Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 2,141 results by muyuu
Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
I have always thought that Elon Musk is behind of BTC... 
I wonder about that. I mean I got Musk's flamethrower and it is nice.
Speaking of which, looks like the president signed the "fuck everyone over for $600" law. So bitcoin will now moon again.
he's clearly intrigued
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
I don't like Roger because of his censorship, manipulation and lies.
By that I assume you mean the big Chinese miners. Wasnt the specialization of mining a part of the natural evolution of Bitcoin? There are some people who argue against the POW upgrade because they say they would preferably go with the ASIC miners than the botnet that hackers are known to be using.
No, I mean the "coffees in the chain" brigade.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
notthematrix: No. Roger Ver doesn't need to sign anything whatsoever. Let me tell you how this works:
Roger either takes the bet, or he doesn't. If he takes the bet there must be some kind of escrow, that will simultaneously prove his ownership of the funds. Who cares if he owns it or not before he accepts the bet? It doesn't matter one bit. He has not accepted anything yet, he has simply expressed interest. Clear terms must be defined before an agreement can be made and this takes time to work out. Have some patience for christ sake.
Most believe Roger will not take the deal, me included. However, the last thing I'm waiting for is for him to sign anything, so please stop repeating yourself, we heard you the first 10 times.
PS: I've received no further communication from Roger at this time.
Roger either takes the bet, or he doesn't. If he takes the bet there must be some kind of escrow, that will simultaneously prove his ownership of the funds. Who cares if he owns it or not before he accepts the bet? It doesn't matter one bit. He has not accepted anything yet, he has simply expressed interest. Clear terms must be defined before an agreement can be made and this takes time to work out. Have some patience for christ sake.
Most believe Roger will not take the deal, me included. However, the last thing I'm waiting for is for him to sign anything, so please stop repeating yourself, we heard you the first 10 times.
PS: I've received no further communication from Roger at this time.
He was posting on reddit today. I assume his internet connection is in a functioning state.
That is your point of view yes, but what about the rest? Will they follow the people who can secure the network or will they follow the new POW upgrade and take the road less traveled? It will be a hard decision but I think the majority will follow the safer road.
If these people believe in security by being under a racket with full control over their currency, let them have their coin. I didn't need BTC for that.
AFAIC their presence is a liability, if they get to influence the decision process.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
This thread reminds me of Matthew N Wright's pirate Ponzi bet thread, except Matt was stupid enough to accept the bets. At least Ver isn't that stupid.
I made a decent amount on that one, although he couldn't pay it fully. I respect his effort, not so much his gullibility.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
@RogerVer, if you don't have 300k BTC, I have more realistic offer for you:
I GIVE YOU 1 BTU, YOU GIVE ME 1 BTC.
Hope you can afford such trade. If not, please ask your Chinese miners to lend you 1 BTC.
I GIVE YOU 1 BTU, YOU GIVE ME 1 BTC.
Hope you can afford such trade. If not, please ask your Chinese miners to lend you 1 BTC.
still a nice ~1000 US$ you'd be making there.There is collateral damage.
But the trade-off is this: allow a certain attack from a malicious actor or potentially allow cheaper-than-usual attacks from unknown actors temporarily.
Right now the mining cartel protects us from any other potential attackers in terms of hashing. Still, not an acceptable situation.
But the trade-off is this: allow a certain attack from a malicious actor or potentially allow cheaper-than-usual attacks from unknown actors temporarily.
Right now the mining cartel protects us from any other potential attackers in terms of hashing. Still, not an acceptable situation.
If theres a POW upgrade what will happen to the Chinese miners? Will it be possible for them to continue to mine using the old SHA256 and fork away from the upgraded POW algorithm? I think that would be a losing move for the current developers and the ones behind them.
They can try to keep their fork alive but who wants to use a crypto completely dominated by 4 odd dudes from China? Maybe Roger and a few other lunatics? Win-win.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
I don't know if Roger is broke or just stupid. Zero dollars in the bug bounty despite being approached with zero-days?!
Anyway.
At least put a few thousand for the pooled bet? or are you going to hide after bluffing the whole community this badly?
Anyway.
At least put a few thousand for the pooled bet? or are you going to hide after bluffing the whole community this badly?
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
What about the pooled bet? More proper bitcoiners are looking forward to have your coins in exchange of BTU.
Let's see where each of us stand, and who believes what he says.
Let's see where each of us stand, and who believes what he says.
You can do this at bitfinex.
Won't find anyone so stupid to give me 1:1 in BitFinex. But cheers.
But the trade-off is this: allow a certain attack from a malicious actor or potentially allow cheaper-than-usual attacks from unknown actors temporarily.
This is why a gradual phase-in of the new PoW via PoWA is the best option.
Yeah, I was talking about changing the PoW generally. Not championing my personal favourite as I'm still reading what others think.
There is collateral damage.
But the trade-off is this: allow a certain attack from a malicious actor or potentially allow cheaper-than-usual attacks from unknown actors temporarily.
Right now the mining cartel protects us from any other potential attackers in terms of hashing. Still, not an acceptable situation.
But the trade-off is this: allow a certain attack from a malicious actor or potentially allow cheaper-than-usual attacks from unknown actors temporarily.
Right now the mining cartel protects us from any other potential attackers in terms of hashing. Still, not an acceptable situation.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
What about the pooled bet? More proper bitcoiners are looking forward to have your coins in exchange of BTU.
Let's see where each of us stand, and who believes what he says.
Let's see where each of us stand, and who believes what he says.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
segwit has more blocks then btc-u last 24 hr
Coindance is a bit of a joke, IMO
Why is 1000 blocks relevant? Both Segwit and BU use 2016 block periods for their activation parameters, so the 1000 blocks sample makes zero sense
Meh, they do have their things but 1000 blocks is almost exactly one week (~6.94 days +- hashing variance and adjustment lag). So not that crazy to include it.
I really don't think any of this matters as long as BU stays well under 50%. SegWit is not going to be activated by 95% any time soon if ever, so until they introduce some modification that matters for SegWit activation, nothing of this is news (save for BU getting dangerous).
By the way... longest 48h of my life.
Re: @RogerVer lets make a deal. At least 60k, my BTU for your BTC.
Very apt
I still hope I can double up though.
Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.
No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data. The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.
The real P2P nature of the network only made sense if a block could be mined *anywhere* on the network ; if essentially all nodes were also miners. Then the whole network is at the same time client and server, and the P2P style network is justified.
But if you have a specialized set of nodes that *make* the data, and a *large quantity* of nodes that only *use* the data, then you get an automatic adaptation of the network topology to the reality of the data flow: server/client.
Note that *amongst* the mining pools, the P2P topology still makes sense ; this is why they most probably connect in an almost full mesh, because they don't trust one another (subcartels of selfish miners might form). But FROM the mining pools to the non-mining nodes, the relationship is not P2P, but is client/server, and hence the optimal network topology adapts to that given.
Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.
There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.
Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.
I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.
This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.
You know what?
That's the level of the argument we should be having about the big-blocks vs multi-layer debate. The problem is that bigblockers took it to the audience and now it's exclusively politics and we have a complete shitshow of a debate with people who have no idea what they are talking about.
If it was the level set by people like dinofelis who actually have very respectable points, then this would be MUCH better. The problem is that the bigblocker side has degenerated to the point their position is untenable. I think this didn't start completely by a problem of their own, but from a separate problem which is that of software development governance. But the reality is that every client they come with is worse than the previous one and we cannot abstract the underlying technical debate from the fact that their current dev base is completely incompetent as 95%+ of devs with experience in this field (which is a HARD field) "roughly" agree with the Core Roadmap or are willing to make concessions to work with them (me included, although I stay very anonymous in dev because this could cost me my job in finance).
So I feel we don't have a way out that doesn't end up in some sort of radicalisation and infighting. They will resort to aggression, losing the argument on that alone even though they do have fair points like those exposed by dinofelis (I just disagree in his conclusions and in some key assumptions, but I actually agree with a lot of his take).
I'm seriously worried about this. If Bitcoin depends on sorting the problem of "perfect agreement in software development" then we are IN THE SHIT because that is never going to happen.
No, this is unavoidable for ANY form of PoW system in the long run. It IS already the case BTW: 14 miner pools have essentially all the hash rate.
The reason is not "block size" or whatever. The reason is the lottery of PoW, and the economies of scale.
Solo mining is not done much any more, because with solo mining, you win ONE BLOCK every two years or so. That's too much of a lottery.
If you don't want more than 10% income fluctuation (RMS value) in 1 week of your income, it means that you must be part of a team that "wins 100 times" during a week. As there are 1000 blocks in 1 week, you must hence be part of a pool that has 10% of the total hash rate. --> there can be only 10 such pools !
Even if you accept larger fluctuations of income, there will at most be a few tens of mining pools.
Now, these mining pools need good network connections, to their miners, and to other mining pools, because every second lost is a second of hash rate lost. As mining pools don't trust one another, they want to get good links to SEVERAL of their competitors, to avoid the possibility of "selfish mining" which needs variable network delays to get your private block in front of the public block.
So, AUTOMATICALLY, this ecosystem will evolve towards "a few tens of pools with very good data connections and big data centres".
As an owner of mining gear, you have all interest to be in a big pool ; but you don't want pools the become monopolies, because then they will start eating off your fees. So as an owner of mining gear, you are going to be such that you want to have "a few big pools". In order for your mining gear to be efficiently used, you want to be able to have a good data connection to your host pool --> they need good data centres with good connections to all of their miners.
Once that is the case, automatically the above topology follows. Has not much to do with block size. Is intrinsic to the PoW system with specialized hardware (ASICS). It was built into bitcoin from the start.
The reason is not "block size" or whatever. The reason is the lottery of PoW, and the economies of scale.
Solo mining is not done much any more, because with solo mining, you win ONE BLOCK every two years or so. That's too much of a lottery.
If you don't want more than 10% income fluctuation (RMS value) in 1 week of your income, it means that you must be part of a team that "wins 100 times" during a week. As there are 1000 blocks in 1 week, you must hence be part of a pool that has 10% of the total hash rate. --> there can be only 10 such pools !
Even if you accept larger fluctuations of income, there will at most be a few tens of mining pools.
Now, these mining pools need good network connections, to their miners, and to other mining pools, because every second lost is a second of hash rate lost. As mining pools don't trust one another, they want to get good links to SEVERAL of their competitors, to avoid the possibility of "selfish mining" which needs variable network delays to get your private block in front of the public block.
So, AUTOMATICALLY, this ecosystem will evolve towards "a few tens of pools with very good data connections and big data centres".
As an owner of mining gear, you have all interest to be in a big pool ; but you don't want pools the become monopolies, because then they will start eating off your fees. So as an owner of mining gear, you are going to be such that you want to have "a few big pools". In order for your mining gear to be efficiently used, you want to be able to have a good data connection to your host pool --> they need good data centres with good connections to all of their miners.
Once that is the case, automatically the above topology follows. Has not much to do with block size. Is intrinsic to the PoW system with specialized hardware (ASICS). It was built into bitcoin from the start.
Automatically, if nothing else is done on top of this system, and if blocks are allowed to grow freely: this system will consolidate on one node-miner and will make zero sense. It won't be a censorship-resistance transaction system and it will be COMPLETELY POINTLESS.
That is why Bitcoin, right now, is a work in progress. Allowed to concentrate to 1, it's a convoluted, slow data-structure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like downloading files from a standalone Bit-Torrent server running on your own computer.