Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2019, 12:11:04 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 820 »
521  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining Giant Bitmain Posts $500 Million Loss in IPO Financial Filing on: February 20, 2019, 11:57:30 PM
Hashrate follows the market

actually. the market follows the hashrate.

take 2013
asics hit the market in october of 2013... market rises

take 2018
next gen asics announced.. so selling off of old s9's dirt cheap in october. less hashpower. means those left get biggr slice of th reward pie. meaning they profit more meaning they sell more.. thus novembers price decline

..
what you need to separate is the mindsets of certain people.
smart mining groups plan a year in advance. they dont react to price drama. they contract their electrical costs in, a year ahead with calculated predictable rises included. they buy /make asics at set schedules. they sell coins OTC based on contracted amounts/prices. thus market prices doesnt affect business much(though they can take advantage of market prices using excess coins)

its the small home/basement/garage hobbiests that react to markets. by 'pool jumping' depending on most profitable coin of the day

if you look at the pools as a whole and compare the market prices. you see the smart pools thats hashrate averages have a smoother change.. the dumb pools usually have no smooth change and just all over the place.
this is why BTCC didnt last. they were market followers. based mainly due to them being management of home/hobbiests
522  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Smallest Bitcoin block on: February 20, 2019, 08:08:41 PM
this is about what is termed 'empty block'

though many myths theories and suggestions for why.. the main one is this

when a pool gts told of another competitive pool came up with a block solution.
pools are suppose to give up their current progress, check the block and then start their own fresh block attempts ontop and include thousands of new unconfirmed transactions in that new attempt.

howevr the checking recent block solution and collating a fresh batch of unconfirmd transactions to put into nxt block attempt takes time.

so some pools. instead of wasting hashpower time during that checking/collating/patching a new full block together. they simply grab the hash of rcent block solution and start hashing an empty block.

they then check the recent block solution, subtract out the now confirmed transactions from their mempool and then make a collated block of unconfirmed transactions to hash.

again coz it takes time. there is a window between:
block solution announced
start hashing empty block/while validating collating
start hashing full block

you will see MOST 'empty' blocks occur only when there has been high luck of that (2nd)block being solved just seconds or a couple minutes after previous. because after a couple minutes the asics would then be hashing a block header that would be of a full block collated list of transactions. so its just luck to see an empty block because on those occassions the pool just happen to get a solution within seconds/couple minutes so didnt have time to collate a fresh transaction list in that 'empty' window time

..
i say most because some pools do just not bother collating fresh transaction lists.
you can usually spot the difference between luck or on purpose empty blocks by the time windows.
if empty block is solved under 2 minutes after previous block higher chance it was just a luck thing.
if empty block is solved at a more regular time EG 3mins + higher chance it was an on purpose empty block
523  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining Giant Bitmain Posts $500 Million Loss in IPO Financial Filing on: February 20, 2019, 04:51:05 AM
Okay glad I wasn't the only one reading it that way.  Love the example

coindesk is owned by DCG. which funds blockstream and other companies which have a certain idea of how bitcoin should be.

another thing about DCG is they own BTCC..
and yet here is the funny.
BTCC has virtually disappeared. but you dont hear news about it. big BTCC names like samson mow. shifted from BTCC to blockstream and coindesk has been very quiet about the strip down and shut down of BTCC.
bobby lee is now concentrating on the convention/conference organisation circuit that ar usualy dirctly or indirectly funded by coindesk(dcg)

so that might help explain why you were reading a coindesk article that was trying to influence readers to suggest bitmain was in trouble, when it wasnt. as there has been ongoing social drama between the two

anyway
bitmain continued to make s15, and now funding to make s17. if they were in trouble they would have gone and 'done a BTCC'. but instead bitmain are just carrying on doing what they do each year.

in my eyes coindesk and DCG are butt-hurt that they invested into the wrong pool company
524  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mining Giant Bitmain Posts $500 Million Loss in IPO Financial Filing on: February 20, 2019, 02:09:36 AM
first of all profits and losses sheets of revenue do not declare unsold investments
they would however declare income from goods services / sold shares/sold investments

so numbers of revenue has nothing to do with coins HELD. but more so to do with fiat generated through mining/selling asics and costs of doing such

so talking about coin HOLDINGS is irrelevant

also. seems the article cant do maths

"However, Bitmain previously disclosed it had grossed profits of $1 billion in the first half of 2018. Subtracting that from a $500 million profit for the first nine months leaves it with a net loss of roughly $500 million for the third quarter."

2018 q1: +500 selling s9
2018 q2: +500 selling s9
2018 q3:  -500 designing s15
= still + 500

i would say with selling s9's in q4 and s15 in q4 the q4 would be a + number too

so article and forums topic seems to want to subtly imply a loss (subliminally hinting/worded) as an overall loss
but.. where reality is they just used SOME income of q1-2,  to spend on outgoings in q3 and still had money left over

think about it.
imagine you get $500 one week. $500 second week. then you have to buy groceries and rent the third week. would you go to your spouse and say "i declare a $500 loss." or would you say "i stil have $500 after 3 weeks"

as for the s17 next range of asics.
in q2-3 i was expecting that q4 to show high hashrate rise. but yea doing some maths on the mining cost of s15 vs s9 ther wasnt much between them so when they sold off most their s9 and replaced them with only a moderate amount of s15 that didnt show a large hashrate rise. butif these s17's are going to show a significant difference compared to s9's then maybe 2019's future will show sharper hashrate rise upon release of s17. as it appears that people were more interested in s9's in 2018.
525  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy Pizza with Bitcoin through Lightning Network on: February 20, 2019, 12:17:10 AM
I mentioned this somewhere else, while you don't need a LN for this (state channels are enough) it is a super cool mutually beneifcial idea for adoption. Once you have an open state channel, it's always on the back of your mind that you can immediately purchase from that place - so they get repeat customers. In turn, since this is good business, more merchants will want to join in.
Loving this

yet. you can also just buy a domino's giftcard/voucher and cut out the middleman and the current LN issues.

btc->LN->route->fold->giftcard->dominos
btc->giftcard->dominos
526  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy Pizza with Bitcoin through Lightning Network on: February 20, 2019, 12:13:02 AM
And the Pizzas no longer cost 5k bitcoins each! See? Deflation!

Restaurants are a typical case where something like LN can shine, especially for recurring clients. In the mean time these transactions are relieving the main network of load, making everyone's transactions cheaper and faster.

Also the store itself should be running a full node, lightning node and Electrum server in my opinion. technically its not needed,  but why not give your customers a better service? Any old computer with Linux will do...

DOMINO'S has nothing to do with bitcoin.
its a middle man service called fold. they buy dominos vouchers for cheap.

you pay fold via LN and they use a voucher/giftcard and your home address, and make the order on your behalf

dominos has no clue of the LN involvement or the fold involvement or the indirect bitcoin crypto involvement. all dominos sees is customers delivery address and a paid with giftcard/voucher
527  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy Pizza with Bitcoin through Lightning Network on: February 19, 2019, 03:25:47 PM
This is just the start and most people doesn't see this improvement that bitcoin is getting. Cheaper fees and faster transactions and sooner or later we're going to be able to buy almost everything with bitcoin through Lightning Network.

It's just a matter of time.

whats not said by the OP's link is that the 150 orders taken is based on the fact that 1500 orders tried, but only 150 succeeded, with fold saying the issue was due to lightning. 10% success rate..


Roll Eyes Can you post the link to that information, or do you expect us to accept that to be real because it's you?

Quote

imagine if bitcoin (not LN 12 decimal pegged payments) but the actual bitcoin network(8 decimal tx's) only had 10% success rate


They are actual Bitcoins held in 2 for 2 multi-sig wallets. There are no "pegs".

Plus I believe Lightning's 12 decimal places can increase Bitcoin's utility.

as for a place for learning, i used to spoonfeed people until your buddies come up with their rekt campaigns and social drama to just say "wrong coz franky".. so i then just said "do your own research if you dont wanna learn what i learned.
and now its back to getting spoonfed.
seriously. i know u love wiki or only the first search result of google. but try upping your game.
if you really dont want to read what i write. and think its just fud. atleast DO SOME RESEARCH instead of just proclaiming "wrong coz franky".. as that just maks you sound as bad as doomand and your buddies who lack the info
its also an old outdated social drama tactic that lauda, carlton used to do, but they too learned the hard way.
so it appears they passd the mantle down to you guys. but you seem to have not progress any further then them as you still echo the same sentiments and myth rhetoric.. so its just boring

anyway with an easy bit of research taking 10 seconds you would have found
https://www.coindesk.com/pizza-lightning-bitcoin
"The largest barrier to conversion was setting up a new lightning wallet, Reeves said, adding there were roughly 1,500 orders but only a 10 percent conversion rate because people struggled to use lightning-enabled bitcoin wallets."

real funny part, thats 10% success of those that got as far as making an order. think of the ones that tried but didnt even get that far
and i truly am surprised even when you were given a link to a video of LN devs themselves saying the flaws of their own system months ago, your still trying to play the social drama game of "wrong coz franky"
maybe best you take time to do research like i suggest to your buddies who seem to just want to resort to social drama rebuttles of "cant be assed to research so ill just say wrong and include the name of the poster to poke the bear"

...

as for other point
real bitcoins are held on a blockchain and are only 8 decimals which are locked
12 decimal increase utility.. of a token thats pegged

what you have to try to realise and research is the difference between the 8decimal valued tx used for opening closing. which does broadcast to bitcoins blockchain and the 12 decimal used only within and for LN payments. they have 2 different functions/scripts. they have 2 different token systems. you wont see a 12 decimal tx on the bitcoin blockchain.
so you might want to really understand and research things

imagine it like a cheque.
is a cheque a true guaranteed payment. or do people rush to get it cleared/settled before proclaiming the IOU is cleared and settled and any funds owed are no longer owed.
if you think that just handing out signed 'payments' not cleared are just as trusted. then realise that cheques are only trusted due to laws and KYC allowing someone to chase the non paying IOU handler shhould a cheque not clear. .. which LN doesnt have that protection (as yet)
if you stil think that you will happily accept un-cleared chques without the laws/kyc. then you ar risking mor then you care to admit

so be careful using LN and definetly dont over promise/over promote it unless you understand it fully
528  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Buy Pizza with Bitcoin through Lightning Network on: February 19, 2019, 08:34:11 AM
This is just the start and most people doesn't see this improvement that bitcoin is getting. Cheaper fees and faster transactions and sooner or later we're going to be able to buy almost everything with bitcoin through Lightning Network.

It's just a matter of time.

whats not said by the OP's link is that the 150 orders taken is based on the fact that 1500 orders tried, but only 150 succeeded, with fold saying the issue was due to lightning. 10% success rate..

imagine if bitcoin (not LN 12 decimal pegged payments) but the actual bitcoin network(8 decimal tx's) only had 10% success rate
529  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin developers wants to lower blocksize to 300kb to push LN on: February 19, 2019, 04:39:04 AM
I remember a plenty of posts from dabblers screaming about how a massive chunk of their dabble was lost in the sending so I think yes to an extent. If your first toe dip results in much of your play evaporating you're going to be turned off for quite some time, if not for good. Enough narked minnows is the same as one big swinging dick.

you also gotta think about the millions of people where an onchain fee is more than an hours wage.
even if they lock funds up to then play with LN.. they still gotta pay upfront just to get into LN

remember the good old days where even a homeless man could just random generate a keypair for free.. publicise it anywhere for free and hope to get paid day or night without authorisation.. needing to be online or having a partner involved in signing for payment.

LN's concept is people need to open channels pre-funded counterparty agreed, just to cover punishments and close session costs. thus LN is not a open system once fully conceptualised start to finish

you also then gotta think about those who wanna get out of LN and just sole-hold their own asset in their own privat key. if its gonna cost them XX to convert the 12decimal pegged LN token to a 8decimal bitcoin.. but far cheaper to convert it to say litecoin.. guess what

18th century banking. gold goes in.. play with unadited paper.. silver and copper come out
530  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin developers wants to lower blocksize to 300kb to push LN on: February 19, 2019, 04:23:51 AM
We need another Bull run for people to see how ridiculous this suggestion is. During the last Bull run, the small Block size was one of the things that were hampering progress and adoption. I agree that spamming of the network to push for a fork, was also part of this problem at the time, but it might just happen again.

of course it'll happen again, since there are still big stakeholders interested in lowering fees on the network. just like we saw in 2016-17, they'll use high fees as a political ploy to fork bitcoin.

but are you sure that small blocks were hampering adoption? there were certainly some complaints---particularly from a small group of very loud big blockers---but i don't think there's evidence that small blocks ever caused adoption to slow down. i believe a great deal of bitcoin adoption is speculative (investment-based), and i don't think investors care much about fees. and among regular users, there's plenty of people who are willing to pay higher fees too. (especially if offchain solutions like LN exist)

anyone saying they would ever pay extra for something, has a motive.
would you ever go to a car dealership and see a car for $30k. and be like.. i dont like the price of the car. so can i have the exact same car but ill pay you $200k for it

would you ever go to a house landlord and see a house for $3k a month. and be like.. i dont like the price of the rent. so can i have the exact same house but ill pay you $20k for it

you can smell the alterier motive, especially if they then go on and say they will use another network to pay less.. and promote how other networks are cheaper and such.
if they wanna pay extra. then they should be the ones that dont use LN. they should put their fee's where their mouth is, stay on the bitcoin network and pay extra if they truly desire seeing fee's rise.

not fee war UP the bitcoin network for others. and then they themselves run off to other networks.

imagine an analogy of transport networks (trains and buses)

its like a bus network. and some train company comes along spouting how buses have issues. but the train driver will happily pay more for buses if buses just up their fee's..
so buses up their fee's and the train driver then just goes and drives a train around giving out cheap tickets telling people to get off the bus as its expensive and slow

then some numbskull bus driver thinks another way to raise up bus fee's is to turn a double decker bus into a single decker bus.. then if it all happens. he then goes and gets a job on the trainline AND gets a back hander from the companie investing in trainlines
531  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Validating vs mining nodes, really a myth ? on: February 18, 2019, 06:01:19 PM
doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.

Lie.

Larger blocks are a bigger deterrent to running a full Bitcoin node than smaller blocks.  That's why users on this network have opted for SegWit, which only results in a small increase.

typical mr flipfop
1, doomad your own words about compatibility and permissionless drivel was you saying there was no opt in.
you even admit the truth for once in another topic by saying your adoration for cores attempts to push people off the network that opposed segwit1x. BEFORE segwit1x got locked in.

so you now pretending high majority diverse people of 2015-2017 opt-in for segwit goes against your initial flipped mindset.

try to learn what narrative you want to push and stick with one narrative.

2. again your mindset is stuck in the flip flop echo chamber of rpeated thoughts of the "gigabyte blocks" myth pushed by your centralised friends.
reality is that PROGRESSIVE SCALING such as the same as what happened 2010-2015 (0.25,0.5,0.75,1mb) is not a bigger deterrant.
reality is that users can just change settings or decide if they actually need to be a full on supernode.
EG instead of connecting to 100+ connections. they can bring it down to 10 and thus make each of those 10 connections 10x better speed experience due to less speed dilution. while also for the user themselves not having to broadcast out 100x data but only 10x data. thus benefiting the user and the receiver.. win win.

And before you start blithering on about "forcing users into other networks" (like you often do), the most private and secure way to use LN is to run a full node, so even users of "other networks" have an incentive to run a full Bitcoin node.

LN nodes will be masternodes monitoring multiple coins so they can coinswap.
guess what. when that becomes popular. YOUR flip flop will change and suddenly you will b saying how home users are not restricted to only 1mb-2mb data.
because the reality is home users are not restricted to 1-2-4mb of data..
the actual issues home users have is that they try to go above their need by trying to connect to hundreds of nodes.

as for the stuff about LN running full nodes. even the devs admit people wont be carrying their desktops and laptops around to go shopping. so LN's design for "starbucks coffee"/groceries/pizza small purchases instantly is for the lite wallet app userbase.

its the devs and your echo chamber that keep on saying bitcoin cant handle X while other networks are the solution, yet the other networks will be dominated by third party factories/watchtowers and then users locked into them using autopiloted phone apps.

atleast try doing some research..

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

I don't care if the real Satoshi Nakamoto came out of hiding and said it, no one is any any position to determine that "slow internet users" don't have a right to run a full node.  Try to weasel out of it all you like, but it's clearly not wrong of me to point out that Craig "scammer" Wright, a discredited lunatic, likes to peddle the view that such users aren't "worthy" to be a part of the network and it's also not wrong for me to point out that you like to say a similar thing using slightly clever wordplay.  I don't care if you're using his rhetoric or he's using yours.  You're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned.

here you go again i, and MANY others including the real satoshi never said slow internet users dont have the right to run a node. your making that crap up about "no rights"

seriously.. go take your social game word twisting flip flops and use that time to actually learn stuff

what was said and is the general sentiment by those not in the centralist echo chamber. is that user nodes can be full nodes but not all users NEED to b full nodes connected to hundreds of others.
your echo chamber centralists have an agenda of wanting to deburden bitcoin of utility, by saying bitcoin is not fit for everyone.
my and many open minded mindsets are that bitcoin can be used by anyone, but that people can have varying levels of utility.

and if the internet speed is slow theres no NEED to try being a supernode connected to hundreds of others. as it hlps no one by going up so high. its far better to themselves and everyone to set their settings appropriately to be connected. but do so efficiently
(doomad learn the difference between no help by being up so high connection count.. vs your blurred vision thinking that it means no help whatsover to even be on the network...
thats where you got things wrong. you wrongly thought it meant no hlp to the network at all.. the reality is no bnfit to go extreme.. there is a difference.. try learning it)

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..

*hears the sounds of moving goalposts and weasel words*

How many users are changing the setting up, franky1?  How many of these "super nodes" are bottlenecking the network in your opinion?  Surely you've done some research on this to support your claims?   Roll Eyes

I'm not buying it.  You've expressed your disdain for those who run full nodes, particularly Core nodes, on more than one occasion.  You call them mindless sheep every chance you get:  
lol. you do realise the quote of pieter. was from a blog, where the original poster was trying to increase his nodecount...
heres a hint. the title of that:
"How does one attain 1,000+ connections like blockchain.info?"

as for my distain for core. thats about distain for centralism and lack of diversity..
again you love centralism, so stop your flip floppy trying to insinuate that im in the same camp as you.
sorry but no. YOUR the centralist. you love core dominance. you love how users follow CORES rules.
im for DIVERSITY where there are DIFERENT BRANDS of full nodes so people have choices

(pre-empt your reply:
doomad will say, 'if you dont like cores rules f**k off to another network
ill say: 'diversity is about different brands on same network where consensus ensures core dont just be dictators/tyrants in control..
but have to be byzantine generals of a level playing field. finding a fair balance of consensus where diversity finds agreement... which is what bitcoins/blockchains original invention/innovation/lightbulb revolutionary new consept was all about)


yes i know you will say "those enforcing the rules" but thats the issue... CORE are in command of such. and users are just distributed 'compatible' sheep of core because the CHOICE of brands(of full nodes that would allow opposition) has been removed

As always, your last resort is to insult the intelligence of everyone securing the BTC network.  Please keep calling them sheep.  Please keep telling us about your genuine and fervent belief that all the users on the BTC chain are too stupid to decide for themselves and are just blindly following what one dev team tell them to do.  Please keep telling us we're just mindless drones and how only your vivid fantasies (that aren't even remotely feasible to implement) will somehow save us from ourselves.  
[/quote]

insults? again lets word count your post history, vs mine for actual insults. see who actually does the real insults.
my comments about users are just following core rules is just that. core have plopped themselves at the core of the network, called themselves the core and reference client, done loads of social drama stuff to keep themselves at the center and thus now there is not really any diversity in the network

even you yourself have spoke loudly about how you would love to REKT core opposers, you admired cores actions about pushing out a few opposing bips.  

You can't deny the conflict of interest in the fact that there are thousands of nodes out there enforcing rules you despise and it would benefit your cause greatly if large numbers of them were to stop doing what they're doing.  Obviously you're going to support any hint of the notion that some of them might be a burden to the network.  It's understandable that it would be beneficial, from your perspective, if businesses were left to decide on consensus matters, because many of them were supportive of larger blocks.  Funny coincidence, that.    Roll Eyes
whether a node is connected to 1000 others or just 2. changes nothing in regards to tru honest consensus.
users finding a setting level that lets then be full nodes without causing their own 'bandwidth issues' cries changes nothing about their consensus level.

but again. you are just a social flip flopper who knows nothing about the bitcoin network even after i nicely asked you months to try researching it.

...........................
anyway
seems doomad cant get the hint about which way he wants to flip or flop. and will never take the time to do some independant thinking.
so lets move on
..........
summary
usernodes:mining nodes:merchants have a symbiotic relationship. they ALL validate.
however they all can choose their level of NEED.
EG if there are 1 billion humans using bitcoin. not all 1 billion NEED/WANT to be full nodes. in no way should they be forced to being full nodes with 100+ connections just so some centralist group can shout "the network cant handle it, move everyone off the network"

instead users can choose to lower their setting/involvement as they please. EG slow internet users dont need 100-1000 connections and many devs even going back as far as 2009 have said it too.

but to have a certain group echoing how bitcoin cant scale because of lame reasons that can easily be fixed by settings changes.. is not the right ploy to then promote alternative networks.

its far better to allow settings to change so that it increases utility. unlike a certain group who want users to get pushed off the network if their opinion doesnt match CORES roadmap of centralised commercial networks
532  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Validating vs mining nodes, really a myth ? on: February 18, 2019, 12:52:38 PM

blah blah insult blah

doomad, its your echo chamber that wants to deburden the bitcoin network of users.
now go do something useful like some code/network research instead of your flip flop social drama

your favourite quote shows that you and others FAILED totry flopping issues that slow internet users have.
you failed to realise its a known researched thing since pre 2011 and yet you try to insinuate it as a myth brought about by a scammer in 2016.. sorry but you failed. so yea. thats why i say try doing research before hitting reply

anyway the thing about home users is this:
their bandwidth/bottlnecking issue can easily be solved by just not being what used to be called "supernodes" (nodes with over 100 connections) to being nodes with just a few connections to give best effiecient experience for not only home user but the recipient of the data. thus reduce the "it uses too much bandwidth" cries

pieter wuilles quote was saying about dont change the setting UP, due to scare resources..

home users do not NEED to be super nodes as it doesnt help them or others by pushing their systems too hard.
this does not mean home users are useless to the network. it just means they have the wrong settings and not helping themselves. which is a different topic to the whole symbiotic relationship of code rules and auditing of data..
the home user bottleneck thing is more about use of speed to be efficient so that there are no cries and thus able to be an effctive node

your the one that wants home users to have bad user experience by trying to twist words. and you try to insinuate that home users should stick to high connection counts (meaning slow diluted internet speed per connection) all coz you want people to dislike the bitcoin network to persuade them to other networks

seems its you that wants home users to give up and just use LN

so just man up. find just one narrative of flip or flop and stick with it. be honest with yourself and others about your goal.
you pretend i have a campaign. and yet its obviously you that wants LN populated and bitcoin depopulated. so just man up and admit it

real funny part
i have tried to keep this and other topics on topic. and yt its th usual echo chamber tribe that meander in and turn discussions about bitcoin and the network. and turn it into poking the bear social drama of frankys said x/y/z
atleast windfury linked where he got taught his tactic and is now subtly trying to link doomad into learning how windfury does it so that doomad improves his skills of offtopic personal insult
because it has become noticable that doomad has become boring and empty of context in his attempts.

i can show you and your echo chamber of buddies many posts where your mindsets is in favour of
forking people off the network.
telling people if they dont like the centralist LN is the future solution thus deburden bitcoin, the only solution you see is those that want to keep bitcoin populated/have utility.. is telling true bitcoiners to f**k off.

and once again. dont try the flip flop wishy washy card that your a victim of social drama, when its ur cho chamber that meander topics into such by poking the bear.

now go try doing some bitcoin research and spend less time on your social drama
533  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 18, 2019, 12:22:17 PM
both cash and SV didnt 'take' hashrate away
both cash and SV didnt influence bitcoin

in other words you are trying to say that it was a coincidence that exactly at the same time as these forks occurred bitcoin hashrate went down. not to mention the EDA shenanigans of BCH and the fact that each time they reduced the difficulty bitcoin hashrate dropped and time between finding blocks increased noticeably. coincidence?!!

SV (craigs drama) was november
bitcoins hashrate was OCTOBER

chicken / egg

the whole idea of SV was not to actually do anything. but to take an oppertunity of buying/leasing cheap hashpower and falsely proclaim he is influencing and stealing hashpower and doing things/causing trouble.

again, dont give him the pleasure of making him think his fake fame game is working, ignore the altcoin drama

the reality is a shift from old ASICs to new asics.
those involved knew before summer that a ASIC switch over was going to occur by Q4.
the SV drama was a effect, not a cause
534  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 18, 2019, 04:39:23 AM
Most folks don't even know who really won the Bcash / ABC / SV 'hash' wars ...

there is no winner as long as they both exist and can take hash rate from bitcoin's network! the war has a winner when the other side(s) gets annihilated, or at least we see one 51% attack from one chain against the other. SV is a good candidate for getting 51% attacked since it has a low hashrate already .

both cash and SV didnt 'take' hashrate away
both cash and SV didnt influence bitcoin

in sepember/october (BEFORE SV) there was news of new next gen ASICs hitting the markets by december. so pools slowly wanted to sell off the old (s9) asics whil the S9 had value still. so an october(emphasis BEFORE SV hashdrama) curvedown of hashrate occured.

ofcourse the altcoin drama thought they would take the oppertunity to buy that cheap old tech and start some drama pretending they were somehow involved/cause or effect...

meanwhile. bitcoin network pools thought they would see an early influx of next gen asics and a few pools getting to be the testing ground (QC checks) before the actual release.
but things have been sluggish on that front. whether it be TSMC not producing asics quick enough or just holding out and spreading the batches out a bit to avoid a massive onramp of hashpower on the network.

either way cash/sv did not influence bitcoin.. it was the other way round
535  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin developers wants to lower blocksize to 300kb to push LN on: February 18, 2019, 04:18:10 AM
The point of view of one developer though can't really change anything unless he convince a lot more.

I believe the question we should be asking is why exactly that developers wants to do that right now. Why not wait a bit more and then do a movement like that? When it could possibly be necessary, not right now.

I particularly agree that it might be needed in the future but not yet.

because there is a big conference/convention thing happening soon where all the devs and merchants and miners get together and they try to discuss possible movements forward.

the thing is if certain devs can distract the topics. and get merchants and miners only talking about staying as is or decreasing. .. the devs win the true desire of not increasing.

they tried it before by trying to turn a comfortable and acceptable growth(small regular increases like 2009-2015 had). but then exaggerated it into a myth of "gigabytes by midnight" to sway even topics of small comfortable SCALING to not get discussed.

now i believe they are gonna try the opposite try to make the options only stay same or drop down.. just to avoid any comfortable SCALING onchain..

and if that fails. the devs will just pretend that they are just mere chimney sweeps and have no coding talent to implement anything that opposes the core roadmap
536  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin developers wants to lower blocksize to 300kb to push LN on: February 18, 2019, 02:00:25 AM
That's not how lightning network works. If they run off with the money on their nodes, they are running off with THEIR OWN money.
might be worth you checking on that, you'll be shocked by what you find. LN is multisig.
even devs themselves have admitted they lost funds, and their the ones coding it
there are many ways a user can lose value in LN due to others.

Totally agree with your first statement. To anyone going through the expense of buying mining equipment, buying the storage for the blockchain is nothing. And yeah gradually bigger blocks will be needed and it makes perfect sense to increase it, but do it smartly over time as network speeds improve and whatnot so that it doesn't promote centralization.


i've done my research. thanks. LN does not run like an exchange, which is what this guy was implying, where at any time someone could just run off with your money. That's simply not true. Otherwise LN wouldn't be a solution to anything.
firstly
learn multisig, learn revoke codes/punishments. learn blackmail attempts learn co-signing.
there are multiple ways to run off with funds.

here ill even pre-empt you with an attack vector when schnorr is incorporated

imagine a multysig. person A and B
person A believes it to be a 2-2 multisig channel of duel/even control. which is the bases of LN's trust of mutual trust-mutual destruction.
2 parties have to agree else there is no agreement
both agree both win
both dont agree both lose

now. imagine its not an actual 2-2 but in reality is a 2-3.. where by person B has 2 keys and A only has 1
suddenly B has control. and guess what A wont even realise it. A wont even be able to tell who signed what.
whether it was a 2-2 where A got hacked and someone stole A's key or if B did make a 2-3 under schnorr and hid the 3rd key

.. there are other ways to mess and steal funds right now under LN. LN devs know about a few of them. and yes the LN devs themselves have mentioned how they (even while they are the devs) have been victims to thefts

secondly
LN is not a solution to anything. its just another network/service/choice. it should never b though of as a solution to bitcoin.
thos that call it a solution. or call it the only way forward are those that have already given up on bitcoin and think alt networks/centralised services/fiat-esq business models are superior than bitcoin

lastly
LN does/will function like an exchange. heck in 2012-13 i was arbitraging btc between 2 exchanges without the blockchain, by doing so with exchanges features using their locked reserves.(btc-e/mtgox/bitstamp codes)

locking funds up with others. (custodian)
using the confirmed 8 decimal blockchain UTXO, to then create lists of non-blockchain tx's(12 decimal) in some google/mysql database(exchanges have a separate 'blance/trade' database thats not blockchain)
atomic swaps(market orders)
537  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Whats up with Craig Wright? on: February 17, 2019, 07:04:12 PM
every time there has been big "bitcoin consensus" meetings/conventions. seems some 'hey look what CW is upto' drama begins.

seriously folks. he aint worth anyones time.
if you care about bitcoin. stick to looking at what the bitcoin devs are upto not the altcoin social drama.
let the CW drama belong in a court room
538  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Visa and Mastercard decided to increase their Fees.And there is nothing y can do on: February 17, 2019, 06:00:01 PM
do you know the funny part.

banks hold the money. but its VISA/Mastercard demanding banks pay more..
maybe banks should just swap out visa/mastercard for a different service provider.

in the end its all about chargeback scamming and the costs involved. however by linking a card to things like applepay,square, stripe,

EG (how things evolved)
bank (bank is liable for charges)
bank <> debit card (debit card is liable for charges)
bank <> debit card <> phone app service (app service is liable for charges)

thus applepay(+others) handle the chargebacks.. meaning visa/mastercard dont. meaning end bank dont. meaning its just going to push people to prefer to link to things like applepay. to avoid the visa/mastercard excess charge by avoiding making visa/mastrcard liable.

this is what visa/mastercard want anyways. to push the risk off their shoulders for those that use an app as the risk taker, making visa/mastercard. just a zero risk middle service(pure profit)

but
eventually applepay(+others) when they start becoming more of the defacto payment method of fiat, and start to see their exposure to chargeback scamming increase. they too will start increasing their fee's to counter their liabilities
539  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will Cryptocurrency change financial institutions completely? on: February 17, 2019, 02:58:53 AM
The global economy is already united imo, and getting rid of cash means they will remove their control of money in the market.

no,
it means getting rid of PAPER cash. thus everything is electronic and locked in custodian(banks) managed by the same financial industry.
banks and governments wont give up control.
just look at how they treat exchanges. you can google it and find LOADS of examples where exchanges KYC and report users. and some who go over certain thresholds are told that a service(withdrawal) cant be offered unless KYC/extra data is provided as required by a higher threshold.

something not needed when storing and handling PAPER cash.

what will change is the lack of need of a walk-in bank branch. and instead payments and exchanges can b done online or via ATMS.
banks save on alot of physical costs:
less rents/transport/maintenance

banks save on staffing costs:
less security personnel, auditors, IT staff, cleaners, supervisees

but in the end average joe who just about knows hw to use a debit card would not notice much difference in spending experience wither its old fiat on card or new bank managed crypto
540  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: It seems luke-jr is ready to make his own shitcoin forked version of Bitcoin :P on: February 16, 2019, 11:38:58 PM
read the CODE squatter

Code:
   if (block.nTime >= 1564617600 /* 2019 Aug 1 */ && block.nTime < 1577836800 /* 2019 Dec 31 */) {
        if (GetBlockWeight(block) > 600000) {
            return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-blk-weight", false, strprintf("%s : weight limit failed", __func__));
        }
    }

Quote
between aug 1st '19 and dec 31st '19. if blocks are over 600kb, reject block as 'invalid block weight'

no where is there any consensus about majority of user/pool acceptance before initiating that rule.
no where is there any consensus about it not activating if there was only a minority

148 and this topics bip are MANDATED controversy.. thus HARD

also Luke is trying to push it into CORE.
he isnt just trying to run it on his own node
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 820 »
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!