Advantage list (in random order):

- Tone116 mined a bunch of them while diff was very low

that's all I have for now

Disclaimer: I'm just being sarcastic, I have nothing against TRC and try hard to support it as much as I can, as I do with all altchains where people most strongly behind them aren't complete dicks.

Even better! So the people that in theory are the ones losing out from all this have the power to do something about it!

A new kind of poll is born, a client that does filtered relaying where the user can opt as to what kind of filtering to apply gives that user a vote. Then it is not just he said, she said, it's actually measuring user opinion.

But having clients decide on their own relay rules opens a whole new can of worms, of course, and will ultimately open a new angle of attack against bitcoin stability. It does present an interesting case, perhaps worth discussing further.

Banning is such a strong word, though. If a majority of miners would in fact refuse such transactions other smaller miners would start getting a lot of orphans and would be forced to either reduce their blocksize drastically or starts filtering out what goes in to their mined blocks. But that's only if the majority of miners sees that as a good thing for the network and their bottom line, no?

I mean, one of the most beautiful things about bitcoins, and one of the most criticized features of it at the same time is the lack of an appointed central authority, but majority still rules the chain.

Of course, I knew that from my first read of the documentation... thank you for pointing out just how spread I am

@JoelKatz with the db fix mentioned in the issue I opened everything works great, thank you!

To infinity and beyond!

Now, a small doubt on workflow; I submit a payment for which no trust line exists, I assume this transaction never gets submitted to a ledger, right? At least I could not find my test one. The issue I'm having is one of atomicity, where I submit a tx and note the request ID to match the response, but say between send and response my ws dies, and don't get this response at all.

Can I poll for it afterwards? Or is the assumption that if I don't see it in a ledger for a set period of time I can just resubmit the request? The latter feels dangerous if the network is busy and lags a bit.

I love how you are sure of that, it's kinda sweet

Ok, all jokes aside, I'll have a proper look at it today and will provide you with details other that "I clicked and it did not work".

Nope, sorry about that It is 64bit.

I just got here, so I may need to go back and do some reading, but the app does absolutely nothing for me. Double clicking it does nothing, running ~/Downloads/Armory.app/Contents/MacOS/Armory in terminal simply returns... do I need to install something?

I can perfectly understand if not all dependencies could be bundled, but a little error would help me greatly OSX 10.6.8 here.

Touché... nothing like having good arguments to assert a point.

Tried on a new, much better system, same difference. Opened an issue with the command outputs and config file.

I am not defending nor attacking SD, and as I'm running a competitor (which is obviously a drop of water in the ocean, or a 1 satoshi tx in a large block compared to SD).

And the point that SD's stressing of the network is a great future proofing test has been made as many times as the SD is evil one. I don't understand why SD hasn't change its behaviour towards the problem but then again that hasn't reduced the amount of users they get, and thus the market has spoken. I would most certainly like to see a better fee equalization algorithm implemented, and would be glad to help achieve it, but it feels to me that most everyone chooses a side and points the finger, spending way too much time repeating "'coz I said so".

send me your TRC address if I win

I believe SD sends dustcoins WITH proper tx fees. SD is paying the vast majority of fees now included in blocks, and has been for a while.

I usually steer clear of these particular trains of thought, but you do understand SD wasn't responsible, right? A bug in the BDB code caused this, and yes, SD did trigger the bug but while it was a nuisance to be very mild (I lost almost 4 hours of what was otherwise already too little sleep for this), it does mean some big enterprise (read government) that happens to find this bug can't create havoc and properly abuse this situation with properly prepared double spends and the like.

Honestly, I strongly believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, mine isn't better than yours outside my own system of values but this community should keep together a little better and your constant calling wolf isn't helping, in my opinion... it is just my opinion! I don't really care too much what other people think anyway, unless I perceive a chance of learning from them.

1000 TRC...

Doc has confirmed, but something wasn't working and he is fixing it, I believe. So it is 0.7 but is currently down.

And I just made another thread on this...

Anyway: [02:19am] Luke-Jr: nelisky: EclipseMC and Eligius are unaffected; slush, BTCGuild, and Ozcoin are "working on it"

And bitminter mined an orphan on the 0.7 chain too, but there's no official word on it yet.

from IRC


Bitminter appears to be safe too as it mined an orphan on the 0.7 chain, but no official word yet.

If you know of others please speak up.

LOCKING: go here instead -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152048.0

If the coins you sent were old enough (not from a block mined during the fork) you will be just fine. Even if the receiving PC is on the wrong chain in a few hours the good chain will pick up and have your transaction.

I was building on my previous post stating "if they have more than 11 confirmations as of block 225446". But you are right that it was misleading, just trying to write as fast as one can.