Bitcoin Forum
February 20, 2020, 06:39:01 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 ... 878 »
6401  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: For what are input scripts? on: February 03, 2017, 04:33:15 PM
in very simple terms

input contain transaction ID's and other data to locate where the funds came from. (lots of bytes needed) (plus value)
also requires signatures, which add on extra bytes to an input.

outputs are just destination addresses (not so many bytes) (plus value)

however output scripts can vary in length too if they are including contract conditions. but generally a input is longer than output due to need of more data to locate source of funding and show proof its spendable

however the input bytes:output bytes ratios will change once future features are part of bitcoin
6402  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 03, 2017, 04:20:47 PM
Here is a good and simple comparation chart on Bitcoin unlimited and Segwit and why Bitcoin unlimited is a shitty option compared to going the Segwit route:



It's pretty obvious that Bitcoin unlimited is an stupid and unnecessary risk that would ruin the project.

LOL wow show a pretty picture.

please learn consensus.
nodes should have the power, not miners not devs.

its CORE that has avoided true consensus. but luckily thats why 60% of pools (not funded by same group as blockstream(DCG)) are waiting for nodes to have decided even if core think nodes shouldnt decide.

pools wont push for something that nodes wont fully validate and accept. (yes they can accept but right now 50% cant validate segwit)
but core think validation is not important hence why they are stroking the sheeps wool to say its ok for the sheep not to upgrade nodes.

which ends up leaving (right now 50%) of nodes unable to fully validate the new feature. which pools know is an issue.
it should have been a node consensus first, pool consensus second.

core dont care because they have FIBRE that make core the gatekeepers of the network (oops i mean upstream filters) where other nodes are less important and basically there just to relay and store data (in cores eyes)



but by doing a hard(node then pool) full consensus event.. would have meant while getting nodes to upgrade, those node users would have asked for core to have dynamic block code included(2 birds one stone event). which ofcourse core would refuse.

but by going soft, (pool only) half consensus event.. core are left waiting for the undecided pools to be confident about the node count of full VALIDATION, before pools will even flag to make blocks that include segwit.

cores motive.. if things go wrong in CORES strategy. blame the pools. if it goes right. core take the glory. (nice bait and switch)
6403  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin on: February 03, 2017, 04:04:00 PM
The price fluctuation is normal for a emerging commodity asset

sorry had to correct that for you
6404  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin over active at the moment on: February 03, 2017, 04:00:52 PM
I've got 2 core 0.13.2 nodes.

i know you dont love BU/XT/classic and other implementations.
but atleast find some core nodes that are uptodate and addnode them. thus you are not delaying yourself by only limiting your exposure to the network of leachers who are not uptodate, which can then cause you to not be uptodate
6405  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 03, 2017, 03:37:20 PM
Why would they work on that specifically when they have provided a near-future 'solution' temporary gesture?
fixed that for you

You mean working on Rootstock, Lightning, Mimblewimble, Joinmarket et. al = not working on Bitcoin? If you think that, you don't even understand decentralization.
you do realise what LN does... its a contract AKA permissioned funds locked in. and even after settlement confirmation there is a few hour-days maturity lock (like banks 3-5 day balance unavailable(CLTV maturity)) and changes of the counter party revoking funds while immature(like banks chargeback(CSV revokes))

please learn these things.

mimblewimble wants to have something similar to CSV revokes, to take random peoples outputs, spend them (in a mixing service) even without the peoples consent. and then people have HOPE the mimble wimble manager puts the exact same amount back into peoples addresses. thus making the old block empty of unspents (oops i mean UTXO's) so that the old block can be pruned while offering a mixing service aswell.
yes it seem god the glossy pamphlets says pruning and mixing in one.. but you have to understand your allowing a mimble manager access to move your funds without you.. to achieve this.

also mimble wants to add confidential payment codes (oops confidential Pedersen commitments) which would make a standard say 450byte tx be well over 1kb.. even if the number of inputs/outputs dont change. = BLOATED TRANSACTIONS

this is why even after segwit is activated, which lauda knows only BEST expectations of this one time gesture offering 2.1mb (if 100% utility) the other 1.9mb of weight. is not to further allow more transactions.. but to allow the BLOAT of CPC (oops confidential Pedersen commitments)

yep best expectation if 100% of people swap ovr to use p2wpkh or p2wsh keys is
~4500tx for 2.1mb
later
~4500tx for 4mb but with CPC

but i do not expect to see ~4500tx when looking at the real stats of how fast people move funds or how fast people change over to new types of keys

p.s. i now expect a explosion of personal attack trolls trying to get people not to read the context of my posts. rather than rational replies rebuttling the context by showing real knowledge of concepts and code (eg 'your wrong because troll')
6406  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 03, 2017, 03:29:31 PM
i have even asked hm to learn some basic concepts that dont need code skills such as consensus vs bilateral.
-snip-
Fun fact:
Standard orphans are not the same as the invalid block which was mined by a BU pool the other day. Yet you keep pushing this pseudo-explanation of the situation. Roll Eyes

more buzzword nonsense.

firstly an orphan does not need to have a parent rejected for the child to be an orphan.
EG a parent can exist and still live.. but decided to give up the child.. for the child to be an orphan.. so even rejects can in real world life, be an orphan.

yep rejects are orphans too. (once you get away from cores buzzword nonsense and think about things in real life laymans english)

Bu's block was thrown aside in 3 seconds.. end of drama.. just like other rejects
the problem was not the block.. but CORES excessive banscore. which over reacted and banned nodes for handing it to other nodes.
the simple thing is without the banning of nodes.. the reject would still have been a reject and nothing different would have come of it.
(gone in 3 seconds)
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)

it was a non-event, until it was over dramatised due to excessive banscore utility by core nodes which is cores failure where CORE would have been the cause of a bilateral split by CORE banning nodes when CORE didnt need to ban nodes.

6407  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 03, 2017, 03:15:28 PM
Let's do a quick recap...  Roll Eyes
So who is supporting BU on bitcointalk:
1. Rawdog - freak, who wrote many times that bitcoin is dead, failed etc.
2. Classicsucks, with his recent coming out...
3. Franky - infamous troll.
At least from what I see Franky has some knowledge to back up his claims and stance against SegWit I don't see many people here capable or high level discussion about scaling.
You will have to say something more that "franky is a troll' to disprove his arguments which seems solid enough for me.
Obviously your knowledge is very impaired if you consider a fair amount of his posts to be "solid enough". Usually it's psuedo-knowledge, even though they make a decent point sometimes. Characters shouldn't be discussed much anyways; it doesn't help either way.

lauda is attacking my personality. which i dont care about.
but lauda himself admits he does not know c++ to have read CODE.
i have at many times asked lauda just to learn some basics.

i have even asked hm to learn some basic concepts that dont need code skills such as consensus vs bilateral.

if lauda can only attack my personality, but cannot attack the CODE/concepts of bitcoin. then lauda needs to spend less time with social drama and more time learning about bitcoin code, concepts, diversity and bitcoins ethos.

so far i have only seen lauda jump into a debate when it concerns devending DEV's .. not bitcoin.

we should not be upholding devs as kings/rulers. bitcoins network consensus is what matters, and pools/devs human dcisions should not.
pools/devs should be treated as bitcoins workers.. not dictators/leaders.

anyone wanting devs to rule bitcoin are missing the point of bitcoin. and it doesnt take need coding skills to understand that rational and logical concept.

P.S
lauda thinks my knowledge is pseudoknowldge because i am not trying to sound like a geeky ass hat using cores 'buzzwords'

for instance if i wanted to be a medical doctor. i would learn everything and then translate it to laymens. and i would refuse to tell a patient they had a microcardial infarction to show off my knowledge.. instead i would just say . dude your hart stopped for 10 seconds.

that way what happened to the patient is factual but in a manner the patient would understand.
my comments lack the buzzwords simply because i translate it down to laymens to help the community.

yes gmaxwell hates it when i call his "Confidential Pedersen Commitments" simply 'confidential payment codes'
but to common man my layman term resonates better to common understanding.

i previously just used 'intentional split' instead of 'bilateral split' but received alot of backlash because i was not buzzwording, so just to shut the trolls up i use the term 'bilateral' and ask the community to learn its meaning

i previously just used 'majority agreement' instead of 'consensus' but received alot of backlash because i was not buzzwording, so just to shut the trolls up i use the term 'consensus' and ask the community to learn its meaning
6408  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: So who the hell is still supporting BU? on: February 03, 2017, 03:08:24 PM
I would like to see more developers getting off their asses and start writing some code.

you do realise that there are over 12 implementations.

unless you have read the lines of code. stating something is amateurish, is just falling for the scripted speaches by core.
the RECKED campaigns against xt, classic, bu, etc are not about the REAL lines of code. but about the SOCIAL drama of people.

EG
6409  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin / Blockchain in connected furnitues (IoT)? on: February 03, 2017, 03:02:09 PM
but i have to ask.
you keep mentioning the word "furniture"

do you mean like a sofa or table in someones home.
do you mean like a sofa or table manufacturer building such furniture
do you mean like a electronic household furnishings such as TV, room heaters, window blinds, fridges.

please give an example of what you are specifically asking for. EG pick a piece of furniture. or what you mean by the furniture. using it, making it..

I mean the first one...sofa or table

before even asking about the need of blockchain needed in a table of chair. you have to ask about any currency
why need to put fiat into a table or sofa
why need to put gold into a table or sofa.

the idea's i have come up with

table.
at a restaurant you fund your restaurant table with funds (like a bartab). that table is reserved for you. the waiters know you can pay the bill and you can just move funds across when you order specific items. thus no issue about not paying your bill or embarrassment of card decline when on a date.

sofa.. hmm.. lets instead choose movie/orchestra/music venue chairs. buying a ticket puts funds into the seat. thus unlocking a physical electronic padlock that releases the chairs vertical position for you to unfold it and sit in it.

ok lets look at sofa.
imagine sofa's only last for 10 years of sitting on before people ware them out rubing their ass into the chair to need to replace it. or imagine for health and fitness you want to penalise yourself for sitting on a sofa too long.
each hour on the sofa costs a few pennies. which over 10 years adds up to cover the cost of a new sofa. (self funding/saving up).
it also makes those trying to stay fit to remind themselves to do exercise if it starts costing them something to sitdown for an hour.
6410  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is Bitcoin over active at the moment on: February 03, 2017, 02:27:08 PM
My new wallet went from 24 hours behind to 25 hours behind. I switched to the old wallet on my main computer, and that doesn't seem to be catching up either. I'm on public WiFi which is reported to be giving me a 30Kb connection. This has been fast enough in the past, but it looks as if it may be struggling at the moment.

If Bitcoin traffic is going to increase, then I may have to rethink my approach to running a node.

problem may also be that you admit(in another topic) that you are overtly happy to use the node ban hammer too much. meaning you probably are not getting a good supply of reliable nodes to sync from.

try searching for other nodes that are upto date.

search bitnodes.io for nodes that are upto-date that meet your "favourite brand" criteria. and "addnode" them.
6411  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: As it turns out, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi! on: February 03, 2017, 01:54:34 PM
Craig wright is a flake just like John Nash and the others, until someone comes out to spend a single coin of Satoshi I wouldn't believe. Why is this craze for unnecessary fame ? I'm sick and tired of it!!

its all fake drama
instead of asking the real questions about what concepts and code changes have been discussed at the roundtable.
those close to the corporate elite want to distract you with this kardashian-esq social entertainment drama of 'the round table will reveal the real satoshi'

making sheep think the only thing to discuss concerning the round table is this social 'who is satoshi' crap.

6412  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin on: February 03, 2017, 01:38:10 PM
main issues common people have:
1. usability:
    lengthy addresses
    many decimals
    no easy way to mentally calculate value without having double check exchange rates

2. spendability:
    fee war has priced bitcoin of its utility out of developing countries where it costs more than an hours wage to use bitcoin
    lack of a community push to ask their own local merchants to accept bitcoin (sitting on hands hoping a hero will fly in with the sales pitch)

3. the community:
    people want to exaggerate the benefits and brush the limits under the carpet.. rather than solve the problems and be honest about the benefits.
    this leaves people feeling they have been 'over promised and under delivered' and leads to frustrations.
    there is no need to tell people already using bitcoin, 'its great' instead we need to understand the issues and solve them. 'make bitcoin great again'.

now with that said
point (1) above can be solved with concepts such as NFC hardware wallet smart watches. where sliding the device over a sensor signs a tx. without
revealing the private key and without needing to manually type in lengthy addresses or long decimals.. simple 'swipe and pay'

point (2) above can be solved by fixing the priority calculation to make tx's average waiting 2-3 hours AFTER confirm* for whats deemed natural spending habits by using CLTV maturity in a new priority calculation. where those that need to respend more than once every couple hours could/would use LN as a voluntary side service.
*2-3 hours AFTER confirm formulae could, with the right motives be a few days maturity AFTER confirm. knowing LN would be a utility for many tx a day.
thus those only spending once a week dont need LN. because there is no 'every block respend' spam onchain.. thus natural balance is restored.

point (3) above can be solved if people started finding other bitcoiners locally and arrange meetups (no cost just agree to meet at a cafe/bar) and discuss which stores/merchants locally they desire most to accept bitcoin. and organise that they locally offer a service to that merchant. it can be as simple as offering that merchant an upfront fiat 'bartab' and the merchant
then merchant shows customers a qr code or use a bitcoin NFC point of sale system. thus the merchant takes the fiat out the bartab and the bitcoin goes to the guy who paid the bartab. no risk to merchants.
emphasis on local people seeking their local merchants doing it, instead of sitting on hands waiting for code to grow feet and a voice to do the work
6413  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 1MB block size forever is just silly on: February 03, 2017, 12:46:52 PM
this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's


though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)

in a world outside of america/europe. 0.01btc for instance can be a weeks wage and 0.001btc can be multiple hours of labour.
for the unbanked developing countries we should not be considering something spam, purely on the basis of how much is spent, but on bloated transactions and transactions that are spent too frequently outside what appears normal spending behaviour.



bitcoins 'priority' calculation are no longer appropriate, many pools dont even use it anymore.
the calculation of:
(value *age) / size. does not help anyone. because someone with 1000btc can respend multiple times an hour fee free. but someone with only 0.Xbtc has to wait weeks or pay a premium. victimising the poorer nations effectively
thus it only makes it a calculation beneficial for the rich.
the 'priority' calculation needs to change to be more about bloat and age. and not about value.



eg knowing that the blocksize limits how much data is allowed. a new calculation needs to have considerations of making there be a points system for blocksize vs tx size. more so then making the value the consideration changer
 so that the leaner the tx size is, the more points are rewarded. which when blocksizes increases. would make the leaner transactions earn more points for staying lean.

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
this means if super lean you can spend funds every 7 hours with priority. but being bloated (100k blocks) you have to wait months.
this then makes bloated transactions PAY MORE to make up for the missing points.



it also means that rich spammer cannot bypass it by just moving a larger reserve for free.
ofcourse my example can include extra variables. such as if people voluntarily put in a CLTV maturity of X blocks to show they wont respend for atleast X blocks (because CLTV prevents it) they can gain extra points too

EG
((blocksize/tx size)*age)*CLTV confirms.
=((1000000/226)*6)*6      159292
=((1000000/226)*6)*7      185840
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389

which is an example of someone who naturally may want to spend every couple hours. where their funds are only an hour old.
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
dont have to wait >6 more hours
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
they can just voluntarily tell the network they are happy to lock themselves into a 1hour 20minute maturity after the respend.
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389
to get priority.

meaning if you volunteer that you are not going to respend those funds for 8+ confirms. you get priority. which mitigates the respend every block true spam. because this calculation averages a 2-3 hour respend acceptable natural human timescale.

it also helps by giving users an option to say it needs to be accepted sooner.(a true "hey guys i really need this to go through, but accept the punishment for this need) making the wait PRIOR to confirm less, by making the waiting time AFTER confirm, more. thus a way to show the network who actually NEEDS priority the most

though a bloat spammer can just put a mega long CLTV on a bloated tx to gain priority for their first tx, they atleast once confirmed the funds wont be respent fast due to the CLTV maturity needing to be met
(no matter what the priority is of the second attempt, CLTV prevents respends until mature)

it makes it so that if you want to spend sooner (imagine its not maturity locked first) the sooner you want to spend the longer you have to wait to respend AFTER confirm. thus solving the wait for confirm 'trust' people getting paid dilemma
EG
if matured funds are only aged 3 blocks instead of 6. you have to volunteer not being able to re-spend then for 16 blocks instead of 8
=((1000000/226)*3)*14   185840
=((1000000/226)*3)*15   199115
=((1000000/226)*3)*16   212389

so that the faster you want to spend(after maturity) the longer you cant respend the second time. thus effectively stopping a spammer spending every block because they end up waiting atleast 2 hours before conditions are met



though my calculation is not perfect for every instance of utility. i think that usual / natural spending behaviour of only buying things once every couple hours is normal.. and mitigating the spend every 10 minute intentional spam.
for those wanting to bypass this because they GENUINELY need to spend every 10 minutes.. (not intention spam, but a niche need)
such as the small niche of day traders/faucet raiders/gamblers
they can use the niche market commercial LN service VOLUNTARILY to get their many spends an hour.

thus having an equal balance of people that only spend lets say once a week that dont need LN can happily spend onchain. but those that do need many spends an hour can use LN... natural balance is restored

im sure someone can be inspired by my idea of changing the priority calculation. by adding in or using variables in a different format to achieve something better then my example calculation formula.. and way way better than the current priority formulae
6414  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: John Nash created bitcoin on: February 02, 2017, 11:24:45 PM
It's total clickbait and a stupid and retarded theory that has no merit in reality. If it wasn't clickbait you would post your findings here. In fact, I would bet that you've spewed more shit in this thread about how everyone should click your stupid link than what you've wrote in that link.
If you want to show your point, type it out here. Dont send people to a site they don't want to visit and then tell them they are ignorant for not giving you clicks. Try articulating you point on the forum, you know, the forum where you can type shit out to make a point or post an opinion.

Cheesy

train wrck has wasted 6 days trying to clickbait.
all he wants is some @medium money

he wont articulate it here.. because there is nothing of worth to articulate
6415  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: John Nash created bitcoin on: February 02, 2017, 11:16:04 PM
...

i have read your link

nothing in it has anything credible.
there is no need to re-read it
no need for me or anyone to click it again

you have offered nothing that has not been said years ago
you are just clickbaiting

instead of making a point here. you are just screaming "click the link"
stop making posts asking to click the link.
this topic is 74 posts long and all you are doing is crying and screaming for people to click your link and insulting people if they call you out.

all you seem to care about is people clicking your link.

get the hint.. after 3 pages of asking people to click it.. if they have not clicked it by now. they wont click it by you simply screaming for them to click it.

get the hint. you have wasted your time raising a subject that has died out and debunked YEARS ago.

move on
6416  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: As it turns out, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi! on: February 02, 2017, 10:21:24 PM
The anagram for Stochastic - ctc = Satoshi.  Shocked Shocked Shocked

anagrams hmm..

and abit of cryptographic math lol
gives you my brain fart ages ago

its not nick..
but i do love some of the theories and 'proofs'

the funniest one is using the letters of his name
someone said nicks middle name was thomas

NICK THOMAS SZABO

take the C and the B change them to numeric (c=3 b=2)
3x2=6
6= 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 and 1
1=A and 1,1,1,1,1     (A and five 1's)
save the A for later but lets carry on using the numbers
1,1,1,1,1= 3 and 2
3x2=6
6=3 and 3
3x3=9

take the Z and change it to numeric (z=26)
26+9=35

dont take these out, just note that the missing letters are O=15 T=20   =35

so numerically we can see there is a conversion method for ZBC=OT
now take out the CBZ and add in the AOT

NICK THOMAS SZABO
NIK THOMAS SAOAOT

now mix them letters up from:
NIK THOMAS SAOAOT

to:

S   (NIK THOMAS AOAOT)
SA   (NIK THOMAS OAOT)
SAT   (NIK HOMAS OAOT)
SATO   (NIK HMAS OAOT)
SATOS   (NIK HMA OAOT)
SATOSH   (NIK MA OAOT)
SATOSHI   (NK MA OAOT)
SATOSHI N  (K MA OAOT)
SATOSHI NA  (K M OAOT)
SATOSHI NAK  ( M OAOT)
SATOSHI NAKA  ( M OOT)
SATOSHI NAKAM  (  OOT)
SATOSHI NAKAMO  (  OT)
SATOSHI NAKAMOT  (  O)
SATOSHI NAKAMOTO

i know nick is not, but i just liked this bit of speculation and wordplay.. put a smile on my face
6417  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could a nation completely control a cryptocurrency? Good or bad on: February 02, 2017, 10:16:32 PM
ok lower than what I thought, thanks. If we take the Bitcoin network in the large sense, this consumption is maybe small compared to existing payments and therefore seems relevant. When we look closely at what this energy is used for, it seems not so efficient still ?
I mean it can be lowered, right ?

do you know that las vegas alone uses more electric to control and secure. plastic poker chips

do you know that in america there are 90,000 bank branches with an average 10pc's per branch (4kwh / branch(360,000kwh))
equivalent of 277,000 asics
then add on the ATMS, bank call centres, auditors, regulators, security guards, etc
equivalent of about 660,000 asics
and thats before even adding the rest of the financial industry like insurance, market traders, etc

but to answer your question
an asic used to be 1kwh for just 5 gigahash..
now its 1.3kwh for 13terrahash,
im sure the ration of kwh:hash can become more efficient in future
6418  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: As it turns out, Craig Wright actually is Satoshi! on: February 02, 2017, 09:36:40 PM
I agree about that being that the main guy is Ver.  But you can't ignore his influence.  

that guy is rusty russel
introducing 4 more decimals in his LN (millisatoshi)
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=millisatoshi

its starting to become very funny that every action blockstream employee's propose is being pointed in every direction away from blockstream.

EG gmaxwell loving bilateral splits..
every blockstream centralists says other implementations want bilateral splits.
yet other implementations refuse to split.
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--

even funnier
blockstream centralists fear other implementations splitting the network.. yet every argument they have is demanding other implementations to Fork Off and make their altcoin....

im guessing they are trying self fulfilling prophecy that if they nag for it enough they can make other implementations do it.. then blame the other implementations for doing it.. (facepalm)

and it seems they dont even realise the words they are speaking. like empty drones repeating scripts without understanding what they are saying or researching the truth.
6419  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Could a nation completely control a cryptocurrency? Good or bad on: February 02, 2017, 09:12:30 PM
Could even consider the oil/petrol used to transport the funds (it is still an energy used and still needed), SWIFT, CHIPS, RTGS, FedWireand so on..
When I searched for it some months ago I have read first from a researcher in environment it has been calculated that a single bitcoin transaction requires as much electricity as the daily consumption of 1.6 U.S. households Undecided, and this number has increased since I finally found the bitcoin network use the same energy as a city of 4 millions citizen

in total there is probably around 230,000 asics.(3000 peta)

an asic is 1.3kwh
which is about the same as what an average household uses.

thus roughly 200,000-250,000 households.(~~1million citizens (based on 2parents 2 children per households))

but your other initial 1.6 households per tx cost has merit. i remember myself coming up with a similar figure ages back

though i think that number has changed since
quick maths a block has ~2100 tx and produces 6 blocks an hour = 12600tx an hour
=18 households

but thats based on ALL 20+ pools running.. rather than just the winning pools hashpower of the blocks they win (which would be still around the 1-2 household cost)



6420  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Wright IS Satoshi - but Bitcoin is ABOUT POKER - he wants to hide! on: February 02, 2017, 08:50:57 PM
So tell me why he created all this drama,

first ignore this OP's fake evidence.. its fake.

to address the drama of craig wright.

years after bitcoin was created. craig wright found some PUBLIC KEYS on the blockchain. and pretended he owned them
he got a friend to draw up a trust fund, named the tulip trust. and wright (fraudulently) showed his friend these publickeys and said he owned them
naively the friend checked the balances. and seen the funds. (no privatekey/signature proof)

the friend got this trust notorised and insured for AUS $XXmill  (though the tupip trust held no actual value).

this tulip trust was then used as collateral to garner business/investment. including AUS $54m from australian government in the form of tax grants.
in 2014, the australian government learned about bitcoin and started testing the legitimacy of the tulip trusts 'collateral' and noticed there was no actual proof of ownership.

craig knew the government wanted to summon him to court. so craig had to fabricate proof.
he 'tipped' himself off to gizmodo and other media. that "satoshi is craig wright". allowed them to do a media story but NDA'd them to not release it until he can flee the country..

craig fled australia and then the story(fake) broke.
months later craig tried to get more media to be 'tipped off' that he is satoshi. including inviting some devs and some british media.

again supplying no real proof but a signature that anyone can grab because that signature is publicly available from 2009

but the issue is that it only took hours to notice the signature is not new, but that old available data found on the blockchain in 2009.

motive:
craig was hoping the media stories and hoping no one would recognise the signature. so that he can have freedom from the australia government trying to grab him..
but for now he is still wanted by australian government. so remains hiding in the UK.

he is now desperate to patent things, write books, do exclusive news stories, garner more investments(ponzis). to fill up the tulip trust with real assets/funds to total the same value as the insured amount. hoping if he shows that the tulip trust now was $xxm of real assets/funds, they would leave him alone
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 ... 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!