Bitcoin Forum
November 15, 2019, 10:37:00 AM *
News: 10th anniversary art contest
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 ... 846 »
4661  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: changing the whitepaper? on: April 06, 2017, 05:18:39 PM
franky1 don't dispute, you know as well as I that BU would and will never happen, no fork as a matter of fact. Yes there's "no one forcing anyone" but yet that's all these kids have been talking about these past few days. It has been catalyzed by something...


i have been pasting this sooo many times
this little nugget
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--

its not the intention of NON-CORE implementations to split the network.. as you say its gmaxwell and his chums baiting the community

the catalyst is
get the community pointing at BU, while blockstream try to make their TIER network for the DCG cartel.

after all blockstream and DCG had a round table meeting over a month ago, and rather than publicly release the minutes of their meeting they pushed out the "craig wright is satoshi" mantra to distract the real conversation.

i am not in any bandcamp no matter how hard they try to throw me in a band camp.
i can just see passed all the blockstream reddit scripts of REKT campaigns to pretend blockstream are the victims.

there should be no core TIER network (but gmaxwell needs it to repay the $70m debt)
there are not only 2 implementations there are over a dozen.

the only ones not playing ball by avoiding a fair open diverse decentralised peer network are blockstream(core)
4662  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan Wu's patent: The resume on: April 06, 2017, 05:07:48 PM
So Blockstream wants the bitcoin market to be centralized through a few central companies and hubs?
Nope, that was Bitmain that wanted to maintain centralization of mining hardware and hashing power through their company and hubs.

LOL
check out DCG portfolio
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
blockstream
bitpay
BTCC
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
coinbase

blah blah blah..
yep all the big names of the blockstream cartels cabin fever mindset of REKTing anything not blockstream sanctioned, as a altcoin are all on the portfolio

P.S
while its the DCG/bockstream cartel that are fearmungering, making deadlines shouting threats, mandatory activations, going soft to avoid node consensus, adding PoW nukes.

the other decentralised peer implementations are just plodding along letting consensus decide.. no threats no deadlines.
and saying no to splitting the network
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
4663  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: changing the whitepaper? on: April 06, 2017, 04:59:15 PM
isn't this old?
i swear i heard about this at least 4 months ago, cobra or whatever said this and nothing happened.

has this resurfaced or is it a repetition of an old drama (sorry can't open reddit from here)
he re-launched his mission yesterday.
reddit
Quote
Cobra-Bitcoin -87 points 1 day ago

The paper is under the MIT license and part of the original Bitcoin project support files. The paper points to bitcoin.org, and was originally uploaded there, it's well within our right to produce an updated version that corrects the major problems. As things are right now, too many people get encouraged to read the white paper to "learn" about how Bitcoin works, and these people just come out with an incorrect interpretation of how things should be.


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
4664  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitmain and asicboost/segwit on: April 06, 2017, 04:54:22 PM
By that I mean BITMAIN and associates. This includes the likes of ViaBTC, and other mostly Chinese organizations/individuals.

you might want to reach further over to the blockstreams associates side. EG F2pool and BTCC

oh that reminds me. even f2pool was good enough to have morals to admit 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


4665  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitmain and asicboost/segwit on: April 06, 2017, 04:51:08 PM
apparently being used

prove it
i do laugh at you and gmaxwell waffle about X but then throw in the "apparently" "could be" "potentially"

anyway
lets see what the maths really tells us

just done some quick maths


* stats at time of post

hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round

*for those wishing to question the numbers


i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real
definitely not less than their hash%

oh well gmaxwell debunked.

kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are"
Quote
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.

While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.

Quote
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.

Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.

Quote
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack
which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).


..
just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them"

P.S
gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 [adambacks] hashcash.
but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight....

he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket

4666  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICBOOST Aftermath: What Now Must Be Done? on: April 06, 2017, 04:44:48 PM
lets see what the maths really tells us

this post is very clear to anyone that you not even understand what we talk about here.... Tongue what a crap
what has to do this with ASICBOOST?Huh Ver is You?

asicboost should be showing a 20-30% advantage not a minus% disadvantage

now show me your stats
dare ya!
4667  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ASICBOOST Aftermath: What Now Must Be Done? on: April 06, 2017, 04:28:33 PM
lets see what the maths really tells us

just done some quick maths


* stats at time of post

hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round

*for those wishing to question the numbers


i would have expected antpool to have a block % of something in the 40's while having hash in the 30's if all this gmaxwell PoW propaganda was real
definitely not less than their hash%

oh well gmaxwell debunked.

kind of funny how many times gmaxwells announcement didnt name the pool and how many times gmaxwell uses the word "they could" rather then "they are"
Quote
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.

While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.

Quote
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.

Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.

Quote
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack
which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).


..
just to let the script writers twist it into "its an attack, bomb them bomb them bomb them"

P.S
gotta laugh that when its an exploit.. he words it as exploiting [adambacks] hashcash.
but when its a bug he calls it an bitcoin proof of work oversight....

he is too far deep inside his bosses pocket
4668  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitmain and asicboost/segwit on: April 06, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
BITMAIN Equipment won't stop hashing. They have ASICBOOST built into its hardware, but only the units that BITMAIN is operating have the corresponding software for ASICBOOST to work.

This means that all of BITMAIN's farms/mines will lose the 30% advantage. However, they still own massive amounts of hashpower.
Consumer units shouldn't be affected.

only bitmain has the software? pfft
if you keep pulling your own leg like that... only you will be the one walking with a limp
4669  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitmain and asicboost/segwit on: April 06, 2017, 04:13:54 PM
just done some quick maths


* stats at time of post

hmm
looks like BTCC and F2pool are the ones making more blocks than their hash %
not the other way round

*for those wishing to question the numbers
4670  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: bitmain and asicboost/segwit on: April 06, 2017, 03:57:18 PM
Yawn

2013 - GPU miner- "some dude is using asics, thats unfair lets bomb them bomb them bomb them"
2014 - GPU miner- "decided to buy an asic, way cheaper than a bomb, happy now"

result
join the party of many pools of a decentralised PEER network using asics by bitmain..not throw a tantrum and refuse to give up your corner of your blockstream TIER network.

PS its not just antpool using bitmain products
4671  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin" Unlimited Officially #REKT on: April 06, 2017, 03:54:27 PM
We don't have problem here.


i think your spider is going in circles around the web. its counting the same nodes over and over.

but hey, you used colour. so that it can gain attention and make the sheep smile
4672  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wus been up to. on: April 06, 2017, 03:47:19 PM
Right, but the higher difficulty has the same security as the pre-ASICBoost difficulty...... This is not a problem BTW as it's not less security. It's why this is a shortcut, not efficiency gain.

If only one firm has ASICBoost, that gives them a monopoly, which is a real problem. But the devs are not willing to prevent that from happening right now.

The big issue, the main issue, is that covert ASICboost breaks many kinds of network upgrades, NOT JUST SEGWIT AND NOT JUST SOFTFORKS, but it does break segwit. This gives miners an incentive to oppose these changes. So covert ASICboost needs to be made impossible. antminers support overt ASICBoost, so they can still boost away if they want.

by the way.
bitmain donot make rigs for $2000. it costs then ~$400
for evry rig they sell to competitors they get to key 3 rigs for themselves and have spare cash to pay for electric.

this is the same for bitfury and other asic manufacturers...
that is the true way they make their profit.

secondly. by selling to competitors then its not an unfair advantage of having asic boost, because the competitors have it tooo..
think about it!

i will laugh if gmaxwell pulls the PoW nuke and suddenly BTCC and slush(blockstream defenders) go down too
4673  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.
4674  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!
4675  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
4676  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


4677  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
4678  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..
4679  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
4680  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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 ... 846 »
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!