Bitcoin Forum
January 23, 2020, 03:33:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 ... 873 »
5861  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Fiverr.com forced to remove BTC as a payment option due to high fees on: March 08, 2017, 05:27:15 PM
bitcoin 0.13 minrelay fee 0.00001000    ($0.0125c)
bitcoin 0.14 minrelay fee 0.00005000    ($0.06c)

and that is just to allow it to be relayed by other nodes, before even getting to the 'average fee' of the 'auction' bidding fee war of fighting for next in line..

goodbye third world countries wanting to be paid for an hours labour

with the fiat valuation increase of the last couple years you would have thought they would have dropped the minimum relay fee, not increase it.
seems all they care about is using economics to out price spam. and not actual code rules to reduce spam.
5862  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Okcoin and Huobi extends suspension of bitcoin withdrawal until on: March 08, 2017, 03:07:46 PM
I find it as a good decision, we don't want for the Chinese whales to take control again and start manipulating the market, at least not with the ETF decision coming soon.

well the manipulation is always there and the Chinese whales never stopped their thing and they are not the only ones. you can see that these days with the price drop.
but I agree that these inspection and the suspension of these exchange services are a good thing. we don't want to find out billions of dollar were laundered through these exchanges. and the media won't say the unregulated exchanges did that , they say bitcoin was the reason and that is bad.


I don't agree, the fact they can control BTC so easily kind of proves BTC is not a source of monetary freedom, just another form of Government enslavement.  Tongue
Which if so, BTC loses it value to many.

 Cool


all thy can control is the exchanges that touch fiat.
if you dont like chinese government. dont use an exchange that also transacts with chinese fiat.
5863  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it. on: March 08, 2017, 02:11:44 PM
people area full of talk and only that. let's see how you can do it shall we.
we all are well aware of the shit that is going on with bitcoin, but with all that happening, bitcoin still is great and is bigger than you can think. we may be unhappy about a bunch of stuff but in the end we are using bitcoin and we can not see anything remotely close to it.

are you talking about bitcoins ethos of 2009-2013 or are you talking about the reality of 2017. you cant be talking about both as things have changed
5864  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Will North Korea introduce bitcoin as a settlement unit in their int'l trade? on: March 08, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
Following latest round of sanctions even their biggest banks are now not able to transact internationally. North Korea is the only truly independent county. It is also independent from international banking oligopoly. They have nothing to lose. Introducing bitcoin as a settlement unit in their international economic relations is an exceptional opportunity for this country!

north korea has full control of its currency. no manipulation by wall street. no IMF, no outside influence.

however. using bitcoin although still avoiding the 'elitist' manipulation of the fiat puppeteers. it then becomes reactive to natural economics of international barter. which is the other end of the scale, and can reduce their control based on being too open.

i dont think they will want to be controlled by the wall street elite.. or lose control by the open market. they will want to remain right in the middle of self control of their own currency.

that said the citizens will always find a way to barter with bitcoin, even if it involves under the table private blackmarket trading beyond korean government oversight
5865  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it. on: March 08, 2017, 01:11:41 PM
OP can make an altcoin.

also OP if you have any other " We need some real organization at the top." then its still going to be just as bad as blockstream dominance..
any dominance is bad.

also the majority of the community hate blockstream. and if the independent non ass kissing core devs got rid of blockstream out of core. then core (as a separate entity to blockstream) wont get the backlash its getting and earn back some respect

An altcoin as you and others suggest has $0 value on day one.  Bitcoin has $20 Billion value.  If my altcoin can be the bitcoin blockchain, history and value, with new improved rules, then OK - I'll start my altcoin.  But, only Core gets to put their altcoin, with new features (SegWit) and rules (Lightning) onto the established $20 billion history and record.  People who are not Blockstream can just go fuck off and start an altcoin.

See, that is why Core/Blockstream people love to say - "OK - so go start your altcoin".  They know that they are building their new rules on a very well established 8 year history and $20 Billion value.  A fresh new alt - no matter how good, would have a hard time catching up to that.
i agree about the blockstream stuff.

the only thing is though.. in your OP you mentioned starting a new genesis block. which is by definition STARTING A NEW altcoin, rather than bilaterally splitting bitcoin to cause an doublespend-altcoin.

new genesis block = start from 0

Don't believe me?  Then why doesn't that asshole Holliday just tell Adam Back to go start SegWit/Lightning on his own blockchain?  Why doesn't Core/Blockstream just go fuck right off and start their new alt Lightning on a fresh position?  Thought so.  

Blockstream acts like they own the blockchain and their clever ideas and new rules get to be attached to that history.  Whereas all others can 'go start their own alt'.  This is total bullshit.  

agree again. EG Gmaxwell moderating the technical section of this forum and the theymos moderating this entire forum and reddit.
gmaxwell and luke Jr moderating the dev mail list and gmaxwell(until recently, but now luke JR) moderating the BIPS
basically acting as gatekeepers to brush away idea's that contradict blockstreams plans.

'some real organiszation at the top' means protocol and rules not people.  But, it provides for an improved means of settling an impasse.  Like super majority of voters wins, rather than 95% consensus which we all know could never be achieved thus impasses never get settled and we stall out for over two years.  

the 95% is more about reducing the chances of NATURAL orphan drama at an activation event. which can actually be futile a percentage to achieve unless the feature advertised actually did what it says..  and also that percentage may not be needed to be so high, to accomplish just a small natural orphan risk if it also had a high NODE acceptability to help reduce natural orphan risk.

the main thing is what occurs at activation.
blockstream for instance want to then bilaterally split the network by breaking its own 'backward compatibility' promise by INTENTIONALLY (not naturally) rejecting native blocks, which are actually valid to the network but just not created by blockstreams codebase. which is where this action can cause bigger orphan risks and where things get nasty. rather than it would if there was a real proper consensus implemented and just letting natural orphans do their job. (natural orphans happen for a very good reason)

the funny part.
even the segwit advocates dont realise the REALITY of what will occur at the activation date.
they think (wrongly) that the quadratic/malleability problems are 100% fixed.
they dont realise that its not about the activation. its about later things. such as needing EVERYONE to move all of them MILLIONS of unspents (everyone moves thier funds) from native keys to segwit keys(which this action alone would cause major mempool filling spam attacks). to then as long as EVERYONE never uses native keys again ever. will then disarm everyone from quadratic/malleability and only then get the fixes reach their promise,
which is something that will never happen.
malicious spammers will continue using native keys and the disruptions and issues will continue.
5866  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.14.0 Released on: March 08, 2017, 12:22:28 PM
And for the circus trolls I need to say: wtf someone bringing you a bottle of water from the springs and if you have any doubt you could go and test or boil the water, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will never drink any water just because a particular person was involved in delivering the water.

Kinds of people having the audacity to undermine one's voluntary contribution should not be taken serious at any level of society and often are the ones without any accomplishment of their own.

my point is that we should care more about THE CODE.
many times people say "core is made up of hundreds of people contributing"

but if those contributors are just spell checking, for example "GitHub" instead of "github" and not actually contributing to the CODE and RULES of the bitcoin network. thus it must be highlighted that core is not made up of hundreds of people really contributing. and instead just a dozen CODE contributors and a hundred spell checker contributors.

core should not over emphasis who is involved if they just have random shills who intentionally add a full stop or capitalise a noun just to fluff the numbers up a bit. as thats not true "peer review".
if the only thing these spell checkers are reviewing is the comments section of documentation and not the code itself its not truly helpful to the network or security of bitcoin.

i personally would applaud and hope lauda (when/if he learns C++) done something that helped the network and/or security of bitcoin. i just have a gripe with all of these people try to take a high ground for things that dont matter to the security of the network.

my method of being frank might be harsh. but my motive is to ensure better standards for something that has world reaching security implications to millions of people.
5867  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin was a great experiment. We learnt a lot from it. on: March 08, 2017, 10:36:24 AM
OP can make an altcoin.

also OP if you have any other " We need some real organization at the top." then its still going to be just as bad as blockstream dominance..
any dominance is bad.

also the majority of the community hate blockstream. and if the independent non ass kissing core devs got rid of blockstream out of core. then core (as a separate entity to blockstream) wont get the backlash its getting and earn back some respect
5868  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
IMF & Worldbank wont make a one world currency par-say.

they have/will however control, secure, be the transport conduit, and the auditor of all the future FIAT currencies that get into using blockchains.
much like merging SWIFT, RTGS and other international wire transfer protocols into one

hyperledger allows subchains(sidechains/altcoins) that are all in the end audited by the hyperledger.
hyperledger itself wont have a 'coin' but will have a ledger to list and secure the audits of the other FIAT chains that join to the hyperledger network.

IMF, worldbank and BIS wont make money just having a "one world currency". they make money on the trades (forex swaps) between the different currencies and the demand/ supply of different currencies.

so there wont be a "one world currency" but there could/would be a one world network

Is the Hyperledger centralized? I dont think the banks will use something that they dont have some control over. Although credit card transactions that are recorded on Hyperledger would be a God send to them. A cashless society that is well very controlled solely by the bankers.

hyperledger is a multichain ledger. its only going to be used behind the scenes by those authorised to use it. but becomes unhackable because the data of hyperledgers main chain is distributed aswell as each chain is distributed. .but because only certain people have direct access its not 'openly public'
5869  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.14.0 Released on: March 08, 2017, 10:00:46 AM
lauda i see you slipped your name into the contributors list.

#8852 `7b784cc` Mention Gitian building script in doc (Laudaa) (laanwj)

im laughing.

i see you still didnt learn C++ and just added a single line of comment... wait, the main bitcoin guy did, you just slipped your name in there
to pretend you are useful to bitcoin.

very low tactic lauda
please spend more time actually learning bitcoin and less time faking it <- do no ignore this point
p.s
also you couldnt even copy and paste the links properly
5870  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How safe is your UTXO? on: March 08, 2017, 01:53:45 AM
at this moment your UTXO is safe. (unless someone hacks your computer or someone you know gets to it to steal ur privkey to spend ur coin)

however what i say next does not affect current native style UTXO. but if you moved funds in the future (if mimblewimble was added to bitcoin) and moved them into a mimble confidential commitment. your then not safe

some numbskulls are envisioning a feature be added where by a mimble wimble manager for instance can take your UTXO (without asking)
mix it with other funds. and then put the funds you 'deserve' (if you think mimblewimble manager would be honest) into a new block. so that your funds are then spent to then prune old blocks which have no UTXO's left in them.

basically giving third parties access to move funds on your behalf but 'selling the idea' as a fix to pruning old blocks and being a mixer service.(but understating and hiding the ability to move funds without request in the small print)

personally id say let mimble wimble be something only available on a voluntary sidechain(altcoin) that people can volunteer to move funds into to then be messed with.
not something that all bitcoin tx's should be a possible victim to (should mimble wimble be less than honourable).



other people are also thinking about(as ur OP hints) adding dead man switchs where after X years/blocks UTXO's are then able to be killed off and then treated as a miner fee.. but that is like one of the big no no things i do not think any of the community will ever come to consensus to ever change.



though pretty much anything can be changed if given enough consensus support. by having diverse nodes (EG not everything programmed by blockstream) thus keeping the network diverse and decentralised prevents any of the big no no rules from changing without consent.

its not just about just node counts. or pool counts. its also about diversity of who is in control of the node updates. we need MORE 'teams' of differing nodes not less.

consensus would still be reached on the utility fixes such as blocksize. by actually getting the 'teams' to not want to centralise as kings but to workon the same level playing field and come to a compromise of what all can agree on consensually. (preferably done by the nodes rather than dev 'kings')

but its best to not have one dev team making all future decisions alone and bypassing node consensus
5871  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 08, 2017, 01:32:02 AM


I see your point about malicious forking. At this point I need others view points to consider.
side note for you both,
"malicious forking"
many people are over using umbrella terms. of "forking"

try to stick with clear definitions (even im using gmaxwells buzzwords to keep things clear(so even he cant poke the bear))

EG soft = pools move without node
EG hard = node move and pools follow

consensus = if its near unanimous agreement(few orphans orphans now and again but one chain)
controversial = if its arguable low agreement (lots of orphans before it settles down to one chain)
bilateral split = intention avoidance of consensus/orphans/opposition (an altcoin creator with second chain sustaining life)



now then
segwit is in essense a soft consensus.
segwit has 2 parts. although pools change the rules without nodes consent. segwit has other things. like changing the network topology (FIBRE) so that they are upstream (central/top close to pools) able to translate and pass downstream block data in a form nodes can consent to/accept.

however putting segwit aside and looking at bip9 which is how pools were given the vote. a soft bilateral split can happen
bip9 allows
soft(pool) BILATERAL SPLIT

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% 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
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.
in essence ignoring opposing pools where by those other pools still hash
which can lead to:
a split of 2 chains where they continue and just build ontop of THEMselves, or
they give up and find other jobs, or
they change software and join the majority



totally different bip not even in any bitcoin version right now..
hard(node and pool) BILATERAL SPLIT
new UASF does this. (although the buzzword is meant to make it sound easier by stroking the sheep to sleep by pretending its a "soft" (S of UASF)fix. but because its node caused. its hard)

because it involves intentionally rejecting valid blocks purely based on who created it. it leads to the pool:
split of 2 chains where they continue and just build ontop of THEMselves, or
they give up and find other jobs, or
they change software and join the majority.

however because nodes are doing this. it can cause further controversy(of the nodes not pools) because the nodes are then differently selecting what is acceptable and hanging onto different chains

which is where UASF is worse than hard consensus or hard bilateral due to even more orphan drama
5872  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions on: March 07, 2017, 11:41:27 PM
Bitcoin unlimited is different from BTC, it is not an upgrade for bitcoin. Actually, I don't understand what it is all about. I think it is another altcoin that wants to encourage clients that is already in BTC that's why it uses the bitcoin itself. There is no confusion as I said it differs from BTC.

read the code not the reddit scripts.
5873  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: [POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB) on: March 07, 2017, 11:32:22 PM
BU's fundamental purpose is Semi-Unrestricted block building (accelerates network centralization 1).
CORE's fundamental purpose is Semi-Restricted block building (preserves network decentralization 2).

1 Bigger blocks tend toward network centralisation,
3 but decentralises the user base (more people can afford to send bitcoin).

2 Small blocks allow greater network decentralisation,
4 but centralises the user base (only a few big actors can afford to send bitcoin).

your putting words into people mouths.

1. Bu/bigblockers dont want one brand running anything... most bu/bigblockers are happy with bitcoinj, xt, classic, btcd, etc all running on the same level playing field all using real consensus to come to agreement.. and if core got rid of blockstream corporation. would be happy with core too.(main gripe is blockstreams centralist control)

2. small blockers have shown distaste for anything not blockstream inspired/funded..  (rekt campains agains bitcoinj, xt, classic and bu)

3. correct(people keep funds on thier personal privkeys and use future LN services voluntarily)

4. correct(people move funds to new keys and multisigs where payments need an LN counter party signing. but done forcefully due to politics/fee war games)
5874  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 07, 2017, 11:05:58 PM
Lately so much has been said about a New World order which will cripple the world ecconomy and introduce a new currency.
Does any one know what kind of crypto or paper currency they will Use?

The world today is ruled by egos of world powers and even IMF or world Bank decision is not even final as we have seen countries pull out of world bodies if they feel their interest is not being protected and same thing might happen if they propose such. How do one explain how USA and Russia of China will agree on particular currency, I doubt if that will ever happen...

what you dont realise is while fox news is screaming BOMB THEM BOMB THEM BOMB THEM
america is doing trade deals with them.

EG
IMF had the UK and america in thier SDR pool. and in october 2016 they added china.. http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/30/AM16-PR16440-IMF-Launches-New-SDR-Basket-Including-Chinese-Renminbi

secondly russia. while people think america hate russia and sanctioned them and removed visa/mastercard utility, stopped trade deals, blah blah blah.. america actually done trade and actually done deals giving russia money.
EG
international space station supply and maintenance funding(while cutting U.S's own NASA funding)
other things like you can buy iphones, mcdonalds and many other american things in russia.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-russia-idUSKBN15F111

TOTAL year 2000    imports:2,092.5m    exports:7,658.5m    
TOTAL year 2013    imports:11,144.7m    exports:27,085.7m
    
so avoid fox news
5875  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions on: March 07, 2017, 10:54:52 PM
hope lauda has learned about consensus.
i also hope lauda has learned about native key utility still able to cause disruption even after segwit activation

lauda you need not reply to me until you have learned the concepts.
all personal attacks are just rustles of tumbleweed blowing with the wind.

i would prefer technical rebuttles that have substance beyond the usual simplistic "wrong because.. " ..personal attack

please dont waste time with personal attacks and wisely use the time to learn bitcoin concepts and become wiser for it.
5876  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
Somehow i'm under the impression that if core would have suggested the changes that come with BU, nobody would discuss them and we would have it up and running already.

Has anyone heard anything about a plan b on how core is going to address the blocksize problem in case SegWit is going to fail / not activated?

yep seems blockstreams next plans are wait for it..
soft(pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (bip9 allows this if u didnt know already)
hard(node and pool) BILATERAL SPLIT (new UASF does this. although the buzzword is meant to make it sound easier to stroke the sheep to sleep by pretending its a "soft" fix)

silly thing is they are really desperate to avoid hard(node and pool) consensus. which the community want so that other features can be added to and then just have one big activation event of everything the entire community want in one go)

but they are willing to do anything to get segwit activated without playing at the same level. even though segwit wont do as promised in any shape or form.(hard,soft / consensus,bilateral)  it just wont do what is promised.

its not segwit 'activation' that fixes anything.
its having everyones transactions only using segwit keys that fix the issues they promised, which will never happen.
malicious people will just stick to native keys. its that simple.
but blockstream have yet to come to that realisation as they have not done enough scenario tests. they have only done 'does it break' tests.. not any real 'does it fix' tests.

funny part is they went soft because of the fake rhetoric of hard consensus leads to a split.
but now willing to do a hard bilateral split to avoid hard consensus... (facepalm)

they are getting desperate.

they are doing all they can to avoid doing something the whole network can agree on. but then try pointing the finger in the other direction while they do the exact things they falsely accuse others of doing.

it has become totally ridiculous
5877  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 08:31:33 PM
How would BU prevent malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings? It would be a node race trying to set the consensus.

your talking about the same threat as what could have happened over the last 8 years by sybil attacking the network with lots of 500kb limit nodes

You mean by compiling a node with a lower block size limit and starting them all over the network?

you brought up the question of 'malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings?'
so im just assuming you mean sybil attack.. and assuming you mean restrictive settings.. where by i gave an example of 500kb..

which is just as likely to happen even now or at anytime in the past it was as likely to have happened.

..
malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings is no more or less a threat no different than the last 8 years.
there are many ways to mitigate these threats. EG recognising a jump in node count of nodes using things like amazon servers. and not including them in the tally. that way REAL decentralised nodes decide what the settings are, by simply not caring about amazon server capabilities.

that way the network sticks to what rational/true nodes are ok with

..
most sybil attacks are where people run LITE nodes(not full nodes) but tweak the useragent to look like its a full node to then spam out bad requests.

a simple way to know if a node is a full node could be:
take 3 numbers from 1to 450000...

say 234567, 321234, 432111(randomly chosen at each handshake)
my node could send that. and want a reply. EG the other node has to grab the block hashes of those 3 block through its own blockchain.. sha256 them together and send me the result. which if correct they get whitelisted
(imagine it like a 'are you human' captcha 'select the image of a roadsign....... but an 'are you fullnode' sha the hashes of these 3 blocks' )

it could go one step further.. by asking for tx number 27(randomly chosen at each handshake) of those blocks to sha together the TXID's

most sybil nodes malicious attackers wont shell out $$$ buying thousands of amazon accounts with 100gb data allowance each
so they wont have the blockdata to reply.

however real nodes will have the data. so its as an example just one way to check nodes are actually full nodes.
5878  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions on: March 07, 2017, 08:27:56 PM
Repeating BS is still BS.
Why do you think that repeating old lies makes them true?

calling someone a liar . but no technical rebuttal is just wasting your own time.
all i say to you is
[yawn]... oh look a tumbleweed blowing down the road.

try spending time learning about bitcoin and less time just mouthing off. it will actually help you to learn bitcoin so please learn it

remember "its bad coz its bad" is not a valid argument.
5879  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 08:24:38 PM
How would BU prevent malicious actors gaming the system, by running lots of nodes with restrictive settings? It would be a node race trying to set the consensus.

your talking about the same threat as what could have happened over the last 8 years by sybil attacking the network with lots of 500kb limit nodes
5880  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 08:14:46 PM
Here is one idea of scalability and transaction rate. It's quite old:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

For it to work though, I don't think we can allow blockchains demand to exceed capacity, or for mempools to forget transactions for bitcoin service providers, or for nodes to be selective on the transactions they relay.

many dynamic blocks are envisioning including a 'speedtest' algo that tests their effectiveness to notice a new block download it, validate it and relay it out and set a score of start to end.
then use that to help flag the upper limit. they will accept which becomes consensus.h
where by they then have the lower limit policy.h has the prefered size as acceptable safety which can automaticaly grow at need BELOW the ultimate limit

this using the network consensus by x% flagging big no no to Xmb pools wont then make Xmb. thus not killing off nodes. and where nodes abilities as technology and telecommunications improve over the years allows the network t grow at an acceptable natural and progressive amount

(EG raspberryPi3 even behind the china firewall can handle 8mb blocks.. so a 8mb consensus.h and a 2mb policy.h to begin with which can increase naturally upto 8mb without having to manually do anything)
meaning pools would then go from 1mb.. and try 1.001mb to test the water and increment to say 1.99mb before worrying about orphans. and then the automated moving of the policy.h can occur. all while blocks are way below 8mb

do not be fooled by the "visa by midnight" "gigabyte by midnight" "servers by midnight" rhetoric that blockstreamers are spewing out when they exaggerate satoshis words to fit a fake narative that bitcoin needs to commercialise and centralise to survive
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 ... 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!