Bitcoin Forum
May 12, 2024, 12:41:30 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  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 ... 970 »
21  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: March 21, 2016, 05:27:03 PM
I find this idea of libconsensus a bit funny, Core approves of any implementation that does not disagree with them on key points like the blocksize limit. It somewhat defeats the purpose of multiple implementations if they are not allowed to disagree with Core.

If there is no consensus then there is no blockchain - is that so hard to understand?

If we took your "democratic" idea then I could just create 100 Bitcoin clones next week each with a different limit to the 21M one and suggest that we all vote upon which one to use - would that in any way be a good thing in your opinion?


that's already been done:  altcoins.

so far, that hasn't hurt Bitcoin one bit.  unless of course, we persist on this lunatic path of preventing HF's to lift the blocksize limit.
22  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - Mine 1 BTC, Get 10 NMC, only at F2Pool on: March 20, 2016, 07:13:06 PM
We have got a new Classic server in U.S. west. Core miners please use stratum-(us|us-west|us-east).f2pool.com, Classic miners please use stratum-us.f2xtpool.com at port 3333. Currently we have 5% of our hashrate from North America. https://www.f2pool.com/regions
Thank you for supporting Bitcoin Classic!

yes, thank you macbook-air.
23  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair on: February 25, 2016, 12:11:32 AM
http://www.blockcy.com/digital-currencies-commodities-judge

appears that this ruling means cypherdoc has to hand back the full 3000 btc, as a commodity, to the receivers of HashFast, maybe there will be some justice for those who paid BTC for pre-orders and never received any mining equipment.

that's not what it means at all.

it means that the trustees just have the chance to possibly win back the full 3000 btc, however unlikely.

did you ever consider just handing it back to the people who never got any hardware delivered for their pre-order bitcoin deposits? Like the people that it most probably rightfully belongs to? How does your ethical thinking work here?

doesn't work that way. once plaintiffs got lawyers involved that need to be paid that became impossible.
24  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: PSA: cypherdoc is a paid shill, liar and probably epic scammer: HashFast affair on: February 25, 2016, 12:06:36 AM
http://www.blockcy.com/digital-currencies-commodities-judge

appears that this ruling means cypherdoc has to hand back the full 3000 btc, as a commodity, to the receivers of HashFast, maybe there will be some justice for those who paid BTC for pre-orders and never received any mining equipment.

that's not what it means at all.

it means that the trustees just have the chance to possibly win back the full 3000 btc, however unlikely.
25  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: February 24, 2016, 11:32:38 PM
don't delete or split this discussion -ck

26  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / f2pool not supporting roundtable was Re: 「魚池」BTC:270 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: February 24, 2016, 03:28:06 PM
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-366#post-12890
27  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:250 Phash/s - LTC:500 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 30, 2016, 04:17:58 PM
Peter Todd: SW is not safe as a softfork:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43bgrs/peter_todd_sw_is_not_safe_as_a_softfork/
28  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:200 Phash/s - LTC:600 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 19, 2016, 09:29:00 PM
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/commit/8d3a84c242598ef3cdc733e99dddebfecdad84a6

Keccak?

this is the worst idea I've seen for BTC, switching algo as if it were some altcoin....

it disenfranchises miners who've invested millions/billions in SHA256 hardware.
29  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:200 Phash/s - LTC:600 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 19, 2016, 09:21:09 PM
wow, core dev really does care about you.  or do they?:

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41aocn/httpsbitcoinorgenbitcoincorecapacityincreases_why/cz0z9ym

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6
30  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:190 Phash/s - LTC:600 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 18, 2016, 06:08:58 PM
Can we get this translated into Chinese for the benefit of f2pool, before they do something foolish and regrettable?

https://t.co/3IY2PKIjsX

The Scaling Announcement Bitcoin Core Should Have Made

By the Bitcoin Core Developers (a complete list of signers can be found below)

We’re here to talk about scaling and the roadmap we’ve set for Bitcoin Core.

As with any roadmap, we’ve heard your feedback and we want to continue to hear it, so please keep it coming.

We’ve had extensive conversations with all of you — from the miners to the wallets and exchanges to everyday community members — and want to make it clear that we’ve listened to everything you have to say with regards to the growth of the bitcoin blockchain and evolution of Bitcoin core.

We feel we have a fair grasp of what your needs are and are well-equipped to examine them against the constraints of the Bitcoin network and the software that powers it, and determine how best we can make everyone happy and ensure that the system is fully operational and is able to scale.

Part of this work means looking at a variety of increases to the Bitcoin block size and doing extensive analysis and testing to determine the effects that each of these increases would have.

As many of you may be aware, we have to be aware of two facts:

    Increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain is critical. Bitcoin needs to grow and support more and more users, and each of these users needs to have access to relatively low transaction fees.
    Block size increases should not be taken lightly and it is imperative they be carefully tested beforehand. Block size increases impact many aspects of the Bitcoin network and do have the potential to reduce decentralization and network stability.

It is clear that both of these are largely in conflict with one another, and so they will have to be weighed against one another and a compromise will need to be reached.

Just because we have the need to support certain levels of usage, doesn’t mean we should dare to compromise either the stability of the system or the level of decentralization that makes Bitcoin so unique and powerful. And just because we have a fear of the effects of block size increases does not mean that we should fail to subject such increases to real world tests and do everything we can to increase the system-wide capacity.

Bitcoin will scale, but it will require a combination of efforts and it will be a gradual process. So we need to come together and agree on the tradeoffs we’re making and we need to be patient.

Last, we need to be civil and respectful of one another and make sure we all come together to push Bitcoin forward.

We’ve done some extensive real world testing on many global test beds, including Princeton University’s Planet Lab, the largest in the world. From this we’ve concluded that 8MB blocks are simply too large to be considered safe for the network at this point in time, considering the current global bandwidth levels.

So while many of us may want to shoot for the stars, we must agree that it is more important to ensure that the network remains healthy and strong.

At the same time, it is important that we push for an increase that is as big as we can safely handle, and we believe that Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal that scales the block size to 4MB after 2 years and then to 8MB after 4 years is the plan of action that is the most ambitious while still being safe.

In addition, it seems we can do even better in terms of performance by sticking with 2–4–8 but allowing non-fully-validating nodes to ignore approximately half of this data. This would be a big improvement that would alleviate the pressure that we’ll be putting nodes by scaling the block size. The improvement is being called Segregated Witness and involves separating signatures out from the main block and putting them into a Merkle tree that only fully-validating nodes have to see.

We want to roll this plan out slowly and carefully, and we believe the best course of action is to first roll out Segregated Witness so we can get a quick win on an approximately 2x data capacity increase. This would involve removing signatures from the main portion of blocks, which would double the number of transactions that can be fit into the current 1MB limit (this means the effective limit would be 2MB).

Next, we plan on shifting gears to prepare for the hard fork that would put Adam Back’s 2–4–8 proposal into place alongside Segregated Witness, where the limits would be scaled to account for the optimizations made by Segregated Witness (the limits would be approximate limits that would continue to include signature data).

Beyond this, in order to prepare for the two bumps over the next 4 years and ensure that orphan rates don’t increase, we’re working on integrating efficient relay techniques like the relay network and IBLT, so that most block data is disseminated throughout the network even before a block is found.

Further, we’ll be working hard on preparing for the hard fork that will need to come with the second increase. We’ve bought a bit of time considering that the cleverness of Segregated Witness will allow us to do the first doubling with just a soft fork, which will reduce risk in the short run. And of course, this hard fork should not be taken lightly as hard forks in general do pose a significant risk of network fracturing, which could result in a significant monetary loss for stakeholders.

In summary, this roadmap is meant to do the best possible job to address the growth needs felt by all Bitcoin stakeholders, while ensuring the stability and decentralization of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

We want to stress that Bitcoin Core is comprised of a group of volunteers that don’t always agree themselves and many discussions amongst us and Bitcoin stakeholders were required to get us all on the same page.

We have thought long and hard about this proposal and think it is the best of both worlds. But we still want to hear from you about this roadmap and get your input. We are committed to continuing to engaged fully and publicly with the wider community.

The future of Bitcoin is about all of us and we need to work together to push it forward.

Thank you,

The Bitcoin Core Developers

read the link.

this is from Ryan Shea, not the core devs.
31  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core #REKT on: January 16, 2016, 08:47:42 PM
32  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 08:32:36 PM
To all regular posters here I apologize for having attracted the trolls.

show them who the real troll is brg444.  go ahead and ad hom and dox me again, like you usually do.  everybody already knows my real identity and that i don't have any financial conflicts in this blocksize issue.  i argue from my heart and for the good of Bitcoin.  you, otoh, continue to hide behind your anonymity and censored forums.  given that we're this deep and long into the debate, and given your propensity for trolling, ad hom, and overall viciousness, you should be required to reveal exactly who you are so that we all can evaluate whether you have a financial conflict of interest or not.  anyone who has argued so vigorously and unreasonably as you over this last year needs to show their cards.

how about it?
33  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 08:13:03 PM
and TBH, Core doesn't even have Greg anymore.
34  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 08:01:02 PM
i kinda liked this one from Aquentin on Reddit this morning:

"I am not sure why you are obsessed with core, why you wish to ask them for permission and why you are even begging them when core does not exist anymore. There is no core without two of the most seniour developers - Gavin and Jeff. Core is a was and what is now called core is a completely different team with a vision that is fully opposed to keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all or easy to use.

The current core team instead wishes to create walled gardens through LN bringing in middle men with their gateways and checkins taking away fees from miners and taking away the easy usability from users all for the pleasure of users paying them a fee.

Moreover, the company currently in control of core has the same business model as R3. They plan to create private blockchains - like liquid - and sell them for a fee to banks, businesses, companies, or even consumers. That is their business model is to create bitranets - similiar to intranets - to compete with the open ledger that is bitcoin. As the interests of open bitcoin and bitranet often are in competition, a team offering such bitranets and in control of bitcoin will necessarily wish to make the open ledger less competitive.

Ergo RBF which kills 0conf transactions while in their liquid bitranet they boast about 0confs as a feature - ergo keeping the open chain from scaling so that the bitranets win by default, etc.

TL;dr There is no core any longer. What was core is now divided into classic and core. Your choice therefore is between a team which abides by the wishes of users, listens to them, shares satoshi's vision and more importantly shares the vision of keeping bitcoin open and accessible to all, a world wide ledger that can be used for smart contracts and a million other things - or you can choose core which is killing 0conf transactions, refuses to listen to users and is controlled by a company that is in direct competition with bitcoin's interest of being open and accessible to all.

The users have made their choice - so have the most seniour developers. The miners signed 8mb in blood so to speak, then asked for bip100 - and core simply ignored you. Now you keep begging them and keep asking for permission... not sure when you'll figure out that not only do they not care about you, but they publicly state that you do not matter at all, yet you keep begging them and asking for permission..."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/414qxh/49_of_bitcoin_mining_pools_support_bitcoin/cz0ceao
35  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 07:43:56 PM
looks pretty good to me:

36  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
this from Sergio Lerner, prominent Bitcoin core dev. from BitcoinClassic Slack Channel:


sergiodemianlerner 5:29 PM Regarding SegWit, I don't know if you have actually looked at the code but the amount of code changed, including consensus code, is huge. (maybe ~500 lines). I think such change has never been attempted in the history of Bitcoin. We cannot just say lightly that a couple of weeks after the 2mb hard-fork we're going to deploy segwit. That code needs months of review. Also I'm against the complexity of segwit as a soft-fork (probably requires 200 additional lines of code of consensus critical code). Segwit almost prevents consensus-compatible re-implementations of Bitcoin in other languages.
37  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 07:07:45 PM

It provides effectively the same increase as a 2MB increase without the hassle of a hard fork.

It is live on testnet.

It avoids significant economic damages to the ecosystem brought about by uncertainty of a clearly contentious hard fork.
[/quote]

Just a quick clarification on SegWit and block size.

Based on current transaction type distribution in an average mined block, SegWit will give you a 1.6/1.7 MB block "size" if and only if 100% of the network upgraded (x4 gain reacheable only for 3-3 multisig txs).

Just take into consideration a likely / optimistic scenario:

- SegWit deployed on May 2016
- 2 month after deployment SoftFork activation will be triggered (95% miners adoption)
- 50% network (all kind of full nodes) upgrade after a year.

if all of the above are satisfied SegWit will bring max block size to 1.35 on Jun/Jul 2017.


https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-251#post-9463
38  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 06:14:06 PM

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html
[/quote]

that link proves my pt.  SW is not a good scaling solution. 
39  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 05:54:48 PM
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. 

please point out the technical error.

First not one miner is forced to mine anything whatsoever. They will pick whatever transactions they wish and will be incentivized to pick Seg Witness tx since they will come with more fees per bytes.

As for the 4MB you present it in a disingenuous way that propose the maximum gains necessarily translates to a 4MB block.

Here's how it actually works:

Quote
That would be 1.6MB and 2MB of total actual data if you hit the limits with real transactions, so it's more like a 1.8x increase for real transactions afaics, even with substantial use of multisig addresses.

The 4MB consensus limit could only be hit by having a single trivial transaction using as little base data as possible, then a single huge 4MB witness. So people trying to abuse the system have 4x the blocksize for 1 block's worth of fees, while people using it as intended only get 1.6x or 2x the blocksize... That seems kinda backwards.



why is that link unclickable?
40  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Pools (Altcoins) / Re: 「魚池」BTC:180 Phash/s - LTC:550 Ghash/s - New Server in U.S. stratum-us.f2pool.com on: January 16, 2016, 04:58:52 PM
SW, at it's theoretical maximum, will force you to transmit 4MB worth of data for only a 1.75MB maximum gain in tx's and associated fees.  how does that help you vs a simple blocksize increase to 4MB worth of pure tx's and fees?

This is a complete lie and misfabrication.

macbook-air please, if you are wang chun, do consult with the Core devs.

Segwit is the most responsible way to end this dead lock for now and will provide for ample time and headroom to optimize the propagation problems so that a 2MB hard fork may go through with absolute network consensus down the road.

There is still clear dissent amongst users about a contentious hard fork and while miners may agree it would create a bad precedent for you to force this on the community. 

please point out the technical error.
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 ... 970 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!