Bitcoin Forum
February 26, 2020, 01:03:42 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 ... 880 »
6141  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are Chinese bitcoin investors that gullible? on: March 03, 2017, 04:47:45 AM
ICO=pre-mined coins

majority of pre-mined coins are pump and dumps.
it does not matter how many coins are produced or any of that. unless a coin serves an actual purpose and actually has places to use a coin. its useless.


This brings me to this question. If an ICO coin or token has serves some actual purpose in its own platform like how Ethereum is used for "gas"to run smart contracts in the platform, would you say that kind of "use" is justifiable to not brand it as a pump and dump or ponzi scheme?

if ethereum cannot function without gas. and if ethereum too has an actual use. thus making 'gas' essential and usable for something real.. then yes it passes the usability test that it can survive beyond some fabricated promotional period.

but if its just a Kenyewest coin. created for no purpose but to have a famous persona brand name.. and wont survive past a promotional period, because people cant use it for anything real. then treat it as a pump and dump coin/novelty.  not as a asset
6142  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 03, 2017, 04:28:01 AM
I never knew about attack blocks.

lol
now learn about orphans and consensus.

attack blocks happen most days for the last 8 years.. they are dealt with by the mechanism that has always existed
6143  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 03, 2017, 02:39:27 AM
Ver is not a programmer. Just another rich man.

part one of the video (tony veys) is not a programmer nor much of a holder.
part two of the video (johny, linked above) only has one commit and again isnt much of a holder/spender

i think both videos lacked anyone that could satisfactorily defend blockstream/core, or where those blockstream defenders are actually personally highly involved with bitcoin.

but hey thats just the social drama of peoples C.V not really the context of their opinions. which the context of which team is actually thinking about actually fixing issues.. BU wins.

segwit is an empty gesture that results in just centralising the network with its upstream nodes but still leave bitcoin unfixed.
(malicious people will continue using native nodes and manually copying/pasting segwit tx's to native nodes to open new attack vectors that core have opened up if segwit activates)
6144  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What do you think about blockchain powered cars? on: March 03, 2017, 02:27:19 AM
imagine a way of using LN hub to move funds from your 'contract' through the departure location 'contract' (to trigger where you want to be picked up from) and then through the destination location 'contract' and then finally to the Uber /taxi service.

then you can also do things like the 'contracts' can pay micro amounts to the locations of departure/destination as a thankyou for offering their parking space for the few minutes of being picked up and dropped off. aswell as paying the Uber/taxi service that owns the autonomous/diriverless cars.

also because it requires settling. other conditions such as revoking/settling the 'contract' can be done by promising the service gets paid and ensuring he gets paid by getting you there, or revoked if the car didnt turn up. (much like an escrow)


also would work with public bus services
6145  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 03, 2017, 01:59:21 AM
anything can be a currency. even cigarettes in a prison.

its top of the umbrella of financial terms.
below the umbrella are a multitude of subsets/categories.

money being one of those sub categories.
if you cannot spend it and its not recognised by a community or certain populous, then its not "money".



bitcoin was, is and will always be an asset currency
but the "money" subcategory becomes iffy if bitcoins UTILITY becomes dampened/stalled/halted/prohibited/functionless
6146  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 03, 2017, 01:35:35 AM
the ~2.1mb POTENTIAL that segwit offers is:
only 4500tx/~2.1mb IF 100% of users have moved funds to segwit keys. and continue to only use segwit keys (not gonna happen)

its not going to change right at activation day.
its not going to change just by using a specific node.

it will only change when people move funds to a segwit key and then use segwit keys only,
and only grows at small amounts depending on how popular the use of segwit keys are UPTO the max POTENTIAL



so lets explain it. in regards to impact on tx demand

the mempool is nearly always well above 4500tx of unconfirmed tx's(2mb) in the mempool.
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=1year
ever since october the lowest the mempool has been was 3mb+(meaning 4mb DEMAND if you include the 1mb that do get confirmed)

there is also currently 47million unspent outputs that would need to be spend to move everyone over to segwit keys
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set


so even if segwit activated lets say tonight.. nothing changes.
lets say people downloaded segwit nodes and took a few days to sync
and then lets say EVERYONE (even the holders from 8 years ago) moved their funds to segwit keys.

do you understand the congestion it would cause to get funds moved to segwit keys before full benefit of segwit can be seen
imagine it everyone trying to move funds all at the same time...



then once everyone moved across.. that >3mb+(average demand) after everything has cooled off, results in still not enough even with the 1.1mb extra "boost" segwit offers

however just increasing the blocksize to 4mb without the bait and switch will alleviate things and people dont need to move funds to special new keytypes to see the benefit.



segwit REQUIRES people to move funds to new special keypairs that are not tested on bitcoins mainnet and do offer a new attack vector by manually copy and pasting the segwit keys from a segwit node to a native node and then messing with it as a 'anyonecanspend'

yep core might filter out tx's being sent automatically by a segwit nod to native node. but they cant stop manual copy and pasting between a segwit node and native node.



in short. segwit opens up new attack vectors. doesnt guarantee 100% utility of segwit and doesnt disarm the malicious users.

p.s my over use of HR lines are for those with short attention spans who fail to read code/literature about how bitcoin works simply because 'its too long'
6147  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Roger Ver massacred by Johnny (from Blockstream) on: March 02, 2017, 11:42:34 PM
segwit does not fix malleability.
segwit does not fix quadratics

segwit just disarms those who choose to move their funds over to segwit keys.. that is all. it still does not fix the issues across the network or across the blocks.  because sigop spammers and malleated double spenders CAN and will continue to use native keys. meaning problem not solved

please take more time understanding bitcoin and less time defending humans paid by blockstream.
after all in a few years the humans will move to different projects but bitcoin wil remain. so care more about bitcoin not the temporary humans

in short, if you have spent more time researching a humans linked-in employment history and wiki edits of their career, rather than reading or researching code. you have only failed yourselves
6148  Other / Politics & Society / Re: About politics on: March 02, 2017, 09:35:06 PM
a VIP can be anyone.
it all depends on the other people that perceive it

VIP is not a designation given to someone unanimously across the world. it is given to a person for a specific reason for a specific event or niche group of people.

EG. at disney world, a child with cancer using their 'make a wish' has a better VIP status than lets say vladimir putin, or gmaxwell or kim jong un.
but at a DGC sponsored closed door 'satoshi roundtable' gmaxwell has a VIP status and a kid with cancer wont even be allowed to attend even if it was the kids 'make a wish'

EG for months /years a firefighter visiting a restaurant in NY would have got VIP status due to the events of 9-11. but these days a kid celebrating their birthday gets higher VIP status at said restaurant

VIP status is temporary and can change. a couple decades ago Bill clinton was seen as a VIP, but now just seen as a hugh hefner wannabe
6149  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain / Smart Contract / Bitcoin etc. in Construction Building? on: March 02, 2017, 03:15:32 PM
crazy idea.

there are 5 styles of a residential house.

when a land owner starts selling property. the styles of residence have their own address.
then when people buy them the funds log what property type needs to be built and the funds via an automated bot splits up the amounts to cover labour materials, admin, legal costs etc.

EG
order a 5 bedroom house. and Xx btc goes to a materials supplier to order yyyy the bricks. X goes to the office to start the paperwork of applying for permits.
all done automatically via smart contracts. where the funds can be automated to make sure funds are not siphoned off by unauthorised staff
6150  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC low fee taking days (or more) on: March 02, 2017, 02:12:10 PM
we do not need to push the fee war today
You make a valid argument as to why the pools don't care about the fees right now, but then when will do the care about fees. When do we need to push the fee war?

any time between 2 decades and a century.

by which time those blockstream employees hopefully have moved on to hyper ledger and gave up spoiling bitcoin. to allow real onchain NATURAL and rational scalable growth which will allow more REAL transactions onchain via native transactions without centralisation. so that instead of 10 people paying $$$$$ every 10 minutes. its thousands of people paying pennies to total $$$$$ every ten minutes.

and dont let people start telling you about gigabytes by midnight or visa by noon. as those are 2 year old fools fearing fools scripts that have been shot down.

natural growth over time should not be stalled today and baited with crappy one time gestures of empty promises.
natural growth done by the nodes selecting what they can cope with so that the nodes dont suffer is far better than being spoonfed by devs with one time gestures that dont solve anything but push blockstream centralistic commercial services
6151  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC low fee taking days (or more) on: March 02, 2017, 12:03:41 PM
I hope segwit does get activated, but we are going to need bigger blocksizes and a rethink over transaction fee handling, otherwise Bitcoin is going to implode under its own mass.

segwit activating does not fix the issues it promises to fix.
pools using segwit nodes does not fix the issues it promises to fix.
users using segwit nodes does not fix the issues it promises to fix.

segwits 'fixes' only affect users using segwit KEYS.

the issue is that you have to move funds to a segwit public key. meaning that the transfer transaction is not a true sgwit transaction.
the only people that fully benefit from segwit are by those who are using segwit keys.

inshort segwit only has a benefit if 100% of people use segwit keys

using native keys is possible after activation. meaning malicious people can still do malicious things to blocks.
even funnier part is even though segwit has things like transaction 'filters' to stop certain things getting relayed. and also sets up the network where segwit nodes are centralised as upstream filters(gmaxwells own buzzwords) including having the fibre network as the centralised ring-fence gatekeeper of the pools.. segwit opens up a new attack vector.

a malicious user can actually run a segwit node. and perform NEW attack vector. simply manually copy a unconfirmed segwit tx from a segwit node mempool and paste it into a native(old) node and mess with the segwit transaction.

segwits 'promises' are empty gestures.

segwits removal of reactive fee's , removal of priority, addition of average fee, addition of fee filters has ruined their 'discount' bribe people thought they would get. because it just makes using segwit slightly cheaper than now because the fee's are rising so fast that the discount is not going to cause much savings for long for instance if at activation the "average fee" is $1.. then at best the discount brings it to 25cents. which we all know was an average fee just weeks ago. not years ago.

the removals of reactive fee's, and adding 'average fee' along with all the min fee filters. are aggressively pushing fee's up even during times of low demand
6152  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC low fee taking days (or more) on: March 02, 2017, 08:51:11 AM

With the price up and trading going up, fees are skyrocketing. Transactions a few days ago took hours which was too long. My now it's been 24 hours and still 0 confirmations. Besides the major annoyance and risk this causes, is there any way to fix BTC? I don't see it surviving unreliability.

Bitcoins transaction fees don't have to do anything about its survival in this cryptocurrency world. This problem is just coming up when the block size reached its limit, which, can't process more transactions because its current size can't handle too much. By increasing the block size, the transaction would be fast again, though, the fees are going higher like the bitcoins price.

And I can't see anything bad about this transaction fee, though this is like a tax on the bitcoin world, in order to keep this world cycling, we need a money(fee) so that bitcoin would keep on cycling and surviving everyday, and without the fee, we can't process obviously any transactions and I know we don't want something like this.

pools DO NOT CARE about fee's!!

pools do not see fee's as a needed income, but as a bonus.
do not assume that its pools causing the issues.

pools dont need fee's for a couple decades so saying its ok to push the fee war today has nothing to do with helping pools 'security' and helping them 'survive' becaus right now the block reward is their income they can happily live on, and will continue to happily live on for decades..

we do not need to push the fee war today
6153  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BTC low fee taking days (or more) on: March 02, 2017, 08:37:40 AM
the problem with cores idea of fee's is not controlled by code..

kind of funny that devs removed code rules.. yes version 0.14 has totally removed the priority mechanism.
yes the priority mechanism wasnt any good as it just favoured the rich more then the poor in its formulae. but they never bothered to actually be real devs and envision a new formulae that actually does help solve the issues that causes the problems and also havnt been code devs to treat people more fairly rather then act like banker economists that punishing the innocent aswell as the malicious with the stupid 'just pay more' empty minded mindset..

so to save me re-writing what i have already wrote

we should think about changing something real simple.
the tx priority formulae to actually solve things like bloat/respend spam. where by the more bloated (tx bytes) and the more frequent (tx age) a spend is made. the more it costs.

imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise.. which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding every 5-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor but about respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending for an average of 24 hours.

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae which was more about the value of the tx

here is one example


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain.
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending often you pay the ultimate price

yes its not perfect. but atleast lets think about using CODE to choose whats acceptable. rather than playing bankers economic value games of rich guys always win, or the bankers ecomonic games of 'just pay more.. that way we are no longer pushing the third world countries out of using bitcoins mainnet.



the other problem recently is that core changed the fee calculations by miners from being reactive to demand.. to be done using an average estimator, which is proved by math to be biased to increase even during low demand. this needs to go back to reactive
6154  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Technical Support / Re: Is waiting 24 hours for an inbound transaction to clear common? on: March 02, 2017, 03:56:32 AM
you should see it as a unconfirmed transaction very quickly.. but getting confirmed has become less guaranteed recently
6155  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Are Chinese bitcoin investors that gullible? on: March 02, 2017, 03:25:04 AM
ICO=pre-mined coins

majority of pre-mined coins are pump and dumps.
it does not matter how many coins are produced or any of that. unless a coin serves an actual purpose and actually has places to use a coin. its useless.

treat ICO's as penny stocks (pumps and dumps) only throw a penny at them, and at most just the same amount you would waste on fast food that just gets flushed away in the toilet 6 hours later.

and as for all governments that all make the standard investment advice of "investors should consider it as carrying a “high degree of risk”. and not to expect guaranteed returns or profits. because you can make a loss aswell as a gain"
6156  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 02, 2017, 02:56:40 AM
I admit that I still try to wrap my mind around the technical discussions about Bitcoin but knowing that there is politics involved here still makes me doubt what the hard fork to BU, Classic or XT is really all about. There has to be something like a power grab here. Also the argument that the Bitcoin Unlimited developers are not as good as the Core developers and contributors deserves notice.

until you read the code and grasp the concepts of bitcoin. you will be stuck in the social drama of politics.
dont be so easy to grab onto some human and kiss their ass because of X or Y.
one day that human wont be here, but bitcoin will. so care more about bitcoin and less about the human

learn what the code does and let the code help you make your decisions.

core code is not a simple fix. its about changing the network topology and favouring nodes (centralising)

other implementations such as xt, classic, bitcoinj, btcd, bu and half a dozen others  are not about kings or gaining control of the network. they ALL want to use consensus to have all implementations on the same level playing field where nodes have the independent decentralised power, not devs not miners.

the whole point of bitcoin is that its not reliant on some central team of decision makers

so instead of playing the social games of which team is better. instead think.
let there be many teams so that none have power and only the nodes form a consensus of what should move forward.

that way the 'teams' become more like workers rather than managers. where the teams work to find the best solutions to bitcoin problems. instead of fighting to be kings and herding sheep in only a direction they want
6157  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Altcoin Learnings: SW kills LTC + HF makes ETH strong -> Bitcoin path written? on: March 01, 2017, 11:55:44 PM
stop thinking HardFork only= altcoin creation!!!

even a softfork can create an altcoin. and core have admitted they will and can by showing how segwit filters data and black/white listing nodes

a consensus is DIFFERENT than a bilateral split(altcoin creation).
ethereum was a bilateral split and intentionally split because the nodes added a ban opposing node connection rule --oppose-dao-fork

a hard consensus just causes orphan drama and a SINGLE chain after the orphan drama subsides where the small minority just wont sync at all and left dead.

orphans prevent a second chain co-existing. the only way to get a minority to survive is to literally ban the opposing nodes so that they can build ontop their minority without worry of orphans shutting them down.

sipa learned that lesson the hard way in 2013 with the leveldb bug he created.
6158  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 01, 2017, 11:11:41 PM
  Regarding BU people are more concerned about the risk of an technical problem. 

The opponents of BU are small block advocates that prefer the average user be
able to run an LN node for hop charging profit, rather than be able to transaction on chain.. and are more
concerned about having transaction fees pay themselves rather than pay for security
in the future even though that concern is decades away.

While I fully disagree with both of those reasons, at least they have some inkling of plausibility.
However I haven't seen any credible argument for the possibility of a technical problem with BU.

 

FTFY
6159  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What happens if BU fails VS What happens if SegWit fails on: March 01, 2017, 10:50:01 PM
^ look at him talking about something he doesnt understand

segwit only works for people using segwit keys. anyone sticking with native keys can still cause signop issues within blocks.
the only way to avoid sigop issues in blocks is that 0% .. ZERO .. again ZERO(emphasised 3 times) users have funds on native tx's.

segwit does not disarm native transactions so sigop and malleability will continue.
segwit only disarms the innocent that voluntarily move funds to segwit tx's.. it does not disarm the malicious users

segwits 4mb wight is not a real 'feature' that all bitcoin users get to benefit from.

firstly only IF 100% of users use segwit keys, they would notice about a 2.1mb transaction one time boost.
the other 1.9mb is spare and unusable for anyone until future features ar added that append trivial data to the end of a tx for things like
confidential tx's

if the base block sticks to 1mb. the max expectation is ~4500tx with 2.1mb weight.
then if confidential payment codes and other features append data.. its still 4500tx but bloated to take up the spare space of the 4mb weight
6160  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Peter Schiff being an idiot on national television on: March 01, 2017, 09:46:31 PM
when speculators pretend to not hold bitcoin but have a negative opinion on bitcoin right at the point of bitcoin rising. its because they just sold and are now gonna fud stuff to tank the price.

never mentioning the technicals just something financial that will affect the price so they can buy in cheaper again and rinse and repeat.

soon we will see many more gold bugs(holders) talk about how bitcoin is bad and gold is good. not because their right but because they have gold and they want bitcoin and will say how great their gold is while in reality getting rid of their gold.

the best advert to sell and get rid of gold is to tell people how great gold is and offer them some to slowly get rid of what their holding
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 ... 880 »
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!