No, sir. Your jealous comments are amateurish at best.
My software might not have been tested as much as satoshi's code base, but its proven to be working very well, has an excellent performance and it's very easy to work with because of its brilliant architecture.
Who exactly was talking about your software? Classic deflection. Plus, most of all, it would not have accepted a block with a transaction that spends the same input twice, nor crash upon it. Which is what all this thread is about.
Lucky. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that what we're observing here is central planers trying to defend their monopoly.
If you believe that there are central planers and a monopoly, then you don't understand Bitcoin. And the fact that central planners have been stating for quite long that they "don't care about miners" is most likely only going to accelerate the process.
Miners are often idiots and don't decide anything (they shouldn't anyways). So if Bitcoin is here to stay, new implementations coming into existence are inevitable.
Many have tried. this is given that you completely ignore that any attempt at a secondary implementation so far has been amateurish at best.
And no matter how much you'd want to, you can't stop anyone from running a compatible yet alternative implementation of a bitcoin node.
If you want to, then you're free to swim in second-grade garbage.  |
|
|
|
I know this is probably the last argument most people want to hear, but is this not a case where more independent implementations would result in less risk?
No. This is nonsense that has been pushed by those actively trying to co-opt the network (or propagated by trolls such as franky). Sure, it would be beneficial to have some competition on e.g. the p2p code but that's about it. More implementations as a side-effects can (and undoubtedly will) lead to even more problems, which will most certainly be harder to solve once multiple node implementations of the network start disagreeing due to whatever reason (be it a bug in this case). <- this is given that you completely ignore that any attempt at a secondary implementation so far has been amateurish at best. Multiple implementations *increase* risk.
^ Someone on IRC was pointing out the rather disappointing number of bitcoin sites that were currently managing to expose the bitcoind rpc to the public internet.  Sadly, yes. Project idea: a open-source, complete web implementation (frontend and whatnot). Back on topic, I think there's two sets of Core users: those who run their node and rarely update it, and the more enthusiastic ones who keep up with upgrades. It might make sense to have a LTS version with more thoroughly tested and vetted consensus critical code (that's proven itself), and a regular version. I think more choice and flexibility could be useful here.
LTS version adoption would make it significantly harder to do a fork bugfix/upgrade whenever it gets needed though. |
|
|
|
new contender
new contender
new contender
new contender
new contender
Classical pajeet move, insinuate some malicious nonsense when you get caught.  |
|
|
|
i personally do run my own node and it has not crashed and does not have that bug and it's my own code. because i did not use c++, thus i did not just copy and paste it from core.
it was wrote from scratch and does validate transactions and does validate blocks and relays transactions and blocks but i say this
If it was based on any newer Core version it would have the bug. Sounds like you are clearly lying. Where is this magical implementation? If you were pro-diversity, you'd publish the code. Hint: You aren't; you are just a pathetic troll.
Wind_FURY please stop indulging the idiot. |
|
|
|
1) No account links. 2) No quoted/archived sources of addresses. Definitely he is a millionaire from BTT because he made tons of ethereum from bounties and it is not possible with 14 accounts I think,maybe 100 accounts more on his hold so some one need to find all those alts and tag him.
He is not a millionaire, he is a large-scale thief that is ripe for jail. |
|
|
|
Yesterday the rules about Merit changed. Now, If you want to participate in Signature Bounty at least, how a Junior Member you would have to have 1 Merit. Many people, who was selling Bitcointalk's accounts lost their subject of earnings. The team of Bitcointalk lost 2-3 BTC per day, for accounts from IP with proxybans. It's very sad. I have 90 posts and Newbie... I lost my Signature. A lot of people lost their Signatures. In many Youtube bounties, i have participated in, I lost my tokens, because they need rank on the forum from Junior Member. Thank you..
Which team and which accounts? Please list them all. |
|
|
|
Merit system is not introduced for spending on shitposts. That's what the user did (IMO) and I strongly believe that he has abused the system.
Your belief is wrong. /thread end. |
|
|
|
|
Tman's 'fuck off' post is more worth than 95% of the garbage in this dump. This will less less frequent/obvious once the amount of abuse, whining and whatnot has tackled. Non-issue. Just an FYI, if you try to restrict users (i.e. change this) most of them will just stop participating at all since it isn't worth the trouble.
|
|
|
|
And it is already being used by this idiot to spread propaganda: I have consistently and repeatedly criticized hubris and arrogance in the most prominent Core developers, and done so since 2013, when the bullshitting around the 1MB block size limit started. Here we have an optimization that talks about avoiding “duplicate” validation like validation is nothing to worry about, an afterthought in Bitcoin almost.
The fact that I could have gone and rented hash power and shorted BTC and exploited this. But also the fact that I did not!
We should thank him for not breaking the law? 
He can't face the fact that he is significantly less competent than even the least competent Core developers. That's his problem. He's a sad, bitter and definitely pathetic, developer (based off of this article) who got a little lucky.  |
|
|
|
-snip-
It found 2 viruses after installation of this new version.
Those are not viruses, those are false positives. Most AV programs are essentially scams FYI. |
|
|
|
And btw, Lauda, since you are a member of an "Escrow Team" like stated here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1938190 could it be, that it is for your interest that you nuke my/our reputation down cause we just started an Escrow Service on our own? I think yes! That case is pretty clear. Time to get Mods involved! 0 history of valid trades and "this user's email address was changed recently" = "escrow service"? Classic pajeet. Solely my discretion.
There have been instances in the past where I deleted a negative after only one or two days.
In other cases, it took as long as three years.
I tend to go over my trust ratings from time to time, look into their respective references, look up an up-to-date post history of the rated user and make up my mind.
It helps if you keep reminding me of doing so after a while (say, a month or two), but please refrain from bugging me constantly about it, that'd just be annoying and might actually lead to a less favorable outcome.
There is no reason to revoke your rating on these two users, especially not if they are providing an "escrow service". This just transformed from a 'merit abuse' to a 'high risk' case. |
|
|
|
I can say with certitude because I have been following this project since day one that it is not fraudulent..
-snip-
The project is a joke at best, and a scam at worst. Anyone using shills to pump their project -> project is fraudulent. Get off of your self-entitled, greedy "this project is great because it I believe it will make me rich" bullshit. You can probably untrust me now because I said something you didnt like, just like in a real community with interesting values.
You said something that is objectively misinformation. |
|
|
|
We have issue here, this is what happened & it is allowed, as described in official thread. It's 100% logically permitted by rules.
With that statement you have just admitted to what you did. Whether rules or not allow it is irrelevant.  |
|
|
|
Would have been wiser not to reveal how it can be exploited, because it will take a while for nodes to upgrade.
As soon as it was patched publicly, anyone with some understanding of the protocol and codebase knew how to exploit it. Therefore, revealing is a direct consequence of patching. That false to true change alone didn't tell that. The github comments did. Anyway, I guess for the sake of transparency it's a good thing and it will just motivate people to upgrade faster if someone does exploit it so not such a big deal. It did. Read the bolded part. Please go away from this thread and refrain from creating more misleading posts. |
|
|
|
Would have been wiser not to reveal how it can be exploited, because it will take a while for nodes to upgrade.
It would have been wiser to keep your mouth shut. As soon as it was patched publicly, anyone with some understanding of the protocol and codebase knew how to exploit it. Therefore, revealing is a direct consequence of patching. |
|
|
|
As I said to another user, this means nothing to me and you can give as many negative reputations as you wish, you are only damaging bitcointalks image...not mine.
Enough of your bullshit; you and your project are fraudulent and you deserve to be removed from the forum. |
|
|
|
Just check the posts of these accounts here on Bitcointalk.
-snip-
After digging a little bit, I am 100% sure, that these 4 accounts belong to the same person.
You need to quote your sources for the addresses and archive them. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure why a thread was opened against this specific user but there are tons of similar threads in the Digital Goods/Services sections which offer exact same services. @Op, you should probably check them out and get them tagged as well.
That's a non-argument. At any given point in time, there is an overwhelming amount of users that need to be tagged (but still aren't). If you have free time and are willing to, compile a list and post it here. |
|
|
|
Don't worry, I'll leave the forum, you've done your job.
You've said this already yet done the opposite. You seem to be a liar. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
