marryXmas
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 50
Merit: 0
|
 |
August 08, 2014, 02:33:50 AM |
|
Holy shit. What happened? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 02:33:53 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 02:53:54 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1006
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:20:46 AM |
|
Hey! I resemble that remark! (If you know the reference, then you might be a boomer.) |
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:55:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
molecular
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1019
|
|
August 08, 2014, 06:18:42 AM |
|
movin up faster. flight to safety:  . I'm starting to believe more and more people see Bitcoin as a safe place. I saw in another thread someone asking wether or not it made sense to "sit on the sidelines" for a while (regarding stocks, looking at at that provoked conflict with russia). I wonder if he meant to sit in USD. That got me thinking again: what would "the sidelines" look like? So I'm asking into the round: if you went on a space-trip with your family for 15 years with no way to manage your stuff, where would you put it? |
PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0 3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
|
|
|
dozerz
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2214
Merit: 1057
|
|
August 08, 2014, 06:21:14 AM |
|
iraq airstrikes announced and gold spikes, will btc follow?
|
space for rent, shilling for sats
|
|
|
|
FNG
|
|
August 08, 2014, 07:39:53 AM |
|
Nikkei closed down 3%  |
|
|
|
|
solex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
100 satoshis -> ISO code
|
|
August 08, 2014, 11:04:34 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 11:37:11 AM |
|
What's he talking about exactly from a technical standpoint? |
|
|
|
|
solex
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
100 satoshis -> ISO code
|
|
August 08, 2014, 11:51:54 AM |
|
What's he talking about exactly from a technical standpoint? We will need to wait for him to write up a blog summary, but my interpretation is that it is a method of propagating through the network "abbreviated" blocks which will always be the same size no matter how much Bitcoin tx volume occurs (within reason!). The full blocks would follow separately to those nodes which want them, perhaps to be known as "archive" nodes. It means that mining can happen fast on the next block without waiting for the slow propagation and verification of larger and larger blocks. It is a more sophisticated extension of the headers-first proposals. Fantastic if it can be done. To the moon and all that... |
|
|
|
|
FNG
|
|
August 08, 2014, 12:03:39 PM |
|
What's he talking about exactly from a technical standpoint? We will need to wait for him to write up a blog summary, but my interpretation is that it is a method of propagating through the network "abbreviated" blocks which will always be the same size no matter how much Bitcoin tx volume occurs (within reason!). The full blocks would follow separately to those nodes which want them, perhaps to be known as "archive" nodes. It means that mining can happen fast on the next block without waiting for the slow propagation and verification of larger and larger blocks. It is a more sophisticated extension of the headers-first proposals. Fantastic if it can be done. To the moon and all that... |
|
|
|
|
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2348
Eadem mutata resurgo
|
|
August 08, 2014, 12:07:56 PM |
|
What's he talking about exactly from a technical standpoint? We will need to wait for him to write up a blog summary, but my interpretation is that it is a method of propagating through the network "abbreviated" blocks which will always be the same size no matter how much Bitcoin tx volume occurs (within reason!). The full blocks would follow separately to those nodes which want them, perhaps to be known as "archive" nodes. It means that mining can happen fast on the next block without waiting for the slow propagation and verification of larger and larger blocks. It is a more sophisticated extension of the headers-first proposals. Fantastic if it can be done. To the moon and all that... It would also mean that the current incentive to keep block sizes small due to increased orphaning probability would be removed ... and the block size limit debate is back on the table with more urgency. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Warrior
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 16
Merit: 0
|
|
August 08, 2014, 12:15:12 PM |
|
thats nor sync, gold never touch bitcoin
i think thats all just at moment,
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 12:19:03 PM |
|
What's he talking about exactly from a technical standpoint? We will need to wait for him to write up a blog summary, but my interpretation is that it is a method of propagating through the network "abbreviated" blocks which will always be the same size no matter how much Bitcoin tx volume occurs (within reason!). The full blocks would follow separately to those nodes which want them, perhaps to be known as "archive" nodes. It means that mining can happen fast on the next block without waiting for the slow propagation and verification of larger and larger blocks. It is a more sophisticated extension of the headers-first proposals. Fantastic if it can be done. To the moon and all that... It would also mean that the current incentive to keep block sizes small due to increased orphaning probability would be removed ... and the block size limit debate is back on the table with more urgency. Good point. But doesn't constructing a huge Merkle Root take longer than a small one? |
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3071
|
|
August 08, 2014, 12:32:30 PM |
|
Headers-only block propagation could also make some room to examine the effects of reducing the block interval. Who knows, we could end up with 1Mb blocks @ 2 blocks/min
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
BowieMan
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
Is there life on Mars?
|
|
August 08, 2014, 02:38:34 PM |
|
Gold is like Bitcoin, it also has those rabid movements up and down. I think they're highly influenced by the state of the western economies! The downside of Gold is that its bubbles aren't getting bigger and bigger every time!
|
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
PRIMEDICE The Premier Bitcoin Gambling Experience @PrimeDice
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:04:04 PM |
|
It would also mean that the current incentive to keep block sizes small due to increased orphaning probability would be removed ... and the block size limit debate is back on the table with more urgency. No matter how much they optimize block creation, somebody (not necessarily the same entity that does the hashing) has to build the Merkle tree, and whoever they are they can't process an infinite number of transactions per second. As long as the ability of the network to process transactions isn't infinite, there will be some equilibrium price where the supply curve for transaction processing intersects with the demand curve. It may just be that the price of transaction processing dropped a few orders of magnitude, which is a good thing. The ability to provide the same service at a lower price makes the network more useful. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 08, 2014, 03:42:08 PM |
|
It would also mean that the current incentive to keep block sizes small due to increased orphaning probability would be removed ... and the block size limit debate is back on the table with more urgency. No matter how much they optimize block creation, somebody (not necessarily the same entity that does the hashing) has to build the Merkle tree, and whoever they are they can't process an infinite number of transactions per second. yes, i've been asking about this on Reddit w/o an answer yet. there must be some finite time required to construct a Merkle Tree where it becomes cumbersome timewise. the question is, where is that point? As long as the ability of the network to process transactions isn't infinite, there will be some equilibrium price where the supply curve for transaction processing intersects with the demand curve.
It may just be that the price of transaction processing dropped a few orders of magnitude, which is a good thing.
The ability to provide the same service at a lower price makes the network more useful.
the other thing i don't understand is doesn't the miner who has received a valid header from another miner still have to wait for the tx's themselves to show up so he can remove them from the UTXO set before constructing the next block? |
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
August 08, 2014, 04:23:40 PM |
|
the question is, where is that point? This is not a question we can answer. The right approach is to build a machine for constantly discovering the answer to that question in real time a.k.a a market. the other thing i don't understand is doesn't the miner who has received a valid header from another miner still have to wait for the tx's themselves to show up so he can remove them from the UTXO set before constructing the next block? Presumably you assume the miners have already seen the transactions before they see the Merkle tree, and they've seen the Merkle tree before they see the header. People who want their transactions processed, and miners who want their headers to propagate, have an incentive to make sure it is so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
