Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2019, 01:31:52 AM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 ... 849 »
4441  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: escalation of force from U.S. government you can expect as as a bitcoin user on: April 20, 2017, 09:41:27 PM
bitcoinpro i know this is you again.

please sober up and start making topics that actually have rational thought
4442  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
If you use free soft them don't blame core hire better devs and prove that they are better not like BU devs that their client crashed few times in row.

what you dont realise is that the crash. was due to BU using cores 0.12. where there was a bug in cores 0.12 that was not patched until core 0.13

so while BU were fixing the bugs . someone at core realised that some of the BU nodes were running the unfixed 0.12 and as such had the bug.. thus called out to attack them.

however BU already patched the 0.12 so all people had to do was download the latest BU.
not wait 3-6 months.. just download the patched BU the same day the core team publicised how to attack OLD bu version that had OLDER core bugs.

P.S.. if core was independent then they would help other implementations. but by devs being dependant to core shows they are not independent..
4443  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 07:45:18 PM
franky you forget that these numbers happened with mining fees as they are

with BU mining fees could be close to zero and there is no limitation, just assumptions of the BU team that there will be "market balance"

In theory blocks could become gigantic, no matter what they say  Undecided

HEY, if they are so sure about "market balance" then why not put a hard limit in, maby 8MB? Then watch and see what happens?

mining tx fee's are not an issue today. and not gonna be an issue for decades.
pools do not care about the fee's  today. and not gonna be an issue for decades.

its core that have done the code changes to let the fees become absurd. not pools.

lastly.
yea jumping to say 8mb blocks over night may only get filled with maybe 3-4mb of tx data today where this could crash the tx fee's down to near zero cost to transact. good for users and not a problem for pools

but obviously pools wont go full wetard up to 8mb over night or 32mb overnight either. they would just like a bit of space to get rid of any mempool backlog.

hence the whole policy.h preferences that allow blocks to be more dynamic.

what results is that and equilibrium is found where by if a pool got to 1.5mb -2mb and started to see that the demand for capacity brings the fee prices right down, and a healthy level will be found.. symbiotically.

even a new priority fee mechanism could be brought in which rewards lean users that dont spend every block and penalises users that make bloated tx every block


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
4444  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 07:12:30 PM

Core wants to increase from 1MB to 4MB and that is more than enough for the time being....

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish.  Sad

your reading too many reddit doomsday scripts.

think of it this way. in 2009-2011 pools were making upto  0.25mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2011-2013 pools were making upto  0.5mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2013-2014 pools were making upto  0.75mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2014-2017 pools were making upto  0.99mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.

imagine the consensus.h 1mb limit was made as consensus.h 8mb or 32mb
then instead of pools setting the policy. in 25% increments below that as 2mb 4mb 6mb ... instead of the old 0.25mb 0.5mb 0.75mb

take a minute and think about that..


now.. imagine this.. that policy.h was not just pool decided.. but node decided..

NODES had a 'policy.h' where the NODES set their preference of what NODES can handle
and this was displayed in their useragent.

so now you know blocks will for now not get above 8mbor 32mb(consensus.h) but pools will only make blocks to say 75% majority vote of policy pr ference of nodes.
EG
say 5% stuck at 1mb
say 10% stuck at 1.5mb
say 10% stuck at 2mb

say 15% stuck at 4mb
say 30% stuck at 6mb
say 30% stuck at 7mb


a pool would see that 75% are ok with anything below 4mb.. and 25% are ok with anything below 2mb

so a pool makes blocks upto 2mb and that triggers a message to suggest users below the 25% change their policy.h because its getting low and pools are going to push that.

again all safely below 8mb upper limit. because the nodes are in more control of the policy.h..

welcome to dynamics.



now imagine say a node had a speed test that would help users define the upper and lower limits of consensus and policy so that pools NEVER EVER go beyond what nodes are capable of.

and all of this was user definable and controlable within the node at run time..
no more requirement of pleading to devs for more spoonfuls of capacity.
4445  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: This is getting serious ... Total CryptoCurrency Market Cap to $30 billion !! on: April 20, 2017, 06:36:41 PM
Understanding what market cap is would help.

Quote
Market capitalization (market cap) is the total market value of the shares outstanding of a publicly traded company; it is equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding. As outstanding stock is bought and sold in public markets, capitalization could be used as a proxy for the public opinion of a company's net worth and is a determining factor in some forms of stock valuation.

If bitcoins price is $1 per btc and there are 16 million of them the market cap is 16 million. If Bitcoin price is $1000 per btc and there are 16 million of them the market cap is 16 billion.

Bitcoin currently costs $1,230 the market cap is $20 billion.

correct

if sh*tcoinX was $1 per sh*tcoinx and there are 5 trillion sh*tcoinx's then the market cap is $5trillion

the market cap is meaningless..

a better metric would be:
how many coins are on the market
how many coins per order line between $0 and current value

to show how much resistance there is to prevent the price going to $0
4446  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: big blocks over 50% now. BU + classic on: April 20, 2017, 06:17:17 PM
According to BillyBobZorton financial market movement theory

lol

prices move up and down all the time..
billy just waits for the certain time when something happens and then spams out the "pereira4" script.

but just remember. when it comes to trying to link news vs a price..

even a broken clock can have the correct time twice a day
4447  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: This is getting serious ... Total CryptoCurrency Market Cap to $30 billion !! on: April 20, 2017, 05:35:13 PM
market cap is bullcrap bubble number.

i can make an altcoin with 5 trillion coins.
put just 1 coin onto an exchange sell it to myself for $1..

thus my coins are now valued at $1 a coin.
making the market cam $5 trillion.

Be honest.

If it were that easy, everyone would do it.

Which means, its not that simple.

well the maths is that easy.

yes i simplified the bureacracy of getting a crap coin accepted into an exchange(separate offtopic debate).. but the maths of how the market cap is 'valued' is correct
4448  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: This is getting serious ... Total CryptoCurrency Market Cap to $30 billion !! on: April 20, 2017, 05:18:33 PM
market cap is bullcrap bubble number.

i can make an altcoin with 5 trillion coins.
put just 1 coin onto an exchange sell it to myself for $1..

thus my coins are now valued at $1 a coin.
making the market cam $5 trillion.



now for the bubble bursting info that blow people minds they will not like to admit to.

1. there is not $29billion in FIAT sat in exchange bank accounts to 'back' the valuations of all the coins in existance.
2. the price of a coin can ba manipulated easily.

it does not take $16mill to raise the price of bitcoin by $1 to make the bitcoin market cap rise by $16m
infact many times i have seen the bitcoin price rise by $1 by trading very little. even if that very little actually spent made the bubble market cap jump by $16m



its time people started to get out their calculators and see reality
4449  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 04:42:06 PM


Well, if until that point, they were following the rules, they have cranked up the difficulty on the "right" chain by a factor of 20 billion, right.  So now that they "stop making valid blocks" the rest of the world, with its 5 peta hash, will be able, at the given difficulty, to make a block
in about 300 000 years, and hope to get somewhat smaller difficulty in about 600 million years.   That's about the time it took for jellyfish to evolve into humans.

But it is true that your faithful nodes will reject happily all the blocks that come every 10 minutes from the nasty pool, and will wait for 300 000 years before they get a good block again.  As such, all people having "good coins" will at least hodle for 300 000 years Wink

Or, they will finally accept those "illegal blocks" in order to finally get rid of their coins against a bargain, but at least, before their superdupergreatgrandchildren are old.


nope.

the questionable pool would see their blocks are being rejected and in less time(than300k years) the pool will stop wasting its time making bad blocks costing the electric bill of 20mill exahash over 300k years.. and start thinking dang it.. lets start making blocks that follow the rules. or why are we bothering..

P.S
you can actually change the retarget rules without breaking the retarget rules to offset the 300k years doomsday.
EG
instead of:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..

do:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..
AND
if at 1210000 secs since last retarget, less than 2016 blocks found then lower difficulty..

which doesnt break any rules. but also helps ensure the difficulty adjusts every 2 weeks
4450  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 04:06:20 PM
1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.


pool X can have 20million exahash. and other pools can have just 5 peta hash
meaning the blocks from pool X could show as most common block being solved and hitting the threshold.

but if at a certain event. they were to make something that doesnt meet the rules of the nodes. its rejected in 2 seconds

what results in lots of orphans/rejects until a block is found that meets the rules.

nodes only build on blocks which nodes accept and seeing as exchanges look at the blockchain through their node they only see block and tx data of blocks their node accepts.

so to spend a pools reward. a pool has to make a block that a exchanges node would accept. and thats all about ensuring that the majority of nodes accept that block so that when the nodes sync with each other they are building a chain of blocks they are happy with and can see the tx's inside to spend what they can see.

thus pools are reliant on node acceptance

its a symbiotic relationship .. not just pools and not just nodes.. but both meeting the same set of rules they can both agree on and build on to reduce and prevent orphan drama..
this is consensus.

pools could however get a few select nodes that agree on a certain rule to blindly follow without the symbiotic syncing consensus mechanisms causing orphan drama.. by literally banning opposition. this is then altcoin making by avoiding the consensus and forming their own network.
4451  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witness vs Bitcoin Unlimited vs Do Nothing on: April 20, 2017, 02:38:33 PM
How much does Roger pays you for each FUD post you make? $1 $10? If you know so much about it why dont you share youre opinion on GitHub? You wont do that because youre troll ass will be destroyed over there.

I know you have been rejected Franky1, youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youre self.

i do not get paid, sponsored or handed any funds for my opinions or comments. nor am i paid by roger or any other bitcoin corporation or project.
i am self sufficient which means i don't have to 'toe the line' or kiss ass.

your right the censorship of cores github is high.. but that just reveals the problem..
lack of independence and obvious censorship.

there are over a dozen implementations that all get REKT. and lots of independent devs that have their opinions quashed at the door.
thats not the fault of independence. thats the fault of core not being as open as they falsely proclaim.

if you think that centralised control is cores asset. then you have failed to understand what the whole point of bitcoins ethos/invention was originally.
4452  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 02:25:59 PM
1) You can't know what I've read or what I haven't read.
2) Your completely intentional or unintentional misunderstanding of Segwit shows that either:
   2.1) You haven't read either one.
   2.2) You have read it, but you don't understand it.

1. you have admitted you cant read C++, you ave admitted you cant read walls of text

2.1. i have quote code, i have quoted documentation. i have even shown examples of simple tweaks that could be considered as something more of the community could unite around

2.2 i have actually told you about the emphasis of the key utility and not the activation itself being the important part of segwits half gesture.
and all you can do is pleaded ignorant for a couple months then suddenly find a script that admits what have have said, but with subtle word twists.
such as how its a 'opt-in'.

but your still not getting the point. its not a network fix. its not a consensus implementation. its a back door half gesture with only if's buts and maybe's

yet the actual network effect is negative (the tier network)

atleast get passed the word twisting from your groupy mindset of blockstream adoration.. as thats temporary. just like segwits half baked gestures are temporary..
try to think with a critical hat and not a utopian sales pitch hat.

your only argument its to literally fail at describing segwit and to also fail at pidgeon holing me.


think about bitcoins 120+year and not blockstreams couple year 'experiment'
4453  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Banks have bought the Core Team on: April 20, 2017, 01:20:47 PM
isn't dictating the fate of bitcoin which is based on consensus for your information

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor. thus node consensus cant vote for or veto out. core thought that bribing pools with lots of paid weekend vacations was the fast route to get a "yay" activation quick

2. core have now found out that pools are saying nay/abstaining... cor have just last month found out the half baked sgwit is not as compatible as promised..
but rather than accepting its not an easy 'yay'. you have to ask... are core supporting pools, are they asking pools and the community what would be acceptable and thus making a plan B version of a 1merkle segwit with dynamics and a low txsigop limit and other community uniting features... nope

3. blockstream(core) have employed a guy to be the face(samson mow) for really FORCING the half baked segwit for upto another year and a half (UASF quote up to the end of 2018*)

4. blockstream(core) are not accepting 'consensus' saying 'nay' in any form... its just push or delay as their only options.. not make a recode that is community requested with features that would make it a 'yay'

please look beyond reddit and look at the reality, else this half baked segwit drama will continue until 2019*

*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.
4454  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 01:00:56 PM
There is no rational reason to oppose it.

there is

TRY READING THE CODE!!!!!!

your opinion is moot.
you have not even read the code

you have not read the full documentation
you have only said "wrong, no, insult, strawman"

you have failed to show you fully understand it

for a year now i have gave you many oppertunities to actually spend time learning it all.
but your arrogance and devotion to blockstream have blinded you

just read the damned code and documentation in full

even your own words have debunked your own opinion..

one minute you say pools will prioritise segwit transactions yet for the last few weeks you have been crying about how some pools are abstaining or rejecting segwit.

68% of pools blocks are rejecting/abstaining segwit. so dont be fooled by the reddit narrative that pools will prioritise segwit.

WAKE UP to reality
4455  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain deliberately preventing the activation of SegWit on Litecoin? on: April 20, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
A dramatic overnight increase in hashrate is taking place in Litecoin. Its hashrate increased 600G overnight on Tuesday. Its Segwit support dropped to 70%.
At the same day, Bitmain’s mining pool Antpool’s hashrate abruptly surged by around 20 percent in a period of few hours, from 200 to nearly 500 GH/S. And to add more drama, Wang Chun, owner of F2Pool, said Bitmain is working on 2X current network hashrate.
Is this coincidence or Bitmain just wants to stop SegWit on Litecoin?

The bitmains attempt to have a monopoly on bitcoin mining  by siding with bitcoin unlimited was a failure and that is why they will do in their power to stop segwit fro dominating in the litecoin mining. But with regards to litecoins I will side with bitmain since litecon doesnt need segwit to function well, though segwit may be good for bitcoin but litecoin doesnt need it.

lol bitmain does not have 69% control of mining.
stop reading reddit. it has become worse than fox news

all the "bomb china" "jihan controls everything".. do you even sit back and spend 5 minutes thinking rationally about the scripts you read
4456  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 10:59:51 AM
A lot of people are waiting to start using Segwit TXs, that's your guarantee (partial, not 100% Utopian bullshit that you're talking about). On the other hand, BTU guaranteed features == none.

"alot" "partial" "not 100%" sounds a bit flimsy

also thinking that its only a BU vs debate shows how limited your scope of judgement is.
there are more than a dozen implementations.

you use terms that are obvious repeats from the same reddit crowd.

just get yourself out of your cabin fever and tke a look outside of the box at the whole network and not just the glossy images that are in favour of corporate blockstream control.

as for the people that are waiting to start using segwit tx's.
those people are not the people that perform malleation/quadratics anyway. so nothing changes in that respect
those that are performing malleation/quadratics are the people that wont use segwit keys. so they will still malleate and quadratic spam the network.
meaning no fix
4457  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 10:50:05 AM
SegWit and blocksize are two different issues. SegWit offers lots of advantages, and should be activated asap. Bigger blocks turn the Bitcoin delivery van into a lumbering articulated lorry, what is required is a rapid Bitcoin motorcycle delivery service with smaller faster blocks.

1. try to explain what advantages segwit ACTUALLY offer THE WHOLE NETWORK . i mean GUARANTEED features that are ACTUALLY achieved
4458  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 10:44:16 AM
Wrong. If anything, Segwit has a supermajority of support in all three fields: users, developers, economy. You can continue to attempt spreading false information, but as long as certain individuals are around it won't work.

your the kind of guy that would think that being vegetarian is the only way to eat because daddy vegan only feeds you veg and you only visit veg stores.

get out and explore the world realise that there is more then just the Monsanto carrots on offer and that the world should not be owned by monsanto veg stores

"super majority" 31% of blocks...

4459  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I Am Still Not Voting for Segwit? on: April 20, 2017, 10:05:08 AM
BTC Core should push for activation on multiple Alt coins

^ this guy now wants blockstream(core) to not only control bitcoin but other alts too..

seriously.. i think Kakmakr doesnt understand decentralised diversity



Quote
If activated, UASF will have very unfortunate ramifications for whichever currency it is used on.
This is a complete lie. UASF only has unfortunate ramifications for malicious actors.

Tl;dr: This guy has zero real reasons (technology wise) to not support Segwit. The only reason for which he doesn't is politics, which effectively makes him a baboon and a mere pawn in this game.

and here is lauda soo much deeper in the blockstream should own and control everything. that if a community say no to a half baked feature, then instead of re-thinking the half baked feature to re-do it in a way thats fully cooked with all the toppings including. he wants to treat anyone saying no as malicious.

seriously guys
learn consensus
learn decentralised diversity

stop being corporate ass kissers and really think about why bitcoin was invented in the first place!
4460  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan blocks segwit on LTC: price crashes on: April 19, 2017, 09:15:25 PM
Frankly that's just babbling bullshit filled with your personal bias. Can't you give the new guy an unbiased breakdown.

it need people to move their funds to new keypairs not even active or available yet for only those users to be disarmed from performing maleability and for there to be any chance of making more room in the main block for more transactions..

though there are many drawbacks to it

short enough??
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 ... 849 »
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!