Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.
I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated. Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it). I defended the guy for years past his 'best before' date. My bad. Believe it or not I have to be pretty confident about the rottenness of someone or something before I really open up on them/it. If Gavin planned to foster good-will in doing his early facet stuff as a PR stunt, it was one of the most brilliant moves in Bitcoin history. I still doubt that he did and still feel it mostly likely that his elevation was one of those accidents of caprice. And also that if Bitcoin survives him it will be one of the epic saves of all time. |
|
|
|
why are you here? You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.
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. lol no, you should advise taxpayers that you are one hell of an ignorant statist tit sucker and that the money spent to pay you would be better off financing some carnaval's hot potato stand. Mis-quote BTW. But I'd happily take credit for the attributed as I find it amusing and fairly spot-on. |
|
|
|
|
Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.
|
|
|
|
why are you here? You clearly have something else under centralised control - that isn't bitcoin - that you want - go chase it.
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. Thanks for being honest. I inferred that you see it as a duty (and a self-serving one) to destroy an autonomous solution which threatens your sponsorship in even a modest way. Throwing your weight behind a solution like XT which is pretty much guaranteed to end up augmenting rather than threatening anything about the public/private (state/corporate) partnerships which animate our fiat currency systems makes perfect sense. The systems you champion with it's gigantic web of derivatives and such are getting due for the re-set which is part of the formula. Tough break for your side that crypto materialized out of the ether when it did. I don't blame you for trying to neutralize the threat, but I'll do my best to see that your efforts won't succeed. While I am drifting off-topic and into the metaphysical, let me add that at this point we are all just playing pocket-pool. It is in the recovery phase when the rubber meets the road. Without something like crypto, whatever the state decides to re-build will be what the masses have to accept. With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money. That should put the fear of God into your run-of-the-mill statist. |
|
|
|
misinformation
1. XT is an alt client, not an alt coin. 2. There isn't a single person who would buy a separate coin called XT. 3. No the core developers do not generally support bigger blocks. it's been discussed for three years already. You are accusing someone of mis-information then spouting three giant ones? Awesome. 1. A 'coin' is synonymous with a 'protocol'. XT is absolutely and 'alt' unless the current incompatible protocol is fully abandoned. The chances of that happening are effectively zero. 2. I despise everything about XT from the creators on down. I would 'buy' separate XT coins in certain conditions. The biggest one is that if I could use it in a Google Wallet and get discounts on merchandise which they sponsor. Of course I'd use a real crypto-currency for important stuff. 3. Every person I can think of and I myself have some serious questions about the current transaction rate and have stated so. We simply want to change this critical aspect of the system based on real-world data once a workable scaling solution is in place and tested. Some of the more promising possibilities are highly technical but are moving forward at a good rate of speed. At present there is no need whatsoever to panic over the block size. It is more and more clear that all of the scare stories about overload were puffed-up psyops nonsense and probably well coordinated. Even if congestion problems do occur, that is a good thing since they need to be worked on no matter what the block size and there is little incentive to do this when there are no signs of problems. You are right though...the fear-mongering about block size has been going on for at least three years now. |
|
|
|
I honestly couldn't have come up with a better reason not to force children to got to school myself but the media and teacher incompetence has done it for me.
For me, being forced to take my kids into some creepy doctor's office to be injected with God only knows what 56 times would do it. Especially since half my nieces and nephews have come up with some bizarre malady or another which just happens to be enriching those in the medical/industrial complex generally, and in the pharma industry specifically. The more well-to-do the family is, the bigger the problems they seem to have. I could go on and on about the evidence of malfeasance within this 'public/private partnership', the obvious revolving door conflicts of interests, etc. If I had school age kids I would get the fuck out of the United States for the present time at least and not come back. I'm not even joking about this. |
|
|
|
No. Chains that cointain illegal blocks are ignored only by software that considers such blocks illegal. But, for players that are running software that accepts big blocks, big blocks are legal. Is it clear now?
Ya, clear that you selectively editing and are talking nonsense to cover up your mistake (or lack of understanding.) Core would keep right on chunking away even if it got 1% of the hashing (excepting problems with difficulties and absent attacks.)
No, it is not "Core" that will do that, but "any miner who is running software that does not accept big blocks". That software can be the current Core version, or XT minus the 8 MB patch, or any other independent code with a 1 MB block size limit. Miners that accept big blocks may be running the current XT (with or without the other patches), or the current Core with an 8 MB patch (by repentant Blockstream devs, or by someone else), or any other version that accepts 8 MB blocks. That is the main point: the "Core vs XT" and "Blockstream vs Hearn&Gavin" issues are red herrings. The only thing that really matters is how many miners will accept big blocks at some point in the future. Ideally, whenever a big block is actually solved and posted, either almost all miners (counted by hashpower) should be accepting big blocks, or almost all miners should be rejecting them. If, at some point, 75% of the miners suddenly start accepting big blocks, the other 25% had better start accepting them too. Ditto if, after every miner is accepting big blocks, 75% suddenly decide to start rejecting them. If the miners are mostly in agreement about accepting or rejecting big blocks, but a majority changes their mind, in either direction, they had better all change together, before someone posts another big block. As long as all miners are mostly in agreement, it is safer for all clients to accept big blocks than to reject them. If the miners ever get into a messy state, with significant percentages of both big-block acceptors and big-block rejectors, all clients had better stop using bitcoin until the mess gets cleared up, and almost all miners have again converged to the same policy. Miners will mine where they can make money. The effort and hence the difficulties will be less on less valuable forks (or core) so they can mine more per unit time. Your wishful thinking about how 'miners better follow a lead' is nothing more than that and has no basis in reason and no predictive power of future reality. I suggest that you consult with someone who knows a little about crypto-currencies and try to pick up some clues. This might allow you to take a position and maybe you will not always be nervous and uptight about your state sponsored mainstream-land pension. It may help uncloud your analytical abilities. Even that might not be enough though. Frankly speaking, I don't really see that you have the mental horsepower to do well in anything which is at all abstract or requires anticipating the future accurately. the mining effort will be primarily driven by the market value of the product.
The preferences of the "economic majority" will surely influence the miners' decisions. But, once a significant majority of the miners has decided that they will accept big blocks, after the first big block gets mined the "economic majority" had better be already accepting them too, or start accepting them right away. While the miners can wait a few weeks before selling their mined coins, the "economic majority" cannot stop using bitcoin for a week, in the hope of winning the strong-arm duel. Moreover, the "economic majority" does not have any good reason to reject big blocks, and some very good economic reasons to accept them. "economic majority" is simply a throw-away buzzword invented to impress the mouth-breathers (but it works on comp-sci proffesors also it looks like.) I will tell you that my own gauge of the value of core Bitcoins will _increase_ if/when the XT drones are led away by some pied piper. I doubt that I am alone among hodlers in this. If so, the value of core Bitcoins might hold up surprisingly well and any miners who had been throwing hashes at XT (or some other similar alt fork) will come rapidly back. |
|
|
|
EXCLUSIVE: 'Hillary is lonely, has trouble expressing her feelings and yearns for an intimate relationship with a powerful woman,' claims noted shrink who puts the presidential hopeful on the couchHillary Clinton is a lonely woman who has trouble expressing her feelings. So says Dr. Alma Bond, a psychoanalyst and author who holds a PhD from Columbia University and did post doctorate studies from the Freudian Society. She has been studying Hillary Clinton from afar for many years. The Democratic presidential candidate has difficulty with men and she needs a woman friend on her same political level that she can share strategy or top secret events of the day. Dr. Bond suggests that Hillary, 67, has unsuccessfully looked for a female equal for years, despite the closeness of her assistant and closest aide, Huma Abedin Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3209152/Hillary-lonely-trouble-expressing-feelings-yearns-intimate-relationship-powerful-woman-claims-noted-shrink-puts-presidential-hopeful-couch.html#ixzz3jsMGae3y Condi Rice is every bit her equal intellectually...just without as much evil. |
|
|
|
Probably that $149/gal 'green' fuel that one can sell to the Navy if one makes the proper political donations. Good find on that one BTW. I'm expecting it to be a harbinger of greater things to come. |
|
|
|
Well if you ask Gavin, consensus is having one 'dev' agree with you, then making your own fork. First they make the Foundation go broke, now they don't even bother using what it is there for  I can't believe people are actually following this stupid two-man shit lol Gavin did OK by the Bitcoin Foundation. He got paid a competitive salary and occasionally doodled around with talking-paperclip class 'enhancements' to Bitcoin which impressed the mouth-breather classes (e.g., those now most vocal in support of XT.) Most of the more technical grunt work (like injecting x.509 based idents which tried to make Bitcoin dependent on mainstream cert issuing authorities and opened Bitcoin up to the heartbleed bug) seemed to have been fed to him by 'others'. |
|
|
|
Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your stupid.
A few things: [ ... ] but more importantly, XT wont happen.
It is irrelevant which version of the software is being used (Core, XT, or other). What happens after the first big block is mined depends only on how many miners accept big blocks. ("Small block" = at most 1 MB; "big block" = more than 1 MB but not more than 8 MB. See below for BIP100, BIP102, and other complications.) Note that even the Core version is trivially patched to accept 8 MB blocks. The chain will (theoretically) split once the first big block B(N) gets mined. There will be a "big-block" branch that grows on top of that block, containg perhaps other big blocks; and a "small-block" branch that starts with an alternative small block C(N) with the same block number and contains only small blocks. If, at that moment, more than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the big-block branch (mined by them) will eventually grow faster than the small-block branch (mined by the rest of the miners). The split will be permanent and the big-block branch will grow faster. If, at that moment, less than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the small-block branch will eventually grow longer. Then the big-block miners will stop mining their branch, which will be orphaned, and they will start mining the small-block branch too. If someone mines another big block, the chain will split again. This situation will repeat over and over, as long as some miner happens to mine a big block. There will be a single small-block chain with recurrent big-block side branches that are orphaned sooner or later.Sane bitcoiners should want the first case to happen, and as cleanly as possible: namely, with almost all the miners accepting big blocks. Then if someone mines a big block, the few stubborn miners who refuse to accept big blocks will be left mining a slow chain with a huge and growing backlog. In this case, clients who accept big blocks will be fine, while clients who reject them will not be able to use bitcoin until they upgrade. Blockstream fans who are not totally stupid will want the second case to happen, but also as cleanly as possible: namely, with almost all miners rejecting big blocks. Then, if someone mines a big block, the few miners who accept it will waste time mining on top of it, only to have that branch orphaned right away. In this case, all clients will be fine, except that clients who accept big blocks will see occasional big orphans. Bitcoiners who are stupid, or are into financial sado-masochism (like those who are planning to sabotage the blockchain voting), will try to get some intermediate situation when the miners who accept bitcoin are neither the vast majority nor a small minority. In this case, the situation will be highly confusing either to the clients who accept big blocks, or tho those who reject them, or possibly for both. The competing BIPs with other notions of "big block" will make the situation more confusing. Unless Jeff is into sado-masochism too, he should retract his "compromise" 2 MB proposal. It is obvious by now that the Blockstream devs will never accept any compromise solution. Weren't you supposed to be some sort of a comp-sci professor? I don't know how to be kind about it, but your students are getting screwed...your whole post is chock-full-o'-fail. Note that to a satoshi-based cyrpto-currency solution the proper terminology is 'longest valid chain'. Bloat-blocks or any other illegality is simply ignored. It doens't matter if the chain stretches from here to China. What this means is that Core would keep right on chunking away even if it got 1% of the hashing (excepting problems with difficulties and absent attacks.) As for mining, I supposed and Meni Rosenfeld (who, unlike you, actually does understand Bitcoin and algorithms generally) confirmed that the mining effort will be primarily driven by the market value of the product. I would add that when transaction fees become a factor (hopefully some time before the earth stops cooling on core) they would be added to 'market value.' Thus, the trajectory of any XT-like alt forked off the Bitcoin blockchain would have to command a high market value relative to Bitcoin in order to attract mining. It's actually no different than any other sha256 alt (if there are any which still survive.) The best hope the XT attackers have would be to subsidize the shit out of XT (and probably attack Bitcoin as well) in order to try to get the flame started on mopping up sha256 hashes. I hope like hell they do because I plan to split my coins and sell XT like hell when the opportunity arises. With luck it IS the govt spooks who are behind XT and Gavin's various malfeasance because they have deep pockets to do this subsidization and it would be an opportunity to get some of my tax dollars back. |
|
|
|
I think that this is the more important thing. BIP 100 proposal just came out by Jeff Garzik and I see a lot of support in many threads and in all of the forums toward this change. I think people are tired of drama and tired of discussion. Big miners and major Bitcoin start-ups are tired as well. This needs to be solved and it seems to me that we are getting close to the solution. By the way, great pic!  BIP100 FTW!!! Say, isn't Garzik the guy who works for BitPay? The outfit which bet (a lot of angel investor's money) on Bitcoin being used by the masses for buying trinkets? The outfit who has been hemorrhaging cash and laying off employees? I'm just curious because I've read thousands of time how Blockstream is going to do { not sure what but something} and make a lot of money exploiting Bitcoin and therefore nothing they do should be trusted and everything they say is evil (...which is kind of funny since on the individual coder level they are primarily responsible for Bitcoin itself at this time.) |
|
|
|
You need a separate chain with a separate genesis block if you want to avoid undermining the Value Storage Property of bitcoin which is predicated on a HARD 21 Million cap limit.
Funny, I don't feel that need. Maybe in part because I have value buried deep in the chain  |
|
|
|
When I wanted to get around Sear's Point as fast as I could, I used an RS125. When I wanted to move 100 yards of earth from one part of my property to another, I used a dump truck. (True stories by the way.) An RS125 and a Ford F750 dump truck have morphological similarities in that they have an internal combustion engine which generates power that is transferred through a drive train to one or more wheels. A dump truck could get around Sear's Point, and an RS125 could move some dirt. It would be possible to devise a machine which balanced the two functions, but it would not make much sense. Bitcoin, and more generally crypto-currency, is in it's infancy. The basic morphology is there but not really that much more. It would be a reasonable time to go ahead and fork to achieve different (and often mutually exclusive) goals most effectively. At least there is a strong argument that this is the case as I see things. |
|
|
|
Well put.
I'm not threatened at all by two (or more) cyrpto-currency solutions taking their value basis from the current blockchain (which, thanks to Satoshi's 1MB patch, still fits on a single commodity-grade drive.)
I know what is important to me as a user and expect that there are a lot of others in my category. Plenty to form a viable economy which addresses problems we have in our domain.
I go so far as to welcome the split because one of the biggest problems we have, as I see it, are people who have a diametrically opposed view of what is important and how to achieve it. A 'divorce' is a perfectly rational and effective way to resolve such problems.
The only way this could possibly work is if you guys started your own chain with your own genesis block. If you split the Bitcoin chain into two competing chains you will effectively have inflated and devalued bitcoin by 50% and also killed confidence in Bitcoin's scarcity and STORE OF VALUE function. The only way I could be wrong about this is if after this split you are cheering on I would not have double the amount of bitcoins to spend. Would I not be able to spend bitcoins on both chains??? If my bitcoins are doubled, then you have killed bitcoin for everyone. You are way to focused on the 'money' aspect of things. The 'capabilities' aspect is what is important to me personally. That said, ya, I'm personally not above making lemonade out of lemons. I'll exploit the shit out of the situation if I can. That's a potential fringe benefit of getting a footprint in the pre-fork chain. --- Your simplistic view is that the value basis of the Bitcoin solution is monolithic and static. I suggest that that is to simplistic. I'll explain: Bitcoin has, locked within it, multiple sources of value. They are there but not expressed at this time. They are also mutually exclusive. I'll simplify them to two. - One source of value can be best exposed by handing the solution off to (say) Google. They can support expansion to epic levels as they have many other related things internet. They can exploit monetization schemes denied to their lesser competitors and thus fund this immense system with probably a negative cost to the end user. Some people consider this a win. More power to them, and I'll be happy to join them for many of my exchange currency needs. Just like I use Google to filter the 20,000 spam e-mails I get per day. - Another source of value is that Bitcoin is free of 'counter-party risk' like gold. Separately, it is not possible for anyone really to tell me who I can and cannot transact with. If I want to support Wikileaks because I feel that they are doing my country (the U.S.) a service in promoting transparency, I can use Bitcoin to do so. I can also be as confident in the blockchain as a source-of-truth for my holdings as my ability to keep certain secrets (which I am good at when I put my mind to the task.) These two things are mutually exclusive. A split is the best way to expose both sources of value out into the '5th dimension.' edits: slight |
|
|
|
Apparently you aren't listening. It has nothing to do with "doubling bitcoins". It has everything to do with sticking to the reasons we decided to get involved with Bitcoin in the first place.
There are already hundreds of altcoins (most of them failed). The fact that they exist doesn't inflate the total amount of bitcoins and neither will a fork.
After the fork, there will be two separate coins, each with different properties, and they will succeed or fail according to their merits. Both sides may call their coin "Bitcoin", but I have a feeling only one will continue to provide what I like to call "monetary freedom".
Well put. I'm not threatened at all by two (or more) cyrpto-currency solutions taking their value basis from the current blockchain (which, thanks to Satoshi's 1MB patch, still fits on a single commodity-grade drive.) I know what is important to me as a user and expect that there are a lot of others in my category. Plenty to form a viable economy which addresses problems we have in our domain. I go so far as to welcome the split because one of the biggest problems we have, as I see it, are people who have a diametrically opposed view of what is important and how to achieve it. A 'divorce' is a perfectly rational and effective way to resolve such problems. |
|
|
|
|
Now we know how it is that NASA can be induced to re-write historical data and 'homogenize' various data to prove that the world faces a catastrophe in the form of global warming unless we give politicians and their friends a bunch of money to save us.
|
|
|
|
So you would buy Bitcoin XT if it was a separate coin? I probably should have said there is zero demand for that.
The only people that support it want the XT supporters to 'go away'. The big block supporters and people who want
to run XT -- none of them want a separate coin.
I want XT supporters to 'go away', but send me money for my XTCoins which I obtained pre-fork. I might even find reason to obtain XTCoins if XT were implemented as a sidechain. The most likely reason I could see for wanting some is that XT might be what Google Wallet supports. I don't actually have a Google Wallet, but I might get one if I got 'cash back' for buying shit advertised on one of their properties or something. |
|
|
|
There is zero support for that idea. I challenge you to name one person on the forum who wants to have BitctoinXT as a separate coin. (On the other hand, several major pools are signing blocks supporting bips and bigger blocks and major bitcoin companies signed a join statement supporting it as well.) I do. Doesn't matter that much what I want though; separate coins are inevitable if XT forks the blockchain. Or BIP101 for that matter. I envision a strong possibility that there will be way more than two as people jumping on the bandwagon and exploit the confusion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
