Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2019, 07:26:09 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 860 »
5321  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Proof of work debate? Threatened 51% attack due to fork debate on: March 21, 2017, 03:23:28 PM
If we change PoW, we change who the miners are. Don't you like that idea? I do

if PoW changes.. then it is just backdating security of bitcoin temporarily and in a few months the pools will be back where they are at the top but this time with a new asic/machine to make block creation more efficient than 'solo mining'.

EG if it went to a 1node 1 vote.. pools will simply make an asic/machine that acts like several clustered nodes syndicated together.

end result is just a couple months of drama until things are in the same position as now.

edit: (couple seconds running scenarios in my head)
infact less than a couple months. because the time it would take to get majority node acceptance of a new mining algo/difficulty/hashing rule..
pools would have the time to design the efficient solution to be ontop right when it activates.. thus solving nothing
5322  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed on: March 21, 2017, 03:15:22 PM
The miners deciding things on their own == attack.

CORE gave pools the only vote.. core have themselves to blame.
emphasis: (lauda repeat 3 times until it sinks in): CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote. CORE gave pools the only vote.

core should instead.

not blackmail pools with algo chaning threats.
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS (actual full community vote/choice to adopt or not)


not blackmail nodes with UASF banscore threats or their TIER network by hard(node and pool) bilateral split
but instead do a HARD (node and pool) CONSENSUS

and if core still dont get their way, just accept that their way is not wanted. and do something the community do want, without bribes(fee discount) without blackmail, without threat
5323  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters on: March 21, 2017, 03:06:11 PM
commanded by a mining cartel

lol
core are getting desparate to force segwit.
1. take nodes vote away
2. take pools vote away
3. give full control to core.

wak up to your own hypocrisy. if only one implementation (core) is running.. then there is no decentralisation.

core need to man up and realise
if they know nodes vote wont activate segwit(thus needing to bypass node vote by going soft) they know users dont want it
if they know pools vote wont activate (thus needing to blackmail with PoW change) they know pools dont want it

they should just instead of bribe(fee discount), or tweaking the elections(going soft),or blackmail(PoW algo change) they should just try something different the community will accept

5324  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed on: March 21, 2017, 02:59:14 PM
im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..
If you mean this section in particular, then your statement is wrong. AFAIK he spends little time moderating anyways.

you failed with your attempt to brush all the other area's gmaxwell and his employees are moderating under the carpet. (mailing list/bips/irc) to try hiding gmaxwells control reach of bitcoin proposals, to ensure blockstream set the agenda.
5325  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The Lunacy of BTU Supporters on: March 21, 2017, 02:39:52 PM
bu or any other dynamic implementations have NOT set any threatening deadlines
and NOT added anything that would intentionally banscore nodes off the network
and NOT gone 'full wetard' to even threaten removing PoW.
(by core refusing to add a few lines to be part of the peer network that could be dynamic, they will banscore themselves off the network by rejecting majority consensus)
core only want their own TIER network and have gone 'full wetard' to try getting it

SEGWIT rely on ONLY pools vote
dynamics implementations needs nodes AND pools, otherwise nodes will just orphan off the blocks in 3 seconds and stick with things as they are now(as displayed last month).

CORE actively and intentionally bypassed node consensus by going soft.
core have all the ban hammers,
core set the deadlines
core set threats of pool orphaning with bip9,
core set more threats with UASF
core set more threats with changing PoW

it is core that dont want community free choice.. its either get into segwit or have bitcoin ruined into something no longer bitcoin
(total rewrite, different keypair types different mempool strange formation, different full tx data formation, different tier node topology, different 'mining algo)

however dynamic implementations are compatible with several different implementation 'brands' using just a few lines of code.
set no limit
set no agenda,
dont have zealous banscores
havnt threatened anything.

they are just plodding along for the last two years letting natural consensus do its thing.
5326  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is the set threshold set for Bitcoin Unlimited to fork ? on: March 21, 2017, 02:22:59 PM
bu or any other dynamic implementations have NOT set any threatening deadlines they are plodding along letting network consensus occur
and NOT added anything that would intentionally banscore nodes off the network
and NOT gone 'full wetard' to even threaten removing PoW.
(by core refusing to add a few lines to be part of the peer network that could be dynamic, they will banscore themselves off the network by rejecting majority consensus)
core only want their own TIER network and have gone 'full wetard' to try getting it
SEGWIT rely on ONLY pools vote
dynamics implementations needs nodes AND pools, otherwise nodes will just orphan off the blocks in 3 seconds and stick with things as they are now(as displayed last month).

CORE actively and intentionally bypassed node consensus by going soft.
core have all the ban hammers,
core set the deadlines
core set threats of pool orphaning with bip9,
core set more threats with UASF
core set more threats with changing PoW

it is core that dont want community free choice.. its either get into segwit or have bitcoin ruined into something no longer bitcoin
(total rewrite, different keypair types different mempool strange formation, different full tx data formation, different tier node topology, different 'mining algo)

however dynamic implementations are compatible with several different implementation 'brands' using just a few lines of code.
set no limit
set no agenda,
dont have zealous banscores
havnt threatened anything.

they are just plodding along for the last two years letting natural consensus do its thing.
5327  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] SegWit (BTC) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (BTU): Which Would You Choose? on: March 21, 2017, 01:43:33 PM
I'd have to say that I'd rather go with Segwit even with all the times that the devs being too close to blockstream and so on, I still feel that they're the best set of people to actually help the bitcoin network with their scaling solution.

I feel as if BTU is just going to be a way for the majority of miners (Chinese) and Ver to be able to fight to make some crazy money off of hard forking bitcoin if they're able to hit the magic number of 51 percent, or more around 70 if they want to actually do it without an issue.

I just don't like the centralized aspect of BTU, I don't feel thats what Bitcoin has and ever should stand for.

SEGWIT!

you do know that the BU code is ok to work with a dozen differing brands to stick to a PEER open and diverse network.
but blockstream(core) want segwit code to set themselves up as the upper TIER main network auditors of the blockchain and have everything non-core as the down-stream filtered second class nodes.

core also have all the excessive ban hammering and orphaning code,(bip9 and UASF) not the other way round.
its core that bypassed hard(node and pool) and just went with soft(pool only).
and even this week core want to go a step further by now threatening to move away from PoW if pools dont vote segwit.
pretty much removing community choice and instead using threats.


non-core dynamic nodes want hard(node AND pool) consensus..
so dont blame pools for having the only vote for segwit.. core gave them that privilege over segwit..

where as the dynamics, IS a node and pool required vote so pools cannot alone force dynamics

core also removed reactive fee estimates and replaced it with average (meaning no drop in fee when a block demand is low because the price is spread out over many blocks average. thus not helping lower fee's when demand suddenly drops.
core removed priority, and raised the minimum spend.

oh and the real clincher

non-core nodes(real baseblock increase) that want dynamics are using real consensus hard(node and pool) so even if pools got to x%.. the nodes still are needed to approve it. so all this 'chinese miners are forcing the issue', only applies to segwits activation/non-activation.. due to core decision to give pools the only vote for segwit.

but dynamics needs node approval too. so pools cant just force dynamics.. pools need nodes there too, otherwise you will see alot of orphans and alot of pool timewasting making blocks that never get added to blockheight if nodes are not there to support it.

non-core implementations set no deadlines or made threats of banning the network.
if any implementation wants to support dynamics without downloading a specific brand they can use their own favourite and just add a few lines of code, yep even core can tweak a few lines and be dynamic compatible..
but segwit is a complete rewrite so anyone wanting segwit has a bigger job to rewrite to be segwit compatible and then be thrown into "its not peer reviewed your team are cramp" war game.(unless you enslave urself and just use their code like a good little sheep they want you to be)


5328  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed on: March 21, 2017, 04:19:18 AM
if core think the only thing should be core.. decentralisation and diversity is already lost.

oh. and core better stop making LN in Go.. as its just not Core.
hell. core should kill off KNots too.
while there at it they should also kill off Fibre aswell.. as they are not Core.
oh and kill off BTCC, as they are not using core.

they are variants with differing code/features.

see the hypocrisy?

seems the rule is if not BLOCKSTREAM approved its no good
the real trojan horse starts crawling out
5329  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The BUcoin chinese-funded trojan horse exposed on: March 21, 2017, 04:06:02 AM
The best part is seeing George of BitFury aggressively threatening people to lawsuit them if the PoW algo is changed.
Who he pretends to lawsuit? the CEO of Bitcoin? lol, what a prick.
He could do that under BUcoin because they will have a president and secretary lol, but not with bitcoin.

blockstream CEO adam back

blockstream CTO gmaxwell.

im guessing with gmaxwell being the moderator of bitcoin discusssion and also part of the acceptance of features that get added to core. you cant really hide cores puppet string masters..

kind of funny
oh and if you want to pretend blockstream have nothing to do with it. then the "president of core" Wladimir J. van der Laan
5330  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] SegWit (BTC) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (BTU): Which Would You Choose? on: March 21, 2017, 01:09:34 AM
Segwit. It opens up the future in a way that BTU doesn't. I have much less of an idea of what that future would look like but that's what's intriguing about it.
lol
but you admit you have no clue.

do you even know what happens on activation day of segwit.
do you know what promises are guaranteed and what ones are empty gestures
5331  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited Won't Ever Be The "Bitcoin", Exchanges Vow on: March 21, 2017, 01:02:25 AM
OP references a video of a guy living in a trailer..yep he must be well connected..


secondly OP and the video guy have not really understood bitcoin, the concepts or even the exchanges announcement

here is a subtle hint
"in the event of a contentious"

the announcement did not say
in the event of consensus

the announcement did not say
in the event of any split

just in the event of a contentious split..
oh and by the way, even places like bitfinex have been more refined with the announcement
if core lose majority. their alt is BCC
if non core lose majority their alt is BCU
devil is in the details of the announcement... "contentious"
https://twitter.com/bitfinex/status/843226656940679170

5332  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 11:45:05 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. Segwit has included 2 mb blocks.
segwit offers no 2mb PROMISE at activation nor 4mb promise

after activation. people need to voluntarily move their funds from native keys to segwit keys so that the ratio of segwit txdata:signature can change the weight
where the txdata sits in the base and the signature sits outside the base.

if only 10% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.1mb of total weight
if only 50% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~1.55mb of total weight
if 100% voluntarily move funds and regularly use segwit keypairs expect ~2.1mb of total weight

but dont expect EVERYONE to move funds to segwit keypairs.
oh and also spammers will stick to native keys and spam the base block to not give segwit key users space for their txdata. thus you wont get 2.1mb 'best estimate/hope'
oh and segwit does not prevent spammers... another segwit promise broken...


it's pretty simple. Segwit is great for users, not so great for miners.
segwit is not dependant on activation its dependant on users using segwit keypairs AFTER activation.
segwit does not disarm or stop native keys from being used and so the malleation and sigop spammers will still use native keys to bloat the base block

Miners don't benefit from transactions made on LN.
actually miners do. miners dont care about tx fee right now its just a bonus. whether the tx they add is a LN multisig or a native tx makes no difference.

however segwit offers a 75% discount. so miners get less for adding segwit tx's...
EG
a native keypair LN earns a pool more than a segwit keypair LN.

BU is in bed with big-name miners. They are colluding to keep Segwit out. Roger is a key player simply because he owns Bitcoin.com

care to take a stab at the VC funders behind BTCC and slush, which were both very quick to flag yes to segwit without waiting a few weeks to see what nodes do or peer review the code at launchday. they automatically just kissed segwit ass without thinking.

The BU side is now propping up these useless alts that no one even wants to accept to try and drive money out of BTC. That is really dirty, will not be forgotten & ultimately ensure they will never see their vision pass.
lol gmaxwell Monero Zcash
barry silbert (the big cheeze VC of the blockstream/corporation camp) monero zcash ethereum
(ever wondered why coinbase added ethereum.. (check out barry silberts $6m VC investment into coinbase)
The fear tactics they're using will ensure they will lose. Horrible politicians.

fear tactics?
non-core have no deadlines no ban hammer no need for upstream filtering, no net for new keypairs. no desire to split the network.

its core that want non-core to split away, first using fear, then begging and pleading non-core implementations to actually fork. all because non-core believe in sticking with real consensus of multiple implementations all on the same playing field increasing diversity to secure bitcoins decentralisation of a peer network. where as core want a TIER control network
5333  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitcoinUnlimited.info under DDoS on: March 20, 2017, 10:38:22 PM
They cant cope with it, and trust them with money

spam DDoSing a website?
has nothing to do with bitcoins function nor 'control of money'

i think the OP has no concept of how bitcoin actually works
5334  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 10:02:23 PM
the most of ppl in bitcoin ecosystem seems to be happy if you guys fork off the network because it seems you are the most toxic ppl.

lol
first you blockstreamers spread fear of a fork....
then you beg and demand a fork

yet the non-blockstreamers want to remain as one independant diverse consensus single network.

so i will just laugh at all the fear then begs of fork hypocrisy
5335  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 09:34:46 PM
you are not worry about miners that will central control fee market and you afraid about lighting network?
LN has a niche.. as a voluntary side service

i do fear blockstreams TIER control and pushing people into blockstream managed LN hubs due to independant LN hops being more costly

You are not afraid about the governance new system  from Bitcoin Unlimited with an elected president,
alot less fear than blockstreams president.
BU wants to work with other peers on a level playing field and if core dropped blockstream dominance. so that core is back on the same level playing field by core adding a few lines of code to be dynamic capable. then it decentralises and diversifies the network back to independence where the network has no president. even if the "team" of each brand do...


even with ministry of propaganda and you afraid the developers that maintain bitcoin for 8 years now?

core came around 2013 (4 years).. assuming core are the 'satoshi crew'/default bitcoin owner is misleading, false and a major laugh
5336  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 09:14:08 PM
The solution is actually simple (in concept, if not in implementation): A mature non-segwit version of the Lightning network needs to be deployed NOW, with the segwit malleability protection requirement being added in the future when segwit activates. That way it can be made clear to miners that segwit is NOT required to create a 2nd layer network and LN can be created whether they want it or not. Alas LN isn't actually production ready yet and most implementations have segwit in mind (is my understanding at least.)

LN's issues are not solved by segwit.
LN has other problems and attack vectors.
many dev groups have been playing with possible LN's ever since the existence of multisig.

the real problems of LN is not malleation, or quadratics. but instead

1. lack of guarantee a tx gets added to a block (like any tx for the last 8 years)
2. address-reuse (signing many times allows the LN counterparty to consturst possible privkey from the data that gets signed multiple times within an LN for the ln counter party to sign both sides without the first parties consent)
3. the UTXO count of say 1 billion people depositing into a multisig = 2billion UTXO's (each channel having 2in-2out)
4. multiple other blackmail/extortion risks

multisigs are not 'broke' but nothing segwit offers guarantee's fixes either.

but the big picture is not about just getting LN live for user adoption as a voluntary side service. its to get core in control as the top tier upstream of the network. and also biasedly in control of what gets relayed to ensure their LN hubs reign supreme. as well as all the fee war tactics of rmoving efficient fee mchanisms to push onchain to being expensive to really force the need for commercial blockstream hubs to be the end goal
5337  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 08:55:22 PM
Don't the miners know that Lightning's orders-of-magnitude increase in transaction rate increase the network effect by the same factor, and in turn the market price of the commodity they produce? And that on-chain transactions will be required not just for Lightning, but in their own right?

pools know it.
pools dont care about fee's or no fee's, to them tx's and tx fee's are not the main income stream and not the real thing they care about today.
its the core propaganda that are putting words into pools mouths.

LN can function without segwit. so its meaningless to argue for segwit as its not needed. pools know this.
thier debate is deeper than the fee issue that they have been painted with

pools are more about the longevity of bitcoin as an open diverse peer network
5338  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Jihan and a part of miners afraid that will lost fee market from LN on: March 20, 2017, 08:16:39 PM
BU and other non-core implementations never has and never will want contentious or bilater splits..  if they did they would have
set deadlines
set threasholds
added ban hammer code
.. oh and logically.. done something already!!

but no. non-core implementations want to use the real consensus of bitcoin to be part of a PEER network.

it is core that hate the other peers,
it is core that prefer a TIER network where they are the upstream filters
it is core that have the deadlines the zealous ban hammer scores the bip9 and UASF banning triggers
it is core that have begged non-core implementations to split but they laughed at core devs.

in essense it is core that are having the fear of losing their chance of being in control of a TIER network and having to either be part of a consensus PEER network, or activate their own banning mechanisms to start their own alt.

just ask yourself. BU, classic, xt and a dozen other implementations have been happily plodding away for 2 years on mainnet just leaving it up to the community to decide if they want it or not. so if non-core want to cause drama. why not set deadlines and split off like all the fake propaganda from core suggests will happen. because its just more drama by core to make people afraid of open diverse Peer network.

yet core have done all they can to drum up the drama and point fingers and play the victim card while desperate to push their money making LN hubs into action while keeping bitcoin native utility at a minimum to force it.

and that link to "jihan" is an article wrote by someone else. and has been taken out of context...

miners will still get paid their rewards happily for a few decades and get bonuses by means of all the open/close channels of LN's so its not going to impact miners pockets.

but i do find it funny how the twisting of words tries to make it sound like segwit is needed.
5339  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 20, 2017, 01:16:14 PM
Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus,

like the past 8 years limit X was a known thing.
and pools only made blocks below limit X, thus acceptable to nodes
even now pools know the block limit today is 1mb so pools have set their maximum as being 0.999mb but actually produce blocks below that.

pools can look at the nodes of the network. remove the obvious amazon server ones and other server hosted nodes from a tally and then see what useragent suggestions which the remaining real home-nodes are flagging

if say 94% were randomly set above 2mb. 1% at 2mb  and 5% randomly between 1mb and 2mb.
they would make a judgement call that 2mb was the 95% safe limit where orphan risk was manageable.
they would make a judgement call that maybe 3mb was the 75% was okish limit where orphan risk is higher but depending on depth allowance maybe manageable.

next they make blocks from 1.000250 and test the water, see what bugs might fly out (like the 500kb bug of 2013 due to a berkely/leveldb crossover that wasnt peer reviewed properly by core devs)

if 1.000250 block didnt kick up fuss they increment a bit more. 1.000500, and so on and so on..

as the pools get to the random minority of nodes below 2mb they start to push the nodes preference of that minority and see whats possible without causing much if any orphan drama. once it gets to a certain point where the blocks are getting too much resistance or getting to the minority/majority cut off. pools settledown and see if the network of nodes move their preferences up or hold out at a certain limit.

now here is the thing.. this node limit (majority of 2mb) is actually a LOWER limit.. and there is more of a hard limit in the background which would suggest right now that 8mb is ok.. pools wont jump above 8mb (if thats what the nodes have) they would stay below 8mb and aim to stay below the majority of the lower preference limit(2mb) in this example.

...
another way to imagine it is take the old 1mb limit as being the upper limit from 2010-2016 with a preference of say 250k in 2010. that over the 6 years rose to 500k and then to 750k.. and then 0.99mb where by nodes had more control of the preference below 1mb rather than just accepting anyblock under 1mb.EG the leveldb bug could have been overted if nodes had a lower limit to warn pools not to push so fast above 500k if the nodes couldnt handle it or just prefered not to go above that

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?

miners with the biggest hash just means their attempt maybe a few seconds more luckier at getting a block than their competitors.
it does not mean someone with 25% might get it in 10 minutes and a second pool with 24% might get it in 20minutes24seconds

a few pools nd up being just sconds apart but not counted or even spotted because someone has already taken the lead.

so if 25% were cut off the time wouldnt drastically change and so the cat and mouse games between the pools could still cause issues  unless clear majority of pools and nodes
5340  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU + segwit on: March 20, 2017, 08:14:45 AM
lol dinofelis. your still not seeing the bigger picture.

give yourself some time to research abit more.think outside the fiat centralised bubble of servers and truly learn bitcoin.

your grasping one nugget and trying to rub it hard to make it shine. but your not seeing the whole wall of precious things that held that nugget inplace for so long

bitcoin is revolutionary compared to the fiat central servers that you seem so intensely obsessed with comparing bitcoin to, that your not actually seeing the bigger concept
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 ... 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!