Are the core devs even doing anything about this? Or is Gavin the only one being pro active? Is the core devs policy to wait until the mempool is permanently backlogged then rush out a fix?
FUD. How about you read BIP100 and BIP102 before spreading wrong information around here. People tend to take it seriously without doing their own research. Essentially the core developers are also planing to increase the limit however their approach is different and not related to XT. As I've stated this multiple times: supporting bigger blocks does not necessarily mean that you support XT. I for one, support bigger blocks but do not support XT nor Mike Hearn at all and neither should you. BIP 100: Protocol changes proposed:
Hard fork to remove 1MB block size limit.
Simultaneously, add a new soft fork limit of 2MB.
Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for December 11, 2015.
Default miner block size becomes 1MB (easily changeable by miner at any time, as today).
Changing the 2MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold.
|
|
|
|
|
People really need to chill with the worst case scenarios. There are a lot of things that could happen that would make Bitcoin or any money in fact, irrelevant and worth nothing. Bitcoin works and will work, be it at $1000 or $1.
You can cut loses right now, I will buy all of your coins right now at 1 BTC = $2. Buying up to 10M coins.
|
|
|
|
Interested if still open  As far as I know the whole budget is being used, and there are no more places. Even if there were, you do not qualify. I've looked quickly trough your 20 last posts which are very short, and unfortunately you do not fit the requirements for this campaign. |
|
|
|
Is there any proof that they can do that?
I guess, they are just full of bullshit. Who are these guys? Are they know in the Bitcoin World? What Proprietary Data is there in Bitcoin? It's open source and an open ledger.
You just have to look into the Deep Web and find thousands of people, who claim such things
Why would they not be able to do it? I mean you can monitor all altcoins if you want to, however software is required if you want to actually do something with that information. I'm not sure exactly how effective it might be. However, the easiest way to get information would be once a suspicious address sends coins to a exchange such as Bitstamp and request information from there. Now, my question is where are the Monero promoters. They should not be able to track people using it, so it can be used to clean your money/hide your tracks.
I did not state that. There are ways of attaining information, such as subpoenas. |
|
|
|
That was a fresh sync from scratch.
I have only kept my old wallet.dat
-snip-
Have you synced from scratch on the other disk as well or have you continued after receiving the error on the first one? It could possibly be a HDD problem (not likely, but still a possibility). |
|
|
|
Gentlemen, this is proof that Bitcoin Core is centralized.
Exactly how is this proof of anything? I'm just a unknown entity who is stating his opinions. I have no relations with anybody from Core nor XT. The drooling masses are clamoring for a Strong Man to take them into space faster than the free world, IE a Stalin for Satoshi's Gagarin. What is it with dictators and checkpoints anyway? Hearn (not theymos) is the "epitome of authoritarianism."  Interestingly they come here complaining that theymos is censoring things (which he is not), but they support Hearns who proposed the idea of a benevolent dictator. 
I still don't understand why people do not go with BIP 100 or 102 and our problems would be solved for now. Hearn and Gavin have caused so much unnecessary drama and problems for nothing. But, what if all this block size stuff is just a bait to make everyone do the switch (let's leave aside the probabilites of that IRL) and only after the world has been conquered, do the controversial changes start to come in? (eg. that "redlisting" thing that MH was all for). The world is not going to switch back even if Bitcoin Core supports bigger blocks.
Exactly. This is something that I've been trying to explain to others. Since Hearn likes the idea of a 'bitcoin dictator' that can make the final decisions regardless of consensus, it can't be good. At some point in time he can tell people to either upgrade to some version containing who knows what or make their own fork. With him calling all the shots, who knows what could happen to the network (if XT = Bitcoin). |
|
|
|
|
When was the last time that you synchronized your client or did you start fresh with QT 0.11.0? If you're around 212k then you are quite behind. It seems that something is corrupted within your database.
Once you provide us with more information then we can suggest the best possible way for you to fix this.
|
|
|
|
If future versions of XT have further changes, those changes will only be implemented if users download and run the new code. This isn't like voting for a government where they can do whatever they want after being voted in. Every new iteration of the software will be judged on its merits. If developers introduced a change in a client that the majority didn't agree with, that change would not be propagated across the network. This applies to all clients, whether it be XT, Core or something else entirely. Developers can only release code to the public, they can't force the public to run it.
Tl;dr version of the events that will occur: Hearn forces some weird changes and tells others to make their own fork if they don't like it. It's one thing to support bigger blocks, and another to support Bitcoin XT with its (potential) dictator. I was actually supporting XT at first until he started proposing weird ideas, such as the dictatorship or ignoring the 'longest chain' using 'checkpoints'. Ignoring consensus and dictating is one of the prime reasons for which I do not think that it should be considered as a valid hard fork candidate.
Update: How many times do I need to say this. You're essentially agreeing to a risky path for future development. If people reject Hearn and Gavin at some point due to a controversial change, who will continue with the development (it will be very hard to reach consensus for this, since we can't even achieve it for a simple change)? This will ultimately cause unnecessary trouble for Bitcoin. If XT forks without consensus and thus creating chain A (old) and chain B (new) then you can say goodbye to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Anyway, I *really* hope the core devs can find a compromise between a sudden switch 8MB or no growth at all, so that Bitcoin doesn't have to be split into Core and XT.
2 MB blocks in November 2015 is the proposed backup plan.
It is the current policy to move XT threads to the altcoin section. Whoever proposes this within the topic has not made a mistake but rather is following the policy (which is controversial according to some). XT has caused so many unneeded problems, and has yielded so many pointless discussions. |
|
|
|
It has nothing to do with "special treatment". If a fork occurred without consensus, only then does it become an altcoin. If it either achieves consensus or the fork doesn't happen, it's still Bitcoin. The fork hasn't happened yet, so it is still Bitcoin. XT sends and receives bitcoin transactions using the Bitcoin blockchain. It is an alternative client, not an alternative coin. Stop spreading misinformation.
It is not misinformation because those are Hearns intention. He stated that in the worst case scenario checkpoints will be implemented to ignore the longest chain. In other words, consensus is not necessary for the fork to happen according to him. I'd rather people be aware of his intentions on time. That alternative client needs to die. |
|
|
|
Oh jesus, how dumb can you get? Altcoin is just a fork from Bitcoin without consensus now?
-snip-
Last time I checked, there was Bitcoin-scrypt which was almost identical from Bitcoin aside that it used scrypt instead of SHA. Does my implication not apply then? Stop posting from shills. censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit. -snip- interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it. Well you could say that it happened on reddit, however theymos did not do it without the right reasons (as mentioned in post). @LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion
is it based on nodes?
hash power?
majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?
all 3 above?
It is better to say miners as they provide hash power which can't be properly measured anyways. I would say all of the above. Let me quote theymos on this one as I fully agree with him on the following: A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Update: Insults will not be tolerated in any way, and you're now a confirmed shill. Welcome to the ignore list meono. |
|
|
|
Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.
I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?
Please provide this.
Thanks
BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.
I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar. Here it is. Ignore the longest chain. |
|
|
|
-snip-
But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.
You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested). Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested. Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring. |
|
|
|
Actually this is wrong. Basically he would be much better off if he had demanded cash, this way we can clearly see where his money is going. I'm also going to assume that he isn't proficient in using Bitcoin so it will be easy to track him. -snip-
btc does offer them a convenient way to operate.
Cash is a much more convenient way in some cases as it would be harder to trace. |
|
|
|
here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:
"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."
It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.
Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT. |
|
|
|
Even the supporters of larger blocks weren't expecting to see mass adoption of XT overnight, so I don't see why someone as vehemently opposed to them as yourself was expecting it to happen even faster. The link for the latest release that actually supports larger blocks was only put up on the xtnodes website on the 10th. It's been three days. I (just about) credit you with enough intelligence -snip. Also, it's not an altcoin. Again, troll harder. Well the situation is not as simple as it seems. There are a lot of people who are supporting larger blocks (including me) but who are completely against XT. Sorry but you are wrong this time, it is an altcoin. Just because it was started by Mike and Gavin does not give XT some special treatment. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. N
However this probably isn't going to happen as Mike, seemingly likes the idea of dictatorship (as said on a podcast), is going to push the fork without proper consensus (his words). Unless the proper consensus rules of the past are kept, it will never be nothing more than an altcoin. |
|
|
|
Stop being ignorant and spamming old threads. Haploid has been unavailable since March 28, 2015, 04:14:50 PM. Stop posting in this thread and trying to scam via loans. A moderator should probably close down this thread if possible. |
|
|
|
This Bitcoin Core / XT thing is getting old now and it's dividing the Bitcoin community.
It's dividing the community into XT's 3% and Bitcoin's 97% (*yawn*). 
#rektWell obviously there is a different division within the community when talking about 1MB vs bigger blocks and talking about Bitcoin Core vs XT. Judging from the number of nodes, only a handful of people support XT (say hello to forking without consent and increasing the total supply). As I've stated previously in another thread, since this is a privately owned forum, theymos has the right do to as he pleases (to some extend). He has not been censoring anything here, but rather has just advised the staff to move the threads into the appropriate section (i.e. altcoin section).
Update: Several corrections. |
|
|
|
you don't known the censorship of youtube and many many many others website (like ebay) ? trust me, you don't want to transmit your country location. Such websites do not need your OS to transmit that information as you will be located and blocked via ISP (unless you're using VPN/proxy/other). It want's location for cortana which allows you to ask things like " what is the closest chinese food", or "what are the movie times" It is merging them for the Windows 10 pro on the surface tablets.
I've tried Cortana and it is no big deal. It often confuses words as well. Besides, they ask you to turn location on before using Cortana. |
|
|
|
keep using windows 7 or 8.
because we are still doubting about the bugs in windows 10.
you won't understand what the bugs will affect your computer if you are not a pro of computing.
-snip-
Actually no. If you think that bugs that are not visible to the users are going to cause any real trouble, then you're mistaken. The OS would be fundamentally flawed then, which it is not. I've upgraded 1 system to Windows 10 and have disabled everything while installing. I have not experienced a single bug yet aside from Windows Update failing/glitching. However, I do not use Bitcoin on that system and will probably not use it. Windows 10 definitely wants a lot of information, even location which is pretty useless if you're using a PC. I have been reading that the new Windows 10 OS has a LOT of privacy-destroying "features", including a rudimentary keystroke logger. I read that that using it will expose passwords and other sensitive info to Microsoft.
I would like to get exact information on this keystroke logger. It looks like people aren't aware that they could just install Windows 7 inside a VM on a Windows 10 machine and run Bitcoin there. However, a keystroke logger would make this workaround obsolete. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
