Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2020, 07:21:09 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 873 »
5881  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BU (Bitcoin Unlimited) and ETF Newbie questions on: March 07, 2017, 05:16:41 PM
carlton wants it to be an altcoin. simply so that blockstream have 100% control of their 30% altcoin which will simply become known as clams2.0

its only blockstream that want to split anything not blockstream..

other implementations want to keep the network together and use real consensus and all work on the same playing field.
no matter how much blockstreamers want to call anything not blockstream accepted as an altcoin. the only way it becomes an altcoin is if blockstream themselves do the splitting off..

which is becoming more and more apparent as to what blockstream is looking to do with
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--

UASF (reality its a hard bilateral fork)
I still don't understand UASF, since the node count can be easily gamed. What else can be done?
Run a custom Bitcoin client that refuses to relay blocks that don't support Segwit.
Not playing with these people, I would be perfectly happy to kill Antminer, Antpool and any others who want to treat the activation mechanism as a political tool.

I suggest we do it, Jihan Who can go into the paperweight business instead
5882  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 07, 2017, 04:49:01 PM
How many countries do you know that would give up their local currency for some one world currency and what would be the benefit of that?

You have seen what happened to the Euro when some of the smaller countries economies failed.... the Euro suffered. Can you see Muslim

countries accepting the same currency as their enemies? .....North Korea using the dollar?  

countries wont want to give up their 'local currencies' but they will join together their SWIFT, RTGS and other transfer mechanisms to get a more practical, efficient and secure method of transporting value.

but in my mind let the banks play with their closed door fiat networks.

and let bitcoin be separate as the open currency for anyone to have without all the barriers and headaches or worries of government seizures simply for not paying tax on time or having a bank charge. due to them not having privkey access to funds be default
5883  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 07, 2017, 04:45:29 PM
As I have read the idea behind a world currency it's not new and has been a matter of discussion of many people worldwide the last years. There is an article in 2009 IMF blog about a world reserve currency after the US Dollar. Even though is quite old it refers to a truly global currency which could be a store of value disconnected from local currencies and their inherent problems. I do not think that it was by chance in January 2009 the creation of the genesis bitcoin block. On the other side it's quite obvious that governments and banks will not let bitcoin to dominate as international currency. For this reason there are already some tries from banks to create their own digital cash using private and centralized blockchains. Who will be the winner is difficult to say. But if we remember something that known entrepreneur Antonopoulos Andreas had said that in the last we will win.

...a world "reserve" currency detached from local currencies...
check out the swaps the IMF are doing.. using .. SDR's. which are then converted to local currencies.
this too will be sidechained near the top of the hyperledger pyramid

but does not mean all local currencies will go and everyone just trading goods for crypto SDR's
5884  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 04:12:45 PM
If segwit reaches locked-in, you still donít need to upgrade, but upgrading is strongly recommended. The segwit soft fork does not require you to produce segwit-style blocks, so you may continue producing non-segwit blocks indefinitely. However, once segwit activates, it will be possible for other miners to produce blocks that you consider to be valid but which every segwit-enforcing node rejects; if you build any of your blocks upon those invalid blocks, your blocks will be considered invalid too.

This is the general behaviour of a soft fork: if a majority of miners adopts a soft fork, as a minority miner, you have no choice but to follow, or become insignificant.

what your quoting of my quote of a quote.. is:
1. breaking the "backward compatible" promise - yea i laughed reading they will literally want to ban blocks because they are not segwit branded even if the data was valid

2. causes a split in the network. yep i laughed that even going soft can cause a bilateral split. breaking the promise that going soft avoids such drama
5885  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 04:09:16 PM
so you're saying the basic idea of emergent consensus that the core devs are pretending to be so freaked out about and claiming is so 'radically different'  has actually been done already...

emergent consensus  (BU specific proposal of dynamics) has not been around since day one because BU hasnt been around since day one. then again core hasnt been around since 2009 either. (it was satoshi-qt prior to 2013)

but the whole thing about "excessive blocks"(BU specific proposal) is about making policy.h more important as the lower threshold and the "FLAGGER", while making it more automatically moveable.. rather than manually movable.

in the past 2013 sipa and core devs had to manually move the policy.h and so did pools.. though nodes were not really using policy.h as the node validation of block rule. pools were reliant on it.

infact early clients had 3 layers
protocol =32mb
consensus=1mb
policy <500kb
in the early days
5886  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 03:55:45 PM
Neither has been tested on the main net.

Segwit is much more complicated which is why it required so much testing even on test net.
BU is by comparison a much simpler change.


dynamics has been tested actually..
though 1mb was the limit (in consensus.h).. much like some dynamics propose to move this to 16mb(in consensus.h)

pools have been dynamically moving their preferential block sizes since 2009.. (in policy.h) 2013 was below 500kb in 2015 it was below 750kb

so much like the many dynamic block proposals that want to elevate (in consensus.h) to 4mb, 8mb, 16mb, 32mb whatever.. there is and always has been a second limit that is dynamically moved below this(in policy.h)...

some proposals want the policy.h to have a bigger usefulness for the nodes. where the nodes flag to allow or not allow pools to go beyond X policy.h maxblocksize

good example of a previous event:
just imagine the headache if we stayed at 500kb blocks when Sipa done the leveldb bug event..
as thats the reality of the debate today. the same as the "do we go above 500kb in policy.h in 2013 eventhough consensus.h was 1mb"

p.s
my node and many other nodes have a consensus.h of 8mb right now and my node in particular has a policy.h limit of 1mb (and a few tweaks to validation) .. and im not having any problems
5887  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 03:22:26 PM
@franky1 - can this quadratic spam you talk about be resolved on native keys anyway?

yep
reduce TX sigops limit. in effect much like not allowing 0 fee tx's into blocks. not allowing tx with XXXXX sigops into blocks

but thats a separate thing to what segwit does.. moving the signature= only segwit tx's are affected and doesnt do anything for native tx's

best analogy for sgwits proposal
"we fear people will want to shoot other people in the leg.. who volunteers to be amputated so they cannot be shot in the leg or run around to shoot others"

reducing sigops.. "is like a metal detector scanner at the door. if you have a big lump of metal on you.. you cant come in no matter if you amputated or full bodied"
5888  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 03:20:06 PM
I'd like to see more reasoned arguments for segwit, rather than just fanboyism or insult hurling.
I see more reasoned arguments against segwit, and about the need for a blocksize increase IMO.

So how will users be able to move small UTXO's from native keys to segwit keys without a blocksize increase?

And is an offchain solution really bitcoin, or a bitcoin facilitator?

no one is against offchain solution as a VOLUNTARY side service
LN does not need segwit.
LN can be just a side commercial service much like bitgo or coinbase.com.

but centralising the network where it forces everyone into using LN. BIG no no

LN has a niche that some can happily use. but LN has limitations too. not everyone will benefit from it even if forced to use it.
LN is not the end solution. so treat is only as a future side service
5889  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 07, 2017, 03:12:50 PM
Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks.

on testnet.
thats like saying litecoin works because it has been tested since 2011.. but throw it into bitcoins mainnet overnight and see what happens when you try telling the world you can get to do litecoin stuff..

show me a segwit transaction on bitcoins mainnet.. oh you cant
show me a segwit block on bitcoins mainnet. oh you cant.

show me if segwit is so "backward compatible" how come no tests are done on bitcoins mainnet to show how "compatible" and "safe" it is.oh you cant.
show me segwit is letting nodes vote... oh you cant.
show me how segwit if activated stops native transactions.. oh you cant
although segwit removes automated relay of unconfirmed segwit tx's to native nodes, show me how segwit prevents MANUAL copy/paste of unconfirmed segwit tx to old nodes.. oh you cant

stop reading the 30 second elevator sales pitch of segwit and learn the real features learn the capability and their limitations and their effectiveness, learn the weaknesses, learn the loopholes and learn what it doesnt solve.

then your utopian bubble pops loud enough to wake you up

save repeating myself
LOL read the code. learn it
native keys will still quadratic spam..
all segwit does is disarm the segwit priv/pubkey users that voluntarily move their funds to segwit keys from being able to quadratic/malleate.. but doesnt disarm the native key users.
segwit doesnt disarm the network. meaning soft or hard consensus or bilateral. segwit will never be able to achieve the quadratic/malleation fix promise

they cant even just switch off native key utility after activation either because there are millions of unspent outputs based on native keys and for segwit to even work would need to allow those native unspents to be spent.

segwits 'malicious bloat/doublespend fix' - empty gesture that wont work (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)
segwits '2.1mb boost' - empty gesture that get to that expectation (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)

all segwits ability does is move blockstream to being the centralised "upstream filters"
5890  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 02:55:35 PM
When I wake up tomorrow bitcoin is still around and my coins still in my wallets, 100 years from now my coins will be untouched

dont be sure of that if blockstream get control. mimble wimble will unconfirm your funds and prune them out the old blocks and you have to really hope and pray the mimble manager puts the funds back again into a new block where the output is your address. rather then designating your funds as 0btc output to you to then claim as a miner fee or going to other parties instead as part of the mixer feature..

yep its a possibility

solution dont let blockstream centralise the network to their biased decisions
5891  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 02:31:43 PM
Can't wait to insta dump useless BTU and double my BTC holdings, just like I did with the ETH/ETC situation. That's all good BTU will be good for, free coins.

Hashing rate will follow price and Jihan Wu will continue mining Core and BTU holders will be left looking like idiots.

and after you double spend....?? ??

oh..
you will still see sigop bloat and blocks that dont reach the 2.1tx count and you realise the promises have not been met..

then you are back to where you all were before... begging to get the spam down and tx prices down just be able to actually withdraw your double spent funds...
realising you spent a whole year believing in something thats just an empty gesture
5892  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 07, 2017, 02:22:54 PM
Yup this sounds like a good theory.
would I be right in saying that really this is what Ethereum primarily is edging towards?

edging... yes
achieving.. no

banks WONT use any of the decentralised open altcoins or bitcoin as their mechanism.
banks will develop their own which they can control 100%. but have the 'automation' and security of auditing and transport of data features that blockchains offer.

in short making the world movements of 'money' more efficient. but still controlled by bankers
5893  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 02:10:28 PM
They are all brainless people who support BU, it is obvious that BU will crash the bitcoin's future and price. SW is the best solution and provides many super features.

prove it!
explain how it actually achieves fixing quadratic sigop spam 100%
explain how it actually achieves fixing malleated tx's 100%
explain how it actually achieves the 2.1x txcount boost

read passed the 30 second sales pitch script you have been handed and actually read the code/small print. you will start to see the holes in the promises
5894  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 01:46:53 PM
in short segwit is an empty gesture that will never meet its promise.

That's bullshit, go back to r/BTC to spew out youre daily FUD

LOL read the code. learn it
native keys will still quadratic spam.. all segwit does is disarm the segwit priv/pubkey users that voluntarily move their funds to segwit keys from being able to quadratic/malleate.. but doesnt disarm the native key users.
segwit doesnt disarm the network. meaning soft or hard consensus or bilateral. segwit will never be able to achieve the quadratic/malleation fix promise

they cant even just switch off native key utility after activation either because there are millions of unspent outputs based on native keys and for segwit to even work would need to allow those native unspents to be spent.

segwits 'malicious bloat/doublespend fix' - empty gesture that wont work (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)
segwits '2.1mb boost' - empty gesture that get to that expectation (requires 100% funds on segwit keys and only transacting to other segwit keys)

all segwits ability does is move blockstream to being the centralised "upstream filters"

5895  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 01:18:30 PM
what UASF (realname HBS (hard bilateral split)) is offering is that nodes become political by rjecting blocks not based on rules. but based on which 'team' a block supports.

im laughing hard that even the "backward compatibility" promise is falling apart by actively blocking native blocks by blockstreamers.

three word: desperation to centralise


P.S
the exaggeration that antpool jihan is full on BU can be easily dismissed

456112    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool xz0 5 XcS 
456097    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa4 #Y*J X'f*
456094    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa2 ' X#K
456089    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool bj11 ` X%Y
456081    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool bj11 ` X)x
456080    0x20000000    AntPool     Mined by AntPool usa2 ' X}
456065    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool usa3 Ϩ X d\
456064    0x20000000    AntPool    Mined by AntPool xz0 5 Xk
456060    0x20000000    AntPool    |Mined by AntPool usa4 #Y*J X^!iJ
456057    0x20000000    AntPool    yMined by AntPool usa2 ' Xقc
456042    0x20000000    AntPool    jMined by AntPool usa3 Ϩ XҢ?Q
^ no sign of BU spport

456092    0x20000000    AntPool    #Mined by AntPool wy/EB1/AD6/ X w
456058    0x20000000    AntPool    z#Mined by AntPool bj8/EB1/AD6/) Xmm Wb<r"%]84CK2Z"U0
456040    0x20000000    AntPool    h#Mined by AntPool bj8/EB1/AD6/) XmmmxR7]™"{M9ť}-YC    
456039    0x20000000    AntPool    g#Mined by AntPool bj5/EB1/AD6/ Xnmm:d"QN5˞[J,g<mg D

^ sign of BU support

as you can see even inside "antpool" there is still indecision either way. so stop scrapping the bottom of the barrel, looking for fake doomsdays just as a excuse to create a create doomsday by allowing blockstream lovers to bilaterally split the network rather than work WITH network consensus
5896  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 12:15:11 PM
I still don't understand UASF, since the node count can be easily gamed. What else can be done?

Run a custom Bitcoin client that refuses to relay blocks that don't support Segwit.


Not playing with these people, I would be perfectly happy to kill Antminer, Antpool and any others who want to treat the activation mechanism as a political tool.

WAKE UP
it was blockstream that bypassed user consent by going soft!!!
now they want super hard bilateral.
again avoiding safe hard consensus which is what the general community want
5897  Economy / Speculation / Re: Jihan Wu crashes the Bitcoin price on: March 07, 2017, 12:08:19 PM
UASF is a hard BILATERAL SPLIT
there is no real thing of "user activated soft fork", thats just buzzwording games

in short
soft=pools only
hard= NODES then pools
save repeating myself:
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

yep even in a pool only vote, bilateral splits can happen.

do not take one "teams" fake rhetoric of softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario.. as thats just the 'brush it under the carpet' gameplay

real funny thing is blockstream know Soft consensus failed them
but instead of doing the next best thing. a hard CONSENSUS.. they are wanting to jump straight to the thing they prtended going soft would avoid.. going for hard bilateral split.

shows how desperate they are..

just remember one thing. segwit RULES do not fix the network.
people can just avoid using segwit priv/pub keys and continue using native priv/pub keys and still do sigop quadratic spamming and malleation. even if segwit was activated as a soft consensus, soft bilateral, hard consensus hard bilateral.

in short segwit is an empty gesture that will never meet its promise.

the desperate moves by blockstream to go full 'wetard' and jump straight to hard bilateral rather then give in and do what the community want(hard consensus).
and the desperation of gmaxwell to beg the community to go bilateral.
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--
along with his sheep script readers desparately trying to make it sound like its not blockstream that want bilateral splits... reveals that blockstream want be be centralist controllers rathr then going hard consensus and just being on the same playing field as non blockstream implementations
5898  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What will happen to Bitcoin if IMF & World bank create ON WORLD Currency? on: March 07, 2017, 11:54:18 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
5899  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Creating A System of Online Peer To Peer Bitcoin Bank Accounts on: March 07, 2017, 01:18:17 AM
OP

the banks and blockstream devs are working on it in the HYPERLEDGER project
where banks using hyperledger will have their own sidechains for each bank. and then from what i can see LN or some othr blockstream dev coded thing allowing hops between bitcoin to the hyperledger sidechains.

5900  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs on: March 07, 2017, 01:14:23 AM
xyzzy099: I think the fact that Bitcoin is not physical, can be pretty easily owned, can be bought and sold with little friction, can be electronically transferred, has an abolute cap in quantity, etc. - all the things we know and love about it that make it so much better than physical gold - are the reasons it has a chance to persuade the fiat markets where physical gold has failed.

forget stalling/halting its tx/s ... that wont affect fiat.

how about something revolutionary...
we stop basing bitcoin on the Dollar value.

wait. dont through my post aside read on.

imagine we measure bitcoin against COST OF LIVING. (minimum wage hours for instance)

and make it so right now its ~160 hours (equivalent of ~$1200 now) so no real big disaster change.
then slowly let the fiat markets realise:

160 cuban hours or 160 nigerian hours come at different fiat value.
thus let the fiat markets arbitrage each other until cuba nigeria, ukrain, (180+ countries) duke it out arbitrarily until it forces fiat of all countries to even out to each other. where peoples living costs and value of labour and life all stabilise...

that alone would change fiat markets perception of bitcoin more than stalling a bitcoin code feature.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 ... 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!