Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19693. (Read 26608364 times)
January 01, 2016, 03:02:10 AM
January 01, 2016, 02:40:15 AM
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/682710904098574336
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
Pu-pu-pu-pumperitis babay
http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/31/viacoin-hires-peter-todd.html
ooooooooooooooooo
January 01, 2016, 02:02:12 AM
January 01, 2016, 01:44:02 AM
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/682710904098574336
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
Pu-pu-pu-pumperitis babay
http://blog.viacoin.org/2014/07/31/viacoin-hires-peter-todd.html
January 01, 2016, 01:39:25 AM
Difficulty History
Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate
Dec 31 2015 103,880,340,815 11.16% 743,604,444 GH/s
Dec 18 2015 93,448,670,796 18.14% 668,931,642 GH/s
Dec 06 2015 79,102,380,900 8.77% 566,236,898 GH/s
Nov 24 2015 72,722,780,643 10.44% 520,569,941 GH/s
Nov 11 2015 65,848,255,180 5.77% 471,360,171 GH/s
Oct 29 2015 62,253,982,450 2.25% 445,631,364 GH/s
Oct 15 2015 60,883,825,480 0.12% 435,823,399 GH/s
Oct 01 2015 60,813,224,039 2.49% 435,318,014 GH/s
Sep 17 2015 59,335,351,234 4.17% 424,738,988 GH/s
Sep 04 2015 56,957,648,455 4.98% 407,718,729 GH/s
Aug 22 2015 54,256,630,328 2.95% 388,384,088 GH/s
Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate
Dec 31 2015 103,880,340,815 11.16% 743,604,444 GH/s
Dec 18 2015 93,448,670,796 18.14% 668,931,642 GH/s
Dec 06 2015 79,102,380,900 8.77% 566,236,898 GH/s
Nov 24 2015 72,722,780,643 10.44% 520,569,941 GH/s
Nov 11 2015 65,848,255,180 5.77% 471,360,171 GH/s
Oct 29 2015 62,253,982,450 2.25% 445,631,364 GH/s
Oct 15 2015 60,883,825,480 0.12% 435,823,399 GH/s
Oct 01 2015 60,813,224,039 2.49% 435,318,014 GH/s
Sep 17 2015 59,335,351,234 4.17% 424,738,988 GH/s
Sep 04 2015 56,957,648,455 4.98% 407,718,729 GH/s
Aug 22 2015 54,256,630,328 2.95% 388,384,088 GH/s
January 01, 2016, 01:02:10 AM
January 01, 2016, 12:39:16 AM
https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/682710904098574336
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
I've signed the "Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system" plan for Bitcoin Core. https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1165#issuecomment-168263005 …
January 01, 2016, 12:38:38 AM
:)Happy new yr and gd luck to all 
January 01, 2016, 12:20:31 AM
Happy New Year, folks! "Walk The Moon 2016"
January 01, 2016, 12:05:17 AM
Can't wait for all this new money to find its way to bitcoin in 2016 
it's going to be an EPIC year
it's going to be an EPIC year January 01, 2016, 12:02:10 AM
December 31, 2015, 11:41:13 PM
Happy NEW YEAR 2016 !!!
i hope bitcoin will soon reach ATH !!!
i hope bitcoin will soon reach ATH !!!
December 31, 2015, 11:10:55 PM
Happy New year!
I'd say we ended up ok. Been a rough and tumble bitcoin year but I think in 2016 BTC will shine
I'd say we ended up ok. Been a rough and tumble bitcoin year but I think in 2016 BTC will shine
December 31, 2015, 11:02:14 PM
December 31, 2015, 10:38:33 PM
May your "academic interest only" continue through 2016. 
Thanks! Happy new year, wisdom and all the best to everybody!
December 31, 2015, 10:30:59 PM
The problem is that the cost [ of validating a transaction ] grows like N^2 for N inputs.
By the way, there is no excuse for the cost to be quadratic. That is one of the many crocks in the BitcoinCore implementation, that will take more crocks to work around. Like the Segregated Witnesses proposal, malleability and its partial patches, blockchain voting to increase the limit, etc..
There you have another possible failure mode for Bitcoin: runaway code crockification (RCC). As the code gets more complicated and ugly, fewer competent people will be willing to work on it. Their place will be taken by incompetent pople, who will add even more crocks -- and so on until the code will fail and there will be no one capable of fixing it in time.
Just a possibility; but after seeing the malleability problems, the Fork of July fiasco, the "fee merket" plans and the RBF hack, the Seg Wit proposal -- I fear that the RCC may be already underway...
December 31, 2015, 10:24:25 PM
Jorge is the troll we need, but not the one we deserve.
May your "academic interest only" continue through 2016.
May your "academic interest only" continue through 2016.
December 31, 2015, 10:08:14 PM
Quote from: rusty
This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash. If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not. But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming…
And this assuming the initial optimizations completed to speed up Verification!
This means that If we hardforked a 2MB MaxBlockSize increase on the main tree and we softforked/hardforked in SepSig, we would essentially have up to a 8MB limit (3.5MB to 8MB) in which an attack vector could be opened up with heavy input and multisig tx which would crash nodes.
These are edge cases... but edge cases are what attackers use to disrupt the network.
Remember we have to design code to expect the worst and hostile intent, especially for bitcoin which has many extremely powerful adversaries. This is why I have a nuanced view of simultaneously supporting multiple implementations, the conservative approach from the core devs, and eventually increasing the block limit.
That is small-blockian FUD. (Rusty is a Blockstream employee, BTW.)
There is an easy fix for that problem: limit the number of inputs and outputs to a sane value. There is no real need to have more than (say) 16 inputs or 16 outputs. If one needs more, just use several transactions.
The problem is that the cost grows like N^2 for N inputs. Thus the cost for a single 256-input, 1-output transaction is about 256^2 = 65536 times the cost C for a single-input, single-outout one. The same effect can be obtained with 17 transactions with 16 inputs each. The total bytes will be only a bit more, and the validation cost will be 17 x 16^2 = 4352 times C, or 5% of the big one.
IIRC, BitcoinXT already has a limit on the number of inputs (a lot more than 16, but a lot less than 20'000) that solves that problem. That fix should be in BitcoinCore too; but I would not be surprised if Blockstrea blocked it too.
December 31, 2015, 10:02:11 PM
December 31, 2015, 09:08:07 PM
Happy New year mofos
Jump to: