Interesting read,it did cross my mind as a possibility also, however highly unlikely that anything can be proven, it's all insinuations.
Too bad we dont have the ability to track login IP's to clear things up a bit.
That likely wouldn't sort the situation either. If it was one of the three I'm sure they'd be wise enough to use tor or not their normal IP. Since QS has removed the feedback and I'm sure vod will to I think this should just be marked as inconclusive but there's definitly not enough evidence to pin any wrong doing on anyone in my opinion. I think you might be right that we should draw this as inconclusive. I never claimed my evidence was good, I just think it is something that should definitely be considered due to strange implications. So there ya go. This 360 second posting timer is such a pain.Maybe you should use your main account or are you worried of/by something/someone? Yes, @redsn0w and @311, if you had actually bothered to read the whole thread properly: This is a throwaway account created specifically to raise these points, I do not want to start a possible trust war.
I have also stated I will verify who I am to a staff member if they really want to know as long as they do not disclose who I am. I also do not want to risk breaking any possible deals in the future by pissing someone off unintentionally  I don't see how timestamped proof can have no truth to it because I'm on a throwaway. Christ above, what is wrong with some of you today? I have no problem with you defending Quickseller (I ain't like those tools who shill-fight dogie and Vod), none at all, but you're doing it blindly. To build on "I have no problem with you defending Quickseller" I actually want to see responses from him defending himself. I would rather him be innocent than guilty. I'm just very confused by the speed. @QS: Thanks for your response again. That does make sense. .... 1 Then you should not say : This 360 second posting timer is such a pain. However this is only another speculative thread without some real proofs. I am sure if you were courageous you will post from your main account, but I really doubt you will do it. If Quickseller didn't frame ndnhc, however, we should move onto the question of: who did? Can we determine that? Is it worth trying? Et cetera. Really impossible without the help of an admin, I am still searching who (almost) screwed up me and the other user during my escrow service....  |
|
|
|
I will go with XT, but I will also hold my actual bitcoin... let's see what it will happen. However I am also thinking, why few people should have the power to choose for us? Is it not against with the bitcoin philosophy?
Please elaborate why? Because the 1MB limit it was added later for prevent the spam, it was a thing not from the beginning... I would prefer a random block size instead of 1-5-20-100 MB . This is exactly what I've been talking about. People without proper technical background will chose the wrong chain/software and things are going to start falling apart.
Exactly, I think the same. We should also think that not all the people who are using bitcoin are registered here in the forum or have some knowledge about what it is happening now. You do realize that XT has patches that have been rejected for Core due to them weakening the security? I don't know the exact details but I would like someone to present it all nicely.
Even though I have respect for Gavin what he is doing is wrong.
I didn't know this thing before your post, I would like also to learn more about this fact (and I will make my own research). Gavin's ultimate way proposal is a sort of "with me or against me" (or this is what I thought the first time when I have read his message). So we should just sit back and let Fed-friendly Gavin/Hearn turn Bitcoin into a centralized shitcoin, no thanks. Last thing I want to do is cash out to fiat...
What is your proposal to 'fight' against the Gavin's proposal? The unique thing that we can do is 'not update the client'... or maybe do you have something of better? All I'm saying is changes do need to made, just not in the way these guys are proposing with XT. Their divide and conquer tactics aren't going to help either though it will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Prepare for the Bitcoin civil war  So is it only the proposing way not the 'change itself' and yes it will be a real bitcoin civil war, only who will be in the correct chain will win. |
|
|
|
Interesting read,it did cross my mind as a possibility also, however highly unlikely that anything can be proven, it's all insinuations.
Too bad we dont have the ability to track login IP's to clear things up a bit.
That likely wouldn't sort the situation either. If it was one of the three I'm sure they'd be wise enough to use tor or not their normal IP. Since QS has removed the feedback and I'm sure vod will to I think this should just be marked as inconclusive but there's definitly not enough evidence to pin any wrong doing on anyone in my opinion. I think you might be right that we should draw this as inconclusive. I never claimed my evidence was good, I just think it is something that should definitely be considered due to strange implications. So there ya go. This 360 second posting timer is such a pain.Maybe you should use your main account or are you worried of/by something/someone? |
|
|
|
lol this forum gets crazier by the minute...  Everyday a new fantastic story  What will it be the next one? Without real proof an accusation can't stay up or am I wrong? However I also don't think Quickseller or marcotheminer were the responsible. |
|
|
|
I'm unclear on how going the XT path would make it centralized.
Because it will be needed more bandwidth, and a lot of people don't have access to it (node,etc...). |
|
|
|
|
Another threatens thread, yuppie! Pleas guys, stop to use the word 'threatens' in the title.
He simple wants to sell some bitcoin, it is not a "threaten" .. example - I will say : if the price will not reach 250 dollars in the next 2 weeks I can sell most of my coins. He is also not obliged to work as volunteer for bitcoin, this should be clare from the beginning.. he is also free to leave or stay.
|
|
|
|
So are you saying that it is present a conflict of interest, because I do not see why the other core can vote or agree with the Gavin's proposal. A technology should be updated if it wants to stay alive.
However I will grab my popcorn and watch!
The thing is that these updates can't be just patched in to Bitcoin at will. The developers usually review/discuss changes and need to reach consensus when it is something big as the 20MB block size (even though it is not big). Don't get me wrong. I do not support Gavin's Bitcoin XT fork at all. This will severely damage the whole ecosystem. I'm trying to say that the developers have hidden agendas (mostly financial) to why they're against the block size increase. ... Like I said yesterday: 1. probably its just overblown drama. Consensus will
be reached.
2. I think the block size needs to increase, its
not "fuckery".
3. If a fork does happen, its bad for Bitcoin
but if you're HODLing , you'll have both
coins so you can wait and see what happens
when the dust settles.
This is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin and this why all the community is worried ( it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin).I will go with XT, but I will also hold my actual bitcoin... let's see what it will happen. However I am also thinking, why few people should have the power to choose for us? Is it not against with the bitcoin philosophy? Isn't Hearn that dude who wanted to force proof of identity by having people verify their passports?
Bitcoin >> Gavcoin >> Fedcoin
The people don't understand that we are not obliged to follow his 'fork' so why are you complaining? If you don't want to follow or accept the Gavin's proposal, simple hold your coin or sell them for any FIAT currency. Oh the illusion of choice, lol sure thing mate, keep increasing that post count Is this a forum? Are you saying that I can't post ?
So we should just sit back and let Fed-friendly Gavin/Hearn turn Bitcoin into a centralized shitcoin, no thanks. Last thing I want to do is cash out to fiat...
What is your proposal to 'fight' against the Gavin's proposal? The unique thing that we can do is 'not update the client'... or maybe do you have something of better? |
|
|
|
So is XT going to be a separate Crypto and will its price start at 0 or how should we see it? I guess there will be BTC/XT parity?
No 'Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide. Currently it contains two additional features..' https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt
but if someone after the fork will continue to use the actual bitcoin core client he will stay in this chain. So the XT chain ( Chain-B) will continue to generate blocks parallel to the core chain (Chain-A).then xtcoin would be a separate crypto, in case people would use both chains. And you are assuming people would move over to xt, this would mean the current bitcoin would be finished if there would be a trading parity between the two? An exchange will should only agree to update or not update his bitcoin client, if it will not update the wallet ... then it will stay in the actual chain (1MB block size limit). An exchange will not list another coin, because this is the same coin ...why would someone list bitcoinXT when it is BTC only with 20MB limite block size and other feature? |
|
|
|
Isn't testnet for those stuff? Why is Gavin pushing this forward all the time? If you think that's a great idea then test it on testnet with possible all scenarios (stress tests etc). Then if it gives positive results then implement it on current chain...
Yes you can test bitcoinXT just now : https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxtThis is so risky, if one of the chain will be abbandone you will lose all your coin and this why all the community is worried (it is only a question of money, and it is really a tall order for gavin). If Gavin launches his altcoin forked from Bitcoin, everyone who currently has Bitcoin will have the same number of Gavincoin. When his altcoin fades into obscurity, the original Bitcoins will still exist. Shortly after launch you may be able to sell your Gavincoins in exchange for extra real Bitcoins (or vice versa, if you think the altcoin will 'win') before the price drops significantly. But that's a gamble. It's safest just to hold both until you see which is going to 'win'. Does it mean I can double spend?. I will sell my Gavincoin (old bitcoin) in the GAvincoin chain and my old bitcoin is still in the bitcoin chain. So I can spend that old bitcoin again? Yes you can simply (as concept) double spend your coin from both the chains (chain-A_core and chain-B_XT) but you should also find someone who will buy your Chain-B_XT's coins. Example: This is my address: 1GkGt3218AM8FU7ZGDCeZS4LWZR8xeZcjfduring the fork I will have the same amount on the two chains, and if I will be lucky I can spend two times the same sum. |
|
|
|
Next time, press the back button. The post should re-appear. Then copy it and paste it in a new (refreshed) reply page.
This thing works only in Chrome. I just tried it on Mozilla and unfortunately it failed to re-appear. It works also with Opera, the unique browser that 'refresh' the page as you said is Firefox (but maybe also other unknown browsers). |
|
|
|
Pathetic, I called this as bull shit all along, ndnhc is probably one of the least likely people to do something like that on here. For 0.1 bitcoin too, they could have tried to make it more believable, why the hell would he pull a stunt like that for such a miniscule amount? It's sad that there are people in the community willing to stoop to this level, why can't we all just get along. Is it a rival campaign manager, a rival gambling site? Who knows but this is really a new low for the forums.  Now only an admin can help him (with a complete check) or who has left a neg trust should 'trust' his word and change the feedback. It is really no sense extort someone for only 0.10 btc, but who knows ... everything is possible in this forum. |
|
|
|
So is XT going to be a separate Crypto and will its price start at 0 or how should we see it? I guess there will be BTC/XT parity?
No 'Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core nodes provide. Currently it contains two additional features..' https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt
but if someone after the fork will continue to use the actual bitcoin core client he will stay in this chain. So the XT chain ( Chain-B) will continue to generate blocks parallel to the core chain (Chain-A). |
|
|
|
The core developers, Gregory, Pieter, Luke and Matt are involved in a company Blockstream: https://www.blockstream.com/team/ . Obviously they want Blockstream to be successful. Please tell me how Gavin is biased and the others aren't. There are two sides to (almost) each story, and there definitely are hidden agendas involved here. One of the biggest problem of people is that they only accept what they were provided with. Medias exploit this easily. BTW, where did Gavin threatens to quit Bitcoin development? And isn't this really Gavin's fork? The title is misleading.Yes the thread title is misleading, simply it is not a threat : What do other people think?
If we can't come to an agreement soon, then I'll ask for help
reviewing/submitting patches to Mike's Bitcoin-Xt project that implement a
big increase now that grows over time so we may never have to go through
all this rancor and debate again.
I'll then ask for help lobbying the merchant services and exchanges and
hosted wallet companies and other bitcoind-using-infrastructure companies
(and anybody who agrees with me that we need bigger blocks sooner rather
than later) to run Bitcoin-Xt instead of Bitcoin Core, and state that they
are running it. We'll be able to see uptake on the network by monitoring
client versions.
Perhaps by the time that happens there will be consensus bigger blocks are
needed sooner rather than later; if so, great! The early deployment will
just serve as early testing, and all of the software already deployed will
ready for bigger blocks.
But if there is still no consensus among developers but the "bigger blocks
now" movement is successful, I'll ask for help getting big miners to do the
same, and use the soft-fork block version voting mechanism to (hopefully)
get a majority and then a super-majority willing to produce bigger blocks.
The purpose of that process is to prove to any doubters that they'd better
start supporting bigger blocks or they'll be left behind, and to give them
a chance to upgrade before that happens.
Because if we can't come to consensus here, the ultimate authority for
determining consensus is what code the majority of merchants and exchanges
and miners are running.
--
--
Gavin Andresensourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/ And there are also some interesting article on his block blog http://gavinandresen.ninja |
|
|
|
The core developers, Gregory, Pieter, Luke and Matt are involved in a company Blockstream: https://www.blockstream.com/team/ . Obviously they want Blockstream to be successful. Please tell me how Gavin is biased and the others aren't. There are two sides to (almost) each story, and there definitely are hidden agendas involved here. So are you saying that it is present a conflict of interest, because I do not see why the other core can vote or agree with the Gavin's proposal. A technology should be updated if it wants to stay alive. However I will grab my popcorn and watch! |
|
|
|
not sure i have understood
I voted for bitcoin core
I have bitcoin core
I do absolutly not know XT
it's the same client with two added features and a different name, nothing to worry aboutNot exactly, also two (temporary) chains and a possible problem of the 'double spend' 'the coins' from the two chains. |
|
|
|
Isn't Hearn that dude who wanted to force proof of identity by having people verify their passports?
Bitcoin >> Gavcoin >> Fedcoin
The people don't understand that we are not obliged to follow his 'fork' so why are you complaining? If you don't want to follow or accept the Gavin's proposal, simple hold your coin or sell them for any FIAT currency. |
|
|
|
|
There is always someone that wants to ruin your reputation, like the same thing that it was happened to me some months ago. I hope this is only a big 'misunderstanding', ndnhc prove that question 2 is not your alt account and I am sure all the negative trust will be removed.
|
|
|
|
Can I ask you (like always in this case) why didn't you use a trusted internal escrow for hold doge?
Because of the fairly low amount risked. But he clearly had a negative rep already and was likely to scam . You should have used an escrow for sure with him. What had happened, already happened. I cannot change the past. Making this thread for people that may consider dealing with him - BEWARE!. We already beware of him a long time ago, did you noticed the negative trust (left by me and other users)? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=403195Scammer. Alt of Babba D andsuperSTAR777. ( Reference). etc... |
|
|
|
Calculating:
2.7 (txs/s) * 60 (per minute) * 60 (hour) * 24 (day) * 0.0001 (fee) * 20 (Gavin factor) * 200 (usd price) = 93312 USD to spam up Gavincoin to full 20MB blocks and render it unuseable aswell as filling up peoples' harddrives around the world with 2,88 GB of data per 24 hours (!!!)
conclusion:
Gavincoin can not be defended against banks or governments or even a (bitcoin)millionaire
Anyone who is willing to spend around 100k$ per day can make Bitcoin unusable for almost anyone and bloat the chain in an extreme way and doesn't even need any mining equipement for the attack!
A measily 40 Million spent on such an attack would bloat the chain to 1 Terrabyte. For many entities that's not a lot of money.
#justsayin'
Gavincoin is not defensible against spam.
You are wrong: i don't see me downloading 2.8GB every day just to sync up - and i know almost nobody will do that, that's why gavincoin will be the loosing fork (that was the basic point of the thread)
HEY RETARD! YOU WILL NOT NEED TO DOWNLOAD 2.8 GB EVERY DAY JUST TO SYNC UP! IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? The unique problem should be the bandwidth not the storage. |
|
|
|
I just voted for XT. Not a very difficult choise for me, I will follow Gavin everywhere. I don't understand why it doesn't show how much people have voted.  Because if you read the first post: Time to exercise your voting rights people
Cast your votes - ( Result to be announced after voting ends )
If your opinion changes, you can change your vote too
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
