If you actually read the article (and I am guessing from what most people are posting that they simply haven't) then you'll see that an increase to say 4MB (and maybe even 8MB) is something that would likely get acceptance from BTCChina and Houbi (the two exchanges that are mentioned in the article).

The main reason for Chinese concern with a very large block size increase (at least at this point in time) is that internet between China and the outside world works very slowly (anyone who lives here knows that) and this could potentially disadvantage Chinese mining operations (due to a potential increase in orphan blocks due to slower propagation).

I am not sure how real this potential issue with orphan blocks is but I do know that it is virtually impossible to run Bitcoin Core on standard home internet in China now (and using a VPN or similar doesn't help as the bandwidth "throttling" prevents the peer from ever catching up no matter how you connect).

@BitUsher I would be interested to be a part of a new forum (and would likely help with moderation).

Also note that http://ciyam.org/open/ could be used if others were okay with using a completely new forum software platform (which forum members would be able to help develop which perhaps could hold some sort of "nerdtraction").

As I am already paying for the hosting it would require zero cost or effort from others but if an SMF forum is preferable then let's do that.

You can tell the difference between CIYAM and tvbcof can you or were you just in such a hurry to reply that you got the wrong quote?

In any case I have no interest in furthering this rather now unenlightening discussion so sorry if you are now busy coming up with a better reply as I am unwatching this topic now.

Hint to others - "don't feed the trolls".

Posts from forum members that resort to putting words in others mouths and then calling people names rather than any sort of mature reasoned argument/discussion should just be ignored.

Unfortunately some (or perhaps many) members of this forum equate "freedom of speech" with "freedom to be an ass". Unfortunately that is just the way it is.  

Those who want to believe that the major pools are going to first upgrade to a new version (which will be public btw) then wait until X blocks and then suddenly downgrade in order to somehow make off with millions are welcome to believe that.

Seems people here have no recollection of the last fork where no such thing happened (perhaps they were too busy boning up on Sun Tzu then and just weren't ready for it?).

Your level of understanding is exactly the kind of problem that is going on now - you are listening to FUD and not researching any facts (no surprise that you have an "ad sig").

If you are seriously interested in finding out the facts then start with the figure 90%.

A few more intelligent topics have been created today that describe what is going on but so far all I see is people being hysterical and "getting outraged" for nothing.

I'm sure it is just a matter of hours away.

C'mon let's go "full on retard" and decide the future of Bitcoin with an "ad sig" campaign (it can't be any more ridiculous than the polls).

Where is the evidence to support that "several powerful miners" have said this or that?

You seem to have forgotten the fork we had before (when LevelDB was introduced) that required quite a few mining pools to have to "downgrade" their software (the problem wasn't even noticed by most users apart from the FUD that happened then).

The proposal from Gavin would require that 90% of the last blocks would have to be of the "new version" that will support 20MB max. size blocks but understand that the bigger blocks won't be valid until that 90% figure has been reached.

So there is no 50/50 scenario here and there is no "two chains are going to be active at once" either.

If this comes down to a vote requiring that 90% of the recent blocks to have accepted it seems about as fair as it could possibly get.

Only making a guess - but maybe you (currently) have no nodes it can connect to?

Also perhaps you might need to update the library?

I have a still unhacked brainwallet that I created back in 2012 using "my own brain" so I think MUST in regards to DICEWARE or the like is overstating things a tad (recommended might be a more reasonable way to put it).


That of course depends upon the method being used to brute force your password but very simple patterns such as repeating once or twice are not going to help much (as presumably was the case here).

Firewalls (at least some of them) can be configured to block "outgoing port requests" so you might not want to just jump in and call people "wrong" (and if the OP is able to access internet but Bitcoin Core cannot find any peers then this could well be the reason why).

In a home internet situation outgoing port 8333 requests being blocked would seem very unlikely though. One suggestion that immediately comes to mind is to try using a different internet connection (preferable via another ISP) such as a 3G one and see if that makes a difference (i.e. it could be possible that the ISP is blocking the port).

Sorry to necro a topic but I have had to block Off Topic due to all the rubbish so just wanted to find a topic that mentioned Linode as it is not specific otherwise to this post.

I have recently moved ciyam.org to Linode and have found in doing so that if I attempt Google searches from ciyam.org that they are being blocked by Google.

This is apparently because Linode is blanket banned by Google due to web-scrapers using them, yet Linode denies this (despite many links you can find showing this) and Linode instead blames their customers for any problems that they have trying to use Google (so it should be believable that one is blocked making one single query via Google through a Linode for "some reason" when one is able to do the identical query through other VPS services without being blocked?).

Personally it is not surprising to now see why so much BTC was lost to Linode as this is a company that fails to take *any responsibility* itself but tries to push that all onto its clients.

The effect of not doing anything about these "ad sig" campaigns is becoming rather obvious now.

There are very few technical people bothering to post much at all and the vast majority of nearly all posts that I see (and I have blocked much of the worse boards on this forum) are just rubbish posts (made of course by ad-sig posters).

Basically those that used to find this forum useful and interesting are now "moving away" and I suspect this will continue unless the new forum works out some better balance.

I'm sure some whinging whining ad-sig posters are going to respond to this post with "but I should be allowed to earn my 0.0001 BTC" and yes, unfortunately that is what this forum believes you should be allowed to do.

To put it plainly "the ad-siggers won" and their victory is a forum completely full of useless posts made by kids earning pocket money (a victory for "free speech and capitalism" might be what the spinners would call it).

I'm not clear who needs to create the hash-cash "token" - do you mean any node that connects to you that is not an already known peer (i.e. new incoming connections)?

In any case I do think it could be a useful anti-spam idea (and more inline with the original purpose of hash-cash).

I'd suggest that the algorithm be different to the standard PoW one though otherwise the "proof" will be of little issue to existing ASIC hardware.

We achieved the "world's first trustless mainnet transfer" between two different blockchains:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/qora-burst-now-able-make-cross-chain-transactions/

Congrats to all involved and those still interested in creating a Bitcoin clone that supports AT are always welcome to contact us.

Unfortunately the timing of the forum hack wasn't good for us but: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/qora-burst-now-able-make-cross-chain-transactions/

Basically a "testnet" implementation really means very little as in general (especially when you look at Bitcoin) the "testnet" chain offers all sorts of different "rules" to the "mainnet" one.

So you can write all sorts of txs that "work on testnet" but they won't work on any mainnet making them not really very relevant to the "real world".

Again - we will clarify our media release to make it clear that we are talking about "mainnets" not "testnets".

Although I was aware of the project Mercury I hadn't realised that they had performed ACCT txs months ago, however, it should be noted that these were only on "testnets" (Bitcoin and Dogecoin apparently) whereas the ACCT done using AT just recently was done using two "mainnets" (Burst and Qora).

IMO anything done on a "testnet" doesn't really count but perhaps that is just me.

We will correct our media release to clarify this - the work that the Mercury project was based upon (from @TierNolan) is also key to the design of the ACCT for AT (although it doesn't work exactly the same due to the fact that ATs act as escrow accounts) and in the ACCT documentation http://ciyam.org/at/at_atomic.html you'll note that TierNolan was duly credited (and that has been in the docco for months).

I am well aware of the difficulty of re-targeting a compiler (after having spent a lot of time researching this) and I don't expect that someone will just be doing this "just for the BTC".

It is far more likely to be the kind of thing that a masters or higher student might take on if they happened to have the requisite skills and interest (so the 20 BTC is just an added bonus really).

This is more about research than development at this stage so no there is no concrete plans for using said tool at this stage but I am confident that it could be quite useful in the future as I know I'd rather be writing ATs in C++ than in Assembly.