Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 346 results by Tuck Fheman
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
How severe are those problems within the code and are the right devs available to sort that out?
I don't know the details (a couple of posts above are some links to related discussions but I don't see too much details there, too) but the database issue seems to have lead to exchanges delisting it. So I guess it was leading to crashes.
Regarding your second question, one of the participants of the discussion in the last three pages has stated that there was a developer interested to fix the bug, but he got no response from the "main developer". So if this developer is still here, the answer would be affirmative.
(That is why I'm opposed to such centralized development models. Cryptocurrencies must be decentrally managed or _many_ things can go wrong.)
Anyone tried contacting Vrontis?
Re: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed[Bittrex/Poloniex]GPU Released
No, this means that I'm contributing my own resources to the project. crypto_zoidberg is one of the brightest minds in this space and having him operate in any capacity is a positive. If we run into any technical issues during this process we'll be in contact with him. If not, we're going to continue working towards a release and focus on collaborating with him when it comes time to commit to the repo.
Thanks for stepping up!
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
I want to get updated on what's going on lately with the Qora Community (without sifting through msg's, sorry).
Any takers feel like answering a few questions?
Is CIYAM still active in the Qora community?
Are the current Qora Dev's still working with the Burst Dev's?
What is the status of ACCT and are there any new projects being built that use ACCT?
Are there other coins now involved with Qora/Burst and ACCT?
Thanks!
Any takers feel like answering a few questions?
Is CIYAM still active in the Qora community?
Are the current Qora Dev's still working with the Burst Dev's?
What is the status of ACCT and are there any new projects being built that use ACCT?
Are there other coins now involved with Qora/Burst and ACCT?
Thanks!
Re: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed[Bittrex/Poloniex]GPU Released
nobody can connect ot this wallet its just poloniex pump and dump
https://www.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/5rhvq3/connecting_to_bbr_peers_for_the_first_time/
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
Perhaps a Qora Rep should consider joining www.steemit.com and crowdfund there. There have been some very successful crowdfunds so far with nothing more than a well written post.
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
we should have had about the first ACCT between two blockchains was never even published back when that occurred.
Well, actually I did take care of that back then and on my own dime.
http://tuckfheman.com/post/115177496459/qora-and-its-automated-features-may-soon-change
It surprises me that you were unaware of it.
We also had about 10+ pages full of Qora news/articles from that time. I also tried to get you to do an interview with us on Beyond Bitcoin back then but you were traveling and were unable to attend. So we set one up with Vrontis and it went very well as we had more than 50 people attend the Hangout.
Twospirit also contributed after it was successful ...
http://tuckfheman.com/post/119218150749/worlds-first-atomic-cross-chain-transfer-on-a
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/qora-burst-now-able-make-cross-chain-transactions/
I've also been promoting Qora on Steemit (a blockchain-based social media platform) this past week, to my detriment.
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
edit: Also two good devs stopped working for qora: vrontis, agran
I was unaware of this, damn, sorry to see both go. Vrontis is super cool and left a good impression of Qora with other Communities during the Beyond Bitcoin Hangout in which he participated. Any idea if he's working with another coin or just outside obligations forced him to leave?
Re: [PRE-ANN] WAVES. Ultimate crypto-tokens blockchain platform.
He's long gone.
I'm not so sure about that. A new forum account seems likely.
I've seen some post from another account that ring eerily similar in nature.
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
Holy shit, out of the blue and after almost 1 year Bter finally gave our Qora back, it's a miracle!
Regardless, stay away from Bter.
Any exchange claiming they're having wallet issues for nearly 1 year doesn't deserve anyone's business IMHO.
Regardless, stay away from Bter.
Any exchange claiming they're having wallet issues for nearly 1 year doesn't deserve anyone's business IMHO.
Another ad hominem throwing, ostensibly scammer accomplice added to my Ignore list.
Yeah, that's not an irrational response to a GIF pointing out that you're still responding to someone you claim to have on ignore at all.
Their (ICO promotion) signatures always reveal their hatred for the truth I speak about selling ostensibly illegal unregistered investment securities to US investors.
BlueMeanie, that you?
Is that 'FISTBUMP' up the arse of your victims.
You might want to look up the definition for "ad hominem" and apply it to the proper person. (HINT: It's you).
To answer your question, at least I'm going to pretend it's a question ... FISTBUMP is a User Issued Asset created for tipping forum post on the BitShares forum. You can put them where ever you like.
You are on Ignore and are not coming off of it ever again. So don't expect replies.
Re: Qora | POS | Assets | Names | Polls | Automated Transactions | Social Network
Guys,
I can't fathom why anyone would continue to trade on BTER when YOU have been WARNED repeatedly that it is a SCAM site by numerous members of BTT community umpteen times!
I can't fathom why anyone would continue to trade on BTER when YOU have been WARNED repeatedly that it is a SCAM site by numerous members of BTT community umpteen times!
Can confirm.
Bter stole our Qora over 9 months ago and despite harrassing them for 9 months relentlessly they still will not make good and have finally stopped responding to our support request.
It is our belief that Bter has been running a fractional reserve for more than a year.
Many articles were published on our blog about this as well as in Youtube/Disqus comments or anywhere anyone brought up Bter in an attempt to warn unsuspecting users.
We also posted these warning on Bter's site within as many coin reviews as we could during that time.
Do not trade on Bter. Let them die.
Go Qora!!!
Re: Has Wired discovered the real Satoshi Nakamoto? (.. this time)
WE HAVE FOUND SATOSHI AND HE IS STILL WORKING WITH BITCOIN.
That is my take on this as well.
Confirmed.
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
No one is selling. Are we going to se a full retrace to $310?
confirmed
confirmation verified
I was recently asked by Testz to address this topic:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196533.msg12563741#msg12563741
I want to address the MAJOR misconception and that is that we keep all transactions in RAM and that we need access to the full transaction history to process new transactions.
The default wallet has all transactions expiring just 15 seconds after they are signed which means that the network only has to consider 1,500,000 * 20 byte (trx id) => 3 MB of memory to protect against replay attacks of the same transaction.
The vast majority of all transactions simply modify EXISTING data structures (balances, orders, etc). The only type of transaction that increases memory use permanently are account creation, asset creation, witness/worker/committee member creation. These particular operations COST much more than operations that modify existing data. Their cost is derived from the need to keep them in memory for ever.
So the system needs the ability to STREAM 11 MB per second of data to disk and over the network (assuming all transactions were 120 bytes).
If there were 6 billion accounts and the average account had 1KB of data associated with it then the system would require 6000 GB or 6 TB of RAM... considering you can already buy motherboards supporting 2TB of ram and probably more if you look in the right places (http://www.eteknix.com/intels-new-serverboard-supports-dual-cpu-2tb-ram/) I don't think it is unreasonable to require 1 TB per BILLION accounts.
I seem to have lost my bitcointalk login password, so can someone please cross-post this for me. Thanks.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1196533.msg12563741#msg12563741
Quote
ell seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..." how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?
You don't need to know anything about how that system works when these statements have been, 120 bytes per transaction * 100,000 transactions per second * 86400 seconds in a day = 1,036,800,000,000 bytes (almost 1TB) per day of data. However you cut it that is a lot of data to manage efficiently in a vertically scaled system (which Bitshares is).
If you have to go to disc even the fastest PCI SSDs will struggle to do 100,000 random reads per second after some moderate use, unless you are doing very aggressive and efficient disc management at a low level to ensure they are stored sequentially. Even without considering transactions arriving out of order from the network, that in itself is no trivial task.
Even batch writing large blocks of transactions to reduce the required IOPs might not cut it, as you have no guarantee that the SSD controller is going to (or even can) write them in one consecutive chunk. If the controller wants to move data around so it can do this, that is additional overhead and your max IOPs will drop anyway.
If the RAM requirements are low, then you will be swapping out those transactions in RAM constantly, so then you are asking an already utilized IO stream to do 100,000 reads AND 100,000 writes each second on top of processing.
My issue isn't that 100,000 transactions can not be processed per second, my issue is that sustaining that processing capability with RAM and IO limitations is not as trivial as is being made out, and anyone with even a basic understanding of IO systems should be able to see it.
I believe this 100,000 tps relates to the systems ability to order match as he mentioned that specifically in the videos relating to this topic, and NOT a sustained network load of new transaction processing capability.
You don't need to know anything about how that system works when these statements have been, 120 bytes per transaction * 100,000 transactions per second * 86400 seconds in a day = 1,036,800,000,000 bytes (almost 1TB) per day of data. However you cut it that is a lot of data to manage efficiently in a vertically scaled system (which Bitshares is).
If you have to go to disc even the fastest PCI SSDs will struggle to do 100,000 random reads per second after some moderate use, unless you are doing very aggressive and efficient disc management at a low level to ensure they are stored sequentially. Even without considering transactions arriving out of order from the network, that in itself is no trivial task.
Even batch writing large blocks of transactions to reduce the required IOPs might not cut it, as you have no guarantee that the SSD controller is going to (or even can) write them in one consecutive chunk. If the controller wants to move data around so it can do this, that is additional overhead and your max IOPs will drop anyway.
If the RAM requirements are low, then you will be swapping out those transactions in RAM constantly, so then you are asking an already utilized IO stream to do 100,000 reads AND 100,000 writes each second on top of processing.
My issue isn't that 100,000 transactions can not be processed per second, my issue is that sustaining that processing capability with RAM and IO limitations is not as trivial as is being made out, and anyone with even a basic understanding of IO systems should be able to see it.
I believe this 100,000 tps relates to the systems ability to order match as he mentioned that specifically in the videos relating to this topic, and NOT a sustained network load of new transaction processing capability.
I want to address the MAJOR misconception and that is that we keep all transactions in RAM and that we need access to the full transaction history to process new transactions.
The default wallet has all transactions expiring just 15 seconds after they are signed which means that the network only has to consider 1,500,000 * 20 byte (trx id) => 3 MB of memory to protect against replay attacks of the same transaction.
The vast majority of all transactions simply modify EXISTING data structures (balances, orders, etc). The only type of transaction that increases memory use permanently are account creation, asset creation, witness/worker/committee member creation. These particular operations COST much more than operations that modify existing data. Their cost is derived from the need to keep them in memory for ever.
So the system needs the ability to STREAM 11 MB per second of data to disk and over the network (assuming all transactions were 120 bytes).
If there were 6 billion accounts and the average account had 1KB of data associated with it then the system would require 6000 GB or 6 TB of RAM... considering you can already buy motherboards supporting 2TB of ram and probably more if you look in the right places (http://www.eteknix.com/intels-new-serverboard-supports-dual-cpu-2tb-ram/) I don't think it is unreasonable to require 1 TB per BILLION accounts.
I seem to have lost my bitcointalk login password, so can someone please cross-post this for me. Thanks.
If you dont believe me or dont get it, I dont have time to try to convince you, sorry:
Satoshi, that you?
