Bitcoin Forum
January 19, 2020, 05:40:14 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 ... 873 »
5781  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 10, 2017, 09:12:25 PM
I like that we're moving forward in the discussion, it seems. The original compromise that was the reason for me to start the thread now looks a bit dated.

I would support Lauda's maximum cap idea, as it's true that there could be circumstances where such a flexible system could be gamed.

The challenge is now to find a number for this cap. I had done some very rogue calculations that a 1 TB/year blockchain (that would be equivalent to approximately 20 MB blocks) would enable 160 million people to do about 1-3 transactions (depending on the TX size) per month. That would be just enough for this user base if we assume that Lightning Network and similar systems can manage smaller pauments. 1 TB/year seems pretty high, but I think it's manageable in the near future (~5 years from now).

Obviously if we want the 7 billion people on earth to be able to use Bitcoin on-chain the limit would be much higher, but I think even the most extreme BU advocates don't see that as a goal.

mhm
dont think 7billion by midnight.

think rationally. like 1billion over decades.. then your fears start to subside and you start to see natural progression is possible

bitcoin will never be a one world single currency. it will be probably in the top 10 'nations' list. with maybe 500mill people. and it wont be overnight. so relax about the "X by midnight" scare storys told on reddit.
5782  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 09:01:43 PM
It's true that the Bitcoin Core wallet doesn't support Segwit keys out of the box right now. That's because the Core devs want to use the initial few weeks after activation to continue testing, and to make sure that a large enough proportion of regular nodes are ready to accept the new, bigger blocks.

be honeest, if you dont know, just try not to act lik you know.

the reason they havnt added the ability. is the risk of an 'anyoncanspend' attack if segwit keys were used prior to activation.
the delay of weeks is to ensure enough segwit blocks are produced to avoid deactivating. and also to get the native nodes reset as downstream by banning the upstream nodes to ensure other attacks cant be played out

Over 16m BTC are held on native keys, so segwit doesn't even solve the solution in the near term.
We are talking years of effective 1MB blocks even if segwit gets approved.

What makes you think that? Huh

46million unspent outputs
5783  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 08:28:00 PM
BU isn't the way to solve the block problem, and it is becoming less of a problem as spending habits change for bitcoin. My worry is a split and a crash in value.

learn consensus.

oh did you know that segwit at activation bans certain nodes from being upstream and bans certain blocks that are not in a segwit format.

its worth learning these things.

soft doesnt mean safe. soft just means node bypassed
5784  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: PLEASE HELP.. I sent a transaction with a 2.5 BTC transaction fee on: March 10, 2017, 08:20:39 PM
Of course, miner one would want miner two to refund him the fee. And miner two would again be perfectly justified -- legally and morally -- from refusing to do so.

id love to see you in a super market, be told a stick of gum was a few cents..
you reach in your back pocket and take out what you think is a dollar and say keep the change.

then realise... it was a $100 bank note.
5785  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 08:05:48 PM
I run a 0.13.2 Core full node with 8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections and am thinking about going to 0.14.0 soon.  I have run a BU version in the not too distant past but I really want both SegWit and BU.  I suppose I could alternate every so often but that seems cumbersome.  I could run two full nodes but I just want to run one.  Would someone build me a version which runs both SegWit and BU?  Please.

trying to be my very unbiased

no point running v0.14
... unless you want to do tests on testnet. as thats the only way to really play with segwit.

if you want a node just for normal usage on bitcoins mainnet, no point running v0.14

and lets say sgwit activated later. it does not fix anything at activation.
however WEEKS after activation core will release a version that includes the segwit wallet (yep segwit keys cannot be used in 0.13.X or 0.14).
v14 only includes native key usage on mainnet.

normally best to wait it out. for that post activation version to save you hassle of redownloading twice in x months

0.13.2 shows the 'support' if thats what your hoping. and 0.14 doesnt support any less or more the 'vote'
all im saying is if your just a normal user and not looking to do tests on testnet involving segwit. no point downloading an update now to just download again another later if your hope was to use segwit on the mainnet

5786  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 10, 2017, 07:40:37 PM
You could argue that it may already be quite late/near impossible to make such 'drastic' changes. I've been giving this some thought, but I'm not entirely sure. I'd like to see some combination of the following:
1) % changes either up or down.
2) Adjustments that either align with difficulty adjustments (not sure if this makes thing complicated or riskier, hence the latter) or monthly adjustments.
3) Fixed maximum cap. Since we can't predict what the state of the network and underlying technology/hardware will be far in the future, it is best to create a top-maximum cap a few years in the future. Yes, I know that this requires more changes later but it is better than nothing or 'risking'/hoping miners are honest, et. al.

imagine a case where there were 2 limits.(4 overal 2 for nodes 2 for pools)
hard technical limit that everyone agree's on. and below that a preference limit (adjustable to demand of dynamics).

now imagine
we call the hard technical limit (like old consensus.h) that only moves when the NETWORK as a whole has done speed tests to say what is technically possible and come to a consensus.
EG 8mb has been seen as acceptable today by all speed tests.
the entire network agrees to stay below this, pools and nodes
as a safety measure its split up as 4mb for next 2 years then 8mb 2 years after that..

thus allowing for upto 2-4 years to tweak and make things leaner and more efficient and allow time for real world tech to enhance.
(fibre obtic internet adoption and 5G mobile internet) before stepping forward the consensus.h again



then the preferential limit(further safety measure) that is adjustable and dynamic (policy.h) and keeps pools and nodes inline in a more fluid temporary adjustable agreement. to stop things moving too fast. but fluid if demand occurs

now then, nodes can flag the policy.h whereby if the majority of nodes preferences are at 2mb. pools consensus.h only goes to 1.999
however if under 5-25% of nodes are at 2mb and over 75% of nodes are above 2mb. then POOLS can decide on the orphan risk of raising their pools consensus.h above 2mb but below the majority node policy

also note: pools actual block making is below their(pools) consensus.h

lets make it easier to imagine.. with a picture

black line.. consensus.h. whole network RULE. changed by speed tests and real world tech / internet growth over time (the ultimate consensus)
red line.. node policy.h. node dynamic preference agreement. changed by dynamics or personal preference
purple line.. pools consensus.H. below network RULE. but affected by mempool demand vs nodes overall preference policy.h vs (orphan)risk
orange line.. pools policy.h below pools consensus.h


so imagine
2010
32mb too much, lets go for 1mb
2015
pools are moving thier limit up from 0.75mb to 0.999mb
mid 2017
everyone agree's 2 years of 4mb network capability (then 2 years of 8mb network capability)
everyone agree's to 2mb preference
pools agree their max capability will be below everyones network capability but steps up due to demand and node preference MAJORITY
pools preference(actual blocks built). below other limits but can affect the node minority to shift(EB)
mid 2019
everyone agree's 2 years of 8mb network capability then 2 years of 16mb network capability
some move preference to 4mb, some move under 3mb some dont move
late 2019
MINORITY of nodes have their preference shifted by dynamics of (EB)
2020
MINORITY nodes manually change their preference to not be controlled by dynamics of (EB)
late 2020
MINORITY of nodes have their preference shifted by dynamics of (EB)
2021
MINORITY nodes manually change their preference to not be controlled by dynamics of (EB)
mid 2021
a decision is made whereby nodes preference and pools preference are safe to control blocks at X% scaling per difficulty adjustment period
pools preference(actual blocks built). below other limits but can shift the MINORITY nodes preference via (EB) should they lag behind

p.s
its just a brainfart. no point knit picking the numbers or dates. just read the concept. i even made a picture to keep peoples attention span entertained.

and remember all of these 'dynamic' fluid agreements are all extra safety limits BELOW the black network consensus limit
5787  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 03:28:53 PM
its only hard to get consensus if people do not learn consensus (such as those not understanding BU or segwit)

those WITH NODES should spend more time learning consensus. rather than reading sci-fi scripted doomsday rhetoric

politics of doomsday "gigabytes by midnight" "call anything not blockstream a alt" are the time wasting crew causing delay in REAL LEARNING

yes its hard to wake the sheep up and get them motivated to learn how bitcoin actually works to then make the informed decisions.
but we are not talking about millions of users. but just 6000ish people who run nodes(a few people run many nodes) need to learn how bitcoin
really works to make them decisions.(pools are amongst them 6000)

its not impossible. but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'
5788  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 01:48:47 PM
imagine if: activition 1996 said
"we cannot scale passed 2d shoot-em-ups' on a nintendo and Call of duty:MW because 56k internet and 4gb hard drives. we should never make call of dutyMW, never work on growing gaming passed nintendoNES and instead build plastic figurines that dont require electronics so the kids have something to play with that has no limitations."

You have a misunderstanding about the notion "scale".   You confuse it with "is currently not within reach of technology".
In any case, bitcoin cannot scale, because it limited itself, independent of the scaling problem of single block chain technology.

The scaling problem a block chain faces, is that for "n" participants, over time T, it needs to store/process/.... ~n^2 T data.
If we presume that transactions per entity rise with the number of potential partners they have on the network and that ALL nodes need to process ALL transactions of ALL participants over ALL of history.   This runs into technical limits at a certain point.  

But bitcoin put itself a much, much more severe and hard limit: 3 transactions per second.  Making transactions themselves an expensive resource.

you were not understanding my sarcasm to bring up the point

the punchline being someone from nintendo being the activision insider saying to activision not to expand passed nintendo limits. because X,Y,Z reasons.

also the technical limits of 1996 are not the technical limits of 2016
so stating activision should not progressively grow into 3D gaming and then as years go on increase to HD 3d gaming.. and instead only ever stick to nintendo rules of 2d...

is stupid.



ofcourse logic dictates dont make call of duty:MD in 1997..
but bringing the logic to bitcoin.. "gigabytes by midnight cant happen"

but..
PROGRESSIVE, dynamic, NATURAL GROWTH. where NODES define the parameters of what they can cope with. (even BU know this and know/use consensus) will allow growth and scaling.

all you need to do is ignore the fake doomsdays of "gigabytes by midnight" and replace that scripted mindset with "natural growth over time (months, years, decades)

then you see the difference.

in short we WILL NOT suddenly get 1billion people over night. so ignore the "overnight capability" doomsday.. as the fake reason to halt real scaling

imagine if everyone ignored the "gigabytes per midnight"
we could have been at 2mb REAL blocksize in 2015(nodes can cope with)
we could have been aiming for 4mb REAL blocksize in 2017(nodes can cope with)
and then by 2019ish 8mb (nodes can cope with*)

*telecommunications company have a 5 year plan they are in the middle of. (landline: fibre optic, mobile: 5G) so by 2019 things will be different then now
*hardware capability, moves on too.. (raspberry pi min specs of RPi1 vs RPi3 have scaled 20-60 fold for bitcoin capability)
*people on average upgrade hardware between 1year-4 years average


we should not halt natural scaling onchain just to FORCE users offchain. there can be a symbiotic relationship where LN is voluntary side service. and not an essential only utility to spend.

the fee war is not due to natural scaling not coping but due to DEV decision to halt and delay scaling to push LN to become 'essential'
5789  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 01:23:58 PM
That is why they have only 25% approval.

1. in segwits case . BLOCKSTREAM GAVE only pools the vote. so dont blame pools for it

2. in any vote.(for any change to rules, consensus, network protocol) without nodes being ready, pools wont do anything due to orphan risk and network safety and other things.
so whether nodes get an official vote or not, smart pools would hold off voting for anything unless they see a good node count to cope with the network change
5790  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 01:21:05 PM
Either back of the fag packet calculations gives a good idea of a 2 month migration cost being added to the chain, assuming everybody voluntarily moves over. So we do not get that promised transaction rate increase for a very long time in practice.

yep

but thats 2 months at best assumming ALL tx's were segwit migrators. remember usual tx flow of people paying people and spam fill blocks too. so imagine it like many months of mempool crashing and fee war price increases with still no guarantee's

other proposals of just blocksize increases (real blocksize increases) either dynamic or spoonfed fixed amount, dont rely on moving funds to cause it. so those options dont cause months of mempool bloating.
5791  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 01:15:24 PM

No - it's not your fault.  We've been told right before the start: It just cannot scale - and we tired anyway:

http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09963.html

Someone got it.

However, between "cannot scale" because of technological limitations, and "cannot scale" because frozen into the protocol for ever, there's still some room Smiley

Bitcoin is frozen in far before the technological (and moving) limits are reached.


imagine if: activition 1996 said
"we cannot scale passed 2d shoot-em-ups' on a nintendo and Call of duty:MW because 56k internet and 4gb hard drives. we should never make call of dutyMW, never work on growing gaming passed nintendoNES and instead build plastic figurines that dont require electronics so the kids have something to play with that has no limitations."
5792  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 01:07:13 PM
how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions


I calculate that to be between a 70 day operation for average transactions at 3 tps, to 76 days for 1 input to output at 7 tps. Or maybe I need another cup of coffee to wake up if I have calculated it wrong.

not an exact science. i used the average of 2100tx per block*144 block with the 18mill tx average
18m/144/2100=59days



but think about it. 18million transactions (46mill outputs) all trying to rush to 'opt-in'
... mempool crash

but think about it. will malicious users 'opt-in' or see a good oppertunity to stick with native-to-native and cause further disruption while the sheep think they can achieve 100% voluntarily.
5793  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 12:55:26 PM
how long would it take move all UTXO's over, assuming there are no other transactions to process?

46million outputs
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set

on average equates to about 18million transactions

if every user voluntarily moved their funds (including the oldtimers and satoshi)
if every block was filled with ONLY the 'opt-in' to segwit (average native tx to a segwit tx)

AT BEST. 2 months of constantly filled blocks just to pay themselves just to 'opt-in' to segwit

5794  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why I think Blockchain.info is in a good position despite the rising fees on: March 10, 2017, 12:34:59 PM
making arrangments with Bitcoin merchants, gambling sites and others to make transactions with them through an internal ledger.

im guessing you havnt seen blockstreams elements "liquid" which is the internal ledger between a few exchanges
5795  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How the chinese BUcoin takeover will be destroyed on: March 10, 2017, 03:26:36 AM
It looks to me like a sizable portion of the mining community is trying hard now to block things like the Lightning Network from taking hold,

first of all..
LN doesnt need miners to agree on any rules that impact LN
LN can run right now, it doesnt need new 'features'
LN just needs to fix bugs that never had to do with any features of 'fixes'.
but in short people can set up a LN service now if they had the coding prowess. segwit would not have changed it one bit.

secondly
its blockstream that chose to avoid real consensus and push segwit to the pools to vote on instead of real consensus. knowing the pools wont push it without having the nodes to accept it.
its a self fulfilling stall tactic. whee blockstream get to sip margaritas and sit back playing innocent

dont blame pools. blame blockstream for the stall tactics.

also the fee's are on the rise due to blockstream by the the removal of priority, the removal of reactive fees. the addition of average fee(stays up even in low demand) increase and inclusion of fee filters and higher minimum relay fee.

they have removed logic, rules and code which would have kept costs down. and replaced it with economic notions of 'just pay more'

5796  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: SegWit (25.5%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (25.2%) on: March 10, 2017, 03:15:45 AM
If they didn't think there was a fee problem they wouldn't be working on segwit/LN implementation.

I went looking for a roadmap for BU today and what I found was a seven months old, very weak regarding the current issues, and and vague about the proposals it did have. This is not a serious alternative to core/segwit/LN.  Hating on core without evidence they are doing anything wrong is not going to fix anything.

If I had a miner I'd be doing exactly what the folks on Reddit are doing - signalling support for BU so they go ahead with their plans, then pull the rug out from under them once they commit. It's time to end this foolishness.

simple solutions dont require big re-writes
real workable solutions dont need excuses of why X, Y, X are needed . then downplaying it when its revealed that X and Y are not needed and Z is actually an A(complete opposite)

simple solutions don't need to promise things and then pretend the promises still promise even when it wont be achieved even if they got super majority
simple solutions dont need to suck eggs and write scripts with buzzword of the month competitions to show which spammers are involved in the competition (like a secret handshake)(bucoin btucoin, ad-hom, conservative)
5797  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How the chinese BUcoin takeover will be destroyed on: March 10, 2017, 02:43:35 AM
Everyone pushing BU had better hope they have the economic majority on their side should they attempt a contentious fork.

well they havnt done it in the last 2 years.. so that immediate debunks you and blockstreams myth of them actually wanting to do anything controversial or bilateral.

if the intention was to be controversial or bilateral. you better come up with a better excuse
5798  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 10, 2017, 01:11:41 AM
im starting to see what game jbreher is playing.

now its public that segwit cant achieve sigop fix. he is now full on downplaying how bad sigops actually is...
simply to down play segwits promises by subtly saying 'yea segwit dont fix it, but it dont mtter because there is never been a sigop problem'

rather than admit segwit fails to meet a promise. its twisted to be 'it dont matter that it doesnt fix it'.

much like luke JR downplaying how much of a bitcoin contributor his is at the consensus agreement. by backtracking and saying he signed as a human not a bitcoin contributor.. much like changing his hat and pretending to be just a janitor to get out of the promise to offer a dynamic blocksize with core.
5799  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How the chinese BUcoin takeover will be destroyed on: March 10, 2017, 01:02:07 AM
Food for thought Smiley

also another blockstream employee, who invented FIBRE is now working with 'chaincode' to create hyperledgers 'fabric'

I was unaware of this...

https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members

general member - blockstream

5800  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How the chinese BUcoin takeover will be destroyed on: March 10, 2017, 12:30:34 AM
(maybe they're affiliated with some altcoin that they believe it could profit with Bitcoin's decline?)

gmaxwell the devs 'boss' (CTO) works for blockstream which have an agenda and their own platform.
Gmaxwell loves Monero.

gmaxwells wage comes from AXA and DCG, which DCG owns coindesk and many other services. and also zcash.

DCG and blockstream is also involved with the bankers hyperledger.

also another blockstream employee, who invented FIBRE (ringfensing blockstream nodes around the bitcoin pools as the top of the network topology) (termed upstream filters). is now working with 'chaincode' to create hyperledgers 'fabric'
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 ... 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!