If you a true Bitcoiner, you would piss on this idea.
...
Can't tell if you are trolling or if you are merely "no true Scotsman-ing" here. Bitcoin is a tool and can be used however one wishes. |
|
|
|
Just be aware that it is good practise to only use an address the once, as they are designed to be single-use tokens.
This is open for debate. This was something that satoshi said to do when QT was the only wallet service available. However since then many other wallet services have been created, many of which offer much greater coin control abilities I was referring to the ecdsa public key being revealed when an address is reused after being spent. This is irrelevant to the type of wallet used. Buffer Overflow is correct. |
|
|
|
|
What web site? Mining pool presumably.
|
|
|
|
Conversation: Person A: "Wow, look, that bird's flying really high up" Person B: "What is the alternative to the bird flying high up? Tell me the alternative, or shut up about birds flying high up" Person A: "Huh?"  Conversation: Person A: If we don't do something to change the way that bird is flying, it will die. Person B: People have suggested this before, do you have any evidence that it will die? What exactly do you propose? Person A: What is wrong with you? That bird is flying wrong. It's clearly going to die. Person B: I'm confused, how it is flying wrong? What should we do to correct it? Person A: Just stop posting. Clearly you are an evangelist for birds flying the wrong way. Person B: You aren't providing us with any useful information here. Person A: We are discussing how that bird is flying the wrong way and how it's going to die! Clearly you advocate birds flying the wrong way! Person B: Is everyone crazy? Person C: We are only having a discussion here. Person B: Yeah, but no one is actually discussing any of the points that have been made countless times in the past. Person C: So, you don't think we should be allowed to discuss this? Person B: Well... you aren't saying anything... Person C: Obviously you think we shouldn't be discussing this. Person B: I thought that's what I was doing when I was pointing out the fact that you aren't saying anything that hasn't been said a thousand times before. Person C: Everything is different now! These birds flying the wrong way are going to die! Person B: What should we do? Person C: Discuss it more! Person A: Pagan nut job bird flying the wrong way lover. Kokojie: Gavin must force everyone to fork Bitcoin to PoS. Sublime: We need units! It should be based on a basket of goods. Let me promise to pay you in the future in spare boat parts for your car. Person B: Yes, everyone is crazy, including me. Holliday is right. If you can't clearly specify the problem, clearly specify how the problem is different from what has been discussed numerous times already, and clearly specify the proposed solution, no developer is going to even listen to what you have to say. At worst you should specify some pseudo code if you can't actually code. When people say "fork the code" or be specific this is an invitation to be specific and put your time where your mouth is instead of expecting others to do so for you. You can say "the core developers need to do X (something vague)" and you will be completely ignored without specificity as above. No one wants to waste time re-arguing a point that has been discussed merely because someone new has brought it up. |
|
|
|
Rest in peace Hal, you and Satoshi left great heritage.
Nice bump. I was thinking about doing the same a couple hours ago but didn't have the words from the heart to justify doing such. Your words would suffice though, allowing me to chime in. I honestly believe he would've gotten a laugh outta my Popsicle jokes at his expense. Just think, for who knows how long he'll always be a cool guy. If the cryonics experiment works, perhaps we should say: I honestly believe he WILL GET a laugh outta my Popsicle jokes at his expense. Just think, for who knows how long he'll always be a cool guy. |
|
|
|
I legitimately want a fork of Bitcoin. I want to see direct competition between proof of work and proof of whatever (everything else remaining the same). Then, should my assumptions hold true, I will be able to refer to the failed proof of whatever fork whenever someone makes a new we-need-to-change-Bitcoin-now-or-it-will-die thread. If I'm wrong, I will happily eat crow. Plus, I would get to be part of the experiment. As a current holder, I will be able to do my part and vote for the chain of my choice by selling my new proof of whatever coins in the hopes of buying more actual bitcoins with the proceeds. I've been waiting for this to happen for a few years now. All we get are new threads.  That would work, only if the Bitcoin core developers endorse both chains and promise to give equal development attention to both. THEN we'll see which chain will win. Otherwise your proposal won't work, since current Bitcoin stakeholders will naturally choose the chain that has core developer endorsement and active development support. All you have to do is fork the code, fork the blockchain and go from there. Swap out the PoW code with PoS code, keeping it modular and you can piggyback on the Bitcoin Core updates. (Look at the "no-forced fee version of Bitcoin core" for an example of that). You aren't going to convince many (if any) of the "core developers" to switch to PoS when they have documented and discussed (publicly if you have been reading) the problems with it. It is incumbent upon the people/person who is saying there is a problem with PoW to (a) propose a solution and (b) implement the solution instead of trying to set conditions on people who are free to code as they want. If you throw the forked code and forked blockchain out there and can't convince people it is better, that isn't a problem with lack of support from developers, it is likely a problem with the model. |
|
|
|
pow or pos makes no difference. Coins cant be mined into existence. That won't work. Coins need to be issued into existence from trusted parties.
Trusted by whom? You? Me? Who do you trust? Exactly. Some of the people of Venezuela trusted Chavez. I certainly did not. Many trusted Hitler, many did not. Many trusted Mao, many certainly did not. Many trusted Clinton or Bush etc. Who do you trust? Why do you think that everyone has to agree to trust a single person or party? Bitcoin avoids the need to trust anyone except the code and the math. That is its virtue. |
|
|
|
The point is people shouldn't make money or get rich from mining, as that obviously leads to centralization. (just my OPINION - Holiday relax)
The TXFEE's should be based on a PERCENTAGE not a FIXED amount -- that is one of the biggest flaws IMHO that Satoshi missed :p Fix that and then reward miners with TXfees only (which is eventually the end game) "Miners are the guardians of the public trust" and absolutely deserve some compensatation for their service -dvd Miners can pick the fees and include transactions in blocks based on their own criteria. Free transactions are includable by some miners. Anyone can include any transaction in a block whether it includes a fee or not. If some thinks that people should not "make money" from mining, mine (or create a pool) that only includes free transactions. No one is stopping you, you just have to convince others to join you or buy enough hash power to do so yourself. If that is not palatable to you, why do you think it would be palatable to others? Without any incentive (e.g. to make money) to mine, who will mine? If no one mines, what happens to the network? The solution here is if you think something is broken, grab the code, fork it, and fix it. Then see if others agree with you. Discussing it here does absolutely nothing to fix these (supposed) flaws. Miners and pools can use fixed fees, percentage fees or whatever criteria they want. That is the beauty of bitcoin, Satoshi doesn't fix fees, bitcoin core doesn't fix fees - anyone can set fees themselves, just grab the code and do it how you think it should be done, create a pool and get people who agree to join you. |
|
|
|
We know there is a problem and there is nothing we can do to fix it. From here either abandon ship and move to altcoins that address this issue or live on with it. Sadly that is the *fact*
You think there is a problem and there have been no suggestions in this thread on what to do to fix this supposed problem. FTFY. If POW is an issue (and many people who know the code would strongly disagree), what is the option? PoS? The problems with PoS are well documented. |
|
|
|
The Internet has centralized DNS, which is how the Chinese govt. (and western ones too) 'controls' it ....
Yeah. With namecoin and other TLDs based on sidechains or namecoin clones they will lose some of that control. I just thought the article was interesting in terms of how totalitarians control people. |
|
|
|
In the year 2000, Bill Clinton famously quipped that trying to control the internet in China would be like "trying to nail Jello to a wall".
Fourteen years later and, for the most part at least , the Chinese government has managed to pull off what was then deemed impossible and make it stick.
The same phenomenon is repeating itself with the latest digital disruptor de jour, the crypto-currency bitcoin.
Many analysts believe bitcoin is at around the same level of development and recognition as the internet was when Clinton made those remarks.
Recognising the game-changing economic upside to the internet, the Chinese government accepted it, but on its own terms. Bitcoin has followed a similar logic.
... read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/10/30/china/china-has-nipped-bitcoin-bud |
|
|
|
...
I was just bringing up that point -- none of this really applies to open source implementations.
In theory. But look at heartbleed, shellshock, Ken Thompson's self-referencing Unix C compiler, perhaps truecrypt etc. Open source does not imply that one is safe. It certainly is helpful to verify that there are not back doors, but if you don't have enough people looking at it and security audits, well hidden bugs or intentional backdoors are easy to miss. Obfuscated code that has intentional vulnerabilities can be difficult to spot. Consequently, it is important to bring up vulnerabilities like this and discuss them - I'm glad you mentioned it.  |
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I'm experiencing issues with Bitcoin-Core 64-bit on Windows 7. I have used the command line argument -datadir=H:\AppData\Bitcoin to download the blockchain to my external HDD. This has been working fine. All of a sudden, the software says "Synchronising with network. . ." and is working veeeeeery slooooooowly. Overnight, it's gone from approximately 1 year 25 weeks behind to 1 year 10 weeks behind. Any idea what I should do?
How much memory do you have on the machine? Perhaps you are connected to a slow peer? How is your external drive connected? USB? [Edit:post above me that suggested this was removed:] You no doubt know, but Blockchain support wouldn't be appropriate here since this is Bitcoin core, not blockchain.info. |
|
|
|
|
I agree. All it needed was "drugs" and "child porn" and it would be complete. ;-)
The supposed ancient Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
