Gavin supported the XT fork but it is not Gavin himself who made the fork. Also, as I understand it, the bitcoins that I have would probably be worthless in case XT was accepted by the majority of the network, but how was this even possible if the coins produced on during Bitcoin Core and the coins that are going to be produced in the Bitcoin-XT runs within the same chain? Different statements regarding XT and core really confuses me now. Can someone shed some light in this one?

Double bitcoins? I thought all the bitcoins will remain and the transition (in case it really happens) of BitcoinCore to BitcoinXT just adds the bigger blocksize limit and functionality but the bitcoins will remain? Confused here.

Raising the block sizes isn't a temporary patch, but an experiment that is being planned. Bitcoin itself is also an experiment imo, a test to see how far will we be doing in a decentralized-currency system. Also, even an old computer could run a full node if it is set to, and I don't see a problem if corporate entities also setup their own nodes. Having more nodes in the network is a good thing and will benefit the whole network. The problem is not in the nodes but in the mining power. As big farms are established, the more centralized the mining scene is becoming. That is a major problem, because they could easily write another block chain if they achieve even the slightest 51% of the whole network.

I would vote for XT in this case. This has been tackled many times that the current code needs to fork into something better as the need for it arises. I don't have that much care for who proposed the fork, but rather to the improvements that it will give for the benefit of the network, the coin, and the community as well.

This is one result of my searches with Roger Ver and OKCoin: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-super-investor-roger-ver-bitcoin-exchange-okcoin-may-insolvent/

Let me quote one of the statements made by Roger Ver:

Signed message is still the best way to prove that you have the control over the user because the address that you used to put in the "stake your bitcoin address" could be compromised and can be easily used to send some money too. Also, it would reduce a lot of work for theymos because he will just check if the signed message is true plus it's free.

At the end of the day, it will heavily depend on the person's preferences on keeping his wallet. I find it convenient to keep a single wallet with all of my holdings instead of creating multiple wallets and placing them in different places. My memory is not that good so I've decided to just create a single one and keep it in a place where I can easily remember it and I'm the only one who can access it. Preferences are what really matters in the end.

Personally, I keep a whole stash on a single paper wallet and just keep them in a safe place wherein I only know the location and I only have the access to it. Managing 8 different paper wallets is a difficult thing to do, because you must ensure the safety and security of each one of them  Not to mention that there is also a possibility of misplacing and forgetting where you put one of them, so I guess it is better to keep one paper wallet at a time, just make sure that you have the full control, you have some security, and only you know the location where you put that important piece of paper.

By exaggerating news and spreading false information to gain some revenue and for their "news" to appeal more interesting. Gavin can do whatever he wants to do, however, any bad move will also affect bitcoin because we know that Gavin Andresen serves as the "face of bitcoin". The media exaggerates this bad news and as a result, affects bitcoin in a way how it affects Gavin. I agree to Gavin's point that there should be some changes in the code, but not to the point that if ever his demands aren't met and he'll choose another fork that is not yet thoroughly reviewed, I'll call it quits.

That's how harsh the judiciary system is. Even though he has no chance in winning this case, I still hope he would only receive the minimum sentence for the crimes he made.

I don't see any problem when others create their own fork of bitcoin, but given that the well-known developer of bitcoin is threatening to leave the github version to support another fork is alarming. Though we know that even if Gavin supported this fork and the network stays on mining the current fork, still there will be doubts among the general public seeing that one of the prominent figures in bitcoin leaves for another project. This would only drag bitcoin not only in price but also in adoption as well.


This will cause a massive outrage from the community and the network that may result to a great loss. If ever Gavin did this thing, I think no one will ever trust bitcoin and its concept anymore. If he wants something to change in the code, he should consult the community and other developers as well, because first and foremost, he doesn't own anything in bitcoin's code; he's just another developer too of this great code, but only more widely-known by the community and the world, but still the fact remains that he's a developer and not the owner of bitcoin.

EDIT: Fixed some grammatical errors and spelling.

Yes, you can pay a small amount of bitcoins to an address so that you can have your IP unbanned, The time I registered here, I remember paying 8607 satoshi to have my IP address unbanned and start posting. That's only a tiny amount if you want to participate and partake into some discussions here in the forum.

Even if there are dedicated staff members whose purpose is solely spotting spammers, it isn't enough because a few edit and some sprinkle of "good" words would probably conceal the spam. That would work, but if you read the post thoroughly, you will see that the words added to the main point of the post is completely irrelevant as to what was really the point of the post. Special staff members aren't necessary in tracking down these spammers; the forum members here alone do so by reporting a post in which they think is insubstantial or is irrelevant to the discussion that's been going on.

But once signatures are disabled, you will see a drastic change on the number of low-quality posts that are related to signature campaigns. Low-quality posts and off-topic replies are sometimes made by newbies with their signatures so as to get a couple of satoshis. I myself do not support the idea of removing the signature, but maybe set another limit to newbies? Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear any form of signature until they reached the Jr. Member rank because as far as I can see, the most off-topic and nonsense posts are usually made by members with a newbie rank.

I clearly stated in my post here that there is no need to disable forum signatures. This is another problem that I see on people with signatures: they reply hastily without even reading the whole post or having a second look to check if they really understand the point of what the poster prior to them is really saying. Heck, there are even people with signatures who doesn't even read a single post on a thread and replies just to pad up his/her post count. With that kind of attitude, other users of this forum will surely get annoyed. The signature campaigns and the forum signature aren't the problem here, it is those users who doesn't really take time to read a single post before they reply, which therefore results into a low-quality, and sometimes an off-topic reply.

This is the most probable reason. The forum is down for 3 days I think, and not 4. Your supposed time to be serving the sentence are nullified because of the downtime this forum has encountered, so the days wouldn't decrease so as to complement with the days this forum is actually up and running.

As far as I know, there is a software here created by a mod to lessen out the visual quality of annoying signature ads. If you don't want to see ads, then you might find that software useful. There is no need to disable forum signatures imo, but yes, I can agree that post quality nowadays are lower compared to last year when there are only a few signature campaigns available to the users.

Also received the email, but even without reading it fully, changing my password on every attack became my habit. Nothing to be worried about. The email was sent so as to lessen the risks of accounts getting compromised due to the recent attack.

Eh, another fan of "BTC IS DEAD" because of price. Why don't you people open your eyes and see how far bitcoin already is from its starting point? People like you are blinded by the price; you don't see what's really happening around the ecosystem because all you really care about is the price and the profits. How about the true impact of bitcoin in the society and in the public as well? Open your eyes, dude. Seriously, there is a lot of good things happening around the bitcoin ecosystem.

You don't need to be pro in coding in order to help bitcoin flourish; being a part of the economy by buying goods and spending will help bitcoin thrive. Setting up a node is one way of helping the network because you are helping in verifying and broadcasting transactions made within the network. Every little thing helps in bitcoin, but the most helpful thing you can do to help bitcoin is to use bitcoin and be a part of the economy.