★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[fkod]

DigiByte is very good, very qualified project. Segwit was a good development for dgb.

We are waiting to see new games new partners on DigiByte gaming platform That platform progresses successfully.

[1715155996]

1715155996

[1715155996]

1715155996

[1715155996]

1715155996

[1715155996]

1715155996

[1715155996]

1715155996

[1715155996]

1715155996

[HR]

A third, less likely in my opinion, possibility is for price to back and fill down to 30 SAT, but, as I said, I very much doubt we'll ever see sub-30 ever again. More likely I find myself saying that about 45 SAT much sooner than I expect.

[cryptmebro]

6.14.1 win64, full resync, modal overlay (i guess):
- Progress and Progress increase per hour remain 0.00% all thru the process except the very last kblocks
- Estimated time left until synced 3 years and 4 weeks
- same non-linear scale in progress bar below

https://i.imgur.com/qrsJCOi.png

P.S.
but the biggest disappointment for me is the same superlong start,
as if i'm launching a mission to mars instead of opening a wallet

Digibyte has almost 4.5 million blocks, you can't compare it to the speed of other coins that have less blocks, if you keep your coins on Poloniex and Bittrex you don't have to worry about the long sync times.

if you keep your coins on Poloniex and Bittrex, you're a fool

FTFY

[cryptmebro]

Time to Vote guys!

Which one's Segwit to complete first? #Digibyte #Bitcoin #Litecoin

Hopefully none of them.

It was a horrible decision to leave segwit as a soft fork for DGB. Should have made it a hard fork, or just left it out. Horrible decision. Even from a marketing standpoint it would have been better to HF.

[muleroaa]

Time to Vote guys!

Which one's Segwit to complete first? #Digibyte #Bitcoin #Litecoin

Hopefully none of them.

It was a horrible decision to leave segwit as a soft fork for DGB. Should have made it a hard fork, or just left it out. Horrible decision. Even from a marketing standpoint it would have been better to HF.

Can you elaborate why a hard fork would have been better?

[cryptmebro]

So to let the community know, right now there are ASIC manufacturers attempting to block segwit activation on LTC and BTC.

This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nobody is required to signal for segwit. Anyone who runs a node or pool/miners is free to signal or not signal for whatever the fuck they want.

Quit pushing propaganda.

I never though Digibyte would stoop this low. This is appalling.

[cryptmebro]

Time to Vote guys!

Which one's Segwit to complete first? #Digibyte #Bitcoin #Litecoin

Hopefully none of them.

It was a horrible decision to leave segwit as a soft fork for DGB. Should have made it a hard fork, or just left it out. Horrible decision. Even from a marketing standpoint it would have been better to HF.

Can you elaborate why a hard fork would have been better?

You should research for yourself. If I spoon feed it to you, it will be biased information. Damned if i do, damned if i don't. Most of the time people ignore the facts, or shift the goal posts. I don't have time for that shit.

Anyways, I highly recommend you research it for yourself

[DigiByte]

So to let the community know, right now there are ASIC manufacturers attempting to block segwit activation on LTC and BTC.

This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nobody is required to signal for segwit. Anyone who runs a node or pool/miners is free to signal or not signal for whatever the fuck they want.

Quit pushing propaganda.

I never though Digibyte would stoop this low. This is appalling.

Please read for yourself, from the company itself: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

Bitmain holds the ASICBOOST patent in China. We can legally use it in our own mining farms in China to profit from it and sell the cloud mining contracts to the public

As such the statement that the deployment of ASICBOOST, which can lead to a 20% difference in power efficiency, is some kind of negative development for Bitmain’s business model is false.

Bitmain had always supported the Hong Kong Agreement, which means Segwit plus a hard fork to 2MB block size, until we no longer felt that it was going to happen in the foreseeable future. In fact, Bitmain is publicly on record as historically supporting SegWit and Lightning Network in the context of the Hong Kong agreemen

“Tothemoon”, an extension blocks plan proposed recently by Purse.io using a new Bitcon protocol implementation called Bcoin, could be designed to be incompatible with ASICBOOST much like Segwit is.

ASICBOOST is not a deterrent to Bitmain’s support of SegWit or Tothemoon. SegWit is not running in production because the conditions made clear in the Hong Kong agreement have not been met, in which we foresee a non-witness block size increase coming together with SegWit

They are the worlds largest ASIC manufacturer, and they clearly are blocking Segwit activation on BTC & LTC.


Segwit first and foremost fixes the transaction malleability issue which has plagued us all for a long time. From BTC release notes:

Segregated witness (segwit) is a soft fork that, if activated, will allow transaction-producing software to separate (segregate) transaction signatures (witnesses) from the part of the data in a transaction that is covered by the txid. This provides several immediate benefits:

Elimination of unwanted transaction malleability: Segregating the witness allows both existing and upgraded software to calculate the transaction identifier (txid) of transactions without referencing the witness, which can sometimes be changed by third-parties (such as miners) or by co-signers in a multisig spend. This solves all known cases of unwanted transaction malleability, which is a problem that makes programming Bitcoin wallet software more difficult and which seriously complicates the design of smart contracts for Bitcoin.

Capacity increase: Segwit transactions contain new fields that are not part of the data currently used to calculate the size of a block, which allows a block containing segwit transactions to hold more data than allowed by the current maximum block size. Estimates based on the transactions currently found in blocks indicate that if all wallets switch to using segwit, the network will be able to support about 70% more transactions. The network will also be able to support more of the advanced-style payments (such as multisig) than it can support now because of the different weighting given to different parts of a transaction after segwit activates (see the following section for details).

Weighting data based on how it affects node performance: Some parts of each Bitcoin block need to be stored by nodes in order to validate future blocks; other parts of a block can be immediately forgotten (pruned) or used only for helping other nodes sync their copy of the block chain. One large part of the immediately prunable data are transaction signatures (witnesses), and segwit makes it possible to give a different “weight” to segregated witnesses to correspond with the lower demands they place on node resources. Specifically, each byte of a segregated witness is given a weight of 1, each other byte in a block is given a weight of 4, and the maximum allowed weight of a block is 4 million. Weighting the data this way better aligns the most profitable strategy for creating blocks with the long-term costs of block validation.

Signature covers value: A simple improvement in the way signatures are generated in segwit simplifies the design of secure signature generators (such as hardware wallets), reduces the amount of data the signature generator needs to download, and allows the signature generator to operate more quickly. This is made possible by having the generator sign the amount of bitcoins they think they are spending, and by having full nodes refuse to accept those signatures unless the amount of bitcoins being spent is exactly the same as was signed. For non-segwit transactions, wallets instead had to download the complete previous transactions being spent for every payment they made, which could be a slow operation on hardware wallets and in other situations where bandwidth or computation speed was constrained.

Linear scaling of sighash operations: In 2015 a block was produced that required about 25 seconds to validate on modern hardware because of the way transaction signature hashes are performed. Other similar blocks, or blocks that could take even longer to validate, can still be produced today. The problem that caused this can’t be fixed in a soft fork without unwanted side-effects, but transactions that opt-in to using segwit will now use a different signature method that doesn’t suffer from this problem and doesn’t have any unwanted side-effects.

Increased security for multisig: Bitcoin addresses (both P2PKH addresses that start with a ‘1’ and P2SH addresses that start with a ‘3’) use a hash function known as RIPEMD-160. For P2PKH addresses, this provides about 160 bits of security—which is beyond what cryptographers believe can be broken today. But because P2SH is more flexible, only about 80 bits of security is provided per address. Although 80 bits is very strong security, it is within the realm of possibility that it can be broken by a powerful adversary. Segwit allows advanced transactions to use the SHA256 hash function instead, which provides about 128 bits of security (that is 281 trillion times as much security as 80 bits and is equivalent to the maximum bits of security believed to be provided by Bitcoin’s choice of parameters for its Elliptic Curve Digital Security Algorithm [ECDSA].)

More efficient almost-full-node security Satoshi Nakamoto’s original Bitcoin paper describes a method for allowing newly-started full nodes to skip downloading and validating some data from historic blocks that are protected by large amounts of proof of work. Unfortunately, Nakamoto’s method can’t guarantee that a newly-started node using this method will produce an accurate copy of Bitcoin’s current ledger (called the UTXO set), making the node vulnerable to falling out of consensus with other nodes. Although the problems with Nakamoto’s method can’t be fixed in a soft fork, Segwit accomplishes something similar to his original proposal: it makes it possible for a node to optionally skip downloading some blockchain data (specifically, the segregated witnesses) while still ensuring that the node can build an accurate copy of the UTXO set for the block chain with the most proof of work. Segwit enables this capability at the consensus layer, but note that Bitcoin Core does not provide an option to use this capability as of this 0.13.1 release.

Script versioning: Segwit makes it easy for future soft forks to allow Bitcoin users to individually opt-in to almost any change in the Bitcoin Script language when those users receive new transactions. Features currently being researched by Bitcoin Core contributors that may use this capability include support for Schnorr signatures, which can improve the privacy and efficiency of multisig transactions (or transactions with multiple inputs), and Merklized Abstract Syntax Trees (MAST), which can improve the privacy and efficiency of scripts with two or more conditions. Other Bitcoin community members are studying several other improvements that can be made using script versioning.

Activation for the segwit soft fork is being managed using BIP9 versionbits. Segwit’s version bit is bit 1, and nodes will begin tracking which blocks signal support for segwit at the beginning of the first retarget period after segwit’s start date of 15 November 2016. If 95% of blocks within a 2,016-block retarget period (about two weeks) signal support for segwit, the soft fork will be locked in. After another 2,016 blocks, segwit will activate.

For more information about segwit, please see the segwit FAQ, the segwit wallet developers guide or BIPs 141, 143, 144, and 145. If you’re a miner or mining pool operator, please see the versionbits FAQ for information about signaling support for a soft fork.

[IloveDigibyte]

pump is over. thanks for playing again.

I don't think so, it's just corrections because of BTC rise (check other alts).
+ coming segwit activation has positive influence on market

and if devs fix those silly small qt deficiencies it will definitely go up much higher lol.
everything should look perfectly right, like new grs, ltc etc ...

many thanks for the 6.14.2

LTC and DGB will see positive gains because of segwit and being on Poloniex , the exchange with the most traded bitcoin. Other coin like grs not on Poloniex will never get anywhere in value.

I was told by insiders with more btc then most of you can dream of that dgb will be going over 100 soon.

[cryptmebro]

So to let the community know, right now there are ASIC manufacturers attempting to block segwit activation on LTC and BTC.

This is absolute bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Nobody is required to signal for segwit. Anyone who runs a node or pool/miners is free to signal or not signal for whatever the fuck they want.

Quit pushing propaganda.

I never though Digibyte would stoop this low. This is appalling.

Please read for yourself, from the company itself: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/

You obviously didn't read the full article. It's a very well written piece. Why are you bringing Bitcoin politics here?

Instead of arguing the technical aspects of Segwit, you are bashing Bitmain. So professional.

ASICboost has not been used on mainnet. If it was, grats to everyone on their 30% efficiency increase.

"Segwit first and foremost fixes the transaction malleability issue which has plagued us all for a long time."
oh really? how many times has digibyte been affected by malleability?

What about the other 70% of the hashrate that isn't signaling for Segwit. Are they "blocking" segwit. Or do they feel segwit is not a good upgrade? I'll fucking say it again; nobody is required to signal for segwit, you are pushing a false narrative. To say that people are "blocking" Segwit implies that people need to do whatever the core team says. Chastising users for exercising their preferred configuration with open source software. I'm so disappointed in you right now.

Why the hell are we talking about Bitcoin, Bitmain, ASICboost, and people "blocking" segwit on BTC and LTC anyways? Thanks for moving the fucking goalposts. Anyone with half a brain can see what is going on here. I'm not going to waste my time any longer. This is just ridiculous, grow up.

[cryptmebro]

pump is over. thanks for playing again.

I don't think so, it's just corrections because of BTC rise (check other alts).
+ coming segwit activation has positive influence on market

and if devs fix those silly small qt deficiencies it will definitely go up much higher lol.
everything should look perfectly right, like new grs, ltc etc ...

many thanks for the 6.14.2

LTC and DGB will see positive gains because of segwit and being on Poloniex , the exchange with the most traded bitcoin. Other coin like grs not on Poloniex will never get anywhere in value.

I was told by insiders with more btc then most of you can dream of that dgb will be going over 100 soon.

Price is the only thing it will help. Arguably, price is all that matters. Segwit's one technical merit of TX malleability will not outweigh the burden of the rest of the technical debt and 30,000+ lines of bullshit code it brings along. Additionally, the fix will be for segwit tx's only, and you can say goodbye to normal tx's when segwit is here.

DGB was once my favorite for its scaling innovations, speed, and lack of politics. Can't wait to dump and be done with this nonsense. Thanks for the heads up. I think it will hit 200+ this time. We will see. Keep me updated.

[Investopedia]

We just released v6.14.2 which fixes the wallet loading delay where a wallet might take 20+ minutes to open (should open within a minute or two):

Download here:
https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/releases/tag/v6.14.2

Current Segwit activation can be tracked here: https://segwit.digiexplorer.info/

Thanks allot for all the hard work on the new wallet!

The code base is now up to date with some of the latest features, the faster sync times, faster transaction relaying and the deterministic wallet is awesome.

DGB is a such a good coin for day to day transacting and the multi algo pow protects it from one person with asics blocking growth.

I fully support the direction DGB is taking!

[Jumbley]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but this is not the first time that DigiByte has done something that some people believe won’t work or is unwise from a technical point of view and this probably won’t be the last time either but that’s sometimes the point, to actually test these theories because sometimes they need to be tested.
DigiByte remains backwards compatible and nobody is actually being forced to engage segwit, mining using the old code remains just as productive for finding blocks at this time and you will currently only lose the deterministic wallet functions by importing a new wallet into the old.
I agree, nothing we do should be purely for the market price of DigiByte, if that was our main concern, then almost everything we have done, right from the off, is wrong!

[madsenDGB]

I wish steam would use DigiByte instead of Bitcoin.
You are doing a good job.

[A.M.]

I wish steam would use DigiByte instead of Bitcoin.
You are doing a good job.

not really the best of things to wish for is it. you are right though they are doing a real good job and have been for years.

[madsenDGB]

I say that because,the last two times I bought games on steam, it took 34 and 18 hours for Bitcoin to confirm with normal fee.

[iikun]

I say that because,the last two times I bought games on steam, it took 34 and 18 hours for Bitcoin to confirm with normal fee.

woah... was it transaction backlog or do Steam also require an inordinate number of confirmations?  Still, even with normal block times they would probably need at least an hour to confirm. DigiByte would get it done within the time it takes to make a coffee & come back to the PC, probably less.

[madsenDGB]

If steam could take DigiByte: there are many players who have gtx 1060.1070 and 1080 cards, mining DigiByte skein a month. and those people  would be able to buy a game. my question is, what would be so stupid about that.
I have bought 35 games on steam from mining.

[madsenDGB]

If steam could take DigiByte: there are many players who have gtx 1060.1070 and 1080 cards, mining DigiByte skein a month. and those people  would be able to buy a game. my question is, what would be so stupid about that.
I have bought 35 games on steam from mining.

Here is a study on bitcoin transaction https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/43-bitcoin-transactions-not-processed-one-hour-study-says/

[madsenDGB]

If steam could take DigiByte: there are many players who have gtx 1060.1070 and 1080 cards, mining DigiByte skein a month. and those people  would be able to buy a game. my question is, what would be so stupid about that.
I have bought 35 games on steam from mining.