Bitcoin Forum
November 17, 2018, 07:54:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 547 »
301  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network / Bitcoin scaling question on: April 15, 2018, 05:36:54 PM
Is it just me or does it seem that Lightning Network is only one piece of what Bitcoin needs to scale?
Yes, Bitcoin will need more changes in order to have more transaction capacity. No one is claiming that the Lightning Network is the end all be all of scaling solutions nor is any claiming that we won't need to do anything else. Those who are don't understand how Bitcoin or the Lightning Network work. It would be naive to think that the Lightning Network would magically solve all of our problems.

Here's my thinking:
Lightning Network you have to open and close payment channels on the blockchain. Your funds are stuck in the payment channel until you close it. So if you are a company using the Lightning Network to get paid you are gonna probably have a bunch of different payment channels open and occasionally close them in order to actually get your money. And as a company selling things you're not going to be sending that money back out through the payment channel, so there is no reason to just keep the payment channel open to make payments, you're just gonna close them to get the money every once in a while. Let's say the company closes a payment channel on average once a month, though likely i think it'd be a shorter period than that.
Not necessarily. If you are a merchant, then you probably have a lot of channels open. So this means that you can act as part of a route for someone else's payment. People can route payments through you and when you need to pay for something, you can route payments through one of your customers.

For consumers, you're gonna open a payment channel with some funds, now occasionally you might get more money from people sending you money like how people use venmo. But generally if you're using LN to buy things your funds are gonna run out even if your friends occasionally send you money venmo-style, so you need to close the payment channel in order to make a new one with new funds. Lets say the typical person funds there payment channel for a month, so you can pay your monthly costs and then you make a new one.
Not necessarily. You can make a single on chain transaction to someone who offers a rebalancing service. So you would pay some amount in an on chain transaction and then the service would send money through the Lightning Network to you so that your payment channel shifts money back to your end of the channel so you can continue to spend it. This would be cheaper than closing and opening the channel as there would only be one transaction fee to pay instead of two.


Doesn't this show pretty obviously that Bitcoin needs larger blocks
Yes. People who directly work with the technology know this and are constantly thinking of ways to increase transaction capacity. Increasing the block weight limit is not the end all be all solution either. Many other things can be done to increase transaction capacity as well. It is a known issue and is even directly addressed in the Lightning Network paper.

2. Side chains - is this the only real solution? I don't know much about side chains, how it would work exactly or their technical feasability. But if you have some network of child sidechains that handle a set of txs and everyonce in a while square back up with the main bitcoin blockchain that would seem to solve the problem. I imagine each tx from a sidechain would be very large since it moved a bunch of money around. So let's just say the bitcoin blockchain can on average handle one sidechain tx (the sum of all sidechain txs) each second and sidechains square up with bitcoin once each block (once ~10 min). Sidechains you have much quicker blocks so their txs get confirmed much faster, though i guess a tx would still need the main blockchain confirmations to be truly confirmed. Anyways, at a rate of one sidechain squaring up with bitcoin per second you can have about 600 sidechains. If each sidechain can handle the throughput of the original bitcoin blockchain (1mb every 10 minutes) then it would allows bitcoin to scaled by hundred of times its current ability. This is global scaling ability. The exact numbers are just guesses of course, maybe one sidechain squaring up with bitcoin would actually take up more than one second worth of txs on the main blockchain. But this seems theoretically the only doable way to truly scale bitcoin.
Sidechains are one of the known methods to increase transaction capacity. However there are still methods that have not yet been discovered, and still methods that we know about that have not been implemented yet. Things such as Key and Signature aggregation will increase transaction capacity by decreasing the size of transactions. It's not just about making blocks bigger or faster or having more blocks; we can also do things to make transactions smaller or transactions to occur less frequently which will help Bitcoin have a higher transaction capacity.
302  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: April 15, 2018, 05:25:21 PM
Hi,
Is this new version supported for Lightning Network ?
No. Bitcoin Core is not a Lightning Network software.
303  Other / Meta / Re: Can we ask technical questions about lightning network here? on: April 14, 2018, 03:33:37 AM
Yes
304  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: April 13, 2018, 08:09:57 PM
The rpcpassword and rpcuser for php rpc jason bugs seem not fix?
What bugs? We can't fix bugs that we don't know exist (i.e. no one has reported it to us or we haven't experienced it ourselves). AFAIK, there are no bugs, so you're probably just doing something wrong. Also, rpcpassword and rpcuser are deprecated.

I still cannot just put the password and the user in the bitcoin.conf.
How so? Create or edit the file and just put
Code:
rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=pass
305  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: April 13, 2018, 03:41:59 PM
recommended fee seems always off no way to fix this?
Off in what way? Too low? Too high?

There is no way to change or "fix" the estimated fee unless you modify the source code. Also, just because it seems wrong does not necessarily mean that it is wrong.
306  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Lightning Network -QA on: April 12, 2018, 03:19:27 PM
understand, thanks. But how can I open bi-directional channel with any node?

how can I open such channel with some (not mine) node?
Using whatever channel opening functionality the LN software you are using provides. All channels are bidirectional; it doesn't matter who creates them, both parties in the channel can send money to and receive money from the other party in the channel.
307  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin transaction signature on: April 12, 2018, 03:16:40 PM
In my view it will be more logical if:
1. The Sender knows the Receiver Public key
2. When Sender creates an Output - he encrypts this SINGLE OUTPUT with the Receiver Public Key and puts this encrypted output as and additional field (with name HASH for example)
3. When the Receiver wants to spend the Output - he decrypts the HASH field with his Private Key and compares the encrypted bytes with the output bytes - if they equals - means the Receiver can use the Output
Or maybe the Sender can sign the Output with the Receiver Public key(but I'm not sure that it would work ...)

I'm pretty sure that bitcoin transactions are very safe the only thing what confuses me - is a bit complex mechanism of verification)
This is no publicly verifiable and thus cannot work. A transaction needs to be verifiable by everyone, not just by one person.



You are failing to consider the case where an address is reused and the public keys are thus revealed to the world. Without a signature check, anyone could spend from an output that has an output script that was reused (i.e. reused addresses). You are also failing to consider the integrity aspect of signatures.
308  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: -rescan from blockheight? on: April 12, 2018, 03:07:41 PM
Use the rescanblockchain RPC command which takes a height parameter.
309  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin transaction signature on: April 11, 2018, 06:56:39 AM
Signature verification has a two-fold effect. First it ensures that the person who is spending the UTXO proves that they have the private key associated with the public key that hashes to the provided hash. Secondly, and possibly most importantly, a signature commits to the data in the transaction - i.e. it ensures that the transaction itself has not been modified without the spender knowing.

A digital signature requires two things: the private/public keypair, and a message to sign. So in the case of Bitcoin transactions, the message to sign is the transaction itself (in most cases) but without signatures because a signature can't sign itself. With OP_CHECKSIG, if the transaction itself has been modified in some way (e.g. inputs added, outputs added, output values changed, etc.), then the signature will fail to validate because the message that is being used to validate the signature with has changed.
310  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: April 11, 2018, 03:05:48 AM
Once downloaded how long will it take to sync?
It depends on your hardware. It will take somewhere between a few hours and a few days.
311  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is the network under attack in some way? on: April 11, 2018, 03:04:45 AM
Where do you see these numbers?

Within the last 24 hours,
Therein lies your problem. Your sample size is not large enough. You can't just say "daily transaction count has dropped" from just looking at one sample. This is simply variance, some days people decide to make less transactions. Such statistics can also be effected by the software that is measuring those numbers as they can be incorrect.
312  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Shower thoughts on a 2nd layer Bitcoin network and why big blockers are scared on: April 10, 2018, 05:58:31 AM
The Lightning Network cannot operated as a fractional reserve system because all amounts used are committed in transactions and into the blockchain. There is no lending of money or fractional reserve banking system.

AFAIU, it is impossible to implement a fractional reserve system in a decentralized manner. Furthermore, such a fractional reserve system can be done with Bitcoin without needing any second layers or protocol changes; you can create a service that acts exactly like a bank but uses Bitcoin as the currency instead of fiat.
313  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 Released on: April 10, 2018, 05:55:41 AM
when the possibility to remove addresses will be added? it's even possible to add this?
Probably never. Deleting addresses is considered a massive footgun and we don't like to release footguns.
314  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How pool payout to multiple users? on: April 10, 2018, 05:23:59 AM
If you are using Bitcoin Core, you use the sendmany command to send to multiple recipients (note that this applies to more than just mining pools).
315  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Libcrypto on windows system on: April 09, 2018, 05:04:58 PM
I assume you are trying to build Bitcoin Core, in which case follow these instructions: http://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-windows.md
316  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Libcrypto on windows system on: April 09, 2018, 03:34:21 PM
What wallet software are you trying to build?

The easiest thing to do is to just use the Windows Subsystem for Linux and cross compile to Windows.
317  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: manual block check does not work on: April 08, 2018, 09:05:04 PM
Oh it's great! Big thanks!!!

I still do not understand the nature of my mistake, because in the instruction it is written exactly such use of the order of bits in the version.
Picture:

URL: http://bitcoin.org/en/developer-reference#block-headers


And the strangest thing is, it works for many blocks. For example:
http://btc.com/000000000000000009a11b3972c8e532fe964de937c9e0096b43814e67af3728
You are confusing different things. One is block version 2 which is 0x00000002 (byte swapped as 0x02000000). The other is block version 0x20000000 (byte swapped as 0x00000020). These are completely different because 0x20000000 is a hexadecimal number. In decimal, it is 536870912, not 2.
318  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: manual block check does not work on: April 08, 2018, 05:01:39 PM
Your version is completely incorrect. How did you get 02000000 from 0x20000000? The 0x does not mean that there is supposed to be a 0 in front of the 2; it means that this the whole thing is a hexadecimal number. And the version also needs to be byte swapped, so it should be 00000020.
319  Other / Meta / Re: Scams vs Spam on: April 07, 2018, 12:40:02 AM
Well then someone is obviously doing something wrong, forum rules are the problem then. If people really want to get rid of spam it would be quite easy, delete signature campaigns or enforce some rules for signature campaign managers and owners, quite easy really and when one of those 2 options is enabled, moderators will be able to focus more on scam issues.
What makes you think that scams will be moderated if spam isn't a problem? As I said before, it is not the moderators' job to moderate scams, and it likely won't be, regardless of the situation with spam.
320  Other / Meta / Re: Scams vs Spam on: April 06, 2018, 08:17:11 PM
Well, isn't that the moderator's job? Also I wouldn't ask to look into every single complaint but many scam accusations are well sustained and documented, the users who are serious about it usually provide a lot of information and it doesn't take that much time to look into it. It seems to me more like an excuse.
It is not the moderators' job to remove scams. The moderators' job is is enforce the forum rules. It is not against the rules to scam someone. It is against the rules to post spam.

Do moderators get paid here?
Yes. However payments are a bonus, not a salary. It is no one's full time job to be a moderator here.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 547 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!