I don't believe the US will confiscate bitcoins from anyone who hasn't committed any illegal act as that would be illegal on their part.
LOL.. They absolutely will. All of us who had coins on BTC-e will not see ANYTHING for years. If at all..  .. I always like BTC-e. Seemed a no-nonsense site.. It was actually my FIRST.. I'll miss it. I had moved my BTC out of the exchange in readiness for Aug 1st.. so Only had a few Litecoins on there. Enough to hurt, but not to cry. OP - Sorry for your loss. That's a cry amount... |
|
|
|
|
[..just re-read my post - I'm a bit out there.. been up all night.. forgive me..]
I'm sensing something..
Something in the crypto sphere.
Something in Bitcoin-Landia.
As we approach 'The Reckoning'.. and a resolution to this stalemate is achieved.
People of all walks of life asking me about Bitcoin. but in a good - how do I get in how do I use - sort of a way.
Maybe the fight it has taken to get here has made the prize seem all the larger - but there is very real sense of excitement about where crypto could lead in the future. From, well, everyone.
..
And more important than $10k/BTC (6 months tops).. Is the fact that all this 'Crypto-Anarchy' .. is working. (Anarchy - No Rulers, Not no Rules)
The Old Financial Order is crumbling around us fat & bloated & corrupt whilst a completely functioning anarchic-finance-system has sprung up along side. And lo and behold - people can't get enough of it.
More than ever - the old guard seem irrelevant and out of touch. The crypto sphere is literally where anything exciting and innovative is happening.
There's a storm coming.. and a new order.
|
|
|
|
|
Just so we're absolutely clear..
1) If you run CORE + BIP91 'without modification'... that is compatible with the first phase of segwit2x ? (SegWit activation only..)
2) If you run CORE + BIP91 'without modification'... that is compatible with BIP 148 ?
|
|
|
|
Cryptographically, PoW is pure BS as a protection. Any digital signature beats it with tens of orders of magnitude in "efficiency" (that is, spent resources versus security obtained).
Who's 'Efficient' Digital signature am I supposed to be trusting ? .. POW is Objective. POS is not. POW accumulates over time. POS does not. ( I can fake POS history using old spent keys ) .. Sure - POW has issues in this current user/miner implementation (I would prefer the users to mine their own txns..), but POS doesn't currently work (and may never fully work) or any one of the uber geniuses working on it would have come up with a viable algorithm by now..  |
|
|
|
| SpartacusRex | Prefer | Acceptable | Acceptable | Acceptable | LOL | LOL | LOL | ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork |
[tr]
[td]SpartacusRex[/td]
[td][glow=#00FF66,2,300]Prefer[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#00BB44,2,100]Acceptable[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]LOL[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]LOL[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]LOL[/glow][/td]
[td][glow=#FF4444,2,300]ForkYourMotherIfYouWantFork[/glow][/td]
[/tr]
Oooooo.. this is a very funky topic DoomMAD. Thanks. |
|
|
|
RECAP : 1) Jhonny (bless him..) posts his document telling us that LN won't work and that he has proven it mathematically. 2) Bram Cohen (Inventor of BitTorrent) replies : In this analysis nodes aren’t bothering to make sure that they have any connections at all. Shockingly, if a single node has no connections whatsoever then no amount of other connections in the system will make it routable. If instead every node enforce that it has at least three connections then these problems evaporate and everything works fine. I’m not being flippant here, this analysis really is that dumb.
Also there’s nothing wrong with long routes. They settle out in the middle just fine, despite the author’s dismissiveness to the possibility that they can.
This is not to say that a completely random homogenous network is an ideal or even necessarily a good way of setting up routing, but it works fine as long as every node makes sure that it has a minimal level of connectivity. 3) Jhonny retorts : Bram, are you sure you understand the article? “At least 3 connections” means you have to divide your money up “at least 3 ways”. With only 3 open channels, you’d be then relying on long routes which make actually getting your payment through exponentially less likely, as the math illustrates. Not sure what “settle out in the middle” means to you. 4) Bram retorts : ‘Settle out in the middle’ means using the smart transactions bit of Lighting so that there’s no lending happening in the middle. Maybe you should learn about how technologies work before posting tirades about them.
As for your math, I can’t tell if you’re disingenuous or just stupid, but this is a very simple concept: The probabilities of different routes working aren’t independent of each other, because the target node will notice if they have no connections at all and form some, so if some routes don’t work that increases the probability of other routes working.
If you assume that peers don’t make sure they have connections then your math is mostly correct, but your claim is that ‘lightning network can’t work’, not ‘lightning network doesn’t work with this asinine implementation I came up with’, which is what you actually showed. 5) Jhonny fires back : With all due respect, I believe it is you who is being “disingenuous or just stupid.” The target node cannot form new connections without doing an on-chain transaction, which defeats the whole point: Why not just send an on-chain transaction in the first place, without the LN. ....  .. as always.. please fasten your seat belt and make up your own mind. ps.. in 5).. Jhonny is saying that the fact you have to make a single on chain txn to start using LN (and then potentially do infinite txns), negates LN. I'm not kidding. |
|
|
|
Addicted to Bitcoins ? Of course.. ... Addicted to BitcoinTalk.. !? ..Didn't see that one coming.. I'm on about '1 check every 10 minutes' 15hrs a day, 7 days a week, ... 5 years and counting.. .. I find it comes in waves.. sometimes you become a post monster, for a few weeks you're chatting away ( arguing like mad).. and then you chill out, and lurk for a while.. before diving back in again.. .. Of ALL my addictions.. this is my favourite..  Thanks All! (Maths + Money + Code .. who could ask for more.) |
|
|
|
People wouldn't want to risk it with such weak difficulty and the almost guaranteed 51% attacks. It's a pipe dream.
Disagree.. Plenty of miners would come on board after an initial 'hectic' period. And as far as these 51% attacks go.. hmm.. They can make money, or waste money. Up to them. I have a feeling they'll choose to MAKE money. ... I'm tired of this idea that the USER doesn't mean squat, and that the Miners (janitors) are all that matters. This is a total fallacy. In fact the opposite is true. Ask anyone mining a coin with no users.. (I'm mining a 'testnet' atm.. it's worthless - no users  ) But a coin with lots of users and no miners !? That's gonna get a lot of attention. It will get the wrong kind of attention. Again, botnets, 51% attacks, double spends, etc are all greatly increased risks until the difficulty has recovered. If you want a safe haven for thieves and criminals, go for it. You are talking about not just making an altcoin, but a weak and vulnerable altcoin. I wouldn't be transacting on such a chain, with the notable exception of dumping it. Sacrificing the difficulty is dangerous. More dangerous than any blocksize adjustment could ever be. Plus, if the difficulty does eventually recover, without some catastrophic failure along the way, you still haven't even achieved what you want because you end up right back where you are now being unhappy with the miners. Please think this through to conclusion. the only thing the miners specifically do is make the chain. YES that's important. But.. MORE important is the user. the one who sends money over the network.
No, EQUALLY important. You can't have one without the other. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both are required to make it work, so stop pretending otherwise. Eh ? I too believe in the symbiosis of the 2. But let's not give credit where it's not due. A chain with lots of miners and no users.. is worthless. A chain with lots of users a small number of idiots who don't understand security and no miners.. is a gold mine equally worthless because it would be vulnerable to attack and no one with any sense would want any part of it. FTFY. Only one way to find out.. |
|
|
|
Aren't you normally arguing that it's the stupid big blockers that were willing to throw the security of the system out of the window to get what they want?  Oh yes.. that's me.. Big blocks would mean that 'eventually' .. I can't run my full node. When I can't run my full node, I'm out. People wouldn't want to risk it with such weak difficulty and the almost guaranteed 51% attacks. It's a pipe dream.
Disagree.. Plenty of miners would come on board after an initial 'hectic' period. And as far as these 51% attacks go.. hmm.. They can make money, or waste money. Up to them. I have a feeling they'll choose to MAKE money. ... I'm tired of this idea that the USER doesn't mean squat, and that the Miners (janitors) are all that matters. This is a total fallacy. In fact the opposite is true. Ask anyone mining a coin with no users.. (I'm mining a 'testnet' atm.. it's worthless - no users ) But a coin with lots of users and no miners !? That's gonna get a lot of attention. Seems pretty obvious really. EDIT : the only thing the miners specifically do is make the chain. YES that's important. But.. MORE important is the user. the one who sends money over the network.
No, EQUALLY important. You can't have one without the other. It's a symbiotic relationship. Both are required to make it work, so stop pretending otherwise. Eh ? I too believe in the symbiosis of the 2. But let's not give credit where it's not due. A chain with lots of miners and no users.. is worthless. A chain with lots of users and no miners.. is a gold mine. So.. users and miners cannot be EQUALLY important. |
|
|
|
Besides your overuse of the term 'user' (bitcoin knows only miners)..
I strongly disagree with that. I know this is the new mantra, but it's all wrong. the only thing the miners specifically do is make the chain. YES that's important. But.. MORE important is the user. the one who sends money over the network. He's the one that 'eventually' will be paying the miner. Without the user, the miner is on a terrible chain. They move to the money. which comes from the user. If it weren't for the hashing (important but can be distributed) any node could make a block. it's easy.. Miners are hash junkies. (Validation is done by both) With this 'easier block' after an hour, the users, can ensure they still have a working chain, at any stage. Should they feel the need to fork off in future. Whatever shenanigans are going on in the upper stratas of the bitcoin ecosystem, no one can force you off or on any chain. or stop you from forking your chain. Decentralised style. BUT they can make it so you are stuck on a chain that will never continue, because the difficulty is sooo high. This way they can't. I'm sure you understand this proposal needs a hardfork with difficulty adjustment policy changed. right?
Of course.. I'm asking whether - "IF this was part of Bitcoin" : would it cause some serious mining issues. Since it would have to be active at all times. I'm not sure how often blocks are over an hour consecutively, but in those rare occasions there would be a frenzy of cheaper blocks.. or at least a few more stales. Something funny would be going on. It's a knife and fork away. |
|
|
|
Soo.. the users want one thing, the miners want another.. What to do ? The block difficulty. That's the problem. If the UASF goes ahead and the miners reject it, the users will be stuck on a chain that they have no hope of creating a block on, since the difficulty is so high. Would it be possible to make it exponentially easier to create a block, if one has not been found for, let's say, 1 hour ? (This would affect the actual miners as well, and make a block gap of greater than 1 hour 'basically' impossible.) If all the users started mining themselves, on their full nodes, their combined hash rate would still be insignificant in comparison to the actual miners.. BUT.. who cares!.. As long as they can create at least a block an hour, and then for the difficulty to re-target, let's say, every day.. the Users would have a fully functioning chain after 24 hrs. Albeit, with a low hash rate. Not only would they be able to function, they'd be making A LOT of money as they mined their chain. As soon as the miners realised that all the action was on that chain they would join in, start making money again, and the difficulty would go back up.. Assuming the miners wouldn't ATTACK that chain (maybe the POW algo could be changed very slightly in this particular case to prevent ASIC attacks.. don't know), and destroy it.. Is the block-difficulty-exponential-simplifier possible, or are there too many issues ? (Mining complications etc..) I think, as with my previous post on the OP_CHECKVERSIONBIT https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1931519.0 , this would give A LOT of power back to the users.. Who wouldn't feel like they were 2nd class actors in the play, since in fact, they are the real and only stars of the show.. |
|
|
|
|
UASF has ALREADY worked..
Simple as that.
From a position of 'nothing happening' to 'Shit - start running'.
|
|
|
|
Either I don't understand this correctly or I'm missing something. Trace Mayer tweeted "#SegWit is coming. Fight w/ your full node #UASF. #BIP148 only has Hobbits & a few Ents. #BIP149 will have all Ents". Why is that? I mean If SegWit2X is going to get activated in the next a few days, what's the point from continuing to run UASF full nodes If UASF was meant to activate SegWit as well.
Because IF SegWit2x gets done (a big IF), then the UASF will have no affect as all the blocks will be signalling for SegWit. If SegWit2x doesn't happen then UASF WILL split off, and only allow SegWit signalling blocks. (Anyone's guess how that plays out..) Either way - keep running UASF. ... As I've said in the other thread, the CORE devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x. As far as their concerned it's an ALT coin. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support.. The ONLY way this works out.. is if BIP141 activates SegWit (The one that's been tested and ready for 2 YEARS - not knocked up in a month). And then we fight over the 2MB HardFork block increase, that Again, CORE will not support. And running the UASF, means you'll need to be signalling BIP141, so again KEEP RUNNING UASF. .. It is a 'quite-extraordinary-cluster-fuck.' No clear path ahead at all IMHO. .. ... you've got to lol. (And in answer to the OP question - no. It's a maybe at best. Just like every other BIP out there..) |
|
|
|
I'll be honest.. Judging by the banter on the bitcoin-dev list.. I think we're a long way from having a smooooth transition. The devs have clearly rejected SegWit2x, whether or not the Miners have. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_supportI think the miners are playing this ALL wrong. Now they are saying they'll do segwit - but not in the safe way that's been planned for 2 years,but some new way ? They're total morons. I know 'face-saving' keeps getting brought up, but you can't save face, by being a dick. Now we are looking at a situation were the miners are going to have to run NON-Core code.. that was knocked up in what, 8 weeks, since Core can't pin down what SegWit2x ACTUALLY IS, and neither can anyone else. I think it's total madness, And certainly NOT what you want from the most stable reliable piece of code in existence.. .. This will end in tears. (buy some popcorn if you like a weepy..!) There is DEFINITELY going to be a chain split. Too many BIPS, too many dicks. .. BUT - I will say this.. UASF certainly got things rolling.. |
|
|
|
|
Hmm.. This does seem like a 'Kamikazee-Do-or-Die' move by the Users.. but if you're as tired of the bullshit as everyone else.. I say go for it. (We've lost market dominance over this issue, and the 'Bin' is just around the corner..)
What I don't understand is what happens to Silbert's plan..
If UASF works, can Silbert's work (I think they use different chains.. but it is getting awfully complicated..) ?
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.. hate to bump my own topic.. But.. really thought this idea would get more traction !? ^^
It basically levels the playing field ?
So that the users and the miners can balance each other out.. since currently the users have ZERO recourse..
It would mean we don't need a messy UASF.
IMHO - it fixes the current problem.
Am I missing something ?
|
|
|
|
I was thinking about HOW it is that we are in the situation we currently find ourselves in. The miners seem to have taken ALL the power, and we let them.. Or have we.. When I try to digest the UASF and what it means, I picture someone standing in font of a row of tanks, holding a pea shooter. I'm rooting for him (the Users), but I think trying to beat the miners (the Tanks) at this game, is almost impossible. We need to remember that Bitcoin has a LOT of moving parts. And the BIGGEST piece.. is that we.. the Users.. PAY. What I mean is, WE PAY the miners FEES, for mining our transactions, and that amount is now comparable to the amount that is mined for finding a block. ie.. It's a LOT. Well.. We need to be able to construct a txn that can ONLY be mined by a miner that is signalling SegWit.. hehe. Now currently - this is not possible, as there is no way of accessing the 'versionBits' in the Block Header (where SegWit Signalling happens) from a script. (Unless please please some one tell me I am wrong ?) BUT - if we had a very simple 'OP_CHECKVERSIONBIT' function (Same as OP_CLTV basically - but for versionBits instead of nLocktime), then we could create TXN's that could only be mined by a miner that is signalling for something we want.. like SegWit. THIS. IS. POWER..I would like to see how many miners hold out, when all the juicy fat txn fees are being gobbled up by the segwit signalling miners.. And only the scraps are left for those not signalling.. As I said - I don't think this is possible right now - but in future - I think it is something we should set up, so that when (not if) this situation arises again.. we can make our wishes known, in the strongest possible way. With our money BTC.. .. Soo.. is this possible ? (Or are there nasty attacks that can be done with this..) |
|
|
|
I was thinking about HOW it is that we are in the situation we currently find ourselves in. The miners seem to have taken ALL the power, and we let them.. Or have we.. When I try to digest the UASF and what it means, I picture someone standing in font of a row of tanks, holding a pea shooter. I'm rooting for him (the Users), but I think trying to beat the miners (the Tanks) at this game, is almost impossible. We need to remember that Bitcoin has a LOT of moving parts. And the BIGGEST piece.. is that we.. the Users.. PAY. What I mean is, WE PAY the miners FEES, for mining our transactions, and that amount is now comparable to the amount that is mined for finding a block. ie.. It's a LOT. Well.. We need to be able to construct a txn that can ONLY be mined by a miner that is signalling SegWit.. hehe. Now currently - this is not possible, as there is no way of accessing the 'versionBits' in the Block Header (where SegWit Signalling happens) from a script. (Unless please please some one tell me I am wrong ?) BUT - if we had a very simple 'OP_CHECKVERSIONBIT' function (Same as OP_CLTV bascially - but for versionBits instead of nLocktime), then we could create TXN's that could only be mined by a miner that is signalling for something we want.. like SegWit. THIS. IS. POWER..I would like to see how many miners hold out, when all the juicy fat txn fees are being gobbled up by the segwit signalling miners.. And only the scraps are left for those not signalling.. As I said - I don't think this is possible right now - but in future - I think it is something we should set up, so that when (not if) this situation arises again.. we can make our wishes known, in the strongest possible way. With our money BTC.. |
|
|
|
In a way, the conflict is the following:
A) in order to guarantee the good workings of the system, never ever, 51% of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude (agree on anything else but the "honest rules").
B) in order to have evolution, regularly, a very high majority of the consensus power (that is, mining power) should collude. over the change to be applied.
This can only happen if an *external* authority can define what are the "honest modifications of the honest rules", which is a select permissioned club.
I think that is not correct. 51% 'attack' - does not exist. 51% 'collusion' happens ALL THE TIME - and is what defines the current chain. If that 51% should decide on something else.. they can. The protocol simply says to follow the majority, NOT that the majority can never request upgrades, and can never change anything. The current situation, as you say, will be 'a very entertaining spectacle'. Because we have come to a situation, for the FIRST time imho, where what the 'Users' and the 'Miners' want clearly diverge. I'll quote gmaxwell - so please don't chew my ear off about this whole 'non-mining nodes have no power' thing - Dino.. Any rollout of segwit must include majority hash power No, that is one sufficient condition, it can instead include basically all of the users (in particular, economically significant users). Either are sufficient alone. The users define what are the miners and if the user define mining to include segwit, it does... from their perspective it is impossible to violate the rules, and any miner that tries just stops existing-- just as litecoin miners do not exist as far as Bitcoin users (and their nodes) are concerned today. .. Realistically - we are currently nowhere near the actual amount of 'economic' nodes required for the UASF to work well.. but let's see what happens.. You can't stop them from trying. (I think that's kind of the point) ps. IF it does work ( and it's a BIG IF ) will you admit that maybe there is more at play here than what you describe Dino ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
