Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:37:30 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808101 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:22:45 PM
 #27961

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

actually, back in the day, i used to do it all_the_time with my newsletter.  never a problem.

Zero-conf transactions did make some sense for worthless things like your newsletter, but those days are behind us after half a decade or working on trying to fill 1MB blocks so a market could develop.


during that time period, price went from $4 to $266.

I was making the augment that BTC might be a good long term bet and doing so free of charge from $5-ish down to $2-ish as you might recall (though I shut my mouth at the bottom because I don't want to be a perma-pumper who loses people money.  Especially those who cannot afford it.)


guess if i was telling my subs to buy or sell?

I don't know what you told your subs, and never cared much.  You seem to have told everyone else to buy with both hands all the while the price was going from $1100 -> $200 or whatever.  I made it a point (and still do) to not sell under $600 and got some up in the 4-figure range.  If you were telling your subs to do as I did, great.  Maybe you were telling them buy Hashfast or whatever?  I was totally outside the loop on that one and to this day I don't even know what that is/was or that you were pumping it (if indeed you were.)  Whatever it was it doesn't sound like it worked out all that great.


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481402250
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402250

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402250
Reply with quote  #2

1481402250
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:23:58 PM
 #27962

here is a little tidbit as to why full nodes might be failing during this stress test.  it makes sense:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csnr4fi

We should have had more than one implementation/developer set/user group. Even a simple fork like XT could do, they could compete on timely bugfixing and other trivial usage related qualities.

I think there is a lot beyond bugfixing and trivial usage qualities they could compete on. There are real optimizations that could be done with pruning and other enhancements. Today these are being ignored for RBF changes and focus on LN and SC development. A set of devs working on an alternative core implementation that dedicate their time to improving the user experience, would develop a better implementation that attracts people over time.

Bad quoting, bad.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:29:55 PM
 #27963

...since 9/11 was clearly not a attributable to handful of Muslims hiding out in caves half way around the world...

Seriously? Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but most require there to exist a level of perfection in coordination, execution, and secrecy in large organizations, or spanning far more individuals, than is rational to consider a real possibility.

No they don't.  That's why most of these false flags are about as clear as the nose on one's face when someone takes the time to look into them.  Thankfully we have an alternate media and interested individuals in society who, for whatever their set of reasons, will do just that.  We'll see how much longer that lasts now that the FCC has regulatory authority over the internet.  I'm guessing that they'll hold up about as well as Bitcoin when people attempt to use it in it's original P2P form.

Question: has anyone done a single interview with any of the workmen seen working in the elevator shafts of the twin towers in the weeks leading up to 9/11? Not that it would disprove the claims of truthers, but its non-existence is stark.

Before someone can conclude the impossible, I think they should at least refute those reports and/or produce an interview with one of those workmen.

I suppose Melbustus thinks the CIA doesn't have more than 1 or 2 agents sworn to lifetime secrecy under the threat of assassination should they violate the (perhaps unwritten) terms of their servitude. Just because we have a few cases of those who claim be ex-agents coming forward (not necessarily on the 9/11 issue), does not preclude the existence of different levels of secrecy clearances and ramifications for violating them.

I mean seriously grown men. We have a DEEP STATE with $trillions of funding taken from the unaccounted for DoD budget (per the former DoD secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the eve of 9/11 on national TV and other sources hence), and they can't secure the lifetime services a few good men  Huh

I wonder what sense of reality sheep like Melbustus and iCebreaker live in  Huh

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:32:47 PM
 #27964

rock and cypherdoc please publish your list of services with zero confirmation transaction you provide.
I'm getting mad ...... I WANT TO BUY !!!

actually, back in the day, i used to do it all_the_time with my newsletter.  never a problem.

Zero-conf transactions did make some sense for worthless things like your newsletter, but those days are behind us after half a decade or working on trying to fill 1MB blocks so a market could develop.


during that time period, price went from $4 to $266.

I was making the augment that BTC might be a good long term bet and doing so free of charge from $5-ish down to $2-ish as you might recall (though I shut my mouth at the bottom because I don't want to be a perma-pumper who loses people money.  Especially those who cannot afford it.)

it was free of charge from me at the time, too.  altho i don't remember you saying much of anything.
Quote



guess if i was telling my subs to buy or sell?

I don't know what you told your subs, and never cared much.  You seem to have told everyone else to buy with both hands all the while the price was going from $1100 -> $200 or whatever.  I made it a point (and still do) to not sell under $600 and got some up in the 4-figure range.  If you were telling your subs to do as I did, great.  Maybe you were telling them buy Hashfast or whatever?  I was totally outside the loop on that one and to this day I don't even know what that is/was or that you were pumping it (if indeed you were.)  Whatever it was it doesn't sound like it worked out all that great.



i told them BUY during the time of the newsletter.  for whomever listened, it worked out great.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:40:50 PM
 #27965

absolutely.  look here.  guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload.  that sucks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb

A design which forces every consensus making node to approve every transaction is stoopid. Any half brained engineer could realize this if they spent some time thinking about the issues.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:42:09 PM
 #27966


I was making the augment that BTC might be a good long term bet and doing so free of charge from $5-ish down to $2-ish as you might recall (though I shut my mouth at the bottom because I don't want to be a perma-pumper who loses people money.  Especially those who cannot afford it.)

it was free of charge from me at the time, too.  altho i don't remember you saying much of anything.

I've never really been one to tell people what to do, but I was still doubling down at the late 2011 bottom and was prepared to do so one more time.  I was liberal with in describing my activities and rationals.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:45:33 PM
 #27967

. In fact by not clearing transactions in blocks and causing the memory pool to increase beyond what it should, the 1MB limit is probably more stressful on nodes than simply letting larger blocks get processed....

This is a very valid point not many have talked about yet. I'd like to see what the 'nodemongers' have to say about this?

If you are referring to the set of transactions kept around waiting to put them in a block, full nodes could set a hard memory limit and flush those with the lowest transaction fee per kb forcing them to be resent to the network periodically.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:52:48 PM
 #27968


I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

Zero-confirmations don't work in a system that can't guarantee the mempool ends up in a block. Thus either Bitcoin has unlimited spam or it doesn't have zero-confirmations.

Yet another in a long list of reasons that PoW cryptocurrency is broken and can't be fixed without a radical redesign.

What is that again iCebreaker about my sanity?

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 11:53:36 PM
 #27969

...since 9/11 was clearly not a attributable to handful of Muslims hiding out in caves half way around the world...

Seriously? Conspiracy theories are fun and all, but most require there to exist a level of perfection in coordination, execution, and secrecy in large organizations, or spanning far more individuals, than is rational to consider a real possibility.

No they don't.  That's why most of these false flags are about as clear as the nose on one's face when someone takes the time to look into them.  Thankfully we have an alternate media and interested individuals in society who, for whatever their set of reasons, will do just that.  We'll see how much longer that lasts now that the FCC has regulatory authority over the internet.  I'm guessing that they'll hold up about as well as Bitcoin when people attempt to use it in it's original P2P form.

Question: has anyone done a single interview with any of the workmen seen working in the elevator shafts of the twin towers in the weeks leading up to 9/11? Not that it would disprove the claims of truthers, but its non-existence is stark.

Before someone can conclude the impossible, I think they should at least refute those reports and/or produce an interview with one of those workmen.

I suppose Melbustus thinks the CIA doesn't have more than 1 or 2 agents sworn to lifetime secrecy under the threat of assassination should they violate the (perhaps unwritten) terms of their servitude. Just because we have a few cases of those who claim be ex-agents coming forward (not necessarily on the 9/11 issue), does not preclude the existence of different levels of secrecy clearances and ramifications for violating them.

I mean seriously grown men. We have a DEEP STATE with $trillions of funding taken from the unaccounted for DoD budget (per the former DoD secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the eve of 9/11 on national TV and other sources hence), and they can't secure the lifetime services a few good men  Huh

I wonder what sense of reality sheep like Melbustus and iCebreaker live in  Huh

I remember one interview with an IT guy.  On 9/11 he was taking a comp day.  A weekend or two before the power had been mysteriously cut to his server room in one of the twin towers and he had spent some of his time bringing the machines back on-line.

He said that in the preceding weeks there was a noticeable amount of dust on the vents bringing air into the building.  I think it was he but am not sure who said that several weeks earlier the explosive sniffing dogs were removed from the lobby and also that on one of the vacant floors which he was near there was rumbling noises like large carts being moved around.  He imagined those things that construction debris are put in.

As with most such interviews I took the time to dig up, the person seemed to be quite credible.  Almost without exception these people who relate information or do work on the story claim that they only came forward because they don't wish to live in a society where the government makes policy based on false flag events and they hope their information will open people's eyes and change the course of our society for the better.  I can relate to this because if I were in such a situation that would be a motivating factor for me.  Conversely, I can really see no reason to invent or lie about such things.  Certainly nobody wins any popularity contests by being 'conspiracy theorists.'


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:01:18 AM
 #27970

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

Users will not get turned away, because where there is a demand, innovators will spring to life to supply it—a.k.a. a free market—your jealously of innovators notwithstanding.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:02:35 AM
 #27971

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:03:18 AM
 #27972

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.

That is my point too. Smiley

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:04:40 AM
 #27973

absolutely.  look here.  guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload.  that sucks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb

A design which forces every consensus making node to approve every transaction is stoopid. Any half brained engineer could realize this if they spent some time thinking about the issues.

It is, only if and when another design that accomplishes decentralized consensus without that requirement is published and peer reviewed.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:05:13 AM
 #27974

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.


some of the spam going on now is trying to use 0 fee, which is filtered by just about all miners.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:10:07 AM
 #27975

you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses.

the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT.

The Socialist is the one who tells us we can have everything we want for free. How has that worked out for Western civilization with socialism peaking every where with the sovereign debt collapses imminent with $200+ trillion of global debt.

some of the spam going on now is trying to use 0 fee, which is filtered by just about all miners.

And you want an unlimited block size  Huh

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It is sorely obvious that you have inadequate skills in computer science and game theory.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:12:53 AM
 #27976

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It's not zero fee if you are paying.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:19:53 AM
 #27977

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It's not zero fee if you are paying.

I was going to comment about that, but I decided to see who wouldn't figure it out for themselves.

What is the distinction between the two? There is one.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 01:52:08 AM
 #27978


Peter Todd on /r/buttcoin today:

Quote from: LondonInvestor
Why doesnt buttcoin start its own "stress test"?

I dont know anything about coding or servers or the intricate workings of bitcoin, (I'm just an ideas man), but it would be fun to be involved in setting up our own little "stress test" on the bitcoin network.
Obviously it's a waste of money, but so are a lot of things (at least it goes to the nice energy companies in China). (...)

Quote from: petertodd
Find me $5k and I'll make it happen in a big way, with proper tx creation scripts that don't just crash.
This is a serious offer.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3bk12f/why_doesnt_buttcoin_start_its_own_stress_test/csn4nbz

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

I think this demonstrates his level of hypocrisy here.

Peter is saying to the /r/buttcoin group that he is happy to implement a massive flood attack against Bitcoin for $5K in transactions (which is enough to generate 10s of millions of transactions very quickly), because he is confident that the network can handle this.

Which leads one to ask, if nodes the and current P2P network can handle a flood of several 10s of millions of transactions (as Peter is saying), why can't Bitcoin handle larger blocksizes again?



Handling larger blocks is fundamentally different than handling full blocks (which you dramatized as "a massive flood attack").

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 02:15:32 AM
 #27979

One of the things that's missing from the block size debate is a usable threat model that would allow us to make objective and rational risk assessments of the various threats loosely defined as "centralization".

Before we know how worried we should be about larger blocks (potentially) reducing the number of nodes, we need to know exactly how an attacker benefits from this situation and what kinds of mitigating factors and/or countermeasures are applicable to each attack.

I haven't heard any kind of analysis along those lines yet.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:19:27 AM
 #27980


Ever hear of Edward Snowden?  Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine.  It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident.  Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios.  In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations.  In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design.  These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile.  Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

actually, i have.  and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data.  everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt.  and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up.  also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime.  Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.
OK, let's try again.  Ever heard of 'packet filtering?'

If you are the engineer you claim to be you know damn well how easy it would be to hide Bitcoin txns from a DPI DSP engine inside a HTTP image request, an audio or video stream, or of course via an encrypted connection.

Please don't post arguments that you know are illogical but you think will convince others.  It does not further the discourse.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 ... 1560 »
  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!