Bitcoin Forum
February 17, 2020, 12:26:47 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 ... 878 »
6301  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When SegWit Will Be Implemented? on: February 08, 2017, 05:24:14 PM
Why does it takes so long?
We need faster confirmations.

segwit does not solve that.

SegWit add more transactions to the block, that would help.

firstly segwit guarantee's nothing.
when activated. nothing changes.
users have to wait for yet another implementation release that offers the actual p2wpkh/p2wsh key utility
AT VERY BEST .. IF 100% of users used p2wpkh/p2wsh keys instead of legacy(old) keys, expect maximum of about 4500tx instead of ~2500

but here is the thing
spammers, scammers and bloaters wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys. so dont expect 4500tx a block
even moral people take months/years to upgrade their implementations. so even after it activates dont expect noticable rises anytime soon

and lastly. the mempools is very often full of more than 4500tx unconfirmed at most times. so many transactions are still going to be waiting even in the utopian statistic of 100% dream utility.

segwit is just an empty gesture kicking the stone down the road
6302  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: When SegWit Will Be Implemented? on: February 08, 2017, 05:10:38 PM
Why does it takes so long?
We need faster confirmations.

segwit does not solve that.
6303  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How many times has China, Banned bitcoin / "raided" bitcoin exchanges? on: February 08, 2017, 05:09:32 PM
edit
i now see the topic was meant for satire / reverse psychology, hinting subtly that china still allows bitcoin



ZERO bans, zero raids

if the question was
how many times have regulatory inspectors done regular inspections. the answer is often.

if exchanges are handling chinese FIAT they have to follow chinese FIAT rules.
holding part fiat, part crypto does not give a business magic fairy dust to avoid fiat rules of the fiat they hold.

6304  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Help me with poll about bitcoin day... on: February 08, 2017, 04:51:56 PM
genesis block . it just makes logical sense
6305  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: IBM and Dubai Government initiate blockchain logistics initiative on: February 08, 2017, 02:25:27 PM
yet another hyperledger advertisement.

im starting to think we should create a whole new subcategory in the altcoin section for the bankers to talk about their hyperledger plans.
6306  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Adam Back thinks he is the inventor of Bitcoin on: February 08, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
adam backs involvement in bitcoins invention is the same as a cavemans involvement in the combustion engine.
yea a caveman invented fire, and without fire a combustion engine cannot work.

but adam backs hashcash is DIFFERENT to the ACTUAL PoW bitcoin uses.
yes there was some inspiration. but adam back was not directly involved in coding bitcoin in 2008-2013,

adam back is just playing the caveman card by trying to get fame for something losely connected to him

all adam back wants to do is beat his own chest to make people think he is worth investing $90m dollars in
the thing is adam back is not finding it easy to repay investors. and those are getting antsy about repayments and plans of commercialising things like elements/bitcoin to get some funds back.

6307  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: More than 50% of SegWit support comes from one miner on: February 08, 2017, 12:31:02 AM
Telling lie won't give you any advantages. Many miners support segwit not only Bitfury.
Now 100% of unlimitedcoin support comes from 3 person: Roger Ver, Gavin Andressen, Mike Hearn. That is not decentralization at all. Besides only altcoins shills support unlimited because they feel like failure of Bitcoin helps rise their shitforks.

funny thing.
its only core that want altcoins.
they love their monero, they love their elements, they love their litecoin, they love thier future sidechains.
they even love asking other teams to not stay as one network

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--

but non-core teams refused to split off and make an altcoin. they prefer to keep the network in one piece

.. mic drop. boom

6308  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 08, 2017, 12:12:49 AM

Right now I'm pro segwit because it is a sensible refactoring and optimization, regardless of whether it includes transaction malleability fix or not and the fact that it does enables lot so potential solutions to real scaling because onchain scaling is not a thing. I don't care who wrote it or who they work.
'onchain scaling is not a thing' ??
im guessing you dont understand bitcoin or LN.. lets read on and see if you have done any research about consensus, about LN, about multisigs. about anything you actually need to know to for you to have an informed opinion.

The argument on core's side (and core != Blockstream) are around avoiding a hard fork, which will cause orphan drama in a split consensus, and enabling off-chain scaling, which is essential.

1. the paid core devs ARE blockstream, the unpaid devs are loyal interns hoping to get a blockstream job. you can tell due to their lack of objection to obvious flaws wrote by blockstream paid devs
2. consensus=agreement with small risk of temporary orphans.. NOT a split.... a split is not consensus. learn consensus vs bilateral split. try not to pretend consensus causes splits.
3. core want other implementations to bilateral split(non-core object to this). core just scare the community saying non-core will split to play the victim card. while under same breath begging non-core implementations to bilateral split. but non-core wont split off intentionally.

The arguments of BU seem to be that Blockstream will have too much power if segwit activates and the unrealistic dream that getting rid of the block size limit will somehow mean infinite and therefore free transactions for everyone. Also Ver seems convinced that more usage = higher price which ignores velocity and isn't necessarily true. Supply and demand still applies no matter what.

1. the argument of the rational community (much bigger than just BU), so dont attempt to make it just a bu vs blockstream thing..
2. many rational bitcoin community people care more about bitcoins consensus, not the failed banks FIAT value. the failed banks are going to hyper inflate anyway. where a loaf of bread will eventually be $2000. smart people dont care about fiat value, because inflation of fiat is killing fiat all by itself

Some things that strike as being lost are
- Blockstream does not need Segwit to implement LN so if it's just an attempt to force them into a dynamic blocksize in the hope of sabotaging their ambitions it won't work and may give a more consumer orientated business or altcoin the opportunity to use the infighting in BTC to take that market.

agreed segwit isnt needed for LN. but segwit is a stepping stone for other features that give blockstream the upper power. EG the way blocks will be formed would require blockstream gate keepers UPSTREAM to filter the data out to the downsteam nodes. (fibre is already becoming the pools gatekeeper)
other stepping stones segwit leads to is sidechains.. yep blockstream want altcoins aswell as the LN commercial permissioned hubs. aswll as being the network gatekeepers (as gmaxwell calls fibre, the 'upstream filter'

- Dash, ZCash, the banks, the likes of Microsoft, MPesa and governments aren't sitting still. I'd rather Blockstream made money and used it to invest in the network than Bitcoin fail for being sanctimoniously pure about things that new users won't give a shit about. There's too much expectation of something for nothing.

you do know that letting blockstream succeed is helping them get more involved in hyperledger (the bankers chain)

- They also don't have a monopoly on LN. There's already multiple implementations competing as well as other solutions like in the works if they make too much.
- If they become a hub, so what? It takes load of the main chain and lessens the power of miners.

miners should not have power anyway if core actually cared and used consensus. again im thinking you need to learn about real full consensus..
blockstream paid devs decided to avoid real consensus by going soft. the reason. if it works they have slipped in their control stepping stones without nodes consent. if it fails they can play the victim card blaming the miners. yet it was them that decided to give miners power. so shouldnt
blame the miners if the miners disagree

So long as I am still in full control of my BTC that is fine by me.

you need to learn about LN and learn multisig. dont be fooled by the word twisting like "birdirectional". and instead realise your funds are put into
a joint account where you need a counter parties permission.. and if that counterparty is a hub.. essentially they are a bank. authorising their many customers payments

- Users of transactions who don't care about about store of value or who don't even know their money is going through a blockchain will use the cheapest and fastest, whether it is LN or Litecoin. Somebody is going to make a business acting as trusted third parties to enable consumers. Get over it.

agree with that statement above. but we should not be just letting LN be the end goal of bitcoin.. only let it be a side service for niche users

- Onchain can never scale to a remotely large number of transactions. It's a O(n) increase to an O(n^2) problem. Has nobody in the BU/XT/Classic camp ever dealt with internet level scaling and knows what O(n^2) means because I never see it this debate, just politics of Ver vs Blockstream.

1. the community is much wider than your attempt to just plop people into bandcamps.
2. also the fake scare of quadratics is fail because any malicious user who wants to make quadratic tx's still can after segwit activation.. they just avoid using p2wpkh keys.
2. thus segwit doesnt end quadratics. the real solution can be found in other ways. such as limit how many sigops a tx can have.

There's a reason a lot of smart software engineers and architects said BItcoin wasn't scalable and why there's been conferences call SCALING BITCOIN every year with some of the smartest people working on it: because just letting the blocksize increase ISN'T SCALABLE. Was that all a waste of time because we could just bump the max size?

lol shouting fear of growth by using fake stories of gigabytes by midnight and billions of users by midnight.. is a failed and flawed argument to intentionally hold up real onchain natural growth, and only done to promote the centralised commercial services as the end goal.
natural growth scaled over decades where natural adoption occures over decades shows it can work. but i bet you will scream the "not overnight" empty argument

- Miners want high fees so why do BU people think that they will choose to mine for free. How exactly is BU going to lead to magical times and free transactions for everyone?

pools dont care about fee's. fee's are just a bonus. pools care more about having a functional and spendable network to spend their rewards. without doing anything to the network that would cause pools efforts to get orphaned. fee's are not a concern for decades.

its blockstream that are desperate to push users into commercial hubs so that blockstream can repay their banker investors

- The BU code might be the best ever but changing the consensus rules of everyone setting their own parameters is untested and the game theory is a lot harder to get right than the code. A straight 2mb upgrade I'd be happier with. Segwit only alters the rules slightly by tipping the weight of UTXOs

a straight 2mb is just a tmporary gsture that lasts no time at all.. mempools already contain more than double a blocksize of unconfirmed tx's so its not really giving any breathing room. secondly after 2mb. its then another long beg/grovvel and treat devs like kings for more again. instead of letting nodes decide for themselves.
please learn consensus

If Bitcoin is to grow at the rate of a network (n^2) it has to have an extra DIMENSION of scaling even if we let the blocksize increase linearly, either vertical through a second layer like LN or vertically through side chains or through some mathematical enabler of Log(N) like MimbleWimble.

if a sidechain (an altcoin) can be vertical.. then obviously tx count vs tx count would allow bitcoin do the same after all an altcoin is limited by the same internet and hardware as bitcoin..
so i see this as a failed argument. if a sidechains computer and internet can cope. then internet and computer is not a problem for bitcoin. (logic!)

Blocking Segwit seems to be just anti-Blockstream paranoia or a ploy by miners to keep the fees up for as long as they can.

Can someone explain the BU solution to all these issues because it seems to be let's just increase the blocksize according to some convoluted rules and see what happens because segwit is bad m'kay?

Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution

lets summarise
1. segwit promises 2.1x tx count - reality only if 100% of people use segwit keys(not gonna happen)
2. segwit promises end quadratics - reality bloated spammers loving quadratics simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
3. segwit promises end malleability - reality double spending scammers simply wont use segwit keys. thus segwit has solved nothing
4. segwit promises end double spend - reality blockstream added new double spending methods(RBF/CPFP/CLTV+CSV). thus segwit has solved nothing.
5. segwit promises tx fee discount - reality blockstream removed reactive fee and added fee average. pushing the price up to offset future discount.

as for solutions.
the reason you see no alternative solutions in blockstreams moderated github bip list is because the bips have to go through blockstreams CTO's
approval process atleast twice officially. and in reality more like 3-4 times. so lack of seeing anything in the bips by non blockstream friendly devs does not mean there are no bips/alternatives. it just means gmaxwell 'takes one look at the computer screen.... and its gone!'

lastly. dealing with your final sentence of:
'Unless an anti-segwit person comes up with and implements a real alternative scaling solution '
segwit is not a solution. its a tweak that offers a temporary empty gesture. but leads things into a direction away from bitcoin scaling and only into altcoin and offchain commercial permissioned scaling.

p.s
dont be a sheep script reading and just throwing insults that i must be in bandcamp A,B,C or d.. instead be wise. do some research into the topics and learn
consensus vs bilateral splits
multisig permissioned contracts
sidechains(altcoins)
6309  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: BitCoin Volatility on: February 07, 2017, 10:15:26 PM
you ask, how can they stop volatility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_curb

if price drops X% a trading curb can be used.
though there is no official guidelines for bitcoin exchanges to use this. it is a well known tool in the fiat markets.

we have seen some exchanges halt trading during huge dumps. but no official policy requested it, it was more of a moral decision by the exchanges
6310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: More than 50% of SegWit support comes from one miner on: February 07, 2017, 09:58:37 PM
but non of satoshis 'vision' was mentioned just 100 server nodes all using one brand of software.
so dont assume satoshi wants centralisation.. of one brand of software and low amount of full nodes.

non of satoshi's vision of server farms should be of concern for decades if ever. so halting growth now pretending that just rational node capable growth leads to server farms by midnight. is also twisting his words.

i prefer there to be a dozen brands and many thousands of nodes..
yet core are happy to just want Fibre to be the gate keepers filtering data downstream and just have other nodes as simple relayers. where its Fibre that do the real validating and filtering.

node consensus allows natural growth which nodes can handle, while not hindering growth or node count. thus the natural balance of growth can happen without being 'servers' anytime soon.

but ofcourse devs want to be the king decision makers
we need to start thinking that nodes should decide and devs are just the employee's/workers.. not the other way round
6311  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: More than 50% of SegWit support comes from one miner on: February 07, 2017, 09:37:48 PM
Bitfury.  

Somehow this does feel like 'decentralized' to me.  

start digging into BTCC aswell .. the other segwit supporter
and see all the ties of the knot to blockstream, coinbase, coindesk, litecoin,
6312  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin developers future plans ? on: February 07, 2017, 06:45:34 PM
rather than segwit. which only benefits those that use segwit keys (meaning malicious people just avoid segwit keys to remain malicious)
rather than LN. which only benefits those that use LN (meaning malicious people just avoid LN to remain malicious)

i see a new 'priority formulae' being used onchain of bitcoins mainnet.
this is what i see as the logical punishment for bloating/rspending spammers. whilst rewarding moral normal transactors

one which includes a CLTV voluntary option. where users gain priority points if they voluntarily agree to put their funds into a 1-day maturity. but those avoiding the one day before respend or have bloated transactions pay more to get into a block sooner.

EG
if you really need priority you agree that once confirmed you cant respend for a day.
it also means you can be selective of priority. by only putting a 142block wait if your happy to wait a couple blocks because it wont be priority for a couple blocks by not paying quite enough fee. allowing the age/maturity/fee variables to give a better flag of desire.

obviously those moral users that actually need to spend more than once a day could see the niche of LN as a way to transact often and cheaper.
and those that dont spend every day get priority and not need LN or to CLTV mature funds, because they are not spending everyday, anyway.

here is one example of a formulae that does not care about how much people are spending (not a rich gets priority, poor are victimised old formula), but rewards people willing to wait a day, have lean transactions. and penalises those that want to respend often or have bloated transactions



basically
if your transaction is 2x a lean tx. you pay twice as much. if 44x a lean tx you pay 44x
if you dont want to mature your funds for 144 blocks and only want to wait 1 block you pay 144x.
if the tx is both 44x bloated and wants to respend the very next block after getting confirmed then it costs 44x*144X


though my formulae is not finalised or perfect for every utility. i see how changing the priority formulae can cause more benefits for good people and penalise the bad, without making it used just to be snobby about rich vs poor. due to it no longer rewarding the rich with points just for being rich, which the old formulae done
6313  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Roger gonna tell us he made a simple transaction that cost a fortune again. on: February 07, 2017, 05:45:40 PM
Blocks will never be full again once we activate Lightning network along with sidechain technology, Bitcoin will be able to manage any possible amount of transaction and can compete with Visa and Paypal... I can not say same things about unlimited.

sidechain=altcoin
LN = offchain service.

yes they have a niche. but if you think that pushing people to the side(altcoin) or offchain service, is some how "bitcoin able to manage any possible amount of transactions" then you are not seeing reality.

you might aswell be saying
if users move funds to 'clams' altcoin and use bitgo.com multisig then bitcoin will never need to fill blocks because bitcoin is not being used.

wake up
if blocks will never be full again and people are filling an alternative chain.. then bitcoin has failed.
all because you think stupidly bitcoin would succeed by people not using bitcoin.

think rationally will you

you might as well be saying
"my marriage is a success because i stopped making love to my wife years ago, and started boning the next door neighbour and text flirting with the babysitter'
6314  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain Is Capable To Prevent All Types Of Fraud on: February 07, 2017, 01:01:03 PM
blockchain is capable to prevent all types of fraud.. until..

devs stupidly add
CSV/CLTV - laymens: 'chargeback feature during funds balance unavailable' even after confirmation
RBF - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'
CPFP - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'

i do not know what CSV/CLTV is and it is the first time i am hearing it Cheesy
edit: CLTV is CheckLockTimeVerify and it doesn't allow including in a valid block until the nLockTime is in the past so it don't work on confirmed transaction!!! https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Timelock#CheckLockTimeVerify
same goes for CSV (CheckSequenceVerify) https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Timelock#CheckSequenceVerify
can you explain why you said "even after confirmation"?

but it is worth highlighting that all these (at least CPFP and RBF) will only work on unconfirmed transactions and as far as i can remember, from day one nobody trusted an unconfirmed transaction and it was always suggested to wait for at least 3 confirmation.

no, read again...

CLTV adds a maturity period to a confirmed transaction. (much like the block rewards 100confirm maturity). this is indeed locked into a blockchain confirmed tx, not a tx sat in mempool
CLTV is different than n-locktime.

nlocktime prevents a tv getting into a block. but CLTV prevents funds being spent(by intended party) for a period AFTER getting into a block

during the CLTV maturity period, CSV can revoke the funds and send them to another destination depending on the terms(destination) of the revoke.
CLTV+CSV = analogy of 3-5 bank business days funds unavailable AFTER withdrawal(confirm) where funds can be charged back
6315  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Blockchain Is Capable To Prevent All Types Of Fraud on: February 07, 2017, 12:40:34 PM
blockchain is capable to prevent all types of fraud.. until..

devs stupidly add
CSV/CLTV - laymens: 'chargeback feature during funds balance unavailable' even after confirmation
RBF - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'
CPFP - laymans: 'replace transaction to fake a payment and double spend while unconfirmed'

6316  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Its been 40 mins since last generated block on: February 07, 2017, 11:47:10 AM
the confirmation time average RULE. is not strictly about 10minutes.

its actually an expectation of 2016 blocks over a 2week period. which for simply minds outside of the rule people in conversations say '10 minutes' to avoid the technical math waffle.

it is normal to have blocks unluckily at 40mins and luckily at 2mins. as long as the average is 2016 blocks a fortnight.
mining is a luck game so dont expect 10mins as a strict 'norm'
6317  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1MB block size forever is just silly on: February 07, 2017, 11:28:42 AM
this is benefiting miners, they have been earning more money because of the increasing amount of fess. and guess what they have been the ones holding back on adopting any solution for block size (segwit or any other things).

pools dont care much about fee's, for them a fee is just a bonus, not expected income.
pools care more about ensuring their blocks wont get orphaned/rejected. losing them the real income(reward) AND fee (bonus). so they are not going to push for something unless the nodes are ready for it.

50% node readiness = 50% orphan risk
95% node readiness = 5% orphan risk

so even though core thought bypassing a node vote would slide a change in under the rug, smart pools are not going to risk it, and are waiting to see a high node readiness even if the nodes dont officially get a vote.
6318  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Does SegWit even increase the block size? on: February 07, 2017, 11:20:26 AM
IF 100% of users moved their funds to p2wpkh/p2wsh(segwit keys) then expect at best the 1mb baseblock for their signatureless tx data and 1.1mb for their signature data(in the witness area).

core provided a buffer beyond the 1mb base block of upto 3mb(witness area) totalling 4mb weight(total possible bloat). but its not how CB describes it..
as i said if 100% utilised segwit keys expect the data to achieve 2.1mb (1mb base+1.1mb witness used) leaving 1.9mb spare.

later this 1.9mb spare space wont be used for more transaction count growth (without increasing the base). but will allow core to add in other features. such as confidential payment codes which add an extra kilobyte to a tx.

EG
pre segwit
1mb=~2100tx right now
2009-2016 total =<1mb data for ~2100 tx

if 100% utilised segwit keys and activation by 2018
1mb base=~4500tx at most
1.1mb witness=the signatures
2017-2018 total =<2.1mb data for ~4500 tx

if 100% utilised segwit keys and activation by 2018 and CPC added later
1mb base=~4500tx at most
1.1mb witness=the signatures
1.9mb buffer=space for CPC or other bloat.
2018-20xx total =<4mb data for ~4500 tx

yes they are giving a gesture of upto 4mb of 'blocksize' but not giving 4x CAPACITY

emphasis
if only say 50% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 1.5mb blocksize (3300tx due to segwit)
if only say 10% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 1.1mb blocksize (2300tx due to segwit)
which when other bloated features are added
if only say 50% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 3.5mb blocksize (3300tx due to segwit)
if only say 10% of people use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys only expect about 3.1mb blocksize (2300tx due to segwit)

6319  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Roger gonna tell us he made a simple transaction that cost a fortune again. on: February 07, 2017, 10:58:45 AM
fun fact
segwit is not active
fun fact
segwit if activated will only offers the discount if the funds were actually using a p2wpkh addresses...
fun fact
not everyone will use them
Fun fact: I've said none of those three things. Just shows how ridiculous your posts are.
ofcourse you didnt say those three things. because you dont know segwit well enough.
please read beyond the glossy pamphlets and promotional posters. think logically, critically and objectively at the small print.


-snip-
segwit solves nothing. and is just an empty gesture of spoonfeeding empty promises. not real scaling or real solutions
Segwit solves/improves several things. If you can't see that, then there is something wrong with you.

segwit does not solve the problem for the whole network. it only prevents those who voluntarily choose to use p2wpkh keys from
making quadratic tx's.. IT DOES NOT prevent malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..
making malleated tx's.. IT DOES NOT prevent malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..
making base block legacy transactions. IT DOES NOT PREVENT malicious people. because they simply wont use p2wpkh..

thus it does not solve the problem for the network.
it just give a gesture to ethical people.. like simply giving ethical people a gold star sticker and a pat on the back, while the problems
of the whole network still exist, for the malicious people who dont voluntarily use p2wpkh keys.

for emphasis
it does not fix the network or the problem it just strokes ethical peoples heads to sleep, saying they are doing their small part towards a temporary empty gesture
6320  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Roger gonna tell us he made a simple transaction that cost a fortune again. on: February 07, 2017, 09:31:11 AM
That said, the include fee-rate is 'Fee / KB 0.00362056 BTC' which translates to ~362 satoshis/byte. This is ~3 factors higher than the recommended fee-rate. Fun fact: With Segwit, such a transaction would require a smaller fee rate than the equivalent transaction creating 187 outputs.

fun fact
segwit is not active
fun fact
segwit if activated will only offers the discount if the funds were actually using a p2wpkh addresses...
fun fact
not everyone will use them

not to mention that segwit only scale to 2mb,[IF, IF 100% of people us p2w based keys] you will only fill double of the current amount of transaction,

in 1-3 years [with more than 4500 tx in mempool alot of the time 2mb] this "2mb" block will be full again, if not already, because none is telling us that more TX will not come in play if there was a 2MB block right now

it can be that many people already are deliberately not spending their BTC because they don't want to pay crazy fee...

and at that point you can't activate segwit again, and i doubt LN will be a thing because it sidesteps from what bitcoin is

fixed that for you, i fully agree with the rest

1. segwit is not going to be used by everyone. so dont xpect the TOP 2.1mb (2.1x) TEMPORARY GESTURE
2. the TEMPORARY GESTURE wont even give days or months of peace.
3. the TEMPORARY GESTURE wont be used by those intent on causing issues
4. segwits other 'fixes' malleability, quadratics, stepping stone to LN, wont be used by by those intent on causing issues

segwit solves nothing. and is just an empty gesture of spoonfeeding empty promises. not real scaling or real solutions
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 ... 878 »
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!