....
Well instead of petitioning against XT, we should make one to force the Core developers to increase. If the petition is successful, and they refuse, then there is something wrong with the current way that development is operating.
....
A petition could still prove to be useful.
+1 Will exchanges not be at risk with all of this mess as well? Will they not lose if they find themselves on the wrong side of the chain?
If this is the case, I would say that most of the exchanges will freeze their operations for a day or two until this mess doesn't get sorted out.
Also, price of the losing chain can go to zero in about 10 minutes in my opinion, lock at the crash yesterday on Bitfinex.
That would be the logical thing to do, but.... This seems like a great opportunity for many to rip you off your coins.... You don't think that exchanges are coming up with ways (like the OP is for miners) on how to part you with your coins as we speak? |
|
|
|
So basically, if I understand correctly, this is a hack that favours the miners.
And obviously, miners would be motivated to make a fork happen.
Am I correct?
What do you mean "hack"? If you are talking about the guide - it's a necessary thing to do for everyone who wants to save as much money as possible. If you are talking about the trick of creation of exclusive coin inputs - yes, it favours the miners because gives them a way to sell 1 BTC for 1000+ BTC. Well, since I doubt anyone will be selling these newly generated coins or be lucky enough to get his transaction in only one chain, it is logical to assume that we will see a lot of this hack (or trick if you prefer) happening by miners. The question is: Where does that leave the average Bitcoiner who is not aware of it or lucky enough to get them coins and attempt to double them? |
|
|
|
Become an entrepreneur, a hobo, a freelancer
Do not allow other people to take credit and money for the work you do
Own the means of production
In these days, competition is quite high. And when you have bills to pay and mouths to feed, it tends to be a problem. But you can still freelance and produce on your own free time  |
|
|
|
|
So basically, if I understand correctly, this is a hack that favours the miners.
And obviously, miners would be motivated to make a fork happen.
Am I correct?
|
|
|
|
... miners or guys who managed to get their transaction not included into the other chain.
Well, I doubt that there will be miners that will give your the coins they can take advantage of. So, why doesn't someone send his coins to himself with the hopes of them being included in only one chain? |
|
|
|
Virwox is risky exchange to trade with them i have very bad experience with so i will suggest don't use their service these are just crap and worth of it, cex.io has good and fast support to buy as my previous experience with them. How so? Care to share your experience? Other than delaying withdrawal if you are a new member (I don't have that delay anymore), I have never had problems with them. As a matter of fact I needed to fund my Paypal account urgently on Monday and the whole process of selling BTC to SLL to EUR in Paypal took about an hour (needs 6 confirmations). Sure the exchange fees are a bit higher but the fact that I got cash to use in an hour was worth it in my case. |
|
|
|
How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?
We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.
Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin. ^hmf^
Like these guys: https://blockstream.com/team/ ? Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? : | Developer | Employer | In favor of | | Gavin Andresen | MIT | 8mb+ | | Mike Hearn | Google, now Vinumeris | 8mb+ | | Meni Rosenfeld | Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil | tentative 8mb+ | | Jeff Garzik | Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc. | 2mb+ | | Peter Todd | Viacoin et al. | 1mb | | Luke-JR | Subcontracted by Blockstream | 1mb | | Adam Back | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Matt Corallo | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Gmaxwell | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Peter Wuille | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7) | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | laanwj | MIT | 1mb |
See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game. Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed. I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list) That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it. Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but.... Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks) Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway, doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say? If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation. There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike? The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over. Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something. That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately. And to be honest I agree with the OP. It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore. |
|
|
|
I have yet to find a coherent argument for preventing the increase of block sizes and the resistance to doing so seems to be causing more problems then those of us who recognize the necessity of doing so. It is you who are creating the split in Bitcoin, not those who wish to increase the block size.
Present a coherent and logical argument or GTFO.
It appears to me that the data presented (name, employer, vote) is a very strong argument about motives. It would be rather incredible if the correlation between people drawing paychecks from Blockstream and people in favor of no maximum block size increase were a coincidence. Hmmm, Blockstream intends to set up a transaction processing network to mediate people's transactions and use the bitcoin block chain for a settlement network only. A plan which won't work all that well if people can just use the block chain themselves. How could people be prevented from just using the block chain themselves? Hmmmmmm...... Conflict of interest much? Nawww, couldn't be. But isn't it weird how the every last dev who sees an increase in the maximum block size as a good thing is NOT getting paychecks from Blockstream? That is a fair arguement, but can I ask this: Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks) Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway, doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say? This whole situation is just too fishy. I am all up for bigger blocks, sure why not, even though they are not necessary now, but not XT. Not the way it is being forced upon us. And especially after the blacklisting code that was added as an "extra". |
|
|
|
Complete and utter nonsense.
The block size limit MAY have an impact on the transaction fee, but that's something entirely different than the Bitcoin price itself.
^^^This. Unless you are talking about the block size debate which does affect the price a bit then I too fail to see how a larger block size will drive the price down. If anything, more transactions mean more tx fees and possibly more Bitcoin users joining in. |
|
|
|
Unsigned = Fake
1) Satoshi never cryptographically signed any communication. 2) satoshi (at) vistomail is NOT a fake address - in fact it is the email address from which Satoshi originally sent the Bitcoin Whitepaper3) The email was not spoofed, it actually originated from vistomail's server. The email headers show the email originated from 190.97.163.93 and the SPF records show this as an authorised sender for the email.4) there is no evidence whatsoever of satoshi (at) vistomail having been compromised (the compromised email was satoshin (at) gmx) About 1): Hero/Legendary members in here should know that Satoshi never signed anything - obviously he did that in purpose, and the reason has to be that he wanted a) plausible deniability, b) a focus on the CONTENT of his messages and not on a "creator" who had the last word on anything. Furthermore, the recent intervention by the "new Satoshi" on the mailing list is consistent with the writing style of the "old satoshi", and so is the content - therefore it is reasonably possible that the message is legit. That said, I don't think it changes anything. Anybody with half a brain understands that XT is a shitcoin launched by two shady individuals with ties with gov agencies and dangerous agendas (blacklisting, anti-tor policies, "proof of passport" for miners, etc.), no need for Satoshi to realize that. ^^^ This. Well said. It doesn't matter if the message was signed or if it was Satoshi or not. What matters is what was said, and to my eyes, it seems like it's the right thing. EDIT: Also, (not sure but) I think Satoshi did sign messages when he exchanged mails with Hal. |
|
|
|
Will this actually be worth it?
Meaning how many coins are still to be mined and at what price taking into account the halving etc...
No, IMO. It would be better for them to invest that money to pucrhase as many Bitcoins as possible and to startups. They will have a better chance of ROI with less trouble. And no need to employ 2500+ employees. |
|
|
|
What do you think would happen if employees got paid in BTC? Would it make a change to the btc world?
Will BTC be accepted in real life markets? Do you think the price of BTC would change? If so, higher or lower?
Share your opinions.
That depends on location IMO. If you are living in an area who is favourable to Bitcoin then you will save your self quite some money. If you live in an area who is not favourable on Bitcoin you will lose money from TX/exchange fees. |
|
|
|
so gavin now combine bitcoin technology with microsoft and windows technology   that nice joke I think it's mostly about centralization and blacklisting, etc. And yeah, it is funny |
|
|
|
I am really curious to see when the core dev team will actually implement larger blocks so that we avoid all this drama and war between bitcoiners. And of course the XT hard fork. We should just stick to core. yes more control is always gained under the disguise of protectionism  Like the war on terror. |
|
|
|
|
Didn't some pools ignore TXs coming from the "attackers" last time around?
What's stopping them from doing it again?
|
|
|
|
They are probably pissed they missed the opportunity to get bitcoin while it was cheap. Now they don't want to enter at higher prices so they try to drop the price by spreading stories about how it is going to fail..
Pretty much this ^^ Plus some depressed, negative, bitter people seem to frequent internet forums. Trolling & trying to upset other people somehow makes their existence seem better? Yeah, but Bitcoin is pretty much still cheap. How much cheaper than this can they expect to get it? |
|
|
|
|
Indeed it is an interesting development.
However I think this should have been done a long time ago.
Like you said: Food comes first.
|
|
|
|
|
Right now I don't think that increasing the size will increase the number of trasactions.
We do not have 1MB blocks now.
The blocksize increase is for future use.
But I see your arguement there and you have a point.
|
|
|
|
The minimum I would expect to get is what I paid for it. As for maximum, there is no limit I would like to get as much as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
