|
bitcoin is a never ending story.
no one owns the IP rights to the story. and there is no single copy of the story, there are many books. but any person can be part of the story and everyone gets to read that same story and add a new line to the story as long as it fits the story
|
|
|
|
Then the affected users have every right to get the authorities involved. People with criminal minds should not be allowed to get away with their exploits. they have the right to. but technically they have been baited and switched. by now having *cough* equity *cough* in bitfinex, they are now part of it. thus by reporting it. their own "equity" would get locked and then put into a government pot that gets eaten up by lawyers for a couple years. its a smart thing. make users scared to lose out on something twice, if they take legal action. so now they have to follow the carrot (hoping bitfinex pays them back), because the stick (legal action) loses them more. afterall. its been a couple years.. how many mtgox customers have got anything at all back. but how many lawyers have got a nice christmas bonus |
|
|
|
|
remember folks an ETF is not a way to buy actual bitcoins.
its just "shares" in a company that disclose how my bitcoins the company is holding. and people just 'gamble' (market speculate) on the value of the company.
which is then bait and switched to presume as a "bitcoin price". although an ETF has no actual or direct impact on exchanges or gateways to buy actual bitcoins
|
|
|
|
they robbed themselves and are just doing PR to keep up the pretense that it was an outside job. the owner was going through a divorce and suddenly had to make lots of funds disapear to ensure he doesnt have to give 50% to his now ex. now the divorce is over he if secretly holding the coins but trying to gain fiat from outside investors via https://bnktothefuture.com/pitches/bitfinexthat way he can keep the coins and off load the debt to VC's. |
|
|
|
They weren't backtracking. The agreement explicitly said that they were just contributors and they would recommend a proposal to Bitcoin Core, which implies they aren't representing Core. They wouldn't be presenting something to Core if they were supposed to be Core. Also, AFAIK none of the Core devs there can actually commit to Core.
the reason why adam back and luke were invited was because they are not just some random secretary or floor cleaner .. they are part of core. they CODE! why invite a floor cleaner/secretary of a group who can only "suggest" something. when the purpose was to get the actual CODING devs that will actually agree to CODE something!! has adam back coded anything inline with what he signed??? nope. then he back tracked 100%. luke backtracked by denouncing his own coding skills too, pretending to be the equivalent to a floor cleaner. only able to make a suggestion then as the debate escalated and he then said he may code something.. but its been months since that flip flop and nothing is coming to a fruition. but hey.. lets follow the usual brush that under the carpet and pretend it never happened.
anyway its been three pages of posts where you admit that 6 months grace and 12 months coding after RC should not be required. even when th security and stability arguments of why core were delaying crap was due to those numbers. so now segwit coding is fully complete, done and dusted and ready to rock and just needs activation as you say. devs can concentrate on real blocksize increases via "algorithmically determined block size". lets hope i never see you shout for grace periods and delays now that you have been suggesting that activation in only a couple months is ok. |
|
|
|
but we know you are not just a "user" so i specifically chosen to get an answer from you.
here is the subtle point.
Your point is not subtle. Look up the definition of subtle. wait for it.. The opposition? As in Classic and BU? Or do you mean other wallets like Armory and Electrum?
Either way, no, that time frame is way too long, for both hard and soft forks. Technology moves quickly, that timeframe is much too long.
it is subtle. because here is the thing.. i did not inform you i was going to tell you my questions applied to BU. to let you presume i was talking about core and defend cores RC. to see your answer as if you were defending BU (without realising it) i was taking your mindset and answers of core to apply them BU's RC that has been released MONTHS AGO.. secondly hard forks. would work like this 95% node then 95% pool thus giving time due to 2 rounds of votes but im glad your atleast saying 12 month coding and 6 months grace is too long. 
now explain the last year of civil war.
where core agreed to flex caps. a RC was released. but then core backtracked.
When did Core agree to flex caps? When was a release made with flex caps? 2015 roadmap - https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.htmlFurther out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee
market behavior that will eventually fund security. I think that right
now capacity is high enough and the needed capacity is low enough that
we don't immediately need these proposals, but they will be critically
important long term. I'm planning to help out and drive towards a more
concrete direction out of these proposals in the following months. greyed out bit is irrelevant now due to blocks being at capacity NOW (autumn 2016) so its more important NOWbut months after the roadmap, a consensus roundtable was requested to get the "more concrete direction" so consensus roundtable in early 2016 had signatures signed and agreements agreed.. core team agreed and signed the consensus agreement including a block increase. then they backtracked and said they dont represent core and only turned up as individuals..(facepalm moment for many) |
|
|
|
|
but we know you are not just a "user" so i specifically chosen to get an answer from you.
here is the subtle point.
if there is a RC available next week with unchanged code viewable (consensus AND LOCAL) available for a weeks prior.
should there be a 12 month coding delay just so that the opposition can code something equivalent.
then after 12 months. get to 95%. and then after 95% have 6 months grace
even when the code has been viewable weeks before RC release 18 months earlier then when you finally want it activated.
give yourself an answer and hold that answer and dont change it.
now then lets add an extra dimension to the question
if there is a RC available months ago with unchanged code (consensus AND LOCAL) available even before that.
blah blah same timescale 12month 95% 6 months grace
blah blah code available before RC
if the answer is no. then you will see the issue in a minute
however lets continue
if devs have not coded a diverse implementation by the time a RC is released. it is the devs own fault .. right??
devs should instead not give own timescales to then make their own equivalent as its deemed delaying.. but just run the RC ... right??
they should not test the RC because its their fault and treated as delaying if making a request for time. and trust the RC works... right??
think long and hard about the subtle point.
now if you still think there is no reason for 12 months coding and 6 months grace after a RC, anyone asking for time should be disregarded..right?
now explain the last year of civil war.
where core agreed to flex caps. a RC was released. but then core backtracked.
oh wait i can predict you flip flopping your answers while reading this to protect your interests
do you atleast see the subtle point of hypocrisy?
|
|
|
|
Simple thing, but I cannot find a proper source - I want to get address but presented in btc not satoshi like eg blockchain gives with q/addressbalance/address
if you can see it in satoshi's just divide by 100,000,000 |
|
|
|
All that safety rhetoric is still there, but the key point is that all those wallets and miners have been working on their implementations of segwit long before the release. They don't have to start working on it after the release, they work on it beforehand. Again, no consensus changes to segwit have been made since it was merged except for the deployment start time which is a very easy change. Only local node policy (which can be easily taken care of because that local node policy was already a standard thing for wallets to already be doing) and local changes within Bitcoin Core itself.
same has been said about BU which is actually already running on mainnet for months as a release.. yet the 12 months coding rhetoric, and 6 months grace, 6 months grace, 6 months grace repeated 'safety' concern do you see the hypocrisy delay or else.. but rush core activation.. screw pools own local needs..instead 95% by christmas, beat your chest, get it done now now now why so desiring a pre-new year activation.. hmm? why not just let pools flag it when THEY ARE CONFIDENT. why not atleast be calm and say hopefully by spring 2017 again emphasis: why wishing for rushing to 95% yet argue other proposals should take a natural long time to get 95%. |
|
|
|
This thread escalated quickly into a word war between core and the big blockers. While I do support both movements and could see the advantages of both, I do like to see Segwit and then the Lightning Network be implemented first. I just think avoiding a hard fork for as long as possible as a safety measure must be the path to follow.
I am excited for 0.13.1, let's all hope everything all goes as planned and as smoothly as possible. From a speculator's standpoint, the potential for the Lightning Network is more promising and exciting for me.
my only criticism is this hypocritical 9 days to attain 95% and then the month to keep 95% to activate before the christmas new year period. yet cores code is not set in stone yet. even 3 days ago it has changed. other proposals have had a RC running on mainnet right now and for months, code is fixed in stone for their concept.. yet core proposal doesnt even have an RC that is actually running on mainnet. or fixed in stone for others to confidently make their diverse implementations of. pools need to change alot. and while the code is still tinkering with even days ago. its silly to try suggesting activation before the new year. but strangely 9 days after RC is available(code set in stone) is hypocritically acceptable time for others to make their own diverse implementations based on cores RC next month. afterall there is no point using cores 2 month old code, thats outdated already. also to keep tweeking it daily to match the tinkerings. and then told 'all is fine rush it, rush it rush it,' but simultaneously core have been saying it will take them a year to code something similar whats already an RC of other proposals followed by 6 months for others to make their own diverse versions after cores version becomes an RC..(before activation can even occur) its has all been a bait and switch double-standard hypocrisy. afterall where is all the safety rhetoric about grace period time for others to make diverse implementations that meet the rules even smart people should not be shouting "now now now" simply to uphold their old "safety concerns" |
|
|
|
99% of the issues are all due to user error. The vast majority of those being unconfirmed transactions because people do not set proper fees. There have been very few legitimate bugs and those bugs are of low severity, just minor nuisances. Those bugs are also fixed very quickly when reported.
so ignore the 1% because rush rush rush.. got ya ok lets put my waffle into a simple question.
knowing it requires 95% over a month. where start of month needs to be at 95%, throughout month, and end of month needs to be 95% (3831 of 4032blocks)
It only requires 95% over one retarget period, starting on November 15th. and i said for a activation pre christmas requires the retarget period to begin at the latest november 24th.. thus only giving 9 days to go from 0-95% to then be constant 95 for the period. remember you replied to me about people who wanted a pre-christmas activation. so i was showing the requirements needed to get it. which i see you avoided answering as a bad thing. but subtly suggesting people just just run it and trust it works are you saying mining pools should drop their "legacy" (nodes as you call it) at the latest november 24th and use only core 0.132 from november 24th because its safe to all rush to run before christmas? honest answer please
What are you even asking? In order to signal segwit support, they have to stop using their legacy nodes and use segwit capable ones. If there is a "rollback" (which is impossible without a hard fork), then they have previous versions they can use unless they are so stupid that they don't use a VCS. even without signalling support. pools can run a node on the side to ensure it can import/export keys, ensure theres no trojans, send tx's to see if they get rejected. again before flagging. even without making a block. (imagine it usernode to usernode). use actual bitcoin transactions in combination with the segwit signing procedure to see if it reveals bugs when using real bitcoin transactions. as oppose to the false transactions on testnet. this can be done without activation. to trule see how it interacts with 'legacy' nodes within the real blockchain (im talking tx relay not block creation) there are many other tests that can be done onchain without having to actually activate it. but still do things onchain i do love how you are brushing possible tests that can be done purely to push the rush rush rush rhetoric tested on testnet.. tested on testnet.. tested on testnet..
thats like saying testing it on Clams or other alts... meaningless
it needs testing on bitcoin main net before settling minds can then say its safe to then flag consensus.
so stop thinking it should be active by christmas and atleast settle for atleast spring next year (if people are doing the right thing and checking)
It is impossible to test on the mainnet without it being active. It is tested on the network most analogous to the mainnet which is the testnet. even without signalling support. pools can run a node to ensure it can import/export keys, ensure theres no trojans, send tx's to see if they get rejected. etc etc etc again before flagging. expecting pools to just change from legacy based on "trust" and not doing their own due diligence is a flaw in security. its better to tell people to expect a spring 2017 .. rather then go with people shouting "activate pre-christmas" |
|
|
|
I hope that everyone collaborates and starts mining towards segwit activation as soon as possible and we avoid any idiotic fights like the ViaBTC morons going against it. They put a lot of effort into codding it so it would suck if they delay it because of that.
translate I hope that pools review next months release. tests it onchain and ensures it does everything it should do as standard and able to do what it should BEFORE mining towards segwit activation when confident though devs put a lot of effort into coding it, so it would suck if pools rush it because peer pressure. but rather done due to individual confidence in the code they are using based on their own review, and again not based on "trust" by others. |
|
|
|
I would like to see how you get them to use bank cards. They can hardly know how to use computers.
paper money is becoming unfashionable. i havnt touched it for years. even bitcoin sees itself as if paper money has lost its utility. for the elderly, to teach them how to use a card does not require computer lessons just walk up to a retail counter and when they tell you the total, wave this plastic card over a machine (NFC card) like its a magic wand. it saves counting your pennies and worries of accidentally handing the shop the wrong money. even things like an elderly bus pass is simple enough. just wave it infront the person and your done if the retailer requires a pin most pensioners already know how to use an ATM, not rocket science |
|
|
|
for every sell there is a buy.
I dont think you understand how markets work, because only the bid column counts, if there are no buyers you cannot liquidate your wealth into equal amount of value in other currency. So a deep bid column is critical. If people are selling, the bid column gets thinner, and as a result price usually drops to (ask+bid)/2 levels. So a whale selling is a big deal, because if nobody buys up the excessive ask orders, then the price will go down. It is a powerful form of veto. its a powerful DISCOUNT DAY. .. temporary price drama.. sellers lose due to price drop, buys gain due to discount.. infact id take my buy orders off the market and let them drop it and then buy even cheaper. now for the big picture. its just temporary price drama.. Past: person A had it.. future: person B has it.. overall bitcoin has not been destroyed, there are stil 16m coins in circulation. all that has changed is whos hand it is in..
second part.
exactly my point. if the rich want power over bitcoin they need to get involved and actually be part of the consensus. you have proven my point.
blockstream investors get a vote by being part of blockstream and thus have a connection to the nodes.
but just standing on the sidelines not even having a real tie to security of bitcoin has no power.
$1mill funded address vs $0.10 funded address does not matter. it does not cause more hashing power to magically protect the network more. or less.
what does protect the network is the diversity in getting involved with the network by being part of the peer to peer(node) security
do not confuse the tx peer to peer spending. with the network peer to peer security. they are 2 separate things.
hoarding coin in an address does not affect difficulty. does not affect hashing blocks does not affect consensus.
rich people cant just proclaim their wealth. they actually have to DO something
Of course, I am sure people who have > 500,000$ in bitcoin host their own node, and broadcast their transactions from there. It would really be a small cost to for that security. Especially if they are investors, they probably invest in other businesses, that host nodes as well. So a whale owning bitcoins, and investing it in many places, is good for bitcoin, and makes the node count grow. but just holding 200k in coins. has no power alone.. it does not improve security if 1 person has 200k coins or 100 people have 2k coins.. actualy being a node and actually doing something more then holding makes you worthy of having a say of the network. If you hold 10 billion$, you can buy a lot of shares in a bank and have enormous influence. In bitcoin if you hold 100 BTC, you are rich in some people's eyes.
just having $10bill but not buying shares.. makes you powerless so yes if you have money you can buy alot of shares/ have alot of NODES to gain influence.(though this can be deemed a sybil attack) again just having funds in a bank does not make you own the bank. you have to be part of board of share holders again just having BTC in address does not make you own network. you have to be part of consensus of nodes I am sure most rich people have shares in the banks they hold their money in, there is no reason to not have a stake in your own financial protection. Same with bitcoin, rich people host nodes, hire programmers , fund audits of code, ,etc... and they should use the nodes as the vote. not just waving a public key in the air. |
|
|
|
Franky, do us all a favor and stop spreading FUD. remember folks. its not just getting miners to allow tx's into blocks. its also merchants changing their wallets to have new keys to be able to "spend" funds if they too want to use segwit..
Not necessarily merchants. Users too can use segwit. The sender can take advantage of segwit even if the receiver is not segwit capable. yes gmaxwell and sipa can play with themselves. but to be truly USEFUL merchants need to be involved. you know where bitcoin is actually useful (hint:buy things). if its active by christmas then miners have not done any testing on the side.
if merchants have the nodes before christmas, then they too have not done any testing.
That's a load of bullshit. Segwit has been and still is being continuously tested on the testnet. It is not as if the software was just written and now is being released. It was written several months ago and been in continuous testing since then. Furthermore several of the Core devs have reached out to miners, merchants, and wallet devs to help them with implementing and testing segwit. and over them months many things have changed. and in all those months it has not interacted with 7 years of historic data or mutiple pools or thousands of users. sandbox tests does not equal utopian perfection in the real world. miners will still want to review and test the public release it before implementing it as their full live main node. afterall the code next month is not the same code as last month, they are still tweaking it. if 95% of "segwit" is purely core0.132 and not peoples own implementations of the code. there is no point having distribution apart from worries of power cuts and data loss.
What are you saying? The vast majority of full nodes run some version of core. Do you mean that everyone has to have their own implementation? Also, the only other true alternative full node implementation is btcd and they have already completed implementing segwit. if the fiat lovers think that segwt should run by christmas. then where is the screams of grace period they were crying about.. oh wait they need no grace because they want everyone to just run core.. like i said many times in the past, the network should remain diverse. giving time for those to review and adapt the code into their own implementations or atleast test it on bitcoins mainnet before waving their hands in the air seems the people that want it running before christmas are sounding like they care less about testing, care less about security and more about bitcoin price.
and ontop of that the majority that have this careless nature are mostly people that do not even run a full node in the first place
kind of funny that the "slow careful and smart testing mindset defending cores delays" turns into "before christmas, before christmas before christmas"
anyone wanting it active and in full use before christmas should be tagged as fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters.
if those same people have previously shouted how any other proposal needs months of review and months of grace period. should be tagged as hypocritical fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters
Or they care about testing and have tested it themselves on testnet and are sure that the software is secure. I know a lot of the developers want it out ASAP and have extensively tested it on testnet and are absolutely sure about its security. tested on testnet.. tested on testnet.. tested on testnet.. thats like saying testing it on Clams or other alts... meaningless it needs testing on bitcoin main net before settling minds can then say its safe to then flag consensus. so stop thinking it should be active by christmas and atleast settle for atleast spring next year (if people are doing the right thing and checking) EG even windows gets alpha and beta tested. but even after retail release it still ends up with people having system crashes and patches needed. never claim anything is utopia until is has had time to run on the platform it is meant for. i do find it funny how achow101 proclaims 0.132 to be perfect and well tested. though not running live on mainnet.. i presume 0.12 and 0.131 are perfect too... where even after release.. even after running there are still issues even achow101 spends alot of time in the support category dealing with crashes and many issues. with 'legacy' versions. kind of strange to even need a support section if everything is perfect.. right? and now you see why its safer to review test and use it before hailing it utopia to garner 95% utility
ok lets put my waffle into a simple question.
knowing it requires 95% over a month. where start of month needs to be at 95%, throughout month, and end of month needs to be 95% (3831 of 4032blocks)
are you saying mining pools should drop their "legacy" (nodes as you call it) at the latest november 24th and use only core 0.132 from november 24th because its safe to all rush to run before christmas? honest answer please |
|
|
|
|
remember folks. its not just getting miners to allow tx's into blocks. its also merchants changing their wallets to have new keys to be able to "spend" funds if they too want to use segwit..
if its active by christmas then miners have not done any testing on the side.
if merchants have the nodes before christmas, then they too have not done any testing.
if 95% of "segwit" is purely core0.132 and not peoples own implementations of the code. there is no point having distribution apart from worries of power cuts and data loss.
seems the people that want it running before christmas are sounding like they care less about testing, care less about security and more about bitcoin price.
and ontop of that the majority that have this careless nature are mostly people that do not even run a full node in the first place
kind of funny that the "slow careful and smart testing mindset defending cores delays" turns into "before christmas, before christmas before christmas"
anyone wanting it active and in full use before christmas should be tagged as fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters.
if those same people have previously shouted how any other proposal needs months of review and months of grace period. should be tagged as hypocritical fiat loving bitcoin security hating nutters
|
|
|
|
hard requires node consensus followed by miner consensus (2 stages) soft requires miner consensus(1 stage) but miners are not just going to run their code in november as their main implementation. flagging blocks.. they are going to review it and run it in th background for a bit before making it their main implementation. and then there will be time to accumulate to 95% of pools to have it as their main implementation.. and then there is the month of all pools holding at 95%, followed by a grace period. id be surprised if any miner is flagging blocks 1 hour after code release. as that shows they are not double checking things. Feel free to mock me here as i dont understand this as well as most but with viabtc having 7.9% of the mining power then will this not mean that they will never accept segwit and so it will never actually be activated or does thge share that they mine not count because they are in theory mining an alt? technically. if 92% of pools started accepting segwit transactions into blocks (early) all that happens is the 8% wont accept the tx. so lets say the next block was solved by the 8%.. it wont contain the tx and ur waiting for a pool in the 92% to solve a block. basically the same game theory as 8% reject tx's with low fees and 92% accept any tx. its just a waiting game for a pool that likes your tx to solve a block including it. but pools should wait for 95%+ to ensure there is little orphan risk if a bug causes disagreement, thus an orphan across the network what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 online without review. what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 without taking the code and adapting it to their own diverse code base what concerns me is if pools just throw 0.132 online and everyone is running just one brand. |
|
|
|
hard requires node consensus followed by miner consensus (2 stages) soft requires miner consensus(1 stage) but miners are not just going to run their code in november as their main implementation. flagging blocks.. they are going to review it and run it in th background for a bit before making it their main implementation. and then there will be time to accumulate to 95% of pools to have it as their main implementation.. and then there is the month of all pools holding at 95%, followed by a grace period. id be surprised if any miner is flagging blocks 1 hour after code release. as that shows they are not double checking things. |
|
|
|
|
FIAT wont disappear. there will always be a currency tethered and controlled by government laws such as minimum wage, which must be paid at X.. and taxes at X.. and court fines at X. all payable in one currency controlled by the countries national bank,
this is called legal tender.
governments and national banks will not change laws to no longer have control of legal tender(fiat)
the form of how the fiat legal tender will be held/used CAN change.
but it is not over night. things like swapping the paper ingredient of a bank note to be a plastic polymer bank note (UK and canada are doing this right now). which will in time be the very reason to take (plastic) bank notes out of circulation, due to plastic being a expensive/finite/environment concern due to oil blah blah blah.(yea its that predictable why they went plastic)
afterall if they stuck with paper/cotton they cannot say a bank note is bad.
next its the case of swapping 'dollars' and 'pounds' to a hyperledger coin by "upgrading" peoples bank accounts with tempters of higher interest rates. again taking time to move people across.. so that it doesnt wake up the sheep in one go.
but hyperledger coin is still FIAT
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
