Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2019, 09:04:59 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 ... 858 »
5301  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU + segwit on: March 20, 2017, 06:52:14 AM
but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..

Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin.  You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer.  But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you.  There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota.

but then you just dont buy it. and suddenly toyota lose customers.

you need to grasp why toyota became popular in the first place.
for instance if toyota never made a car with an analog speedometer, that user would never have wanted a toyota.

oh. and if you think there is no alternative there is.
satoshi made the alternative to the centralised banks.
coblee made a alternative to bitcoin
vatalik made a altrnative to both.. and so on..

get out of the 2 dimensional thinking that bitcoin as a centralised bank will be the only choice and still hold value if it turned into a 2pool 0 node network. your not thinking of the whole ecosystem or even the reason / need / ethos of bitcoin.

if bitcoin starts turning into a centralised bank.. people will drop bitcoin and find something else.
yep anyone can take the data and say as of tonight the blockchain is blocked off from the hotpotato 2 pools. and instead new blocks will be made ontop of block X. if people want they can run a node on this new network and use their privkeys to make tx's on a new network.

thus leaving the hot-potato pools making blocks that they cant spend..
much like toyota making cars that people wont buy.

5302  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockstream is a controlled demolition of Bitcoin on: March 20, 2017, 06:31:22 AM
wow.  This is quite the conspiracy theory but I'm not saying it couldn't be true.  I'll let you make up your own mind.

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5q6kjo/the_owners_of_blockstream_are_spending_76_million/


many people cant grasp the top down from fiat down to bitcoin to show the power play.

but the bottom up
core->blockstream->DCG->bankers is easier to explain.

take the 20 exchanges announcement. wrote by coindesk
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then look at the portfolio of DCG
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
then look at why this group is so desperate to poke the bear
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments
take note of all of that DEBT those corps have that need to start repaying back to barry silbert(dcg) soon
5303  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU + segwit on: March 20, 2017, 06:24:48 AM
merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

So they are miners then.  Not non-mining nodes.  You start to get it.  And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork.


your thinking very 2 dimensional still. please look outside of the box
5304  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU + segwit on: March 20, 2017, 06:21:04 AM
And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it.  You can get it directly from one of the miners.

then theres no need to use blockchain tech.. if your just API calling a central server..
your really missing the point of bitcoin.. like completely missing the point

Of course, if nobody is needing the bloc all together, the coin is worthless.  But there is no alternative chain where the coin isn't worthless.   So a USER can decide that he doesn't want this bloc chain,
if no one wants the block then the pool is ignored. nodes then solo mine with each other or start asic pool mining themselves or even using a new algo and start building their own blocks between the nodes.

that he doesn't want these coins (and lose everything he has on it).  But no non-mining node can stop a USER from having that block chain, use his wallet and send out transactions: directly to a miner node if necessary.
part from the user deciding he doesnt like the centralised bank of needing to API data from an only source.. and thus creates his own network..
HMM
not liking a centralised database of value, so goes out and creates his own decentralised network.. that reminds me of someone that in 2008 released a white paper with such a revolutionary concept. and release the first version of his software in january 2009... oh yea.. satoshi

hmm some other guy later on didnt like the idea sha hashing blocks. so in 2011 he made his own.. oh yea coblee.

then there were other altcoins that originated because some people decided they didnt like the original..

If no user values the coins in the market, the miners are making a worthless chain.  

agreed. so usually miners start making something the markets will want

But they make this one and no other one in any case.  And if users want to value coins in the market, they don't need your node forwarding the blocs, they get them directly from the factory (the miners).

but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..
5305  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 20, 2017, 06:02:02 AM
If Bitcoin become uninteresting to Greg Maxwell, there are 99 other devs, am I right? So everything is going to be ok.

core have about a dozen paid devs and 100 unpaid spell checker interns hoping to get a blockstream contract if they remain loyal

Says franky1 of the Ver/Wu shill army.

lol
you will soon learn im in my own army of self opinion. i am not here to kiss ass or make friends. i will continue to just talk frank about what is actually happening. i have corrected people on both sides of the fense. but it becomes apparent that the core fanbase has many scripts and little research that it appears im just 'attacking' blockstream fan-boys. simply because their sales pitches and scripts are so blindingly obvious of having faults in what they say

 i want dynamics and a network of diverse nodes working independantly using consensus to find some mutual agreement on a single network. i care more about the combination of atleast a dozen differing diverse codebases than any single one.

this is where the blockstream army have failed to pigeon hole me into any non-core group with every rekt campaign they have tried. because i belong to none of them.

i would infact be in favour of core if they got rid of the corporate puppet masters of blockstream pulling their strings. but core would need to actually act independent and think about the bitcoin network and not some corporate agenda to repay DCG millions.

but keep up with the insults, i do love the sound of whistles in the wind
5306  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU + segwit on: March 20, 2017, 05:34:17 AM
You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.

Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement.

When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it.

apart from consider it an invalid block and not forward it.

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are segwit capable.. but try pushing those out to non-segwit nodes.. and the nodes reject them (hence why core needs the upstream filters inplace to then strip the blocks to make it non-core compatible)

EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are dynamic over 1mb.. try pushing those out to non-dynamic nodes.. and the nodes reject them(hence why node(hard) consensus needs to be achieved where the majority can accept them)

dinofelis's notion is of a centralised network. he doesnt understand the deeper aspects.
EG pools are competing. they will find any rule breaking reason to avoid accepting another pools block for own greed and assurance of healthy data/network

also merchants can be/are nodes. meaning pools become dependant on nodes if they ever want to spend their coins.
..
yes pools can just be 2 pools happily playing hot potato together.. but then thats just a crap coin of 2 users filling their hard drive. they might aswell go to a bank and open a joint bank account if they are only playing with each other. why even use blockchain tech at all if 2 pools are the entire network automatically accepting eachother.

but with thousands of nodes where some are services some are merchants the onus on who self governs what, switches. where by the acceptability of a blocks reward becomes the choice of the nodes. because the nodes are the merchants and services the pools wish to spend the funds with.

merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them..  the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes

5307  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 20, 2017, 05:22:22 AM
If Bitcoin become uninteresting to Greg Maxwell, there are 99 other devs, am I right? So everything is going to be ok.

core have about a dozen paid devs and 100 unpaid spell checker interns hoping to get a blockstream contract if they remain loyal
5308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 20, 2017, 04:59:41 AM
You can call them the site admin and integrity judge for all purposes, why insist on calling them the president and the secretary?

shoe on other foot...

Adam Back, Ph.D.
CEO

GMAXWELL
Chief Technology officer

Rusty Russell
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

Pieter Wuille, Ph.D.
Infrastructure Tech Engineer

why not just call them devs for all purposes


5309  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Nizk Szabo: "Jihan talks likes an old-style Communist: "markets are unfair"" on: March 20, 2017, 04:54:39 AM
I would rather not to, but what else are you supposed to do? we let this little freak kiklo spam his bullshit without fighting his propaganda? nope. Fight fire with fire. Im just exposing facts here: quoting industry experts exposing BUcoin. Meanwhile all kiklo's has is Jihan's small dick-big hashrate compensation and Roger Ver pumping shitcoins to reduce BTC % dominance. Sad!

meanwhile gmaxwell has his hands on $70m fiat.
Monero
Zcash

and looking to expand into hyperledger.
and you think that gmaxwells morals of wanting bitcoin in 100% core control. is "decentralised"
and think that gmaxwell morals of REKTing anything diverse and open is "decentralised"..

goodluck with that
5310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 20, 2017, 04:36:34 AM
also pools wont just jump straight to 2mb on activation day. pools will try a 1.000250 block and see the orphan risk.

Possible, but I doubt it. Part of the fork dynamics is dependent upon BU delivering greater value. If BU forks at 75%, then the 1MB chain will be about a 40 minute average block time, delivering 25% of its pre-fork throughput. With a corresponding rise in fees due to the rise in blockspace supply. The BU chain will be about 13 minute average block time. If BU stayed near its pre-fork block size, its throughput would be on the order of 76% of its pre-fork throughput. If, however, BU went straight to 2MB, then it would deliver 150% of its pre-fork throughput. With corresponding drop in fees. Blowing through the backlog in relatively short time. Cheaper transactions, more transactions: greater value. Leading to increased incentive for fence-sitters to throw in to the BU side.

Future increases may be more probing, and therefore incremental. But I would expect the 2MB immediately. They'll fall after the backlog is cleared.

the maths does not work that linearly.

EG if there are 4 pools of equal hash. it does not mean take one away and the time moves to 20 minutes. because the competition may have only been only seconds behind getting their own solution.
bitcoins are not mined based on the combined hashpower of the network. each pool makes their own effort. and the "75%" you mentioned is not 1 pools.

here this image will make it a bit clearer

as you can see 75% of blocks is just HALF the network hashrate in this example,(top half of image) but the block
timings still are reasonable whichever way you play it(bottom half when they have split)
5311  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 20, 2017, 03:52:30 AM
Meanwhile, actual experts are exposing BUgcoin for what it is:


2013 levelDB bug(hours of orphans and stalling of chain growth) <- debunks cores perfect record
vs
some bu nodes went offline but the network continued
..
is core perfect? nope: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues
5312  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited 40.3 % segwit=>deadwit :D :D on: March 20, 2017, 03:38:33 AM
Consensus hard fork must be decided by almost all the nodes and all the miners and not by 1 giant miner pool.

correct

BU is a damn discrete hostile take over, they are trying to fire the chairman/founder of bitcoin if it was a company.,

bitcoin has a diverse amount of SEVERAL implementations and has done for years.
Bu, just one of such have no intentions of splitting the network. bu are sticking to consensus as are many.

it is core that fears losing control and refuse to be a PEER ntwork along with anyone else. core want bitcoin to be a TIER network(upstream node).

core however should not own bitcoin because thats against bitcoins diverse decentralised ethos.
core didnt even exist pre 2013. so even core didnt own/invent bitcoin.

if you want core to be the owner of bitcoin.. then bitcoin has failed. yep even if core win, bitcoins decentralised ethos fails.

however if core just added a couple lines of code to be dynamic. core bu,xt, classic, bitcoinj, bitcoin ruby, nbitcoin, and a dozen others just continue on a level playing field of a PEER network.

if core refuse to stick with a peer network and enable their bip9 and UASF ban hammers(splitting the network).
*then if core have the majority, bitcoin still fails as now its 100% core ownership and other nodes as low level second tier downstream nodes with no vote and just sheep following core.

*then if core have the minority, the non-core implementations (many diverse nodes) on the majority side stick with a diverse PEER network. leaving core on its minority network alone as its own altcoin.
which is what they fear.

hence why core are begging non-core devs to cause a split so core can control things.. core does not care about consensus. and is doing all it can to avoid consensus. and cntralise their network. all for the sake of repaying the $70m+ debt hanging over blockstreams shoulders that needs to be repaid via LN fee's
5313  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 20, 2017, 02:59:31 AM
I for one have no idea why BU would want a public facing president and secretary role if bitcoin is and should have been decentralized forever. Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus, wouldn't the mining pool operator with the biggest miners and hashrate be able to decide the block size to be mined with his majority consensus alone?

because BU is not talking about owning bitcoin.
BU is just one implementation. if core adds dynamic code.. core can play on the same level playing field of the PEER network and core can have their own president A.Back and secretary g.maxwell.

other implementations such as classic/xt/bloq [already dynamic capable] can work on the same PEER network and have their own president and secretary..

but ultimately there are many diverse implementations working together on one dynamic peer network..

.. unlike core
that only want core to be at the top of a core TIER network where core (thier own words):
core is the core/engine/reference client of bitcoin
core is the upstream filters of bitcoin

and all other nodes are either downstream second class nodes, or banned/split from the bitcoin network into their own alt
5314  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 20, 2017, 02:54:56 AM
If you think #bitcoin is centralized in terms of mining now, this is nothing compared to what it can be when you add large blocks.

you need to realise an ASIC does not contain a hard drive. it does not store the blockchain or validate transactions.

ASICS are just handed a hash and a taget to hit.. (less than a kilobyte of data)

it doesnt matter if blocks are 1mb or 1000000000000000terrabytes.. the hash a ASIC receives is the same length.
meaning no cost to ASICS.

... sorry to burst that bubble of yours
5315  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited 40.3 % segwit=>deadwit :D :D on: March 20, 2017, 02:35:42 AM
FYI:
Only 15% to 25% more is needed, before the evolution begins.

as jonald said not out of the woods

even with miner flagging.. the miners will still wait for the node count to go up to accept what miners owould produce otherwise they might aswell just orphan their own block in 3 seconds

Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

BU want hard (node and pool) consensus.. not soft(pool only) consensus
BU have no intention of going bilateral split. it would be CORE that would trigger a split. and its core fanboys and employees begging BU to split so core can play the victim card for something only core actually want (hypocrisy)
5316  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 20, 2017, 02:14:58 AM
My point was regarding the special case where a single individual who might not like one of the resulting chains controls a huge percentage, at least 5% of outstanding coins.  Is there anyone like that in eth?  Maybe the DAO hacker if they hadn't forked... I think that was several percent of all eth.  And, in fact, maybe someone else did control that much eth, and maybe that's why etc is at least an order of magnitude cheaper.

If for example Satoshi dumped a billion dollars on BU, he could take those profits and buy core BTC, and make it more profitable for miners to mine core. Obviously this is all unlikely, but if it did happen it would have lasting impact imo.  He wouldn't even have to sell them necessarily, he could just move them to exchanges and say if you want the price of BU btc higher than X you better be prepared to buy $1 billion dollars of my BU btc.

still temporal.

notice the event of the mega rise and dump of 2013-2014...

its just history.. no one talks about mtgox anymore.. just a temporal price drama. gone, forgotton.
if all you care about is the price. then expect 6 months after your greedy moment has passed. your then left with the thought of..

was that greedy moment worth it to have core in sole 100% control where bitcoin is a TIER network, with multiple implementations diversely on a minorty network.
or
having multiple implementations diversely and happily on the peer network, whereby core left in the minority as an alt in their own tier network.

try to think passed your greed of price drama and think about the network as a whole and the long term results
5317  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 20, 2017, 01:54:37 AM

logic : NON-core implementations DONT want to split the network, they want consensus of level playing field PEER network



you need to learn the difference between the umbrella term HF. and then the subcategories below it.

contentious is where its not consensual.. and instead either controversial or bilateral split.

Quote
clarity

soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote

below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains

 then you see that with BU wanting hard CONSENSUS and not CONTENTIOUS...where by going consensus BEATS the corporate cartel of treating BU as the altcoin.
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
Quote
Wed like to take the time to update the community on the procedure that we, as an industry, intend to follow in the event of a contentious hardfork activating on the Bitcoin network

because the corporate cartel said they would name it BTU if a CONTENTIOUS fork occurred.

which would happen only by core triggering it. because non-core implementations dont have code to do such a split. and for 2+ years of running on the main net, showed no intent to either. even now. now deadlines, no threats, no ban hammer. just plodding along letting the network decide for themselves.

and thats what core fear the most. that CONSENSUS will vote against core and for the non-core divers mutliple implementations that just want the raising of the main base block.
losing core its agenda to have control at the top of a TIER network .. and they will refuse to just be part of a PEER network


P.S
bitfinex also believe if CORE become the minority they will call core BCC. if BU become the minority they will call BU BCU
so its not a simple.. if there is a split BU is auto treated as the altcoin..

devil is in the details of the announcement... "contentious"
https://twitter.com/bitfinex/status/843226656940679170
5318  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 20, 2017, 01:31:51 AM
doesnt matter what satoshi does. spending coins is just temporary "price" drama.
if anyone only cares about price drama they need to take a step back and think about the bigger picture.
if anyone only cares about 'double my coins' greed drama they need to take a step back and think about the bigger picture.
Dumping almost 1 million Bitcoin is "temporary price drama"? Cheesy

I dunno.. 5-10% of outstanding btc might not be "temporary price drama".  

10min-2 hours minutes of pressing send and waiting for funds to confirm into an exchange
placing an order and selling the coins.

once sold, then what..

oh yea over a century of blocks still producing.

a few hours of price drama maybe even a few weeks.. compared to a century of block creation = temporary price drama

much like ethereum.. the price drama of their bilateral split is over. people dont think its exciting and just treat it as 2 alts. much like non-exciting trading between say bitcoin and litecoin.. no drama the litecoin/bitcoin drama ended in mid 2012... just a couple months after litecoin got popular then slowed down..

but now 5 years on..  bitcoin and litecoin are doing their own thing.
meaning a hard fork based purely on greed of people only caring about the price/'double' coin hopes.. are not thinking about the big picture or caring about bitcoin as a diverse single consensus network. they just care about some temporal price drama

5319  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU, it's always VPS at the end ... Like XT and Classic. on: March 20, 2017, 12:55:32 AM


thats because BU was being assert(0) exploited so TEMPORARILY moved to servers to keep nodes online while their home computers downloaded the fixed update.

but here is where you do shy away from stats... check out the thick grey line that is CONSTANT.. oh look. not BU

seems you can paint a pretty picture but when the context of the stats show that temporary blips happen, and then the temporary blips are caused by those hating anything not core. then you see that you are just creating a narrative to then attack the narrative.

ultimately failing.

its like you intentionally go and kill some black guys, to then report that black lives matter and the shooting should stop, yet your the only shooter
5320  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: if Bitcoin HF, it will become "uninteresting" to Greg Maxwell on: March 20, 2017, 12:38:45 AM
im laughing at the hypocrisy

1 minute : fear BU they want to split the network
2 minute : hurry and split the network because BU isnt going to

logic : NON-core implementations DONT want to split the network, they want consensus of level playing field PEER network
logic : core fear losing their TIER network and dont want to be on same level PEER network as other implementations
logic : core have the splitting code, the deadlines, the threats, the scripted rhetoric to play a victim card
logic : core trigger the split
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 ... 858 »
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!