Bitcoin Forum
January 17, 2020, 10:16:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 ... 872 »
4721  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 02, 2017, 10:13:31 AM
all this finger pointing to blame xt in 2013, classic in 2014 bu in 2016 and pools in 2017 is just social distractions to avoid people looking at where the real centralisation is happening.

pools and nodes have a symbiotic relationship.
pools 'could' get power if they can hold out and make new formed funky blocks for a many hours or a few days, weeks, months to delay the network syncing to blackmail the community into upgrading their node to a version that pools make, that allows node users to see transactions rather than only seeing rejects/orphans and their node unsynced.
but so far that has only happened once. the 2013 leveldb fork. which made all the nodes move to a new version0.8 and the DNS seed to cut off allowing connections to 0.7 and below(old nodes)
(yes i mention the 2013 event often, because its an actual event that actually occurred. not a 'what if' fud doomsday)

since then pools have been more cautious about doing things that dont get accepted by the majority of nodes because of the drama and risks to pools costs/spendability could occur.

the last time a pool made an obvious out of majority block structure, it got rejected in 3 seconds and the pool didnt push it. they decide to just follow the nodes rules that are/were majority accepted.

every week pools make mistakes that dont follow the rules and find their blocks getting rejected/orphaned. they learn their lesson the hard way, by not winning the node acceptance to get their block added to blockheight.

in short. nodes hold the power.
even if pools could collude where pools are all onside doing funky blocks,.. they still need to survive pushing their blocks for hours/days/weeks to blackmail the unsynced nodes to download new nodes, just to see the funky block as acceptable... but thats alot of effort, and a very costly risk.

for pools to get power is not just about one pool having hashpower. its about having their competition not fighting them to ensure the blocks keep adding on. and then. keeping it going long enough to blackmail the nodes to switch too.



so ultimately its still nodes that hold the power. as long as the nodes dont give in and give up the power so easily.
nodes could simply ban a malicious pool thats causing endless orphans if its not following the rules.

whats more important than worrying about the "what if's" of pools.. is the real network threat of node centralisation.

this is where node diversity is needed. so that we do not have one node dev team that create a version and change the DNS to force the network into following like sheep.

we need to realise that trying to bypass the security mechanisms of consensus (yep orphans are part of security) with these 'going soft approaches' may seem good if the community as a whole want the change. but can be abused by bad actors who may want to trojan horse changes that are not wanted.

wasting 3 years for something that is (now seen as not) backward compatible by going soft. should be a neon red flag that something else should be tried.

not blackmail, not threats of killing off nodes/pools. but instead making something that the community would accept and uniting the community. by doing something properly that uses consensus. to avoid the risks, backdoor tactics and politics and civil war drama

4722  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 02, 2017, 10:06:36 AM
one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

firstly pools do not have ultimate control.

its a symbiotic relationship between pools and nodes.

yes pools can collate data in new ways and re-invent a blockstructure, but if the nodes do not accept it. then the blocks get ignored.
even if a pool had 50billion exahash. if the block doesnt propagate and get accepted by nodes. then its just wasting pools time. because all the merchants have trashed that block in 3 seconds.

knowing they cant spend rewards for 100 confirms they wont do funky blocks in the morning unless they know the block would still exist and have 100 confirms (blocks accepted ontop) that are viewable from merchants nodes in the afternoon to be able to spend that mornings block reward.

everyone has already seen that blocks that dont fit the nodes rules get rejected in just 3 seconds. and pools then realise their mistake and the very next block they make are blocks that fit the rules.

every week we see pools making blocks either by mistake or intentionally that dont fit the rules. and within seconds or a couple blocks (rarely) pools learn their lesson and ensure their block fits the rules of the majority of nodes
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

because its not just about the cost of creating a block (electric+time) its also about who has a node that would see their funky block to spend the reward with in 100 blocks+ time.

EG
you might see for instance 80 merchants have a node that would accept it.. but if that pool wants to spend the reward with the 800 other merchant nodes who wont see the block. then there is no point making a block that wont get seen

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).
I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem,

location is not much of an issue. you will be surprised that for instance antpool is not located in one location, but dozens.

even pools claimed as being "chinese" are managed by people that are not in china. (slush is managed in thailand) and ontop of this pools have many stratums spread out around the world. so if one stratum is shut down. in 2 seconds the farms are 'pool hopped' to another stratum else where.

lastly thinking that one guy has 70% control of pools is an utter laugh that no one can prove using real statistics. but only unbacked whispers from twitter and reddit.

4723  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 02, 2017, 08:15:46 AM
Franky,  you should explain what you mean by tier network.  I don't think anyone understands.

Quote
ever ask yourself why there are no 0.8 or below nodes on the network
and how easy it could be to start making other implementations not have access.
EG anything below 0.13.1 (70014) can find themselves 'lost' in the future

Code:
#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70001
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

simply change to

Code:
#define REQUIRE_VERSION 70014
 if (clientVersion && clientVersion < REQUIRE_VERSION) return false;

and anything not segwit just wouldnt get a list of nodes from a DNS

and most of the segwit users wont want to manually white list old nodes to offer up a nodes list the other way(addnode).
hence why even the segwit documentations says

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/#not-upgrading-1
Quote
The easiest way to prevent this problem is to upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or another full node release that is compatible with the segwit soft fork. If you still don’t wish to upgrade, it is possible to use a newer Bitcoin Core release as a filter for older Bitcoin Core releases.

Filtering by an upgraded node


In this configuration, you set your current Bitcoin Core node (which we’ll call the “older node”) to connect exclusively to a node running Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 or later (which we’ll call the “newer node”). The newer node is connected to the Bitcoin P2P network as usual.
For the older node, first wait for the newer node to finish syncing the blockchain and then restart the older node with the following command line parameter (this may also be placed in the Bitcoin Core configuration file):


yep if you dont want to upgrade. you have to still download a segwit node just to whitelist yourself, to be filtered down data from segwit nodes that ar upstream (a layer above, of a tier network).

which makes me laugh about the whole "everything is fine segwit is backward compatible and no need to upgrade" promises of segwit going soft

i hope this wakes you up to the TIER network of gmaxwells (upstream filter) and (luke JRs bridge node) word twisting of said tier network of control
where blockstream becomes top of the foodchain..

by tier, it means LAYERS. as oppose to a PEER network where the implementations are on the same layer (same level playing field)
4724  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 01, 2017, 09:21:32 PM
Though personally, I do think Segwit is the way to go as BTU is just going to put VER and Wu in power which I think isn't the direction in the least for our decentralized bitcoin.

shows why you shouldnt read reddit.

your confused with who wants the peer network and who wants the tier network
4725  Economy / Service Discussion / Re: Strange balance behavior in Poloneix on: May 01, 2017, 08:14:45 PM
you probably only have 0.29 as free and available btc..

the other 1.177 btc is not btc its just 'potential' btc but is being used to sell zec back to btc.

so although your "holdings VALUE" combine to be about 1.3.. its actually split as 0.29 of actual btc. and zec valued at 1.177btc
4726  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 01, 2017, 07:03:42 PM
There's a lot of people that have deep hatred for theymos because he banned them, and they accuse him of being an evil actor in the community, yet, I haven't seen anyone getting banned for no logical reason. Most people that get banned is due spamming 100's of messages per hour, or spamming links etc. This forum is cool because is very permissive if you are posting in the right section.

The reddit is another story because I barely use it, but I haven't seen clear evidence of theymos being a tyrannical dictator. /r/bitcoin is about satoshi's client mostly, and satoshi didn't want other competing clients himself. Im ok with discussing the other clients but I remember an obvious shilling campaign for other clients while indiscriminately FUDding back in the XT days, and that had to be stopped.

from all the drama of the last 3 years theymos has been more famous about censoring any chatter thats CORE ngative or non-cor positive,


core was just a brand invented in 2013 from one of the forks that started in 2010 (july 2010 to be precise) its not the original 'satoshi client', even if it pretends to be

yep satoshis original was a sourceforge that continued right until winter 2010.

yet the github was gavins implementation of bitcoin which started summer 2010 meaning the github version was a second implementation. not the single brand of satoshi from (sourceforge).

satoshi continued to work on source forge version right upto december 2010..


where as others used git hub.. and forked their own. aswell (there have been 7993 variants of the github since 2010)

the one that was made by and managed by gavin in 2010 got a rebrand in 2013 and that was the birth of 'core'

the birth was to separate it from being confused with the network protocol.
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3203

Quote from: laanwj
This has been discussed a lot before, but the following is the proposal by @gavinandresen and I agree:

Bitcoin-Qt -->  btcore (full name 'Bitcoin Core')
bitcoind --> btcored (full name 'Bitcoin Core Daemon')
bitcoin-cli --> btcore-cli (full name 'Bitcoin Core CLI Client')

Quote from: LukeJR
Bitcoin-the-system has always been abbreviated as 'bc', not 'bt' - wouldn't 'bccore'* make more sense here?

I think it would be better to keep Bitcoin-Qt and bitcoind more distinct. After all, someone may develop another GUI client sharing the same codebase someday as well.

because the 'protocol' became much bigger than one brand/control point
4727  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC dominance decreasing. on: May 01, 2017, 06:00:41 PM
when people only want to measure how good or bad something is based on price..
its called speculation. based on nothing but emotion, cries and screams.

every time you see price movements just remember this:
4728  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN+segwit vs big blocks, levels of centralization. on: May 01, 2017, 04:44:12 PM
If you are going to "appeal to satoshi", at least don't spread lies because satoshi said exactly the opposite of what you said

im not appealing to satoshi. i can atleast look passed the literal and see the contextual
EG
"a second version would be a massive developmental and maintenance hassle for me"
well thats where he started realising he was being relied upon too much to develop and maintain it single handedly

things have moved on. we should not see a dictator with a single source of code as a good thing because it makes things easier for them to change code.. but as a bad thing because it makes things easier for them to change..

again for all them blockstreamers that REKT hearne.. ask yourself
if hearne had the only implementation that would work on the network, would you support it

diverse decentralised nodes are a good thing for security.



just look at the real loons
billy wanting one brand
and others thinking only pools should have full nodes of one brand. where users just be sheep with lite wallets.
.. thats bad precedent to push for in regards to decentralisation.
4729  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN+segwit vs big blocks, levels of centralization. on: May 01, 2017, 03:15:07 PM
Nodes would be centralised as well - more transactions means a bigger blockchain, which in turn means it's more expensive to run nodes and they become centralised.

It's impossible to avoid at least one kind of centralisation happening.

wrong
if you get out of the mindset of "gigabytes by midnight" then home computing can and will continue to be 'node compatible' even without dev's dictating when the silver spoon of capacity increase should be used

EG
a zx spectrum /amstrad pc of the 90's is not todays skype capable.. so should social communications of the 1990's have been held back and be told to not even bother and instead have just one team of developers do all they can to sidestep the issue with half gestures

the 2009 1mb limit was about raspberry Pi minimal hardware requirements(below home desktop/laptop) and old internet averages.
8 years later things have moved on

we are not in the era of 3G internet, we are in 4G and approaching 5G
we are not in the era of bottomline ADSL internet, we are in Fibre and approaching widespread fibre

we are no longer in Raspberry Pi1 we are in Raspberry Pi3 era

all in all 8mb is deemed as safe and even so. 4mb is more than safe.

out of millions of users pretending that blocks would kill off 7000 full nodes is foolish
what you will find is that features like prunned/stripped nodes will kill off the full node count faster

4730  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC dominance decreasing. on: May 01, 2017, 01:49:09 PM
the price of bitcoin is breaking new barriers and so does the dominance and no other alts can match the dominance of bitcoin.

individual coin price is also temporary drama if your just looking at a snapshot of movement over x hours, days, months
the questions i always ask myself is.
how many merchants accept crapcoinX
how many businesses are concentrating solely on crapcoinX
how many people know, understand, have crapcoinX
how many people need or want crapcoinX to hoard for their grandkids
4731  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC dominance decreasing. on: May 01, 2017, 01:17:36 PM
when it comes to dominance. what should be measured are things like

1. retail/merchant usability/acceptability
2. media awareness
3. ease of obtaining.
4. businesses set up concentrating on
5. employees working on
6. products and serves related to.

bitcoin wins all 6 categories
though technically points 1 and 3 does statistically have dominance. real world comparisons can argue with analogies.
EG yuan obtainable, acceptable to 1 billion+ people, indian rupee accessible to 1 billion+ people, yet dollar (320m people) is more dominant in the fiat market.

however the combination of many factors shows where real domination lays. like HOW its used and why its used in which case bitcoin still wins if you look at other factors too.

but all in all the 'marketcap $' is an utterly meaningless number to scream about.
trying to claim something has dominance purely based on market cap $ is like saying that flies rule the world because there are more of them then humans. without factoring in what affects and does things to the world it lives in

4732  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: May 01, 2017, 07:55:33 AM
So many words and not one concise argument against SegWit.

1. tier network of core as upstream filters
2. no fixes because even with 99% users moving funds to segwit keys (taking alot of mempool bloat for months). 1% left over of quadratic/bloat spammers can remain with native keys and cause MORE disruption than ever before (16ksigops instead of 4k). thus no 'fix'
3. the 1mb blockspace will be its own cesspit of native spammers making the 'witness/weight' area not be utilised as promoted
4. promises to remove malleation to lower double spend risk of unconfirmed. but then adds RBF and CPFP to increase double spend risk of unconfirmed
5. due to native tx's even malleation is not 'fixed', just has a 'opt-in' tx type for INNOCENT users to use to disarm themselves from making malleated tx's

concise enough?
4733  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC dominance decreasing. on: May 01, 2017, 07:43:33 AM
market cap is a meaningless bubble number

i can create an altcoin with 5trillion coins.
put one coin onto an exchange and self it to myself for $1, and suddenly.. drum role.. prepare for mind blowing experience.
the market cap for my alt is $5trillion

4734  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: LN+segwit vs big blocks, levels of centralization. on: April 30, 2017, 07:48:15 PM

i can even envision the LN dns SEED acting as 'real estate' agents selling a listing for a price.
EG to get to be listed as a possible route you have to pay a fee to the LN dns to get listed
which only hubs with lots of channels connected would afford

much like the utopia of solo mining turned into pool mining.. efficiency + cost saving + other factors = things not rmaining as the utopian dream people hoped for

I partially agree. 

I don't think the routing information will be monetized.  That will be freely available.

what i mean is, USERS to see routes can grab listings free.. but to get listed. becomes real estate game.. get top listing to be the most routed hub, costs premium price..

EG them 'free' newspaper and magazines paid for by charging businesses to advertise in the magazine. front page adverts cost most
EG to display items on a webpage does not mean users are charged a royalty to view info. but the business to advertise its services are charged an advertising fee.

It's just that there won't be many efficient routes except through big hubs and most will stop trying...and it will further centralized. 
A mesh network of everyone connecting to everyone else requires everyone to have at least 2 channels open with unrelated parties.
I can't just open a channel with my dad and another one with my wife.  If everyone did that, no one would be able to connect
to anyone but their own family...so everyone needs to connect to 2 random people and then what do you do when you need to
settle?  Also, how long will it take to get critical mess for such a decentralized network?  It's not impossible but it seems very
impractical.  People will just use hubs.... so the whole thing is promised as this p2p solution and its not.
that too.. there are other reasons why i do not think the utopian sales pitch of "LN node users will get paid"

But it is much worse than that.  If you open a channel with your dad, and a channel with your wife, you need to lock in half of your funds with your dad, and half of your funds with your wife, and what can be transacted in one direction is limited to that amount.  Moreover, you have to be careful not to transact all the time "from you to dad", or you will exhaust quickly your channel.  So you have to make sure that one time, you transact *towards dad* and another time *from dad*.    If dad is on a "highway" and your wife is too, then your modest amount of locked-in coins will not suffice to do the link between the highway on which your dad is, and the one on which your wife is: you will quickly run out of funds and have to settle the channel, with expensive on-chain transactions.

However, if you are a rich guy, you will be able to put up a lot of funds to "dad" and to "your wife" and your channel will live a lot longer before being exhausted.   The settlements will be much farther in between.  As such, you will be able to have more competitive LN fees than the modest guy.

This is why the "economies of scale" in LN are essentially proportional to your stake.  Mind you, you do not get BENEFIT proportional to stake, no, your ability to compete goes with your stake.  That's the equivalent of saying that the *efficiency of a miner* would go with the hash rate he has.   Now, miners have about similar efficiencies, almost independent of their hash rate, but of course the more hash rate they have, the more gain they have.  With LN, the more stake you have, the higher the *efficiency* of your channels.

With such almost linear economies of scale, only the biggest hubs can be competitive in the LN fee market.  This is why if ever the LN is up and running and people are squeezed out of the on-chain transactions by the scarcity of the transactions and the height of an on chain fee (if it is not a matter of exclusive room), it will centralize much faster than the mining population centralized, because the economies of scale are much more important in the LN, than in the mining business.

yep, now you know other reasons the big boys want to limit channels to $60 or less
4735  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin.com owned by rogerk ver removed Bitcoin Core wallet. on: April 30, 2017, 07:27:14 PM
and here is the reasons that started it all..

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1181

Quote
achow101 commented on 28 Dec 2015

From the letter that they signed, Bitpay, Circle, Xapo, and Bitgo are supporting Bitcoin XT. As stated in the letter,

    We[the signers] support the implementation of BIP101

The only implementation of BIP101 is BItcoin XT, and they are also promising to

    support BIP101 in [their] software and systems by December 2015

December 2015 is almost gone, and they have already promised to upgrade to XT.

Since Coinbase was already removed for supporting Bitcoin XT, then these other wallets should be removed since they also support Bitcoin XT, as seen by the letter they all signed.

BTW, Copay is Bitpay's wallet.
achow101 added some commits on 28 Dec 2015
   @achow101    Remove copay
   @achow101    Remove circle
   @achow101    Remove xapo
   @achow101    Remove bitgo

and when segwit was getting ready to start needing support... suddenly the politics ramped up and suddenly the segwit supporting entities popped up again

Quote
@achow101 achow101 deleted the achow101:remove-hard-fork-wallets branch on 29 Oct 2016
4736  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin.com owned by rogerk ver removed Bitcoin Core wallet. on: April 30, 2017, 07:07:53 PM
bitcoin.org (not.com)
blockstream/core dominant. doesnt list xt/classic/bu and many others.

guess who struck first with the biased listing.. yup the blockstream/core crew

https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet


it started way back in the REKT campaigns years ago
4737  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: April 30, 2017, 06:02:59 PM
1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

Prove it isn't? Just look at what gear are the big pools using, most people are using bitmain gear, there's no actual competition, they have checkmated the entire mining game.

Gladly, economic majority supports segwit and rejects BU. Which is where conservative blocksize will shine in the case of a situation where we go UASF and miners go BU.

you have no clue. spend less time on reddit. it will help you

here is a hint im sure you could guess where you can find this data (hint: blockreward decoded message)
$Mined by AntPool usa1
$Mined by AntPool usa2
$Mined by AntPool usa3
$Mined by AntPool usa4

there are farms in iceland, georgia, canada, usa and many other places.
the stratums are spread out all over the world

And there's people want to give miners even more power with the BUcoin idea.
sorry but core bypassed node consensus by going soft. and are the only team giving pools sole voting capability.
other implementations are NODE and POOL consensus.. plus they dont need to UASF force anything in, and instead just let the community decide or not.
only core have shouted out killing pools, banning nodes, PoW nuking asics, mandatory flags.. without actually doing a real listen to the community and unite the community.

so i have asked you and your buddies a few times..
what if hearne done exactly line for line decision for decision the same as core. would you support hearnes implementation
4738  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: /r/btc loons already twisting Antbleed facts to meet their agenda on: April 30, 2017, 05:42:51 PM
You have been explained already by a couple people how satoshi's vision is incompatible with the concept of cash, because setting a blocksize big enough to allow for main stream transactions on-chain, would mean the people validating the transactions have the power to censor transactions at will because it would be no longer people running nodes but corporations.

Satoshi was wrong when he wanted datacenters running nodes while calling his project p2p cash.

translation:
"gigabytes by midnight"
"visa by midnight"
"hold bitcoin at 1mb to prevent it growing naturally at a pace that home nodes can cope with over decades, because visa by midnight not naturally in a few decades"
(facepalm)


You are out of your mind if you think technology will grow naturally with the amount of blocksize needed for mainstream onchain cheap fast transactions while allowing people to run nodes at home.

By the time bitcoin reaches VISA levels, VISA will be lightyears away.

We can't never compete against the expected standards of the average joe onchain, because they are used to the perceived speed of centralized systems.

We can do very moderate blocksize increases and that's about it (if you care about network decentralization that is)

your out of your mind if you believe:
1. visa got to where it is over night
2. that bitcoin NEEDS to process billions of transactions tonight
3. that bitcoin will be a one world currency for 7 billion people.. tonight or even in a couple decades
3. that halting onchain growth because of fake fears it cant grow.

let me guess if you had kids you would break their knee caps at 6month old out of fear they may walk into a moving car before they are 15. and the only thing you can think of is not letting them walk because a wheelchair with airbags is safer which you can only get if your child is disabled.

bitcoin today is like the internet in 1992, so let me guess if you could time travel to 1997. you would want to kill off the guys that invent skype and activision because video calls and online gaming wont happen the next day of 1997..



4739  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons on: April 30, 2017, 05:34:19 PM
1. It's obviously centralized. The company supplying the ASICs is the same for more than 70% of the hashrate. We've already seen with antbleed, how bad this is. If this went unnoticed and PBOC told Jihan to stop all of his machines remotely, we would have been fucked.

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china or jihan
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.

2. Full nodes validate transactions. If you get rid of people running full nodes and put it inside the same corporations that are running mines, then the government of a country can take bitcoin hostage by telling this corporation to censor certain transactions. They have the validating nodes and the hashrate.

much like BTCC being under the came cartel as blockstream and coinbase...
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b  -btcc   -blockstream
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c  -coinbase

those rules can be gamed as the chinese are trying to do.

you mean where blockstream bypassed nodes to hand the only vote of segwit to pools..
also

please show source of claim for 70% of hashrate is under the thump of china
please dont reference a tweet or reddit post.
4740  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is bitcoin transaction fees fair? on: April 30, 2017, 04:48:00 PM
25Cents at this time is fair in the future if the community does not grow it may need to go up to 50cents or more but thats the cost of having a inflation free currency.

fair for the well banked first world countries where 25cents = 2 minutes minimum wage labour
unfair for the unbanked third world countries where 25cents = hours minimum wage labour

so lets word it this way..
because many cannot get out of the mindset of "americanisation"

bitcoin is "americanisation" $37.5
now would you use it if it cost you 5 hours labour to use it..

please dont worry about the value.. just think of the context.
"would you use it if it cost you 5 hours labour to use it.."
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 ... 872 »
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!