Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2019, 08:22:01 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 ... 859 »
4821  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling on: April 11, 2017, 01:03:31 PM
blockstream chose to go soft. (pools only)
instead of going full wetard tantrum and do a UASF. blockstream should actually ask the abstainers/ naysayers 'why not' ..
and instead of using lengthy wordplay.. blockstream should make code changes to then address the issues and gain more functions the COMMUNITY as a whole would appreciate.

funny part.
blockstream want to just ram segwit down the communities throats no matter what. no stepping back, no second recodes. no community feedback.. just segwit or nuke

so if bip9 doesnt have adequate 85%ish pool flag by august for hopes of 95% by november. blockstream wont re-evaluate.. they will just press the squeeze button to add threats and bribes and blackmails of UASF
Quote
Why was the date of August 1, 2017 chosen?

Because BIP9 is time based, BIP148 needs to account for the possibility for some of the hash power to exit (eg. to mine another fork) which would make block intervals longer. The August 1st date allows for the economic majority to successfully activate SegWit. Theoretically, if the hashpower drops by up to 85%, it might take up to 13 weeks to complete an activation period. In this scenario, SegWit will still activate for all BIP148 compliant nodes.

..
now if UASF also fails to get segwit in.. guess what.. no backing down, no rcoding, no community review.. just make another deadline for end of 2018 and keep poking the bear with the half assed gestures of 2merkle no promise fixes verion segwit. just to delay and provoke the community.

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.

tl:dr;
dont expect blockstream(core) to even attempt to listen to the community by adding in any dynamic 1merkle (proper full node/pool consensus upgrade)version of segwit before 2019
4822  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Jorge Stolfi lied to the SEC that commodity money is an equity? Bitcoin ETF. on: April 11, 2017, 12:49:30 PM
lol

the real "commodity"

is a raw material
(oil, gold, beef)
which the quality matches enough that its comparable to the same raw material from other sources.
EG oil is oil - but diesel is different to unleaded car fuel, aswell as the obvious that diesel/unleaded are not raw.

the commodities markets are about raw materials that are sourced and marketed to later be used to make other produce.
EG
gold-> circuits/jewellery
oil-> diesel/unleaded car fuel/plastic products
wheat->bread


now take a breather


things like gold. although it sits on a commodity market. it can also sit on other markets too.
like asset markets and final product markets.


take a breather i know your itching to reply


now here is the thing. because bitcoin has certain 'features' that resemble golds ASSET features. does NOT make bitcoin pass the test of the "commodity" market test.

bitcoin is an ASSET currency. not a commodity.
once you realise that gold sits on many seats/markets because it has many properties both raw/final... physical/non-physical. and you separate those features to which market fits which.
you will start to see the separation of the asset features market and the commodity market and not be so quick to want to throw bitcoin into the "commodity" category simply with rebuttles of "but bitcoin is like gold"
4823  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. on: April 11, 2017, 11:51:24 AM
Surely you must be kidding. The bitcoin mining network is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

lol
lets say we just think about:
600peta = ~44,000 S9 antminers(42857.14285714286 more precisely if your not factoring in slight hash variance)

now the antminer are retail $2k.. but manufactured at ~$500


$21,428,571(more precise asiccount) cost to make 600peta (~44k asics)
now using simple numbers (yep im gonna round them and not be as precise so dont knit pick, and just read the concept)

if blockstream started a manufactring company using its $70m
they could have made lets say 132,000 asics ($64m)

sold just 44,000 at $2k ($88m money back in pocket($94m including unspend $6m) AND kept 88,000 rigs for themselves..
Yep they could have 1.2Exahash running and now have $94m cash.

rinse and repeat
make 132,000 asics. sell 44,000 at retail.
keep 88,000(176k asics combined total) and then have another $88m($182m combined in pocket) (2.4exa)

rinse and repeat
4824  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: China leading the way for a regulated bitcoin on: April 11, 2017, 08:10:30 AM
this topic seems more like a racial attack and mis-information than a real bitcoin information topic, for these reasons.

1. any exchange in any country that touches FIAT needs to follow fiat regulations of that country
2. just because half the business relates to bitcoin does not make the fiat side magically not require fiat regulations
3. if an exchange doesnt want to follow fiat regulations then just fo bitcoin-alt exchanging without any fiat involvement
4. its not just china its near on every country.
4825  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 07:13:05 AM
This is proof again, that you do not do enough research, but just spew bullshit. LTC1BTC and Antpool are owned by Jihan. The hashrate on both pools has grown exponentially ever since the other miners were about to activate Segwit.

LTC1BTC = Jiang Zhuoer.... not jihan

have a nice day with yourself readdit reddit scripts that are meaningless & unbacked
4826  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 06:51:49 AM
FYI, statements like these are fine when you link up to several people as sources and just verify via recent mining data.

antpool litecoin less than 9%
yawn
4827  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 06:15:38 AM
With Jihan now actively attacking Litecoin to prevent Segwit from being activated, the statement in the thread title is pretty much disproven. Bitmain is holding two networks hostage. It is time for a revolution.


lol
proof?
oh. and dont make it a reddit post from some random guy or a tweet from a random guy
4828  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 05:39:51 AM
Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.

lol you think achowe is unbiased?

also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks.
no tech knowledge needed.

moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech.

P.S
But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.

my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont
just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string.

but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists
4829  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. on: April 10, 2017, 05:07:05 AM
Ι don't see why any party would use such cryptic technology to block a solution on bitcoin's hottest issues. Would the creators risk the reputation of the technology by only providing access to it to people looking to divide bitcoin's progress? And if yes, what what's to gain out of something like that?

the issue is actually that blockstream by using the 'going soft' 2merkle backdoor (anyoncanspend opcode exploit), shot themselves in the foot. and gmax only realised it last month. now he is waving fingers at every direction but its own. still refusing to back down and fix his own flaws

segit is not even active, so instead of trying to ENDLESSLY push it through in every way possible under its current 2merkle approach right upto end of 2018

they shoud just rewrite it as a proper full node consensus 1merkle, then use that oppertunity to include other community requested features such as a LOWER maxTXsigop limit and also dynamic blocks (3birds, one stone) for an even playing field PEER network acceptance.


and not waste april 2017-late 2018* trying to push the no guarantee  '2merkle tier network segwit' half gesture

*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.
4830  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even paid alarmist shills shouting "re: "Bugs/needs fix now!"...will buy Bitcoin on: April 10, 2017, 04:44:05 AM
one interesting thing that i have noticed is that many people around here (specially in signature campaigns) are like parrots. someone with clear agenda spreads some FUD and you see them repeat it all over the forum.

i saw a comment in altcoin board from one of those brainless parrots talking about bitcoin and it having a bug in the code which was exploited! and we have all seen thousands of comments talking about "split" in the past month.

the only ones shouting
"splits are bad"
"anything not core needs to split"
"if segwit isnt activate a splt will occur"
are the blockstreamists.

the rest of the community want consensus. meaning network PEER upgrade..
not blockstream upstream TIER network
not blockstream split, anything else= 'altcoin'

a real proper consensus.
also if the pools and nodes say no to segwit. no mandatory push it in by delaying another year
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.

instead blockstreamists should accept consensus said no. and then blockstream should listen to the community and try something the community do want.
non of this intentionally give to pools and then point fingers at pools with 'pools are attacking' crap.

pools and non-core nodes have done literally nothing. no deadlines, no demands, no threats.
so stop pointing the finger at everyone else when the root of the issues/debate/drama is blockstream
4831  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU support down below 35% on: April 10, 2017, 04:33:21 AM
save repeating myself about segwits increased signalling which explains BU decreased signalling

 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


4832  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: it is Core, not Bitman blocking segwit on: April 10, 2017, 04:19:46 AM
?? blockstream devs have no control ??

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
Quote
People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.
luke JR.. oh look blockstream (p.s just a couple months ago it was gmax)

hmm who moderates the mailing list
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderation
Quote
To post a message to all the list members, send email to bitcoin-dev-moderation@lists.ozlabs.org.
Bitcoin-dev-moderation list run by rusty at rustcorp.com.au
 
ozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel

so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment.
so whats next. hmm
oh the technical discussion category on this forum
oh look gmaxwell

so thats LJR,  RR and GM of blockstream employment.


separate matter..


have you then seen the segwit activation proposals
bip9, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, do UASF

UASF, if gets no vote.. dont realise the community said no, dont give up, push harder until the end of 2018
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.

seems blockstream can control what happens. and can only take no for an answer when its them saying no
4833  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF on: April 10, 2017, 03:34:45 AM
A block size increase is inevitable in my opinion. Why not be patient and support Segwit now and get a block size increase later?

to save repeating myself segwit is not the 'solution' its the bait for future debate to push an agenda.
devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse[was 10 sec, soon 8min validation time]. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse by giving you weight" (actually its txsigop increase that causes it)
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite
4834  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: AsicBoost Probably the reason Segwit is being blocked. on: April 10, 2017, 03:19:13 AM
coindesk is a well known Blockstream mouthpiece.


partially agree.

They have investor ties... but even Coindesk still publishes big block articles (they recently did one on bcoin)
and many of the articles have a neutral stance. 

bcoin -> purse

Coindesk =DCG
purse.. guess what
http://dcg.co/portfolio/#p
purse = DCG
4835  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The only answer against Miners Mafia is UASF on: April 10, 2017, 03:11:11 AM
jonald_fyookball

miners AND nodes have a symbiotic relationship. in satoshi's day it was [siamese twins joined at the hip]. mining and being the node were the same single joined entity.
now its separate[un conjoined twins] it doesnt mean only miners[one twin] get the vote or only nodes get the vote[one twin].. they both[as siblings] have equal power and should learn to share the power not fight for it.

blockstream INTENTIONALLY ignored nodes[twin A] and gave pools[twin B] the vote. but now that [twin B] is refusing to eat what daddy blockstream wants to feed them. blockstream is the one having the angry tantrum blaming the [twin B] pools.
even as much as to now have daddy blockstream tell twinA to beat up and kneecap twinB

blockstream should have prepared a proper healthy [food] solution that both nodes and pools [both twins] can happily accept. or if not happy blockstream should not try forcing it down their throats, but go back to the kitchen and prepare a different healthier meal
4836  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even paid alarmist shills shouting "re: "Bugs/needs fix now!"...will buy Bitcoin on: April 10, 2017, 02:48:06 AM
Bitcoin doesn't have a problem with scaling btw
it does have a problem.
by not being allowed to scale. (im not talking about the baited one-time half gesture segwit)
we should have had real scaling changed years ago
scaling which grows naturally over time(not stupid gigabytes by midnight, but instead natural node capable and managed by nodes scaling over time(not devs, not pools))

-- it simply was never designed to execute thousands of transactions per second like a credit card.
thats  a close mind statement to make
like computers were never designed for call of duty or video calls 20 years ago, but now its natural and no big deal
let me guess, you would love to go back 20 years and tell skype, twitch, youtube, google, to never get into the computer industry because
online gaming and video content was never designed to work on a computer. i can hear you now "just dont bother"

your mindset seems to be either 0 to 1billion in one night else dont bother.
you fail to realise that natural growth over say 3 decades where nodes are allowed to set limits that change over time, CAN scale..
just not gigabytes by midnight, but instead slow natural capable increments over months-years

Increasing block size, won't change that or solve issues with unconfirmed transactions.

HALTing onchain growth wont solve issues either
whats next, shoot childrens feet or break their knee caps at 8months old out of fear that they may run infront of a car should they slowly learn to walk?
how about slowly teach them to walk and naturally ensure they check for risks, and learn when its safe to cross a road... kneecapping them is not the answer
i bet you would love a world of locking children into wheelchairs where a parent(hub) has control of risk by refusing movement(not signing) or controling it(setting the rules/routing costs/participants).
Block size really is a pointless debate.
blocksize alone is not the solution. especially if devs are baiting the blocksize with stupid methods.
EG
v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops 20k maxTXsigops 4k 1mb baseblocklimit
v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops 80k maxTXsigops 16k (1mb baseblocklimit - 3mb arbitrary space if people opt-in)
that there alone is the devs letting more native quadratic spam continue.. and infact get worse. they are literally causing the problem to try and say making bigger blocks 'just doesnt work' .. the devs are baiting the narrative yet not doing a proper job of solving the issue

you can literally hear the future echo's from their corporate chambers ripple back through time
"we the king overlord devs gave you 4mb[empty halfbaked gesture] weight, but still blocks are being filled by 5 insanely spammy tx's that now take 8minutes to validate instead of 10 seconds"

they are baiting the community, not solving the problem
their solution:
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k
knowing not everyone moves to segwit keypairs to use the 'weight'- their echo chamber script "see people dont want more tx's, the 4mb isnt even being used"
knowing corps making a point will spam baseblock - their echo chamber script "see validation times have got worse"

real solution
1mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 20k, maxTXsigops 2k
2mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 40k, maxTXsigops 1k
4mb baseblock: maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 500
again not
4mb weight: 1mb base, maxBLOCKsigops 80k, maxTXsigops 16k

real solutions reduce spammy validations times and allow more lean tx's over time. blockstream devs bait does the opposite
4837  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How dose the User activated soft fork work? on: April 09, 2017, 06:53:46 PM

This is likely what you are made to believe

The number of pools in this case becomes utterly inconsequential if they are not independent, i.e. the majority of them might well be controlled by the same individual (and we all know his name). For the sake of simplicity, you can consider all mining pools from China as just one huge pool. Ultimately, Jihan himself might only be a strawman for the Chinese authorities (e.g. PBoC), i.e. he is doing what he is being told by the guys who don't want to reveal themselves. China is corrupt all throughout

blah blah blah 2011-2013
less than 10 pools and al using just 2 manufacturers of hardware
ATI and GeForce
over 50 % was in america

now over 20 pools
more than 2 manufacturers of hardware
less than 50% in china (yep i said it)(go check out the stats of the so called "chinese")

but did we ever blame ATI for openCL
did we accuse ati for attacking bitcoin

PBoC corrupt??
wait.. was it chinese banks that made people homeless in 2008
was it chinese banks that bailed out the rich
yes governments are corrupt and banks are.. but thinking china is worse than america lol thats a laugh

i do love the whole reddit scripts of fox new's "bomb them bomb them bomb them".. but can you shows your REAL sources
4838  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How dose the User activated soft fork work? on: April 09, 2017, 05:14:01 PM
We need USAF because 2 miners can't dictate the fate of bitcoin. Simple inequation explains it:

count(user) >> count(miner) …

Time to kick miner's ass.

they are not dictating anything

blockstream decided pool only vote.

if blockstream cant accept the result of a pool only vote. you dont nuke the objectors, you either accept the no vote or you try again with full community..

if the full community say no. then you give up.

EG
other implementations have not set deadlines or threatened they just plodded along for 2 years.
they accept whatver consensus decide.

blockstream need to man up and do the same.
full consensus vote OR redo segwit properly and include the extra's the community are asking for
non of this 2merkle tier network control with mining nuke bullcrap
4839  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even more proof that market wants segwit on: April 09, 2017, 04:12:11 PM
OP is referring to recent Litecoin pump and dump I think.

litecoin pump and dump..
who cares.

its temporary price drama.
plus

it was caused by twitter..
not asics or china or asicboost.

asics and asicboost has done nothing in the last 2 years
bu, classic, xt, and a dozen other implementations has dont nothing in the last 2 years

reddit and twitter "rumours" have been the attack, twisted as a victim card being waved at a situation that has never played out

4840  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even more proof that market wants segwit on: April 09, 2017, 03:41:34 PM
it's a rumor,

are you ignoring this

temporary price drama is meaningless..
PoW nuking based on temporary price speculation and rumour...illogical
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 ... 859 »
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!