Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2019, 10:11:38 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 820 »
841  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 06:01:23 PM
Of course you can malleate your own legacy transactions, so what?

You have failed to provide an example about how that known behaviour would become a PROBLEM/attack vector in real life.

you failed to understand the malleability problem
though this is offtopic... and i know im being poked by an obvious fan groupy based on certain terms you use, ill bite
you said:
It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible.
i replied
if i sent you 1franky(0.1) -> bc1qexchange(0.1)
you said
Of course you can malleate your own legacy transactions, so what?
so even when you as an exchange use a specific format... i can still malleate a tx to you
maybe go do some research.. you know... google

hint, its not about confirmed transactions. never was about confirmed transaction.. never has been about confirmed transactions.
if you want to argue and say there never was a problem then take that up with the devs who obviously thought there was a problem for them to do what they did and promote what they did.

also lightning network is not a layer two feature of bitcoin.
its a completely separate network that allow multiple different coins to get locked up and then people get to play around on this other network.

its not scaling bitcoin network. its diverting people away from using the bitcoin network.
might be worth you doing research beyond the utopian dream promotional material

lets get some things straight here.
for people to be on this forum means they have already heard about bitcoin and crypto.. after all they didnt magicly just gt dropped into the forum.

they dont need the wishy washy only positive advertising of utopian dreams and empty promises.. they want to know what is really going on.. both good and bad.

i understand there is a group of people that only want to overpomise and fluffy cloud unicorn stuff with positive chatter.. but thats just not really doing much because to read that stuff here in the forum is advertising to people that already been advertised to.

people want to know whats beyond the fluffy clouds
842  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: The release of Satoshi's personal data on: December 29, 2018, 04:13:01 PM
if you actually google

the email was actually
Unfortunately, I can't receive incoming connections from where I am, which has made things more difficult.
Your node receiving incoming connections was the main thing keeping the network going
the first day or two.
You can send to my Bitcoin address if you want to, but you won't get to see the full transfer sequence:
You could always findstr /c:"version message" debug.log and send a test to some random person you're connected to near the end of the list.
The ones ending in port 8333 can receive connections.
I just thought of something.
there'll be some interest in brute force scanning bitcoin addresses to find one with the first few characters customized to your name, kind of like getting a phone number that spells out something.
Just by chance I have my initials.

so timestamp... your proven wrong
843  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 03:32:15 PM
anyway this topic has got so derailed.

anyway. if nodes want to be fullnodes and validate all transactions, keep all transactions and when a block arrives confirm block and keep block.
then having configurable features that then dont validate, dont keep and dont send full data is not a full node. especially if the configurations are for silly things that can be solved in a multitude of other ways

i know blah blah blah rebuttal of define full node define less than full node define litenode define spv

but in short if you going to
prune the block archive,
reduce mempool holding
cause issues with block propagation latency
drop transactions
not relay certain tx
drop and regrab

your not helping the network

if core want to be the "full node" provider. they should concentrate on being a full node and concentrate on fixing network wide flaws. let other teams play around with providing less than full nodes user configurable flimsy stuff..

or more appropriate. core fans shouldnt do REKT campaigns on other teams that also wanna be full node providers
844  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 02:38:45 PM
AFAIK the main problem of malleability was that exchanges could get fooled by a malleated tx such that their software couldn't recognise the malleated (broadcasted by the attacker) tx had indeed suceeded and the original one didn't, so they would end replaying it making a double (or multiple by rinse and repeat) spend themselves. <- REAL spends, don't confuse with the "double spend" attack.

It seems to me THAT problem has a solution now as exchanges can use the "specific format" that makes malleability impossible.

Ok, main problem solved.

Now go to the next one... You are saying that if I am the receiver I don't control the sending tx, which is true. So the "attacker" can choose to send me a tx which is susceptible of malleability, ok. And now what? The "attacker" is going to send me multiple malleated tx's? What can I say... thanks?

I think I am not getting it... can you use another example but instead of guns use a real life example on how that would be detrimental to me as a receiver of a Bitcoin tx?

yea your not getting think the main problem is solved..
if i sent you a tx of
1franky(0.1) -> bc1qexchange(0.1)
that tx is not a segwit tx. i can still malleate my signature to change the txid even when you want the funds to arrive at a segwit bc1q address

so an exchange will still get transactions that can be malleated..

all an exchange has control over is. if an exchange CHOOSES to only use segwit. then the exchange itself cannot malleate..
it doesnt mean an exchange cant be victim to malleation

segwits false promise was to solve malleability for the bitcoin network.. it hasnt
segwits real purpose was to add a gateway tx format to a different network which the different network would offer different things
845  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 02:27:26 PM
Also it seems to me that in any case minisketch has nothing to do about that because the drop of the tx's due to not meeting the min relay criteria is a previous step in the protocol. Minisketch just adds an optional and more efficient (bandwidth wise) way of dealing with a preexistent situation.

Sorry if I have stepped into this conversation without the necessary knowledge but, at this point, it has caught some of my attention and would like to know if I got it or not.

im against features that get offered as solving big picture issues but end up not solving the big picture issues of what the initial feature intent is
but devs avoiding the obvious more simple way to solve an issue network wide for everyone

EG segwit. offered as solution to malleation.. result people still are victimised by malleation after segwit activation
because the victim is not part of the choice to choose to malleate or not of funds it gets/doesnt get.
EG funny part. after pretending malleation is solved. they introduce RBF to actually help malleators malleate

as for the tx transmission bandwidth and the compact block big picture surrounding a bandwidth concern
the big picture is transactions get sent around the network of non mining nodes so that nodes have a store of transactions ready for when a block is created the node has the transactions in mempool to quickly validate the block and not need to regrab transactions after the blocks arrives. to allow quick propagation of blocks.

the whole point of relaying transactions is to give nodes transactions
dropping them defeats the whole point of sending them in the first place.
thus making relaying transactions pointless if now devs think its ok to not keep transactions

if gmaxwell thinks dropping transactions is perfectly fine then why even bother sending transactions to non mining nodes.
save more bandwidth by only sending transactions to nodes that flag that they are pools, by having a mining flag for instance
(yes you will argue that will cause more propagation issues.. i will reply yes welcome to the issue as i was being reverse psychological to prove a point)

also when
nodeX gets a tx from a peerA and drops it. that does not mean the next peerB suddenly doesnt need to send the same tx to
nodeX. peer B will still see nodeX doesnt have the tx and WILL resend it... and nodeX will drop it again
peer C will still see nodeX doesnt have the tx and will send it... nodeX will drop it

its not fixing the big picture of getting nodes to keep transactions so that compact blocks can propagate quickly. as the whole point of relaying transactions to non mining nodes is to give them transactions they dont have.

and the minisketch doesnt solve the problem of having to get the same data from peer b, c.

yet by removing the drop for silly reasons. means when node X gets tx from A.. it wont need to get it from B, C .. and wont need to get it after a block is solved... because.. big picture. it would already have it

oh, and if peer B,C doesnt have the tx to give. peer B,C wont get it from nodeX because node X didnt keep it so peer B and C will then be going through the same process of using bandwidth to try getting it from other peers

if everyone just kept to a same rule of only drop invalid transactions. everyone would all keep the same valid transactions without having to re send transactions or interrogate peers or re grab after compact block arrives.

and yes i can pre-empt the next empty argument
some fool will argue that peer A sent it at initial relay so now its peer Bs problem.. guess what
when a block is solved. guess who nodeX is going to ask again... yep. nodeA
and guess what nodeA will do. nodeA will resend it

some fool will argue that my concern only amounts to maybe 1 tx now and then..
nope if a node is saying drop transactions under 1000sat fee. there will be more than 1 tx now and again involved

devs always know of flaws, but instead of SOLVING the big picture they just OFFER flimsy, reduce the chances of flaw but not remove it

think about it
devs say this minisketch under their default setting tests shows a reduction of bandwidth to then allow a node that usually connects to 8 nodes could connect to 16-24 nodes (2-3x reduction) but thats not 7x reduction to allow 56 nodes.

and because settings are configurable around drops. if they ran tests using variable settings instead of just spinning up 8 nodes using defaults. the reduction would be LESS than 2-3x

and ontop of that. nodes still end up grabbing data after a compact block. meaning although they grabbed a tx severals times from peers at initial relay. they still grab again at block receipt. causing block propagation delays

where as removing configurable settings for silly reasons would actually give a better bandwidth reduction and make compact blocks not need to trigger as much bandwidth for the same dang tx's

and an outside the box thought. if they actually removed the drop for silly reasons and put in a fee priority formulae that al nodes utilitise so that there still remains control over spammy dust. a fee formulae can actually make spammers pay more for sending spammy dust without it affecting everyone fees at block confirm.

but nah.. devs just wanna OFFER flimsy stuff.. and not SOLVE the big picture
846  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 12:43:57 PM

eg "segwit solves malleability"...
nope it doesnt solve malleabillity.. it "exclusively" offers a non malleable tx format IF people only use this "exclusive" tx format, by which that "exclusive" tx format needs to avoid certain opcodes, or else people could malleate tx's that use the certain format

So it does indeed offer a valid solution to the malleability problem, doesn't it?

it has not SOLVED malleation

the foolish thing is that its a anti-malleability option not solution.. its something that the payer has to choose to use.

if your a impending recipient of funds on the bitcoin network. waiting to be paid.. you obviously are not the one making the transaction. right..
so your not the one in a position to choose
your not the one that is able to say that its solved for you. because you dont know what the payer will do when paying you.

so you cant say to yourself things are solved and there is no need to worry about malleability..
a malicious person wanting to be malicious will use malleability against you and you cant stop them

imagine it this way, there is a gun crisis in a country.. instead of making a no gun law for the whole country. what happens is that authorities offer a voluntary no commitment cardboard box for people to put a gun in should they not want to use a gun

do you think gun lovers are going to choose to put down their gun by using the box?
are gun haters going to suddenly have a sigh of relief that there are no more guns?
847  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 29, 2018, 03:56:45 AM
Transaction relay and the mempool are mostly separate:
Here is a simplified flowchart:

tx -> [mempool accept?] -no--> [add to rejected tx list; drop]

^ highlighting the flaw even at step 1

as i clarified in PM to not ramble on in this topic
my point was by having the ability to drop

when the peers interrogate each other(step 2) after dropping the tx.
the peer in "flowchart" will again request the same TX ,,,,, and then drop it (rinse and repeat)

when a block comes along. that includes reference to the tx that the peer in flowchart keeps dropping. then the peer yet again asks other peers that same dang tx again because...
drum roll.....
its not in its mempool

which over all means the same tx keeps getting broadcast and dismissed more than once

all because a node is allowed to drop tx's due to silly things like customised relay limits

the solution:
is remove the "drop" for silly reasons like min relay
then the tx's are accepted.. and then everyone gets the tx at first go around. without repeats.
and without needing to retry again even after getting a compact block.. because
drum roll.....
the tx IS in the mempool.
thus allowing a block to be verified quick because the node RETAINS the tx
AND has not caused as much bandwidth usage because it hasnt dropped tx's to need to re pickup tx's

big picture:
the whole point of relaying unconfirmed transactions to everyone
the whole point of non mining nodes having a mempool
is to KEEP transactions so that when a compact block comes along nodes can verify it quickly without causing latency/propagation delays from asking for tx's.

by allowing "drop" and by saying its ok for peers to have different transaction sets.. is just saying its ok to make the network work harder by having nodes request data repeatedly.

the only time a tx should really be dropping a tx is if the signatures fail or the UTXO is spent.... not because of random user preference

so get rid of the user preference and then everyone gets to have a full mempool of tx's by default.. to then not cause latency issues at the compact block validation event and not cause bandwidth issues with re-grabs

P.S to HairyMaclairy
i am not even a Bcash guy.. so fail on you
but you much like most kiss asses do love to think if core dev gets poked. your sheep defense response is to folow a script
about bcash

you need to open your mind that if someone loves bitcoin. but finds a flaw or does not agree with how a dev is messing with bitcoin.. it might be because they person poking at a dev actually cares more about bitcoin than the dev does.

oh and if you want to believe that gmax is a poor guy, not making money.
ultimately demoralizes the developers to the point where we give up on this completely uncompensated voluntary work improving the protocol.

yep $101mill / 9 founders = more than a chicken nugget... so dont feel pity for him like he is a starving coder on his last penny only coding bitcoin out of love

sorry gmax. i know i playd some drum rolls. buy im not gonna play you a violin... seriously YOU playing the poor guy card!?
848  Economy / Speculation / Re: How to BUY BITCOIN at the "right" price on: December 28, 2018, 10:06:55 PM
there is a mining:market dynamic paradigm that plays out
people always look for th cheapest ways to get bitcoin. so yes there is a correlation between market:mining during low speculation

firstly it isnt an instant reaction as soon as a block reveals its hashrate the price of mining calculates and markets react.. its a bit slower
EG octobers hashrate curve led to novembers market reaction

secondly its more about a underlying value (below the speculative price) support. so it wont help you much predict the next speculative hype.

however when you see the hashrate move and has a sustained period of a certain level. the markets react.

people will always find the cheapest way to get bitcoin, so that could be mining when hashrate is low in comparison or markets when hashrate is high, but they end up pulling each other up and down to equalibriate themselves in a low speculative time

in short right now based on mining cost. 104*average exa hash rate=bottomline market support

so if market prices are near the result you know its a good price.. if the market price is way up above, then the price is too high and not sustainable and has high chance of coming back down

the magic number 104 is based on the mining cost of the majority at present. using the most efficient costs. so its the bottomline value.

this number can change periodically when different batches come out that are more efficient. but instead of doing the complicated maths i just simplified it down to the easiest representation of the mining cost math so that people can easily calculate costs in one easy calculation.
849  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain on brink of bankruptcy on: December 28, 2018, 04:54:38 PM
Pretty hilarious on the part of Jihan Wu, really. Bitmain were dominating the ASIC world - all he had to do was to keep releasing a new miner every few months and he could have been set for life. Instead he threw all his weight behind a shitcoin and now is facing mass terminations and possible bankruptcy.

he's not facing bankrupcy.
a certain guy in another pool (BTCC) lost his job when BTCC were on brink of bankruptcy and now samson mow is on a distraction drama crusade to hide his own misery.
come on.. has anyone actually looked into BTCC and seen the difference of BTCC from 2017-2018
anyone question why samson is now blockstream and by bobby lee is now litecoin orientated instead of BTCC orientated

bitmain is making money. they are delivering out new rigs this week.

i also predicted in october that things would change for november, all i needed to do was see the hashrate curve of the old asics being shut down and sold off cheap before they became worthless. to then see it would play out against the market:mining dynamic soon after. it had nothing to do with altcoins. it was to do with prepping for next gen asics

anyway back to discussing bitmain
the nxt gen are designed, tested and manufactured, meaning they dont need the temp staff they hired. just to cover the excess temp work needed.

as for the side drama of altcoins. thats like going on vacation for a few months with a few foreign coins in your pocket. and now finding out that you dont need or want them... its not life changing. its just having a few foreign coins that ar not worth spending

meanwhile he is still getting funds from different sources and still producing asics
850  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 28, 2018, 04:02:26 PM
Our work is not related to making "mempools synced", though they are naturally similar.
subject to having them in the first place, and subject to the restriction that anything configured to use less memory obviously can't keep as much.
^ here you are saying "subject to" meaning you know nodes can configure settings and end up holding different data.
you try to hint everyone has consistant data and near same... but then say people can put restrictions and configure...

meaning this makes mempools not have same data and thus NEED data, thus need to check other peers nodes to see who has what to then get the data needed.

i know your meaningless tests just spin up 8 nodes and look for a pre minisketch stat and a post minisketch stat... but how about actually configure the 8 nodes to have different "restrictions" and "configurations" and then see the difference compared to your meaningless test of spinning 8 nodes of same config
after all its you that says there is no fixed consensus of config and no way you WANT there to be a config consensus that fixes everyone to using the same settings... so actually do some realistic tests where the configs of the 8 nodes are random and not the same if you really believe theres no way they can be the same

hint if node A has 1,2,3,4,5,7
hint if node B has 1,2,4,5,7,8
hint if node C has 2,3,5,6,7,8
your mini sketch wont have A just check(interrogate) B and then not have to bother with checking C.. because B does have 3. but doesnt have 6. so minisketch then needs to check C and realise it needs 6 from C
so mini sketch wont result in only needing to check just one node and that is the end of it. minisketch will still check other nodes too

Our work is exclusively related to eliminating the massive overheads from relaying transactions the first time through as they go around the network.
to then suddenly need to grab hundreds of transactions from X and hundreds of tx from Y AGAIN
That doesn't happen in the Bitcoin protocol, no one has proposed for it to happen, and it isn't needed.
dont run tests under perfect circumstances of out of 8 nodes 7 nodes hold same data so one node only needs to check one node to complete and thats it. realise that all 8 nodes will have different tx's and so all 8 will still need to be checked.. remember you said it there isnt and cant be a consensus of all nodes accepting the same transactions blah

also think big picture about ALSO compact blocks and bloom filtering. imagine not just initial relay "exclusivity" of just a small data set of INV.. for initial relay, but also solving the wider issue of getting transactions that a mempool wont have if it were to get a compact block
.. what i am saying is with minisketch if indeed is less data than old methods.. try it against getting the best accumulation of mempool transactions so that compact blocks can actually be accomplished

or.. are you leaving that for 4 years time due to "conservative"
no wonder after 3 years things have not really progressed due to scaling. if you think a proposed feature should only be used for an exclusive purpose. and only has benefit on optimal conditions, which you only test it under.

try some out of box thinking

i will make one apology
i am sorry i dont kiss your ass or treat you as a king.
but you have plenty of ass kissers so maybe you do need someone thats not just gonna agree and accept what you offer as the ultimate solution.. even if the solution is for "exclusive use" in one small utility and only under certain use-case

eg "segwit solves malleability"...
nope it doesnt solve malleabillity.. it "exclusively" offers a non malleable tx format IF people only use this "exclusive" tx format, by which that "exclusive" tx format needs to avoid certain opcodes, or else people could malleate tx's that use the certain format

so i apologise for not just being an ass kisser, but an echo chamber of kissing, slurping and cheers does not help critical thinking
851  Economy / Speculation / Re: 1BTC is equal to 10347 dollars on: December 28, 2018, 12:05:02 PM
"outlets" pfft

more easily if comparing bitcoin to gold

187,000 tonnes of gold vs 17.5mill btc currently existing /mined

1btc = 187,000 tonnes / 17.5m btc
1btc= 0.0106857142857143 tonnes
1btc= 0.0106857142857143 tonnes * 32150.7 troy ounces
1btc= 343.5531942857147 ounces *$1278
1btc= $439,060.98
852  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is the most nonsensical invention in human history on: December 27, 2018, 07:32:07 PM
In the world of Bitcoin nothing of that is needed. That's because Bitcoin is ownership of nothing. And to create or transfer "nothing" one doesn't need an intermediary or agent. Bitcoin is the most nonsensical invention in human history because not only that people trade their valuable possessions for nothing, but they even pay fees to exchanges in order to perform these ridiculous trades.

Pessimistic person sees a glass half filled with water as "half empty" and optimistic sees it as "half filled. The choice is ours on which side we want to be. While I respect your views as an individual, I don't share your pessimism at the same time.

pessimistic person sees a half empty glass.........
optimistic person sees its half filled glass......
realist person sees its not empty, and even if it was. atleast they have a glass
853  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Layoffs Underway Amid ‘Adjustments,’ Bitcoin Miner Bitmain Confirms on: December 27, 2018, 07:19:34 PM
meanwhile anyone notice BTCC disappear..

funny that samson mow (ex-employee of BTCC) is hyping up social drama but not mentioning his own job loss situation

bitmain wanted to experiment with getting into node development of altcoins. AI and other divergent industries. but now they want to get back to basics of doing what they originally done.
as the article infers it only had 1000 staff a year ago and took on a load of temporary staff during the event of creating new asics and try out different industries. so ofcourse staff numbers would go back down.

so not big news. its the usual trimming down that occurs to streamline a business.

but real funny still how samson mow has been very quiet around the BTCC disappearance. even funnier that coindesk. a partner of BTCC, could not even have the independence to mention BTCC

meanwhile bitmain have sent out their first batch of next gen ASICs which will be delivered this week so expect hashrates to rise and the market:mining equilibrium to play out
854  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is the most nonsensical invention in human history on: December 27, 2018, 06:40:23 PM
I was watching a series about debt collectors in the UK the other day, and they knocked on the door of one lady asking that she cleared the debt right away or they'd start removing goods. She asked them to wait and went to the bank. Came back minutes later saying that her withdrawal attempt triggered some scam alerts in the bank. She had to call the police to her home, to confirm the paperwork the bailiffs had, go with her back to the bank and vouch that it's not a scam. Even when she did all of it they didn't allow her to withdraw the full amount! And the best part is that she was only asking for £10k of her own money, deposited on a personal account.

"cant pay we will take it away"
shows how much she "owns" if people can just come in and take thing from her(bailiffs)
show how much she "owns" if people can refuse to give her it(banks)

id love to see a bailiff try to acquire someones bitcoins. or a bank try to freeze a persons private key.. oh wait they cant. because THEY dont own it.. only you do
855  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin is the most nonsensical invention in human history on: December 27, 2018, 06:20:59 PM
Let's compare this to fiat currencies because their misconception is the main reason why people fail to realize that by owning Bitcoin they own nothing. So, let's assume that you traded your car for 10,000 dollars. Now, the question is what do you own after such transaction? Do you own nothing or do you own something? Well, you own something. Namely, your own debt certificates. These certificates are either digital or paper. If you received banknotes you become the owner of paper debt certificates. If you received numerical value on your bank account you become the owner of digital debt certificates. With these certificates you are entitled to goods, services or property of borrowers. Let's explain how this ownership is utilized in practice.

when you sell a car for FIAT. you dont own FIAT. you hold FIAT. but the FIAT is not yours.
its under licence by a government. they can take it from you without notice. they can freeze accounts they can tax it. they can do what they like, because its theirs.

with bitcoin you own the private key that secures that you have full ownership control of the bitcoin linked to the private key

i dare you to have a bitcoin private key and a bank account. and truly ask yourself. who controls what
go on try to move your fiat out of an ATM for more than $500 amount.

try spending a substantial amount ($10k) fiat via a bank account without the bank asking questions.
you do not own FIAT. they are just letting you handle it under their licence terms

try crossing a state/country border with $10k see how much FIAT you get to own without question

as for saying bitcoin is a nothing value.

bitcoin has a cost value.
im not talking about speculative price of the volatile market. im talking about the underlying value. the cost of its creation.

PoS coins for instance have no underlying value. as the underlying cost is zero. but bitcoin does have a underlying value.
you might wanna research that.

FIAT (not talking about market rate of loaves it would buy or rate compared to other currencies on forex) fiats underlying value is of the cost in its creation too. which is things like yes the debt (mortgage/credit agreement) that created the promissory note. but also the minimum wage laws that value a $7.50 as being an hours worth of sweat labour

.. one thing i do find funny.
a patent /copyright is just an idea. yet you argue people do have ownership of something. even if its just an idea.. but then try to say bitcoin idea is not real........ pick a hypocrisy and stick with it. you cant be right on both sides of a table especialy if a patent/copyright may not even come with any creation cost
856  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitmain on brink of bankruptcy on: December 27, 2018, 03:20:26 PM
bitmain fired a team of software developers concentrating on a bitcoin cash wallet........
....... yawn.. (altcoin drama)

meanwhile bitmain is delivering tonnes of next gen asics this week. but shhh dont tell the public
857  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Just heard of Bitcoin, teach me. on: December 27, 2018, 02:53:37 PM
i came across this point

Just get a student job, you'll probably earn more with that.
Bitcoin isn't some magical way to earn money, despite what many people will tell you.

Oh really? And how much do you earn for spamming the forum?
Couldn't be more than a few dollars per week.

all those stuff.... but then he flattens his own argument mid statement with

(no I'm not talking about this signature campaign, that's just a pretty sweet side-gig)

thats like saying. no you cant make money here, but its a sweet money earner

. pure comedy

now to make a proper point
bitcoin is not just this forum. its a currency that is world wide.
thousands of businesses use it
if you want to earn money:
apply for a job working for companies in the industry
offer your skills and talent
start your own business offering products and services for bitcoin

there are many ways to earn bitcoin.
find a wholesaler/dropshipper. list a few products priced in bitcoin and sell them for profit
learn the technicals of bitcoin. become an expert and get paid being a public speaker
if there's people in your area interested in bitcoin, be an event organiser (much like business meetups("business networking events"))
trade/invest btc for profit
offer locals a hand to hand exchange for fiat/btc where you charge a small convenience fee
become a 'tutor' for other students that want to learn about bitcoin/blockchains.

whatever way you can think of to earn FIAT apply that logic to bitcoin
858  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: My former boss asked me how can crypto tech help him on: December 27, 2018, 01:07:28 PM
here goes

instead of needing a main bank account for business B and then having to pay out funds when requested by each department. and needing auditors to check the validity. and needing teams of staff communicate to ensure 2 decision makers dont both pay the same department(mistakes).. blockchains can help

1.imagine the company has $1m cashflow in its account. and say an R&D gets 10%. instead of handing out $100k and then need auditors to check that the R&D are using the funds wisely or check the department are not then later asking the saturday 'intern/temp" staff to wire more under a ruse that there was a mistake in getting $100k (thus R&D now get $200k). a blockchain can be used as the funds request/auditor and fund spending monitor system all in one.

imagine having a altcoin of 1m coins. the company can hand out the coins to departments. and then the departments then can 'claim' fiat using the coins given. where by a note is added to the transaction at exchange to show the purpose.

now each department can easily request funds without needing human decision makers(cost reduction: less staff)
(each quarter the R&D gets an automatic 100k coins tx sent to them)

now each department no longer has access to the main companies account (better security: less syphoning funds)
(R&D will not get $200k because its easier to spot that it already received 100k coin. and at exchange for fiat will also pick up if they are suddenly trying to get $200k where they should only have $100k)

now each department can easily show spending without needing human auditors(cost reduction: less staff)
(R&D at exchange 'spend' 2k coins with a note 'Jeff's monthly salary account xxxxxx bank branch yyyyy')

now the coins can be smart contracted needing 3 people to sign off on transactions, without needing to involve banks to set up special bank access stuff

the company can see exactly where funds went because they can trace transactions of a blockchain. where a department got 100k coins and how those 100k then moved around in the company

blockchains are in simple terms a relationship database. but made in such a way that no individual can just edit the data as their copy of the data is only editing their copy as there is no master copy.
the company has multiple copies which can all independently check that they are all holding the same data. and flag up any instances of malicious edits, knowing which department is editing it.
859  Economy / Speculation / Re: Is it real that one or two big whales can seriously affect the price of BTC? on: December 27, 2018, 12:27:03 PM
but its the fault of the exchanges not the whales, and here is why

1. many small exchanges follow like shrimp(sheep) the bigger exchanges.. so whales dont need to have funds on
 each exchange to cause global price changes.. they just let the shrimp react to a direction change

2. exchanges implementing KYC usually deter shrimp/shark level investers as its just a hassle. so instead of having a shark army  of users to counter the whale. it just ends up with a few shrimp/sharks that end up just following the whale hoping for a few nibbles along the way

3. exchanges are still not implementing high grade security, and are hiding behind fake "virtual office" addresses and proxies, thus shrimp/sharks are not willing to trust using exchanges. thus leading to the main 'volume' makers being the exchanges partners/insiders or buddies of the exchange

4. continuing from point 3. the volume is not number of individual (1 trade per person) number. its actually a collective number where say 50k coin could actually be just 2k coin traded 25 times in a day. thus the amount of individual coin exchanged is lower than people actually think
860  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: How Many Full Nodes Bitcoin Online ? on: December 27, 2018, 11:36:25 AM
What do you think?

Synching Data Between Bitcoin Nodes Is About to Get Easier, Minisketch is a new solution that’s trying to solve an old problem.

Blockstream co-founder Pieter Wuille, Bitcoin Core contributor and fellow Blockstream co-founder Gregory Maxwell, and Blockstream software engineer Gleb Naumenko.

firstly trying to get mempools synced is meant to be about if everyone has the same tx set before a pool mines a block, then all that needs to be sent as a confirmed block is the headers and list of txid's. thus reducing the data needed to be sent when a confirmed block is created.

but here lays the issues
1. "the tx fee freemarket flaw"
this is where certain nodes drop certain tx's at DIFFERENT dust/min relay levels. meaning different people will have different mempool sets.

so trying to get people to keep every tx again. is counter intuitive to the whole drop tx if under dust/min relay fee 'free market'
easier solution is get rid of the tx free market and implement a consensus (all node agree on) fee structure so when tx's are relayed initially they all keep the same tx's in mempool and not have to drop tx's using fee freemarket. to then suddenly need to grab hundreds of transactions from X and hundreds of tx from Y AGAIN

2. distributed mempool
highlighting not the freemarket part. but the individual picky nodes. some nodes such as those that are "downstream filtered"(gregs buzzword) non-segwit nodes dont relay non-segwit unconfirmed tx's,

also some nodes that are run by pools fill their blocks with their own zero fee tx data which they dont relay the tx's out pre confirm purely to cause latency issues for thir competition(BTCC pool done this a few years back). so it wont solve the issue because different nodes have different ways of doing things.

i do find it funny that it was these very same devs that wanted a fee freemarket by removing a fee priority mechanism to make individualising mempools, that are now seeing the flaw in it.. even if they dont want to admit it the cause/effect on their implementation

but allowing nodes to relay tx's and drop them due to "fee free market" but then have to interrogate nodes to list their entire mempools(actually causing more bandwidth) and pick up the tx's AGAIN(more bandwidth again).. is silly..

imagine it 3 different nodes with sat 5 tx(out of Cool in each of thier mempools due to different tx fee level preferences
1,2, a,b,c

they all initially did get 1,2,3,4,a,b,c,d at initial relay.. but freemaket let them drop certain tx.
now the third node has to ask the first node for the list.. 1,2,a,b,c (more data than initial relay)
now the third node has to ask the first node for the missing.. 2 (more data than initial relay)
now the third node has to ask the second node for the list.. 1,2,3,4,c (more data than initial relay)
now the third node has to ask the second node for the missing.. 3,4 (more data than initial relay)

now the second node has to ask the first node for the list.. 1,2,a,b,c (more data than initial relay)
now the second node has to ask the first node for the missing.. a,b (more data than initial relay)
now the second node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
now the second node has to ask the third node for the missing.. a,b,d (more data than initial relay)

now the first node has to ask the second node for the list.. 1,2,3,4,c (more data than initial relay)
now the first node has to ask the second node for the missing.. 3,4 (more data than initial relay)
now the first node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
now the first node has to ask the third node for the missing.. d (more data than initial relay)

the solution is much more simple.. get rid of the free market that lets nodes drop tx's in the initial relay. thus they would ALL have them all first go-around. without having to interrogate EACH connected node, after dropping.. because their would be no drop in the first place.

3. issue
"Minisketch generalizes this by sending various types of ‘sums’ of the data. The result is that with N different sums, you can find N differences … As long as the number of differences between the sets is not more than the number of ‘sums’ sent, minisketch will always succeed in finding all the differences."

lets call (the node interrogation) or as they call it 'sending sums'  X
lets call bloom filtring the missing transactions Y
X)now the first node has to ask the third node for the list.. 1,a,b,c,d (more data than initial relay)
y)now the first node has to ask the third node for the missing.. d (more data than initial relay)

by getting rid of the "free market" and getting back to a consensus fee priority formulae/structure that everyone follows means that X is not needed. and Y becomes a smaller percentage of missing tx's that it becomes insignificant to need X

what makes me laugh though. is then saying that nodes can then do 16/24 connections instead of 8.. i laugh because imagine having to do the X command(sending sums to 2-3 times more nodes.....(facepalm)

again solution is much more simply. get rid off the freemarket that allows individualised mempools at the initial relay, to then not need to re-interrogate nodes and re-relay transactions.. then you will get to conect to 16-24 nodes as oppose to 8. and no need extra bandwidth and commands/sums playing around.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ... 820 »
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!