Classic code has been available for compilation and test for a few days. It is not an official 'release' ( but is probably what will be the rc) These are the nodes (like mine) which show up in bitnodes. Release dates to follow. |
|
|
|
ohnoes! 365  I think my brain just bled a little into my nose.  Thats just a capacity issue. Stupid big-brainer fudders (like NatureClassic) think the solution is to simply eveolve a bigger head, but BrainStream tm have the solution: We simply remove the parts of your brain you dont really need everyday, and cleverly move them to your anus, where they can grow to whatever size you need. This gives you an effective increase in your thought capacity of up to 1.75x. No more bleeding into your nose! ( not that you will be aware of it, anyway) |
|
|
|
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project). Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it. ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.  I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it. Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food. Nah, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was the other fool's rant I was aiming at. |
|
|
|
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it. ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra. And look at that picture and your comment.  (some forum members are so stupid that they basically troll themselves) I think I will call you @autotroll from now on.  Just quoting it to see it again. segwit hides such a multitude of sins...  |
|
|
|
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project). Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it. ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra. |
|
|
|
Can someone ELI5 why its important for us to have more non-mining nodes in China?
No reason whatsoever that I can see. There is no reason either for a chinese miner to have their nodes in China at all. Could just as easily be hosted on VPS outside the GFC. |
|
|
|
I haven't perused that list for quite some time. It makes for some enlightening reading. 1876 nodes in the US. 96 in China. 3 in the whole of India. Malta has more. I'd say the low number of reported chinese nodes is due to the version message from bitnodes.21.co:0.1/ not getting through the GFC or the response timing out. Im sure the ones that do respond are cleverly proxy'ed. |
|
|
|
[angry stuff goes here...]
Feeling a little strange inside/ A little Dr. Jekyll/ A little Mr. Hyde Its all just a shadow play |
|
|
|
The only way people would pay fees is if miners started declining free or near-zero-fee txs for processing, (or fees were enforced by the protocol or something). But if that happened, you don't get to spam for near-zero cost or zero cost.
Gee, what a good idea. Amazing how its never been thought of before in Bitcoin..... 2016-01-30 21:35:33 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:42 receive version message: /bitnodes.21.co:0.1/: version 70002, blocks=395848, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=109
2016-01-30 21:35:51 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:35:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:04 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:07 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: nonstandard transaction: dust
2016-01-30 21:36:37 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:38 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:50 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:36:55 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:10 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:13 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:29 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:35 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:49 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:54 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:37:59 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:00 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:05 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:19 receive version message: /Satoshi:0.8.6/: version 70002, blocks=275686, us=109.78.0.155:8333, peer=110
2016-01-30 21:38:19 Added time data, samples 55, offset +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:19 nTimeOffset = +0 (+0 minutes)
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:20 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:21 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:25 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
2016-01-30 21:38:26 ERROR: AcceptToMemoryPool: free transaction rejected by rate limiter
|
|
|
|
I don't see something that one can directly reply to. The only two points that somewhat make sense right now are 'routing' and 'recipients being online'. The article is based on uncertainty and not technicalities.
 |
|
|
|
You have raised no technical issue, you have just linked to an article that someone else wrote.
I could go back and link my post of the 5 issues that you and sbbett replied to, but I have a feeling that I would be wasting my time. Its like arguing with a goldfish. |
|
|
|
The issue is you having the temerity to believe yourself qualified to comment on their level of knowledge. You are attempting to defend a technical issue, but you come across as not having a clue.
There is no issue and of course I'm qualified enough. You can take two different approaches here: 1) Look at studies that provide numbers of the general knowledge; 2) Asses the situation yourself. I don't have to defend anything and am definitely more informed than people of your caliber. 1. Pieter Wuille
2. Sipa
(Yes, Lauda, I have seen your contributions on IRC)
You've started trolling (i.e. breaking the rules). I have only had interactions with this developer a few times where he answered a few questions (which were often not directed at him). I barely use IRC on those channels (thus also trolling). You accused me of an ad-hom when calling you out for labeling anyone who questions core as an uninformed fool. Yet you still failed to adress any technical issues raised. I'd class responding to a post with less than usefull content as a form of trolling. Its a matter pf perspective. I [..] am definitely more informed than people of your caliber I think this statement summarizes your attitude perfectly. |
|
|
|
I haven't read yet about the connection of Blockstream and PwC. Are PwC financing Blockstream? If so then what's the problem?
You can read about it here. There's no problem with it; the only people who have a problem with this are either shills, or they are trying to spread propaganda for whatever reason, or biased (fighting against them?). Why should once care about this any more than for some other random partnership with a Bitcoin startup?  You didnt even address his issue - "Are PwC financing Blockstream?" Allow me: No, PwC dont 'finance' people. They are a consulting firm who will partner with service providers and deliver these services to their clients ( or just recommend them) However, PwC will often match up companies in need of finance with those willing to offer it. Is it a bad thing for bitcoin? Hard to tell. PwC tend to act on behalf of - and for the benefit of - the very industries bitcoin was hoping to compete with ( or at least provide an alternative) |
|
|
|
So your answer is ad hominem?
It's perfectly reasonable to reply with an ad hominem when you talk down to the community like that. You threw logic out of the window when you went down that path. Bro, how can he not talk down to this ignorant community when the yokels refuse to deffer to his [albeit only self-proclaimed] expertise? Do you even Gaem Theorie? Laudas 2 favorite core developers ( in no particular order) 1. Pieter Wuille 2. Sipa (Yes, Lauda, I have seen your contributions on IRC) |
|
|
|
It's perfectly reasonable to reply with an ad hominem when you talk down to the community like that. You threw logic out of the window when you went down that path.
So you're saying that the majority of the community has good IT knowledge? I said nothing wrong, it is well known that the majority of the people in general have very limited knowledge. The problem here is that people are living in denial. Once you call them out on it, they attack you. Just the toxicity of the ecosystem (which was definitely not present until these takeover attempts appeared and Blockstream suddenly became "evil"). The issue is you having the temerity to believe yourself qualified to comment on their level of knowledge. You are attempting to defend a technical issue, but you come across as not having a clue. Your "You dont understand it, let the 'informed' ones take care of it because technical" is annoying. |
|
|
|
Exactly. While there are some engineering challenges to be solved nobody informed is seriously concerned with path finding. Also people could develop their own version of LN with everything listed there being "fixed". That's where the problem lies.
You bet - they dont seem concerned one bit with promoting an incomplete concept as a defined solution. Many of the changes being forced into Bitcoin *today* are supposed to be required to enable LN - but as you have stated above we are nowhere near knowing exactly how it is going to do what it does. In telecoms we call what LN is trying to do "correlation" - i.e taking high frequency, low value traffic and generating lower volume, high value data streams instead. The methods proposed by Blockstream so far, while not impossible, are far from optimal and will prove an absolute bugger to deploy. But why all the "we must do X now so that LN will work"? Most people in this community have no skills or skills that are mostly useless and thus we just see them make hyperbolic complaints (out of boredom maybe?).
I'd contend that your comment is more a reflection of your own ignorance than the alleged ignorance of anyone taking the time to look into it and voice a concern. |
|
|
|
I absolutely second that. What fundamental flaws?
Apparently he meant this article: I'm too tired to analyze all parts of the article. Let me just point 1 thing out: What I’m not for, however, is prematurely deprecating critical parts of bitcoin (zeroconf transactions and low transaction fees)
The author works under the premise that these transaction are fundamental parts of Bitcoin. The right description would be: "these are dangerous, and you shouldn't use them, because you will lose money, and people who know better will laugh at you".
I will get back to this, but even if these points are true they sure aren't 'fundamental flaws'. His views on 0-conf and fees are orthogonal to a discussion on LN. Address the issues around: - How it will avoid centralization when the only likely working model will be hub and spoke.?
- Why transact on main chain at all if payment channels can be settled (effectively) channel to channel?
- How are routes going to be found in real time unless they are for common/recurrent payments?
- How are routes going to persist? Or should they?
- How long will funds need to be tied up on main chain to support single/multiple channels?
|
|
|
|
When someone quotes the annotations from the Catholic Bible, spit and yell in his ear: "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men!!1!" Well brother, temporal duties and payments exacted by worldly Princes must be paid. By the time miners get paid, Princes get feck all..... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.
You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see. try thisThe [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in Where did this quote come from? I see nothing but nonsense. From here |
|
|
|
The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
