Bitcoin Forum
January 27, 2020, 09:28:24 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Warning: One or more bitcointalk.org users have reported that they believe that the creator of this topic displays some red flags which make them high-risk. (Login to see the detailed trust ratings.) While the bitcointalk.org administration does not verify such claims, you should proceed with extreme caution.
Pages: « 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANN] [BSV] [Bitcoin SV] Original Satoshi Vision (Old Thread)  (Read 82039 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (466 posts by 52 users with 39 merit deleted.)
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 2672


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 12:48:07 PM
 #1541


Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?

Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.

On a frozen, locked down protocol design, there is no dev needed

That's funny. Just yesterday you said there was still work to be done in "unfuckening" the protocol. Sounds like you're gonna need a dev for that.

Telling ppl to trust into devs is the fraud,

Especially if its your dev.

  ▄▄█████▄▄███████▄▄
 ███████████
     ▀▀███▄
█████████████        ▀██▄
█████████████          ██▄
███████████            ██▄
██▀▀█████▀▀              ██
██                       ██
██                       ██
▀██                     ██▀
 ▀██                   ██▀
  ▀██▄               ▄██▀
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
███████   INDUSTRY LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK   ███████
MULTI
CURRENCY
ONLINE
   CASINO   
DAILY PRICE
BOOSTS
FAST & SECURE
PAYMENTS
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀       ▀▀███████
████▀   ▄ ▀███▀ ▄   ▀████
███  ▄████▄ ▀ ▄████▄  ███
██  ▄ ▀███▀ ▄ ▀███▀ ▄  ██
█  ▄██ ▀▀ ▄███▄ ▀▀ ██▄  █
█  █▀ ▄█ ███████ █▄ ▀█  █
█   ▄███▄ █████ ▄███▄   █
██  ████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▀████  ██
███  ▀ ▄ ▀█████▀ ▄ ▀  ███
████▄  ▀▀▄ ███ ▄▀▀  ▄████
███████▄▄       ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀ █████ ▀▀███████
████▀    ▄█████▄    ▀████
█████▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄█████
██▀███▀ ▄███▀███▄ ▀███▀██
█   █ ▄██▀     ▀██▄ █   █
█   █ ██         ██ █   █
█   █ ▀██▄▄█ █▄▄██▀ █   █
██▄███▄ ▀██▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄██
█████▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀▀█████
████▄    ▀█████▀    ▄████
███████▄▄ █████ ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
.
.REGISTER NOW!.
1580117304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580117304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1580117304
Reply with quote  #2

1580117304
Report to moderator
1580117304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580117304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1580117304
Reply with quote  #2

1580117304
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1580117304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580117304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1580117304
Reply with quote  #2

1580117304
Report to moderator
1580117304
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1580117304

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1580117304
Reply with quote  #2

1580117304
Report to moderator
Bitcoin SV
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 158
Merit: 42


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 02:19:51 PM
 #1542

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.
1. CSW is co-author of early Bitcoin. Satoshi is just pseudonym

2. BSV is Original Bitcoin, because current Bitcoin is not accords to early Bitcoin Principes
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 287


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 02:36:12 PM
 #1543

Bitcoin is not accords to early Bitcoin Principes
Neither is Bitcoin SV which is born out right from the posts from Satoshi on this very forum.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 2672


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 02:55:45 PM
 #1544

In this topic, complete freedom of speech and anarchy

Except for the 303 comments you have deleted  Cheesy

Might as well just keep deleting them dude. Theymos isn't going to close my thread, but you can delete my comments from this one.

  ▄▄█████▄▄███████▄▄
 ███████████
     ▀▀███▄
█████████████        ▀██▄
█████████████          ██▄
███████████            ██▄
██▀▀█████▀▀              ██
██                       ██
██                       ██
▀██                     ██▀
 ▀██                   ██▀
  ▀██▄               ▄██▀
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
███████   INDUSTRY LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK   ███████
MULTI
CURRENCY
ONLINE
   CASINO   
DAILY PRICE
BOOSTS
FAST & SECURE
PAYMENTS
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀       ▀▀███████
████▀   ▄ ▀███▀ ▄   ▀████
███  ▄████▄ ▀ ▄████▄  ███
██  ▄ ▀███▀ ▄ ▀███▀ ▄  ██
█  ▄██ ▀▀ ▄███▄ ▀▀ ██▄  █
█  █▀ ▄█ ███████ █▄ ▀█  █
█   ▄███▄ █████ ▄███▄   █
██  ████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▀████  ██
███  ▀ ▄ ▀█████▀ ▄ ▀  ███
████▄  ▀▀▄ ███ ▄▀▀  ▄████
███████▄▄       ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀ █████ ▀▀███████
████▀    ▄█████▄    ▀████
█████▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄█████
██▀███▀ ▄███▀███▄ ▀███▀██
█   █ ▄██▀     ▀██▄ █   █
█   █ ██         ██ █   █
█   █ ▀██▄▄█ █▄▄██▀ █   █
██▄███▄ ▀██▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄██
█████▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀▀█████
████▄    ▀█████▀    ▄████
███████▄▄ █████ ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
.
.REGISTER NOW!.
Do_zzze
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 147
Merit: 1


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 03:26:49 PM
Last edit: October 26, 2019, 03:38:09 PM by Do_zzze
 #1545

I guess that's because you're an alt account used by the team or you're just naive and don't know that Craig and teams stemming coin from BCH which legitimate make BSV shitcoin of Bitcoincrash. In fact, this is the reason why the OP of this thread ignore the statement made by nutildah

So according to you I can't write that I like BSV - CLOAK - CRW and other technologies and projects?! And that I'm direct suspected of being an alternative and naive account because I give my opinion!? What I see with my own eyes is that there are many more applications that are released and under development for BSV than for BTC and many others. The guys are working honestly and very productively to build your future and you don't even have the decency to recognize that there are far more results than anywhere else. I remain disappointed by your judgments, which are too easy when no one here is able to produce half of the quarter of what the BSV guys do. You're just here to make contrived circumstantial trials and judge people, that's why you're useless. What have you accomplished in your life? Just being unable to tie your shoes and have your anus dilated to match your bullshit?


hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1442
Merit: 555

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2019, 03:48:04 PM
Last edit: October 27, 2019, 04:10:33 PM by mprep
 #1546

In this topic, complete freedom of speech and anarchy

Except for the 303 comments you have deleted  Cheesy

Might as well just keep deleting them dude. Theymos isn't going to close my thread, but you can delete my comments from this one.

U wanna have some overview about how many ( not only of mine) posts got deleted by just arguing pro on chain scaling and against introducing technical debt like Segshit or 'privacy features' into the original protocol?

Many sane legends have left this place also because of censorship




Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?

Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.

On a frozen, locked down protocol design, there is no dev needed

That's funny. Just yesterday you said there was still work to be done in "unfuckening" the protocol. Sounds like you're gonna need a dev for that.

Telling ppl to trust into devs is the fraud,

Especially if its your dev.

Slowly u might get that, sure there is refactoring needed
 
Most due to the shit that got injected by devs having no clue what BitCoin was designed to do.

But all such things are cleaning and scaling tasks, so that after Genesis release we have TCP/IP like state of protocol stability, and all BSV apps will be smoothly running after for many years
without any fear of getting 'deved out of functioning' by insanity

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
Bitcoin SV
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 158
Merit: 42


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 06:07:25 PM
 #1547

In this topic, complete freedom of speech and anarchy

Except for the 303 comments you have deleted  Cheesy

Might as well just keep deleting them dude. Theymos isn't going to close my thread, but you can delete my comments from this one.
Because rights and freedoms should only be for normal peoples. Not for trolls like you
Do_zzze
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 147
Merit: 1


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 07:13:21 PM
 #1548


Why do you prefer BSV and fire BTC and its LN Source from https://memo.sv/a/de90329489

Quote
In September, a study https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.06890.pdf about Bitcoin's Lightning Network began to emerge on the networks. Its authors - Saar Tochner, Aviv Zohar and Stefan Schmid - are convinced that Bitcoin's Lightning Network is a very fragile tool. Why? Why? Because it would be enough to connect intelligently to it to succeed in parasitizing it to the point where the majority of payments on the network could simply no longer succeed.


Theoretical foundations
So let's quickly review together the main differences between the Bitcoin network and the Lightning Network, a network built in a second layer above it.

Bitcoin and its bases
In the Bitcoin blockchain, the possession of bitcoins takes the form of so-called public and private key sets. A private key is produced by randomly selecting any number from 1 to 2256. This number is then subjected to a particular mathematical operation, called an elliptical curve multiplication (called secp256k1, corresponding to the ECDSA algorithm). This results in what is called a Bitcoin public key. This public key is then passed through the mill of another computer function - a hash function - to obtain a public address. The latter is used to receive payments and can be shared without risk. It can start with a 1, a 3, or with bc1 since some protocol evolutions. These addresses are then checked for convenience in the form of a portfolio (also called a wallet), centralizing a user's associated private keys.


Thus, and to summarize, you control private keys that only you know with a wallet, they allow you to prove that you own funds denominated in Bitcoins (with a lowercase b) on the Bitcoin network (with a capital B). You can then receive bitcoins, and choose to send them to others using the address system described above.

The Lightning Network: Bitcoin, but instantly
But when you try Bitcoin, you will find that for a bitcoin transaction to be accepted by the Bitcoin network, a certain confirmation time must pass: usually, it will take between ten to thirty minutes, varying (with possible extremes) depending on the relative congestion of the network at the time of your transaction and the fees you agree to pay to the network.


This is why a solution is currently under development to enable almost instant Bitcoin transactions: the Lightning Network. Built on top of the Bitcoin protocol, it allows bitcoins to be sequestered on the Bitcoin network while respecting the requirements related to validation times (so-called on-chain bitcoins), then to be spent instantly and without delay on the Lightning Network's software overlayer (so-called off-chain bitcoins).

To use the Lightning Network (also abbreviated as LN), it is therefore necessary to have on-chain bitcoins and to "download" them on this parallel network. The latter is based on specific computer nodes, deployed in parallel and above the Bitcoin network. They validate that the bitcoins received on the LN are real bitcoins existing on the Bitcoin blockchain.

Some necessary details about the LN
The sequestration
To be able to transfer bitcoins on-chain to this off-chain network, there are two solutions: use portfolios compatible with Lightning Network and manage a network node for you, or deploy your own. Once your wallet (or node) is ready, you will need to set up payment channels to other LN nodes.

https://ibb.co/K2SZk62

Illustration of a mutlisig transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Let's imagine that Alice and Bob decide to create a channel that they both feed. They will have to constitute a payment channel at the level of the LN network, i.e. they will sequester bitcoin balances at the level of the Bitcoin blockchain using transactions co-signed with their respective private keys (so-called multisig transactions).

A special feature: on the Lightning Network, at the moment, the opening of a payment channel does not imply that the two participants contribute financially to feed this channel. While each channel is in principle bidirectional (funds can go in either direction), they are not automatically supplied by each of the parties, but mainly by the person who initiates the opening.

But the Lightning network does not only seek to allow instant payments between users who open channels between them. By extension, the goal is to allow you to pay another user to whom you are not connected, as long as other nodes with whom you share a channel share a connection with them. The idea is therefore to build a spider web network allowing instant payments from everyone to everyone, even if everyone is only connected to a few.

To achieve this, the LN relies on HTLC, for Hash Time-locked Contracts. In such a system, payments are made via conditional promises, which are only validated upon arrival.

https://ibb.co/Qm6r42M

Illustration of an HTLC.
So, if Alice wants to pay Dave via the LN, she will basically answer a payment request from Dave. This payment request will include a secret (R) formatted in hash (H) status, which only Alice will hold, and which she will then demonstrate to hold to issue her payment. In short, it is the hash (H) of the secret (R) that passes through the payment channels, and explains the need for their use.

Without going into further detail, an HTLC-based network of interconnected nodes theoretically allows - and under conditions - all players to pay each other at some point, instantly and even if they are not directly connected. However, it should be noted that these HTLCs depend on a time condition, i.e. they correspond to payment requests with time limits (usually a payment request on LN expires in 24 hours).

The overlay network, its liquidity and use
However, there are still a number of nuances to be made, which we will do now. The LN is still an embryonic network, and many errors can occur when trying to use it, even if its software implementations are constantly evolving. To summarize very briefly, it is still often the case that transactions submitted to the network fail due to multiple factors. The one that will interest us for the rest of the article is the following: the liquidity of the network.

As mentioned above, at present, payment channels are bi-directional, but not necessarily equally supplied in both directions of traffic between the different users.

https://ibb.co/0CKfnsv

For example, here is the status of the open (and currently open) channels of one of my personal LN nodes.

As you can see, my LN node is connected to three other LN nodes. These are the nodes of LNBIG.com (one of the main multi-connected liquidity providers in the network), the Kryptosphere student association and Namson Lê (UX Researcher at Zap, an LN compatible wallet).

He is also waiting for a connection with the node of Jonathan Fraga, contributor to the Journal du Coin.

As you can see, the channels that have not yet been used retain uni-powered balances, in the sense that only the one who opened the payment channel supplied this bi-directional channel. This is the case of the channels I opened with Kryptosphere and Namson, but it is also the case in the other direction for the channel Jonathan opened with me.

In the end, schematically and at best, if I want to receive a payment, I could only receive the total of the distant balances coming towards me, while I could only send the total of the local balances supplied by my side. In the previous example, since the Jonathan channel is not yet validated, I could only send 264,640 satoshis instantly - and subject to other factors beyond my control. I could only receive 68,634 satoshis at the moment, but 364,563 satoshis once all channels are open. So I could pass my satoshis to a node not connected to mine, as long as it is itself connected to other nodes from one close to the other until it is linked to a node in my neighbourhood.

https://ibb.co/ZHCn3Ks

Visualization of a personal LN node (blue, surrounded by a red circle) and its connections, using graph.lndxplorer.com.
It is therefore important to be connected to the network of other nodes, and well enough to be able to take full advantage of the LN. However, and as we will see below, the network is still experimental, and it is advisable not to remain measured in the balances of bitcoins that you are sequestering on LN: keep in mind that it is possible to see the attacked network, to suffer unexpected bugs or to lose your funds because of bad handling. You don't go after digital gold without taking any risks. So prefer to put pocket money in it that you would accept to lose, without this loss preventing you from sleeping if it were to happen. Your servant speaks from experience...

Traffic jams on the highway of the value
Why and how to attack the Lightning network?
Finally, let us return to the study under discussion: Saar Tochner, Aviv Zohar and Stefan Schmid are its authors, and they wanted to test the solidity of the current LN network. How would he react to an attacker who wanted to disrupt the proper functioning of the network? Let's say LN becomes mainstream one day, could we attack him to paralyze him? This study therefore aims to provide some answers, but cannot be totally categorical. As we will see, the LN is constantly evolving with the updates of its software clients (named after lnd, c-lightning).

Avarice is a naughty sin
Their idea is that a malicious user could deploy a node that would interface effectively in the network, so that it would end up occupying a relatively central place in the network. Once in place, he would see transactions in transit and then decide not to transmit them anymore. In doing so, it would be able to disrupt some of the transactions in question, which could not be completed. To really threaten the network, the authors consider an attacker who would actually deploy several aggressive nodes. By doing so, the attacker would control both the most connected and most used payment channels, but also the main secondary channels that would be used by software customers as a backup solution when the first payment attempt fails.


https://ibb.co/bNmFYYB

To place themselves in this enviable position, the authors explain that it would be sufficient to exploit the channel opening mechanisms of each of the LN implementations: thus, assuming that payments will preferentially transit through channels requiring very low transaction costs, the authors consider a model where an attacker would place nodes offering almost free transactions in order to attract a maximum number of users.

Each implementation uses various consensus models called gossip models, allowing a decentralized organization of these connections at the price of certain concessions.

The conclusions of the study
The study thus considers that such an attacker, taking advantage of an established centralizing position (similar to the LNBIG node mentioned above), could take advantage of the delay mechanisms linked to the temporal component of the HTLC and its position to block all payments submitted to it, and thus paralyse the network. The figures mentioned are chilling, as you will see.


https://ibb.co/2g03f0q

Number of channels per node, and their capacities.
So I contacted the authors of the study for clarification. To enlighten me, Mr. Aviv Zohar explained to me that it would only take "opening 20 payment channels" in an intelligent way to paralyze nearly "80% of the transactions on the LN network". Thus, to block almost all transactions under or equal to $100 (a value already significant today on the LN), it would be enough to open "20 channels with each $100 affected per channel, so that it would be enough to mobilize $2000" to paralyze the LN network. These figures were reported in-extenso earlier this week by CoinDesk.

However, even if the Lightning Network is still in its infancy, such a conclusion may be pensive. On a personal level, and even if I fully accept the idea that the LN is currently a curious experiment that is only just beginning, it seemed strange to me that it is enough to create an LN node, connect to 20 other peers and propose very low fees to block the network almost entirely, with a simple starting capital of 2000 dollars.

Conclusions to be mitigated
I therefore continued my exchanges with the authors, which are still ongoing at the moment. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for their openness and their wise answers to questions that are not always the sharpest. They may also justify an update of this article and its arguments and counter-arguments.

But I also needed other informed opinions: to do so, I contacted various contributors of the three main LN implementations. I have not yet been able to get an answer from Acinq and its flash software client, but two other good souls have agreed to give me their opinion on this study. I would also like to thank Mr. Namson Lê and Mr. Antoine Poinsot for their availability and their respective insights, respectively contributors to the lnd and c-lightning clients.

Collateral damage
It should be noted that it is not a question of rejecting the conclusions of the said study en bloc (you have it?). Fabrice Drouin, co-founder of Acinq, a company working on flash implementation, has already expressed himself to CoinDesk, considering it a "very interesting" study and considering that it was healthy to see "independent researchers[taking an interest in the Lightning Network]".

However, it should be pointed out that it may seem a little strange to consider that it is enough to connect your node directly by proposing low rates to bring down the network, all for a very modest cost.

Indeed, it is interesting to take into account in particular the maintenance costs required by the deployment of a central node on the network. It is not a question of opening 20 channels, it is still necessary to ensure their maintenance, to pay the variable on-chain costs of opening and closing the channels (in particular when closing channels that have become inactive because the attached nodes are no longer reactive). It should be noted that even if the final invoice were a little higher, these costs would not make it explode given the very small size of the LN at the moment. As a reminder, the LNBIG operator - seeing 40% of the network's capacity go up - was estimating his channel management fees at $1,000 a month for opening and closing channels, which is not really enough to break three pasta to a hacker duck either.

But where things may get complicated is when you have to consider that the dynamic system by which nodes send payments between channels takes into account the recent behaviour of their peers.

Maintain your reputation
The knots are not blind. If one of their peers spends his or her time refusing to transmit payments sent to him or her by a node, the sending node will attempt to bypass it by passing through to its final destination. You can better understand why the authors of the study were considering an attacker who would have invested on several nodes, in order to try to block the passages by the main possible paths.

In the case of c-lightning, Antoine Poinsot explained that a fairly simple Djikstra algorithm was currently used to serve this purpose. On the Indian side, Namson Le refers to a recent update in June that serves roughly the same purposes, and introduces a probabilistic payment routing mechanism where the component of efficiency and honesty of peer nodes comes into play in the selection of routes used to send payments. In addition, a feature that allows you to blacklist nodes considered to be faulty and avoid using roads where the wrong actors are operating. The investment could therefore seem somewhat unreasonable: in a few attacks, the nodes in question would find themselves blacklisted, and little borrowed.

As such, it would therefore be possible that recent (and future) developments of these software clients may already be sufficient to mitigate any attack that would resemble the one described in the study in question. What interest would an attacker have in inserting himself as the main trust node of the network, in maintaining this place for a certain time, only to see his frequentation finally fall and finally be excluded from routing schemes and no longer be used? Well... Simply because this reputation system is far from perfect.

Relative anonymization
As described above, peer-to-peer payments are based on the HTLCs described above. The particularity of the LN is that it offers anonymization of nodes: if my neighborhood of nodes sharing direct channels with me knows that I send satoshis and pass them on, it ignores the final destination of my shipment. Similarly, the node that will receive my payment, if it does not have a direct channel with me, will not know exactly where the payment comes from and the path it has taken.

This is an advantage in terms of privacy, but clearly a problem in terms of reputation system: as Aviv Zohar explains, since the nodes are anonymized, it will be very difficult for them to know precisely which node is malicious on the roads used. Moreover, since the attacker deployed several other malicious nodes to position himself as backup routes during the first payment failure, he could then more or less continuously continue to refuse payments.

In summary: if its close vicinity could be aware of its behaviour and exclude it from their transmission paths, this would not necessarily be the case for other more distant nodes. Similarly, there is a time component in the reputation mechanism: it would be sufficient to deploy an honest node for two weeks to position itself effectively, as reputations in place do not keep an older memory of events, and most are based mainly on each node's latest payment attempts. It is only after this incubation period that the attacker would take action.

Liquidity is not lacking
Finally, and to conclude, we must consider the question of liquidity: if in your neighbourhood near interconnected nodes, you have to consider your local liquidity, the situation is different in the global LN context. To allow instantaneous exchanges of the LN, the system mainly considers the overall liquidity present in the channels. Thus, according to Mr. Zohar, an attacker who came to open channels himself and maintained his knot honestly for two weeks would have every chance of attracting channel openings to him. It would then propose low charges to pass most payments through it, while deploying additional opposing nodes to cover emergency lanes. Ultimately, this would ensure that it could paralyze payments commensurate with the liquidity it provided.

The final word
If you've held out so far, congratulations.

In summary, and to conclude, we have just explored together the bases of both Bitcoin and its Lightning Network. As we have repeated over and over again in articles on the LN, this network is fundamentally experimental: experimentation means risk. These risks do not mean that the very viability of the network is in question: as Mr. Zohar explains, the objective of the study conducted by himself and his colleagues is to ask questions to lead to changes in the protocol that can solve the problems identified. According to him, in this particular case, it will eventually be possible to respond to threats of this type, using changes in payment routing protocols (and better reputation systems) but also likely spontaneous changes in the LN typology over time (more honest nodes occupying default backup paths, if more people deploy nodes).


jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632
Merit: 1385


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
October 26, 2019, 07:56:01 PM
Last edit: October 27, 2019, 04:11:03 PM by mprep
 #1549

"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

No shit. Relevance?

Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?

While I am unsure on the matter, I think nChain has the largest portfolio of patents in the crypto currency and Blockchain space. Not knowing your definition of "patent troll" -- not exactly a dictionary term -- I really have no way to respond to your question.

Incidentally, the title of 'your dev' is a complete non-sequitur, seeing as 'dev' is pretty universally applied to 'the peeps who write the code'. An activity that CSW (am I safe in assuming it is him to which you refer?) pays others to do. And, of course, that whole 'your' thing.
 
Though whatever the outcome of that little sidebar, it sheds exactly zero light upon the questionable relevance of the quoted tirade by BitcoinFX.

Try again? Or let BitcoinFX speak for him/herself?



"You can not patent code. You can only patent an invention which is implemented in your code. An invention is a new and unique way of doing something. Most of all, it must be something nobody did before. If anyone used the same technique which you describe in your patent, that's called prior art and invalidates your patent. So trying to get a patent on something somebody else invented and implemented in code would be futile. ..."

No shit. Relevance?

Did you somehow forget your dev is crypto's biggest patent troll?

Apparently being a fraud and a conman wasn't low enough for him.

This ^

- https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/master/LICENSE

"Open BSV License
Copyright (c) 2019 Bitcoin Association

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

1 - The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
2 - The Software, and any software that is derived from the Software or parts thereof,
can only be used on the Bitcoin SV blockchains. The Bitcoin SV blockchains are defined,
for purposes of this license, as the Bitcoin blockchain containing block height #556767
with the hash "000000000000000001d956714215d96ffc00e0afda4cd0a96c96f8d802b1662b"
and
the test blockchains that are supported by the un-modified Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.



Version 0.1.1 of the Bitcoin SV software, and prior versions of software upon which it was based,
were licensed under the MIT License, which is included below.

The MIT License (MIT)

Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
Copyright (c) 2009-2015 Bitcoin Developers
Copyright (c) 2009-2017 The Bitcoin Core developers
Copyright (c) 2017 The Bitcoin ABC developers
Copyright (c) 2018 Bitcoin Association

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE."


...

Which came first the chicken or the egg ?

CSW is not Satoshi and BSV is not Bitcoin.

It's time to BUILD, a solid legal case against BSV. - SWIM

...

- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/07/blockstream-commits-patent-nonaggression

...

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (5/8) Movie CLIP - Invincible Sword Goddess (2000) HD
- https://youtu.be/X5SaZ8EmSpw *Satire*

Cheesy

You fail to establish any relevancy for your spouting. You also seem to have a rather flawed understanding of IP law. Lesson one: patents and copyrights are two completely different things.

Exactly what point do you think you are making by quoting the Open BSV License?

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
actmyname
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1869


Exchange Bitcoin quicky--https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
October 26, 2019, 09:23:06 PM
 #1550

In this topic, complete freedom of speech and anarchy

Except for the 303 comments you have deleted  Cheesy

Might as well just keep deleting them dude. Theymos isn't going to close my thread, but you can delete my comments from this one.
Because rights and freedoms should only be for normal peoples. Not for trolls like you
Hence, arbitrarily-restricted rights and freedoms are equivalent to complete rights and freedoms and anarchy.

Phinnaeus Gage
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834
Merit: 1108


Bitcoin: An Idea Worth Spending


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2019, 12:37:18 AM
Merited by nutildah (1)
 #1551

THEYMOS HELP! CLOSE THIS TROLL'S TOPIC! LOOK WHAT ARE THEY DOING

IAO Launchpad Coming Soon
BitPotus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 579


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 01:01:28 AM
Merited by nutildah (1), Iamtutut (1)
 #1552










CRAIG WRIGHT IS CAUGHT MAKING UP BLATANT LIES AGAIN.

HOW MUCH OF A FUCKING IDIOT DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO CONTINUE DEFENDING HIS DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR?

EITHER YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD OR YOU ARE IN ON THE SCAM!!!


 Roll Eyes
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1357


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 02:34:16 AM
 #1553

Bitcoin is scam created by darknet pedophiles.
You can say that again but we both know you're not telling the truth but trying to fool some naive crypto users and investors who aren't aware of the BSV team imposter situation.
I have a question for you if bitcoin is a scam created by the darknet as you said. Why did Craig claim to be bitcoin creator and also use the word "Bitcoin Satoshi vision" to inherit the legacy of something you said to be scam?

This is a great point. If Craig had launched his coin (it was never meant to be its own coin BTW, it was meant to be Bitcoin Cash -- they just lost the hash war for the BCH ticker) under a different name that didn't have the word "Bitcoin" in it, I think it would have been a lot less controversial. Nobody in the Bitcoin community would have minded.

But he didn't do this. Instead, he pursued the exact same tactics that BCH uses against BTC, with the added lie that he is Satoshi, and now its a sliver of BCH, which is a sliver of BTC. He should have learned from BCH's mistakes instead of doubling down on them.

This is an excellent point, what he should have done is launched his own coin and maybe he wouldn't be the laughing stock he is now.

ðºÞæ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 292


Bitcoin © Maximalist


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 07:52:27 AM
 #1554

THEYMOS HELP! CLOSE THIS TROLL'S TOPIC! LOOK WHAT ARE THEY DOING

Quickly, the only coin which can scale, we cant have that, Hell, No.


Sayonara BTC was nice knowing you, but things to do and places to go.
Next one Ethereum another sitting lame duck.

"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling."  Satoshi Nakamoto, April 2009          Avoiding taxes is totally legal if you consider and respect the law.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 2672


https://bitcoin.watfordfc.com


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 08:04:30 AM
 #1555

THEYMOS HELP! CLOSE THIS TROLL'S TOPIC! LOOK WHAT ARE THEY DOING

Quickly, the only coin which can scale, we cant have that, Hell, No.

I think he was referencing another post. Its this thing called "sarcasm," which I know is an intellectual subtlety that goes undetected by BSV muppets.



Sayonara BTC was nice knowing you, but things to do and places to go.
Next one Ethereum another sitting lame duck.

Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.



https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/activeaddresses-btc-eth-bch-bsv.html#6m

Tell Craig he should have been researching how to imitate organic growth, not just single metrics that can be easily faked.

  ▄▄█████▄▄███████▄▄
 ███████████
     ▀▀███▄
█████████████        ▀██▄
█████████████          ██▄
███████████            ██▄
██▀▀█████▀▀              ██
██                       ██
██                       ██
▀██                     ██▀
 ▀██                   ██▀
  ▀██▄               ▄██▀
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
███████   INDUSTRY LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK   ███████
MULTI
CURRENCY
ONLINE
   CASINO   
DAILY PRICE
BOOSTS
FAST & SECURE
PAYMENTS
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀       ▀▀███████
████▀   ▄ ▀███▀ ▄   ▀████
███  ▄████▄ ▀ ▄████▄  ███
██  ▄ ▀███▀ ▄ ▀███▀ ▄  ██
█  ▄██ ▀▀ ▄███▄ ▀▀ ██▄  █
█  █▀ ▄█ ███████ █▄ ▀█  █
█   ▄███▄ █████ ▄███▄   █
██  ████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▀████  ██
███  ▀ ▄ ▀█████▀ ▄ ▀  ███
████▄  ▀▀▄ ███ ▄▀▀  ▄████
███████▄▄       ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀ █████ ▀▀███████
████▀    ▄█████▄    ▀████
█████▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄█████
██▀███▀ ▄███▀███▄ ▀███▀██
█   █ ▄██▀     ▀██▄ █   █
█   █ ██         ██ █   █
█   █ ▀██▄▄█ █▄▄██▀ █   █
██▄███▄ ▀██▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄██
█████▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀▀█████
████▄    ▀█████▀    ▄████
███████▄▄ █████ ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
.
.REGISTER NOW!.
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 287


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 08:27:44 AM
 #1556

Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.
What? Are you saying they're... spamming to fake their transactions? Say it isn't so cause I need to believe!

Given all the spam that disappeared from bitcoin once the block size battle was resolved it doesn't surprise me they'd do something like that.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1442
Merit: 555

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2019, 08:58:06 AM
Last edit: October 27, 2019, 04:08:15 PM by mprep
 #1557

Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.
What? Are you saying they're... spamming to fake their transactions? Say it isn't so cause I need to believe!

Given all the spam that disappeared from bitcoin once the block size battle was resolved it doesn't surprise me they'd do something like that.


Define SPAM, especially on BitCoin where it costs fees to send txs.

I ll give u a hint

How about productive network capacity demonstration or real use.

Spam happens on free internet, metanet will fix all that



THEYMOS HELP! CLOSE THIS TROLL'S TOPIC! LOOK WHAT ARE THEY DOING

Quickly, the only coin which can scale, we cant have that, Hell, No.


Sayonara BTC was nice knowing you, but things to do and places to go.
Next one Ethereum another sitting lame duck.

Yes. The only use case for lame ducks I know is:

Hodle it for a while and eat it, Peking style

 Grin

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 287


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 09:08:15 AM
 #1558

Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.
What? Are you saying they're... spamming to fake their transactions? Say it isn't so cause I need to believe!

Given all the spam that disappeared from bitcoin once the block size battle was resolved it doesn't surprise me they'd do something like that.


Define SPAM, especially on BitCoin where it costs fees to send txs.

I ll give u a hint

How about productive network capacity demonstration or real use.

Spam happens on free internet, metanet will fix all that
You've been here long enough to not be so clueless.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Spam_transactions

The network was being spammed to inflate the transactions in order to attempt to justify increasing the block size. And yes, it costs money and they were willing to do that. When they didn't get their way, miraculously they started bitcoin cash and the spam on bitcoin went away. Go figure.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 1442
Merit: 555

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
October 27, 2019, 09:17:41 AM
Last edit: October 27, 2019, 04:04:33 PM by mprep
 #1559

Miners are running the show, the backbone, the creation of blocks, the verification of everything

If they don't do all such, they might get orphaned and risk losing chunks of money or even entire long term investments.

It is redicules to believe some reconciliation with thick clients (slow nodes) on RasPI piss would do anything good

Watch this

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZeroNoncense/status/1188187298652930049?s=20



Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.
What? Are you saying they're... spamming to fake their transactions? Say it isn't so cause I need to believe!

Given all the spam that disappeared from bitcoin once the block size battle was resolved it doesn't surprise me they'd do something like that.


Define SPAM, especially on BitCoin where it costs fees to send txs.

I ll give u a hint

How about productive network capacity demonstration or real use.

Spam happens on free internet, metanet will fix all that
You've been here long enough to not be so clueless.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Spam_transactions

The network was being spammed to inflate the transactions in order to attempt to justify increasing the block size. And yes, it costs money and they were willing to do that. When they didn't get their way, miraculously they started bitcoin cash and the spam on bitcoin went away. Go figure.


No, not spam again. Rather expensive pointing out / voting for having enough exzess capacity that is needed for exponential growing social networks.

Yes, I m long enough here to get that

Learn, ppl only change things for the good after they got hurt - or better, by figuring out where is better incentives

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore's Law and Satoshi's WP we trust.
Viper1
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 287


View Profile
October 27, 2019, 10:48:27 AM
 #1560

Too bad that almost all BSV transactions are being made by the same handful of addresses.
What? Are you saying they're... spamming to fake their transactions? Say it isn't so cause I need to believe!

Given all the spam that disappeared from bitcoin once the block size battle was resolved it doesn't surprise me they'd do something like that.


Define SPAM, especially on BitCoin where it costs fees to send txs.

I ll give u a hint

How about productive network capacity demonstration or real use.

Spam happens on free internet, metanet will fix all that
You've been here long enough to not be so clueless.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Spam_transactions

The network was being spammed to inflate the transactions in order to attempt to justify increasing the block size. And yes, it costs money and they were willing to do that. When they didn't get their way, miraculously they started bitcoin cash and the spam on bitcoin went away. Go figure.


No, not spam again. Rather expensive pointing out / voting for having enough exzess capacity that is needed for exponential growing social networks.

Yes, I m long enough here to get that

Learn, ppl only change things for the good after they got hurt - or better, by figuring out where is better incentives
"We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it."

"A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it’s working OK."

"The current threshold is 200KB per block, or about 1000 transactions per block.  I think it should be lowered to 50KB per block.  That would still be more than 100 times the average transactions per block.

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed."


That's what Satoshi himself had to say about block sizes and "spam". Looks to me like he was more in favor of incremental changes as opposed to just opening it all up. So neither Bitcoin Cash or SV seem to have followed that direction. Neither has Bitcoin to be frank. But SV claiming it's the "original vision" is just laughable.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
Pages: « 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!