Bitcoin Forum
February 21, 2020, 12:50:27 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 ... 879 »
6221  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the universe/multiverses/reality a blockchain-like technology like bitcoin? on: February 16, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
satoshi QT would be the bigbang (in your story)

core would be the invention of religion trying to change things and confuse people as to how the way of life should be.
pretending they have been around since the beginning and their rule is law, their preachers are law and everyone should follow their religion


It's funny how you use whatever you can to throw your blockstream fud propaganda. Sounds like the only cultists is you by thinking satoshi was jesus christ himself.
Sorry but satoshi fucked up numerous times as we are seeing along the way, case in point:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-satoshi-messed-his-math-and-how-these-academics-just-fixed-it/
Looks like god's big bang needs fixing.


im a big bang / evolution / science guy..

i dont follow people who "trust on faith" or follow people "on faith"

have a read on this as a viable opinion to how religion manipulated the truth of human evolution with their religious 'stories'.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1600477.msg17797892#msg17797892

i dont hold anyone up as jesus.. that is the other guys kissing gmaxwells ass..

i am a realist who was just saying that core didnt jump in until 2013. yep it was called satoshi-qt before core..
core was not around in 2009-2013.

sorry to burst your bubble

though i know you have pasted an article baiting me to defend satoshi, so you can fail at proclaiming im religious satoshi follow.. i prefer to deal with facts

so lets deal with facts
if you read the article. and read the paper.
you will see that the article is using the scenario of today (mining asics variation) but back in 2009 the assumption was 1 computer 1 miner.

so satoshis white paper of 1 cpu 1 miner results in his assumptions.
yes satoshis paper is out dated because things have moved on. but that doesnt make the past wrong. it just makes it outdated.

(yes the article is about the luck of 'time' of the blocks, im well ahead of that mathematics and scenario which then funnily enough, circles back to BLOCK-height security(confirm count) making time (their argument) moot)

Quote
Grunspan does allow, however, that simplifying assumptions in a white paper is also understandable.
6222  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1MB is still silly..BU seems to be gaining traction .. :S.. on: February 16, 2017, 05:18:59 PM
blockstream have bypassed node consensus. (for many negative/hidden reasons)

Care to elaborate on that statement, because I am not aware of any method to bypass node consensus? In my view nothing will be implemented
if consensus is not reached with a 95% majority.  Huh ... If Blockstream has done this, then why are we not seeing the benefit of SegWit & LN
features? This will be interesting, if this is true.  Cheesy

blockstream only want activating segwit to be done via ONLY a POOL vote.. not the USERS NODES vote.

95% of blocks
not 95% of nodes
(soft =pools only... hard= nodes then pools)

i have already said several times. if blockstream want to give the 60%+ UNDECIDED POOLS confidence.
they need to get a pool that is 'segwit ready' to make a block including a segwit TX. to show how "compatible" the network is to not need to care about the user nodes.

right now althought user NODES are not part of the official vote. smart POOLS are still hesitant to flag desire either way without seeing what NODES can cope with. so although activation is only dependant on POOLS BLOCK flags.. POOLS wont flag until thier cautious and safety concerns are addressed

simpl solution for blockstream is to bribe BTCC with $13k (out of blockstreams $90m) to make a segwit block to see if the node network cause fuss or happily accept segwit.

then that would show how "backward compatible" blocks are.
..

but i see other issues. atleast doing a mainnet test will result in either a orphan.. or acceptance.
6223  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 16, 2017, 04:56:14 PM
They are toting coming upto more nodes available then bitcoin core.
So what does it offer to the network in terms of benefits?
This is all that the one's sending and receiving bitcoins really care about after all.
That is their bottom line. Undecided

diversity

their needs to be atleast a dozen different "teams" of devs.
where some nodes are wrote in different codes like go, bitcoinj, etc

that way if for instance there was a bug in core. the network survives.

if only core was running the network if core has a bug all nodes have a bug.

diversity to mitigate bug risks is a security bonus.
anyone screaming that core needs to be the bitcoin king, is not thinking about bitcoin security, but about corporate centralism and security weakness
6224  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 16, 2017, 04:47:06 PM
Quote
Expensive servers? Don't be ridiculous. I run a full node on a computer I bought years ago for under 0.3 BTC ($300). While using that computer for other tasks as well. Sure, at some point in the future I may need to upgrade. But 0.3 BTC is not an inordinate amount to expect someone to spend to be a first-class member of the network.
Just a reminder that Bitcoin adoption is currently growing in 3rd world countries, not 1st world.
For some reason 1st worlder are perfectly happy with WU, Paypal and their banks.
And in the 3rld world, your daily wage might be only 2$. So keep that in mind.

price of tech:
bitcoin 2009 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1
bitcoin 2013 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1
bitcoin 2016 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1

raspberry Pi v3 is several times faster, bigger. so natural growth of bitcoin can run on a Raspberry Pi v3

telecom industry have a 5 yarr plan
5G mobile network
Fibre optic land line

people change their computers on average ever 2-5 years

technology is not the issue.
bitcoin wont be "gigabyte blocks by midnight", instead it will be hundred of megabyts in DECADES

we are not going to jump to "one world currency" or "excell beyond visa" overnight. it will be a NATURAL scalable amount over DECADES.

we should not halt onchain scaling out of fear of onchain scaling.
thats like shooting self in foot intentionally purely out of fear one day you might shoot self in foot.
thats like purposefully walking into a car out of fear one day you might have a car accident.

instead we need to realise what is a safe way to do things and look how to look at what to do to stay safe.

EG if nodes have a 'speedtest' built in. they can flag what they can cope with.. which then can show what the network can cope with. and the network moves with what the majority of nodes can cope with. thus no worries of outscaling nodes. because the nodes are displaying the limits.

it takes away 3dev's being king to spoon feed what they "think" the world can cope with and instead the nodes control it.
6225  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 16, 2017, 02:57:50 PM
So instead of giving a % of the block reward to the nodes,
While that would be a good idea, that is unfortunately the way Bitcoin currently operates. Working now, and ofr the foreseeable future. There seems to be no fatal flaw in this.

if you start paying nodes.

this will cause a fee hike to try to 'incentivise' nodes while keeping the miners mining

all that will happen is 10 people running 1000 nodes each to get 1000x the income of just running one node.

this will cause node centralization (pooling nodes/node farms/sybil attack)
this will dilute how much each node receives because the share needs to be split by 10k nodes.
this will cause ethical node users(1node/head) not receiving much/anything
snowball effect causing the opposite of the hope
6226  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1MB is still silly..BU seems to be gaining traction .. :S.. on: February 16, 2017, 02:27:12 PM
The solution is already there: segwit, then once we get segwit, a blocksize increase, as suggested by all experts.

blocksize only increases if USERS move funds over from native keys to segwit keys.

but..
malicious users will stick to native keys and continue spamming. so dont expect much of a change. and dont think that the problems are solved.
segwit is an empty temporary gesture that is dependant on users using segwit keys.

blockstream have bypassed node consensus. (for many negative/hidden reasons)
if it does not activate, blockstream stupidly shift the blame to the pools
if it activates blockstream take the glory (typical bait and switch)

yet even after activation. if users dont move funds to segwit keys
if it doesnt make a difference, blockstream stupidly shift the blame to the users
if it does make a difference blockstream take the glory (typical bait and switch)

pools are not 60%+ undecided because they prefer X instead of Y. they are undecided because they see segwits HIDDEN negatives and they see the promised positives are less than whats been promised.
plus pools wont push out blocks that are only 50% validation safe by nodes so although nodes dont get an official vote, pools will wait to see what nodes do, to know what is going to be FULLY validated(i dont mean compatibly 'accepted') by the majority of the network

6227  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 16, 2017, 02:03:27 PM
It's centralization, in whatever form it is today. You claim Blockstream is the problem, but maybe in 5-10 years it will be another company.

hint: DCG
http://dcg.co/network/
"DCG sits at the epicenter of the emerging ecosystem"

to name just a few:
btcc
blockstream
bloq(gavin and garzik)
bitpay
coinbase
coindesk
circle

yes i should be attacking DCG.. but its blockstream that has the biggest tie to bitcoin code changes (followed by BTCC advocating those changes)
they are the front line of the corporate centralist agenda
6228  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we ReBrand Bitcoin? on: February 16, 2017, 01:51:25 PM
When it comes to even rebranding of a product in the corporate world, you dont just go for it because you feel like no, there are several factors responsible for that among which include getting to the end of its life cycle and to rejuvenate the interest the company goes for rebranding and even looking at it, bitcoin is not a product that reaches the end of its life cycle with a short period of time, no its a currency and currencies dont get to end their life cycle they just depreciate which in this case bitcoin is appreciating and by so reason, I dont see the need for such re-branding...

totally changing a currency.. no.
but regular subtle rejuvenations do happen..

the UK pound is still the pound.. but even the pound tries to stay uptodate


6229  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 16, 2017, 01:22:35 PM
The people working on Bitcoin Core and the people working on different LN implementations are very different. You're delusional.

^ defending blockstream yet again ^

ok based on the main people CODING LN - https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors
rusty russell(200k+ lines)
Cdecker(5k+ lines)
[not including half a dozen small spell checkers]

LN: rusty russell - blockstream employee
LN: cdecker - blockstream employee
core: gmaxwell - blockstream BOSS

gmaxwell CTO = rusty russells BOSS
adam back CEO = boss of the boss


LN is a BLOCKSTREAM project based on ELEMENTS (hint is in the url above)
segwit is a BLOCKSTREAM project based on ELEMENTS

trying to assume that LN is independent, trying to assume segwit is independent, trying to assume core is independent. is your delusion
its like your trying to fool the world by saying that Apple watch is not an apple product. by showing that the apple watch is made in a different office.. (yet reality is that the office and staff are managed by the same company)


one thing i have noticed.
very recently the 'manager' of core has shifted from a blockstream BOSS to a blockstream 'contractor'

Quote
People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr <luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

was

Quote
People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here.

but still does not mitigate the blockstream control of core AND LN
6230  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thought Experiment: Deeper dive on a gov dedicated to shutting down Bitcoin on: February 16, 2017, 12:39:30 PM
but you forgot that drugs do not have "mining", every altcoin and bitcoin that rely on pow can be disrupted easyly by a terrorist attack

this is the Achilles heel of this world, without minign you have effectively destroyed every alt, well altcoin are harder to destroy because they have gpu all over the world, not 2-3 big farm in china but still possible to cut a big hash there too

you think that there are only 2-3 big farms? and only in china......
(facepalm)

bitfury for instance have SEVERAL physical locations for the asics, that connect via several stratums to a pool.
bitmain for instance have several physical locations for the asics, that connect via several stratums to a pool.
slush for instance have several physical locations for the asics, that connect via several stratums to a pool.
and so on

in short there are ALOT more than 20 physical locations even if stats only show 20 'pools'

those pools can be run from any location and API the header data to the MANY physical farms in seconds.
take slushpool. people think its being run in china.. but actually its run from thailand.
bitfury can be run from georgia, iceland, san Fran, etc

pools have already mitigated all the current risks. and if a new law was to be created to outlaw mining. then the asic farms in an area that is proposing to outlaw mining, can hire a truck. load up their asics and move them to another location within 48 hours. far faster than it takes government to propose, discuss and vote on a new law.

again remember there are MANY asic farms per pool. so the impact of moving these individual farms vs the overall hashrate is not much.
hitting/raiding or moving a farm WONT stop cause bitcoin to stall for 48 hours. pools will still make blocks in the average timescales we expect(~10mins(2min<->1hr)).
6231  Economy / Speculation / Re: Bitcoin Price Will Spike Over 65% After Winkelvoss ETF on: February 16, 2017, 12:11:03 PM
to clarify and explain a few details:

the winkles already bought their bitcoin for their trust YEARS ago.

their ETF is not the actual bitcoin price. but a SHARE price of the COMPANY(trust) the winkles own.

do not confuse the ETF with bitcoin. they are 2 different things.

...
now with that said. when/IF the ETF is released people may convert their retirement portfolio's to include ETF shares. (not affecting the bitcoin price)
but may prompt people to SEPARATELY find out more about bitcoin and SEPARATELY try to buy real bitcoins (not ETF shares).

issues with buying real bitcoins though, is the headache of buying bitcoin, due to all the registration requirements and maximum spend limits of exchanges will limit large whales.

so the ETF can cause a chain reaction. but how soon and how much this chain reaction may cause.. is an unknown variable
6232  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Op-ed: Impossible to de-Chinalize Bitcoin on: February 16, 2017, 11:59:13 AM
Bitcoin is borderless currency so anyone can join. The so-called "de-Chinalize" is actually trying to draw a border, and the idea is not aligned with the principles of bitcoin...

Chinese market is shrinking, that doesn't concern you?

the chinese market was never big in the first place.
just Fudsters and spammers embellished and racially exaggerated 'china control' purely to cause speculation
6233  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we ReBrand Bitcoin? on: February 16, 2017, 01:01:01 AM
seems the sig spammers are just copy and pasting.

anyway.. subtle things can change without needing to change "bitcoin"



6234  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is the universe/multiverses/reality a blockchain-like technology like bitcoin? on: February 15, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
satoshi QT would be the bigbang (in your story)

core would be the invention of religion trying to change things and confuse people as to how the way of life should be.
pretending they have been around since the beginning and their rule is law, their preachers are law and everyone should follow their religion
6235  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Thought Experiment: Deeper dive on a gov dedicated to shutting down Bitcoin on: February 15, 2017, 10:24:23 PM
like its war against drugs or radical Islam and was willing to spend upwards of a trillion dollars over the next several years to combat it?

well decades later radicals still exist and so do drugs.
do you need more proof that governments cant do anything properly, thoroughly, effectively and permanently?
6236  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 15, 2017, 09:36:05 PM

Everything was debunked. You're wasting your time and ours.

segwit solves nothing because spammers and scammers will still use native keys so the 'problems' of quadratic spam, low tx count and malleability will continue.

you cannot denie that!
Looks like someone still doesn't fully understand how Segwit works. It most certainly solves that aspect for relevant TXs.


lol i made something bold. which is where you are word twisting to make it sound like it solves the problem for bitcoin but it only prevents users who use these "relevant " (segwit) tx's from doing the things that cause a problem.

but you are not realising that people wont use those "relevant" (segwit) tx's.. meaning.. in the real world.. outside of your utopia.. the problem for bitcoin is not solved.

scammers and spammers will continue to use native keys to make native tx's, even after segwit would activate.
accept the reality! segwit does not solve the problem

you have no clue, you are just a bad salesman that has only had 1 hour training on the product your trying to sell..
you have failed to sweep the real problem under the carpet. and instead done the most obvious and crappy attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet.

atleast learn something and stop just being told crap scripts to read and repeat.



right now im still laughing that people think segwit solves the problem for the whole of bitcoin. when all it does is stop the few people who voluntarily choose to move their funds over to segwit keys from performing the problems, yet doesnt stop the malicious users who will just continue using native keys.

its such a laugh at how empty segwits promises are becoming even the fee discount only moves prices down to a level of a few weeks ago. which later is not a noticeable discount due to the average tx fee price rise over time



edit
absurdly large paragraphs.

your inability to read a few paragraphs is probably the most revealing thing about you



segwit is an empty gesture. end of
6237  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Do the same Fraud Risks Apply with Bitcoin Payment Processors? on: February 15, 2017, 07:15:11 PM
its all to do with whatever service agreement terms they signed

eg if they signed to say 1cent a tx .. then mercury should only charge 1cent a tx

if however they signed to say 1cent introduction, but variable with 1month notice..
then mercury need to inform the merchant a month before going up to 4cent a tx and allow an exit of the agreement usually penalty free, unless stipulated.

it appears the merchants were not signed up to a variable fee agreement, but mercury went ahead and changed fee's without notice
6238  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we ReBrand Bitcoin? on: February 15, 2017, 02:49:55 PM
Rebrand it into what exactly and what for? Mostly only the hodlers who cant wait for this to make another rocket ship rise would want a rebrand. To be frank, thats what I hate about the idea. Maybe its how we should think about BTC thats to be changed.

Before any image concerns for BTC, first miners and developers should agree how to fix the scalability matter.

if you dont want a rebrand. then why say hodler or BTC..  you should use holder and Bitcoin.

i hope you see that we dont need to change "bitcoin" the network consensus protocol name. but we do need to think about the terminology of the common concept of the words within bitcoin. to make bitcoin more easy to explain and roll off the tongue in common conversation
6239  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin support on: February 15, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
So i just sent $1000 worth of btc to electrum wallet. When I tried to send, it said i needed password. and that was just a test wallet. so now i have lost $1000 because there is no such thing as bitcoin support. great.... so how are people insured if someone types the wrong address, adds a zero, or forget their private key. Why did satoshi not think of this?

if you want a company to "manage" your funds.
use something like coinbase.

blaming satoshi for human error is like blaming a gold miner for why your aunt forgot where she put her necklace
6240  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Should we ReBrand Bitcoin? on: February 15, 2017, 02:06:24 PM
Bitcoin have lots of history, especially as the first cryptocurrency and some people have heard about bitcoin. If we rebrand bitcoin, it's not much different from using altcoin and we have to start promoting again from zero.
We better try harder promoting bitcoin to other people even though it's not easy rather than change the identity of Bitcoin.

its not about renaming bitcoin.. its about branding.

EG Apple is still apple. but they went from just a computer/music device to the phone device and now smart watches.
you can gt them in gold, silver and pink.

this does not mean Apple is now "Banana".

as for bitcoin

EG instead of lengthy public keys. promotional material should concentrate on QR codes. or even NFC methods of making payments
EG instead of btc, measures in 'bits' should be common
EG instead of 'wallet' the term 'keyring' could be used to describe where the privkeys are stored.

analogy:
gold is still gold, but..
instead of gold bar promotional material concentrates on circuitry, ingots, jewellery
instead of tonnes measures of ounces and grams
instead of goldsmiths the term reserves, vaults could be used to describe where gold is stored

its about the understanding and utility of bitcoin that needs to be tweaked not about 'using altcoin'
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 ... 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!