Bitcoin Forum
January 25, 2020, 03:04:02 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 ... 873 »
5841  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 09, 2017, 08:04:37 AM
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
He is mistaken, but for different reasons. BU is a unilateral split. If, after BU pulls the trigger on their hard fork, the Core chain ever overtakes the BU chain, all BU coins will be permanently destroyed and all transactions involving them will be forever invalid. Mass panic will ensue and their altcoin will be worthless. That's why Core devs are begging BU to make their fork bilateral, but they won't listen (or they pretend not to listen because they don't have the competence to implement a bilateral fork).

if BU pulls the trigger.. it would do it with majority NODE (over50%) and majority hash(over 50%)
it wont trigger without consensus.

also all that occurs is a orphan  which will inevitably and naturally find a single chain.
at a small majority (say 51-60%) just means clusterf*ck of orphan drama.
at a high majority (say 80-95%) just means less orphan drama
at superhigh majority (say 95%) just meand bearable amount of orphan drama, slightly above what happens daily anyway

just taking longer(more orphans) with lower amount of majority to get a single reliable chain

the only way to get the 2 chains to independantly survive is to intentionally ban communications with the opposition. which is what happened in ethereum

oh and emphasis on majority.. which also bursts your bubble of core overtaking lol (learn consensus please)
5842  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 09, 2017, 07:52:38 AM
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT
Do tell me what happens when a BU blocked (not just signaling) is mined with e.g. 1.5 MB block size.

if consensus is not reached.. its orphaned. end of.. in the trash in 3 seconds. no drama no fuss

want proof of a block over 1mb
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
5843  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 09, 2017, 07:46:53 AM
1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
Yes it does cause a split. You are mistaken.
READ THE DAMN CODE. PROVE IT

2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to aplit, but then pretend its "harming the network"
Of course, to get the altcoin away from Bitcoin.
its not an altcoin until blockstream split away.. because the rest of the community wont do it so blockstream will have to if thats blockstreams intention to get 100% control with no one else on the network but blockstream making the decisions.

BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
Nonsense.
your own words are the "victim card' - pretending its BU harming the network.
Then tell the BU folk to stop trying to harm Bitcoin. Roll Eyes
when infact its blockstream wanting the split!!! wake up!!
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 ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

The ethereum hardfork was bilateral, probably the only thing they did right--
BU, bitcoinj, xt, classic and a dozen others dont want to be kings. they want consensus of no kings and using CONSENSUS.. learn consensus

wak up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS
Sure. Only if you stop taking money from your employer. Roll Eyes

im my own boss. i dont need to be paid to be awake
5844  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 09, 2017, 07:36:41 AM
look at lauda.. lol

1. BU does not cause bilateral fork. LEARN CONSENSUS
2. core want a bilateral split. they are begging for BU to split, but then pretend its "harming the network" if BU did split (hypocrits)
3. core want the split but want to play the victim card
4. BU, XT, classic, bitcoinj and the others DO NOT want a bilateral split. and if you READ THE CODE you will see its USING CONSENSUS to keep things together as one network
5. to create a bilateral fork nodes have to INTENTIONALLY BAN communications from each other to prevent orphans (bitcoins natural and USEFUL safety mechanism)

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 ... Sadly, the proposals authors were aggressively against this.

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

lauda please please please.
wake up. have some coffee then use the energy you have to suck up to gmaxwell, and use it to LEARN CONSENSUS
5845  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who controls ETF? on: March 09, 2017, 05:45:37 AM
But if it does get approved, can we expect the price to go up as it would be a big step forward for bitcoin as even people without any knowledge would be able to trade it ? Right now, thats the only problem that seems for it to be widespread.

to answer this (from another topic)


ETF investors are buying shares of a companies 'stock' (collateral holding/product), not actual bitcoins(investors cannot ask for a privkey or withdraw btc from ETF).
Are you sure?
Gold ETFs allow physical delivery if you own enough. 

not part of standard ETF terms. but the specific companies terms/side services

usually what happens is that you buy out a whole "basket" to remove the collateral of the trust to then get delivered.
or the ETF shares are sold, and then real BTC are bought (behind the scenes) via a side subsidiary service that delivers.

but thats just things the COMPANY may have policy/services behind the scenes


but in short.
lets say an ETF spikes to $2000
but real btc exchanges are still $1200

why would anyone buy say 20,000 shares (20 share=1btc equiv), costing $2mill(1000btc equiv).. to use the ETF subsiduary to withdraw that btc and reduce the ETF's collateral or be sold and converted behind the scenes to 'deliver' 1000btc.

where as the investor could sell the 20,000 and then take his $2m to a proper bitcoin exchange. and then buy 1666btc.. instead of 'get delivered' 1000btc

but as someone else said


This ETF will connect some investors on Wall Street to Bitcoin. It allows greater demand, which should raise the price for everyone. The important part is that this ETF likely won't be available to just anyone, you'll probably need to be a qualified investor ($5m in net worth, $1m in investable assets).

This is why we love Bitcoin, because there is not a barrier to entry for the poor. You do not have to belong to the "Rich boy Club" to be able to trade in Bitcoin. The average Joe on the street can signup at an Bitcoin exchange and buy $10 worth of bitcoin and nobody will stop him or her from trading.

The ETF is a safe gateway to protect the rich from the volatility of Bitcoin investments.

so most ETF investors wont buy out "basket" or sell and break their retirement fund contracts to buy real bitcoins cheaper. they will stay within the  'safe harbour' of regulated ETF to meet their clients retirement contract obligations and regulations.

however. people(not as wealthy) will/could see the ETF and then privately outside of their regulated retirement contract. buy real bitcoins on real exchanges.

but the purchasing of real bitcoins on real exchanges due to an ETF is just speculation.. i personally can see a increase of the real bitcoin price due to the advertising of ETF. but how much of an increase.. pfft no one can guess to any exact realistic number the impact
5846  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: March 09, 2017, 05:09:33 AM

ETF investors are buying shares of a companies 'stock' (collateral holding/product), not actual bitcoins(investors cannot ask for a privkey or withdraw btc from ETF).
 

Are you sure?

Gold ETFs allow physical delivery if you own enough.  

not part of standard ETF terms. but the specific companies terms/side services

usually what happens is that you buy out a whole "basket" to remove the collateral of the trust to then get delivered.
or the ETF shares are sold, and then real BTC are bought (behind the scenes) via a side subsidiary service that delivers.

but thats just things the COMPANY may have policy/services behind the scenes


but in short.
lets say an ETF spikes to $2000
but real btc exchanges are still $1200

why would anyone buy say 20,000 shares (20 share=1btc equiv), costing $2mill(1000btc equiv).. to use the ETF subsiduary to withdraw that btc and reduce the ETF's collateral or be sold and converted behind the scenes to 'deliver' 1000btc.

where as the investor could sell the 20,000 and then take his $2m to a proper bitcoin exchange. and then buy 1666btc.. instead of 'get delivered' 1000btc
5847  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 09, 2017, 04:43:12 AM
Bitcoin already has a sigops per block limit to mitigate the risk of this attack (despite the FUD that introducing such a limit is all that's needed to solve the problem, which is pretty dumb considering that's already what happens Roll Eyes)

cores limit is not low enough

MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST = 80000;
MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIGOPS_COST = MAX_BLOCK_SIGOPS_COST/5;

who the damned F*ck should be allowed to build a single tx that uses 20% of a block!!
who the damned F*ck should be allowed to build a single tx has 16,000 sigops!!

lower the TX sigop limit to something rational and you wont have the worry of delays due to sigop validation

also. one thing CB is missing out on

Core would not because they're all convinced we must have segwit before increasing the block size to prevent a quadratic scaling sigop DDoS happening... though segwit doesn't change the sigops included in regular transactions, it only makes segwit transactions scale linearly

meaning native transaction users can still sigop SPAM.
segwit has nothing to do with disarming the whole block.. just segwit transaction users

again because carlton is not quite grasping it
though segwit doesn't change the sigops included in regular transactions,
5848  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Who controls ETF? on: March 09, 2017, 04:24:35 AM
ETF is separate to bitcoin.
ETF investors are buying shares of a companies 'stock' (collateral holding/product), not actual bitcoins(investors cannot ask for a privkey or withdraw btc from ETF).

there are many companies offering ETF's (the winklvoss twins being one of them)



yea the companies share prices can sky rocket. whereby investors realise that the companies 'collateral holding' is less than the companies speculative sky rocket price.

and thus COULD cause investors to then go and buy real bitcoins elsewhere (thus then affecting the real bitcoin price when they by on real bitcoin exchanges)

but thats all speculation
5849  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: March 09, 2017, 04:21:45 AM
Right now segwit is slowly losing importance and not completely dead. Bitcoin unlimited gaining strength, so anything could happen in the short. I expect the price concern is the big factor which now people hope is the etf

ETF is separate to bitcoin.
ETF investors are buying shares of a companies 'stock' (collateral holding/product), not actual bitcoins(investors cannot ask for a privkey or withdraw btc from ETF).

there are many companies offering ETF's (the winklvoss twins being one of them)



yea the companies share prices can sky rocket. whereby investors realise that the companies 'collateral holding' is less than the companies speculative sky rocket price.

and thus COULD cause investors to then go and buy real bitcoins elsewhere (thus then affecting the real bitcoin price when they by on real bitcoin exchanges)

but thats all speculation
5850  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: March 09, 2017, 03:57:25 AM
Good job Roger Ver, it looks like SegWit has absolutely no chance at all of getting anywhere near 95%.  I doubt they will ever get over 50%.

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin.  

I feel it is my duty as a concerned citizen and valuable contributor of the Bitcoin community to declare SegWit dead on arrival.  

I'm a little bit confused about this topic, In my own understanding Segwit is not good to all Bitcoin enthusiast in this industry. Because the number one will  get affect on this matter was the bitcoin community right? or the people who did mine bitcoin using mining rigs is that right? just correct me if I'm wrong,. Smiley

the 'vote' bypassed node USER consent... which is something blockstream DEVS decided on.
also its not about what individual miners choose. but what the POOL managers choose.
yes a couple pools(for individual miners) have 2 stratums to allow individual miners to hop to the stratum for or against segwit. but the real % is based on the managers of the big mining farms.

which is something blockstream DEVS decided on.

dont blame the pools, blame the devs for deciding on who should vote.



as for the end features (if segwit were functional).
segwit features do not fix the issues at activation. it requires users(at a later date) to VOLUNTARILY move funds to segwit keys and only then spend funds to other users of segwit keys, to then DIS-ARM those volunteers from being able to quadratic spam / malleate.

it does not fix the issues for the entire network. nor does it disarm or prevent people sticking with using native keys. thus blocks can still contain quadratic spam and malleated tx's, simply by malicious people not volunteering to move funds to segwit keys

in essense, even after activation.. its a voluntary opt-in gun amnesty. hoping and falsely promising to stop gun crime, but in reality knowing the gangsta's will keep their guns
5851  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 95% lol. No chance. SegWit is now dead. on: March 09, 2017, 03:44:34 AM
real numbers to counter meurs fake numbers

/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1664 (26.11%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1323 (20.76%) where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               743 (11.66%)    where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               382 (5.99%)      where 100% = 6372
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               381 (5.98%)     where 100% = 6372
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   357 (5.60%)

why is meurs numbers fake you may ask
for instance his numbers
/Satoshi:0.13.2/               1839   37.5% where 100% = 4904
/Satoshi:0.13.1/               1409   28.8% where 100% = 4892.361111
/Satoshi:0.12.1/               740   15.1% where 100% = 4900.662252
/Satoshi:0.13.0/               387   7.9%   where 100% = 4898.734177
/Satoshi:0.14.0/               351   7.2%   where 100% = 4875
/BitcoinUnlimited:1.0.0.1/   173   3.5%   where 100% = 4942.857143

nice fudging of the %%%
major discrepancy in meuhs numbers, because the 100%'s should all equal the same



secondly..
even funnier..

the 'vote' is about BLOCKS not NODES so i see no reason why meur is even trying to fluff the node numbers as they are meaningless

here is what matters (P.S graph is from Sipa himself so dont cry propaganda de to numbers being from segwits own inventor)
5852  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it. on: March 09, 2017, 03:25:16 AM
Bitcoin is good, and it's going good, don't take the current bitcoin price so unstable because the price should change but maybe $100 for few days is a lot.

so is the change of gold.. if you were measuring it in tonnes.
EG a $100 change of a gold ounce = $32,151,00 change in the measure of tonnes
but we moved away from measuring in tonnes centuries ago. and soon enough we will be measuring gold in grams

however if exchanges measured bitcoin in mbtc
EG 0.001=$1.16today $1.28 last week

meaning its only moved $0.12 per mbtc

soon enough many people will measure bitcoins in mbtc or even bits (0.00000100)
just like we are no longer in ancient egyptian times measuring gold by the tonne.

its all a matter of prospective
5853  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Quantum Computing and a hard fork?` on: March 09, 2017, 03:05:53 AM
quantums abilities to solve binary logic problems are limited

quantums feature are about solving non binary logic problems. (like vector problems)

in essense SHA(mining) is not much of a target and ASICS are well beyond CPU speeds anyway so ASICS are ahead of the quantum risk. (for many years atleast)

however vector problems. more so things like ECDSA are more of a target sooner. and ECDSA can be changed, but requires people to move funds away from ECDSA keys to something new,

so dont over exaggeration doomsday mining, and instead be cautious about the priv/pub key mechanism,
which at this current time is still years away from being any real 'break' threat.



secondly the pretense that pools will hold off on any changing to the mining algo are silly notions anyway.
most pools that are ASIC FARMS (not random user host pools) have their own ASIC manufacturing facilities and they actually profit from selling hardware to random users. so if something were to change, these ASIC farms will still be at the top/first spot because they will have developed the next gen of asics for whatever algo mining could be changed to. (apart from PoS, which is then more at risk to quantum due to it requiring signatures)
5854  Economy / Speculation / Re: What keeps Bitcoin price stable? on: March 08, 2017, 10:24:12 PM
stable price is when nothing exciting is happening and so people are not holding funds on exchanges.

remember the price is not related to the 16mill coins.
its about the amount of coins on an exchange and what people decide to do about it.

also in low energy periods if one exchange was to move 10%. it would soon be arbitraged to 0-1% again.

it takes bigger events to move the markets and keep it moved
5855  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 08, 2017, 09:53:56 PM
Core can not stop community/miner consensus.
firstly core bypassed community consensus using bip9 by going soft..

Let me see a viable BIP + code first, then we can talk about that.

secondly read bip 9, yep it can be changed. even gmaxwell admits this.
BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach.  basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)

^ this is where the UASF comes in (A leads to B leads to C)

secondly you personally know about banning nodes. you have often highlighted yourself as the guy with all the 'know' of the node IP's everyone should ban

its not rocket science
5856  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it. on: March 08, 2017, 09:45:16 PM
You are making a huge assumption that Bitcoin's store-of-value does not depend on its utility to be digital cash in widespread use.  

I believe the opposite to be true:  Without having widespread use (assumes more than 3 TPS)
Bitcoin will lose market share to other cryptocurrencies for all purposes,
both as a currency and commodity-like store of value.


to add to the point..
if..
Bitpay and coinbase (the utilities that MERCHANTS use for their shopping cart payment service)  and other services like shapeshift, pitpasa, itbit, changetip, kraken, xapo
decided one day that they will drop bitcoin and start accepting.. zcash or monero or litecoin..

knowing that DCG (funding blockstream(gmaxwell(monero fan), BTCC(bobby lee(litecoin's bro), bitpay, coinbase etc)
oh nearly forgot DCG also owns coindesk. just to add on some heat to the media propaganda of all of these changes being cough positive(not) cough

http://dcg.co/network/

what do you think will happen to bitcoins "value" when suddenly you cant use it on the exchanges you finding it harder to move to these alts. and you cant spend it with merchants
5857  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Migrating from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Unlimited on: March 08, 2017, 07:17:37 PM
You'll have to look at both Core and Unlimited and decide for yourself which provides the features you prefer.

At the protocol lvel, they are currently compatible with each other, so it doesn't matter much which you run.  If protocol changes activate and you change your mind, it isn't difficult to switch.

I can't pick and choose individual features so would have to decide on overall features. Think I might have read core 0.14 saves mempool data between restarts which is probably a very good idea.

Could I install both, and either fire one version up or the other over the same blockchain/wallet directory structure though? Or could that very well change before any consensus is achieved?

first of all
1. get the privkeys/seed and copy them. i dont mean just copy and paste the wallet.dat i mean ensure you have it copied down in other formats too and also copy the wallet.dat to a couple different locations/media devices (incase one or more gets corrupt)

2. then update
5858  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Migrating from Bitcoin Core to Bitcoin Unlimited on: March 08, 2017, 06:29:57 PM
its the case of reading the code and seeing what things have changed and what you agree on.

for instance if you dont agree on either side dont upgrade to either new version.
if however you realise things like
core v0.13.2 minimum fee relay was 0.00001000 ($0.012)
but now
core v0.14.0 minimum fee relay is 0.00005000 ($0.06)

and you disagree with being part of the nodes that will only relay transactions with higher fee's than before.. then stick with what you have or go for a version that doesnt have such fee war inducing new rules
5859  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Bitcoins is now same as paypal(and worst) on: March 08, 2017, 06:11:59 PM
The "big block" folks don't seem to be looking beyond the immediate fee crunch and are not offering a good roadmap, unless the map is for Bitcoin---> oblivion while other cryptos rise in its place.

the "big block" folks see this
bitcoin onchain, natural progressive growth over decades where the NODES set the upper limit of what they are capable of and a lower limit of preference. pools work below those limits via consensus and as technology moves on making nodes mode capable. the network progresses naturally. WITHOUT dev spoon feeding or users needing to kneel down to devs as kings.
meanwhile LN works as a side VOLUNTARY service.

the blocker-streamers see this
corporate control of code and limiting onchain growth to enforce LN end goal. so that nodes can pray for getting some income from relaying LN hop tx's. while then starting a sybil node pool concept to increase their income and start costing users more per hop. causing users to then rely on hubs instead of hop approach to reduce costs by reducing relays needed. leading to commercial centralisation of the counterparty of the LN contracts acting as hubs.
5860  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Bitcoins is now same as paypal(and worst) on: March 08, 2017, 05:58:00 PM
I like segwit but I donít think it is going to be approved,

forget the erroneous fake and fud filled rhetoric of economic's making miners indecisive..

u say you like segwit.
do you even know segwit.

i hope you have atleast read some code, run some scenarios. and seen the issues and come to a fair judgement.
rather than just appearing to be a reddit script copy and paster.

here is a hint:
malicious sigop spammers and maleability spenders will still exist if segwit activated.. and will exist if segwit was changed to be activated in any other way, including via a node vote.
hint: native key utility will still function thus problems still occur. only those volunteering to move their funds to segwit keys are disarming themselves from being the cause. but doing nothing to stop actual bad actors doing it.

in short.
segwit wont solve the problems it promises and actually opens up new problems
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 ... 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!