Bitcoin Forum
October 21, 2019, 02:02:23 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 ... 834 »
4421  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 03:41:23 PM
@iamnotback: if btc acts as a settlement network and most of us aren't allowed to transact on it anymore because fees are too high, doesn't it also mean btc price will also be super high? how high do you figure?

if it starts costing $6 per transaction onchain
then even with LN to open/close a channel is a $12 expense.

so think of it this way, (think of a real world service. and run some scenarios like im about to)

some banks charge $6 per wire transfer
would you use paypal if they dropped the 20cent down to 1cent a tx internally but wanted to charge you $12 externally to use their service for 2 weeks.
4422  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 03:36:07 PM
An ASIC moving from 56nm to 28nm is an efficiency gain, because it does more work (more operations) for less electricity.

ASICBoost doesn't do more operations for less electricity. ASICBoost lets the ASIC skip doing some of the work. It does not contribute any additional security to the network. If everyone used it, it wouldn't make a difference, it would still require the same number of operations to attack the network prior to it existing.

This is why ASICBoost is a shortcut, not an efficiency gain, it does not contribute any additional security.

if it makes bitmain solve blocks a little faster. then difficulty rises to compensate..
think about it!
4423  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit2MB does nothing at all to fix the real problem on: April 06, 2017, 03:25:04 PM
They are all colluding to push their own agenda and take the Core developers out by hard forking Bitcoin away from them. Do I think anything is wrong with that? No, it is what it is. But I do not think the developers behind BU should be supported because they are incompetent.

lol
1. the assert bug was existant in CORE 0.12. and core didnt go back and correct 0.12 they just made a new version number 0.13 so BU didnt cause a bug, they actually went and fixed a core bug but didnt get time to let the community download the fix. so those few days core went on propaganda war to take advantage.
real funny part is. it proves a diverse decentralised PEER network works.. yea one implementation got shutdown temporarily but didnt cause network wide disruption.. however in 2013 when it was core dominant.. the leveldb bug did cause network wide disruption.

we should not return to the days of just 1 or 2 codebases.. DIVERSITY is important


2. if core are so perfect there should be nothing to fix.. yet even cores "fixes" via the altcoin elements:segwit brand are not 100% guaranteed.

3. there is nothing stopping core making their implementation dynamic and join MANY implementations that are running for years so that core is on the same playing field. but no, core want to own bitcoin with a TIER network and do soft(non-peer) backdoor upgrades.
funny thing is they even admit going soft was using a backdoor. and segwit opens more backdoors "making it even easier to go soft"

4. if core are so perfect why need deadlines, bribery, blackmails, algo nukes and mandatory activations. if core actually got rid of their snobbery and done what the community want there would be no debate

5. if you think that BU want to 'own bitcoin' then please get your head out of the scripts posted on reddit and start looking at bitcoin.. not the words of blockstreamists
4424  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin" Unlimited Officially #REKT on: April 06, 2017, 03:13:38 PM
Hopefully, push Segwit above a 51% signalling rate.

oh just to point out something

meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456
Quote
Wang Chun‏ @f2pool_wangchun

Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly

10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017


4425  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why does Roger Ver pay for BU Reddit ads? on: April 06, 2017, 03:05:32 PM
But whatever we do we're going to have one base code/ protocol/ sets of rules for all miners to follow, how does switching to BU and mine under BU code work out for being diverse? looks like you don't understand what a decentralized network stands for, as long as you and I and everyone else from any country in the world can run a full node/ start mining like the ones already mining that's called decentralized network of miners.
Whenever you see someone mining while running Core and you can't mine with the same hash power same amount of coins then that's centralized.

You say diverse but how? like any miner mine with their own sets of rules like I mine a block with 2MB size and the whole system validates and you mine a block with 8MB size and the whole system validates? who has cabin fever now?

like 2009-2015
everyone had 1mb rule..

but one pool had variety size blocks, some at 0.25mb. another pool made empty blocks another pool made 0.5mb blocks. and all happily accepted because they were below 1mb limit.

yep even now nodes can have a 2mb limit right now and happily accept blocks at 0.99 and below..

now imagine the network rule was
consensus.h = 8mb
policy.h=random amounts..

pools then see that the majority of "policy.h=random amounts.." is about 2mb.. so pools make blocks that are btween 250bytes-1.99mb
and all are happy because its all still below the 8mb hard limit.

yea some nodes might get their "policy.h=random amounts.." adjusted to 2mb if they were the minority prfering below 2mb.. but its all still below the 8mb limit,

welcome to the logic of dynamics and have a nice day.
PS settings are set by users. not dev-kings,
so welcome to true decentralisation
4426  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICBOOST Aftermath: What Now Must Be Done? on: April 06, 2017, 02:32:20 PM
or blockstream can just admit that segwit isnt perfect by admitting that its 'fixes' are not guaranteed and that it does nothing to stop native spammers etc.

and for blockstream to reset their own snobbery and try to fix their own internal issues and try something the community can and will happily accept

however using PoW nukes, mandatory activations, fee discount bribes and deadlines, bypassing node consensus.. looks very desperate. they are too blind to ven ask why should they need to resort to such tactics..
4427  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 02:17:55 PM
screw it lets repeat myself and add some more  to it

using gmaxweles own mindset

so libsecp256k1 "efficiency gain" is also an attack because it improved efficiency by 5x
so segwit quadratic/linear 'fix' is an attack because it improved efficiency
so fibre making its own tier ring network around the pools is an attack for propagation efficiency
so diluting full node count using prunning is an attack for making home computer efficiency
so diluting fullnodecount by having segwit nowitness mode is an attack
so making LN is an attack

.. at this point i can feel the rage of blockstreamists ready to pounce with their blockstream defender responses

so when something developed by blockstream is used to get more efficient, its ok. but its not blockstream sanctioned=attack
. hmmm i see..

might be easier for blockstreams partners to become more efficient instead of spitting out the dummy because they are not as efficient.

P.S if blockstream are so perfect and have the best codebase.. there should be no reason for so many 'fixes' via segwit because utopia should already have been coded in 2013
4428  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 08:19:35 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfwcki3/
Quote
I think that it is an attack is a completely unambiguous technical description of what it is. If a signature is supposed to resist forgery against 2128 operations, but you find a way to do it with 280 instead, this is an attack.

so libsecp256k1 "efficiency gain" is also an attack because it improved efficiency by 5x
so segwit quadratic/linear 'fix' is an attack because it improved efficiency
so when something developed by blockstream is used to get more efficient, its ok. but not blockstream=attack
. hmmm i see..

might be easier for blockstreams partners to become more efficient instead of spitting out the dummy because they are not as efficient.
4429  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 07:47:11 AM
How exactly do any UASF proposals break the immutability of Bitcoin? Serious question. Ledger will remain unchanged, Bitcoins will remain unchanged. What am I missing here?

(I am asking someone to tell me like I am 5 years old without posting a wall of text and non-referenced/tagged links. We can continue talking about this stuff in the echo chamber of bitcointalk but it'd be nice to have some digestible evidence for the community at large)

in short.
a block should only be rejected if it breaks the rules that consensus desire.

but if new banning mechanisms reject blocks because of WHO made the block. whereby the transaction data is acceptable, but rejected purely on biased/social reasons. then things start to go grey

whats next
lets say
Gmaxwell say "jihan is destroying coins by putting coins into a address.. so we must now increase the 21m coin cap" - even if no coins are destroyed
Gmaxwell say "jihan is going to split the network.. so we must now invoke our own split"- even if no split deadline  by non-core is made
Gmaxwell say "jihan could be using asicboost we need to destroy ASICS" - even if is btcc or f2pool that might be the ones using it
4430  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 07:09:18 AM
Apparently, Jihan Wu

apparently?
says.........
.... oh gmaxwell

hmm,
waiter wheres the salt

all i see is more social politics with no proof. all so gmaxwell can try playing the fake victim to get his control
4431  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 06:56:17 AM
meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456
Quote
Wang Chun‏ @f2pool_wangchun

Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly

10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017


4432  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin scaling: Looks like all roads lead to LTC on: April 06, 2017, 06:53:41 AM
meanwhile bitcoins segwit 31% block flagging is only temporary due to a hack expect it to drop back down below 30% in the next fortnight

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/848582740798611456
Quote
Wang Chun‏ @f2pool_wangchun

Someone hacked major mining operations and their stratum had been changed from antpool, viabtc, btctop to us. Our hashrate doubled instantly

10:07 am - 2 Apr 2017

4433  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Question about segwit on: April 06, 2017, 06:09:20 AM
... Most of the people have interested on the SegWit scaling solution because it's offering the blocksize increase among 1.6MB - 2MB.

I do not know much about the technical/math involved in SegWit. Just want to clarify: If we activate Segwit, is the blocksize going to be increased to 1.6-2MByte? Or the blocksize will remain as <1MB but having the capacity of equivalent 1.6-2Mb current blocks?

in short.

the main block for people using the native (standard old) keypairs remains at 1mb.
people who AFTER activation and then wait a bit to then get another core release to download can then make segwit keypairs. and move funds over to segwit keys.

once done,
those using segwit keys can then sit their transaction signatures outside of he base block..

so to clarify.
its not depending on activation alone.
its not an instant 1.6-2mb

its actually if only one person makes a segwit keypair tx per block. the base block is still 1mb but the full real data (weight) is 1.000070mb if its just using 1signature

if EVERYONE moved funds to segwit keys. due to the limitation of the 1mb base for the txdata and only the signature sitting outside, and the average leanness of tx's.. only expect ATBEST(100% segwitkey use) 1.6-2.1mb
4434  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: changing the whitepaper? on: April 06, 2017, 05:13:36 AM
yep core/blockstream seem to have no moral limits but love to set bitcoin utility limits

cobra tried to do this last year. many objected and the drama died..
seems like core cant take no for an answer and will just keep trying to push it rather then get over their own snobbery

if they want to do it. dont change the white paper.. they should be brave and just make their own unique and new white paper..
call it segwit. date it 2017.. mention that its from an altcoin of the blockstream elements project. and just be honest..

 and then let people laugh if its an obvious "blockstream rule as kings" testimonial..
4435  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit2MB does nothing at all to fix the real problem on: April 06, 2017, 04:29:19 AM
Yes they are the stewards because it has not been hard forked away from them yet. If someday the Bitcoin Unlimited developers gain all the hashing power they need then they, for better or worse, become the new stewards of the Bitcoin network.

wake the hell up there have been many implementations running on the network for years
core only came into existence in 2013

core want to be the stewards. and are playing social politics to try getting that. but core nor anyone else should be.

other implementations want a diverse decentralised network.
AKA PEER network of many 'brands' all on the same level playing field.. and yes if core was dynamic then core can be on that same level too..

its core refusing to do what the community want. and while core refuse.. the other brands are happy to just plod along WITHOUT setting deadlines or agenda's or PoW nuke threats..
of any dynamic implementation wanted to do anything forcefully outide of consensus.. they would have done so already.

but look at core.. wanting their control in a month with their "hope its active by christmas" and now just 6 months in throwing all the weapons to force they way to the top. if you cant see how desperate blockstream are to get what they want then atleast look at the $70m debt they have to repay soon and atleast ask HOW they intend to repay it to then question their rash motives.

wake up and stop thinking that a core controlled TIER network is good
are you even a bitcoiner? or a fiat loving blockstream partnered guy..

seems you are becoming more engrossed in getting blockstream defended then bitcoins peer network defended

EG
everyone should be a steward to prevent anyone from claiming outright steward control.

this may not sound clear to grasp, but then so is
' you are unique, ....... just like everyone else"

nodes themselves should be choosing the rules based on what rules logically make sense and what the community want. there should be free and open choice. not a blockstream or get nuked mandatory slavery
4436  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Jihan Wu cheating other miners with exploit that could be fixed with Segwit? on: April 06, 2017, 04:03:15 AM
another plausible question:
is Gmaxwell +BTCC cheating other miners with exploit to falsely increase the block count in segwits favour

secondly. if core stop being so snobby by wanting to force segwit through...
and actually ask themselves why is there any resistance. then the dvs may actually be smart and do something the community would love and adore.

avoiding consensus by going soft, setting deadlines, making treats, bribing users with false hopes of discounts leaves many people thinking why need to resort to such tactics instead of sticking to consensus.

if something is actually going to fulfill on its promises(segwit doesnt) without risking a tier network of core control. there would be no need to debate it.

4437  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit2MB The Forking Compromise on: April 06, 2017, 03:46:45 AM
... anti-decentralisation ...

"Decentralization" doesn't belong to one of the antagonic groups. Both are trying to solve a centralization risk.

As of now, however, my opinion is that the BU approach has more centralization risks, because it depends very much on a strong internet bandwidth growth and a fast storage/technology evolution.
NODES flag what they can cope with.. so pools actually do stay within some limit. but that limit is adjustable BY THE NETWORK consensus OF NODE CAPABILTY not by devs wearing crowns screaming "thou shall not pass"

secondly core are the ones wanting only their implementation to be the upstream of a TIER network. but then dilte the node count
with a cesspit of downstream nodes that are not relaying certain tx's not abl to sync to each other due to being "stripped" "prunned" etc

thirdly only core are the ones with the crazy banning, mandatory activations and PoW nuke threats. meaning no matter what consensus is, no matter if pools see passed the empty promise, cor will not ask themselves what they could do better to med community need. they just want their tier network.

LN, on the other hand, depends on connectivity or "internet stability" (it is potentially more decentralized if more nodes are online 24/7). But other 2nd layer solutions like extension blocks and side/drivechains don't depend on neither of the two. That's why I'm tending to affirm that "da truth(TM)" is closer to Core's concept.
LN 'could be' decentralised, but playing out scenario's it will become more hub based not spoke based. even if people dream of spoke based due to greed of hoping they get paid. the hope of them getting paid vs spenders paying more to pay each router is the very reason spenders will choose hubs, to avoid paying 5 fee's to route it through 6 people for example

secondly even then LN is not permissionless, due to dual signing of multisigs.

thirdly nothing against LN as a VOLUNTARY side service, but thinking its the only end solution, pfft.

fourthly. side/drive chains are also known as altcoins. so kind of funny for a few reasons:
1. "scaling bitcoin= move people to an altcoin"
2. "bitcoin cant scale but sidechain altcoin can".. strange how they would be happy to have an altcoin with a dynamic block. but not bitcoin
3. think about the node count once people move over to the sidechain/alt that decide never to return to bitcoin
4438  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin (and a special mention) mentioned on Infowars. on: April 05, 2017, 06:42:03 PM
Isn't Alex Jones a disinfo agent?

yes but shh
oh and remember to buy and then take your super health eyedrops under the tongue, but whatever you do.. do not realise that after many years of him selling these products and him saying he uses them daily... he is still a large guy. Cheesy

he has ripped his jeans whenever he bends over Tongue
FTFY
4439  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks on: April 05, 2017, 06:30:24 PM
its hard for me to entirely disagree, because not core-fan-boy, but bitcoins usefulness is not only as a medium of exchange, so while we could stand to benefit by being more competitive to paypal, we don't NEED to be. ( i say this but part of me doesn't agree at all, its what i heard others saying, seems to make some sense..)

Is sacrificing bitcoin's utility in the name of keeping full node cost very low, worth it? I think not! but some would disagree.

core wants prunned, no witness modes.. and a cesspit of downstream nodes that dont get all tx data and dont relay segwit transactions
 which is a lot more damaging to the node count than anything else..

dynamics does not mean 8mb by midnight, nor 8gb by midnight.

nodes put in their useragents to what they can COPE with. and pools only make blocks to the amount the majority can cope with. thus no harm to nodes

we are not in the 2009 days of:
3g mobile internet/ADSL landline
Raspberry Pi1 min specs
libsec validation

we are in 2017
4g mobile (approaching 5G)/fibre landline
Raspberry Pi3 min specs
libsecp256k1 validation...

meaning the 'speed' of validation propagation etc is better by between 5-20x compared to 2009's '1mb safe'
its been estimated that 8mb is safe for the network. even core know this and went with their 4mb 'supersafe' weight.
so can we give up all the foolish excuses of needing 1mb as a 'safety barrier'
4440  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin unlimited on: April 05, 2017, 06:04:01 PM
Now that LTC almost got the hashrate to activate segwit its time to watch how it will work. I feel it as a test ground before it can be activated on BTC. and if its a success segwit will will sure be activated on BTC and we will see another bull run on BTC. #fingerscrossed

funny how that segwit is 'promised' to be soo backward compatible, so safe that it doesnt need node consensus.. and yet even after multiple requests, core refuse to make just 1 segwit block with 1 segwit tx by asking their DCG partner BTCC to publish one to show how compatible, safe and happy it is.

why does core need such savage banscores, UASF PoW algo threats....

atleast BU have shown what happens with BU in the event of controversy
if they made a 1mb+ block without node consensus... results in something mind blowing.. wait for it
wait for it..
here it comes....


 3 seconds of reject block drama. end of.

Code:
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)

i know right.. 3 seconds and no drama after that.. shocking right!

yep. BU=3 seconds and forgotten, if it doesnt have consensus..

yep. core= banning, lots of orphaning and asic nukes if core doesnt have consensus..
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 ... 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!