Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 05:36:08 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 [1372] 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 08:53:52 PM
 #27421

we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:

Unbelievable!  It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.   Huh

We need 20MB++ blocks ASAP, because God forbid it costs more than a penny to use Bitcoin's seemingly magical, unprecedentedly powerful settlement system (which is based on the most secure and well distributed database in history).

Why should any of the exorbitant expense of running nodes and miners be passed on to consumers?  After all, growth at all costs is more important than closing loops and weaning the network off block rewards.

Bitcoin is like a shark; it must keep moving or die.  As with Uber, it must stay two steps ahead of the regulators.

Oh, wait: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-deemed-employees-by-california-labor-commission/

Nevermind: http://www.coindesk.com/ny-bitcoin-business-45-days-bitlicense/

 Cheesy

Maybe because cypherdoc made a fortune as early adopter and now is trying to privatize bitcoin. He is one of them who can run 8 GB block-size node.
1513618568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513618568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513618568
Reply with quote  #2

1513618568
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 08:54:37 PM
 #27422

we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:

Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.

Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).

Non-engineers pontificate.

engineers, pfft! 

what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own? 

dude, you're just a sham.

Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.

I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.

Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.

Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.

no, dipshit. 

for you, as a supposed engineer which i doubt, to even consider a possibility that is not possible shows that you aren't worth a damn in terms of Bitcoin technical understanding.

He really is a fool isn't he.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 08:55:32 PM
 #27423


This is why Bitcoin has already diedfailed, because it has fallen to political control.

You'd be wise to reread my quoted post. I inserted a very important edit (not the one shown above).

got it, it's this appeal to authority that made me more wise:

Go stick your broomstick up your ### again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at ####### yourself.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 08:57:05 PM
 #27424

hey look, engineer TPTB!  all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 08:59:40 PM
 #27425

The only thing of substance that you said there is

You refuse to acknowledge the Logic of Collective Action. Thus you refuse to acknowledge reality. How much more disingenuous can it be.

Quote
However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.

1) Censoring attacks do not work unless you have 100% of the miners. It only takes a single pool/miner not colluding the break the censor and include the transactions.

Holly sister of ignoramus, you don't understand how a 51% attack works. Please go back to Bitcoin 101 training wheels school.

2) Yes it is easy to verify and communicate censor attacks (if they even are pulled off) by an honest node. That node would have the valid transactions, with fees, that are never added to blocks. It doesn't take long to start to ask why there is a pool of transactions not confirming or are only in blocks that are being orphaned from the MC.

How do you prove they were sent to the network and not just some scammer trying to take over the network with false evidence? DUH. DUH. DUH! You are a fucking idiot. (you fail to appreciate that is why we needed PoW consensus in the first place)

And (orthogonally) if these are rare and only for targeting dissidents amongst the billions of KYC compliant masses?

And (orthogonally) if these transactions don't have KYC and the masses have agreed that KYC is good (as they have!).

Again, you simply do not understand anything about Bitcoin or the dynamics of how it works. These are 101 concepts you can't seem to grasp.

You are talking to the mirror dude. Cripes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:10:01 PM
 #27426

hey look, engineer TPTB!  all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!

Where is the correlated transaction fee data?

Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:13:23 PM
 #27427

hey look, engineer TPTB!  all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!

Where is the correlated transaction fee data?

Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?

hey, i'm just mocking your dumbass "orthogonal impossibilities".  if you don't know where to get the data before making outrageous claims, why should i help you?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:14:52 PM
 #27428

hey look, engineer TPTB!  all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!

Where is the correlated transaction fee data?

Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?

hey, i'm just mocking your dumbass "orthogonal impossibilities".  if you don't know where to get the data before making outrageous claims, why should i help you?

If you present incomplete data, then you are not making any valid claim.

Where am I supposed to find the proof that 51% of the pools (weighted by hashrate) are not secretly controlled by the same monopoly?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:17:04 PM
 #27429

for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:19:34 PM
 #27430

for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:

You ignored the request for the missing data.

Also I don't agree with your presumption of the meaning of any particular structure, for numerous reasons including but not limited to aliasing error.

But even if I did subscribe to your pulled-out-my-ass theory of structure motivation, how do I prove it wasn't you who inserted that 1 tx block?

(careful, I am preparing to prove that you are colluding with a mining oligarchy to fool the readers, if you misstep I will catch you)

You should have left the thread locked yesterday chickenshit.  Kiss

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:25:26 PM
 #27431

for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:

You ignored the request for the missing data.

Also I don't agree with your presumption of the meaning of any particular structure, for numerous reasons including but not limited to aliasing error.

But even if I did subscribe to your pulled-out-my-ass theory of structure motivation, how do I prove it wasn't you who inserted that 1 tx block?

(careful, I am preparing to prove that you are colluding with a mining oligarchy)

yes, it was me who mined that 1 tx block.  and yes, i stand ready to pump out a series of endless 8MB spam blocks from all the different pool IP addresses while at the same time mounting a massive Sybil attack on yours and Odalv's private wallets.  b/c i want to privatize the network:

BOO!!!

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:30:07 PM
 #27432

for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:

http://i.imgur.com/r45L37T.png

For those who've not been around a while, note that zero-length blocks are nothing new.  They occur for a variety of reasons.  One of them is that mining viruses can mine without bothering to listen and process transactions on the network.  The more transactions there are, the more onerous actually supporting the network becomes.  As long as fees are a trivial part of a reward and miners are kept in business almost exclusively by Bitcoin's coded in inflation (the 'coinbase') we can expect to see such things.  Keeping fees trivial is of utmost importance to a minority of Bitcoin developers and a larger segment of non-developers.  It also becomes technically more challenging to actually verify transactions because of increased bloat so we might see more miners not bothering and blocks pumped out with invalid transactions (which, hopefully, will die on shorter chains as long as there are at least a few people who are validating properly.)


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:30:56 PM
 #27433


yes, it was me who mined that 1 tx block.  and yes, i stand ready to pump out a series of endless 8MB spam blocks from all the different pool IP addresses while at the same time mounting a massive Sybil attack on yours and Odalv's private wallets.  b/c i want to privatize the network:

BOO!!!


oh, and this is all btwn patients.

"excuse me, Mrs. Jones..."
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:33:13 PM
 #27434


yes, it was me who mined that 1 tx block.  and yes, i stand ready to pump out a series of endless 8MB spam blocks from all the different pool IP addresses while at the same time mounting a massive Sybil attack on yours and Odalv's private wallets.  b/c i want to privatize the network:

BOO!!!


oh, and this is all btwn patients.

"excuse me, Mrs. Jones..."

I'm convinced. Nobody... and I mean NOBODY here is sane.  Grin

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:33:44 PM
 #27435

for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:

http://i.imgur.com/r45L37T.png

For those who've not been around a while, note that zero-length blocks are nothing new.  They occur for a variety of reasons.  One of them is that mining viruses can mine without bothering to listen and process transactions on the network.  The more transactions there are, the more onerous actually supporting the network becomes.  As long as fees are a trivial part of a reward and miners are kept in business almost exclusively by Bitcoin's coded in inflation (the 'coinbase') we can expect to see such things.  Keeping fees trivial is of utmost importance to a minority of Bitcoin developers and a larger segment of non-developers.  It also becomes technically more challenging to actually verify transactions because of increased bloat so we might see more miners not bothering and blocks pumped out with invalid transactions (which, hopefully, will die on shorter chains as long as there are at least a few people who are validating properly.)



or, much more likely, they can just be doing a Wang Chun.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:41:34 PM
 #27436


yes, it was me who mined that 1 tx block.  and yes, i stand ready to pump out a series of endless 8MB spam blocks from all the different pool IP addresses while at the same time mounting a massive Sybil attack on yours and Odalv's private wallets.  b/c i want to privatize the network:

BOO!!!


oh, and this is all btwn patients.

"excuse me, Mrs. Jones..."

I'm convinced. Nobody... and I mean NOBODY here is sane.  Grin

hey, c'mon, be a sport.

sometimes when you're surrounded by the insane (tvbcof, TPTB, icBLow), you just gotta go with it!  don't be sad; be HAPPY! Cheesy
macsga
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442


Strange, yet attractive.


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:43:11 PM
 #27437


yes, it was me who mined that 1 tx block.  and yes, i stand ready to pump out a series of endless 8MB spam blocks from all the different pool IP addresses while at the same time mounting a massive Sybil attack on yours and Odalv's private wallets.  b/c i want to privatize the network:

BOO!!!


oh, and this is all btwn patients.

"excuse me, Mrs. Jones..."

I'm convinced. Nobody... and I mean NOBODY here is sane.  Grin

hey, c'mon, be a sport.

sometimes when you're surrounded by the insane (tvbcof, TPTB, icBLow), you just gotta go with it!  don't be sad; be HAPPY! Cheesy

No offence, but I'm the driver. Tongue

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:43:38 PM
 #27438


Maybe because cypherdoc made a fortune as early adopter and now is trying to privatize bitcoin. He is one of them who can run 8 GB block-size node.

Ya, with a GUI installer and a 'tute'.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:47:22 PM
 #27439


Maybe because cypherdoc made a fortune as early adopter and now is trying to privatize bitcoin. He is one of them who can run 8 GB block-size node.

Ya, with a GUI installer and a 'tute'.



c'mon man, gimme credit.

i'm the guy genius who successfully solo mined on Avalon's.  which, btw, was supposed to be HARD.  pfft!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/cshz211
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 25, 2015, 09:58:27 PM
 #27440


Maybe because cypherdoc made a fortune as early adopter and now is trying to privatize bitcoin. He is one of them who can run 8 GB block-size node.

Ya, with a GUI installer and a 'tute'.



c'mon man, gimme credit.

i'm the guy genius who successfully solo mined on Avalon's.  which, btw, was supposed to be HARD.  pfft!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3b0ycp/the_current_system_where_every_user_is_a_network/cshz211

looks like, you developed first asic. (during pauses when you was not coding bitcoin core)
Pages: « 1 ... 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 [1372] 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 ... 1558 »
  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!