Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2019, 02:42:17 AM *
News: Help collect the most notable posts made over the last 10 years.
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 ... 850 »
4561  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Did Craig Wright turn out to be Satoshi Nakamoto on: April 15, 2017, 08:10:25 PM
nope he is not

nope the evidence was not convincing

it was a signature that links to a known satoshi address

Take the signature being “verified” as proof in the blog post:
MEUCIQDBKn1Uly8m0UyzETObUSL4wYdBfd4ejvtoQfVcNCIK4AIgZmMsXNQWHvo6KDd2Tu6euEl13VT C3ihl6XUlhcU+fM4=

Convert to hex:
3045022100c12a7d54972f26d14cb311339b5122f8c187417dde1e8efb6841f55c34220ae002206 6632c5cd4161efa3a2837764eee9eb84975dd54c2de2865e9752585c53e7cce

Find it in Satoshi's 2009 transaction:
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?format=hex
https://blockchain.info/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe - Input Scripts

the thing is.
ANYONE in the last 8 years can copy it, its public information.
so although it does say that it validates to a satoshi known address. does not mean that craig wright is satoshi



as for the 'social' evidence
emails posts and communications have been logged publicly so its easy to read, rehearse and revise them until you memorise them
i would have questioned anyone that did know the finer details of things said 6 years earlier. because they know too much for someone that might have said things on a whim to remember so clearly without 'preparing'/rehearsing.

after all if you registered a domain 6 years ago.. would you know off the top of your head the exact time/date you registered it. without preparing by checking out the info
4562  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 15, 2017, 07:07:19 PM
so you dont really agree with Ver, then?

I somewhat agree with you but its such an edge case that its almost irrelevant.

without knowing the context of the tweet. its hard to tell. afterall if you have

P - n - n - n -p

3 nodes between a pool (or lets say 6000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)
vs
P - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - p

10 nodes between a pool (or lets say 20000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)

the propagation time of getting the data to all entities of the network takes longer, even if your using the '6( 8 ) degree of separation' network connectivity

from other hand is harder to DDOS 10 000 nodes than 5 pools Cheesy so having a lot nodes allso helps.
And in time of uncertainty you can use own node to validate blocks to not get on BTU trap if they fork accidentally.

agreed. hense why i was questioning the context of his tweet..
the context might be. "based on the bitcoin network of 2009, not 2017 what is a full node" being a question asked to him elsewhere, but then the question got deleted... but no one can guess the context without finding the source for WHY he make the tweet
4563  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 15, 2017, 06:31:48 PM
so you dont really agree with Ver, then?

I somewhat agree with you but its such an edge case that its almost irrelevant.

without knowing the context of the tweet. its hard to tell. afterall if you have

P - n - n - n -p

3 nodes between a pool (or lets say 6000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)
vs
P - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - n - p

10 nodes between a pool (or lets say 20000 nodes that need to validate to form good diverse consensus)

the propagation time of getting the data to all entities of the network takes longer, even if your using the '6( 8 ) degree of separation' network connectivity
4564  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 15, 2017, 06:19:03 PM
You could run 100 full nodes but still you'll need miners to confirm and include your transaction in blocks.
Nodes are agents of miners delivering them TXs and handing out their found blocks to rest of the network.

you could have a pool with a billion exahash, but if the block didnt follow the rules nodes have.. the block is rejected in 3 seconds.

its a symbiotic relationship of many elements
4565  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver has been compromised on: April 15, 2017, 06:02:41 PM
Quote
Only a node that is mining is a true full node.  The rest are just slowing down the propagation of blocks between the real full nodes.
This doesn't make any sense  Roll Eyes

Full node = all servers that have blockchain ledger
Isn't mining completely different than nodes?

yes
things like asics (miners) dont have any node function/hard drive they just hash a hash.

technically a full node is one that does everything, that means validates competitions blocks and makes its own .. like how things were in pre 2013

but since 2013 things have changed and the community have re-termed things..
an 'economic' validation nodes are ones users and businesses use (we socially call them full nodes)
there are the lite nodes like electrum / multibit which dont do much more then just create transactions.
pool nodes can be full(economic) or lite (spv)

now an economic node, a pool node and an asic miner are all separate entities which is good for decentralisation, but still ALL work symbiotically together and spread out to be more diverse and decentralised


4566  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [F2Pool and SegWit] What do we think of the "Wang" on: April 15, 2017, 05:44:37 PM
Price moves positiively with positive segwit news, doesn't take rocket science to know this. But anyhow, we can't and we must not trust Wang Chun, he changes his opinion on segwit a lot, at any moment he can stop segwit support! I hope this doesn't happen, because price will go down.

the price will go up and down no matter what
4567  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: F2Pool: "Segwit will be a disaster." on: April 15, 2017, 11:33:25 AM
The top players right now (besides Monero and LTC) are all scam coins (ETH, DASH, Ripple, et. al.). A centralized, banker and corporation funded coin like ETH or a system (backed by the same groups) such as Ripple can easily overthrow the Bitcoin market cap within a week.
I agree. I also thought about it. Even if one of this coins surpasses BTC in marketcap, their fiat (ETH), scam (DASH), centralised trusted (Ripple) nature will become evident sooner or later. Unlike you I also disrespect LTC since it's a copycat.

ripple and dash wont go anywhere

but looking at how the 'merchant tools' and the VC's behind blockstream are also looking at ether and LTC and zcash. you can see they wont give up without a fight.

coinbase for instance can with a click of a button allow their hundreds of thousands of merchants accept LTC and ethereum as a payment method in shops that currently use coinbase merchant tools.

so although these alts are not as good as bitcoin. you can easily see blockstream devs jump over to most probably LTC if segwit gets adopted over there. especially with coblee at the helm of coinbase
4568  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How do you stop someone forcing you to hand over your private key and taking all on: April 15, 2017, 10:57:17 AM
One thing I have thought about is that with bitcoin, someone could force you to hand over your private key. What sort of safeguards are there to prevent this happening, or to prevent them taking everything in that wallet?
One thing one can do is leave Bitcoins on an exchange that will only allow you to withdraw $1000 worth per day, but then you run the risk of the exchange being hacked....what are the other options?

paper wallets and a lock on the door of your house. dial 911 if someone breaks in
4569  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: F2Pool: "Segwit will be a disaster." on: April 15, 2017, 10:00:31 AM
(besides Monero and LTC)


lol you have really bit down on the gmax appreciation gang..
you forgot to mention that group also adore zcash..

oh let me also update you gmax and his VC funders love Ethereum too..
i cant wait for you to backtrack to play follow the leader
4570  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [F2Pool and SegWit] What do we think of the "Wang" on: April 15, 2017, 09:01:32 AM
the price movements are a meaningless measure of community desire.
the prices can move easily without having to spend much at all

at the moment the liquidity is soo low even just one person can control the markets movements

core cry when the price moves up and down and try making it sound important
meanwhile exchange move from $935 $933 by a user with just $302(324mbtc)
meanwhile exchange move from $933 $935 by a user with just $50(54mbtc)

(note trades measured in mBTC (0.001btc)

less than $302(324mbtc) to drop the price from $935 to $933
yep $302 to make the market cap change by $32,470,200.00

then ~$50(54mbtc) to ramp the price from $933 to $935
yep $50 to make the market cap change by 32,470,200.00

price movements are not a sign of any "community consensus" due low funds being used and also the high increments per orderline causing the volatility($1 gap per increment)... making it easy to make the market volatile without needing large community/whales



real funny part is if you look at the markets.. they are being moved by $1 increments. using only a couple btc or less



Gdax
going from the bottom up
0.13btc moved price from $1158->$1159
5.293btc moved price from $1159->$1160
2.386btc moved price from $1160->$1159
63.857btc moved price from $1159->$1160
10.325btc moved price from $1160->$1161
0.02btc moved price from $1161->$1160
2.433btc moved price from $1160->$1161
2btc moved price from $1161->$1160
2.551btc moved price from $1160->$1159
16.67btc moved price from $1159->$1160
1.4btc moved price from $1160->$1159

the real reason the price is volitile is because it does not take much to move the market price

5.85 btc = $1


bitfinex
5.85 btc =  $1
0.5 btc =  $1
0.067 btc =  $1
0.1 btc =  $1
0.829 btc =  $1
0.249 btc =  $1
0.170 btc =  $1

and so on

4571  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: F2Pool starts signaling SegWit? on: April 15, 2017, 08:34:52 AM
nay sayer pools stratums hacked on the 2nd to throw hash power at him
when he does vote segwit


 then DDosed a week later whe he doesnt vote.

seems its outsiders that are F-ing with him. not the other way round

 seems people are getting desperate

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







P.S yep now below 30%


in my opinion i think Wchun has integrity to admit whats happening when his hashrate goes up and down so rampantly.
unlike whoever is trying to cause speculation controversy by performing the hacks and DDos.. rather than just letter real honest consensus decide
4572  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver causes another dump on: April 14, 2017, 10:34:00 PM

your idea has many faults.

1 that there should only be one source of income. the blockreward
2 that only one implementation should receive the 1% of block reward
3 that there should only be one implementation
4 that automatically getting $130 every 10 minutes means those in that team will do better
5 that automatically getting funds will make them do things the community want.

imagine it though. if say 500 people-5000 people wanted dynamic blocks. it needed say only 10 lines of code to change. and each of them put say $10 bounty in.

that is $5k-$50k to add dynamics

or

devs get $130 every 10 minutes ($6,832,800 a year).. and then while the devs are getting paid.. there is no structure or community agreement on what should be done by the devs.

infact the devs decide to grab an altcoin from a private elements project. tweak it a little and try to coax the community into accepting it as thier attempt at doing something. and 2 years later still debate with the community as to how utopian it is.
(netting them another $13.66mill wasting time) as an example.

so you tell me what is better
$5k-$50k for dynamics 10 lines of code
$500-$5k for txsigoplimit 1 lines of code
and so on

or automatic payments with no structure/target
4573  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver causes another dump on: April 14, 2017, 09:47:40 PM
Then  miners should agreed that lets say 1% of mining goes to winning developer team which client is used for mining.
Give those folks money / bounty that is worth real effort without such self founding how they fuck they what good devs on board.
If you don't pay for devs you get what you can for FREE. Core are not those one to blame from my personal view miners should talk to each other how to solve that.
and start paying for developnet NOT big cash but something like 1% for best BTC client would be great.


few years ago i had an idea.
if someone wanted a feature. they put a bounty up
EG "i want the background of the GUI to be pink ill pay $5"
if many wanted it lots of funds would pile up.

after a while devs would code features that were funded and get paid if those features were shown to work. and what the community wanted

that would have been a better system than "just throw 1% of blockreward at them, give them $130 every 10 minutes even while they sleep"(1% of $13k(12.5btc))
4574  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)..
4575  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)
4576  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
4577  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.
4578  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
4579  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
4580  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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 ... 850 »
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!