Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2019, 05:51:52 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 860 »
4981  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Which Bitcoin Features Are Still True? on: April 05, 2017, 05:38:25 AM
2009
anonymous
decentralised
no one in control
virtually free
no barrier of entry
secure
immutible
fungible

2017
pseudonymous
distributed and diverse(until core get their tier network)
core want control(pretend to already have control since 2013)
escalating fees
only 2500tx utility a block
PoW nuke threat can kill security
mimblwimble/prunned/'anyonecanspend a segwit' on a native block attack risks immutability
pools prefer certain tx's over others

P.S
there is no point preaching to the chior trying to gloss over issues to stroke people to sleep.
those on this forum already know of bitcoin so dont need the glossy sales pitch of utopia.

whats needed is cold hard truths so that people know the real limitations risks and issues so that they can get sorted.
hiding the truth helps no one
4982  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit2MB does nothing at all to fix the real problem on: April 05, 2017, 05:25:06 AM
But who do you propose take over as the stewards of the Bitcoin network?

stewards of bitcoin??

get that centralist hat off your head right now!
there should be no stewards/kings

core want to control bitcoin and fear an open decentralised diverse peer network.

other implementations dont want control. set no deadlines demanded nothing and not making PoW nuke threats.

core is adement that they wont want to join many different brands on a dynamic peer network. where nods of different brands set the rules by independent consensus. core want their controlled TIER network

core want their back door exploit to slide in changes(by going soft) without nodes vetoing the changes

seriously get that "stewardship" hat off your head and think of the big picture

P.S blockstream(core) have admitted that going soft is using a backdoor exploit. and admitted they want to add more exploits to make it easier to go soft.

what becomes 'easier' for core.. is actually bad for the network as other can then use that exploit for more nefarious purposes
4983  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks on: April 05, 2017, 05:06:36 AM
if bitcoin doesn't upgrad on-chain, ether or dash will, and 30 years from now dash's blockchain could be more secure than bitcoins!

30 years?  if we don't upgrade, we might not last 30 months.  things move fast in the cryptoworld which is only 7 years old.  look what happened in less than a year with the marketshare...95% to 66%.  

Its the potleaf, he meant 3 Wink

I agree, should fee's, time and functionality/sustainability for parties as a whole continue to move in the wrong direction, 30 months may even be a stretch.

the thing the network effect is strong, and segwit will buy some time, then LN will buy more time, but after a few more block reward halvings, if the onchain TX fee revenue isn't up significantly...

we can continue to go down the worng path for a long long time, avoiding the inevitable. thats why i'm thinking the consequences are years away.

altho admittedly 30years was a bit much.

segwit wont 'buy some time
bcause the network effect of users feeling the change. does not occur due to just activating segwit. it occurs by people voluntarily moving their funds over to segwit keys.

the burden of moving 46mill UTXO will create MONTHS of constant mempool bloat of native key users moving across. or years of slow switching over of keys just to even try attaining the ~4500tx a block hope.

the other failure of segwit is by offering a 'discount' it make the fee continue to rise, which then begins to impact native key users 4x(due to segwits 75% discount). EG a 10% segwit fee rise is 40% native key rise

the end result is native key users will eventually be paying more to move their UTXO than their UTXO is worth.
we are already seeing that now.
which just results in people not moving their UTXO and creating dead UTXO set of millions of what then becomes 'dust' due to being under say $6 value.
4984  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks on: April 05, 2017, 05:02:03 AM
the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101
making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total.

sorry but your and blockstreams high school level understanding of economics is the failure

if a block can only handle ~2500 native transactions
then this is the result:
if blockreward * current bitcoin price leaves a deficit of say $2500 (EG bitcoin price went from $1200-1000 = $15,000 to $12,500)
then that means fee's need to be ~$1 to combine to make up for that deficit.
if blockreward * current bitcoin price leaves a deficit of say $7500 (EG bitcoin reward went from 12.5-6.25 = $15,000 to $7,500)
then that means fee's need to be ~$3 to combine to make up for that deficit.

the result is a LIMITED amount of people (due to only ~2500tx native key users) will get peed off with having to 'just pay more'
the funny part is
segwit with its 75% discount. means although there 'could be' 4500tx segwit users per block IF block was 100% segwit key use. the fee's are then at best 50cent-$1.50 for segwit.
but that means $2-$6 for native key users(undiscounted)


however.
we have a couple years before needing to increase onchain capacity to ofset the next block halving (without having to rely/hope for the bitcoin price to save the day again)

EG imagine the price was stagnant for the next 20 years at $1,200.. and you will see that trying to squeeze more blood out of 2500 people every 10 minutes, wont work.

more transactions per second onchain = more people sharing the burden = less of a burden overall
4985  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: April 04, 2017, 09:11:38 PM
Some of the people that discussed here will already know it, but the original proposal (2 MB + Segwit) has had support from a prominent Core developer - Sergio Demian Lerner, also one of the people behind RSK.

If a "conservative dynamic increase" like those proposed here and in other BIP-100/106-style solutions isn't possible because of lack of support, I would support a 2 MB hard fork with a reasonably large grace time after Segwit activation (~1 year).

kind of funny
segwit 2weeks grace.
yet anything not blockstream authorized 1year plus grace..

kind of stupid to keep making a bip, but then let blockstream determine to terms and conditions.
4986  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Erik Voorhees: SegWit should be activated on: April 04, 2017, 08:54:56 PM
Uh oh watch out Erik, now BU is going to abandon you as an oracle.

first mistake is thinking its only a BU vs debate
4987  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Erik Voorhees: SegWit should be activated on: April 04, 2017, 08:47:46 PM
Too bad, neither SegWit nor Unlimited will reach their target support %.
I could see BU reaching 51% though, where if they forked at that point, it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.
BU was looking good about 2 weeks ago, after the antpool news. Since then they lost some support and slowed down, they won't win unless they persuade (pay?) another big pool to join their cause.
I think SegWit is a good option, much better and than BU and it wouldn't divide the community as much as BU would.

segwit would divide the community. but while you are in the cesspit of pruned no witness nodes being reliant on upper tier blockstream nodes, you will be told to go back to sleep and everything is alright

I guess any implementation will divide the community.  May it be Segwit by BCore or Bigger Block size by BU.  I cannot see any solution that will not split the community the way I see the reaction of individual.  Though I hope if ever BC's segwit or BU's larger block size is implemented, would have a minimal negative effect to Bitcoin in its entirety.

segwit thinks if it just has the pools making the nodes and about 100 FIBRE network nodes validating the data.. and then filtering STRIPPED data downstream to second layer lite, prunned, no-witness nodes is a good thing..

other implementations want the dozen different brands of thousands of nodes to all be on an equal playing field where no one is a upper/lower control. no different levels of importance. and no power house.
where nodes themselves show the settings they prefer in their user agents and the majority count is what pools then follow below. only moving beyond the minority, which the minority can adjust their preferences.

4988  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Erik Voorhees: SegWit should be activated on: April 04, 2017, 08:30:30 PM
Too bad, neither SegWit nor Unlimited will reach their target support %.
I could see BU reaching 51% though, where if they forked at that point, it wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary.
BU was looking good about 2 weeks ago, after the antpool news. Since then they lost some support and slowed down, they won't win unless they persuade (pay?) another big pool to join their cause.
I think SegWit is a good option, much better and than BU and it wouldn't divide the community as much as BU would.

segwit would divide the community. but while you are in the cesspit of pruned no witness nodes being reliant on upper tier blockstream nodes, you will be told to go back to sleep and everything is alright
4989  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Erik Voorhees: SegWit should be activated on: April 04, 2017, 05:56:39 PM
Why is bitcoin about specific central individuals?  

Yahhhn

mention say 100 people to appear like its not 10 people with puppetstrings.

but then call millions of people things like
'but the well ESTABLISHED .. TRUSTED ..TEAM"
"not smart"
"shills"
"altcoiners"

4990  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Confidential Assets': Blockstream Reveals New Bitcoin Privacy Tech on: April 04, 2017, 05:23:15 PM
Blockstream and Core team continue making a good job in the middle of the BUcoin FUD. Meanwhile the rest are just complaining and crying like a bitch all day on forums.

others are making a good job
but blockstream and core team highlight the bugs that existed in their own 0.12 when other teams use their 0.12
and then call anything independent an altcoin while core becomes more dependnt on the blockstream DCG partnership

and you wont hear much about independent teams activities due to the BIPs moderations mailing list moderation coindesk biased media speculation and market announcements all following their VC opinion.(dcg)
4991  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks on: April 04, 2017, 04:44:36 PM
purse and bitpay..

hmm
DCG again.. hmmm

though extension blocks is another backdoor implementation.. it still does not address the issues of native key users.
4992  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Erik Voorhees: SegWit should be activated on: April 04, 2017, 02:20:30 PM
im not surprised

http://dcg.co/portfolio/#s
oh look shapeshift

http://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
oh look blockstream
oh look btcc

http://dcg.co/portfolio/#c
oh look coinbase
4993  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Confidential Assets': Blockstream Reveals New Bitcoin Privacy Tech on: April 04, 2017, 01:41:48 PM
P.S
because these confidential commitments only work by people sharing a commitment. so that the maths works out

 and the rules of blockchain change to have what appears as random numbers instead of btc value, which when calculated together result in 0 to show no funny business of 'creating value' outside the blockreward took place.

it only takes a few people to get in a commitment to see the commitment to then be able to descramble the apparent random number that replaced the value.

so its a temporary thing thats not going to work on a long term bases.

its another utopia on paper.. but when running it through scenarios. it doesnt last as long and only ends up bloating up capacity limits.

if people want privacy. LN is the only way.
4994  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Confidential Assets': Blockstream Reveals New Bitcoin Privacy Tech on: April 04, 2017, 01:32:50 PM
but by turning a lets say 400byte tx into a 1.4kb tx by appending on a commitment to the tail of a tx.. is not good

and now people will see why blockstream had the 4mb weight but wanted to keep the 1mb base.

1mb =txdata minus signature
~1.1mb = signature
~1.9mb = commitment
=4mb weight all combined.



But not everyone is going to use the privacy feature, I for one have no use for it.

but wouldnt you rather have
full weight 2mb =2x tx capacity even with native keys and not needing to switch to segwit keypairs
full weight 4mb =4x tx capacity even with native keys and not needing to switch to segwit keypairs

or
full weight 2mb =2x tx capacity only IF EVERYONE switched to segwit keypairs
full weight 4mb =2x tx capacity only IF EVERYONE switched to segwit keypairs and used confidential features
4995  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 'Confidential Assets': Blockstream Reveals New Bitcoin Privacy Tech on: April 04, 2017, 01:23:57 PM
but by turning a lets say 400byte tx into an upto 1.4kb tx by appending on a commitment to the tail of a tx.. is not good

and now people will see why blockstream had the 4mb weight but wanted to keep the 1mb base.

1mb =txdata minus signature
~1.1mb = signature
~1.9mb = commitment
=4mb weight all combined.

4996  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Inviting reasoned and civil criticism of my big-block position please? on: April 04, 2017, 01:11:41 PM
the real funny part is the whole quadratics tx validations speed debate is about

a tx with ~4000 sigops. take 10 seconds
a tx with >20000 sigops takes 11 minutes.
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
Quote
This Block Isn’t The Worst Case (For An Optimized Implementation)

As I said above, the amount we have to hash is about 6k; if a transaction has larger outputs, that number changes.  We can fit in fewer inputs though.  A simple simulation shows the worst case for 1MB transaction has 3300 inputs, and 406000 byte output(s): simply doing the hashing for input signatures takes about 10.9 seconds.  That’s only about two or three times faster than the bitcoind naive implementation.

This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash.  If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not.  But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming…

yet.

core v0.12 maxTXsigops limit=4000ops
core v0.14 maxTXsigops limit=16000ops

meaning native key malicious users can cause tx validation speeds to be more annoying, not less
also

core v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops limit=20000ops
core v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops limit=80000ops

meaning native key malicious users can cause tx validation speeds to be more annoying, AND they can fill a block with just 5 bloated txsigops of the limits. preventing any other tx getting in.

what should have been done is
core v0.14 maxTXsigops limit=2000ops
core v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops limit=80000ops

thus both bring the tx validating speed down to a few seconds at most AND making it require 40tx malicious tx's to fill a block.

my personal opinion is why does anyone need/deserve 20% of a block for 1tx. its mindboggling
4997  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Inviting reasoned and civil criticism of my big-block position please? on: April 04, 2017, 12:53:30 PM
And that's the same ratio, for 1MB or 2MB. i.e. 1:3 is exactly equivalent to 2:6

and yet segwit is the same argument at best. and even worse realistically

4mb weight but only AT BEST 2x tx capacity growth.
and thats at best because it only works if people actually move funds to segwit keypairs

thus segwit is not even a proper scaling thing, even if you ignore that its a one time gesture because you cant re-segwit a segwit


secondly the real data behind sgwits new 'limits'
is
AT BEST 2.1mb for 2.1x capacity
so ignoring the existance of limits. segwit
1mb full data: 1x capacity
is the same as
2.1mb full data:2.1 capacity.

but we all know segwit is not about capacity and wont even get to the 2.1mb:2.1capacity 'hope' because that involves everyone using segwit keys
(the entire 46 million UTXO being on segwit keys and no one using native keys)

its also reliant on no one spamming the block. which carlton himself has revealed new spam attack vectors. and segwit has not prevented old spam attack vectors. segwit has just offered people a new keypair to voluntarily disarm itself from performing particular attacks, which malicious users will not voluntarily disarm themselves from.
4998  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Campaign - R.I.P. BUg Unlimited on: April 04, 2017, 01:47:13 AM
You going to start shilling for BitcoinEC now? OH LORD, when will this end...  Cry

i have never shilled for any brand

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that you're one of the worst BTU shill. You post everyday hundreds of repetitive stupid shills posts . You ruined your reputation forever now is too late to repent

and last year blah blah brand x
and the year before blah blah brand y

when you people learn that its DIVERSE DECENTRALISED OPEN consensus network ... not brands
you will wake up that you cant pigeon hole m into a brand

i know you are peed off that i am not a helpless dron asleep and kissing gmaxwels ass..
but just because im not kissing his ass does not mean i must be kissing someones ass..

thats the close minded thought of those that think that kissing ass is the only option.

its not
4999  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Andreas Antonopoulos has some explaining to do on: April 04, 2017, 01:19:35 AM
Well you might as well fork because core is never going to do it.

cores the only one with the Fork threats

What you are describing is what I and others call a bilaterial hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

I tried to convince the authors of BIP101 to make their proposal bilateral by requiring the sign bit be set in the version in their blocks (existing nodes require it to be unset). Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

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

PoW algo threats

Bip148 mandatory activation fork threat

all the deadlines. all the REKT campaigns..

meanwhile all the other non-core implementations just plod along without making threats and leave it for users to choose openly as they please.

oh and i do laugh.
when a core dev pretends to be independent. yet then screams they refuse and are afraid to do the reviewing of other implementations..
then goes out and screams other implementations are not independently reviewed.

thats like not paying child support then screaming out that its a travesty that children are not supported by deadbeat dads
5000  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I support Bitcoin Unlimited on: April 04, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
starting a comment with the truth then throwing it salted sci-fi details to make it all sound false, does not hide the partial truth.
you cant deny the core-blockstream-dcg ties..

all you can do is pretend that dcg is then tied to some sci-fi alien to then try to make people think that blockstream dont exist.

i think you have reached the bottom of the barrel trying to defend blockstream.
maybe its time you stop it and start learning about bitcoin.

Yes I am very sad that the centralized banking cartel killed Satoshi because Gavin warned the CIA that they were extorting him into inserting the malicious block size limit code into Bitcoin that caused it to self destruct. Those damn wizard aliens are too powerful for us mortals. Be careful not to think rationally and logically, the wizard aliens are able to read your mind and will kill you just like Satoshi.

your trolling =1point for comedic relief
your smoking weed to get inspiration for troll= -500 points
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 ... 860 »
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!