Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19518. (Read 26610656 times)
January 24, 2016, 02:01:32 AM
January 24, 2016, 01:11:42 AM
Vitalik Buterin, the developer and co-founder of crypto 2.0 platform Ethereum and co-founder of Bitcoin Magazine, has received the award at the WTN’s 2014 summit held at the Time & Life building in New York City and joins now the illustrious circle of recipients nominated by the World Technology Network each year. The event has been organized together with Fortune and Time. Besides, Buterin has been involved in multiple crypto projects over the years, including KryptoKit and Dark Wallet. Furthermore, this is not the first time the youthful developer has been rewarded for his efforts: in July this year Buterin benefitted a US$100,000 maintenance grant from Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and venture capitalist, which allow him to further progress in his start-up projects, including Ethereum. Multiple prominent industry leaders and companies have received World Technology Awards since the turn of the century, including the likes of Pinterest, Tesla, Skype, Apple, IBM, Amazon and other individuals and organizations that have made their mark in the world of technology. Vitalik Buterin was the only big name in the digital currency industry to win an award at this year’s WTN event.
well done m8 Smiley
well done m8 Smiley
hahahahaha
sure it is funny how the likes of Mr. Pumperitis ... likes to continuously pump alts in this bitcoin thread, including Ethereum...
and it is also funny how some big industries will also pump alts, to some extent, in order to create impressions of competition with bitcoin... when bitcoin remains the main game in town... and ethereum, if it becomes a contender, is years away from bitcoin... .. will be interesting to see if ethereum is still being pumped in a couple of years... and if it catches up to bitcoin in any ways.. including the computing power behind bitcoin.
dude this isnt a pump...its a realization...an awakening of the crypto masses, all of us have realized btc is not in capable hands anymore. Many smart traders saw this coming months ago(some even yrs ago), if btc fails what should we do...go to fiat or another coin??.
crypto isnt dying ,its evolving
A coin that does not have the issues btc is having..and if it does have issues in the future "who would fix it"? people trust VB more than any btc future dev , its that simple
January 24, 2016, 01:01:35 AM
January 24, 2016, 12:41:47 AM
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure.
The simple answer is that they seek complexity because complexity takes time to implement and simply increasing the block size limit could have been done without much further ado.
You can argue motivation but the stonewalling of Gavin and others (people who should be regarded as influential people at least worthy of some attention) and then the stalling of the so-called scaling conferences and now this "We really have a way to fix this, just give us some more time" indicates to me that core just really do not want to scale Bitcoin.
Jorge, as a professor, I'm sure you see this kind of behavior in your students all the time, typically those who have a bit of maturing to do.
January 24, 2016, 12:04:10 AM
40MB in the pool. All the MB's in the pool!!!
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever?
There is a modest scale advantage, but it is equivalent to a one-time increase in the block size (different numbers have been cited as for how much, depending on various assumptions). There is no scaling advantage, as it doesn't help with ongoing increases in bandwidth, storage, or anything else.
The benefits are:
1. Can introduce a new signature format.
2. Fixes malleability
3. New nodes don't need to download signatures below a checkpoint, since they aren't going to verify them anyway.
4. One time effective block-size increase.
All of these could also be achieved other ways.
You seem slightly more optimistic than the professor. Thanks Dude.
In other news: this person has been mixing over and over and reconsolidating again over and over every so often for years.
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever?
There is a modest scale advantage, but it is equivalent to a one-time increase in the block size (different numbers have been cited as for how much, depending on various assumptions). There is no scaling advantage, as it doesn't help with ongoing increases in bandwidth, storage, or anything else.
The benefits are:
1. Can introduce a new signature format.
2. Fixes malleability
3. New nodes don't need to download signatures below a checkpoint, since they aren't going to verify them anyway.
4. One time effective block-size increase.
All of these could also be achieved other ways.
You seem slightly more optimistic than the professor. Thanks Dude.
In other news: this person has been mixing over and over and reconsolidating again over and over every so often for years.
January 24, 2016, 12:01:30 AM
January 23, 2016, 11:57:47 PM
Vitalik Buterin, the developer and co-founder of crypto 2.0 platform Ethereum and co-founder of Bitcoin Magazine, has received the award at the WTN’s 2014 summit held at the Time & Life building in New York City and joins now the illustrious circle of recipients nominated by the World Technology Network each year. The event has been organized together with Fortune and Time. Besides, Buterin has been involved in multiple crypto projects over the years, including KryptoKit and Dark Wallet. Furthermore, this is not the first time the youthful developer has been rewarded for his efforts: in July this year Buterin benefitted a US$100,000 maintenance grant from Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and venture capitalist, which allow him to further progress in his start-up projects, including Ethereum. Multiple prominent industry leaders and companies have received World Technology Awards since the turn of the century, including the likes of Pinterest, Tesla, Skype, Apple, IBM, Amazon and other individuals and organizations that have made their mark in the world of technology. Vitalik Buterin was the only big name in the digital currency industry to win an award at this year’s WTN event.
well done m8 Smiley
well done m8 Smiley
hahahahaha
sure it is funny how the likes of Mr. Pumperitis ... likes to continuously pump alts in this bitcoin thread, including Ethereum...
and it is also funny how some big industries will also pump alts, to some extent, in order to create impressions of competition with bitcoin... when bitcoin remains the main game in town... and ethereum, if it becomes a contender, is years away from bitcoin... .. will be interesting to see if ethereum is still being pumped in a couple of years... and if it catches up to bitcoin in any ways.. including the computing power behind bitcoin.
January 23, 2016, 11:57:41 PM
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever?
There is a modest scale advantage, but it is equivalent to a one-time increase in the block size (different numbers have been cited as for how much, depending on various assumptions). There is no scaling advantage, as it doesn't help with ongoing increases in bandwidth, storage, or anything else.
The benefits are:
1. Can introduce a new signature format.
2. Fixes malleability
3. New nodes don't need to download signatures below a checkpoint, since they aren't going to verify them anyway.
4. One time effective block-size increase.
All of these could also be achieved other ways.
January 23, 2016, 11:50:05 PM
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
So assuming there are no scaling advantages, what is the point exactly of separating signatures from transaction chains or whatever?
Off-topic: I understand that SegWit fixes transaction malleability, but appears to some to have been added to the scaling roadmap as a political move.
Nope, segregated witness segregates the signature chain from the transaction chain. And increasing the overall blocksize as a side-effect. Malleability fix is also a side effect.
Is it a benefit to multi-sig transactions somehow?
January 23, 2016, 11:42:31 PM
Vitalik Buterin, the developer and co-founder of crypto 2.0 platform Ethereum and co-founder of Bitcoin Magazine, has received the award at the WTN’s 2014 summit held at the Time & Life building in New York City and joins now the illustrious circle of recipients nominated by the World Technology Network each year. The event has been organized together with Fortune and Time. Besides, Buterin has been involved in multiple crypto projects over the years, including KryptoKit and Dark Wallet. Furthermore, this is not the first time the youthful developer has been rewarded for his efforts: in July this year Buterin benefitted a US$100,000 maintenance grant from Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and venture capitalist, which allow him to further progress in his start-up projects, including Ethereum. Multiple prominent industry leaders and companies have received World Technology Awards since the turn of the century, including the likes of Pinterest, Tesla, Skype, Apple, IBM, Amazon and other individuals and organizations that have made their mark in the world of technology. Vitalik Buterin was the only big name in the digital currency industry to win an award at this year’s WTN event.
well done m8 Smiley
well done m8 Smiley
January 23, 2016, 11:36:53 PM
Vitalik just got finished describing SegWit as basically an ugly kludge of code. Doesn't he know about the transaction malleability? Mt. Gox? Kittens??
There is no need for that ugly kludge -- split transactions and blocks into two records -- to fix transaction malleability. It would sufflice to skip the signatures when computing the transaction id.
Blockstream's reasons to want that kludge, ignoring all objections, are obscure. It is not necessary or helpful for fixing malleability, and does not reduce bandwidth or storage costs. On the contrary, there are alternative solutions to save bandwith from miners to clients that are simpler and more effective.
One possiblility is that they want the freedom to muck around with the signatures withot having to justify or explain to anyone, since they could claim that the "main" record contains the information that other ordinary wallets need, while the contents of the extension block neeed to be understood only by them.
Ot perhaps the LN will require some horrendoulsy complicated signatures; then SegWit would be a way to accomodate such transactions without impacting the bandwidth or requiring an an increase in the block size limit. Ans maybe also a way to keep the LN fees down: Pieter suggested that the fee rate (mBTC/kB) for the signature record would be a fraction of that of the main records, ostensibly to encourage use of the SegWit format.
January 23, 2016, 11:20:18 PM
From my memory of the asic race it would take 6 months at least, probably closer to a year, but that's not important. What I'm considering is that it would be necessary to change PoW in the case of a hard fork simply to avoid the risk of attack from the existing sha256 mining hardware..
On the less popular chain, blocks would grind to a halt under the existing difficulty. If we assume 10 percent remain then you would expect 1 block every 100 minutes, at least until the next difficulty adjustment, which would be a very long time because difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks. If you reduce the difficulty artificially to allow blocks to be mined and transactions to happen in a timely fashion then It becomes trivial for any mining pool to quickly switch over and mine a bunch of your blocks and then dump the coins...
I think, in the situation where one would want to cling to a minority chain after a hard fork, an algorithm change is essential.
Also, there is no incentive to design or build asics to run the new algorithm unless it is insanely profitable, as was the case when the first bitcoin asics came on the scene.
The problem with your memory of the ASIC race is that it's a race that's already been run. Planning has been done, companies built up, infrastructure and channels put in place, experts brought in-house and manufacturing capacity assigned. If we were starting from scratch, you'd be absolutely correct but just bringing a new algorithm online? I'd imagine that back-of-napkin designs are already widespread after Luke-jr's little stunt.
I won't argue that staying on SHA2 wouldn't be problematic, I'm just saying that changing is too, if not moreso. It's lose-lose.
January 23, 2016, 11:13:22 PM
i think get ready for mega dumps 
January 23, 2016, 11:01:35 PM
January 23, 2016, 10:54:15 PM
btc..game over?
January 23, 2016, 10:30:13 PM
Any fork with a low hashrate would be subject to what Luke-jr did with to Coiledcoin.
Hi Richy, what if the lesser fork adopts a new proof of work algorithm that obsoletes the existing mining hardware?
I believe when Luke-jr did what he did, we were not on ASICs yet. Starting from scratch is rolling the dice. There are a lot of powered down (or being used on altcoins) GPUs out there. Who controls them?
ASICs will be produced for the new POW in a couple of weeks to months tops in any case. Or would be if it wasn't going to be effectively dead.
From my memory of the asic race it would take 6 months at least, probably closer to a year, but that's not important. What I'm considering is that it would be necessary to change PoW in the case of a hard fork simply to avoid the risk of attack from the existing sha256 mining hardware..
On the less popular chain, blocks would grind to a halt under the existing difficulty. If we assume 10 percent remain then you would expect 1 block every 100 minutes, at least until the next difficulty adjustment, which would be a very long time because difficulty is adjusted every 2016 blocks. If you reduce the difficulty artificially to allow blocks to be mined and transactions to happen in a timely fashion then It becomes trivial for any mining pool to quickly switch over and mine a bunch of your blocks and then dump the coins...
I think, in the situation where one would want to cling to a minority chain after a hard fork, an algorithm change is essential.
Also, there is no incentive to design or build asics to run the new algorithm unless it is insanely profitable, as was the case when the first bitcoin asics came on the scene.
January 23, 2016, 10:01:32 PM
January 23, 2016, 09:34:43 PM
Any fork with a low hashrate would be subject to what Luke-jr did with to Coiledcoin.
Hi Richy, what if the lesser fork adopts a new proof of work algorithm that obsoletes the existing mining hardware?
I believe when Luke-jr did what he did, we were not on ASICs yet. Starting from scratch is rolling the dice. There are a lot of powered down (or being used on altcoins) GPUs out there. Who controls them?
ASICs will be produced for the new POW in a couple of weeks to months tops in any case. Or would be if it wasn't going to be effectively dead.
January 23, 2016, 09:31:46 PM
The more contentious alternatives the better. The HF only triggers at 75% - thats 75% for Classic.
That means that core must now share the remaining 25% with all the other implementations. They will attack each other into oblivion.
Check out the link, comrade. There is no competing over 25% remaining ASICs' with what is being discussed. It is both fascinating and encouraging and we shouldn't worry regardless the outcome. I am at peace with a potential HF and Classic. Either way, the future is great.
P.S.. 75% of hashing does not equal an economic majority or a majority of users. Appears to be more supporting Core, but who knows , such a difficult thing to measure. GPU only mining would bring in many new participants who left for other alts long ago , and casual gamers with good gpus as well .
Any fork with a low hashrate would be subject to what Luke-jr did
Hi Richy, what if the lesser fork adopts a new proof of work algorithm that obsoletes the existing mining hardware?
January 23, 2016, 09:22:54 PM
Fun fact: Peter Todd was corresponding with Hal Finney when he was 15.
Jump to: