Bitcoin Forum
January 28, 2020, 08:15:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 874 »
5661  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Unlimited = btcunted ??? on: March 18, 2017, 02:12:35 PM
We all know, unlimited bitcoin is not the best option, it does not really bring much effect, and currently it is causing the BTC serious price cuts. Segwit was the best and most optimal choice for bitcoin; however, it was not adopted, it was because of the greed of the miners, and again, because of their greed, they had proposed BTU, this just to satisfy their greed, I really feel aversion to them. They are greedy and selfish.

CORE gave pools the vote.. blame core for trying to skip the safe steps of real consensus.
if nodes voted first. to then give pools confidence of what pools producing would get accepted. then pools would have flagged desire.

but core new it couldnt reach its "fix" promises. pools and node users seen that cores promises were empty half gestures.
thus no point changing to something of a complete rewrite, which requiring 100% movement of funds to new tx styles just to even attempt to disarm the issues that were 'promised'.. nowing that 100% would never be achieved was yet another failure by core.

dont blame the pools. it was core that decided to sidestep the community.. the pools didnt do anything. (and thats cores problem)
5662  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin dropping like a stone on: March 18, 2017, 01:59:29 PM
Because of BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) Bitcoin has been dropping since more BU blocks were mined than Segwit. Then yesterday the exchanges announced a joint plan to incorporate BU. The reality of BU is causing the drop.  

The market HATES BU but was fine when Segwit mined blocks were in the ascendency.

I have seen this play out in multiple crypto-currencies that push through a major change that doesn't have the support of the market.

BU has done nothing new that has not already been proposed 2 years ago.
no deadlines. no agenda's no ban hammering of blocks or nodes.
no intention of splitting the network. they want one single network of majority where many diverse nodes collectively continue running on the network.

its actually blockstream(core) that have been vocal about causing splits and such.. but just baited the stories like they are the victims. not the perpetrators

the drama recently is from these guys
http://dcg.co/portfolio/  - DCG is owned by barry silbert.

and the corps that received VC funding are in debt and barry wants his money back.. soooooon. here is how much he threw at them
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments
5663  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin dropping like a stone on: March 18, 2017, 01:56:16 PM
when the price drops.. dont panic.

treat it as a discount day to buy in cheap before it goes up again
5664  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Welcome to the BUcoin republic of China on: March 18, 2017, 01:50:25 PM
core want only core to be the code running the network.. (centralist control)

other brands want to have a open network of many diverse brands working together utilising consensus and keeping bitcoin diverse and decentralised

so there is
bitcoin core-porate  
btcoreporate

and then other brands that want to keep the chain as a single mutual chain of open diversity which could be seen as
bitcoin united
btc unlimited (playing the childish games of making new words by removing a few letters)
5665  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why BU should be correctly classified as an attempted robbery of BTC, not a fork on: March 18, 2017, 01:42:30 PM
im laughing at the article.. it actually debunks itself..

Quote
No project seems to have any history of the forkers stealing the forkee’s name nor property, no matter the circumstance. Yes, even when large amounts of funding were involved.
..
Plenty of these projects felt that their parent “sold out” or “lost its way,” just like those who have lost their faith in Bitcoin’s core developers today. Did they impersonate them?

There is simply no precedence for a fork stealing it’s parents name. When they steal the parent’s marketshare or customer base, it is because they, as separate entities, out perform their parents, not pretend to be them.

There is no precedence for this attitude anywhere in the world of open source development that I can find

where does:
BU, xt, classic, nbitcoin, bitcoinj, bitcoinruby, btcd, ever suggest that they are stealing "core"
i have not seen any brand called core2.0... thus debunked..

bitcoin is an open project.. there have for years been many brands running on the network.
so where is the proof that other brands are stealing "CORE" brand.

core actually rewrote their entire codebase recently and the other brands have not followed that. thats cores problem. the other diverse brands have not followed core

so you cant even claim they are stealing code. even though the code is opensource and licenced to be allowed to be used.

so the "attempted theft of "core" is debunked.

and then separately if you think only core "own" bitcoin.. you are fooled by the notion, by which your then pulled into the corporate agenda of core wanting dominance and centralism
5666  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Welcome to the BUcoin republic of China on: March 18, 2017, 01:24:26 PM
power grab?

here is the power grab
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

https://www.scribd.com/document/342194766/Hardfork-Statement-3-17-11-00am

names in link 2 look familiar to link 1??.. yep
5667  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we be aware that a Hard Fork is imminent? on: March 18, 2017, 01:02:26 PM
they('collective of the digital Currency Exchange Industry') are just desperate

blockstream is in debt to a tune of $70m-$90m, the exchanges are in debt too

here is a lowdown of who they owe money to and how much
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/barry-silbert/investments

P.S barry silbert is DCG (owns coindesk amunst others and ties to blockstream(core)) and is getting really edgy about getting his returns. so he is pushing hard to cause drama
http://dcg.co/portfolio/

however the real bitcoin community (ignoring the corporation dictatorship) are not pushing for a split, they want real consensus and one single consensus chain without the dev overlords calling the shots. where nodes grow based on the mutual consent of the network majority of diverse codebases.

the community consensus has no deadlines and no overzealous ban hammer code to cause a controversial or bilateral split.
but the corporate tribe wanting dominance are the ones that have thrown the baby out the pram, and begging the community to split up..
5668  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Another miserable alt BTU on: March 18, 2017, 12:50:04 PM
I have no idea about bitcoin,

and thats why what you say next is wrong

with bitcoin core, code that is so familiar to everyone. Bitcoin is so stable and evolving that we need to keep promoting it, we need to upgrade its technology, but that does not mean we have to change it completely,

have you read the code. compare cores v0.12.. to core 0.14...... then compare cores 0.12 to classic, xt, or BU.. and ask yourself which is closer to the original..

you will see that cores 'segwit' is the altcoin, total block redesign, different merkle, different tx design. a total rewrite basically

try to learn about bitcoin. and spend less time with the propaganda scripts of wanting to get bitcoin in the sole hands of the corporatations funded by
DCG - http://dcg.co/portfolio/
5669  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why BU should be correctly classified as an attempted robbery of BTC, not a fork on: March 18, 2017, 12:31:33 PM
The design of PoW coins itself defines that the miners and nodes have control of BTC ,
 not the exchanges. who are only a couple dozen of the 7000
If you have a problem with that , you are going to have to remove the PoW code from BTC and ban atleast 3000 nodes and add something NEW
FTFY
5670  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


5671  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
5672  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
5673  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
5674  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
5675  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
5676  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
5677  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

5678  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.
5679  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)
5680  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.


Pages: « 1 ... 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] 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 ... 874 »
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!