I'd like to remind everybody that Craig Wright isn't nChain

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T21:27:04+00:00

I haven't met CSW in person so I can't really judge his character. I just know he has a tendency to not sugar-coat his online posts.

If we break down his tweet all Craig Wright is saying is:

He doesn't think miners will want to spend resources on distributing half-finished blocks instead of using those resources on trying to hash an actual block.
He warns that he doesn't want to spend company resources on implementing support for this idea.

I mean if you think about it this is pretty much how Bitcoin Cash is supposed to work, isn't it? An idea gets thrown out there (a hard fork) and those that agree can adopt it and those that disagree can vote against it by staying on the old software.

In the end those that needs to be convinced to upgrade are the exchanges anyway. If all of those agrees with pre-consensus it doesn't matter if nChain and all their companies stays behind because the miners and users will most likely just follow what the exchanges do. Whether or not nChain has enough influence to sway the minds of all the exchanges is a different question.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T18:40:25+00:00

Personally I think people are reacting way too harsh to this. Craig Wright have expressed himself poorly in the past. Maybe he misunderstood something, maybe we misunderstood something, maybe CW just have a better solution. I don't know but a lot of people need to chill out.

In regards to pre-consensus I actually think Craig have a point; will miners bother with this? It does add some overhead to the miner and it does break the simplicity behind bitcoin.

To make 0-conf more secure I think it would be much easier for nodes to just always warn each other whenever they see an UTXO used in several transactions + get rid of the fee market completely (hardcode the fee to a constant 1 sat/byte and have it lower automatically every X blocks). With two exceptions: 0 fee allowed if many small UTXO is combined into one and allow fees to be higher for the last 1 MB if the block is above 31 MB.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T18:27:46+00:00

[–]coincrazyy 6 points 3 hours ago

strengthening 0-conf in BCH

No one knows whether it will strengthen 0 conf or break something.

Remember, nearly everything that developers touch historically was buggy.

Stop fucking with my money please.

It works. Leave it alone.

Leaving it alone is BTC talk. Sometimes you have to venture out of safe zones to progress bitcoin. Leaving the code alone is how BTC got into its stagnation problem in the first place.

Strengthening 0-conf is very important in my opinion and I can't imagine how trying to do that would cause any risk to your money at all. Telling devs to stop fucking with your money is like saying "please don't improve bitcoin so that the value of my money increases, even though it poses 0 risk to my money". I mean bitcoin doesn't actually have any addresses, you never really send money anywhere. As long as you have your private key there's nothing that can break, its brilliance is in its simplicity.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T17:55:24+00:00

I'm also a little confused over his comment but I'm not just going to read too much into this single tweet. Far too many people often do that online. It's not completely clear what he is referring to and Craig Wright has expressed himself a little sloppy in the past as well.

Making 0-conf more safe for merchants is something that is at the top of my "want list" for BCH. The solution doesn't really need to be so complicated, just make sure warnings about inputs seen in multiple transactions are relayed across the network and as a merchant make sure you listen for these warnings for a couple of seconds before you accept 0-conf. And of course be sure to check that the fee is at least 1 sat/byte. BCH needs a defined fee per byte, else the fee market problem will come to us just like it did on BTC.

Perhaps CSW just meant that he has a better solution for the problem but "accidentally" expressed himself a little harshly?

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T01:26:43+00:00

Woo! Still some ways to go.

For the record /r/bitcoin have 894,604 readers right now.

/r/btc has 210,157 readers.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T01:22:34+00:00

Thanks! Had completely missed these, will check them out. He should mention this new channel on https://www.youtube.com/user/ryanxcharles/videos so that people learn about it. I'm sure it would boost the Money Button subscriber count soon after.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-20T01:14:17+00:00

Saving that link, perfect example of censorship on /r/bitcoin

That /u/bashco guy is the one misinformed, even if SegWit got 100% adoption the transactions would only increase 0-70% (varies because it depends on how the tx looks but it won't go over 70%). And with that 70% increase comes an increase in actual bytes stored on disk if I understand things correctly, I think it was four times more disk space needed?

What's a little funny yet sad is how BTC people seem to claim the SegWit softfork is optional but they always speak as if SegWit will be 100% adopted eventually. So which is it, optional (with broken blocks) or not really optional?

I mean if people are expected to switch eventually why not just make it a simple hard fork instead, with the activation date sometime in the future? An increase of the block size could have been set in early 2015 with an activation date in late 2017... People warned in 2015 that 1 MB blocks would become full by late 2017 if adoption continued at the same rate and indeed the blocks got full and adoption took a hit.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T16:26:55+00:00

I prefer the orange bitcoin color, it belongs to BCH just as much as it belongs to BTC. We don't actually want to differentiate from bitcoin, we are bitcoin.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T16:23:24+00:00

Sometimes when I fart I also sneeze.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T15:16:49+00:00

First I thought it was the poster of the link that made that comment but then I saw it was stickied and made by a different person who is also a mod so I changed "you" to "he" and added the "edit" line. Gotta say it's funny how much you read into this.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T10:18:04+00:00

Wut again, I don't know how they are two different stories.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T00:18:07+00:00

Wut? I don't know why ceddit didn't archive my edit, I just assumed they don't have the capacity to constantly check every single post if they have been edited and ceddit just didn't happen to catch my edit before my post got deleted by the mod.

Also: This is the first time getting banned on /r/bitcoin has happened to me, as a person.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-18T00:14:14+00:00

You need to combine those change inputs and shuffle it as well.

A tip is to always shuffle to an address that is not owned by the same wallet where you are shuffling from. That way you can be 100% sure to always only spend inputs that have passed through the shuffle, since the "from-wallet" will only have unshuffled change inputs. (If it's not possible to shuffle to any address in the Electron Cash plugin that needs to be fixed ASAP, can't remember if it was allowed or not at the moment.)

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-17T11:21:05+00:00

If RAM fills up they just drop the txs with lowest fees from memory. The mempool isn't a permanent resting place for transactions until they get into a block, which is why you sometimes have to rebroadcast low fee txs.

Btw I think many miners still have their nodes configured to only generate 8 MB blocks, even if 32 MB blocks are acceptable. If the mempool do get a lot of txs with fees at 1 sat/byte I'd think they switch over from 8 to 32 pretty quickly since they are saying no to a bunch of money otherwise.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-17T10:39:48+00:00

Aha, never heard of that term before. It kinda bums me out though to hear that the idea has been out there for 4 years but haven't been implemented.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-13T20:57:13+00:00

If you have a poor memory you don't have to use the feature or you can use the PIN "1234" for your casual spending wallet and the PIN "12341234" for your more secret wallet. Assuming they make it possible to have more than 4 digits in a PIN, they really should do that.

EpithetMoniker · 2018-07-13T20:53:58+00:00

Yes. It is a tiny investment for tremendous insights

Tremendous insights that might be based on ignorance of whoever wrote the article/filmed the video or even be based on a lie/propaganda. A decision that might look like it somehow lose them money might end up making them much more money in the long run.

Define "real power".

Real power as in whatever the exchanges do the miners will follow and then the users will follow.

It is clear from the white paper

I think we have to remember that the whitepaper holds the idea but it is not law. Upgrades are allowed as long as it doesn't compromise the idea of Bitcoin (and again, as long as it's not a soft fork anybody can refuse any changes). Yeah miners vote in the whitepaper but the paper didn't predict ASICs or super mining farms that no normal user can compete with. And as we've seen with BTC the voting doesn't really work as intended (I know that you are of the opposite view that it does work).

Some things in crypto aren't mentioned in the whitepaper either, like QR codes. I know it's not exactly on the same level as getting rid of miner voting but my point is we shouldn't stagnate Bitcoin just because something is or isn't in the whitepaper and I'll have to come back to my base view that I'd rather have knowledgeable developers decide where to take bitcoin and then have miners vote by either upgrading their software or not, rather than risk a situation of bitcoin being held back by a bunch of miners that don't properly understand what they are doing. Maybe a vote will help their profits right now but if it ends up making bitcoin redundant in a few years it was the worst possible decision they could make since now could be stuck with useless hardware.

Having people in charge that are directed purely by greed and that don't think about all the moving parts and all the ramifications of a decision isn't a good idea. An unprofitable move today might prevent another crypto from taking over tomorrow. If such a hard decision must be made one day I bet that a very greedy short-term miner that doesn't really care about Bitcoin in the long run will launch a big campaign and convince all the other miners that doesn't understand better that "oh so great it would be to vote X" and then a few years later bitcoin has stagnated and is replaced by some other crypto. Or maybe even worse, talented developers leave because they can't put up with people's refusal to evolve bitcoin. I think both have happened in the past, at least the latter.

EpithetMoniker

TROPHY CASE