Bitcoin Forum
January 21, 2020, 11:38:30 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 ... 873 »
5621  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is resistant to state control. on: March 19, 2017, 12:50:05 PM
What if some government or all the governments ban the mining hardware,not bitcoin.
Would bitcoin survive without miners?

though people think mining is all done in china.
even the "chinese" pools are spread across different countries.

so if one pool finds out it has a 'take down' order. they just load the ASICS up on a truck and move to a different factory.
only affecting a couple percent of network hash at a time. (even antpools 16% is actually spread over SEVERAL locations) and so the impact of moving asics is marginal and not going to affect block creation.

the 10min is an average so maybe it turns into 12minutes.. no one notices because its an average and not an actual real world fixed 10min anyway.

then within 48 hours those asics that are moved are then running in a new country
5622  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Antpool dedicates 75%Hashrate towards BU on: March 19, 2017, 12:21:49 PM
This has been discussed a lot in the past, and this has happened at the present time, BU has appeared and works, but it is still in development. However, it is not considered as a formal currency as BTC, it is only considered as an alt coin, and it is very hard to gain value as BTC. I have read a lot of news, there is information that the owners of BTC will be given BU with the same amount, I very much hope BU can achieve a good value so that we can invest and use.

BU and other NON-CORE nodes have no intent to bilateral split the network, they only activate with consensus of the node AND pool majority.
core however bypassed node majority and went straight for a pool majority vote,

but core DO have intent to bilateral split if core win or lose.
turning their winning 95% pools into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pool blocks using bip9.
turning their losing under 95% into 100% by orphaning off non segwit pools and non segwit nodes using UASF.

core are demanding anything not core to split off. out of fear that core do not get to be the bitcoin government.
they worry that having a diverse playground of decentralisation makes it harder for core to force LN down peoples throats to gather fee's to repay the $70m+ back.

LN can function without cores code. but core want LN to be the end solution forced onto people.. rather than just a niche side voluntary service only for those that need it.

if you look at the announcement by the exchanges. and the guy who wrote up the announcement(coindesk editor)
https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am
then compare the names
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
and then look at how much investment(now repayable debt)
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

things become much clearer

5623  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 11:37:16 AM
Don't be fooled by this... Roger Ver is Anti-government and he will support anything that says "Fuck Government" ... They send him to jail, and I

would also be pissed off, if they have done that to me.


I'm Anti-government, there's a huge amount right with it, but Roger is a strange kind of anarchist.


Roger has been promoting all the blocksize hard fork Bitcoin coups, seemingly without realising that he's promoting the number 1 thing government and/or central banks would love: an idea to increase transaction rate that screws Bitcoin up in a way that's fairly subtle to understand. If there's one thing the soft-fascist establishment loves, it's cleverly subtle ways of tricking the public into doing something that's against the public's interests, and in the interests of the establishment.

There's nothing wrong with anarchism, unless you believe all that nonsense you see on the TV where anarchists are just angry, hateful people that secretly want to be in power themselves. It's the best check on power there could be; taking away the power of the most powerful.

lol pot calling kettle black?
blockstream  are the ones with the biased ban-score listings. the 'we will split using bip9 and UASF' on activation day or even if we dont get our way..
blockstreams investor partners DCG have even had meetings about it and announced treating anything not core an altcoin.

for an anti-government anarchist you certainly do love being governed carlton. rather than just letting bitcoins CODE consensus find its way

while all the other implementations have just been happily running for 2years+ not setting deadlines or demanding splits. and just waiting for natural and true bitcoin consensus to move things along.
5624  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 11:22:07 AM
full node are meaninglesshere, why we should care if they need more money to run one? they are useless for the consensus,

they are not meaningless.. they are integral to consensus.
but core BYPASSED consensus to try sliding their half gesture under the rug. which backfired because pools wont produce anything different unless there is a majority of nodes ready to accept and not orphan what pools produce.

yep blockstream also have their fibre network pre-set up as the upstream filters as their fake gesture of confidence that pools shouldnt care about nodes because everything is routed through the FIBRE upstream filters first. but on a decentralised network, pools would rather connect to diverse nodes that accept what pools produce,(offset risk of bugs/issues of fibre/core) not be forced into routing data through a centralised gatekeeper 'filter' first. as going with FIBRE and blockstreams efforts is just setting up a TIER network not a PEER network.
5625  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 10:59:13 AM
But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download)

But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.


lets not forget a crucial thing. the blockchain never syncs.... every ~10minutes its always adding more data. it never stops..

secondly.
the thing that actually pee's people off is not the IBD itself but the side-effect that when they import keys they cannot see an uptodate balance for days to be able to spend their coins straight away.

a fix would be for nodes to grab an existent UTXO set from a peer(or 2 for comparison) FIRST and let the GUI run as a litenode while then making the IBD more of a background activity that doesnt delay utility.
(come on carlton you are an armory fanboy afterall, i would have thought even you would have conceived an idea that a node 'could' initially function as a litenode during the IBD time)

as for hardware
on average people upgrade their hardware every 2-5 years anyway, and telecommunications companies have a 5 year plan (fibre & 5G).
knowing that
bitcoin (pre libsecp256k1) was able to run on a raspberryPi1 ... and knowing (post  libsecp256k1 efficiency) along with a raspberryPi3 allows for alot more 'capability' (20x-60x) means that minimum hardware compared to 5 years ago has much more allowances.. so stagnating bitcoin based on tech/stats that are 5-8 years outdated becomes foolish.

do you think activation halts its Call of Duty game production based on having to get it to be compatible with 8 year old tech.. nope.
5626  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The man does have a point - Roger Ver on: March 19, 2017, 01:39:53 AM
He's risking bitcoin's stability & credibility without quantifying what type of real world gains a 2MB block size could yield.

That's like buying a refrigerator without measuring to see if it fits in your kitchen 1st.

This guy is supposed to be smart?   Undecided

no....that's like saying "don't give this guy who's choking on a piece of bread the heimlich maneuver...we really don't know what kind of 'real world gain's it might have to make sure he's able to keep breathing.

much like in 1996
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because dialup and 4gb hard drive limits of 1996"
much like in 2006
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 said it would be bad"
much like in 2016
"everyone dont let skype, activision, twitch, make their online platforms because 1996 and 2006 said it would be bad"
5627  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 19, 2017, 01:30:23 AM
it solves quadratic problem needed to raise the blocksize properly later on and allows for cool features.

reality check...
NO it does not..

to have people only doing linear transactions. they have to move funds over to segwit keys which then disarms from those funds from quadratics.
it does not disarm the network. it just disarms the people that voluntarily move funds to segwit tx keys.

sigop spammers will not move funds to segwit keys. and segwit cannot lock out native tx's from being used, thus the sigop problem is not fixed.
native users gonna continue spamming.
5628  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 19, 2017, 12:11:44 AM
Bitcoin doing great?  You mean only being in the hands of rich, greedy, mining farms?  how is that doing ok?  Tell me what do THEY do for bitcoin except for lining their own pockets.  Bitcoin wasn't created just so the rich could own most of it.  Control how it moves.   But go ahead and keep shoveling them money.

The greedy rich own fiat.  Now the greedy rich own Bitcoin.  is wasn't supposed to be like this.

CORE gave the pools the vote by going soft.
dont blame the pools

infact thank the pools, the majority is undecided either way and no side is winning.. because the node count is not even adequate/ready for any side.

if core went node first (to ensure users would be ready to accept what pools would produce without orphans).
then pool vote second (when they are confident that their blocks wont get orphaned.. to flag more easily for a popular proposal..)
thy would have had a better chance

its logic.

if you know ur wife is gonna kick you out if you come home with another girl on your arm.. do you still go ahead and do it.... no.
you either find out if your wife will accept an open relationship first. or you just dont bring the new girlfriend home.

you dont be foolish and show the intention to cheat and then bring the girl home hoping the wife responds positively..

core went wrong by telling the pools its ok to play around, without addressing what the wife at home may think first



secondly jihan only represents LESS THAN 16% of hashrate (not al of the 16% is his)


thirdly blaming the 45% undecided and the 15% non jihan group against segwit.. on jihan. is a laugh


sgwit only has 26%.. not 84%..
5629  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: You all can thank Roger Ver and Jihan Wu for crashing the market on: March 18, 2017, 11:48:28 PM
gets 2mb+ LOL
native key users will still bloat the bas block so that not many real users can move funds to segwit keys. then they wont be able to use those segwit keys because native base blockers are still ntive base block spamming. meaning hops of 2mb+ are low.. much like 7 years of 7txps...

ya mathematically possible to have both expectations of 2mb data and 7txps.. but reality will show that it wont get that far.
5630  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) on: March 18, 2017, 11:07:45 PM
all these chats about the contingency plan. are not highlighting the main words enough

contentious hard fork

Quote
Poloniex agrees that any contentious hard fork must include replay attack protection. Without this, exchanges cannot continuously and properly operate.

knowing that dynamics wont go contentious and is and always has for the last 2 years just patiently wanted consensus. never pushing for splitting, never setting deadlines. thus showing no intent to rock the boat.

meaning if dynamics activates. they will have majority and it would be consensus not contentious. thus dynamic block prosals community will be the bitcoin. and the contentious minority that orchestrate a bilateral split to keep thir minority alive will be the altcoin. namely SWCoin
5631  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness on: March 18, 2017, 10:38:01 PM
you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away...
The wallet in Bitcoin Core supports segwit (it's what most people use for testing!), it just doesn't use it by default.
USED on TESTNET, not mainnet

even the segwit guide says the wallet is not and will not be publicly available to be USED on mainnet until after activation
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/
Quote
Upgrade Safety

End users MUST NOT be allowed to generate any P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses before segwit is fully activated on the network. Before activation, using P2SH-P2WPKH or other segwit addresses may lead to permanent fund loss
Similarly, change MUST NOT be sent to a segwit output before activation

you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after.

Lie. They do not ban non-segwit nodes.

stop trying to be clever with language.
It's not acceptable for the network topology to suddenly change when segwit activates--  can you imagine that? drop all your current connections and then form new ones hoping that the network can make a non-partitioned graph?-- that would be irresponsible.  Instead, it changes its connection preference at install time, so if there were any issues they could be addressed while the user is paying attention.

let me guess instead of the word "ban".. if i said at setup the segwit node has already chosen to not prefer to let a non-segwit node be the upstream, this its not a ban. its just an avoidance from even making the connection in the first place to not require banning later.

you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes.
Lie.

let me guess due to the 'preferencial' connection at set up, the segwit node is already not connected to non-sgwit nodes to not need to worry about sending unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes.

...

oh and gmaxwell if all things are fine and dandy and everything is fully compatible. how about you send a segwit tx to BTCC to force into a block.. knowing that old nodes will be fine receiving the block.. Cheesy Cheesy
show the network that evrything is backward compatible.

at worse BTCC block gets rejected and you/dcg can easily repay them $13k out of the millions of investment..for a test to thank them for wasting their time if it rejects.
atleast it will show confidence in the "backward compatibility" claims and the "nothing needs to change" claims

5632  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Mining (Altcoins) / Re: Is mining on a gtx 1080 profitable on: March 18, 2017, 08:35:41 PM
Basically, is cost of bitcoins generated > cost of power consumption

at the moment for BITCOIN generation:  (which is what OP asked about)
antpool has 630peta hash = 48462 ASICS
and they make 30 blocks a day=375btc a day

1x 13thash asic = 0.00773802btc a day
1thash= 0.00059523btc a day
1ghash= 0.00000059btc a day

based on a few factors a gtx1080 can handle between 800mhash and 1ghash (47sat-59sat a day)
which then deminishes as time goes on due to competition from everyone else and difficulty changes every two weeks

over 2 weeks you may only get about 800sat. which over a fortnight is not even one cent for 2 weeks





5633  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency? on: March 18, 2017, 07:57:29 PM
Surely plenty of people did this in the last 5 years?

in my area, i can buy food pay bills and live happily on bitcoin..
.. oh wait. now i remember i been in bitcoin since 2012 and over the time I spoke to my local stores and hlped them out.

there are a few towns around the world that do have many bitcoin accepting retailers. everything from clothes, electronics, meals and snacks. etc
.. but these are because people helped the retailers set it up. either by a bitcoin being a employee of the retailer or a regular customer in most cases


unless you have many people in your town that are talking to merchants for you.. if you want something. you are going to have to ask for it yourself.
again bitcoin is just code. no legs, no arms.

it cannot get on a plane and come to your town. its something you have to do.

too many people sit their waiting for magic.
and they wait
and they wait
and they ask
"Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency?Doesn't make any sense TBH. We should've seen it starting to replace conventional currencies by now."

and they dont seem to understand that their local shop doesnt know that you want bitcoin accepted in their store because you never helped them to be able to accept it.

my advice:
do not sit there waiting for magic.

instead find out if there are other bitcoiners in your area and arrange a meetup at a bar/cafe to discus bitcoin. find out the main retailers in your area that all of you use (most popular retailers to actually benefit from accepting bitcoin due to regular customers) and then out of your group find out the most confident person who can help set things up and go to the retailer and help them.

the best successes are not to speak to managers of branches of national/international retailers as they are just glorified supervisors with no actual local power to make changes.. instead look for the non franchised independant stores where the manager does have decision power over payment methods
5634  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 18, 2017, 07:49:04 PM
waffle

your still not understanding bitcoin.
your looking at things too two-dimensionally.

users are not slaves to pools. just taking what pools hand out. users want to have a say in what is created. and thus they become nodes.
they then via majority consensus and rejecting blocks they dont like, cause pools to form a single chain (stack of bank notes) that the majority accept and are happy to use as currency.

those that object to the majority. can either stay with the network. objecting (orphaning what they get) and being left unsynced because they choose not to keep any blocks.
or
give in to majority and decide to match the majority of nodes choice and use the currency.
or
ban all communications with the ugly nodes and pools to avoid the orphan drama. and find a pool that will make the blocks they prefer and start their own altcoin.

yea there are some users that set themselves up as wallet services for random users that dont care much about the big decisions, and those uncaring users can just use the popular currency via third parties because they trust the third party shares their same basic desire to not need to run a node themselves.
but others want a more active role so become nodes to be part of consensus. knowing the more people voting for a certain thing the less chance some strange lobbied group cant just come in and vote to create something different and force a change.

and thats where majority consensus comes in..
securing bitcoin from random changes and only changing if there is majority consent of the community.
5635  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Even now in 2017, why is bitcoin *still* not accepted as a major currency? on: March 18, 2017, 07:04:04 PM
bitcoin has no arms. no legs and no voice.

bitcoin will not be accpted in your local town store if you simply sit on yor hands and hop bitcoin somehow drops in and talks to your local stores manager.

bitcoin only grows as a real world currency if those that want it in their local stores, actually themselves go into their local stores and help the local stores be bitcoin acceptable.

this means YOU (anyone reading this that wants their local store to accept bitcoin)
5636  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 18, 2017, 06:50:24 PM
more waffle

your not seeing the bigger picture..

you think because pools can make their blocks that they dont need nodes.. well lets word it this way

you design a new bank note. you include all the security features.. but then you find that although you have a huge stack of bank notes.. no one likes them. they would prefer purple bank notes.. not green.

you could keep making green bank notes and thinking your making money..  but if no one is accepting them... your wasting your time. you cant spend them anywhere

now you start to realise about community consensus. if they dont like your blocks. your wasting your time making them.
5637  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the split and when? on: March 18, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
what people forget is.. making 2 different chains/coins. may not actually happen.

Quote
With supporters on both blockchains, it is likely that both would be kept alive, making the schism in the Bitcoin community official.

likely but not guaranteed.

if a majority goes one way. the minority then have many struggles.
EG
will exchanges accept it. will scrpt kiddies do replay attacks by copy/pasting unconfirms from one side to the other to cause disruption.
will spammers intentionally bloat a minority so that along with having less haspower (delayed blocks) the minority coin then has many more tx's it has to deal with causing delays.
plus numerous other attacks on the minority.

also. the whole 'naming it BTU' has ben exaggerated too.
Quote
As exchanges, we have a responsibility to maintain orderly markets that trade continuously 24/7/365. It is incumbent upon us to support a coherent, orderly and industry-wide approach to preparing for and responding to a contentious hard fork.

in a CONSENSUS event the majority is then BTC and the minority is named something else.
thus if dynamic blocks got consensus majority. segwit, the minority becomes SWCoin.
and the majority is simply named bitcoin.

it is already known that all the dynamic proposals wont do anything controversial. even when segwit devotee's have begged and pleaded them to split away.

in the couple years of these non-segwit teams running on the main net. they have not done a controversial split, not gave any timescales or demands to do one either. they want consensus. and if they dont gt it. then that to is still consensus of not wanting it. thus they actually are following bitcoins ethos for change. by adhering to consensus by not rocking the boat.

once you look passed the scripted rhetoric of controversial splits. you soon learn it is core demanding it and core with all the banning/orphaning tools to cause it.

but core have to be on the losing side(minority) to trigger it.

so dont be fooled into thinking 2 chains is a guarantee. the dynamic node users may just leave their settings at 1mb and just be second tier downstream nodes of the same network as segwit. meaning no split.
5638  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness on: March 18, 2017, 05:26:33 PM
but BU have also its bad side, it's not about what part has no problems, it's about what part has the less bad problems, and BU is worse than segwit, and with i'm not saying that seg wit has no flaw, but BU has more, i think this what he mean

lol.
you do know why something deemed "backward compatible" is not simply activated instantly.
after all if really backward compatible. its just as valid now as ever right... (but read the small print and you see the holes)

you do know even when activated core wont have a walet enabled release for people straight away...

you do know why segwit needs to be upstream filters and actively ban other non-segwit nodes from being upstream. this includes banning pools and their non segwit blocks from being added on after.

you do know why segwit will not relay segwit unconfirmed tx's to non-segwit nodes.

not only that but the sigop quadratic spamming is not solved due to it not stopping native tx's
the malleability is not solved because it does not stop native tx's

the tx count wont reach expectations because it does not stop native tx's

once you look passed the scripted half promises. and look at how it works.. you see the promises are empty.
you also start to see new attack methods aswell as the old ones that still exist.

also.
litecoin transactions have been fully running and used for 6 years. all tested by thousands of people..
.. but introduce them onto bitcoins mainnet. no one knows what will happen.

and segwit transactions are the same 'many tests and been running on alternative networks for x month' but never on bitcoins mainnet..

(some attacks have been highlighted. even i highlighted the main one last year, which led to the whole ordeal of not releasing the segwit key wallet until way after activation. but even then there are still attack vectors that can and will happen with segwit tx's and native nodes after activation).
hint: though segwit nodes mess with ban lists and not auto relaying unconfirms to native nodes.. some script kiddie can manually copy the segwit mempool and push segwit unconfirms into their native nodes mempool and have a nice play around.

5639  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Segregated Witlessness on: March 18, 2017, 05:05:16 PM
SegWit isn't the final solution to scaling Bitcoin. It's a small one time capacity increase, but it also fixes a bug that will allow for easier scaling in the future.

i see you have read the failed script.
i dare you to actually explain the fix lol

hint: you have to explain how it cannot be countermanded or used as a new attack method itself

... i expect silence or lack of knowledge and just another paste of a salespitch of empty promise
5640  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 18, 2017, 04:52:40 PM
AD (Acceptance Deepth): BitcoinEC set it always to infinite, so your node can not automatically fall back to bigger blocks than your EB setting. But the BitcoinEC going to monitor where the longest proof of work (PoW) chain is and providing a warning when your not following longest PoW chain anymore because of your low EB setting.

Personally I see it step in the right direction as well.

https://bitcoinec.info/
Quote
Will you also have an AD(Accept Depth) parameter like Bitcoin Unlimited?

Instead of Accept Depth we will implement a warning system to alert users if they are not on the longest chain. Implementing AD in the way BU has done appears to be fairly complicated and hard to do correctly, a warning system is simple since we only need the block headers for that.

i still think that non-pool nodes should really utilise policy.H more..

EG Consensus.h node hardwarelimit = something set by the nodes performing its own speed test of what it is physically capable of
for example 8mb
 then policy.h is the PREFERED size the network should work with.
EG 1mb today and maybe 2mb on activation day.

whereby pools see all the policy.h (prefered) in the node useragents.
and pools then
set their own policy.h just below what the majority of nodes prefer.
EG 0.999 today and 1.000250 day of activation. and pools then test the water of orphan risk and other unforseen bugs and increment up to 1.999 before the 'majority/minority' preferences kick in
thus a minority would accept the block but have their policy.h altered by warning system
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 ... 873 »
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!