Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17610. (Read 26712968 times)

I have no idea what your jurisdiction is, but aren't you encouraging someone to break the law here? Which... again depending on your jurisdiction, may also be illegal.

Anyway, nothing I want to get involved with, just a warning to anyone who considers this offer. I'm also not really sure advertising that you store large amounts of bitcoins on a networked machine is a wise decision... but, to each his own.

Mmmmhh hmmm.....
Tell you what, chicken littles... I've got well over a first world salary parked on my BU node. First of you loudmouths harping about 'crappy BU code' who can actually exploit this so-called weakness is welcome to my stacks.

All I ask is that you first announce your attempt. Not that I'll invoke any countermeasures... I just want to make clear how fail-full your attempt is.

All right... who's first to eat it?

ya classic is nice too but, i'm feeling DANGEROUS  so ill go with the cheap as shit box

Shattered dreams meets harsh reality 

Why dont you ask questions at youre noob BU dev? They almost took the whole Bitcoin down to $0

Can I interest you in a Chevrolet Corvair?

Ooh, I know. How about a nice Ford Pinto?

the chain split is very likely at this point because both sides seem to have = pull but if no one ever "pulls the trigger" we're doomed.

at this point the only real question is how bad is it gonna be 50/50 being worst case 95/5 best case

Kore is like the Ku Klux Klan

THEIR REIGN OF TERROR IS ENDING

BTCcoin Unavaliable

5 developers who account for the vast majority of commits. And dictating road map.

Seriously, just stop.

105 core devs.

5 of whom work for blockstream.

just stop.

my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES 

20 years ago (q1 1997), I had a 486/133 (oc @160 roughly around a P90), 16MB RAM, a 4 GB HDD and a 28.8 or 33kbps modem.

In 20 years, processing power/storage/networks have seen gains of 1000x or more.

In 20 years, if we get another 1000x, we'll easily cover 5000TPS and more. I think we'll now see more than 1000x, as AI is introduced in technological research and development - and there is a lot of things that we currently perform in an unoptimized manner.

Going back to 97, if we run Bitcoin back then, it would be considered DOA - a joke that can't even do a tx/sec, and that would demand enormous CPU power, network resources for the home user, filling their HDD fast, etc etc. But now, in 2017, it's "ok" for use.

In 20 years from now it will be able to do way more than visa level txs. On-chain. And that's assuming zero progress in software solutions (which of course won't be the case).

In a way, Bitcoin cannot be judged statically, with the tech of a certain era, as Bitcoin's capabilities can multiply with technological progression. Technological progression is what ensures that Bitcoin will scale. It's not a matter of if, but when. When will people be able to run nodes that handle thousands of tx/sec, from their home connection, with their home pc or other device? Is it 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? That's the only question...

He is malicious.  He didnt 'discover' it - he simply saw the hotfix and went for damage. Welcome to Bitcoin.

Anonymity never entered the equation.

I don't think so if you had to do everything on-chain.  You need to get bitcoin to something like 5000 TPS for it to be used as a currency and valued for it's utility instead of a settlement layer, which it's not very good at because bitcoin is a poor store of value compared to metals.  Going the settlement layer route is a recipe for failure in the long run and that's what all on-chain scaling is.

I think the problem lies in the external vs internal game theory aspect.

The internal game theory (incentives and disincentives of players within the ecosystem of bitcoin) are theoretically ok. The problem begins with the external game theory. Meaning that actors outside bitcoin (say banks, governments / agencies) can pay bad miners more than their block reward losses for misbehaving.

So there can be a paradox where the internal game theory of disincentivizing a miner to misbehave might be adequate (the miner will behave ok for fear of not losing funds), but this will not be adequate if parties from outside the ecosystem (banks, governments / agencies) are willing to fund bad actors with multiple times the money that they would earn through honest mining.

And then you have people saying, oh if you find a block, I'll give you 2x/5x/10x this block reward, as long as you run this very "innocent" software for your mining node

The miner would easily go that route, especially if he had little to lose in terms of invested hardware in the long run. In another paradoxical way, mining centralization and heavy mining investments (which act as a disincentive to disrupt bitcoin), have delayed the corruption of short-sighted / bribed PoW mining. If mining was done by ordinary people with ordinary hardware, who wouldn't sign up for a pool that promised +XXX% payout - thus handing out majority voting to corrupt pools?

I think the invested vote (PoW + PoS hybrid), where the stakeholders in Bitcoin act as a last line of defense to corrupt mining, might be a better way to go about it - but this too can be bought out as third parties can afford to lose their stake value because from an external-game theory perspective, if it costs you, say, 10 billion USD to buy a stake in BTC and then burn it to the ground (by choosing to harm BTC with this vote), it's still more profitable than having the multi-trillion fiat or banking systems go bust due to BTC succeeding (assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

I will hold all my BTCs. I will not dump.