Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2019, 11:44:34 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 ... 856 »
4741  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF on: April 12, 2017, 10:02:13 AM
It seems like you are really frustrated about ASICBoost being outed. I wonder why that is. Roll Eyes

It is also undeniable that some central planning is good for the overall development of Bitcoin. The developers propose something then it is for the nodes and the miners to decide which ones they want or what they do not want. It is the centralization of mining or the possibility of miner collusion that is bad. They have gained much leverage on the network that now they have become like an enemy of the Core developers to impose what they want.
Decentralized planning doesn't work. Just use the plane analogy. Do you let you passengers decide the size and type of your engines?

lauda, your showing little to no understanding of bitcoin but high understanding to blockstreams control. i wonder why.

asicboost is no secret. in 2015 it was an efficiency boost. hardware and software was developed.
MONTHS LATER blockstream decided "wait we could implement segwit using the anyonecanspend backdoor exploit" thinking blockstream can have a easy life adding in code without node veto and thinking buying the pools a free lunch gets them segwit by christmas 2016..
so a year after asic hardware is designed. sgwit code is ready for testnet.
but the testnet tests are not thorough enough.
months later segwit gets a public release and starts having a deadline.
so thats a year of coding.. blockstream failed to realise their 2merkle backdoor version wouldnt be compatible with efficient hardware software.
they released the code.. 5 months of having the release blockstream had no clue their backdoor (going soft) would have issues.

then last month gmax hit the wall by realising that all the year and a half of trying to bypass node consensus by going soft would never have worked out right anyway.

so now gmax is having a temper tantrum and blaming pools.

please do something before replying to defend blockstream.
clear your mind of blockstream.. relax, take off the defender hat. and wear the logical thinking cap.

and imagine this.
its 2011 ATI have this snazzy feature that Geforce doesnt. is called openCL. it gives ATI an advantage.
now imagine 2012 some new bitcoin feature was needed, it was hoped to use some backdoor to implement it to not need full node consensus.
you have done lots of tests using Geforce and ATI non-openCL hardware.
near 2013 you realise your backdoor attempts hit a wall because openCL affects it.
do you
A. tell the world ATI is attacking bitcoin because of openCL
B. be honest and tell the world the node consensus bypass backdoor would never have worked as expected but you only just found the problem
C. do B but then raise your hands and say ok community, lets node consensus a new cleaner recoded version and this time lets include dynamics and other proper fixes.
D. do A and double down threatening ATI and insinuating people should hate ATI with racial rhetoric while you try killing off anyone thats using openCL
4742  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 04:49:16 AM
When I first came to this forum I thought the development of bitcoin is a consensus in GitHub as they over GitHub wont let any changes takes place until a number of votes from many developers been cast in consensus, and even thought MIT university has a board dedicated to developing bitcoin I mean damn what a douche I was Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy.

yp it does not need 400 contributor votes to add a line of code. it just need the maintainer and a couple main guys to acknowledge it.

i know for sure that the devs dont read every single line of code. because i have seen many cases where the main regular contributors end up asking each other about lines X even afters its in a release candidate.

for instance gmax amended a few of the tx fee things which led to the fee rise happen more easily, but question them about it and they cant remember how or what happened or by who

they just blindly trusted that gmax coded something and let it pass.
hense why i think a few of them are now blaming pools. when it was actually core code caused simply because not everyone knows the whole code, and each person just concentrates on a certain area.
4743  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
i thought they were suppose to begin 3.. meaning accounting for the extended LN addressing. it would be BC3 not BC1

Doesn't look like it:
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/bech32/demo/demo.html

even multisig uses version 1.

that was march 2016.. before segwit or LN realy gained any traction at code level.. things have moved on from then(obviously)
i know in last 6 months they were thinking of segwit keys being 3. and the LN guys wanting BC: at the front to help them out for their altcoin inter-playability..
4744  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 04:13:25 AM
as for the hard vs soft..

a 1 merkle hard is cleaner than a 2 merkle soft. for things like no need for the tier network of upstream filters because all implementations would need to upgrade and thus no need to 'strip' blocksor need of a 2 merkle to allow stripping.
that way the 4mb weight does become the 4mb base. for everyone to take advantage of native or segwit keypair

but the txsigoplimit still needs to be kept down for the sake of native key abusers

 I'm lost

in short, by going soft. blockstream nodes need to strip away the segwit witnesses to make the block appear valid to old nodes downstream. so need to completely separate the signature away.. thus needing 2 merkles to keep them linked without being linked..just t be able to cut the witness away..

however if everyone was upgrading by going hard, then there is no need to have to play the strip data down to meet old block game of a tier network, because everyone would be on the same playing field.

so the witness can just be appended to a tx and not need a second merkle thus the base block limit becomes irrelevant and the 4mb weight because the new block limit with no more 1mb (old native node rule)
4745  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 04:04:02 AM
can someone explain what is meant by "native key"

you mean people who choose to stick with the current/old TX format, in the context of SF only?   right?

Yeah, old Bitcoin addresses.

Segwit addresses look like this: bc1qw508d6qejxtdg4y5r3zarvary0c5xw7kv8f3t4

Don't complain! atleast luke-jr didn't push for "tonal addresses" Cheesy

i thought they were suppose to begin 3.. meaning accounting for the extended LN addressing. it would be BC3 not BC1

the BC part of the address is all because rusty russel wants BC at the front so that address formats for LN can do things like offchain swaps with other altcoins easier, where i feel that litecoin will have LC3 for instance...


and yea years ago when i seen Luke want tonal, i facepalmed that
4746  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:59:38 AM
can someone explain what is meant by "native key"

you mean people who choose to stick with the current/old TX format, in the context of SF only?   right?

yep
some people use the term 'legacy' which also refers to standard/current/old keys
but legacy is more about inheritance after death..(real world definition... not bitcoin buzzword definition)

i prefer using native (like real word definition: the natives [indians] who existed prior to the invasions of newcomers)
4747  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:47:37 AM
as for the hard vs soft..

a 1 merkle hard is cleaner than a 2 merkle soft. for things like no need for the tier network of upstream filters because all implementations would need to upgrade and thus no need to 'strip' blocksor need of a 2 merkle to allow stripping.
that way the 4mb weight does become the 4mb base. for everyone to take advantage of native or segwit keypair

but the txsigoplimit still needs to be kept down for the sake of native key abusers
4748  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:40:53 AM
Or you could do what the one BU dev proposed and go full out hardfork segwit and block native keys and switch everyone over to segwit keys and increase the base block as much as you want, but blocking native keys is a real dirty solution.
LOL blocking native keys worth 16 million bitcoin in a 20 billion dollar industry is a great way to make bitcoin worth... zero.

fully agree with CK. he beat me to that.. Cheesy
blocking native keys .. i facepalmed when i read that from anonymoustroll420
lol

and if anonymoustroll420 thinks segwit can just 'convert' everyones funds over to segwit with a magic wand.. well another facepalm is needed

its far far easier to just have txsigop limit at sat well under 4000 forever.. none of this txsigops upscaling with blocksize crap that actually makes quadratic spamming worse not better
4749  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
The fact that they see segwit as a real fix

but its not..

only those people who use segwit keys are disarmed from quadratic spamming . but native key users are not.
thus spammers can just stick to native keys and spam the base block ..

thats why keeping a tight grip on txsigop limits is still needed as a ultimate solution FOR EVERYONE native or segwit key users
4750  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 03:16:57 AM
Aren't those limits only enforced by miners? meaning if a miner mined a block that contained a tx over the sigops limit, nodes will still see it as a valid block and try validate it.

Anyway even if thats not the case, it still has the problem. You can still do 4x 1MB txes and cause a 2min validation time with a 4MB base block.

The easy solution is segwit's address format which scales linear instead of quadratic, so we don't need sigop limits or anything like that, it addresses the root of the problem and fixes it. Seems like even BU devs agree on that.


your maths on timings are not quite right.
EG

based on QUADRATICS (sigops not bytes)
a 4k sigops ~10 seconds
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 50seconds validation time

a 16k sigops under 8 minutes
meaning 5 tx's to hit the blocksigop limit= 32minutes validation time.
yep even i facepalmed that.

however if all implementations just allowed 2k sigops no matter what the size was.
2k= ~0.1 second.

so say the blocksigop limit was 20k(1mb) it would take 20tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 2 seconds
so say the blocksigop limit was 80k(4mb) it would take 80tx,s not 5tx's. and the time would be under 8 seconds

which is much better than 32 minutes that core have imposed.
4751  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't fix quadratic hashing on: April 12, 2017, 02:56:22 AM
**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/consensus/consensus.h
Code:
BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50;

**BU & CORE **/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h
Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS = BLOCKSTREAM_CORE_MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS/5;

by doing the blocksize/50/5 maths for MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS.. ends up as

core v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
core v0.14 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 (1mb base, 4 weight) meaning 16kops, even when native keys are still locked to the 1mb limit

BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=4000 1mb base
BitUnlim v0.12 MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=16000 4mb base (still spammy but atleast the base block is bigger.)

this is done because core have already proclaimed the limit..



however.

bitcoin unlimited did add a little extra nugget that core did not.. they would prevent certain tx's getting relayed that could become quadratically spammy
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/blob/release/src/policy/policy.h
Code:
static const unsigned int MAX_P2SH_SIGOPS = 15;
/** The maximum number of sigops we're willing to relay/mine in a single tx */



i think that ALL implementations 'should' just do
MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS = MAX_BLOCK_SIZE/50; //this adjusts to allow more tx's as the blocksize increases
MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS=2000; //this never changes. no matter what the blocksize becomes.


making sure that tx's never get a chance to be quadratically spammy, but allows more leaner/cleaner tx's in as blocksizes grow
4752  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 12, 2017, 01:41:16 AM
have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked
You've read that Jiang Zhuoer is the founder from a news article. So much for your "backed" bullshit. Roll Eyes

nope.
i actually went to the document where Jiang Zhuoer himself was writing.

the thing i do is if i see something.. i find the source. if someone says the source is a news article. i then look at a news article and find that news articles source. and i go right back to the real source.

sometimes these things are circle jerks where one "news" site is just quoting another news site which has quoted a reddit post from someone not involved, who then quotes another news site which has quoted another non-involved person.. and i just facepalm it.

but hey. maybe thats because my concentration span can last longer than 2 paragraphs and i dont just take things on face value, nor 'trust' something because 'it must be backed because 100+ people acknowledge it.

for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks'
for instance i have yet to see any time that a release from core actually get 100 'Acks' and where those 100 people have read every single line of code.

for instance. there is a guy that put a pull request to mention gitian in a document to get himself named as 'one of the 100' contributors. but i know for sure he has not read every single line of code.. care to guess who im talking about, or am i being too subtle?
4753  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell on: April 12, 2017, 01:05:02 AM
SegWit & LN are all about removing Transactions Offchain, meaning the miner will see reduced income from transaction fees, until the point LN/Banking Cartels Bankrupt the BTC miners and take over completely.

That is a problem, one of the many, i have with LN. Taking TF from miners would destabilise the maintenance of the network as altruism isn't going to be enough. The point of TF is to replace POW rewards in 20ish years time. I do not get why everyone is so up for LN. Do people really understand it?

TF are not a problem or a concern today. pools dont need them.

so i see no reason at all to be pushing for 600% 'bonus' growth in under a year
EG no need for
year   block    txcap     fee total
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   01mb   2200      $1320.00(60c/tx)

by actually growing the blockspace we can increase bitcoins utility.
(i am not talking about gigabytes by midnight, im talking natural growth within capability of nodes over time. (productive slow natural growth)

this will allow instead of 2200 TF payers paying 6x this year as they did last year. but
4400 paying the same this year as last year, yet giving pools double the bonus.

EG
2016   01mb   2200      $220.00(10c/tx)
2017   02mb   4400      $440.00(10c/tx)
2018   03mb   6600      $660.00(10c/tx)
2019   04mb   8800      $880.00(10c/tx)
..
2084   69mb   151800   $15,180.00(10c/tx)

remember tech will be very different in decades and the block reward dozen 100% disappear for a century. so the need for fee's is not essential now.
the flip between reward(income):fee(bonus).. to reward(bonus):fee(income) wont happen in the next couple years. but sometime between a couple DECADES to a century.
4754  Other / Meta / Re: Likes and dislikes on Bitcointalk? on: April 12, 2017, 12:44:27 AM
+- voting just ends up with the guys with multiple accounts and people of particular teams all chipping in to self gratify and pretend it means they are correct.

it then leads away from people actually reading the content and then going out to research themselves to find the truth. but instead people becoming lazy thinking "it must be true he has +50"

for instance, on facebook. when you see the news feeds people think its real that celebrity X has died, simply because the article has over 1mill shares.
leading to another 1mill posts of condolences.. meanwhile celebrity X is alive.

where as posts highlighting celebrity X being alive, get little to no response
4755  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: USAF Economic Weight on: April 11, 2017, 11:32:21 PM
So are they suffering from Einstein's definition of insanity?

not really.

more so beat with a stick until people give in
4756  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Evil ISPs could disrupt Bitcoin's blockchain on: April 11, 2017, 11:30:32 PM
old theory

based on scare stories of only a couple nodes in a couple countries.

diversity over comes this
nodes in 90 countries so far
nodes spread across 1000 ISPs/services

even the pools which some non-researching racists call chinese, are actually scattered across many countries
4757  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: USAF Economic Weight on: April 11, 2017, 10:28:25 PM
So what happens if the miners have a significant majority of hash power and are vehemently opposed to segwit, or the team which is trying to control the development of the protocol?

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.

in short, if bip9 dosnt get 95%, if UASF doesnt help to get segwit activated. they will ignore the fact that majority is not reached. and just try again wasting another year trying.

on thing the devs wont do before 2019 is to take a step back and listen to the community and actually do a proper consensus that includes more features to make the community happy

4758  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to. on: April 11, 2017, 08:35:09 PM
another topic  changed into the nashian echo chamber of trainwreck/iamnotback quoting himself as the source of information. and asking everyone to bow down to Nash
4759  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 07:54:41 PM
OP, you made a grave mistake by not self-moderating this thread. Anything that is even remotely positive about Segwit or Bitcoin Core, even when we are talking about *facts*, will get smashed by the group of hired goons. You can find them in all related threads, see: franky, jonald, Alex, kiklo. There are some that occasionally come and go, see: zimmah.

This thread is already flooded with such responses, even though the article mentions *some factual improvements*.

factual improvements?
lol
which are where..
oh im guessing "if" 100% move funds to segwit keys and the utopian unicorn stops native spammers.
i say utopian unicorn, because segwit does not stop native spammers. it actually helps native spammers

EG
v0.12 - 4k txsigoplimit 20k blocksigoplimit (under 10 second validation time)
v0.14 - 16k txsigoplimit 80k blocksigoplimit (under 8 minute validation time)
plus other new spam attacks that even carlton banks revealed.

lauda.. you loved having the "quadratics is bad" arguments for a whole year... even you should understand quadratics worse with segwit code limits if used by native keypair users.
wake up, spammers wont use segwit keypairs
4760  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 07:44:29 PM
Crayzians (crazy asians) are driving the price up faster than I've ever seen before

1. look at the unconfirmd spam
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=1year
june/july spike -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) CSV
october -> spikes -hmm i wonder which team needed something to be implemented so needed to create drama that month.. oh blockstream(core) segwit

2. look at the code rules that allowed fee increases
hmm i wonder which team removed the fee priority - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which team removed reactive pricing when demand was low to replace it with average fee to keep prices up - oh yea blockstream(core)
hmm i wonder which teams says "just pay more" is best economics. rather then make code rules that actually work - oh yea blockstream(core)

3. dont blame "asians" when its the coders decisions at play
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 ... 856 »
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!