http://www.quickcoin.co/nearbyP.S. IIRC, I saw another app which has similar concept but it is more like a game(similar to coinding). I can't find the link now!
|
|
|
|
Thanks! But I saw it earlier.  I prefer to support BIP 100 and not BIP 101. -snip- Are you aware, that I asked you a question to exactly that topic in another thread? Maybe you could answer it, instead of repeating the same statements over and over again. Done and I did not think I repeated statements again and again unless absolutely necessary. Did I? |
|
|
|
...
Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me?
The whole thing started long before Gavin joined XT. I don't really want to go into the whole history of this debate, since it started before I even joined Bitcoin. But I think, we can easily agree on, that there was no alternative plan to raise the limit in 2016. True but he went one trying enforcing BIP 101. But that wasn't even my question:
My question was: If consensus doesn't mean consensus of the core devs, what should be the action, if core devs don't listen to you? You can look at it as a theoretical question, so we don't waste time on trying to recap what happened before.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161315.msg12243511#msg12243511 |
|
|
|
It's clear now XT is destiend to disappear and the fork will not happen, thank god. It's also clear tho that alot of people want a bigger blocksize, but not arbitrary increases of the blocksize which all it does is exposing the network to all kind of attacks and things we don't even know because we would be in unknown territory. Yes for blocksize increase and yes for scaling up Bitcoin globally to beat VISA etc, but do it with common sense.
Thanks God that people are giving this BIP100 their full support. I was already worried for a second before this proposal didn't come out. Yes for the block size increase, I was for it from the first day but not the XT fork. This is where Gavin went wrong. If he got XT out only with bigger blocks and none of that other crap, this discussion would already be over. He wanted too much. consensus rules vs client code vs private keys three complete different things if you dont like "the other crap" just use a XT-fork which ONLY includes blocksize increase and nothing else. imho: xt did the only thing how any protocol change can get through after years of talking. just release code and wait what miners/users/economy do. No. XT includes many other things other than BIP 101. And no, they wanted to enforce BIP 101 rather than just bigger block size limit. |
|
|
|
-snip-
What about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream?
-snip-
What? Deleting P2P lightweight clients and smartphone wallets? There is NO way the Core developers can do that! You are very mistaken. I already gave a reply above. Quoting: |
|
|
|
...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.
Yes. This is a very valid point. Please read the BIP at least once. I have. Perhaps you can explain something about the following: "Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen." What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap. That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover). Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all? Why not use the median vote? Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 32 MB limit gives us more than enough time to find a better solution. It is not at all a serious issue. |
|
|
|
I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.
I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.
And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.
While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong. It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork. Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination. YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool. It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys. Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ? -snip- Have you checked whether whatever he said is true or not? What Hearn is talking about the blocking of P2P lightweight wallets is (probably) this -- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579. BlueMatt is the person who introduced bloom filtering. FWIW, that pull request is not at all blocking P2P lightweight clients, which is widely known as SPV clients, completely. P.S. If one of their true motives is to increase block size limit, then why are they trying to enforce BIP 101? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.msg12250669#msg12250669
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years?  Oh, not you Jonald!  You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right? People should really stop mixing things up ... You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source? What? Could we please focus on a subject? jonald_fyookball made a statement about lightning. Muhammed Zakir countered with a statement about sidechains. Regardless of if these statements are true or not, they are talking about 2 different technologies. You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake. |
|
|
|
My question is why? Aside from the few companies that recently signed a document, there is currently 0% support for BIP101 from the miners. I don't really see the point in pushing a BIP for which there is no support. There is more than 30% support for BIP100 though. Bitfury is now supporting it as well. Why does Gavin and Mike only want to support BIP 101? A result based on a mysterious calculation, 8 MB increment and henceforth, doubling. If they really want to support bigger block size limit, like all pro-XTs say, why can't they accept any other BIP which has got more support?  |
|
|
|
No! You loose! Address to receive 19 BTC is in my profile!  |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years? Oh, not you Jonald! You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. You were saying Core developers, who are also Blockstream developers, were stonewalling 1 MB limit for years and are continuing to do so. Which is a FUD/disinformation and is very different from "block size limit debate has been going on for years"! You support XT and assumes core developers are against raising block size limit especially because of Blockstream. Its okay but you are spreading your assumption and/or speculations as a "fact" everywhere. Propaganda? I don't know! You used to be a neutral diplomat and an accurate judge but its fading away! |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years? Oh, not you Jonald! You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. |
|
|
|
i want to add that Multibit charges extra fees (they are small but still) for every one of your transactions. so in fact it is not a free wallet. i myself am using Electrum. i find it way better.
This is disengenuous and a bit misleading, in my opinion. The bolded part makes it sound like the developers of Multibit are on the receiving end of that fee. They're not. Those are fees for the miners. The developer of Multibit has said that he wants to support less sophisticated users who don't have time to figure out the details of what went wrong if a transaction takes a long time to confirm. For that reason, he wants Multibit to always include a good fee in for fast confirmation times. You're right that Multibit doesn't give you as complete a control as other wallets, but that doesn't make the wallet non-free in any of the usual senses of this word regarding software. I'm not trying to discredit your preference for electrum---I just realized that electrum is in the debian repos these days, so that's very cool to me. I just it's unfair to call Multibit nonfree. He was telling about the dust(fees) charged per transaction in Multibit HD which goes to Multibit developers. Multibit Classic is not affected. https://multibit.org/blog/2014/04/11/multibit-hd-brit.html |
|
|
|
If you were to manually input transactions on my bitcoin-qt and put it on two computers and then get two computers to authorise the transactions due to how it is mined. Which would mean you were earning bitcoins by coding in transactions into blockchains which could be confirmed by computers through the mining process.
You mean double spending transactions? Even if you broadcast two transactions with same inputs, one will be rejected. If both are included in a block by a miner, then that block will be considered as invalid by all nodes following protocol, regardless of your node and miner's accepting it as valid block. |
|
|
|
what is mastercoin? never heard this before. can't see on the trex
who's te dev behind mastercoin?? what the special about master coin??
http://www.omnilayer.org/. It is similar to CounterParty. |
|
|
|
Amount:0.06 BTC
Collateral:My $17.8 value cloud mining account
Repayment Date: 1 Month
BTC Address: 1JBUrQQGAZQGmkjyPhDqH8Myn3HqyJ6zLf
Denied. |
|
|
|
I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.
Let me summarize for you:
Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.
Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks. Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him. Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.
True story.
This is not "true story" or "summary", this is FUD. - If core developers are against an increase, why is there BIPs such as 100 and 102? - There is nowhere in the paper telling they want to build sidechain on top of 1 MB limit. - Sidechain needs more size to exist. If the 1 MB exists, their project will die soon. - What does "artificially" mean in your 1 MB limit sentence? - XT just made this situation worse. -snip-
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.
-snip-
Could you please stop throwing this stupid fake mail around? Only a retard would think, that it came from Satoshi. Its not "who" posted it, I am telling about "what" is posted. We can not tell it is a fake nor can we tell it is legit. Everybody can fork Bitcoin, but it doesn't matter since nobody is forced to use their fork.
All Gavin did, was after years of debating the whole topic, finally providing code in a client, people can install.
No. What they did was actually wrong! No good solutions were found and they just implement a solution they found without any actual theory. What does finding consensus mean? It means persuading people about your idea. So, he couldn't persuade the other core devs and now a lot of people think it should have ended there? If that is true, than the definition of consensus is consensus of the core devs. You already answered that: -snip-
Consensus became such a stupid buzzword. It can mean many things, but I don't think, it really was meant as consensus of a handful of core devs.
Nope. So, when consensus doesn't mean, consensus of the core devs, what should have been the next step of Gavin? I'd really love to see your scenario. Not all core developers were against block size increase. They were strongly opposed to XT but I don't remember their posts opposing block size increase. Maybe you can enlighten me? |
|
|
|
i dont like faucet box it is just bullshit as far as i know...
but there are many faucet list out there created by people which offers more coins than faucetbox.
FaucetBox is not a list of faucets, it is a micropayment processor. Read before you write and try not to spam. |
|
|
|
Funny, I thought it would be icebreaker posting such pictures(see fine print in OP)
So, the conclusion is, that mods don't even care to answer to such a thread. Hey dickheads, anybody there? Are you too busy sucking theymos' cock?
Mods have replied to threads like these and they probably don't reply if somebody has posted valid points. No, I prefer the current policy of not banning someone over a single post (unless they are a newbie), only if the problem becomes a pattern.
Well, technically, insults are considered trolling, and trolling (on more than a few occasions) is a bannable offense.
-snip-
tl;dr -- if they ban users who insult, they will have to ban you too! -snip- ^fuck you noob/troll/shill.
-snip- Post deleted. You only need to report that post. It sometimes take a while before it get deleted. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
