Ninjastic
Search content
Sort by
Showing 7 of 7 results by sunnycoast
Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
best altcoin to mine?
by
sunnycoast
on 10/02/2018, 09:52:19 UTC
also, if you can provide links to some websites for best way to procure mining equipment, i'd appreciate it.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Node is unreachable
by
sunnycoast
on 30/10/2017, 04:33:01 UTC
Downloaded core 0.15, I'm able to send and receive without issue.

But when I check the status of my computer at https://bitnodes.21.co/, I get an error message saying it is unreachable.

If I'm able to send and receive btc using the QT, shouldn't this website indicate that my port 8333 is accessible? Is it possible to send/receive via QT but my port 8333 is not accessible?
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Why was SegWit2X implemented in the first place?
by
sunnycoast
on 28/10/2017, 21:39:20 UTC
Quote from: marky89 on October 28, 2017, 09:14:16 PM
Quote from: sunnycoast on October 28, 2017, 08:51:44 PM
I'm running 15.0.1 on my computer that I downloaded from core. This should be sufficient to reject 2X?

Yep -- you're good to go as far as rejecting 2x. Just remember that if the 2x coins ever have value, and you want to sell them for more bitcoins, you probably want to avoid making any transactions after the fork. Any payments you make (to addresses you don't control) will send out your 2x coins as well. It sounds like you don't care, but just throwing it out there because it seems like the NYA companies are doing their best to pump their hard fork.

Based on what I understand, I'll wait and see what the best method of transacting is after the fork.

I follow the developers as I think they act in the best interest of bitcoin, not miners or banks.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Why was SegWit2X implemented in the first place?
by
sunnycoast
on 28/10/2017, 20:51:44 UTC
Quote from: illinest on October 28, 2017, 08:06:10 PM
Quote from: sunnycoast on October 28, 2017, 05:32:18 PM
Can you or someone else post some details on how to reject the 2MB?

I'm on this forum, reddit, and bitcoin slack but do not see any instructions on how to reject the 2X if running a full node.

By "full node" I'm guessing that you are running Core? If an alternative implementation, then which one? I think BTC1 is the only full node implementation that will fork to 2x. As long as you are running any version of Core, you will reject the 2x fork, since it's a hard fork (incompatible with the previous versions).

That's why most people just say "run a full node" if you want to ignore the 2x chain entirely. If you just run Core and ignore the 2x chain, you don't run any risk of losing BTC. But you'll probably lose B2X coins since there is no replay protection.

I'm running 15.0.1 on my computer that I downloaded from core. This should be sufficient to reject 2X?
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Why was SegWit2X implemented in the first place?
by
sunnycoast
on 28/10/2017, 19:31:30 UTC
Quote from: BillyBobZorton on October 28, 2017, 05:45:31 PM
Quote from: sunnycoast on October 28, 2017, 05:32:18 PM
Quote from: squatter on October 28, 2017, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: Jet Cash on October 28, 2017, 08:56:04 AM
I seem to have a major misunderstanding about SegWit. I thought the witness data was going to be stored off the blockchain. So it appears that my "legacy" node is storing short blocks if the witness data is being stripped out. If this is true, then it would appear to kill the whole pont of implementing SegWit, and deprive me of the advantages in using SegWit for its many other features.

This is how opt-in soft forks work, and it's part of the beauty of the forward compatibility that Satoshi built into Bitcoin. Basically, legacy nodes are able to process future versions of themselves, even if they don't full understand them, and they are still fully enforcing the consensus rules. The consensus is still intact if the witness data is segregated and transmitted in parallel to legacy blocks. The FUD that big blockers are spreading about "Segwit getting rid of signatures" is just that -- FUD.

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 28, 2017, 09:26:39 AM
So what will happen if I refuse to accept 2Mb blocks, and stay with a legacy node?

You, along with many of us, will help to create a network split in November when the Segwit2x fork occurs. We will remain on the original network. It's difficult to say what miners will do at that time, so it's difficult to say how disruptive the event might be. It might be damn near impossible to get transactions confirmed if most miners really do leave our chain.

Can you or someone else post some details on how to reject the 2MB?

I'm on this forum, reddit, and bitcoin slack but do not see any instructions on how to reject the 2X if running a full node.

Bitcoin Core 0.15+ and beyond automatically disconnects from btc1 nodes, even tho i've seen that btc1 tries to disguise their nodes to not be banned:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7465sd/btc1_just_merged_the_ability_for_segwit2x_to/

In any case run 0.15+ and also write to any merchants and miners not rejecting NYA to do so, there's not much else you can do. What matters is dumping the B2X coins when the moment comes. This is how forks are defeated... just crash the price by dumping, but be sure you know what you are doing first to access and transact the forked coins.

Thanks for the clarity.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Re: Why was SegWit2X implemented in the first place?
by
sunnycoast
on 28/10/2017, 17:32:18 UTC
Quote from: squatter on October 28, 2017, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: Jet Cash on October 28, 2017, 08:56:04 AM
I seem to have a major misunderstanding about SegWit. I thought the witness data was going to be stored off the blockchain. So it appears that my "legacy" node is storing short blocks if the witness data is being stripped out. If this is true, then it would appear to kill the whole pont of implementing SegWit, and deprive me of the advantages in using SegWit for its many other features.

This is how opt-in soft forks work, and it's part of the beauty of the forward compatibility that Satoshi built into Bitcoin. Basically, legacy nodes are able to process future versions of themselves, even if they don't full understand them, and they are still fully enforcing the consensus rules. The consensus is still intact if the witness data is segregated and transmitted in parallel to legacy blocks. The FUD that big blockers are spreading about "Segwit getting rid of signatures" is just that -- FUD.

Quote from: Jet Cash on October 28, 2017, 09:26:39 AM
So what will happen if I refuse to accept 2Mb blocks, and stay with a legacy node?

You, along with many of us, will help to create a network split in November when the Segwit2x fork occurs. We will remain on the original network. It's difficult to say what miners will do at that time, so it's difficult to say how disruptive the event might be. It might be damn near impossible to get transactions confirmed if most miners really do leave our chain.

Can you or someone else post some details on how to reject the 2MB?

I'm on this forum, reddit, and bitcoin slack but do not see any instructions on how to reject the 2X if running a full node.
Post
Topic
Board Development & Technical Discussion
Why was SegWit2X implemented in the first place?
by
sunnycoast
on 28/10/2017, 05:26:48 UTC
I'm familiar enough now about why the core people dislikes 2X. But, why was this accepted in the first place? Was it hidden as part of the original SegWit and the core developers did not know about it?