So what does everyone think? Up or down on Monday?
Yes. Up or down, unless it stays the same. |
|
|
|
|
This thread has taken a nasty turn.
|
|
|
|
The code may be open, but open code only helps if you are knowledgeable enough to both understand the code, and understand the potential problems. Frankly Bitcoin is complex, and subtle, enough that even most experienced developers don't have much hope of doing that without a big investment of time. Thus if cbitcoin has flaws it will be used anyway, although hopefully used less if the developers who do understand the issues vocally complain on the forums. Obviously that's exactly what has happened.
The market is only efficient if information is widely spread. Unfortunately information about what bitcoin software is secure doesn't appear to meet that criteria very well.
The only flaws pointed out is that it will broadcast invalid transactions (which other nodes will ignore), and that there is not a good build system in place. The other complaints turned out to be misunderstandings. While an alternative implementation could cause damage if widely used and not properly implemented, neither of these flaws are dangerous. Cbitcoin will still reject blocks with invalid transactions and the build system will be put in place eventually (and has no bearing on the functionality of the code). Those are the flaws that have been found; who knows what flaws are still there. Network splits are a big danger and the Bitcoin software is mostly unique in having that problem. Because it's unique people don't have prior experience dealing with the problem, so the process of learning about network splits is going to be painful as alternate implementations become more popular. I'd rather see that process happen in a slow, controlled manner than happen quickly and accidentally. You know the build system that itself isn't what worries me, it's that such a build system is a sign that other software engineering considerations haven't been considered carefully. cbitcoin could make for an excellent test case for the type of compatibility tests that Gavin has worked a bit before. (as could pynode) The development of it could help drive testing those tests and learning how to apply them. Instead I get the impression of a rush to get some big grand project out the door. I agree that testing should be a big part of the development of any bitcoin implementation. |
|
|
|
|
I give up. Every time I try to defend your project you tell me I'm wrong for some small semantic reason. I'll let you stand alone now since it's apparent you don't want my help.
I think retep may have a point about needing to learn to play well with others.
|
|
|
|
It was not my intention to defend MatthewLM, he can clearly do that on his own, or to suggest he should be automatically trusted with your contribution just because he says nice things. Of course his background and history are important and should be questioned. All that I didn't appreciate is the manner in which Gavin did so.
As for any dangers of his failures I simply don't understand how a project with open code could ever implement or cause someone else to implement code that could cause any real harm. Actually if it did happen I think I'd have to welcome that sort of split because it would signal that the market isn't happy with the original client or is more happy with a new client. As long as the use of any code is voluntary there should be no problems for the future of Bitcoin, no?
The code may be open, but open code only helps if you are knowledgeable enough to both understand the code, and understand the potential problems. Frankly Bitcoin is complex, and subtle, enough that even most experienced developers don't have much hope of doing that without a big investment of time. Thus if cbitcoin has flaws it will be used anyway, although hopefully used less if the developers who do understand the issues vocally complain on the forums. Obviously that's exactly what has happened. The market is only efficient if information is widely spread. Unfortunately information about what bitcoin software is secure doesn't appear to meet that criteria very well. The only flaws pointed out is that it will broadcast invalid transactions (which other nodes will ignore), and that there is not a good build system in place. The other complaints turned out to be misunderstandings. While an alternative implementation could cause damage if widely used and not properly implemented, neither of these flaws are dangerous. Cbitcoin will still reject blocks with invalid transactions and the build system will be put in place eventually (and has no bearing on the functionality of the code). |
|
|
|
I did an independant study of gateway drugs that lead to heroin use. There is the tendancy to make the connection that marijuana users are more likely to use heroin based on the fact that ~85% of heroin users had used marijuana prior to trying heroin, a staggering number! However, our research showed an even more powerful influence; As it turns out, ~97% of heroin users had previously enjoyed Coca-cola products. How did the original study overlook this fact? It was shocking, and changed the way we looked at drug abusers. Coca-cola is the biggest known gateway drug currently, and I would advise anyone without the willpower to resist, to stop enjoying this beverage entirely before you enter the downward spiral that is hardcore drug abuse. You have been warned.
ah, thanks. I always use potatoes instead of coca-cola. Your version is much better! thanks, will use! Except you would need to normalize it against the entire population. When you do that, the 97% Coca-cola usage is not as large of a deviation from the norm as the 85% marijuana usage. That said, the idea that marijuana use leads to heroin is absurd. What you really need to look at is how many marijuana users begin using heroin. However, because of its legal status it is next to impossible to properly study the population of marijuana users. |
|
|
|
Naw I'm not selling  . I bought some GPL today actually! The Fed is still printing.. already down... Its fine, I'm not all the way back in yet, if it goes lower, I'll just buy back in all the way, or maybe even establish a bigger position Just make sure you have a bandaid close by. You're hand may get bloody. |
|
|
|
I am currently studying Enterprise Development BA at the University of Huddersfield and I have a very exciting business idea for bitcoin that would make use of cbitcoin.
So... please don't take this the wrong way, but what's your prior experience creating and shipping high-quality software? I ask because re-implementing Bitcoin as a first "software-people-other-than-myself-are-going-to-use" project is a really bad idea, I don't see any list of previous work at the RocketHub page, and the 9,000 lines of code you've already written doesn't look like the work of somebody who has professional software development experience (e.g. no makefile/build system ...). Maybe you're a prodigy and will get it right the first time, but you're already at 'cbitcoin 2.0' because you weren't happy with how 'cbitcoin 1.0' was turning out. See the solidcoin/microcash saga for an example of how over-promising "1.0/2.0/3.0" releases destroys confidence. And maybe you CAN point to some other successful software you wrote and shipped when you were 17, in which case I'll shut up and leave you alone. What's the matter Gavin, can't take a little competition? How about instead of ad hominem attacks you actually read through his 9000 lines of code already written and find something concrete to criticize? Wouldn't that be more relevant and productive than questioning his capability based on a brief observation? And why not encourage him to try and fail if nothing else, it's not like his failure will be forced upon anyone else but his success might be good for a lot of people, no? Btw I'm posting this not because I have anything against your work on the original client but because I can't understand the nature or goal of your post. If it was to save people from investing into something that might not yield a positive result, I would have wished you didn't need to resort to manipulative fallacies to do so. Indeed. I don't see a reason for the hate from reference client developers other than their codebase is a competitor. I haven't had time to dig into cbitcoin, but a C language library implementation will definitely be useful. Sure it might be a bit rough around the edges, but lets give him some time to develop it and get some help from other developers. I can agree about the version number inflation. I know it seems superficial, but 0.0, 0.2, etc. is a much better way to go than 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. 1.0 should not be used until you have a usable library with a stable API. |
|
|
|
So bitcoin anonymity rule #1, use a new USB stick?  No... it it was too recently purchased they might be able to trace it. Use an old USB stick, but write random 0's and 1's to it 10 times. |
|
|
|
So now you are telling me that the coinbase maturity is not 100 (ie. 101 confirmations)?
I've read the code. The code is lying to me? It's changed?
Explain to me exactly how cbitcoin is non-compliant with the bitcoin protocol.
I think he's referring to it allowing invalid transactions to be broadcast. |
|
|
|
Oh come on...
i have to get going now... but when i come back, i will explain why you are wrong.
Haha, don't worry about it, I'm sticking with my analogy  1. Bitcoin has no centralized authority who can issue more currency 2. Bitcoin has no centralized authority to peg it to a particular valuation in terms of USD There are many more differences, but these two explain why your analogy doesn't hold when looking at Bitcoin's interaction with traditional economics. |
|
|
|
I think my anonymous what?
Your anonymous stampeding cantelope. |
|
|
|
WTF?
The bitcoin bulls are unforgiving. That's because they've experienced the ferocity of the bears. |
|
|
|
|
Long duration deflation encourages hoarding, short duration deflation encourages spending.
|
|
|
|
EDIT:
By "fresh" coins i mean just received coins but having 6-7 confirmations. Official client won't allow to re send these, so this is the reason i created my fork.
So the satsohi client doesn't allow you to make transactions from outputs just found, even when they have 6 confirmations??? I'll get the fundraiser page up probably tomorrow... I've been working on a B-Tree implementation for indexing. If anyone would like to help, the deletion algorithm need finishing and testing: https://github.com/MatthewLM/cbitcoin/blob/master/src/CBAssociativeArray.c#L154And I'm following this but I can figure it out in my head: http://www.scribd.com/doc/18210/B-TREE-TUTORIAL-PPTI'm not sure what he is talking about unless maybe it's newly generated coins, which need 120 confirmations. With regular transactions, I can respend received coins after 1 confirmation. |
|
|
|
It seems that you can vote as many times as you want. I was able to vote for up, click to vote again, then vote for down.
Some sort of IP analyzer only allowing one vote per IP would be good to protect the integrity of the poll.
IP alone is a poor indicator of unique users. Many schools and businesses have a single public IP. Combine it with a user agent string at a minimum. |
|
|
|
what the hell, in 6 months LOL no thank you. that seems a little bit like a scam going on there. trying to take advantage of me cuz im new? i've done my research little boy and i understand what to do. im new not an idiot
That's just how long CC transactions take to fully settle. BTC is irreversible and I would have no legal recourse if you were to scam me. Same with PayPal. My point was it is possible but pretty inconvenient to deal with those methods. There is a reason none of the established routes for acquiring BTC use those payment methods. |
|
|
|
|
Sure thing, just PM me your CC details and I'll charge you and set aside your coins at today's price. In 6 months when the transaction is a little more solid I'll send the BTC.
|
|
|
|
Because you can take a higher % from richer people without them disassembling your body.
If the people you control are generally poor they have hardly anything that you can take without causing them great pain. If they would still be the most comfortable people in the world with half of their wealth you can take quite a large fraction of it without them risking their lives to try to end yours.
"Rob the rich because they won't fight back as much" is hardly a justification for tax inequity. I think that each person should be taxed the same amount regardless of their income or wealth. There is no logical reason for taxing a person more if they are more productive, and taxing a person less if they are lazy. Both the cost and benefit of government should be the same for everyone. Too bad that: Wealth!= productive Poor!=lazy That would really simplify things. Too bad it's easy for the wealthy to believe those are equal. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
