigger.)

this is done because core have already proclaimed the limit..



however.

bitcoin unlimited did add a little extra nugget that core did not.. they would prevent certain tx's getting relayed that could become quadratically spammy
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h
Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_P2SH_SIGOPS = 15;
/** The maximum number of sigops we're willing to relay/mine in a single tx */



i think that ALL implementations 'should' just do
MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50; //this adjusts to allow more tx's as the blocksize increases
MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=2000; //this never changes. no matter what the blocksize becomes.


making sure that tx's never get a chance to be quadratically spammy, but allows more leaner/cleaner tx's in as blocksizes grow
4304  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 12, 2017, 01:41:16 AM
have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked
You've read that Jiang Zhuoer is the founder from a news article. So much for your "backed" bullshit. Roll Eyes

nope.
i actually went to the document where Jiang Zhuoer himself was writing.

the thing i do is if i see something.. i find the source. if someone says the source is a news article. i then look at a news article and find that news articles source. and i go right back to the real source.

sometimes these things are circle jerks where one "news" site is just quoting another news site which has quoted a reddit post from someone not involved, who then quotes another news site which has quoted another non-involved person.. and i just facepalm it.

but hey. maybe thats because my concentration span can last longer than 2 paragraphs and i dont just take things on face value, nor 'trust' something because 'it must be backed because 100+ people acknowledge it.

for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks'
for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks' and where those 100 people have read every single line of code.

for instance. there is a guy that put a pull request to mention gitian in a document to get himself named as 'one of the 100' contributors. but i know for sure he has not read every single line of code.. care to guess who im talking about, or am i being too subtle?
4305  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: April 12, 2017, 01:05:02 AM
SegWit & LN are all about removing Transactions Offchain, meaning the miner will see reduced income from transaction fees, until the point LN/Banking Cartels Bankrupt the BTC miners and take over completely.

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

TF are not a problem or a concern today. pools dont need them.

so i see no reason at all to be pushing for 600% 'bonus' growth in under a year
EG no need for
year   block    txcap     fee total
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   01mb   2200      $1320.00(60c/tx)

by actually growing the blockspace we can increase bitcoins utility.
(i am not talking about gigabytes by midnight, im talking natural growth within capability of nodes over time. (productive slow natural growth)

this will allow instead of 2200 TF payers paying 6x this year as they did last year. but
4400 paying the same this year as last year, yet giving pools double the bonus.

EG
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   02mb   4400      $440.00(10c/tx)
2018   03mb   6600      $660.00(10c/tx)
2019   04mb   8800      $880.00(10c/tx)
..
2084   69mb   151800   $15,180.00(10c/tx)

remember tech will be very different in decades and the block reward dozen 100% disappear for a century. so the need for fee's is not essential now.
the flip between reward(income):fee(bonus).. to reward(bonus):fee(income) wont happen in the next couple years. but sometime between a couple DECADES to a century.
4306  Other / Meta / Re: Likes and dislikes on Bitcointalk? on: April 12, 2017, 12:44:27 AM
+- voting just ends up with the guys with multiple accounts and people of particular teams all chipping in to self gratify and pretend it means they are correct.

it then leads away from people actually reading the content and then going out to research themselves to find the truth. but instead people becoming lazy thinking "it must be true he has +50"

for instance, on facebook. when you see the news feeds people think its real that celebrity X has died, simply because the article has over 1mill shares.
leading to another 1mill posts of condolences.. meanwhile celebrity X is alive.

where as posts highlighting celebrity X being alive, get little to no response
4307  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: USAF Economic Weight on: April 11, 2017, 11:32:21 PM
So are they suffering from Einstein's definition of insanity?

not really.

more so beat with a stick until people give in
4308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Evil ISPs could disrupt Bitcoin's blockchain on: April 11, 2017, 11:30:32 PM
old theory

based on scare stories of only a couple nodes in a couple countries.

diversity over comes this
nodes in 90 countries so far
nodes spread across 1000 ISPs/services

even the pools which some non-researching racists call chinese, are actually scattered across many countries
4309  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: USAF Economic Weight on: April 11, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
So what happens if the miners have a significant majority of hash power and are vehemently opposed to segwit, or the team which is trying to control the development of the protocol?

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.

in short, if bip9 dosnt get 95%, if UASF doesnt help to get segwit activated. they will ignore the fact that majority is not reached. and just try again wasting another year trying.

on thing the devs wont do before 2019 is to take a step back and listen to the community and actually do a proper consensus that includes more features to make the community happy

4310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to. on: April 11, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
another topic  changed into the nashian echo chamber of trainwreck/iamnotback quoting himself as the source of information. and asking everyone to bow down to Nash
4311  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 07:54:41 PM
OP, you made a grave mistake by not self-moderating this thread. Anything that is even remotely positive about Segwit or Bitcoin Core, even when we are talking about *facts*, will get smashed by the group of hired goons. You can find them in all related threads, see: franky, jonald, Alex, kiklo. There are some that occasionally come and go, see: zimmah.

This thread is already flooded with such responses, even though the article mentions *some factual improvements*.

factual improvements?
lol
which are where..
oh im guessing "if" 100% move funds to segwit keys and the utopian unicorn stops native spammers.
i say utopian unicorn, because segwit does not stop native spammers. it actually helps native spammers

EG
v0.12 - 4k txsigoplimit 20k blocksigoplimit (under 10 second validation time)
v0.14 - 16k txsigoplimit 80k blocksigoplimit (under 8 minute validation time)
plus other new spam attacks that even carlton banks revealed.

lauda.. you loved having the "quadratics is bad" arguments for a whole year... even you should understand quadratics worse with segwit code limits if used by native keypair users.
wake up, spammers wont use segwit keypairs
4312  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 07:44:29 PM
Crayzians (crazy asians) are driving the price up faster than I've ever seen before

1. look at the unconfirmd spam
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
june/july spike -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) CSV
october -> spikes -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) segwit

2. look at the code rules that allowed fee increases
hmm i wonder which team removed the fee priority - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which team removed reactive pricing when demand was low to replace it with average fee to keep prices up - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which teams says "just pay more" is best economics. rather then make code rules that actually work - oh yea blockstream(core)

3. dont blame "asians" when its the coders decisions at play
4313  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: April 11, 2017, 07:11:41 PM
We need a new dev team that would take a name Bitcoin-Core
As it stands anyone can contribute to Core, because core is NOT single dev team, but a composite of many different individuals and sub teams.  

??anyone can contribute ??lol
what a laugh

anyone can put in a spell check edit (pull request) of a document and if seen as someone the maintainer likes, it gets added.
but as for trying to actually change to dynamics with core code of the actual code rules.. forget it

many have tried
and guess who is usually the main names that Nack (not acknowledge)

You are directly and perfectly calling for a coup of the decentralization core and asking it to be replaced with single entity. Core is comprised of 100's of contributors and more and more as time goes by.
i feel hyena is more so asking to get rid of the blockstream puppetmasters. to actually have core become unbiased

BU is comprised of a dozen or so devs that don't understand decentralization and open source.

if core was really "independent". then technically they would not be dependant on core and could help out with other implementations with out any repercussions or threats of being REKT by leaving core..

yet the history shows if you leave core your instantly REKT.

just look what your own words are saying .. core are a group of X but BU are Y.. if core are independent then why be so bold as to try tarnishing anything not core why not just say BU needs more devs and core devs are free to help out anyone or any brand with no arrogant insulting childish 'eww your leaving the cool kids and playing with the the small kids' name calling
4314  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 03:00:09 PM
3. The fact that Blockstream is one company that has some devs involved with Bitcoin is not proof that everything is controlled by them. Applying that sort of reasoning leads to all sorts of wild conclusions (because X has influence on Y, X must control Y?) that are going to be wrong 99% of the time.
Even if Blockstream has the most influence... well, of all the organizations involved with the dev community, one would be at the top of the list of influence. Why should I view that one as being more sinister than all the rest? Knock it out of the picture and you could come up with conspiracy theories for the next one, and the next one. Most everything I read from the core-haters just puts an extremely negative spin on anything core does without any sense of balance, often with a fair amount of ranting and raving. It's a real turn-off and does nothing to persuade people.
4. If you think SW so controversial, why is there so little opposition to it at https://coin.dance/poli ?
5. Franky and Jonathan have been posting non-stop on virtually every thread related to this debate. I don't have an exact count but anyone paying attention can see that a handful of BU or anti-core supporters have been trying to dominate the discussion through sheer volume and repetition (such as your example in this thread!). You can't take our posting count over several years as a guide, that's silly. It's the posts on this topic I'm referring to. Again, anyone reading here can see what's going on, so arguing against me on this is just going to damage your credibility with readers in general.


3. i laugh when you try to pretend blockstream is "one company that has some devs involved with bitcoin"
but then when anyone talks about bitcoin as a whole. you desire to proclaim that if its not blockstream(core) sanctioned its an altcoin
you fail at down playing blockstream

4. so little opposition. lol i have seen some of the yay-sayers are just some consultancy/embassy non node needing groups of wannabies. all using the same website reference like its one guy just pasting in as many names of yay-sayers as he can find.
but when it comes to the ones that are nay-sayers.. some are listed as no response.
making the pole biased. with fake listings

also you can name me and others as loud mouths. but you can only argue that we talk alot. you cannot rebut the content of the issues. because deep down you know segwit isnt perfect.
4315  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
Wrong, segwit is opt-in, so you voluntarily use it or not.

pretending its ok to not upgrade is as bad as saying is ok to dilute the full node count down.
pretending that running prunned mode or no witness/stripped block mode allows other to sync from you.. yet the real answer is nope.

washing away all the "soft ""compatible" word bait and instead take a realistic end user view of it:
full nodes are full nodes by being forced to upgrade. but they have the opt out of segwit option to be treated as lite nodes, by doing nothing.



full node users want to be full node users for a reason.. saying the only way to be a full node is to run segwit.. is not "voluntary"
thats just fake word twisting.

blockstream need to accept if they dont get the vote, they dont get the vote.
and to not just point the finger..
but instead point their EARS to the community and listen

not just waste another year, pushing the same thing..
but instead re-code it to be a proper feature that actually is not just a half gesture 'hope' to fix

also
and if a segwit bug occured, where the blockheight was not dropped.. but devs got people to downgrade their nodes back to 0.12.. then all them segwit transactions become anyone can spends.

what their REAL desire is, is a TIER network
4316  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
blockstream chose to go soft. (pools only)
instead of going full wetard tantrum and do a UASF. blockstream should actually ask the abstainers/ naysayers 'why not' ..
and instead of using lengthy wordplay.. blockstream should make code changes to then address the issues and gain more functions the COMMUNITY as a whole would appreciate.

funny part.
blockstream want to just ram segwit down the communities throats no matter what. no stepping back, no second recodes. no community feedback.. just segwit or nuke

so if bip9 doesnt have adequate 85%ish pool flag by august for hopes of 95% by november. blockstream wont re-evaluate.. they will just press the squeeze button to add threats and bribes and blackmails of UASF
Quote
Why was the date of August 1, 2017 chosen?

Because BIP9 is time based, BIP148 needs to account for the possibility for some of the hash power to exit (eg. to mine another fork) which would make block intervals longer. The August 1st date allows for the economic majority to successfully activate SegWit. Theoretically, if the hashpower drops by up to 85%, it might take up to 13 weeks to complete an activation period. In this scenario, SegWit will still activate for all BIP148 compliant nodes.

..
now if UASF also fails to get segwit in.. guess what.. no backing down, no rcoding, no community review.. just make another deadline for end of 2018 and keep poking the bear with the half assed gestures of 2merkle no promise fixes verion segwit. just to delay and provoke the community.

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.

tl:dr;
dont expect blockstream(core) to even attempt to listen to the community by adding in any dynamic 1merkle (proper full node/pool consensus upgrade)version of segwit before 2019
4317  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Jorge Stolfi lied to the SEC that commodity money is an equity? Bitcoin ETF. on: April 11, 2017, 12:49:30 PM
lol

the real "commodity"

is a raw material
(oil, gold, beef)
which the quality matches enough that its comparable to the same raw material from other sources.
EG oil is oil - but diesel is different to unleaded car fuel, aswell as the obvious that diesel/unleaded are not raw.

the commodities markets are about raw materials that are sourced and marketed to later be used to make other produce.
EG
gold-> circuits/jewellery
oil-> diesel/unleaded car fuel/plastic products
wheat->bread


now take a breather


things like gold. although it sits on a commodity market. it can also sit on other markets too.
like asset markets and final product markets.


take a breather i know your itching to reply


now here is the thing. because bitcoin has certain 'features' that resemble golds ASSET features. does NOT make bitcoin pass the test of the "commodity" market test.

bitcoin is an ASSET currency. not a commodity.
once you realise that gold sits on many seats/markets because it has many properties both raw/final... physical/non-physical. and you separate those features to which market fits which.
you will start to see the separation of the asset features market and the commodity market and not be so quick to want to throw bitcoin into the "commodity" category simply with rebuttles of "but bitcoin is like gold"
4318  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. on: April 11, 2017, 11:51:24 AM
Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

lol
lets say we just think about:
600peta = ~44,000 S9 antminers(42857.14285714286 more precisely if your not factoring in slight hash variance)

now the antminer are retail $2k.. but manufactured at ~$500


$21,428,571(more precise asiccount) cost to make 600peta (~44k asics)
now using simple numbers (yep im gonna round them and not be as precise so dont knit pick, and just read the concept)

if blockstream started a manufactring company using its $70m
they could have made lets say 132,000 asics ($64m)

sold just 44,000 at $2k ($88m money back in pocket($94m including unspend $6m) AND kept 88,000 rigs for themselves..
Yep they could have 1.2Exahash running and now have $94m cash.

rinse and repeat
make 132,000 asics. sell 44,000 at retail.
keep 88,000(176k asics combined total) and then have another $88m($182m combined in pocket) (2.4exa)

rinse and repeat
4319  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: China leading the way for a regulated bitcoin on: April 11, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
this topic seems more like a racial attack and mis-information than a real bitcoin information topic, for these reasons.

1. any exchange in any country that touches FIAT needs to follow fiat regulations of that country
2. just because half the business relates to bitcoin does not make the fiat side magically not require fiat regulations
3. if an exchange doesnt want to follow fiat regulations then just fo bitcoin-alt exchanging without any fiat involvement
4. its not just china its near on every country.
4320  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 07:13:05 AM
This is proof again, that you do not do enough research, but just spew bullshit. LTC1BTC and Antpool are owned by Jihan. The hashrate on both pools has grown exponentially ever since the other miners were about to activate Segwit.

LTC1BTC = Jiang Zhuoer.... not jihan

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 ... 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!