That's if you actually believe that Gavin & Mike are not government agents trying to break Bitcoin which a good case can be made for..
It seems more likely the government agents are on the other side if anything http://pastebin.com/4BcycXUu |
|
|
|
Why use your mycelium wallet anyway if you're not planning on storing it there long term?
Not that there's anything wrong with Mycelium. There just may be a better way to achieve your aims.
By which I mean, for example, if you want to receive funds and you want to use a QR code, you could generate a new key in your destination wallet and add it as a watch-only address on mycelium (or print out the QR code if you'd prefer but using mycelium this way would let you watch the confirmations). |
|
|
|
Thanks for all of your reply guys. I will use Mycelium since my phone is not rooted I think its safe for me to use, I don't have plant to store my btc on Mycelium wallet since I will transfer it on my main wallet and sell it. Maybe I can use Trezor in the future if I plan to keep my btc's for a long time.  Why use your mycelium wallet anyway if you're not planning on storing it there long term? Not that there's anything wrong with Mycelium. There just may be a better way to achieve your aims. |
|
|
|
python ./run_p2pool.py RPC_USER RPC_PASS RPC user and pass always set, it may work without it on localhost, will give it a try when I get a chance. Hmm, what do you see when you do a 'ps -ef' ? |
|
|
|
Interesting feature, P2Pool requires -rpcpassword to be explicitly set, so it will have no effect.
Don't think so. I don't use it. I'm pretty sure it reads it from bitcoin.conf if it's not set explicitly. BITCOIND_RPCUSERPASS bitcoind RPC interface username, then password, space-
separated (only one being provided will cause the
username to default to being empty, and none will
cause P2Pool to read them from bitcoin.conf) |
|
|
|
Solution will come in due time. Unlike what Gavinco would like you to believe there is no rush.
If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.
See you weren't so wrong. The proper "we" will take action and the ones left in the dust will be Mike & Gavin.
I'm fine with that if it happens. |
|
|
|
 The "we" you're referring to is the crowd. The "we" you represent doesn't have a say in this issue  Stupid analogy. It's more like wanting to remove the 72mph governor while everyone else is wanting to add spoilers, huge bass amps and hydraulic suspension |
|
|
|
Just ran across this and wanted to make sure any developer was aware. It's not likely to affect me but could save some tears... rpc: Implement random-cookie based authenticationhttps://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6388 |
|
|
|
There is no need for bigger block size. There is no need to increase the size of blocks every time we get near the limit. There is no need for free money transfers for everyone. Everything that is free for the users but not free for the manufacturers will be abused in every possible way. That is a basic rule for every economy!!! Blockchain will be cluttered with spam and bitcoin will become worthless. Everyone should get accustomed to the idea that they have to compete with higher fees to get included in a block. XT altcoin gives no solution to this at all. It just kicks the can down the road in the most irresponsible way!
That is absolutely your opinion and you're entitled to it. Other people feel differently. Fortunately, the Bitcoin protocol provides for a way for such differences to be settled that really doesn't call for lies, personal attacks and much of the other stuff that has been going on. |
|
|
|
log everyone's IPs, blacklist and block tor?
thank to let me know, I will never use XT and will always fight it
Please take the time to educate yourself. That is almost a total misrepresentation of the facts. |
|
|
|
Have I got my facts straight?
The XT devs want bigger blocks which increase at a humungous rate each year, to log every user's IP for blacklisting purposes, and to disable Tor use for wallets.
The core devs want to implement something called the Lightning Network and sidechains.
Are there any devs left who just want to increase the block size to 8MB and not tamper with anything else?
The XT guy also released the code for core with just the large blocks patched. It is not released as a compiled or supported version though. |
|
|
|
Or a half decent solution come out of the core team that addresses the need for bigger blocks but doesn't fork the network, raise the block size so large the spam bloat on the chain will render it humongous or move us from a team of core devs to two mavericks.
Would absolutely love for the core dev team to get on-board with bigger blocks and I'm sure most other people would too. Now that their bluff has been called, maybe we'll see them implement something. |
|
|
|
XT'ers shouldn't be lobbying miners directly. They should first lobby the node operators, then the exchanges and payment processors. If they win those two battles the miners will follow.
Many mining pools have already indicated they want bigger blocks. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll see a switch to XT but if we start seeing the higher block version numbers increasing in number, it could start a rush to XT. |
|
|
|
Are you saying that there are pictures of Jeff and Gavin in their underpants?
I've seen England, I've seen France... |
|
|
|
|
Under controlled conditions, no league of legend ping time problems. Must have been Comcast being crappy.
|
|
|
|
i thought its a protest against this whole fork-mess
Nope, I'm actually quite on-board with that, whoever wins. (I have an opinion but maybe I'm wrong). |
|
|
|
YaY! Another 2 blocks within 24 hours........  Dang. Curse League of Legends. |
|
|
|
what's the blue thing below explanation in the chartguy's posts?
It's a protest at the censorship going on over on Reddit. |
|
|
|
I have never run a full node, the only knowledge I have of the experience is from posts by others here. Spider-Carnage said his computer took about 4 days to index the blockchain, and I have heard others complaining of longer durations. I have sometimes read posts by the operators of exchanges saying Bitcoin withdrawals will be delayed for hours while they reindex their Bitcoin wallet. If this problem is ignored such delays will get longer. It would be better to deal with the problem before things get any worse, and if it's possible to fix it and make running a full node as effortless as syncing your icloud account then more people will start running full nodes to help the network.
The blockchain does take a long time to download and index. It did when I first downloaded qt three years ago and it takes a hell of a lot longer now. It's long even when I haven't been running it for a week (which is why I'm moving to running it full time on a separate server). If an exchange is down for long periods of time for reindexing, however, that is just shitty exchange design. |
|
|
|
He also released a fork of core with just the big blocks patched. that's the version I'll be running.
Sort of. There is a code base with only the big block bits, with some caveats: [...] the program you get by compiling that branch calls itself Bitcoin Core, even though it isn't. Distributing a program that uses the brand name of that project whilst including changes the developers disagree with seems kind of like a dick move to me; and if Bitcoin Core was a trademark it'd also cause legal issues.
So that's why Bitcoin XT has a separate brand.
Now, that problem can be easily resolved by inventing yet another new name, adapting the XT rebranding patch, and then setting up that new alternative brand with its own website, etc. But it turns out to be a lot of work to do that, especially if you want builds for every platform, gitian reproducibility, code signing etc. I don't have the energy to do it all twice over. If someone else wants to though, go for it.
[- Mike Hearn] Hmm. Wonder what's involved in the rebranding. I'd probably be willing to share but I hadn't thought of the rebranding and it would be Linux only (probably). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
