Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan
Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin. |
|
|
|
As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such. But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud. As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example: Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch. However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains Also you are clearly wrong about the blockstream guys too with this quote: (Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable. As Napoleon would say...) They do understand bitcoin more than you will ever do, but the difference between them and Gavin is that they want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?
5 pages for a retard subject...good job!
|
|
|
|
|
Is this "BITMAIN launches 4th generation Bitcoin mining ASIC: BM1385" or "Let's have bigger blocks discussion" ?
|
|
|
|
If this is the case, I would say that most of the exchanges will freeze their operations for a day or two until this mess doesn't get sorted out.
And voluntary refuse to earn a day or two worth trading fees (which likely be 2-3 times higher than usually)? Operating on the both blockchains looks as a much better decision. This is what I was thinking too. Exchanges can be fork-neutral and they could offer services on both or more blockchains until they reach a limit when they cease to offer services on a particular blockchain. 1) This raises really big issues with future Hard Forks. For example - what happens if the China Miners/Exchanges decide to go a different route from Western Miner/Exchanges. Could the Bitcoin Supply split again? Because once things get more globally accepted and Bitcoin a more global currency - I can see potential future politically motivated Hard Fork divergencies. I mean - if Gavin & Mike can do it - surely China or the U.S. or Europe could do it?? As pointed out earlier - kind of blows the whole fixed supply concept. No problem there! It will still be better than our traditional financial system of printing money! It will still be a fixed supply and it will be more transparent than what we have now. Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch. However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains;. Thus they will not be able to "see" the two altcoins. When one of those transactions, by accident, turns out to be valid for only one chain, the client will either not notice ever, or will get confused, and maybe end up with his wallet in an inconsistent state, maybe even lose coins. The Bitcoin CEO will save us all! Well, right now the 5 largest miners (who have ~70% of all hashpower) could cooperate to starve all the other miners, and take 100% of the block rewards intead of just 70%. Or they could do much nastier things.
Don't forget that the system is built to incentivize playing honestly by the rules! They can do that, but the market will react for sure. |
|
|
|
For the lazies: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/17/bitcoin.pdfThese negotiations resulted in a Statement of Work (“SOW”) agreement, executed on July 1, 2013. Id. at ¶ 26. According to that agreement, the design for the G1 chip was not scheduled to “tape-out,” or be completed, until September 15, 2013, at the earliest. Id. Barber and deCastro were also informed by Uniquify that the time between “tape-out” of the G1 chip and a finished product would exceed two months, even under an expedited production schedule. Id. Based on that timeline, the HashFast Entities were aware they would not be able to provide Baby Jets to customers until mid- November, 2013. Id. at ¶ 27.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg3037517#msg3037517HashFast's Golden Nonce GN ASIC successfully taped-out yesterday, Wednesday the 28th, and has been released for 28nm fabrication to a well-known, leading-edge foundry. More details will follow in next week's joint press release.
Also Judge Edward Davila [...] approving the claim that HashFast violated the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) – which prohibits "acts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair or fraudulent" – and additional allegations of fraud. A big FU towards Icetard! |
|
|
|
Nice achievement! Grats. Edit: Nice reference towards 21e6  |
|
|
|
|
Please add the ability for an SPV wallets to chose their connect-to-nodes somehow in case of a hardfork!
While this may pose as a security thread for malicious use I would like to know and to personalize the use of mycelium or breadwallet if Bitcoin will hard fork.
|
|
|
|
The latest development is that we are moving on to the A3 ASIC and A4 ASIC design already. Both in 14nm and already taped out with over 60% power saving over the 28nm generation. Anyone interested in those are free to contact us. I guess we are the 1st to move to 14nm at this point and we are confident A3 and A4 are both gonna work great. I think we are around 3 months away from the first final products, but they seem to be real. |
|
|
|
whole thing stinks.
Ohaithere! Welcome to bitcointalk.org's Bitcoin Securites forum where trolls, shills, early adopters, pumpers, scammers, thieves, liars, idiots, misers, investors, divestors, and more run rampant. A truly fine example of an unregulated free market at its worst best! You forgot the reasonable realistic ones! |
|
|
|
To all the people posting pre-announce messages, please don't. Messages without any content preannouncing a future review are just advertising and of zero substance. Please only post once you have something to post.
Thank you! |
|
|
|
Hey I'm late to the parteh! Hello rikkie. I'm not interested in any freebies, I'm interested in the technical specs. Power Supply: Included - 3 x 1600 W 0.6W/GHs What PSUs will you supply? Power Efficiency: 0.6W/GHs Is this nominal efficiency? |
|
|
|
It's been a while since I have been around, I am still running Spoondoolies SP30's from the buy that Roadstress setup a while ago. I drop in occasionally but this is the first hardware I thought I would have a look at in a long while but I like to have a quick check of what is going on. Thanks for joining that GB! |
|
|
|
No Trezor for me until I have Armory integration with multiple wallets.
Oh, and manually choosing inputs too.
Ente
This deserves a donation! No, no trezor for me, not even donated! :-P (The new wallet format has to launch first for trezor integration, which is in the works already. Yes, let's donate some to the Armory team: https://bitcoinarmory.com/contact/) Ente I was talking about a donation to the Armory team too |
|
|
|
No Trezor for me until I have Armory integration with multiple wallets.
Oh, and manually choosing inputs too.
Ente
This deserves a donation! |
|
|
|
Following the BurtW thread I am noticing that DnT has gone missing. I hope he isn't in the same position as BurtW. Last Active: April 22, 2015, 02:53:28 PM Anyone? |
|
|
|
I am glad to see you free and posting Good luck from now on! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
