Someone proposed a flag for Earth, you could use that one. Anyway, I don't think bitcoin passes the criteria for this particular list: For the purposes of this list, only currencies that are legal tender, including those used in actual commerce or issued for commemorative purposes, are considered "circulating currencies". Currencies used by non-state entities, like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, scrips used by private entities, and other private and alternative currencies are not under the purview of this list. Thanks, do you know how to reference that flag within Wikipedia? As for the criteria, as you and I will both agree Bitcoin most certainly is legal tender and used in actual commerce. As for their determination of whether it should be considered without a "state entity" to back it, all I have to say is that just because it's "not allowed" now, doesn't mean it shouldn't be and the best way to start that discussion is by adding it to the list. In fact, if they take it down we should lobby them to have it added. E.g., It was once illegal for women or non-whites to own land or vote...and obviously the world thinking has evolved beyond those limitations and for the better. Wikipedia can evolve too... Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_EarthI was referring to the last one, the International Flag of the Planet Earth. http://www.flagofplanetearth.com/
|
|
|
Someone proposed a flag for Earth, you could use that one. Anyway, I don't think bitcoin passes the criteria for this particular list: For the purposes of this list, only currencies that are legal tender, including those used in actual commerce or issued for commemorative purposes, are considered "circulating currencies". Currencies used by non-state entities, like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, scrips used by private entities, and other private and alternative currencies are not under the purview of this list.
|
|
|
bitcoinxt.software is thrwoing warning for insecured HTTPS.
That's pretty common with Chrome, which browser are you using?
|
|
|
If it's software, in the USA you can apply for a patent, outside of USA there are no software patents.
If it's a game you can copyright it.
|
|
|
The dev team is necessarily centralised. When centralised is the only ideology that works, I'm in favour.
Pick your centralising influence: amorphous Core team or Mike Hearn's self described "benevolent dictatorship". Benevolent in respect of who, exactly?
Linux operates under that model and now is, probably, the most used operating system in the world, if you count Android as being Linux... Linux doens't need a consensus to prevent an potential colapse though... Yap, the implications are quite different, there are a shitload of Linux forks and that's ok, the more the merrier. Bitcoin developing/governance model is a concrete problem, it's curious how it only became obvious by now.
|
|
|
The dev team is necessarily centralised. When centralised is the only ideology that works, I'm in favour.
Pick your centralising influence: amorphous Core team or Mike Hearn's self described "benevolent dictatorship". Benevolent in respect of who, exactly?
Linux operates under that model and now is, probably, the most used operating system in the world, if you count Android as being Linux...
|
|
|
Just run the node, made it accessible from the outside and you're done.
|
|
|
I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now". Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys and support their plans and ideas.
Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.
Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.
|
|
|
I've been watching this for a few months, I think it's time to let it go, there's nothing to see here...
|
|
|
It is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.
As it isn't even indexed in google, I say it's worth the cost of registry.
|
|
|
Also, a great percentage of bitcoiners just don't spend their coins, or just spend when price increases a lot, we are waiting for it to go to the moon and cash out till next time.
|
|
|
I don't think that's true, when we see a big influx of new users is when the price increases a lot, media writes more about bitcoin, people see price increasing and wants to get in the train, when the price is low the usual players take the opportunity to increase their positions.
|
|
|
Dude, if the fork happens, it's because we chose to!
We are the 'attack'!
No recover is needed!
|
|
|
Satoshi never intended to a limit to exist, so what was his solution?
His solution was the 1MB blocks that we have today. He didn't have an ultimate solution, else this discussion wouldn't be happening. I support larger blocks, but I do not support XT. I see it as an attempt at a hostile take over of the blockchain. If XT "wins", then the firm of Hearn and Andresen basically takes ownership of the entire blockchain, as they retain the sole power to say what's in and what's out of XT. That doesn't sit well with me at all. It's that or Blockstream Core, and those guys have their own network to sell to the entire community...
|
|
|
Even more important, how will miners make money?
If they will be getting the transaction fees what's the incentive to mine?
easy: even with unlimited blocksize no miner is forced to include any transaction. he can just put the ones with enough fees in a block and ignore the rest: thats what i call a competive market! If people aren't able to transact easily, reliably and cheaply, what's the point of using bitcoin? If there are better ways to transact people will use better ways to transact and nobody makes money with bitcoin, that's the competitive market!
|
|
|
Even more important, how will miners make money?
If they will be getting the transaction fees what's the incentive to mine?
|
|
|
10 years ago, the average hdd was 1GB of capacity, today is close to 1TB! How can he proposes a 4MB limit in 10 years? Where is the logic for that?
The concerns of most devs has nothing to do with hard drive space but propagation time, bandwidth limits(especially upload) and mempool problems created by larger blocks. http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/Selfish miners
Selfish mining, is one such attack which was clearly explained in Satoshi’s paper as a possible weakness of Bitcoin. This entails a miner, who has a significant amount of hashing power, mining blocks but not publishing them, thereby creating a secret longer chain that the rest of the network does not know about, with the intent of broadcasting it later, and in doing so will reverse some transactions that may have already been confirmed on the public (but shorter) chain. This is the infamous double spend attack. Normally this can only be accomplished reliably when one possesses over 51% of the hashing power of the network. What most people don’t know is that network propagation is also a factor here. Satoshi admitted that his calculations on the percentage of hashing power in order to be able to pull off a 51% attack reliably assumes no significant network propagation delays. Indeed the danger of allowing block size to increase to the point where the expected delays in block propagation through the network has been discussed ad infinitum in the past, and the reason why the block debate has been ongoing since at least 2011.
In this regard, I can understand why Gavin feels that he must do something drastic to force the issue. The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit. They do not broadcast these transactions to the network unless they solve the block themselves, removing the possibility of paying miner fees to some other miner. If they manage to solve the block, they immediately broadcast all their spam txns and block solution. The other miners would have to drop what they are mining, and start downloading the new (very large) block (which may take some time) and verify it, which involves checking the validity of all contained transactions (which will take some more time). All this results in a appreciable head start that the attacking miner can enjoy in mining the next block. So what he has successfully done is increased his ‘effective’ hashing power giving him a slight edge over his competitors. Of course this is a game-theoretic problem, so we can assume that once one miner starts doing this, then either all miners will start doing this, as well (and make orphan blocks and double spends a lot more common) or band together to share high bandwidth connections/nodes (and push the system more towards a centralized one) both situations are bad for Bitcoin. So everyone can agree that too big of a block size would open up bitcoin to a certain type of fragility that has up until now, not been a problem.
Satoshi never intended to a limit to exist, so what was his solution?
|
|
|
How are they voting for 8MB?
|
|
|
|