|
The dev replied, he seems to be somewhat categorizing organizations and other similar things, not only making lists with spam/criminal IP's. Despite this, it's still odd why he has a blacklist available with known network nodes...
|
|
|
|
has included all bitcoin nodes
nice try ... but ... useless. The dev obviously doesn't really know or care about Bitcoin, do you think he'd be knowledgeable or worried enough to try and get all the nodes?  Anyways, let's see his reply... |
|
|
|
|
I guess this is a fast way to know what firewall NOT to use. I'll be seeing if he replies.
|
|
|
|
|
OP asked a question and replied to himself. We can conclude straight away from his post that miners need users and vice versa...
|
|
|
|
|
Check on Coinbase to see if the transaction went through and if the site gives you any txid.
|
|
|
|
|
What you want is impossible, unless you're using a card that's not on your name
|
|
|
|
Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
No one thought that BIP 91 could be locked in so soon, without much effort. A week back, I thought that there was hardly any chance of the proposal getting locked in. But this is like a lottery jackpot for all the users who hold Bitcoins in their wallet. Look at the exchange rates, they are on their way to $3,000 per coin. Check this: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/bitstamp/btcusdStill doesn't answer the question and raises another regarding what you refer as "lottery jackpot". Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
People don't like chain splits. I'd say that simply people don't like stalemates. Its really incredible how this miners suddenly jumped in and save the day for us.
What I find incredible is how miners did a 180 degree turn. They must have something up their sleeve or are really confident on quickly scaling Bitcoin. It's time to bury our differences and build.
I agree, but it's sad we have to bury our differences favoring one groups' opinions. Bitcoin will eventually get through this an improve anyways  |
|
|
|
If we go BIP91, we won't go SegWit2x... It's strange because many nodes are signaling support for both. Some are most likely lying.
BTC1 (the SegWit2X client) [1] merged BIP91. Those two don't oppose each other. The New York Agreement, also referred to as the “Silbert Accord” or “SegWit2x,” plans to activate SegWit through BIP91. Like BIP148, all BIP91 nodes would reject any blocks that do not signal readiness for BIP141. But unlike BIP148, BIP91 nodes would only do this once 80 percent of hash power signals that they support BIP91, within a period about two days. This should also minimize the chance of a split.
Coindesk regarding BIP91: Segwit2x was introduced during CoinDesk's Consensus 2017 conference in May. Based on a fork of the Bitcoin Core software client called BTC1, Segwit2x seeks to both implement SegWit and raise the block size limit.
About a month later, in response to that, Bitmain Warranty engineer James Hilliard introduced BIP 91 as a way to implement SegWit quickly and safely, without the risk of splitting the network.
[1] https://github.com/btc1/bitcoinMy big question here is why do some people think that BIP91 (SegWit2x) nodes are lying and aren't really SegWit2x?
They're lying because they're one thing or another... If they choose both, they must still favor one of them. They're not. A miner running BTC1 is supporting SegWit2X and BIP91. Thank you for your detailed post. Supporting BIP91 still doesn't mean you support SegWit2x. I have read BIP91 and I did not see any reference to a block size increase there. Activating BIP91 isn't a guarantee (not even a promise or a compromise) for a block size increase. In the end, although these do not oppose each other, both work towards different goals. All that being said, why is the support list for BIP91 different from the support list for SegWit2x? |
|
|
|
With over 80% going with BIP91 (signalling bit 4) it looks like SegWit2x is going to be the next thing, unless those nodes are lying and are just signaling bit 4 but aren't really SegWit2x.
With the 336 block grace period after SegWit2x activates but before SegWit activates on the SegWit2x network, BIP148 can still activate since SigWit isn't activated yet creating possibly another fork. So it could be forked between BIP148 and SegWit2x. If both BIP148 and SegWit2x are forked but classic nodes still have more hashing power than either of those, then the classic node will have the longest chain with BIP148 and SegWit2x having their own forks (neither of which will accept blocks from classic miner nodes).
So if SegWit2x is a clear winner, running BIP148 will just create another possibly fork and eventually lose, assuming BIP91 nodes aren't lying. So should people not use BIP148?
If we go BIP91, we won't go SegWit2x... It's strange because many nodes are signaling support for both. Some are most likely lying. People should use what they think that will make Bitcoin go forward, regardless of "color" and "clubistic preference"... My big question here is why do some people think that BIP91 (SegWit2x) nodes are lying and aren't really SegWit2x? What do they have to gain by doing this? Don't they want SegWit(2x) to have more overall transactions and more total fees?
They're lying because they're one thing or another... If they choose both, they must still favor one of them. I think what's happening is that miners are really tired of this stalemate and are desperately looking for ways to scale regardless of what they really want. This will definitely end the stalemate faster, the question is, at what cost? And yes, the main goal for them is having more transacting space in the network in order to collect more fees, while keeping the cost of transacting low. This is a win-win situation for users and miners, which some people on the forums in the last few months don't really seem to grasp/realize. |
|
|
|
|
This is no issue, when two of these sites close down, four pop up... With some "luck" even these websites pop up with the same name again in a few days or their staff create another one. Pretty usual in these kinds of things, just have a look at Silk Road and its numerous spinoffs.
Anyways, I don't really think this is Bitcoin discussion or that it will have an effect on Bitcoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Any reason for BIP91 getting these all these "fans" all of a sudden? It's been having a stratospheric rise no other BIP or proposal ever had...
|
|
|
|
|
Many people cry because they're afraid of evolution and change. That's something we saw in the last few months from people from several "camps". Although comprehensible it's sad to see people taking things to the extreme.
The smaller chain is obviously not good for anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
You fall in the exact same problem you want to avoid when you have humans coding something to police a thing that doesn't require police. Bitcoin "policing" is done by doing what we usually do, using clients that understand each other and enforce network rules, thus Bitcoin doesn't require policing. If people designed bots to somewhat police the network people would start questioning that very old phrase... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
|
|
|
|
|
We're way past this... Why resurrect months old discussions?
|
|
|
|
|
We already trusted our banks as an escrow, and look where that led us... What you're saying is impractical and would essentially be going back in time to what we had before Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Voted 1500$. I think things will go a bit like when Litecoin locked in SegWit. Price will probably decrease. BTW, this is more Speculation than Bitcoin Discussion..
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see how can you ask if we're in a "crypto depression" when the exact opposite has been happening for months. Bitcoin has risen in price quite a lot recently and even a bunch of altcoins (especially some that are very well known, or are at least the most used altcoins) had quite a reasonable increase, price and volume-wise...
|
|
|
|
|
Haven't heard of this one before, a new implementation? Am I missing something or this implementation is basically going backwards on months and months of ideas, developments and talks?
|
|
|
|
As promised by the creator... This means that the creator of this puzzle is somewhere here He is, apparently |
|
|
|
|
None? Either that or whatever replaces Bitcoin in a distant future...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
