who controls the alert keys, just Gavin and Satoshi, or other devs too?
All of the other core devs probably hold alert keys also. |
|
|
|
|
What version of Bitcoin Core are you running? Are you compiling from source? Also, what are the specs of your machine? Can you post the debug.log here? All of these will help us diagnose the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
There are very few places that accept credit cards without ID verification. You could use VirVox, but they have very high fees for using a credit card. The ID verification is to protect people, and if you are doing things legitimately and legally, the verification should not be a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen that one of the biggest pools, f2pool in China, has responded to Gavin and actively participates in the discussion on the Bitcoin-Dev mailing list. They said that they don't support the large increase to 20 MB because of bandwidth concerns in China, but they would not be opposed to having a 8 MB or 10 MB block size instead of the 20 MB proposed.
|
|
|
|
Do you get rewarded with Bitcoins for running this? If so how...
There is no reward by the network for running a node, BUT, bitnodes does have an incentive program where you can win money for having a full node. You can check it out here: https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/ |
|
|
|
After doing some review of Gavin's emails on the Bitcoin dev mailing list, I will say that he is acting stubborn and somewhat unwilling to compromise. However, he is not acting like a child. Gavin is not simply saying "I'm right and you're wrong" without any explanation. He replies to concerns about his proposal with logic. He responds with various simulations and other such proof to back up his claims. Furthermore, Gavin does compromise. As you see here: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34162473/, he is willing to compromise to have the block size only go up to 4 MB or 8 MB. There is plenty of discussion on the mailing list, between multiple developers, miners, and users, about his proposal, and he is willing to change. I think that your of: He is not taking the concerns of others into account in a sufficient way and does in no way consider changing his proposal in a way that would open up the possibility to a consensus with the critics.
He's basically trying to run through walls with his head and in the process looks like a 6-year-old, lying on the ground with a red head, screaming, kicking and punching.
is completely false. Another thing, I don't think that his proposal and his discussion on the mailing list have caused the market price to go down, but I have yet to look into that. |
|
|
|
Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart.
Obviously not as we all have been learning painfully since Gavins' "announcement". "My way or the highway"-Gavin has no consensus anywhere and obviously he's not willing to change the proposal in order to get consensus from the other devs. Else this whole public debate would not have gotten so much out of hand. He needs to either change his proposal in order to get a consensus or lay it off. But what we get instead is attrition for everyone. Nothing has been done like in the flowchart. These people are total amateurs. Coding is all they can, nothing more. Gavin is behaving like a 6-year-old. The correct procedure was totally not followed. Instead of reaching consensus among the devs Gavin decided to take this debate to the public and try to solve it with populism and his little mob of propaganda-bots. To expect a consensus in the community for something the devs not even have a consensus for borders on mental illness. He's effectively just vandalizing the whole space. The thing failed already in the dev departement. I don't see why it was even brought into the public domain. Nowhere in any of the mailing list have I seen Gavin essentially say that it his "his way or the highway" I have seen that he makes concessions, listens to people who reply to his email, and considers the possibilities. In fact, I have found that he is willing to change his proposal. In one of his emails, he stated that he is OK with having the limit at 4 MB or 8 MB now and have it scale up according to Nielson's law. I suggest you read the threads in the mailing list before claiming that Gavin is not changing. You can find the mailing list here: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/ |
|
|
|
It seems pretty obvious that the upgrade is needed as it will take some time to implement and there seems to be no legit alternative out there.
Centralization due to increased overhead required to run nodes is the only alternative? Then in the future when you hit the debt ceiling again, and you want to process more transactions, you will have "no legit alternative" but to centralize even more. When does the centralization stop? Maybe you choose to remain decentralized and continue limiting your TPS? So we have to ask ourselves this one question: What is more important to us: Decentralizationor ScalabilityYou have a choice of which fork you will support. Which camp are you in? You cannot have both unless you fork more modern blockchain technology into your protocol (which is the third option that allows you to have both scalability and decentralization) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078009.0;allSo everyone can be happy or only one faction can be happy. How much happiness do you want in your community. It is entirely up to. Can someone please explain how increasing the block size makes Bitcoin more centralized? I can't seem to understand this, and it doesn't make any sense to me at all. |
|
|
|
|
Consensus among the developers does actually occur as you describe in your flowchart. If you ever read any of the email threads in the bitcoin-dev mailing list, the developers do actually discuss, listen to other proposals, and come up with solutions that they all agree on and think will work. This is how the whole patching and BIP thing works. However, you won't find any consensus on this forum. This forum has tons of FUD and people get one notion in their mind and are too stubborn to realize the truth when it is given to them. People here are both misunderstood and clueless about some things, which leads to the appearance of disorder and non-consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
As it says in your error, you are missing 16 database files. I think that the solution is to simply backup your wallet, and delete the data directory or the database directory and allow the client to resync and rescan the blockchain.
|
|
|
|
Banks constantly backup their databases. If they were hacked, they could restore the database from a backup. Banks can also reverse transactions without having to restore from a backup. They have full control over the databases, and can simply reverse a transaction if they have "probable cause" Banks are trusted to not reverse transactions, and typically, the customer receives a bank statement of all of the transactions, and can download at anytime the transactions of their bank account. If the customer has proof that he made a transaction, but the bank reversed that without warning or cause, he could sue the bank and get the bank into a lot of trouble. It is in their best interest to not reverse transactions because it keeps customers and thus they profit.
Since it is a database, banks can do much more operations without customer knowing it. I know that even someone from government can have the authority to freeze or deduct certain amount from an account But my question is about how banks agree on differences. Suppose that bank A claim that he has an account with 2 billion savings in Bank B and Bank B just deny the claim because it is not shown in their database after a database upgrade, then bank A will suddenly lose 2 billions. They can go to court, but having two different truth contradict with each other does not make the judge any wiser How do you prevent a bank from modifying the database in order to get rid of some debt/negative balance? The only way I can think of is through mutual destruction model: Bank A holds an account of 2 billion dollar at bank B, and bank B holds an account of 2 billion dollar at bank A, and they try to keep the difference between those accounts as small as possible to reduce the risk. If bank B suddenly shutdown, then bank A will easily take over bank B's account at bank A without incur huge loss Banks do not share databases typically. Sending money goes through some system, and that transaction is recorded on both sides, and possibly a third party. Then, once the money "leaves" one bank's system, it no longer becomes their problem, and they do not need to and they likely do not keep track of account balances in other banks. If someone claims that they have money in a bank but the bank says that they do not, then the bank statements and records sent out to customers will prove that the customer has that amount in the bank account and that the bank screwed up. |
|
|
|
|
Banks constantly backup their databases. If they were hacked, they could restore the database from a backup. Banks can also reverse transactions without having to restore from a backup. They have full control over the databases, and can simply reverse a transaction if they have "probable cause" Banks are trusted to not reverse transactions, and typically, the customer receives a bank statement of all of the transactions, and can download at anytime the transactions of their bank account. If the customer has proof that he made a transaction, but the bank reversed that without warning or cause, he could sue the bank and get the bank into a lot of trouble. It is in their best interest to not reverse transactions because it keeps customers and thus they profit.
|
|
|
|
How does this work?
I have the same bitcoins in bitcoin and in bitcoinxt or how do I move my bitcoins to xt?
As I understand it, you need to download the new client for bitcoin-xt. Still it wouldn't affect your coins that much, it will still be working in one chain. Sooner or later when bitcoin-xt was the most used fork in the block chain, your coins in the bitcoin-xt client would be the valid coins you can use for spending and the older bitcoin core coins would be pretty much useless as it will not be recorded on the chain whether it was spent or not, mainly because the chain that we are following would be bitcoin-xt and not the bitcoin core. (Did I get it right? Correct me if I get some points wrong.) You got that mostly right. The fork only happens when >95% of the last 1000 blocks mined follow the Bitcoin XT rules. How does this work?
I have the same bitcoins in bitcoin and in bitcoinxt or how do I move my bitcoins to xt?
As I understand it, you need to download the new client for bitcoin-xt. Still it wouldn't affect your coins that much, it will still be working in one chain. Sooner or later when bitcoin-xt was the most used fork in the block chain, your coins in the bitcoin-xt client would be the valid coins you can use for spending and the older bitcoin core coins would be pretty much useless as it will not be recorded on the chain whether it was spent or not, mainly because the chain that we are following would be bitcoin-xt and not the bitcoin core. (Did I get it right? Correct me if I get some points wrong.) Sorry - you got it wrong. There won't be two chains! There will just be bitcoinCore and bitcoinXT - both on the same chain!. Ever how many coins you have now, you'll have the same amount of both types. One will become worthless (bitcoin core) the other will be valuable same as you know it today. But if you hurry and load bitcoinXT today, you'll double your coins because they will both be worth something for a while longer. Only the people who wait - don't double their coins. Anyone want to buy some bitcoinXT - I've got a shitload available. I sold all the bitcoinCore already (for $195!) - suckers! Those are going to be worth nothing soon. Don't wait. There are NOT two coins right now. NOR WILL THERE EVER BE TWO COINS OR TWO EQUALLY VALID CHAINS!!!. YOUR COINS WILL NOT DOUBLE!!! It is impossible for two coins to exist on the same chain. You are completely and absolutely wrong. STOP TROLLING! |
|
|
|
yeah, dude.I think it'll be ok to ignore you for a moment...
Why? Is it because I said something you don't like and proved you wrong? Or do you think that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I am always open to other people's proof. Perhaps you could explain why I'm wrong. You're just talking garbage. You fell through the "tl,dr-filter", sorry. If you want to carry an intelligent conversation, I advise you read every post, even if it is just "garbage" Your post was also rather long and I thought about ignoring it too, but I decided to read and respond intelligently. If you want to be stubborn and not listen to others, go ahead. I'll just ignore you. |
|
|
|
yeah, dude.I think it'll be ok to ignore you for a moment...
Why? Is it because I said something you don't like and proved you wrong? Or do you think that I am wrong? If I am wrong, I am always open to other people's proof. Perhaps you could explain why I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.
The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on that particular change and you need to accept that.
There is no veto. No one vetoed, and most certainly the community did not veto. Just look at the polls and various voting regarding this issue. The community is split, but neither side has enough people to gain consensus. Since there has been no actual implementation of proposed change, there has been no way so far to determine truly if consensus will be achieved since there is no option yet to change to a client which supports larger blocks. Furthermore, if there is no consensus, then the fork will not occur and Bitcoin will remain as it is. After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)
Although there has been no veto, there has been plenty of discussion about both of these options. After reading the dev mailing list, it appears that Gavin is willing to compromise, as are other people active in Bitcoin's development, though I haven't seen other core devs so far. Currently, it seems that people are willing to go with a less drastic increase to around 8 MB instead of 20 MB. Gavin has said that if the developers do not reach consensus about the issue, he will leave the group and work on the implementation himself with Mike Hearn on his Bitcoin XT fork. |
|
|
|
That is pure speculation, by the time this happens the blocks will be halved and halved and the rewards from fees won't be too much of a change. The idea is that Bitcoin will be worth much more then and if it isn't difficulty should adjust to keep someone interested.
There should hopefully be more in fees by that point because hopefully Bitcoin will be more popular and perhaps gone mainstream. If there are enough transactions happening, then the transaction fees will make up for the Bitcoins that would have been mined in a block before the maximum. |
|
|
|
China btw holds 50% of hashpower and they have low bandwidth so they are not going to mine Gavincoin.
...
Yes, bigger blocks means less fees, what else are the bigger blocks good for? So we shouldn't raise the block size in order to protect the miners that are on the floating line with their profits? What will we do when the block reward is halved? We will decrease the block size in order to help the miners? This is a non-argument. China can mine on their own fork if they will not afford/accept the lower fees. The rest of the world will mine on the 8MB Fork. I am sure that Bitpay, Coinbaise and Bitstamp will not care about the chinese miners and their abject and scamming " cultural differences"! Since miners in China are a significant portion of the miners and they contribute a large portion of the hashrate, if they don't agree to the new change, then Bitcoin can't fork because the super-majority won't be achieved. Sure they could mine their own fork, but that would mean that someone had to convince the miners to fork and mine their own altcoin, which will not happen. If they forked Bitcoin into the 1 MB blockchain and the larger blockchain for the Chinese miners, then there would be more problems because of the whole issue with two chains. This scenario will not happen because the fork requires a super-majority to agree to the switch. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
