|
This should be moved to a more appropriate section. With time, the costs of doing such a attack become higher and higher. Bitcoin does not need this feature. However, if someone with real knowledge can actually look into it that would be good. If it isn't hard to implement, and will not cause problems, then go ahead.
|
|
|
|
yes. unfortunately it is not a joke. that is a great feature for xt and they actually have discussed it. i can't find the quote but hearn has spoken of increasing the supply in order to keep mining going with the zero fee initiative.
The problem is that people aren't seeing this. I would definitely like to see the block size increased but not with Bitcoin XT, and not like this. Hearns intentions are not pure and increasing the supply would damage Bitcoin beyond repair. There is no problem with Bitcoin's supply.
I concur. |
|
|
|
Nah, there are plenty of vices besides smoking and drinking. A Starbucks habit costs just as much. When I quit smoking, I put up the money I would have spent and made the down payment on my first car with it.
Actually where I live Starbucks would be more expensive. Drinking something medium-big costs 4-5 euros and a pack of cigarettes is just under 5. However, people usually drink more than 1 coffee/whatever during the day while a pack of smokes can last more than a day easily. |
|
|
|
Something that I forgot to bring up when initially responding to this thread. Imagine you invested this money or started a business with it?
Where is your investment? Similar nonsense is said by non smokers to smokers. However, I do not see any of the potential savings being invested into anything by nonsmokers or nondrinkers. |
|
|
|
of course it would be fatal, but consider about dead coins (the coins that could not be sent due to the loss of the key).
again, bitcoin could only be divided up to 100 million, what if majority of the coins were in the dead address?
think again; limited supply in which the dead coins cannot be recovered, we will lose supply.
See, you're spreading FUD. A single Bitcoin can be divided into 100 million pieces, i.e. 100M Satoshi. However, we are talking about a single (1) Bitcoin here. The total amount would be 2,100,000,000,000,000. That is 2.1 Trillion Satoshi compared to 4 Trillion USD in circulation . Unless you think everyone will be using Bitcoin in 5 years, we are fine. Changes to the protocol can be made to make it even more divisible (e.g. 1 BTC = 1 000 000 000 000 of X). Inflation is never the right path.
AFAIK the actual avaliable supply is about 9 million.
No. i am sure that bitcoin avaliable supply is zero in 2140 due to the abandoned wallet - as majority of the people were dead and left their wallet.
No.
I think you should go ask Gavin and Mike, maybe they will add your suggestions to their Bitcoin XT.
Good one. |
|
|
|
The long debate over the bitcoin block size is over. The updates being done to the bitcoin code have been published by the core developer Gavin Andresen on GitHub.
-snip-
The debate is not over. Gavin has published that code for Bitcoin XT which has no relationship with Bitcoin Core. This means that your post is irrelevant and contains useless information. Basically Gavin has made the proposed changes and implemented them into Bitcoin XT. However, people related to Bitcoin Core do not agree with him. If you factor in the network problems related to centralization and China, 16 MB blocks by 2018 would be catastrophic. It would be much worse every 2 years.
-snip-
I'd personally favor an altered sipa's approach, which starts in 2016 instead of 2017 and maybe has a bit higher base limit (e.g. 2Mb). His suggestion of 17% yearly increase looks conservative enough to try to avoid any downsides while providing enough time to develop the LN.
Well the problem is that people are not willing to compromise. A increase in 2016 to 2 MB (as Jeff suggested) and a 17% yearly increase would be a decent compromise. We need to buy more time without risking anything. |
|
|
|
Which forum would be more appropriate?
And everyone posts for a few months before joining a signature campaign, it takes that long to rank up and to become aware that the opportunity even exists!
I'm glad you've had a positive contribution. Thanks for your vote.
Well I would say, that since it discusses matters related to the forum either meta, or off-topic. This isn't really a Bitcoin discussion, but rather a discussion about the members of this forum. Actually, I do not remember back then being campaigns for newbies (maybe I'm wrong). These days people join campaigns with their very first post on this forum (i.e. only to earn money). |
|
|
|
|
I did not even need to read anything in this thread aside from the title.
Anything that would fundamentally change Bitcoin would ultimately be fatal. Changing the supply or implementing POS would mean that Bitcoin is not different from fiat at all.
If that is ever the case, I'll be the first one to sell my coins and leave. Stop proposing inflation, and there are enough coins for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Optimism gets me burned too much.
He would just do what everyone else does... blame losing his key to a hacker, he never sent the alert. I am sure he is clever enough to maintain some of his credibility, but yes it would be tarnished. No doubt it would be a last ditch effort, I think he has already lost a chunk of credibility to bitcoin core folks... not sure what he is going to do when XT crashes and burns, so he might not have much to lose if he can't get people to move over to XT willingly.
EDIT: I'm not sure how the maximum sequence-number alert works either, obviously a moot point if it requires more than just him
There is a difference between optimism and realism. That would not work. He'd lose credibility in my eyes for not having proper security measures in place. XT can not work without proper consensus, and trying to force it means that we lose consensus and decentralization. I'm not against a increase, however I'm definitely against the initial plans of its implementation. Doing this without consensus could do much more damage than any previous hack/problem in the past. |
|
|
|
U didn't understand the whole story.New york is the beginning,slowly the whole population will be penalized for using bitcoin.Consider a major economy;in lieu of bitcoin exchange moving out of the bitcoin game lessens its value.I would consider moving to the blockchain now and the related projects associated with blockchain technology.
No, that is not true. There are places that already have other regulations in regards to Bitcoin. I do not think that there will be similar regulations such as the one in NY. not the whole population, this isn't true, because there are countries already, which are pro bitcoin, like canada and japan, you will not see, ever, a situation where every countries will be against bitcoin
thank god we haven't a single government that is controlling the entire world, at least seen from this point, the world is decentralized enough...
Well obviously the others aren't going to proceed with such a similar license as the one in New York. Obviously that is not going to work as the fees are too high for many businesses and many do not want to bother with the license as well. Something much more simpler needs to be implemented. Update: Several corrections. |
|
|
|
|
Yes, everyone is aware of the license. No, it is not that big of a deal unless you think that a lot of users are based in New York which I doubt. Besides, Americans have chosen their idiotic government. Now they have to deal with it.
Go to Switzerland and enjoy your life.
|
|
|
|
Well my off-the-wall thought was that Gavin would do this in a more educated way and have many alt accounts (or friends/XT supporters) throughout reddit/btctalk/etc ready to start spamming/FUD'ing the message, not just himself posting. There are probably smarter ways to try and cause some form of panic/distrust amongst core clients and at least cause a temporary shift to XT. As stupid as it sounds, some people may interpret that static message as "Alert: key compromised" I realize there is no ":" in it, but people panic over less if you combine it with many threads being posted by *whomever* saying "keys are compromised on the core!" and then they look at the client and see 'Alert key compromised' ... I realize its far-fetched, and I would hope the majority of the community is not this dense.  You are now being pessimistic. Basically whatever the outcome of such action, Gavin would lose all credibility and be blacklisted even if he succeeds. Even if this event does happen and people switch to XT, in the meantime the others would find out what he did. After everyone becomes aware that they were deceived by Gavin, they would either stay on XT or revert to core. Either way doing so Gavin would weaken both chains and lose everything that he has worked for in the past few years. However, I'm not sure maximum sequence-number alert works nor if he can issue it on his own. |
|
|
|
Good to know there is some way to counter it... although seeing 'alert key compromised' on the client probably wouldn't be the most comforting thing for most core client users. scenario: Gavin sends a maximum sequence-number alert himself and starts spreading FUD that core keys have been compromised and to move to XT immediately  I doubt it would pay off in high numbers but people react to silly things sometimes around here  I think that you did not understand my original post. A maximum sequence-number alert can not be changed and it only states "Alert key compromised". Basically in this scenario Gavin would cause the least amount of damage. He could issue that and make a post on reddit, BTCT, or somewhere else that people should switch to XT. However, people would catch on within a minute and expose him. I'd realize this as soon as a saw the post. -snip-
PS: *I don't want to be arrogant, but is it possible to know how many users are using bitcoin core ?
No, not really. |
|
|
|
I never upgrade to a new windows version right away anyway, precisely because of these kind of problems, you also don't know how good it is until more experienced people have tried it for themselves. I think it must have been a good few years before I was dragged kicking and screaming into Windows 7 and that was because of DirectX and how unfriendly new games were to Windows XP.
Well if you are interested in DirectX then you definitely need to upgrade. I'm pretty sure that we will eventually see games that require DirectX 12 and have no support for lower. I can't blame the developers for this as DirectX 12 is so much better than DirectX 11. Here is a example of the improvement. However, I blame MS for not pushing DirectX 12 to Windows 7. |
|
|
|
IMO anything outside of the bitcoin core implementation is an alt coin. XT conversations shouldn't be related to Bitcoin discussions.
What is stopping Gavin from broadcasting an alert to core clients saying an upgrade is required in an attempt to move people to XT?
I agree with you. Well the alert mechanism is not really often used, and a lot of the people contributing to Bitcoin Core want it removed. There is very little potential for abuse. If a bad alert is sent a special alert can be sent that disables further use of the alert system and erases all other alerts. As a result, active misuse is effectively not possible. To be specific about the fail-safes: A maximum sequence-number alert cancels all other alerts, can't itself be canceled, and displays a static "Alert key compromised".
|
|
|
|
Thank you so much for your help . Btw, Do you have control on the adress on your profile ? I mean is it the correct one that you use sent you little something as appreciation
Just to make sure , as long as I have my private keys (even if not wallet.dat) and on Blockchain.info , electrum or anything else .. nothing could go wrong ? and is it true that this Bitcoin XT won't happen before 2016 ?
Yes, that is my address. Thank you and you are welcome. Exactly. As long as you have all of your private keys you do not need to worry. If Bitcoin XT does happen, it is not going to be before sometime in 2016. However, considering the situation now I do not think that it might happen ever due to lack of consensus. Basically if Blockchain.info, electrum, whatever you're using updates to Bitcoin XT you just import your private keys there and you are good to go.
If you need any more help, you can send me a PM. I would also recommend locking down this thread to avoid unnecessary replies.
Bitcoin XT is just modified bitcoin core, in a way that many people switching to it can make fork You don't need to do anything , nothing will happen Bitcoin XT is an alternative. Anything that changes some drastic rules such as block size can not be considered 'modified Bitcoin Core' else a lot of altcoins would be classified as such. |
|
|
|
That thread is ridiculous and that guy that made it is a troll. I have ignored him long ago. Less than 5% of the network has switched to Bictoin XT.Bitcoin XT is essentially a fork of Bitcoin at the moment. It is not about double spending nor peer to peer protocol. Bitcoin XT and Core are very much the same character (code wise). Bitcoin XT has some newer implementations such as increased block size. Bitcoin XT can only become the standard Bitcoin if everyone agrees to using it, thus making Bitcoin Core Obsolete.
You can not lose Bitcoins. You just have to keep your original wallet.dat safe and use it with the preferred client/fork. If they switch to Bitcoin XT, they will work with it. Currently they work with Bitcoin. The price will not be halved. You can not send money from QT to XT, i.e. from chain A to chain B. You can import private keys though as mentioned in the first sentence. The same wallet.dat can be used. Only if you delete your wallet.dat or send your coins to a unknown address. Yes, Bitcoin XT is considered an altcoin for now (technically it is only testnet now and Bitcoin has not forked yet; meaning Bitcoin XT is not a coin yet). No, the difficulty will not be small.
A helpful link. |
|
|
|
Ok so why do the other European countries lend to that country?
Would you lend to someone if you were sure he couldn't pay back?
Don't tell me they don't know, they do, they really do....
Because they are making money off of this. More debt to pay debt is not a solution, it's just as jayce said, digging a deeper hole. According to a study, Germany has gained 100bn euros from Greece. The estimated €100 billion Germany had saved since 2010 accounted for over three percent of its GDP, the report said.
"These savings exceed the costs of the crisis - even if Greece were to default on its entire debt," the study said.
Germany and the others are slowly taking advantage of these countries. Either they profit directly like this, or indirectly (if Greece starts selling islands or something). I always wonder how a country manages to get itself in such a situation. |
|
|
|
a. it's buggy;
b. if you don't revise the privacy settings you'll end up share everything with Windows;
c. why it is given for free from a corporation like that? Easy and clean because you're the product for them;
d. it has been presented as the best windows ever: it is not;
e. cortana is useless.
-snip-
What are people so afraid of Windows 10? 1. It's not buggy, this is dependent on personal experience and the hardware. I haven't encountered a single noticeable bug. 2. Stop using express installation on software and customize it. Turning off everything took less than 30 seconds. 3. That's a good question. 4. It is much better than the previous version. 5. It is useless, I've tried it last night.
While I do agree that something is not right with Windows 10, and they have a few policies that are weird, it is much better than 8.1. I've already noticed improvements on my laptop and I've only used it for a hour or so. A issue for me with Windows 10 is that Windows Update and Windows Defender and a few other things such as OneDrive are being forced upon the user. You can't disable Updates nor uninstall OneDrive. You can disable Windows Defender but after a while it turns on again. Windows 7 master race starts? |
|
|
|
|
This is definitely a unusual poll and is in the wrong section. I guess that a lot of people are posting just for the money.
I was posting here months before I joined my first campaign. A month or two after joining I had invested in a mining operation that turned out great (3 months before the spike). I would say that the signature campaigns did nothing other than increase my contributions towards other members and the forum itself.
My involvement with Bitcoin has no correlation with the campaign(s).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
