Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2019, 04:09:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 ... 858 »
5361  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 12:19:18 PM
this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...
No, that won't solve things besides disabling even more use-cases.

lol 20k blocksigops and 4k txsigops is already inplace since atleast v0.12... (maybe worth you reading the code once in a while)

the 40k blocksigops and 4k tx sigops. allows more transactions without risking quadratics. by keeping tx's at the same lean level as acceptable today.

lastly
who the hell needs to have thousands of input/outputs...

wait hang on. arnt you a advocate of bitcoin just being used as a settlement layer for LN.. if so, then knowing that LN is a 2in 2out
40k blocksigops and 200 txsigops more than enough for LN tx's and reducing the quadratic sigop timing to milliseconds /tx


5362  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 12:06:23 PM
That is quite unfortunate, especially considering their latest major exploit incident.

not as bad as the leveldb exploit of 2013.

oh.. and diverse nodes of different codebases mitigated the BU exploit. so the actual effect was only a few nodes went offline.. and the network carried on unhindered.

now imagine if the network was core only... and core had a exploit that took core nods offline.. boom.

now do you see why diversity is good
5363  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 12:03:50 PM

this can be solved quite easily.
knowing its about the 20,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops for 2seconds (8seconds at worse) which has mitigated the OLD fear already of just having no tx sigop limit at all...
old fear
Quote
This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash.

going to 2mb
and having 40,000 blocksigops and 4,000tx sigops

meaning someone CANNOT make 5tx of 8000sigops. but can make 10tx of 4000sigops. makes the timing
2mb: 2-8 seconds
1mb: 4-16 seconds
5364  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Idea to avoid high fee on: March 18, 2017, 11:51:08 AM
addressing the FUD that spam is related to pools wanting income:
pools do not care about fee's as a NEEDED INCOME. to them its just a bonus. and will continue to be a bonus for a couple decades.
the block reward will be sufficient enough to cover real costs.

those pushing the fee war are not actually the pools. but blockstream devs that have
1. tweaked the code to make the old priority formulae near useless (infact 0.14 is removing priority formula completely)
2. removed reactive fee's and replaced it with AVERAGE fee's
3. added fee filters and relay filters

all of which are biasedly making tx fee's rise, even in times of low demand.

what is needed is to reintroduce a REAL and NEW 'priority formulae' mechanism that makes the infrequent LEAN tx users get cheap tx and those that want to spam by respending every block pay more. and those that want to bloat a block pay more.

that way it becomes fairer for everyone, rather than just 'everyone pay more' banker economics

here is one example
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price
5365  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 11:46:02 AM
They seemingly want to fork at all cost,

"they" ?
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed to split.
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not even pushed a deadline
they have been running for more than 2 years and have not pushed anything of the sort.

... but guess who is pushing
What you are describing is what I and others call a bilateral hardfork-- where both sides reject the other.

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

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

guess who does have an over zealous ban hammer
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their bip9
guess who does have a ban node and orphan block in their UASF
5366  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 11:41:35 AM
Please don't use this abbreviation for Bitcoin Unlimited! Call it BU, BTCU, BitU or UBTC, just not BTU.
It has already been decided. BTU altcoin.

Been decided?  By what world dominating authority?  FUD is FUD and propaganda is propaganda.  Trying to dress it up any other way is dishonest and just makes you look bad.

not decided. just an idea proposal
and by whom

the closed door meeting of the VC receiving corporations of DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/
its getting too obvious
5367  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 18, 2017, 11:08:58 AM
How many dumbass believe dynamics will just create a >1 MB block out of the Blue.

Think about it for  2 seconds, there will be no emergency , like the liars are posting.

dynamics will gain a 55 to 75% control and hold it for 2 weeks, once they have proven they can hold over 51% control,
from that date, everyone will have 2 weeks before they release a block that will discard the segwit idiots,
So everyone will have 2 weeks prior notice before the > 1mb block will be released .

That is not an emergency that is a well planned evolution of BTC new Transaction capacity , which will lower transaction fees and save BTC
from an early death of being priced out of the market.

 Cool

FYI:
Within 72 hours of the fork, all segwit miners will migrate to the dynamics design or face an economic collapse.
Then there will only be 1 BTC again and the Trojan virus of Blockchains known as segwit , will have been eradicated.  Cheesy
Learn it , Love it , dynamics is the Future of BTC.

FTFY

by the way there are MANY implementations ready for dynamic blocks this includes some people with copies of core with say 2mb/4mb/8mb limit set. meaning they accept anything below those limits.

its not just a BU vs debate its a dynamic vs 1mb base debate.
its doesnt have to be exactly BU's design that needs to be followed word for word. as long as there are the ability to go passed the 1mb limit. it will be acceptable to consensus.

also pools wont just jump straight to 2mb on activation day. pools will try a 1.000250 block and see the orphan risk. and then if happy that consensus accepts it. it will increase in small increments of acceptability
5368  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BIP100 updated - By Jeff Garzik and Tom Harding on: March 18, 2017, 10:51:15 AM

Ok, I think I see what's leading you to say this.


To begin with, remember that BU is explictly defined as a hard fork. Naming no names, but there are some excessively over-complicated descriptions of the difference between the two. But there are nuanced sub-categories of each type, so there is some grounding in reality to presenting every subcategory at once (but it's more confusing presented that way).

It's clearer like this:

The 2 overall categories: hard and soft

Hard fork: the blockchain splits in 2

Soft fork: the blockchain remains as 1


no the emboldened parts are exaggerated propaganda of taking softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario.
hiding the fact that even going soft can split the network(core actually admit that it exists in their bip9, to orphan and ban the opposer once active).
hiding the fact that even going hard can keep the network together(thats how true consensus works node and pool agreement).

for reference:
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

5369  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 18, 2017, 10:24:24 AM
jihan has only 16% management but even then not even 16% are voting in one direction. so blaming the 74% against segwit on one man with less than 16% is a major laugh, kind of digging at the bottom of the barrel for any straw you can find, laugh
If you believe that Jihan only has 16% under his control, then I have bad news for you. You are as ignorant as any other shitposter on this forum.
your right. he doesnt have 16%. he has less.. try to double check statistics, not reddit next time

if they have the majority they dont need to fork off.. if they dont get the majority they wont fork off. consensus of one single chain. LEARN IT
Majority hashrate != Bitcoin.
never said hashrate. i said majority. learn consensus and you will understand its about nodes that are more important.. remember its only core that car about hashrate. they even went soft because of it. but they didnt expect to be on the losing side. they thought they could fly their code in un opposed. it made me laugh when they avoided full node then pool, to instead just go pool only.. basically shooting self in the foot.
but we know the reason is to take the glory if it worked going soft or blame the pools if it didnt work.. either way not having to accept that segwit just isnt wanted.

Interesting thought.  I suppose since Satoshi may still be out there holding a huge amount of coins if they're unhappy with one particular fork they could probably pummel it into oblivion by dumping those coins in large amounts day after day.
Yes, this is what I have mentioned in the other thread.  If Satoshi is adamantly against BU (and there are reasons to think he is) he could dump it into the ground.  It would be a very dangerous move though.  He would be acknowledging he is still alive and has active control of his keys.  He might help core by dumping on BU, but it could also make people not want to use either chain knowing he is back.  Obviously very unlikely but interesting to think about.  Of course, as has been mentioned, it will be a dumpwar fest regardless, since there are plenty of massive early adopter holders on both sides of the debate.
What makes you think that Satoshi is alive?

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.
5370  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Another miserable alt BTU on: March 18, 2017, 10:12:05 AM
Well in theory it will be an alt as it'll be a new coin, but it'll be based on a variant of Bitcoin and it'll split from Bitcoin so the majority of mining power supporting BU might result in this alt becoming more popular, thus making the "original" Bitcoin struggle.

Interestingly, I could see the old Bitcoin adopting SegWit and potentially becoming even more popular than BTU afterwards, so it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

you do know that segwit is using a new block design (a 2 room apartment not a 1 room apartment)
you do know that segwit is using a new tx design (the mother(witness/sig/proof of ownership) is moved to another room away from the child(txdata))
you do know that segwit is using a new validation method (the family social worker(node) has a new checklist, leaving the old checkist less than full)

segwit is the new coin. and existed as an altcoin in the elements project. and has totally rewrote bitcoin into something totally different.

dynamics is using native keys and same validation, its just allowing more tx's in (more families into the 1 room apartment by knocking a wall down to have a bigger room)
5371  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 09:38:10 AM
BU activates as soon as someone starts mining bigger blocks. No activation threshold is needed.

lol
'start mining bigger blocks' is only activated when there is consensus..(majority of nodes will accept what they produce)
please learn it. i have asked you for a year now.
its not that hard.
i have not even asked you to learn C++ or read thousands of lines of code to realise where your going wrong. i have just asked you to learn the basic concept of bitcoin, to actually move you forward into understanding bitcoin. where by you will begin to care more about bitcoin and less about corporate script reading.


5372  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 18, 2017, 09:22:22 AM
Everyone

everyone?? lol learn consensus. 74% of pools disagree or not decided.
also ZERO % of nodes have an active segwit wallet. all they have is a user agent sybil flagging desire for such.
in short segwit isnt even ready for release. without weeks/months of delays and drama after activation.

infact that 74% can be more because some pools faking desire for segwit, much like your propaganda of the opposite being true. but 26/74 are numbers that cant be ignored. its not 50/50 its not 75/25 its not 95/5... its 26/74

corporations with DCG VC funding just wants non-blockstream to fork off to their altcoin so that we(blockstreamers) can move forward in a more timely manner to repay the VC the debt.
fixed that for you

it is very unfortunate that you're completely ignorant about Jihan Wu and his power trip to take control of the Bitcoin network.
jihan has only 16% management but even then not even 16% are voting in one direction. so blaming the 74% against segwit on one man with less than 16% is a major laugh, kind of digging at the bottom of the barrel for any straw you can find, laugh

I don't think it will split.  BU only serves to not activate Segwit.  Miners don't want BU either.
Wrong, Jihan & his cartel want not only BU to activate but to take control of the network. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/601t7u/jihan_wus_messages_after_the_announcement_seem_to/
Watch out for wrong or exaggerated translations.

again the whole 16%=74% jihan propaganda. lol. keep digging
If they have the majority of the PoW, they will fork off. Their coins will be listed as XBU.
They don't need the majority of hashrate to fork off.
if they have the majority they dont need to fork off.. if they dont get the majority they wont fork off. consensus of one single chain. LEARN IT
5373  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 09:06:25 AM
calling it BTU. is your failure. LEARN consensus

because bu and many other implementations are only opting for consensus and NOT bilateral splits. they have no reason to have replay protection.
if the network stays as one consensus network , then there is no need.
Wrong. BTU does not care about any consensus, they just care about hashrate. There isn't even a specified activation threshold; as soon as someone mines a block that is bigger than 1 MB they will split off. Do you even read their main communication channels? They think that 51% hashrate = Bitcoin. Roll Eyes

please learn consensus
Please learn how to live in the real world.

if you learn consensus you know that pools wont make bigger blocks unless the majority of nodes exist to accept what pools produce.

also its core that have bypassed consensus by going soft. meaning its core that only care about hashrate by only giving pools the vote. they dont care about nodes or the community.


plus.. real world
"There isn't even a specified activation threshold;
They think that 51% hashrate = Bitcoin"

you have just proved that the '51%' is meaningless because of 'There isn't even a specified activation threshold'
you literally debunked your own propaganda in the same paragraph

when you start debunking your own propaganda. its time you step back and learn BITCOIN and not go looking for new propaganda scripts
5374  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 08:58:38 AM
The BTU version seems to be very hesitant to add double-replay protection for some reason which doesn't make things easier.

calling it BTU. is your failure. LEARN consensus

because bu and many other implementations are only opting for consensus and NOT bilateral splits. they have no reason to have replay protection.
if the network stays as one consensus network of open and diverse peers, then there is no need.

however the minority that may (core definitely are desperate to) split away. it would be core that will need to implement the double spend replay protection. not the other way round.

please learn consensus
5375  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 08:51:27 AM
Just so I understand, if I have 10BTC and BTU hard forks would that mean that I now have 10BTC and 10 BTU? Ive tried to find this out via the FAQs.
If you hold coins in your own wallet, you would have:
10 BTC & 10 BTU coins.

However, this situation gets fairly complicated if BU doesn't add double-replay protection.

bu and other independent nodes have no plans to split. please learn consensus. they want to remain on one single chain of diverse PEERS

only segwit plans the TIER'd nodes after they split away the opposing pools/nodes(bip9 and UASF allows this).
wake up.

so in essence it would be a 10btc and 10swcoins

you can bait and switch and play the victim card all you like lauda, but not learning the basics and calling anything not segwit a alt is becoming tooo obvious
5376  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 08:34:21 AM
Thank you!

Just so I understand, if I have 10BTC and BTU hard forks would that mean that I now have 10BTC and 10 BTU? Ive tried to find this out via the FAQs.

many diverse nodes are using consensus, this includes BU..
BU have no plans to split the network. however if the diverse network get a majority where by dynamic blocks occur and many nodes are ready for it.. it will be the corporate(segwit) nodes that will trigger their own orphan and ban mechanisms to split and form their own minority.

its why they are soo desperate to try getting BU to split away before consensus is reached so that the corporations dont lose out as much and also play the victim card.

but as i said the diverse consensus network are not going to bow down to the corporations. BU, and a dozen other independent brands WONT split the network. so only the minority opposing consensus will have to cause a split.

if consensus is reached where either dynamics win, or where neither win and bitcoin stays as is (meaning no segwit) then the corporations will trigger their bip9 and UASF to make their own minority, where by they would need users to move funds into segwit keys to get the segwit 'half benefits' and also avoid replay attacks.... making them the altcoin with less hashpower, and less strong network.

essentially giving you (in op example) 10 btc and 10 SWcoin. because BU will not ban/orphan to crate their own alt.. BU and many other independent nodes want community consensus of a open diverse PEER network. meaning the only split would be those from the segwit side..



its all about trying to get the corporations to release LN to grab fee's to repay their $70m-$95m debt owed to VCs
http://dcg.co/portfolio/


OP post is just the corporations of DCG wanting to take over bitcoin and make it a corporation TIER'd network and remove it from being an open independant PEER network

just look at the list of the corporations. and whos pocket they sit in

http://dcg.co/portfolio/

the original 'statement' exchange_handling_of_contentious_hard_fork_event.pdf was wrote by coindesk (DCG company)

.. its getting so obvious now, that they are literally admitting it 'we are:'
its time they either accept consensus, or just go play with hyperledger which is their endgame anyway, and leave bitcoin to be the open PEER network not the corporate TIER network
5377  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Need help understanding BU on: March 18, 2017, 08:29:14 AM
You got to read better in their official site and FAQ where you can get your questions answered. However, in a nutshell they are looking to remove the block size limit and users can determine the block size by consensus

I think you meant to say "miners" get to determine the blocksize, not regular users.

miners can try.. but the diverse nodes can orphan what they dont approve of.
learn consensus
5378  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Another miserable alt BTU on: March 18, 2017, 08:22:32 AM

OP post is just the corporations of DCG wanting to take over bitcoin and make it a corporation TIER'd network and remove it from being an open independant PEER network

just look at the list of the corporations. and whos pocket they sit in

http://dcg.co/portfolio/

the original 'statement' exchange_handling_of_contentious_hard_fork_event.pdf was wrote by coindesk (DCG company)

.. its gettiing so obvious now, that they are literally admitting it 'we are:'
its time they either accept consensus, or just go play with hyperledger which is thir endgame anyway, and leave bitcoin to be the open PEER network not the corporate TIER network
5379  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 18, 2017, 07:54:56 AM
all of this
"forking(splitting) the chain is a control attempt"
but then
"they need to fork(split) off"

lol makes me laugh at the hypocrisy and the bait and switch just to play a failed victim card.

the thing is the community wont split away..
they laughed at blockstreams CTO when he begged the open community to split away.

the community want consensus no matter what side it is.
however the group in the blockstream/DCG corps pockets know they cant incorporate bitcoin if bitcoin is left open to diverse nodes, so they want all the diverse nodes to fork(split) off.
thats why there has been soo many rekt campaigns against anything not in the blockstream/DCG corps pockets.

the only group willing to cause a split is the blockstream/DCG group. but they have to wait for majority to do it if they want any chance of incorporating bitcoin. to then have domination and control of who can take fee's to repay the VC's.

bitcoin should remain open and diverse PEER network, not changed to be incorporated and TIERED network. there are even some [true independent] core devs that are repulsed by corporations and not everyone in core actually like the corporate dominance plans.

its getting too obvious that the corporations are getting desperate when they are begging the independant community to split away. and the corporations are doing all they can to avoid community consensus with all these non community consensus 'soft' bips that have actual banning(splitting off) end results.

there is nothing stopping the corporations from making an LN right now, but they know that people will only see it as a voluntary side service if the community help bitcoin grow.. the corporations want bitcoin stagnant to make their LN essential to grab many fes's to repay the MILLIONS of debt(blckstreams $70m/DCG multimillion debt).

if you are actually advocating to follow the corporations then you are not thinking about bitcoin. your thinking about corporations control. so you might aswell just go play around with fiat or hyperledger and leave bitcoin to be an open currency.

atleast admit you care more about the corporate control to grab fee's for VC repayment. and then go play with hyperldger to go grab your fee's, leave bitcoin to be the open diverse currency that it suppose to be
5380  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Exchanges Unveil Emergency Hard Fork Contingency Plan on: March 17, 2017, 09:29:25 PM
coindesk article = DCG
participants in the article = DCG

http://dcg.co/portfolio/

kinda making it toooo obvious who is behind the "treat the majority community as a altcoin when core fork it away if core become the minority"

as for replay prevention. big laugh.
if core wanna ban nodes.. then even when core try to code out a way for core nodes to communicate to BU nodes.. people will make scripts to copy one mempool to the other and ensure there is a reply attack so that core cannot profit from their efforts of causing the split.

much easier core just joins the rest of the majority if there was a majority activation
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 ... 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!