grinding higher. MACD going positive:  |
|
|
|
Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.
this is why Bitcoin needs to scale as a payment network to push usage and acceptance out to the geographic periphery where even African kids mining for gold are discouraged from going down 3' wide holes 100 yds deep to pull up a useless heavy metal. Once that happens, Bitcoin becomes universal money and the old white folks won't have any choice. the other way to look at this is that Africa is the epicenter of gold mining production. do you think they will stop mining for the stuff if they don't get an opportunity to work/transact with Bitcoin? well, they won't with a 1MB limit. we want to get them to stop and realize there is a better alternative form of sound money that doesn't involve sacrificing your kids. |
|
|
|
Gold is tangible asset. Hard to convince older generation to hold bitcoin.
this is why Bitcoin needs to scale as a payment network to push usage and acceptance out to the geographic periphery where even African kids mining for gold are discouraged from going down 3' wide holes 100 yds deep to pull up a useless heavy metal. Once that happens, Bitcoin becomes universal money and the old white folks won't have any choice. |
|
|
|
here's Sergio Lerner agreeing with me on the futility of creating bloated blocks: Most methods proposed to reduce the block propagation delay do it only
on the average case. Any kind of block compression relies on both
parties sharing some previous information. In the worse case it's true
that a miner can create and try to broadcast a block that takes too much
time to verify or bandwidth to transmit. This is currently true on the
Bitcoin network. Nevertheless there is no such incentive for miners,
since they will be shooting on their own foots. Peter Todd has argued
that the best strategy for miners is actually to reach 51% of the
network, but not more. In other words, to exclude the slowest 49%
percent. But this strategy of creating bloated blocks is too risky in
practice, and surely doomed to fail, as network conditions dynamically
change. Also it would be perceived as an attack to the network, and the
miner (if it is a public mining pool) would be probably blacklisted.https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07663.html |
|
|
|
As Odalv already said tx size can be really big. If you go over the 100KB a transaction is considered non-standard though, see: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L603-L611and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.h#L55-L56 // Extremely large transactions with lots of inputs can cost the network
// almost as much to process as they cost the sender in fees, because
// computing signature hashes is O(ninputs*txsize). Limiting transactions
// to MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE mitigates CPU exhaustion attacks.
unsigned int sz = tx.GetSerializeSize(SER_NETWORK, CTransaction::CURRENT_VERSION);
if (sz >= MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE) {
reason = "tx-size";
return false;
}
/** The maximum size for transactions we're willing to relay/mine */
static const unsigned int MAX_STANDARD_TX_SIZE = 100000;
That said as long as you find a miner/poll that accept to include your tx in the next block you're golden. As soon as I have time I'll look for the actual txs that Peter Todd was referring to. thanks for that. but even if a miner tries to incl a non std tx into his solved block, it's quite probable that the majority of nodes/miners still reject the block as a result, no? |
|
|
|
...
Grandma and moma aren't you. And that is entire point of this drive to push Paypal, Circle, Coinbase, etc onto the masses. If you are arguing the masses will have the slightest clue that they need to move their wallet because of some obscure Digital Kill Switch that doesn't affect them, then you are disingenuous and absurd. So let's assume for a moment you have a functioning brain and you're right that the gvt teams up with all the banks and retail companies all within a giant cabal and the masses all are in Bitcoin. They hit the dreaded Digital Kill Switch. What happens then? Dissidents and competitors are targeted and eliminated (Digital Kill Switch one of the important tools of discipline on anyone who doesn't conform). The masses huddle into the NWO one world reserve currency and Global Technocracy fascist economy. 1984. It is a slow burn eugenics paradigm to achieve Ted Turner's 500 million population goal. you're a whack job. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin vs Blockchain is still going at full swing in the mainstream press. Are blockchains here to stay, in one guise or another? Just because bitcoin didn’t succeed as a currency
doesn't mean blockchain will succeed as a technology, but the experiment is important to run," says Patrick
Collison of Stripe, a payments processor. The possible uses are legion, but the killer app is still missing.
I didn't realize that bitcoin the currency already failed. yeah, i read that. Collison fail. |
|
|
|
so sorry:  |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. I hadn't read that. That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism. I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA. The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons. When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions. As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution. As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry. when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network "indiscriminately". thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners. If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them. And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition. Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that. the GUI's != owner's wallets. owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass. Masses will use the Circle, Paypal, Coinbase, Amazon, Facebook, etc wallet. This is why the banksters are funding all the large scale wallet startups. Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought about it in depth. sorry, none of the geeks should fall for it and alot of ppl have learned from mtgox and the other exchanges. and all the current unbanked billions won't be eligible for those company accts and will work off their smartphones. so no, an absurd cartel the likes of what you've described above will not be forming and even if it did, i just described how their share will be limited. no one likes cartels anyways. Well now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and being either disingenuous or absurdly obtuse. Denial of reality won't help you. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-exchange-coinbase-just-passed-2-million-users/The newly U.S. licensed Bitcoin Exchange Coinbase has just passed 2 million users. This is a large mark for Coinbase and we at CCN sends our congratulations. I'm one of those 2M. And I pull my coin out immediately. Grandma and moma aren't you. And that is entire point of this drive to push Paypal, Circle, Coinbase, etc onto the masses. If you are arguing the masses will have the slightest clue that they need to move their wallet because of some obscure Digital Kill Switch that doesn't affect them, then you are disingenuous and absurd. So let's assume for a moment you have a functioning brain and you're right that the gvt teams up with all the banks and retail companies all within a giant cabal and the masses all are in Bitcoin. They hit the dreaded Digital Kill Switch. What happens then? |
|
|
|
Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought about it in depth.
"Because I've thought about this in depth, it is inconceivable that I am wrong." - This is not the way to bring people around to your side, seriously! I am not trying to win a Communist kiss my ass contest. I am trying to elucidate the facts. If I say I have thought through all the details of the Transactions Withholding Attack ad nauseum over 2 years and entertained 100s of posts of debate, then it means I am speaking factually. A good card-carrying Communist can't handle facts, and thus doesn't want success. It doesn't mean I am not open to being wrong, but for how many posts do I have to debate before it becomes redundant and diminishing returns to 0? Anonymint registers account March 2013. What was price then, 80, I don't have access to chart. If he buys then, instead of being a bear, he's tripled his money? Maybe he wouldn't be struggling with bills? |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. I hadn't read that. That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism. I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads! Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA. The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons. When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions. As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution. As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry. when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network "indiscriminately". thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners. If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them. And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition. Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that. the GUI's != owner's wallets. owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass. Masses will use the Circle, Paypal, Coinbase, Amazon, Facebook, etc wallet. This is why the banksters are funding all the large scale wallet startups. Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought about it in depth. sorry, none of the geeks should fall for it and alot of ppl have learned from mtgox and the other exchanges. and all the current unbanked billions won't be eligible for those company accts and will work off their smartphones. so no, an absurd cartel the likes of what you've described above will not be forming and even if it did, i just described how their share will be limited. no one likes cartels anyways. Well now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel and being either disingenuous or absurdly obtuse. Denial of reality won't help you. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-exchange-coinbase-just-passed-2-million-users/The newly U.S. licensed Bitcoin Exchange Coinbase has just passed 2 million users. This is a large mark for Coinbase and we at CCN sends our congratulations. I'm one of those 2M. And I pull my coin out immediately. |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. I hadn't read that. That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism. I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads! Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA. The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons. When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions. As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution. As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry. when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network "indiscriminately". thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners. If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them. And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition. Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that. the GUI's != owner's wallets. owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass. Masses will use the Circle, Paypal, Coinbase, Amazon, Facebook, etc wallet. This is why the banksters are funding all the large scale wallet startups. Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought about it in depth. sorry, none of the geeks should fall for it and alot of ppl have learned from mtgox and the other exchanges. and all the current unbanked billions won't be eligible for those company accts and will work off their smartphones. so no, an absurd cartel the likes of what you've described above will not be forming and even if it did, i just described how their share will be limited. no one likes cartels anyways. |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. I hadn't read that. That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism. I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads! Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA. The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons. When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions. As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution. As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry. when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network "indiscriminately". thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners. If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them. And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition. Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that. the GUI's != owner's wallets. owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass. |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. I hadn't read that. That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism. I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads! Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA. The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons. When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions. As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution. As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry. when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network "indiscriminately". thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners. |
|
|
|
Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.
So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.
There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.
you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack". also it's solution. |
|
|
|
as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.
Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today. And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses. And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one. P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken. we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools. you haven't even given a definition of both. but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners. The government (NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters) has the incentive and the capability. Did we forget who the enemy is? i don't believe large miners = NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters |
|
|
|
I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect. Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization you do realize this view directly contradicts current behavior? large miners do not build 1MB blocks repeatedly and instead construct the smallest blocks possible to limit latency transmission across the network. if all "large" miners were hooked up as directly as you imply, they should today be constructing 1MB to maximize fees and try and torment small miners. |
|
|
|
as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.
Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today. And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses. And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one. P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken. we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools. you haven't even given a definition of both. but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners. |
|
|
|
So that is one argument that can be made against the pool's having control. Note it doesn't impact my other upthread (and very on topic) point that larger blocks favor centralization because higher orphan rates do.
larger bloat blocks have a higher chance of being orphaned I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect. Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization. I hope that is clear now, since apparently you didn't get it the first time and apparently ignored or didn't understand me? (if you did ignore before, covering your ears won't help you) My radical re-design totally eliminates the issue of orphans and the critical advantages of connectivity latency. It is a radical paradigm shift that solves the problem that Bitcoin was designed to be centralized and there is nothing you can do within Bitcoin's current design to stop that! (I will elaborate soon) Add: and the key point of distinction is that in Bitcoin in order to get a transaction to have a confirmation then it must be put into a block. In my novel new design, transactions don't have to be put in blocks in order to be confirmed. That is a very strong head scratching hint for you!
well that'll be a trick b/c the blockchain is Satoshi's fundamental contribution to tx security that was missing for all these decades of digital money formation. each block cements the tx's into the chain via POW. you need to elaborate on your purported innovation to have any meaningful discussion.  its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you? You'd be crazy not to invest. Yes it is a trick. The key insight is into how to make things orthogonal with a clever twist. I must admit, the more I think about it, the less obvious it is. I do have the antithetic weakness of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, "Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.". For $10,000 investment and promise of secrecy, you can find out now. Note my Bitmessage is not functioning on my new ISP, so anyone that wants to talk with me should PM me then we will go into encrypted webchat (very easy just load a webpage and chat). as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
