Just for fun:  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. I do not think, the unique secure thing is that the miner fee will drop dramatically. Because of the blocksize raise I am sure each tx I will send it will be surely included in the block (Also with a low fee). |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Satoshi should come out and raise his opinion regarding this imo, only he can convince everyone whats the right thing to do.
No, everyone is free to choose which client use - chain follow... it will not be 'fair' to follow satoshi's opinion. |
|
|
|
Just for fun: |
|
|
|
Its not FUD, Gavins creating a new side to join. If you dont want to be on either side, sell and move on
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. I see a lot of people are now doubting Bitcoin even though nothing has changed the threads which are discussing what gavin has said are mostly fud they are trying to stir a shit storm before anything has even happended. Do not sell your coins just yet people its an attempt to drive prices down even further.
It's not FUD when people are quoting Gavin's own words.  I think the OP is talking about this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074701.0 (oh it is your thread  ). bitcoin is most stable crypto currency and that kind FUD has no value because it has more big community than any other coin.
The big community without miner (big farm) will not be sufficient |
|
|
|
|
I do not think it is a good idea, a simple 2FA (like someone said previously) is much better than a bitcoin signed message (and if someone will 'stole' your private key? It is difficult to stole a smartphone from the other side of world).
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.
Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price? the miners will decide, they can't secure both without compromising one, there can't be two legitimate bitcoin, and surely the hash won't double over night And if the people will not exchange those coin, what will the miner do? Nothing because they will not be able to dump those coins. It appears to me the last word on it would have the open market. Miners will mine what has the better price. If that is Bitcoin 1 or 2 or neither is to be seen.
I am not secure of this thing, if the new 'coin' will not have the same consensus of now it will be an high risk mine it. |
|
|
|
|
Can I ask you (like always in this case) why didn't you use a trusted internal escrow for hold doge?
|
|
|
|
But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).
Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners. And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways. Actually it can happen very fast, once a catalyst happens things can go rapidly, especially with technology. That catalyst might be Nasdaq trading Bitcoin and from there Bitcoin might be fuelled and promoted by governments. Why a not-controlled technology/coin should be promoted by the governments? They will try to regulate something, but this time I think they will not succeed. Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.
Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price? At first minute after fork yes, but as soon trading Gavincoin vs Bitcoin starts the price will start to differ. AND there would suddenly be two Bitcoins for every one Bitcoin that exists now. I don't see how this couldn't hurt the cap of both coins. I personally think they will both crash and burn pretty fast. You might have a point, whats to stop an exchange to offer Gavincoin or Chain B coin or whatever against Bitcoin, this will be interesting. I want to know if the price will tank after the fork or not, i might sell some for fiat/alts. Nobody knows if the price will be affected or not, but most probably no. |
|
|
|
But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank).
Right, we are lightyears away from mainstream adoption. It's not going to happen fast anyways. People are slow learners. And actually we have seen quite a few times people go intuitively for new coins like doge and others. Most newcomers don't bother a lot with bitcoin, they demand alts. So this whole scalability thing sorts itself out right there with popular demand anyways. I do not know, but this obsession to see bitcoin mainstream is really no-sense. Bitcoin/Gavincoin pair will be ground zero and epic cinema. Better order tons of popcorn.
Wouldn't chain A (Bitcoin) and chain B (Gavincoin) have the same price? The name will be same bitcoin, and who knows... if the gavin's change will succeed than the price will be the same. |
|
|
|
What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.
Nope, i don't agree on that. Decentralisation, consensus and defensibility is more important than bigger blocks. While 'Bitcoin' may not scale 'cryptocurrency' definately does. Need more txs? Just use merge mined altcoins for smaller txs. I personally don't see a need to raise blocksize at all ever simple because we will never run out of space for cryptocurrency txs. Even with 1MB blocks in btc. Cryptocrrency could go mainstream today on Bitcoin Core, there wouldn't be any scalability issues imo. This whole problem is imaginary. But I personally don't see why bitcoin should go or be mainstream? I see bitcoin as valid and good alternative to send a large (or little) quantity of money without the use of a centralized payment system (like WU ,moneygram or also a bank). |
|
|
|
But CrackedLogic asked an interesting thing, why everytime the forum is hacked the search function is disabled ? is it related with the forum integrity ? |
|
|
|
What do you mean by 20MB fuckery? Don't you see we need 20MB sooner or later? don't you see the current transaction per second of the current Bitcoin is beyond pathetic compared to VISA etc? dont you see 20MB would solve those problems? Dont you see if we want Bitcoin to become mainstream, we need bigger blocks? Jesus Christ guys, get some perspective.
What will happen is only morons will keep mining the deprecated 1MB fork and it will eventually die.
Another opinion:  What do you think if the blockSize will be random? Not even 1 MB not even 20 MB  . |
|
|
|
congrats on linking to a totally unbiased resource OP /sarcasm
Other devs don't seem to get it. It's not their decision. It's the community's decision.
An actual democracy. How about that. Ironic how the muh decentralisation crowd get so angry about this. This is EXACTLY how a decision like this should happen. Maybe enough people will upgrade. Maybe they won't. But decision making is outsourced to the users, and isn't confined to the small clique who have control over the repository and the bitcoin.org domain.
It's Bitcoin working exactly as it should.
Labelling Gavin giving people a choice as a "power grab" only demonstrates that you are an incumbent threatened by a reduction of your own power.
I like to call it anarchy, not democracy but yes it is only a community decision but in this community there the the big miner farm, the speculator, the payment gateway etc... So at the end it is not really our decision. |
|
|
|
So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.
The chain can't disappear. People can only stop using it. If everyone comes on board the Chain B you will have your coins there as well. This happens with just about any hard fork. This one isn't special at all, aside from the drama around it. The coins on Chain A will always be there, but if nobody uses it then it is useless. I think there is even a remote possibility for both chains to coexist literally forever because both are supported by parts of the community. I don't see why Bitcoin core would die as long as it has support?
It won't die so easy.
The possibility is there, but the chances are slim. If the majority jumps onto Chain B, Chain A would be risky. The difficulty would drop as it gets abandoned by miners, thus increasing the chance of a 51%. Maybe I have used the wrong words, but I was partial correct with my logic... because if someone will buy bitcoin from the chain-A and after a couple of days nobody will continue to use that chain then he basically will lose 'money' (Fiat currency that he used to buy Chain-A~btc.). This is one of the problem, maybe the important one because at the end it is only a question about money. So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic.
Well you are correct, however in this example (where chain A disapears) you still have your coins on chain B, which is the one that matters. The only risk is for people who try to sell their chain B coins for chain A coins , betting chain A will succeed , but it really fails. Yes of course, it will be one of the risk. |
|
|
|
I think there is a good chance that ndnhc was framed. There are several candidates:
1. Quickseller: He has been after ndnhc due to dadice. Considering his ability it will be easy for him to set up.
2. Twipple: Has the motive to make Quickseller look bad.
3. Any other like Twipple with a similar grudge against Quickseller.
4. Someone who hates ndnhc and wants him gone. As a campaign manager who denies and kicks participants he may have some enemies.
What concerns me is that Quickseller is easy to fool and yet the first responses are mostly bashing ndnhc with no one analyzing the accusation. In the last page he makes another accusation which turns out to be incorrect.
Seeing the feedback on ndnhc, Vod has literally copy pasted his. I wonder if he even took the time to read through the allegation.
5. Someone who wants to take over his campaign.  /joking of course... I hope ndnhc comes in soon since at this point it seems he is the only person who can move this thread forward. Why the joking? Because i answered to carra23, who manages the campaign for the moment. Suggesting that he could have an interest in taking it over completely. Since i dont think he is that kind of person, i wrote it as a joke. You mention marcotheminer... i know he attacked the dadice campaign often. Though it never were bloody attacks. More friendly fights between both campaign runners. Anyway... the change 1 to I is suspicious. And i hope ndnhc comes up with an explaination soon. 'He' was also unlucky , 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97YyIXAuE doesn't exist ... so when ndnhc will come he should give a full explanation of why that TX ( https://blockchain.info/tx/7ae108de4b2287bd3ba2c8a9a436c524456f9a7e4373a61eff58f18f783522db) was signed by both address. There is no question about it, both of those addresses belong to him, but the extortion address was different and unrelated to ndnhc. Only when extortion failed, that person "accidentlly" placed ndnhc's associated address. And in the stupid 1-in-a-thousand chance giveaway.. I believe the best way to deal with this is for staff to examine the IP's used to prove was that indeed ndnhc or not. If the IP used was tor or VPN address, then think about it; scammer masked IP, opened a new account, went through all that trouble , but was so dumb to use his old addy? c'mon
I cant believe there is anyone sane here who believes that.Everything is possible here in the forum, who knows? Maybe he forgot to 'own' that address and posted it or maybe forgot to have signed the TX with those 2 addresses. A control of the IP by the staff will help, but I don't think they will moderate the 'scam accusations'. |
|
|
|
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). Risky for people who are moving coins around (obviously bad for Bitcoin) but not risky if you are holding coins and have them on both chains, right? Redsn0w take this friendly advice and go learn more about the network. You're posting nonsense. In this scenario we will have Chain A (Bitcoin Core) , Chain B (Bitcoin-Xt). If you had 10 BTC on Chain A, you will have 10 BTC on Chain B. If Chain A dies and Chain B stays alive you don't lose coins. Even if it comes to this, the only risk is the loss of confidence and potential death of both networks. There is no risk if only 1 network dies. ... So are you saying that if I have 10 btc in the chain-A and that chan will disappear I will not lost those chain-A~btc? I am thinking the contrary... because basically I can't move those chain-A~btc anymore (or am I wrong?). Thanks for the advice, maybe I am really wrong but this is the logic. |
|
|
|
Well, some aspects of this story are really true, such as "Silk Road will never go away". As long as Bitcoin/Altcoins exist, things can be purchased relatively anonymously and it let's criminals get hold of "money" easier.
I think the lesson learned by silk road is that having a large center of business is a bad thing. It makes it vulnerable to shut down. So I imagine that anyone doing something illegal would turn to non-centralized communication, maybe something like skype to communicate. So certain black market dealers would become known for their specialty and if one of them got caught then the rest would still be out there dealing. I have no experience with this stuff so I could be way off base here. you mean something like open bazar, but they clearly stated that their intent isn't to run a silk road 2.0, but we know that criminals will use it too, so i wonder how they can mantain their promise... Make something of decentralized is nearly impossible, because the people are used to be 'controlled' and use something of centralized. It will be really shocking for them to see/use something of decentralized (this is what I think). My thought about silkroad is : the marketplace was good but the items were illegal and this is the unique problem but in a point of view of 'function' it is really working. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
