 | Talk The Trader Talk: A Journey Into The Realm Of Trader SlangSlang is a natural evolution of a language under working conditions. Every industry has its own slang vocabulary, which may or may not be composed of morphologies of words directly related to the job. Sometimes situations related to the job may evolve or devolve into adjectives, verbs, nouns of even completely new words that reflect the object in question. To the uninitiated, such terms may sound like gibberish and could well resemble the talk of thugs that has been so vividly presented many times over in television series and movies.Whether it is pidgin, slang, argot, or a dialect, industries have their own ways of expressing their ins and outs. For instance, the exhaust system of automobiles is often called the "puffer" among mechanics, a "fat finger" is a larger than intended trade among bankers, a "gat" is a weapon among street gangs, and "all day" is a life sentence among prisoners. The lists of slang terms are endless and are an extremely interesting read. https://preview.redd.it/704sgly6nfz31.png?width=820&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d7fe3b1ef36869834dbf284ea0fcb4a7caee720 The Trader LingoTo make sure that MoonTrader users get into the feel of what it is like to be part of the crypto market, we have compiled a comprehensive summary of some of the most widespread slang terms used by traders. Knowing these terms is an important part of working on an exchange, as understanding what traders are talking about is half the job of becoming one of them and being able to delve into the processes taking place. To talk the talk and walk the walk, traders must understand each other and, most importantly, shorten their speech into a mixture of phrases comprehensible only for the initiated and mystical to outsiders.Babysitting: A slang term used by traders all over the world from Wall Street to the most obscure exchanges in Africa. The term means holding a trade that has been losing out for a while in hopes that it will gain in price, usually in vain. For example: “You’ve been babysitting that option for way too long, it’s a hopeless cause.” Crunching: A situation in which a stock’s or asset’s price starts falling rapidly and has no support levels. For example: “The XXX stock is going down the drain. It’s crunching, leave it!” Jig Out: This is a situation when the market makes a sudden turn for the worse and an investor or trader loses out as a result. For example: “The YYY stock jigged out on me today. Lost half a mil.” Learning Curve: A fairy common expression meaning the amount of time and effort someone, such as a budding new trader, has to put into something to master the art and “learn the ropes”. For example: “The learning curve for Forex is pretty steep.” Melt: Another fairly common expression that can be encountered in the world of finance, which signifies that a lot of money has been lost and an account has been depleted. For example: “My account melted through today after the market jigged me out on that nut.” Nut: While nuts may be tasty as a snack or very useful for keeping things bound together with bolts, in trading a nut is the total amount of commissions that have to be paid for a certain trade. For example: “The nut on ZZZ is crazy these days.” Permabull / Permabear: Since bullish markets are positive and bearish markets are sleepy, the traders working on such a market are called bulls or bears. There are some optimists who believe that such markets are always there. These traders are called permabulls. The opposite are permabears. For example: “Even if the market is dead and floating, he will still act like a permabull”. https://preview.redd.it/rj90k43enfz31.jpg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86c9c63f1484cc49f683ae12159d03429f465341 Printing on the “O”: If we consider that O is an extreme abbreviation of the term “Override”, then the phrase means that the price of an asset is below the bid price and there is an urgent need to sell it. “XYZ is printing on the Os all day!” ScalpeScalping: The idea of scalping is opening hundreds and thousands of small trades in a short amount of time in hopes of generating a large amount of small profits. Scalpers are traders who engage in scalping. For example: “He’s a heck of a scalper.” Slippage: A common situation for inexperienced traders who lose on assets that are insoluble and cause losses due to higher or lower prices. For example: “He’s been slipping on ZZZ for three weeks in a row.” Squiggly Lines: Technical analysis consists of graphs and indicators that traders use to make sense of market dynamics. The lines on graphs are never straight, which would mean that the market is comatose, thus they are called squiggly, or uneven lines. For example: “I’ve been staring at the squiggly lines all day and my eyes are popping out.” Tank: A tank is not only a military machine or a container, but also a verb, which could either mean to fill something up, like a container or a stomach, and also a drop. In this case, tanking means a market collapse. For example: “The market’s tanking! All is lost! All is lost!” Unicorn, Vulture, Whale: The trading terminology bestiary is full of terms that have gained animalistic form. A unicorn is a situation reminiscent of the mythical beast, when a startup has reached a $1 billion valuation. A vulture is a trader who preys on falling assets and buys them up in hopes that they will rise in the future. A whale is a holder of a large amount of capital or an asset. https://preview.redd.it/gj479zvhnfz31.png?width=700&format=png&auto=webp&s=e89c8bc881323f531661b2f7f355a470607765f1 Stick: The US dollar has a lot of synonyms from bucks and dough to aces and greenbacks. The stick is another synonym for the US currency used in trading. For example: “Made a K load of sticks today trading XYZ.” Whack: A fairy straightforward term meaning that a trader has lost a fair amount of money. For example: “I got whacked trading ZZZ the other day.” Bottom Fishing: There are traders and there are speculators. When a market has “tanked”, assets usually cost much lower and a certain breed of traders emerges who start buying up assets that have lost in value in hopes of selling them off at higher prices later. Such actions are called bottom fishing, or scooping up assets that have floated to the surface of a market like dead fish after a bomb goes off underwater. For example: “The market has sunk today and the sharks are bottom fishing.” Choppiness: The market is never a calm place and its trials and tribulations are often compared to storms and waves. Since waves can be choppy, or rough in terms of the height of their crests, it is fair to compare market volatility to wavy seas. For example: “The choppiness of the market is not allowing institutional investors to enter with their capital.” Dark Pools: There is always liquidity on the market that is hid away from average traders. Such liquidity is called a dark pool, which is usually in the hands of special groups. In essence, these are trading volumes created by orders placed by institutional investors. For example: “The dark pools are buying up Bitcoins real quick.” Dead Cat Bounce or Rubber Band Effect: Since markets are unpredictable, it is often possible for markets to suddenly rebound after seeming dead for a long time. Such a situation is called a dead cat bounce, or a rubber band effect, which is quite figurative in itself. For example: “The market is preparing for a possible dead cat bounce after the recent wave of news.” Hodl: A bastardization of the term Hold, misspelled by a drunk BitcoinTalk user, which simply means holding an asset in hopes that it will rise in price. For example: “Hodl Bitcoin! Hodl it!” Short squeeze: There are situations when an asset suddenly rises in price and forces traders to close their positions. For example: “The holders were forced to short squeeze after the price of ZZZ suddenly spiked”. Resistance Zone: In technical analysis, this is the area between the current support and resistance areas. Prices usually start resisting other prices in such areas and may start falling. For example: “The resistance area of $120 has been reached for ZZZ and we can expect a decline to areas of $100.” Fallen Angel: Assets that may have reached price heaven are not guaranteed to stay there and it often happens that a highly valued asset has suddenly lost in price. Usually, this biblical analogy refers to high yielding bonds that once had investment grades. For example: “ZZZ has turned into a fallen angel after the US introduced sanctions against country YYY.” Fat Tail: In statistics, such cases are called outliers and signify that a value has moved away from the mean and has gained a high degree of riskiness. For example: “ZZZ is showing fat tails and will soon reach non-investment levels.” Flavor: Given the abundance of types of orders and assets on the market, traders often do not distinguish between them and simply call them different flavors. For example: “How about some ZZZ flavor?” Hit The Bid: A rather straightforward expression meaning that someone has decided to sell an asset. For example: “The price just hit the low, so go and hit the bid”. Odd Lot: A lot is usually considered to be a million dollars. An odd lot is anything under a million dollars. For example: “I sold that odd lot of ZZZ yesterday.” Smoke And Mirrors: The poetic expression has made its way onto the market and means that a corporate entity is distorting the market image in hopes of attaining its own goals, usually to make an asset seem more attractive. For example: “The market is all smoke and mirrors after ZZZ flushed its stocks on.” The list of trading slang terms is endless in its variety and the only way to fully immerse one’s self into it is trading actively and gaining experience. Years of work on any market in any industry will eventually saturate a participant’s mind with the necessary skills and terminology turn any greenhorn into a pro. Check us out at https://moontrader.io Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MoonTraderPlatform Twitter: https://twitter.com/MoonTrader_io LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/19203733 Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/Moontrader_official/ Telegram: https://t.me/moontrader_news_en Originally posted on our blog. |
 | submitted by crkaiser5 to Barterteam [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/srhaills8mo31.png?width=842&format=png&auto=webp&s=0683410deb46243a69448b449cd611f7860b2a60 SMARTPLACE Barter trading marketplace with support of ERC 20, 721 and 1155 tokens. What is barter trading? It can also be called a barter protocol — a set of logical agreements for a particular type of transaction. The barter contract is applicable to the exchange of equivalent tokens or to those objects that differ in price by no more than 15%. We offer to analyze in more detail both types of transactions and show in detail how the barter exchange works. In a barter exchange of equivalent assets (tokens), a smart contract changes the ownership of assets without using financial transactions. We expect that barter asset swaps with a slight difference in value will most often be sought. As we mentioned earlier, barter exchange is permissible between objects whose values differ by no more than 15%. When the tokens subject to barter exchange have a difference in value, the party that has the lowest collection must pay an additional difference in value per barter contract to exchange for another more expensive collection. This difference in value is a “change” for the second party, which has a more expensive collection for exchange. Since barter exchanges for both digital collections and for tokenized real valuable assets have the same logic, we want to explain this to you through an accessible example for everyone exchanging an apartment for a house of different values (10%). Illustrative example: https://preview.redd.it/agpjt2mv8mo31.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&s=dff1f9eec4f53e0df77448e76824ce02237e9942 We see that Alice and Bob executed a barter agreement for the mutual exchange of Alice’s apartment which costs 1000 ETH and Bob’s house which costs 900 ETH. As Bob has lower property value, he is obliged to pay a deficient amount, and in this example this difference is 10% or 100 ETH. It is worth noting that BRTR is used for extra charge, and ETH is indicated just for improved readability, but ETH can also be used to extra charge. Bob can offer or confirm Alice’s barter only if he has sufficient funds to make an exchange. Suppose that Bob already has extra 100 ETH on his wallet, which are blocked during the execution of the barter agreement and are used to send Alice a “change”. The barter contract comes to execution and payment only when both parties have confirmed their intention to make an exchange using a digital signature. Thus, as a result, we have an executed barter agreement between Alice and Bob and now the apartment belongs to Bob, and Alice has a House and 100 ETH. As you may have guessed, smartplace is divided into:
With an additional payment, a barter contract can be concluded confidentially, which means that we remain confidential this transaction for the rest people, encrypting the fact of exchange. Barter costs no more than 0.02% for each side, including the cost of gas Ethereum. If a dark pool is used for an exchange, then the contract value may be higher. Dark pool? What does it mean? Dark pool is a pool of confidential trading offers, in our case barter contracts. https://preview.redd.it/cynm4luy8mo31.png?width=834&format=png&auto=webp&s=396c0aec91bcaf465460aacb19bcb6ac5fe0ce20 As you might have noticed, the owner of an asset cannot be identified in the dark pool, he has a right to remain confidential in the trading system if it’s necessary. Therefore, there is no need to indicate the address of the collectible’s owner. In addition, this method of trading opens up great opportunities for OTC transactions costing billions of dollars both at the cryptocurrency market and at the market of real values and property. We are working on integration of Enigma Protocol into the dark pool with the aim to encrypt the results of transactions and the identities of their participants to increase confidentiality, if necessary. We believe that the largest dealers and market makers will use the dark pool in order to prevent ways to manipulate the market. Increased confidentiality is required for large-scale barter agreements and enhances the overall security of asset owners. Barter: a smartplace in the real economy. The broadest research and important element of our ecosystem is the use of smart contracts in the legal field. We are creating an automated legal barter exchange of the international level, combining the traditional economy with decentralized finances. We rely on the legal exchange agreement for the legality of smart contracts and their using in the real world. Why barter exchange? Barter exchange is very convenient to use if the objects of exchange are equivalent in value. The advantage of barter exchanges of equivalent objects is that only a change of the owner’s rights to the asset / object is required for legal transfer / exchange, without using financial transactions. Thus, applying a barter contract, the exchange of ownership rights to these assets in property registers is performed. Barter exchange is also applicable when the objects are unequal, but have a close value, for example, a difference is just 10–15%. Here, barter exchange also has an advantage — for barter exchange of unequal goods it is enough to use only one financial transaction — to pay this difference. A barter contract is cheaper, faster, and safer. For barter exchange of real valuable assets, preliminary tokenization is required, which will allow you to create a virtual token equal to the value of your item, indicating your name as the owner, if a public token is created. After the virtual copy is created — you can place this token on the smartplace, including the auction method of trading, wait for counter offers or send your offers for barter exchange to other participants. We understand that for some of you who have just begun to get acquainted with the world of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, some words may seem unfamiliar or not clear, so feel free to ask any questions in the comments to our articles here and in our Telegram chat. You can learn what is the tokenization of a real valuable asset and auction trading in the following articles that we will devote to the use of the BRTR token and the benefits to get BRTR tokens. Recall that now the project is at the stage of pre-sale of tokens, the proceeds from the sale of which are invested in the development of the Barter project We accept ETH and BTC to official wallets: Ethereum — 0x17d3d1da06688bc61592913921414bff09bc570c; Bitcoin — 17BexJeUQfM1iQqtgoAaqgBLPdRvKZUTR1. BRTR tokens will be credited to each participant when the wallet is launched. _____________________ Website Medium Telegram Bitcointalk |
Prior to the latest fork there was not a single line of code that forced any algo rotation. They all run in parallel but of course in the end only one block can be accepted at given height which is obvious. After the fork algo rotation is forced so only 6 blocks with the same algo out of any 10 blocks can be accepted. - srgn_
Difficulty is calculated by a version of DGW which is based on timestamps of last 12 blocks mined by the same algo. - srgn_This kind of bug is very serious and at the foundation of Verge’s codebase. In fact, in order to fix it a fork is needed, either hard fork or soft fork!
Pairs of blocks are used to lower the difficulty but they need to be mined in certain order so they can pass the check of median timestamp of last 11 blocks which is performed in CBlock::AcceptBlock(). There is no tricking anything into thinking that the next algo should be x because there is no algo picking. They all just run and mine blocks constantly. There is only lowering the difficulty, passing the checks so the chain is valid and accepting this chain over chains mined by other algos. - segn_Here is a snippet of code for what the time stamps on the blocks would look like:
SetBestChain: new best=00000000049c2d3329a3 height=2009406 trust=2009407 date=04/04/18 13:50:09 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000a307b54dfcf height=2009407 trust=2009408 date=04/04/18 12:16:51 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=00000000196f03f5727e height=2009408 trust=2009409 date=04/04/18 13:50:10 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=0000000010b42973b6ec height=2009409 trust=2009410 date=04/04/18 12:16:52 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt) SetBestChain: new best=000000000e0655294c73 height=2009410 trust=2009411 date=04/04/18 12:16:53 ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED (scrypt)
Interesting point!— Ant-n
Th[is] really is [a] drastically different vision of what Bitcoin according to the core dev team...
It would be nice [if] they [wrote their] own "white paper" so we know where they are going...
"From a usability / communications perspective, RBF is all wrong. When the main function of your technology is to PREVENT DOUBLE SPENDING, you don't add an "opt-in" feature which ENCOURAGES DOUBLE SPENDING."— BeYourOwnBank
Still waiting for an answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Lots of back and forth bit no answer to the fundamental question: where is the demand for this "feature" coming from?— tsontar
Intentionally doing zero-conf for any reason other than expediting a payment to the same recipients is nothing more than attempted fraud. There needs to be a good reason for enabling this, and last time I looked the case has not been made.— tl121
People with a black and white view of the world who believe "0 conf bad, 1 conf good" simply do not understand how bitcoin works. By its random nature, bitcoin never makes final commitment to a transaction. Even with six confirmations there is still a chance the transaction will be reversed. In other words, bitcoin finality is not black and white. Instead, there is a probability distribution of confidence that a transaction will not be reversed. Software changes that make it easier to defraud people who have been reasonably accepting 0 conf transactions are of highly questionable value, as they reduce the performance (by increasing delay for a given confidence).
If transactions with appropriate fees start failing to ever confirm because of "block size" issues, then bitcoin is simply broken and, if it can not be fixed bitcoin will end up as dead as a doornail.
Transactions spending the same utxo were (until now) not relayed (except by XT nodes). So it wasn't as simple as just sending a double spend, because the transaction wouldn't propagate. FSS-RBF seemed like a good option to get your tx unstuck if you paid too little. Pure RBF I'm not sure what the point of it is. What problem is it solving?— peoplma
When F2Pool implemented RBF at the behest of Peter Todd they were forced to retract the changes within 24 hours due to the outrage in the community over the proposed changes.— yeeha4
So the opposite is actually true. The community actively do not want this change. Has there been any discussion whatsoever about this major change to the protocol?
My business accepts bitcoin and helps people with minor cash transfers and purchases. Fraud has NEVER been an issue as long as the transactions have been broadcast on the blockchain with appropriate fees. We usually send people their cash as soon as the transaction is broadcast.— trevelyan22
Now we have to wait 10 minutes to avoid getting cheated out of hundreds of dollars, vastly increasing the service cost of accepting bitcoin. And we have to tell customers we promote bitcoin to that they are likely to be cheated if they don't wait 10 minutes while buying their bitcoin. It is such a spectacularly stupid thing to do, adding uncertainty and greater potential for fraud at every link of the transaction chain. Thanks a lot, Peter.
Jeez, we need to give this "zero-conf was never safe" meme a rest already. Cash was also "never safe", but it's widely used because it works reasonably well in the context it's used. These people would probably advocate for a cashless society as well.— imaginary_username
I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.— satoshi
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.
A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%
So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.
The payment processor has connections with many nodes. When it gets a transaction, it blasts it out, and at the same time monitors the network for double-spends. If it receives a double-spend on any of its many listening nodes, then it alerts that the transaction is bad. A double-spent transaction wouldn't get very far without one of the listeners hearing it. The double-spender would have to wait until the listening phase is over, but by then, the payment processor's broadcast has reached most nodes, or is so far ahead in propagating that the double-spender has no hope of grabbing a significant percentage of the remaining nodes.
Zero conf was always dangerous, true, but the attacker is rolling a dice with a double spend. And it is detectable because you have to put your double spend transaction on the network within the transaction propagation time (which is measured in seconds). That means in the shop, while the attacker is buying the newspaper, the merchant can get an alert from their payment processor saying "this transaction has a double spend attempt". Wrestling them to the ground is an option. Stealing has to be done in person... No different then from just shop lifting. The attacker takes their chance that the stealing transaction won't be the one that is mined.— kingofthejaffacakes
With rbf, the attacker has up to the next block time to decide to release their double spend transaction. That means the attacker can be out of the shop and ten minutes away by car before the merchant gets the double spend warning from their payment processor. Stealing is not in person and success is guaranteed by the network.
Conclusion: every merchant and every payment processor will simply refuse to accept any rbf opt in transaction. That opt in might as well be a flag that says "enable stealing from you with this transaction"... Erm no thanks.
There might be a small window while wallet software is updated, but after that this " feature " will go dark. Nobody is going to accept a cheque signed "mickey mouse", and nobody is going to accept a transaction marked rbf.
Strangely, that means all this fuss about it getting merged is moot. It will inevitably not be used.
This opens up a new kind of vandalism that will ensure that no wallets use this feature.— DeftNerd
The way it works is that if you make a transaction, and then double spend the transaction with a higher fee, the one with the higher fee will take priority.
RBF as released is a really, really stupid policy change that will open up Bitcoin to blackmail and wholesale theft of transactions.— laisee
Bitcoin XT can easily be better than the confused, agenda-ridden rubbish being released by Blockstream and their fellow-travellers.
This is truly unprecedented. There is MAJOR MONEY and MAJOR FORCES trying to destroy Bitcoin right now. We are witnessing history here. This might completely destroy the Bitcoin experiment— scotty321
I [too am] curious as to why Todd has been pushing that hard for RBF. People can double-spend if they really want to already, without any help from BS implementation.— thaolx
"opt-in" is a bit of a red-herring.— tsontar
As I understand: say I'm a vendor who doesn't want to accept RBF transactions. So I don't opt-in. I'm still stuck accepting RBF transactions because the sender, not the receiver, has the control.
bitcoin is a push system.— tsontar
how do I opt-out of a transaction generated and confirmed entirely outside my control?
You are right you cannot opt-out.. You will have to wait ten minutes if you have recived a RBF Tx..— Ant-n
The user experience doesn't seem to be a priority for the core dev team...
It's opt-in in theory, but that means everyone in the community who writes software which deals with transactions now has to develop code to deal with the ramifications.— discoltk
Yes it is opt-in, which means I have to anticipate ... congestion beforehand to use it. This has caused me troubles recently. Normally I use low-fee mode to transact and switch mode when the network is congested. A few times either I did not know about the congestion or forgot to switch mode and my txn got stuck for 12-48h. So for me this opt-in does nothing of help. If I was conscious about the congestion I would have switch to high-fee mode, no RBF needed.— thaolx
...Or I have to enabled RBF for all my txns. Then there's problem of receivers have to all upgrade their wallet after the wallet devs choose to implement it. And just to add one more major complication when consider 0-conf.
What is the point of opt in rbf if it's not a good way to pay lower miner fees? According to nullc, if you guess too low then you end up paying for two transactions— specialenmity
"Hopefully this will give Bitcoin payment processors a financial incentive to support Lightning Network development."https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ujq69/uriplin_on_rbitcoin_inadvertently_reveals_the/
It seems to me like RBF is addressing a problem (delays due to too-low fees) which would not exist if we had larger blocks. It seems fishy to make this and lightning networks to solve the problem when there's a much simpler solution in plain view.— ganesha1024
We should set the bar for deceit and mischief unusually high on this one bc there is so much at stake, an entire banking empire.
RBF seems at best to be a duct-tape solution to a problem caused by not raising the block size. in the process it kills zero conf (more or less).— rglfnt
PT [Peter Todd] is part of a group of devs who propose to create artificial scarcity in order to drive up transaction fees.— tsontar
IOW [In other words], he's a glorified central planner.
A free market moves around such engineered scarcity. See also: the music business.
tl;dr stop running core.
This maybe a needed feature if Bitcoin get stuck with 1MB..— Ant-n
You might need to jack-up the fee several time to get your fees in a blocks in the future..
It seems that 1MB crrippecoin is really part of their vision.
RBF makes sense in a world where blocks are small and always full.— tsontar
It creates a volatile transaction pricing market where bidders try to outbid each other for the limited space in the current block of txns.
It serves the dual goals of limiting transactions and maximizing miner revenue resulting from the artificial scarcity being imposed by the block size limit.
The unfortunate side effect is that day to day P2P transactions on the Bitcoin network will become relatively expensive and will be forced onto another layer, or coin.
RBF offers nothing in a world where there is always a little extra space in the block for the next transaction. It only makes sense in a world where blocks are full.— tsontar
Unless your goal is to harm bitcoin.— Anen-o-me
To say it a bit harsher but IMO warranted: P. Todd seems to be busy inventing useless crap and making things complicated for wallet devs...— awemany
First-seen-safe restricts replace-by-fee to only replacing transactions with the same output (prevents double spending).— tytyty_
The reason this feature is being added is they see Bitcoin as a settlement network, so when there's a backlog users should be able to replace their transaction with a higher-fee one so it's included. It's to deal with the cripplingly low blocksizes.
Someone should just implement and merge first-seen-safe, since that's much more non-controversial. Keeps 0-confs safe(r) while enabling re-submitting transactions.
I would have preferred first-seen-safe RBF, certainly. It can be a useful tool to just bump the transaction fee on an existing transaction.— coinaday
Ok, so if the only benefit of RBF is to unstick stuck transactions by increasing the fee; why did you use "Full RBF" instead of "FSS RBF"? Full RBF allows the sender to increase the fee and change who the receiver is. FSS (First-Seen-Safe) RBF only allows the sender to increase the fee, but does not allow the sender to change who the receiver is.— todu
Tldr: FSS RBF should be enough to enable your wanted benefit of being able to resend stuck transactions by increasing their fee, but you chose Full RBF anyway. Why?
— Kazimir82The benefit of opt-in RBF:If this was the actual problem at hand, why not restrict the RBF to only increasing the fee, but not changing the output addresses.
Now, when a transaction is not going through because fee was accidentally made too low or if there is a spam attack on the network, a user can "un-stuck" his/her transaction by re-sending it with a higher fee. No more being held to the mercy of miners maybe confirming your transaction, or not. The user gets some power back.
RBF in it's current form is nothing but a tool to facilitate double spending. That is, it lowers the bar for default nodes to assist facilitating double spending. Which is VERY BAD for Bitcoin, imho.
Serisouly, I don't know what's gotten into those devs ACK'ing this decrease in Bitcoin's trustwortiness.
Destroying something just because it isn't perfect is stupid. By that logic we should even kill Bitcoin itself.— kraml
How did a troll like peter todd get in control of bitcoin? This is fucking unbelievable.— Vibr8gKiwi
And what if some/all miners simply hold RBF-enabled transactions into a separate pool and extract maximum value per transaction i.e. wait until senders cough up more & more ...— laisee
A very dangerous change that will actively encourage miners to collaborate on extracting higher fees or even extorting senders trying to 'fix' their transactions.
Peter Todd has a history of loving Game Theory, but he hasn't really applied those principals to the technological changes he's unilaterally making.I don't understand how so many people could have been driven away or access removed so now he's able to make these changes despite community outcry.
A miner could simply separate all RBF-enabled TX into a separate list and wait for higher and higher fees to be paid. It's kind of like putting a "Take my money, Pls!!!" sign on your forehead and and going shopping.— laisee
opens door for collusion and possibly extortion ... sender has flagged willingness to pay more.— laisee
It's not uncontroversial. There is clearly controversy. You can say the concerns are trumped up, invalid. But if the argument against even discussing XT is that the issue is controversial, the easy ACK'ing of this major change strikes many as hypocritical.
There is not zero impact. Someone WILL be double spent as a result of this. You may blame that person for accepting a transaction they shouldn't, or using a wallet that neglected to update to notify them that their transaction was reversible. But it cannot be said that no damage will result due to this change.
And in my view most importantly, RBF is a cornerstone in supporting those who believe that we need to keep small blocks. The purpose for this is to enable a more dynamic fee market to develop. I fear this is a step in the direction of a slippery slope.
Does anyone know how RBF activates? I mean if wallets are not upgraded this could be very dangerous for users. Because even if its opt-in this could kill zero confirmation for good.— seweso
the solution to all this, is actually rather simple. Take the power away from these people. Due to the nature of bitcoin, we've always had that power. There never was a need for an "official" or "reference" implementation of the software. For a few years it was simply the most convenient, the mo[s]t efficient, and the best way to work out all the initial kinks bitcoin had. It was also a sort of restricted field in that (obviously) there were few people in the world who truly understood to the degree required to make a) design change proposals, and b) code for them (and note that while up until now this has been the case, it's not necessary for these 2 roles to be carried out by the same people). The last few months' debates over the blocksize limit have shown and educated thst a lot of people now truly understand what's what. And what's more one of the original core-devs (Gavin), already gave us the gift of proving in the real world that democracy in bitcoin can truly exist via voting with the software one (or miners) runs, without meaning to.— redlightsaber
BitcoinXT was a huge gift to the community, and it's likely to reach its objective in a few months. It seems an implementation of bitcoin UL will test the same principle far sooner than we thought.
So the potential for real democracy exists within the network. And we're already fast on our way to most of the community stop[p]ing using core as the reference client. Shit like what Peter pulled yesterday, I predict, will simply accelerate the process. So the solution is arriving, and it's a far better solution th[a]t it would be to, say, locking Peter out of the project. Thi[s] will be real democracy.
I also predict in a couple of years a lot of big mining groups/companies/whatever will have their own development teams making their internal software available for everyone else to use. This will create an at[]mosphere of true debate of real issues and how to solve them, and it will allow people (miners) to vote with their implementations on what the "real" bitcoin should be and how it should function.
Exciting times ahead, the wheels are already in motion for this future to come true. The situation is grave, I won't deny that, but I do believe it's very, very temporary.
Yeah I think the time has come to migrate away from "core". There's obviously fishiness going on with the censorship and lack of transparency.— loveforyouandme
Vote with your feet: don't run Blockstream Core.— SatoshisDaughter
Algo Current Coin Port Norm. Profit Total Hash Coins; Ethash: Ethereum-Classic: 17020: 0.05643: 5.35T: 5: Kawpow: Ravencoin: 17030: 0.03376: 44.13G: 1: Equihash-BTG Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections. The BitcoinDark, (symbol BTCD) crypto coin was released on 9th July, 2014 and works without requiring a central bank. You can mine the crypto-currency, which utilizes the SHA-256 algorithm. To stay up to date with BitcoinDark, they can be found on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and YouTube. Despite recent controversy, Antpool remains the largest Bitcoin mining pool in terms of its Bitcoin network hash rate. Antpool holds roughly 15% of the total hash rate of all Bitcoin mining pools. About Antpool. Antpool mined its first block in March 2014, meaning that it emerged roughly four years after the first mining pool; Slushpool. Bitcoin Discussion General discussion about the Bitcoin ecosystem that doesn't fit better elsewhere. News, the Bitcoin community, innovations, the general environment, etc. Discussion of specific Bitcoin-related services usually belongs in other sections.
[index] [4095] [14598] [2030] [12719] [7255] [5598] [5351] [9] [2444] [12676]
HIDDEN AGENDA! THE FED WANTS YOUR SAVINGS & YOUR BITCOIN XRP ALTS! I go over Bitcoin Crypto Market and with the Volcker rule change the Fed coming get it all! Now have the Store Open: enjoy https ... EXPOSED! LAST GENERATION Z! CAN HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE BITCOIN XRP & ALTCOINS SAVE THEM! The digital age is here and moving fast. The last generation of God's children are coming. Will they accept the ... Buy This Coin Right Now: https://bit.ly/3f6AWCz Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin SV price, Bitcoin SV wallet, Bitcoin SV to usd, Bitcoin SV mining, Bitcoin SV block explo... BANKS TO BIG TO FAIL! NOW CORPORATIONS TO BIG TO FAIL! WILL BITCOIN XRP ALTCOINS SAVE THEM? I go over Bitcoin and crypto market. Also Banks to big to fail now its Corporations too big to fail. Now ... There is an inherent issue with ICOs that we're going to discuss today, PornHub starts accepting Verge, banks in Phillipines show cases, Jennifer Aniston cry...