Bitcoin Forum
February 23, 2020, 11:24:09 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 ... 879 »
6181  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Would you support a hard fork to increase block size by 0.2MB? on: February 24, 2017, 03:32:37 PM
And Ethereum is good for something: to remind us the hard fork is something that needs carefully prepared - politically, PR-wise, call it as you wish.

Hard fork is not a good solution, it can split the bitcoin network into two or more just like ETH and ETC.

a hard fork is not the exact same as ethereum..
even soft forks can cause intentional splits.

ethereum was an intentional split

to save repeating myself
in short:
soft=only pools vote
hard=nodes and pools vote.

then there are sub categories of good or bad of each

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

if you want to talk about the ethereum style of for. that was a hard BILATERAL(intentional) split.

but also remember there is code in bip 9 to allow a soft bilateral(intentional) split too.

yep gmaxwell confirms even in a soft(pool only) event bilateral splits can happen too
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) 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.

and when active. segwit pools will still actively ignore non-segwit pools
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/
Quote
Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a hard-fork as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by Bitcoin users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a hard-fork would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.
this is them talking about doing bilateral splits in a soft (pool only) flagging event.

ethereum was not consensus. it was bilateral. --oppose-dao-fork (forcing nodes to BAN opposing nodes and avoid consensus)
6182  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Would you support a hard fork to increase block size by 0.2MB? on: February 24, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
knowing the mempool is usually always filled with atleast 2000-4000tx's minimum... 0.2 extra is stupidly low. and is not even going to make a noticable difference.

why bother programming an implementation and spending time waiting for loads of people to download it to get to a NODE consensus of high majority for a one time 0.2mb boost.

if there is going to be a new node consensus required implementation release. it needs to be variable (dynamic) that way we are not relying on any dev's to spoon feed stupid amounts. but where the network can find an agreement on the amount, due to nodes having the ability to adjust amounts independantly and flag what they can cope with. and having consensus move the network forward naturally by the community (node consensus).. not dev overlords

P.S
i presume this topic is just to bait a narative that by mentioning a stupidly low amount the OP will twist it to say 'oh look lots of people are saying no'
where by the OP will then say 'looks like the community is happy to keep it at 1mb'.. but the debate is not about keeping it down. its about HOW to make it naturally grow without dev overlord control
6183  Other / Off-topic / Re: nullc reddit account suspended 2/23/17 What's the story? on: February 24, 2017, 04:35:02 AM
edit

poor gmaxwell moved a post away from another topic so people were less likely to read it.
more twisting the narrative to fit his scripts
but i put the post back in its place as it refers to the twaddle he was rabbiting on about in that topic


gmaxwell you spent many conversations in that 0bin trying to pretend matt corallo is not an "employee" of blockstream.

yet again many people see your half twisted wording.
just be honest

matt changed from "employee"  last month and is now "employed" by chaincode labs but remains a 'contractor' of blockstream under the title advisor and his "employment" at blockstream is not terminated. just set to on sabbatical/contractor

you could save yourself alot of trouble by just being honest

https://blockstream.com/team/   (scroll to bottom - advisor)
http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/08/08/chaincode/
Quote
Im excited today to announce that, for a few months this coming fall, I will be taking up residency with Chaincode Labs in New York on sabbatical from Blockstream. Even more exciting - were looking for people to come join the fun!



in short. if matt corallo is not part of team blockstream do 3 things.
1. take him off the listing of team members of blockstream
2. dont give him access to your blockstream product 'elements'
3. or admit he is still involved in blockstream .. and man up and say so
6184  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is this a plausible theory for a network spam attack? on: February 24, 2017, 03:21:36 AM
lets pretend the miners are doing it.

they would not lose a penny

think about it.

the block they produce containing transactions THEY create. means they get their fee's back.
they dont even need to relay their own transactions to other pools. they just add them only to their own blocks that way other pools who solve blocks inbetween dont nab the fee's, because they dont get them pre block solution..

by having a pool fill its own blocks with its own tx's. when getting accepted/confirmed leaves other pools tx's left in their mempools. causing a back log.
along with blockstreams fee average mechanism then pushes the fee estimation up, which makes everyones tx's more expensive
6185  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 24, 2017, 02:01:37 AM
allocating scarce resources efficiently

its only scarce because your boyfriend gmaxwell told his underlings to hold scaling back
fee's are on the increase because your boyfriend gmaxwell took away reactive fee's estimation and implemented average fee estimation (mathematically proven to increase even in low demand)
now in version 0.14 he is even removing priority formulae.. and not even bothering to replace it with a priority mechanism that actually does a better job at reducing spam or punishing the obvious repeat spammers/bloaters while still allowing access to rational, normal transaction flow.

you and gmaxwells mindset is not about code rules to fix bitcoin issues. but playing crappy banker economics games of holding back supply to create demand for commercial services.

if you think bitcoin is about out pricing each other until only a few can actually use bitcoin then you have been spooned by your boyfriend too much.

maybe its time you just jump into gmaxwells bed full time over at the monero hotel and stop popping by bitcoin. because we can see your not actually interested in staying with bitcoin

6186  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin core is only programmed by satoshi? on: February 23, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
In my opinion, Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency, and it is a kind of payment in different aspects of business. According to the bitcoin experts here bitcoin also was invented by the group of programmers under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. Correct me if I'm wrong.

no satoshi was one person. but satoshi didnt work alone.
only one person used the satoshi pseudonym. but that does not mean that he wrote every line of code and invented all the concepts that built bitcoin

it was a patchwork of many concepts from many people. but satoshi as one person pieced it together. he then got other people like hal finney, sirius etc to help him refine it. but hal and sirius and others did not use the satoshi pseudonym
6187  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin core is only programmed by satoshi? on: February 23, 2017, 01:32:53 PM
Legend is that Satoshi worked on the puzzle alone.
Then later, Satoshi contacted others for input that contributed to the whitepaper (Wai and others).*
After the whitepaper was released, one other individual came along to help Satoshi build the software (Sirius).**
After the foundation was established around mid 2010, many others appeared to help contribute (Gavin and others).

Bitcoin Core is the most recent version of the software, starting around 2013.

Satoshi never contributed to Core (that we are aware of).
1st Client: Bitcoin-Satoshi
2nd Client: Bitcoin QT
3rd Client: Bitcoin Core
Satoshi may not have contributed to QT either.

The following should help answer some questions:
https://bitcoin.org/en/version-history

^ this is the most factually accurate.
just to add a few clarifications
*satoshi did inform his 'references' that he was developing something that used parts of their concepts, though they did not really get back to him.

**by February 2009 there were a handfull of devs helping out. (hal finney was there within the first week of bitcoins public release in January)
by the end of 2009 there were over a dozen+
6188  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 23, 2017, 03:00:25 AM
sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.

You re so mean wiping away others

Sweet Wishes


im frank (meaning: get straight to the point)

if i wanted to kiss ass and dream utopian dreams of over promises and sales pitches of features that dont do as intended, id call myself something else.
if something has a problem you dont solve it by sticking head in the sand
if something has a problem you dont pretend the devs are not to blame
if something has a problem you dont continue to treat the devs as gods.

as soon as people wake up and realise that, the sooner devs realise the community have been lied to and are actually not happy. and the devs hopefully change their ways.

at the moment devs are soo busy trying to stroke their sheep to sleep that they are spending less time fixing problems and more time thinking there is not a problem and leaving them free to do what crap they like.

everyone needs to realise that there should be no gods of bitcoin, devs come and go. kissing their ass wont help... it just makes them feel empowered to mess up and get away with it.
the devs should be treated as employee's of bitcoin. not managers
the nodes are what control bitcoin not the devs.
6189  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction Fees are SPIKING ! on: February 23, 2017, 12:27:06 AM
lets imaging we had a onchain block boost at 2012 due to something satoshi was thinking about back in 2010.

then we had another onchain block size change that was lets say the equivalent to doubling at each block reward having event..
(you can argue and cry all you like about timing and amounts. but just go with this scenario)

now imagine we slap anyone that thinks larger fee's are good and instead kept fee's at lets say 5cents
now imagine DEFLATION didnt move at 10* or 100* every 4 years but instead just 2*(yea low number to play devils advocate), just to keep the reward and bitcoin price on par.

lets see how much pools will earn over the next 40ish years per block



oh look in 36 years+ the pools will be getting over $127K for ~10 minutes work all without having to push users into spending anything over 5 cents a tx
shockingly positive, i know! but i hope it opens your mind to do some scenarios of your own. without being biased to push for LN or pushing to increase fee's to rule out developing countries from using bitcoins mainnet as bitcoins end game

also noting that world wide stats of fiat = people only spend fiat 41 times a month average. (convert to bitcoin tx count) 226,578,732 people to use bitcoin mainnet
yes there are some users that will want to spend 20 times a day.. and that is where they will VOLUNTARILY use LN as a NICHE side service.
but those that only spend less (once a week/month). will use bitcoins mainnet, as they see no benefit of LN

which if you look at world fiat spending stats. reveals that the IRREGULAR spenders vs REGULAR spenders ratio... covers ALOT more people
which if you put that ratio to the bitcoin mainnet tx count and do some maths of a months tx count.
means that in 36 years.. when technology naturally grows and nodes NATURALLY CAN COPE. and LN being just a side service. will all allow over 1billion users to happily hold bitcoin and spend regularly or irregularly without costing large fee's

now here is a little extra thing to think about.
bitcoin will not be a one world currency for 7-10billion people..
for many reasons.
imagine bitcoin only grabs 5% of the worlds population (relax, that is still making bitcoin one of the top 5 "nations" statistically)
you will see that bitcoin, in rational and natural growth, without having to push for large fee's, without having to force people to use LN. without having to halt bitcoin growth.. CAN COPE!!
6190  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction Fees are SPIKING ! on: February 22, 2017, 11:41:34 PM
Increasing the burden of every full node operator, who must keep a complete list of every transaction in the history of Bitcoin, so someone can buy a coffee... is unreasonable.
lol increasing the burden?
8 years of tx data can fit on a memory store the size of a fingernail
the validation of transactions and blocks can be done on a $50 device

yep we are not in 2009 no more.
we have larger capacity microsd card..
raspberry Pi is now raspberry pi 3.

Finally, calling everyone who disagrees with you a "corporate shill" is not an argument. It's as bad as assuming everyone who wants bigger blocks ultimately wants to increase the 21 million coin limit because inflation will be the only way forward to pay for network security when there is no longer any reason to keep the block size small since only a handful of corporate operated full nodes will exist due to the amount of resources required for massive block chain upkeep when every transaction under the sun is written directly into the fucking permanent ledger!

technology has move way way beyond what was available 8 years ago but you advocate holding blocksizes back because........
oh the fake doomsday of gigabytes by midnight.
wake up to reality. it will be gigabytes in 50 years, not 5 minutes

nodes using consensus will naturally scale a dynamic block based on what NODES CAN HANDLE. so it grows naturally over time.. not leading to centralisation!. not leading to gigabytes by midnight. learn consensus

at which time a gigabyte block will have the same 'feel' as 1mb today. people will have petabyte data storage. and be laughing that 50year prior(now) people thought 100gb was HUGE.
much like right now we look back 20 years and laugh when people thought 3gb hard drives were huge

Holliday
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 and tell activision to never invent Call of Duty, because it requires 50gb storage on average per year(updates, patches, new releases) and the online mode needs atleast 20x dialup speed.

your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell apple to not invent facetime in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell microsoft to not buy skype in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed
6191  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Double spending attack on: February 22, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
Hello friends i am much worried ...
2 days ago one exchanger send me btc but still not confirmed.Few minutes ago my transaction had reversed back to exchanger account.
what is a double spending attack or not?
and how payment reversed.and now a time double spending attack is possible?


seems you got your money back
seems you are just curious why it came back and wondering should it have came back

short answer if the transaction is not confirmed after a while it just drops off the network as if it nver happened.
it appears coinbase noticed this(in green) and gave you the balance. so you are back to where you were, no loss no gain.

the main reason a tx doesnt get confirmed is that the tx fee isnt high enough. there is no fee that is a 'guarantee' and at the moment the devs are arrogantly avoiding a proper working 'priority' formulae/code to sort the issue. all they are saying is "pay more" like bitcoins limited blockspace should be treated like an auction house whre you have to declare a higher bid then others for a chance.

6192  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Transaction Fees are SPIKING ! on: February 22, 2017, 10:34:37 PM
Transaction fees MUST replace the block subsidy to secure the network.
Yes, transaction fees must replace the block subsidy.  So under which scenario would more fees be generated?

in a couple decades!! not any time soon

stop faking the need for high fee's as if your trying to hug up to pools. they dont care about the fee's, they see it as a bonus not needed income
stop trying to be subtle about promoting commercial services like LN.

you will end up being the sore loser later when you think you can make income being a LN hopper, but no users will use LN hops due to the fee's per hop.

the scripts are becoming too obvious. the bait and switch doom and utopia stories are too obvious.

higher fee's hurt users.
higher fee's hurt the unbanked adoption
higher fee's are just a bad and rotten way to convert people to think commercial services as the future.

i feel sorry for how badly you have sold your soul to centralist corporations.
6193  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 22, 2017, 08:32:48 PM
Lauda your tolerance and persistence is commendable. However your effort is wasted. Selectively ignoring about 4 bitcointalk trolls in this argument will make your life much more enjoyable and any discussions regarding scaling much more useful as it increases the signal to noise ratio to about 100x higher.

sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.
6194  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 22, 2017, 08:30:45 PM
You are diverting attention to what I was taking about. Read your post, and read what I was talking about. I was not talking about throughput, but solely about quadratic hashing.

what your failing to understand is that segwit wont stop anything.
you can pretend it solves things and is 100% utopian fix. but its not

quadratic hashing still will occur after segwit is activated.
6195  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 22, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
So what does happen if someone chooses to not use Segwit 'keys' and decides to create extremely expensive transactions? Nothing, they still can't create a TX/block that it significantly (or adequately) bigger in order for the 'attack' to work.

if an attacker makes a 1mb bloated non-segwit tx. then the block is filled. again.. the block is filled(repeated for emphasis) and no one else can get their transactions into the block.
doesnt matter what size the block could have been or is.. its filled. end of

thus even if you have X thousand users using segwit.. their transactions are still held up in mempools, unconfirmed.

= segwit is not a remedy. its just taking the guns away from the innocent and dumbly thinking that will solve malicious gun crimes. yet malicious gun crimes are still happening because malicious people still have a gun to hold people up.

segwit doesnt magically make the block 2mb.. its all dependant on what type of transactions are in a block that offsets posible expansion of block capacity of that specific block at that specific time.

if all transactions are native block is at 1mb..
if 50% transactions are native that specific block might be 1.5mb
if 0% transactions are native that specifit block might be 2.1mb

but if a spammer fills a block with native transactions.. segwit users cant do crap
6196  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not "Just" increase the block size? on: February 22, 2017, 07:33:14 PM
Segwit fixes things that would be useful to upgrade the block size. So first segwit, then blocksize increase. All the people that know how bitcoin works agree with this. Only paid /r/btc trolls and greedy chink miners are opposing segwit.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

seems 2 blockstream scripters wanted to spam the same script in different topics.

Blocksize increase without segwit first = stupid:

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

So let's get this done (segwit activated, then block size increase eventually and LN), or keep complaining about bitcoin's lack of updates.

funny thing is that the tweet is out dated (9:53 am - 20 May 2016) the tweet was wrote before segwit even had a release candidate
the tweet was wrote before people actually properly tested segwit to realise it does not stop attackers.

seems they need to update their script or learn what segwit can and cant actually achieve rather than qouting people who have "fame" but no actual experience of what they were promoting at the time.

andreas is a goodman, but he promoted segwit before understanding it in reality
6197  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: We will never be able to convince them with argument. Fork now. on: February 22, 2017, 07:21:39 PM
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

So let's get this done (segwit activated, then block size increase eventually and LN), or keep complaining about bitcoin's lack of updates.


funny part is pereira is quoting andreas from LAST YEAR. before segwit was even a release candidate. LOL
he might as well be quoting someone from 1930's saying flying cars first then travel to the moon second
6198  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why not "Just" increase the block size? on: February 22, 2017, 07:11:16 PM
1. segwit does NOT solve sigops attacks.. sigop attackers will still use native keys after segwit is active. segwit is not the solution it promises because the bypass is soo easy (just continue using native keys)

2. putting in a tx sigops limit does help. which can be sorted out in any new consensus event, thus not something only "segwit" can fix,

3. the schnorr signature concept can also be added to any new consensus event. again it doesnt need "segwit" specifically

seems many silly people think that segwit solves everything.. and also stupidly think nothing can be done unless segwit is done first.
in both brainless thoughts.. they are wrong
6199  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Can BTC be the major currency ? Maths says NO on: February 22, 2017, 02:37:32 PM
OP done bad maths.

derivates are not real money.

looking at other stats.
broad money is what you should be looking at


80900000000000.00
2100000000000000

1 sat = ~4cent
6200  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 22, 2017, 08:58:40 AM
If you don't want to do that, broadcast your cosmic background spam on a less valuable blockchain.

let me guess your gonna kiss gmaxwells ass like last year and start advertising monero as the replacement for bitcoin.

real funny thing about blockstream scripters
complain that only the chinese are making bitcoins but reprogram the fee estimator to give miners more coin(pools dont care about the fee's. its a bonus, not needed income)

pretend to complain about miner control but only give miners the vote (but fail because miners are more ethical and are willing to wait and see what nodes choose)

pretend to care about the community but only implement code changes for benefit of commercial services(only benefits companies wishing to set themselves up as hubs)

pretend to care about the community. yet stunt real growth of bitcoin and then have the arrogance to say bitcoin cant cope.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 ... 879 »
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!