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?
Basically yes, if you have some coin in the chain-A and some in the chain-B... when the chain-A will be abbandoned (by the miners and all the other people) you will lose all your coin in that chain. Now let's make an example, if somenoe will buy coin froim the chain-A with dollars and that chain will disappear what will the buyer think? you do not understand, there is no need for consensus on a mandatory update, gavin knows it, everyone knows it, just release it and stop this no-sense fud
If the majority of people will not use the new 'client' = reach the consensus, then it will be a problem to everyone because two chain cannot exist forever. |
|
|
|
Is this more FUD?
Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.
What ??
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
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/https://archive.is/uVyY6So where exactly is the threat there? Please enlighten me, because I too was fooled at first to think that Gavin did threaten. But what I see is: "I'll then ask for help lobbying..." "I'll ask for help getting big miners...." He is going to ask them for help does not mean he is going to get it. I mean I know English is not my first language but that doesn't seem like a threat to me. More like determination to do something whether the rest agree or not. That still does not mean he is going to get support. Also, if he was to threaten it would be more like: "I'll get help lobbying..." "I'll get big miners...." What , I have never said it was a threat  calm down (I thought only you did not read the Gavin's message on sourceforge). Yes you are right, it doesn't seem a threat but it is an ultimate request and now we will see if he will reach the consensus. |
|
|
|
No thanks, it is much better telegram ( https://telegram.org) but remember that there are some limitation (like the max. number of users in a group). ya i know 100 is max.. but good people 100 is enough... its just suggestion im not forcing.. With whatsapp you should know the num. of telephone but with telegram is only necessary the username (registered on teleg.) so now choose what is the better (I'm talking in a privacy view). If you want to create a bitcointalk group on telegram, add me : redsn0w ( https://telegram.me/redsn0w). will let you know when making the group.. cant reach the conclusion with few recommendations..want to hear from more experienced people here... i have already told that most of the people here are boys and i dont think they have privacy concern on exposing their numbers... i am also a web developer and heard a lot of people on reddit and quora saying that we will never leak our numbers because hackers will hack it.. from my point of view(no offense to anyone here) no such hacking do exist that one can hack anything in this worls,the thing exist is bugs and tricks..no god or no devil can do anything until u r loose determined. thats was my feeling.. let everyone say what are their views... I have created the not official bitcointalk telegram group, you can join with this link: - https://telegram.me/joinchat/03bc062300d33e5cf6bc5505e70ea080 |
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
Hi guys I'm just wondering is bitcoin creators able to lift or increase the limit of the number of bitcoins which can ever be produced(21,000,000)?
When you answer, if possible please also let me know how sure are you about the answer. I need some advise on this. Thanks.
Yes, the development team (not the creator Satoshi who is now "retired") can change a few lines of code and increase/decrease the limit. You are wrong, everyone can increase the limit of bitcoin but if the other 'people' are using a different versione of bitcoin client they will refuse the increase of the limit (I hope you understand). Basically I can create another version of bitcoin with 21 bln of BTC and convince the others to use it, then in this case I have increase the limit of that bitcoin 'client' and all the people who will use that version known and agree with me. There is nothing wrong about what I said. The OP asked if it can be done by the creator. Since the creator is now a goner all is left to the development team. And we are talking about Bitcoin. It is obvious that anyone can fork Bitcoin and create their own alt-coin, that is not what the OP asked though. So also the dev team can fork the actual 'bitcoin' ... it is always the same thing. If I will change the code and a lot of people will start to use my client, I have basically increased the limit of the coin (but all we knot that it can't exist to chan for a long time). I have replied that everyone can increase the limit of bitcoin, but the hard is that coinvince the other to use your client (like what Gavin wants to do in these days/months : http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/). |
|
|
|
Is this more FUD?
Because there's another thread about Gavin supposedly threatening which seems to be just FUD apparently.
What ??
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
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/https://archive.is/uVyY6 |
|
|
|
According to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37pv74/gavin_andresen_moves_ahead_with_push_for_bigger/the Bitcoin community shall be forced at gunpoint out of Bitcoin into Gavincoin. There will be Gavincoin/Bitcoin pairs at the exchanges and there will be a split not only in the community and developement team but in mining and blockchains aswell. When the Gavincoin fork takes effect there will be a Bitcoin blockchain (old) and a Gavincoin blockchain (20MB fuckery). Both will at least for some time coexist and people will trade these coins against each other. What will be the longterm effects on investors sentiment from this? What will be the effects on sudddenly double the number of Bitcoins existing? Will the price go in half? What are possible scenarios how this could play out? How are you personally planning on reacting to this? I know i buy fiat and altcoins to sit it out. Like to hear your opinion. Will you be blackmailed into using Gavincoin or will you continue to use Bitcoin core?
Or will you exit entirely or buy altcoins instead? Love to hear some opinions especially from those who aren't supporting this whole Gavincoin fork madness. I will choose when the new client will be released, but this is the good of 'decentralization' ... what will happen if someone will start to pay a lot of people to reach che consensus ? Basically the network will 'educate itself". |
|
|
|
OK thanks for this help. Now What is not considered as spam here ? And do you get paid on posting in this forum ?
Spam from wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam Here each of one has his own subjective definition, but a spammer is someone who make a lot of unsubstantial (from a point of view of the admin) posts. |
|
|
|
okcoin goxxing fud or not, that's what is about
Exactly, open any chart on https://bitcoinwisdom.com and you will see a continuing decline (all the bitcoin price history). Bitstamp for example: |
|
|
|
Hi guys I'm just wondering is bitcoin creators able to lift or increase the limit of the number of bitcoins which can ever be produced(21,000,000)?
When you answer, if possible please also let me know how sure are you about the answer. I need some advise on this. Thanks.
Yes, the development team (not the creator Satoshi who is now "retired") can change a few lines of code and increase/decrease the limit. You are wrong, everyone can increase the limit of bitcoin but if the other 'people' are using a different versione of bitcoin client they will refuse the increase of the limit (I hope you understand). Basically I can create another version of bitcoin with 21 bln of BTC and convince the others to use it, then in this case I have increase the limit of that bitcoin 'client' and all the people who will use that version known and agree with me. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
No thanks, it is much better telegram ( https://telegram.org) but remember that there are some limitation (like the max. number of users in a group). ya i know 100 is max.. but good people 100 is enough... its just suggestion im not forcing.. With whatsapp you should know the num. of telephone but with telegram is only necessary the username (registered on teleg.) so now choose what is the better (I'm talking in a privacy view). If you want to create a bitcointalk group on telegram, add me : redsn0w ( https://telegram.me/redsn0w). |
|
|
|
No thanks, it is much better telegram ( https://telegram.org) but remember that there are some limitation (like the max. number of users in a group). |
|
|
|
I think using 8 different addresses can be safer, but you should use 8 different wallets / devices.
Why 8 different wallets/devices ? If you know what you are doing and use a good method to generate a bitcoin address, I think you can be safe and also your 'money' can be safe. |
|
|
|
Blazedout419 is already in the Tomatocage's trust list, so he is also in the defaultTrust list (depth 2). The same thing for Kluge ( dserrano5, Tomatocage and BadBear's trust list). If you trust Kluge & Blazedout419 add them to your trust list  . They are already in my trust list since trust system was started. Oh so have you asked to see them in the list of the user DefaultTrust ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=122551)? Sorry I misunderstood  . *basically in the depth 1 (if we have only the DefaultTrust user in our list). |
|
|
|
Blazedout419 is already in the Tomatocage's trust list, so he is also in the defaultTrust list (depth 2). The same thing for Kluge ( dserrano5, Tomatocage and BadBear's trust list). If you trust Kluge & Blazedout419 add them to your trust list . |
|
|
|
im so glad im not in the US, its insane there.
RU provided a serivce, how can he be blamed, for some kid choosing to take the drug or any other person, where is the personal responsibility?
the whole war on drugs is stupid beyond reason.
I don't disagree that the war on drugs is stupid and utterly futile, but Ross is still a criminal in the eyes of the law with money laundering and facilitating the sale of drugs... and then of course the hits he tried to put out on people. I would have had some respect and sympathy for him and supported his freedom had that not happened. We can all agree that his sentence was by far too hard for a website owner.. as if hes a drug cartel who personally killed people and distributed drugs.. in that case, we can also convict the us gov for printing the money allowing people to buy guns and drugs.. That's not the same. The money wasn't created to explicitly buy illegal things but this market was. And just because he didn't personally kill anyone doesn't mean anything. Hiring someone to do the job is just as bad as the intention is the same. Had he not done that I'd have a totally different opinion of his but I think he certainly acted like a drug kingpin as the power of being one obviously went to his head. We can simple say the he searched the prison, you can't think to make illegal things for a long time and not be arrested... maybe if you know what you are doing (you can continue for a long time) but it seems that this is not the case. Yes, it is not a shame... if you make illegal things you will be mostly imprisoned... we are not in an anarchy  . |
|
|
|
Interestingly, after you started this thread, the user 'question 2' edited his post you quoted above and modified the BTC address. The address quoted in the post above is: 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97Yy1XAuEBut if you look at the post in question now, the address is: 12Ey8KPWPcv22VVUdZWCTQFZH97YyIXAuENotice that he has changed "1" to "I" He edited his post around 4 hours after you posted this thread. He probably noticed he was caught and tried to create a defence by editing the post but failed badly. That is another suspicious thing and in this case the situation is more aggravated. ... The reason is that1. Quickseller assumes and is assured of me being an alt of a scammer, so in a way he considers me to be a scammer. 2. He saw the address I posted many days back. But if he knew it was ndhnc's , he didn't bother posting about it till yesterday. In the normal scenario he is pretty quick on posting like this one, so I don't see any reason why he didn't post it a few days back . I feel he wanted to get rid of my requests to have negative trust removed , so he planted question2 posting that address. I have seen only QS doing such kind of research into every user. But there is also another possibility :
Fact is that he was too good of a btctalk member to try to scam, let alone for pocket change.
Anyone who thinks that extortionist created a new account to blackmail, and didnt bother to use newly generated address for dumb giveaway is not thinking straight.
I rest this case, seams that people want to blame no matter how dumb it seams.
ndhnc did manage the campaign. There is no one else who would research into alts of Joca, unless they have some sort of grudge against him, or have looked into his posting history, which probably ndhnc could do as he is known to check history of posters . The unique right thing we can do is : wait a reply from ndnhc but the blockchain transaction signed by those 2 address cannot be disputed (in no way). |
|
|
|
Well, as the title says, imagine if all those are kept in offline paper wallet which would be your preference in terms of ease of use and security. The advantage I can see having to manage 1 btc in 8 different addresses is that if let's say one of it ended up getting hacked or compromised, it's likely that the rest are still safe. Or if you lose one private key, you still have the other 7.
On the downside, what i can see is the hassle associated with managing 8 different private keys.
I'm sure there are other pros and cons. Your thoughts?
Personally, I keep a whole stash on a single paper wallet and just keep them in a safe place wherein I only know the location and I only have the access to it. Managing 8 different paper wallets is a difficult thing to do, because you must ensure the safety and security of each one of them Not to mention that there is also a possibility of misplacing and forgetting where you put one of them, so I guess it is better to keep one paper wallet at a time, just make sure that you have the full control, you have some security, and only you know the location where you put that important piece of paper. I prefer the contrary and I think it is 100th better to save & split 8 btc in eight address (1 btc each address). This is the nature of decentral. why I should put all my 'data' in one place, if I can split them in various place? |
|
|
|
hi guys
is there a seperate thread for avatar campaigns?
im still looking for a avatar campaign
No, it doesn't exist. Maybe someone should create it but at the moment there are only few avatar campaigns. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
