Bitcoin will die a quick terrible death.
I feel sorry for all of you therefore I will do you all a favor by purchasing your worthless coins for $20 each.
Better get out quick, much FUD.
You have a deal! For every BTC that I allow you to buy for $20, you also get to take 17 Paycoins for the "assured floor price" of $20 each. Shall we arrange escrow?  < Back on topic > Is anything being done to start an "open source group" that replaces the Bitcoin Foundation?No, I do not think. The dev who will work and maintain updated the bitcoin core client should to be considered as voluntaries and they should not receive any salary but only donation from the bitcoin community. This is how should it works... but all we know that it will never happen. |
|
|
|
Yes of course, it is a problem because you will be able to spend 'your' bitcoins twice. We can assume that the supply will double (temporally) and if I will find a buyer I can sell them my coin from the both chains ( the chain-A and also in the Chain-B). When it will remain only 1 valid chain I can buy again bitcoin ( x2 of profit). |
|
|
|
I'll just start posting the truth on all of these FUD threads. Here is Gavin's question on a discussion board: 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 Andresen Remember the source: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/ |
|
|
|
Does anyone have a list of all of the people that hold the alert key's private key? I know that Gavin and Satoshi both have it since Satoshi gave it to Gavin. Also, according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts, theymos also has the key. Does anyone know who else has the alert key? I'm asking this because of the possibility of Gavin using the alert key to abuse the alert system and broadcast to everyone that they need to switch to his fork. If other people hold the key, then this kind of abuse of the alert system can be mitigated because they can send out alerts which cancel Gavin's.Are you serious? Ruin his reputation to make only to reach a large consensus (aka majority of people who will use the new client)? The alert key is used only in certain and important thing not certain a proposal. Hey, I'm paranoid. And I don't like it when people tell me what to do. If you're just going to attack me for my reason for asking this, please don't post. Wouldn't it help the community anyways to know who actually holds the alert key?This is why 'they are not public': What would happen if a Darknet hacker kidnapped a "key holder"? Then the hacker could send messages via the alert system.
If might be a good idea to change the code and make the alert system multi-sig only.
It is always a question of personal security (but also for a security of the entire project). |
|
|
|
Does anyone have a list of all of the people that hold the alert key's private key? I know that Gavin and Satoshi both have it since Satoshi gave it to Gavin. Also, according to https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Alerts, theymos also has the key. Does anyone know who else has the alert key? I'm asking this because of the possibility of Gavin using the alert key to abuse the alert system and broadcast to everyone that they need to switch to his fork. If other people hold the key, then this kind of abuse of the alert system can be mitigated because they can send out alerts which cancel Gavin's.Are you serious? Ruin his reputation to make only to reach a large consensus (aka majority of people who will use the new client)? The alert key is used only in certain and important thing not certain a proposal. |
|
|
|
It is probably easier than I think, but I have searched the settings and I have found nothing.  It is not possible for a Member account to add an avatar. Avatars are allowed only for Full Member + If you have a Full member+ account, then the option is available under " Forum Profile Information " Yes, specifically here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=avatar but I do not know if it is visible to you (SwingFirst). |
|
|
|
I'm not so secure of this thing  , this is what I am thinking that it will be a chaos. Maybe try it with testnet before using with actual Bitcoins. That way you won't lose any money and you will be able to see whether it works or not. I will not lose my money because I will convert all my bitcoin to another altcoin or maybe better convert them to € or $ (this in my opinion is the most reasonable thing to do, or maybe also hold and hope to be in the right chain). I'm not so secure of this thing
An overwhelming majority of Bitcoin users (both in total numbers and economically) is in favour of Gavin's proposal. With my "I'm not so secure of this thing" I wanted to say that I lot of people will not keep their money and it will cause themselves a damage also if they are in favour of the Gavin's proposal (because they will not know what they should do). |
|
|
|
I am also with the XT 'version' ... I have never been in a fork so I do not know what it will happen but I am sure a lot of people will lose a lot of 'real' money. Let's see what it will happen after the complete migration and the new blocksize of 20 MB.
Everybody will keep their money unless someone is stupid and decides to use an incompatible version. I'm not so secure of this thing , this is what I am thinking that it will be a chaos. |
|
|
|
|
I am also with the XT 'version' ... I have never been in a fork so I do not know what it will happen but I am sure a lot of people will lose a lot of 'real' money. Let's see what it will happen after the complete migration and the new blocksize of 20 MB.
|
|
|
|
If BTC s all about decentralization, one person must not effect BTC development.
On the other hand, I think he s right and XT is a way for BTC to go.
Without him a lot of people will dump BTC so he is needed in the bitcoin world but he should not say these things.... you and me and all the other users are free or maybe it is not right what I'm saying? Yes of course, we are free to choose if follow or not follow the gavin proposal but also if the majority of normal users like me and you (not miners) will stay in the actual chain and the big miner farm will follow the other chain ... then in that case it will be really a problem. |
|
|
|
What will you think if you will come to know that BitcoinDistributor is an alt of Quickseller? // sarcasm . Please guys , stop to open thread like this (I have already reported it but it seems that this is the right section, so it will not be moved). I have noticed also another users gave a negative trust to BitcoinDistributor, so now the problem is not anymore quickseller but you should coinvince a lot of users  . |
|
|
|
Thanks for the thread, here an interesting reply: but another question could be raised now, does 140 per second are enough if we reach fully adoption? or we need to raise it again in the future?
That's the problem we really care about. we can't raise it again and again. We should find a way to solve this problem forever. That's the real solution for us.I think he was (is) right, because this is not a solution at all... later the dev should increase again the limit and 20 MB will be really useless and we start a new 'conflict' for 100 MB or more.... Bitcoin should not be in competition with the other system of payment (in a tx/sec point of view). It should compete in other way... |
|
|
|
WTF? Why this thread is here in the meta section?  I have said if quickseller would be added again in the defaultTrust list depth 2 under someone .... the creation of this type of thread would not be stopped. Why don't you simply use that 2 BTC to pay back BigBiz?
...
Exactly. |
|
|
|
... Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized
satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem. However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos. there wasn't any 1MB at first he added that limit to prevent possible ddos attack, so this is like knowing the problem of the transaction limit I know in the beginning it did not exist a block size of 1 MB, it was added later to prevent spam but now it is not more necessary if bitcoin wants to compete with the other system of payment like visa, mastercard etc... but it will be really a no-sense battle (they should find a good compromise for a good stability). |
|
|
|
Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.
That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them. Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya. Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there. No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability. it's more around 3-4 tx per second, because there are multisig, and because one trasaction includ input and output, 7 is just far-strected... "If you’re not really a fan of digesting the technical aspects of Bitcoin and how it works, this probably wouldn’t be of concern to you. However, chances are that most Bitcoin users from all around the world hope that Bitcoin will actually become the currency of the future, but how can that really happen in the case that it currently only handles 7 transactions per second? Yes, that’s right. Each second, only 7 people are able to make a transaction, which is mostly due to the block size limit of a Bitcoin. To put things into a better perspective, only 420 people can make a transaction during the same minute. While this may seem like a large number, it definitely isn’t as nobody wants to wait minutes or even seconds before a transaction is actually completed." Source: http://themerkle.com/coins/overcoming-7-transactions-per-second-bitcoin-limit/Most probably the article is wrong but I have aòways thought 7 tx/sec (now the average size of each block is 0.55 MB). |
|
|
|
... Going by some people, there should be no one to take any decisions at all. We should just wait for Bitcoin to magically upgrade itself, because if anyone steps up and does some shit, it becomes centralized
satoshi should've coded the client to update itself on this transaction limit issue, he also knew at that time that this would have been a problem in the future This is the first time that I heard this thing, but maybe it was really difficult to create something and resolve the problem also if he predicted all these problem. However I do not think he is using his fame to manipulate the community, if you do not want to follow his fork simple "don't follow it" & holding your coins (or sell them) and especially hope to be in the right chain at the end of the chaos. |
|
|
|
Yeah, try telling that to people when they try to use BTC and there are so many transactions per second that shit takes ages to get confirmed etc.
That's not how transaction bottlenecks work. They work in precisely the opposite way - transactions take ages to get confirmed when there isn't enough room in the block for them. Maybe I was a bit premature to say the thread turned the corner. Except that there's around 1 transaction a second(Actually slightly less) in Bitcoin, which is basically nothing, so what Gavin is doing, is rushing things exponentially. Makes Zero sense and will deter people from running nodes if the blocksize is moved upto 20 MB so early. But hey, that's Bitcoin's centralization coming into full view for ya. Under 'gavincoin', 20MB is not the mandatory size of all new blocks. It's the maximum blocksize. If, as you say, Bitcoin is chugging along comfortably right now at 1 transaction a second, it's not suddenly going to jump to 20MB blocks overnight. OTOH if it DOES do that, it rather suggests that the 1 tr/sec was a bottleneck choking the system, doesn't it? That 20MB isn't going to be filled up unless the transactors need it to be, in which case it's a damn good job it was there. No, the actual bitcoin can manage ~7 tx/sec... stop to say thing really no sense. Again, bitcoin should not compete with visa if we are talking about how much tx can manage *sec...because visa or other system will win surely. Bitcoin should compete as trust,rapidity and not chargeability. |
|
|
|
I think Gavin has lost all credibility within the bitcoin community now ..
Yes, but he is still a bitcoin core dev... the unique thing we can do (or you can do) is "not follow his fork" if we don't agree with his choice but I am sure that at the end a lot of people will lose some real money during the existence of the two chains. |
|
|
|
This is what free open-source software is about, you choose what code to run, this kind of stuff was predicted from the beginning and it's one of the properties why bitcoin is so resilient and some particular government cannot push its own code.
Yes of course we are not obliged to use the new client, I am only curious if I can move coin between the '2' chain but I do not think it will be possible.
You cannot move coins between the two chains but you'll have twice the coins, at least for the period of time the two chains are live, eventually one will die, I assume. Oh thanks, finally I have understand all the question. If Gavin will fork and upload the new client we will basically still have or better own the same bitcoin in the two chains, so if I will be lucky we can sell the coins to someone -not an exchange- and buy more btc (and especially hope to be in the right chain). Thanks again for the reply. Correct, for a brief period of time, before it's clear which one is the winning chain, one can sell the same coins twice. Bear in mind this may not be very ethical.  To sell the same coin twice one needs a bitcoin client for both chains right? In both clients one will have the same amount of bitcoin or how should i see this? Basically (If I have understood) it is a double spend, you should have the two client and spend the btc from the chain-A and the chain-B ... you will have the same amount of btc in the same address but in two different chains. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
