For over 3 years I regularly followed the Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP thread, and it was a major component of my bitcoin fix.
Now that thermos locked it down because people were obviously going to discuss [REDACTED] and thermos did not like the results of the poll on [REDACTED], I am feeling lost. I need my Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP fix and just can't find it anywhere else.
Who says that cypherdoc himself didn't lock it. If so, are you still going to be his tag-a-long friend? You're joking right? Thermos has been on a tear deleting posts and banning major bitcoin supporters over in /r/bitcoin. Thermos locked the thread there is no question. If you're going to deny that then there is no point in ever responding to you again. I'm not denying anything. I simply don't know and personally have not seen what you are talking about vis-a-vis theymos. It's unlike him in the 4 years I've been paying attention. On the other hand cypherdoc locked his thread a few months ago IIRC. This makes it a reasonable hypothesis that he did it again. |
|
|
|
Nobody I can think of advocated censoring or sterilizing anything. For all we know cypherdoc himself picked up his ball and went home.
You're still as stupid ever and willing to throw loose allegations around like vomit. You're still going to lose because of all your unethical tactics. ... and here comes the compromised shill to lecture others on ethics. Have you no shame? He's always welcome on my thread even if he is the kind of pansy who messed up his own and tried to blame others for it. Cypherdoc is his own worst enemy when he flaps his gums in the presence of people smart enough and informed enough to matter. BTW, cypherdoc: Gold up, Bitcoin collapsing...thanks in no small part to your own efforts. |
|
|
|
|
Sure. Just wait until it is necessary. Even staunch small-blockists like me have no real problem with raising the block size as long as it
- is necessary
- can contribute to support of a real solution for scaling
- is safe
- does not compromise the security and autonomy of the solution which is the most important and valuable thing about Bitcoin to me.
In no way, shape, or form is allowing nearly free purchases of frappacino worth sacrificing any of the above mentioned aspects. If Bitcoin were going to 'take off' under near-free transaction fees it would have done so within the last decade when the infrastructure was supported by inflation alone and fees were negligible. That it did not means that there is really no demand for native Bitcoin used in that role and other solutions are simply more competitive.
I have hope that frappacino-coin will be implemented as a sidecoin so in reality Bitcoin will be used for such purposes but in a way which is safe, scalable, flexible, and highly robust. Best of all worlds with no tangible downsides...except that it will blow up any hopes that TPTB would have of tracking. The fact that the pre-mature seeming thrust to do the BitcoinXT hostile takeover happened leads me to believe that sidechains will actually work quite well and there was really no choice but to try to do it as a hail Mary and hope for the best.
|
|
|
|
You guys cheering thermos' censoring of the thread is just sad.
You do understand that just because you silence others that does not make their ideas magically go away, and it does not make you right.
But you always had a losing argument, must feel nice to have the thread censored to get you off the hook of having to continue to defend obvious nonsense.
You guys pulled the nuclear option and deleted/sanitized all discussion you disagree with from /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org. If you have to resort to that it always means you are on the wrong side.
So bask in your assumed victory now that there is no one left to question you. It's going to be a short lived one.
Nobody I can think of advocated censoring or sterilizing anything. For all we know cypherdoc himself picked up his ball and went home. |
|
|
|
For over 3 years I regularly followed the Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP thread, and it was a major component of my bitcoin fix.
Now that thermos locked it down because people were obviously going to discuss [REDACTED] and thermos did not like the results of the poll on [REDACTED], I am feeling lost. I need my Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP fix and just can't find it anywhere else.
Who says that cypherdoc himself didn't lock it. If so, are you still going to be his tag-a-long friend? |
|
|
|
|
Wow. The wheels are really coming off of XT. I'm not at all surprised to see such a thing, but am surprised to see it prior to the fork. Even stolfi seems to be warm to XT which is interesting. Watching.
|
|
|
|
he locked his thread?
Anyone know why?
thread was locked by the admins for being off-topic. I don't necessarily agree but I'm having a big laugh at how cypherdoc must be fuming right now. His life's work, all gone  I'll bet that cypherdoc locked it himself when the laundry-mark that is XT started to really be exposed.The nice thing about allowing attackers to use a forum is that it becomes possible to pin people who have put in a lot of effort. Looking through the now-locked thread, I identify some of the primary petites taches de merde as so: - cypherdoc - justusranvier - peter r - solex - erdogan - zarathustra - smooth/rocks - majamalu - stolfi (honorable mention - still as active as ever elsewhere.) Some of them have really put in some effort over the years. Others not mentioned are more likely to simply have been duped. Interestingly, when I was doing a quick skim to make this list I noticed that most of these folks went dark within a stretch of hours of when cypherdoc did. And the list of some of the people who were especially tenacious at fighting the good fight: - iCEBREAKER - brg444 - hdbuck - Marcus_of_Augustus - tvbcof (me) - odalv and lots of people who chimed in letting people know that they have not been fooled. It's hard to gauge how many people's eyes were opened to the hostile takeover attempt but I'll bet it was a lot. |
|
|
|
As to the MP was rightii part, see for instance
09-09-2014 11:56:30 <mircea_popescu> this has been long said here, the #1 problem with the bitcoin protocol is that it has no specific payment for relays, and it allows separation of mining and relay.
And yes, if you're going to play the "first" game, please, bring forth the documentation. (Should you fail to find anything worthy of mention on the line above, you can always try and find an alternative source for that now-widespread technical criticism, which wasn't nearly all that widespread back in December, back when the shitstains were claiming "consensus" and the support of "economists". Good luck.)
Shit, I've been hollering about this since I found at that transfer nodes were NOT rewarded which must have occurred back in 2011. Somehow I mis-understood this aspect of the whitepaper and/or some other source I was reading when I was trying to figure out Bitcoin in the first place. Like I've said before, I probably would not have even bothered with Bitcoin had I realized that transfer nodes were not, or were not anticipated to be, rewarded. The security model of the system doesn't make a lot of sense to me without this. Since I took some profits before Hearn got serious about collapsing Bitcoin, I'm glad I made this mistake. |
|
|
|
This: Satoshi Nakamoto satoshi at vistomail.com
Sat Aug 15 17:43:54 UTC 2015
Previous message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT 0.11A
Next message: [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin XT Fork
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that
a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely
to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.
When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near
unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is
Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it
without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they
claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has
changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I
didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system
while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust
solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and
through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be
both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
I've no idea if it is him or not. That is about what I would write if I had developed Bitcoin to the point that Satoshi did and then left the project as he did. If it actually is the guy, I'll feel good about being on the same wavelength. |
|
|
|
Who cares?
Bitcoin price. Because of this stupid war between XT and Core, Gavin way vs. classic Satoshi way, progress vs. keepin what is fine atm, fake nodes vs. real xt nodes. All this nonsense is bad. We all are losing. Bitcoin is losing, media have another idiotic topic just to talk about how bitcoin is torn by war and future is grim. Gavin is obviously nothing more than Hearn's muppet at this point. I don't rule out that he is actually stupid enough to believe most of what he says. I also have never seen any reason to doubt that he agrees in principle that Bitcoin is to dangerous to society without corp/gov moderation in the form of white/black-listing to get rid of 'the bad guys' and either doesn't understand what this would do to Bitcoin as an innovation or does not care. In more succinct shorthand, Gavin loves big brother. |
|
|
|
I don't see where is the problem here to be honest , if youthink NSA = XT and the BitcoinXT is just another open-source software program like Bitcoin Core ..; sooner or later we will know if there is backdoors or whatever so this aint a problem .
It would take years for a well place backdoor to be detected, and may never be. If you are comfortable sacrificing years worth of records of your financial transactions, fine. Not everyone is. Even people who don't have a lot to hide. |
|
|
|
there were already enough pools. you cant handle millions of new users with this artificial and unnecessary limit. 8MB is very conversativ and a good start. you can find an overview here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1141086.0here is your satoshi quote: Should Bitcoin grow, even if the network changes its structure as a result? The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. — Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010 Reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's quote warning not to believe every quote you read on the internet. But nntp is kind of a good example. ISP's used to typically run their own servers, and some enthusiasts did as well in the early days. Due to the data structure it actually produced an incentive to overcome some of the problems of the UFS filesystems, but that is just an aside. With the popularization of binaries (mostly porn) eventually most ISP's threw up their hands and just outsourced nntp to a handful of specialists. These centralized services came under pressure to censor, and http methods outstripped nntp for porn (and most everything else) eventually anyway. |
|
|
|
all xt nodes seems to run on AWS ip for a start.. + about 240 nodes simultaneously popped up on aug 17th...  ps: i sense despair. good. AWS is awesome for this sort of thing. I had to max out a 100mb link once to test a service my company developed. I made and image which would start, run load, collect results, send them to a collector, then automatically shut down. One simple script and a few dollars later and I had results which a more formal load generation service would have charged me many thousands for. And it took all of a Saturday morning to do the whole system. I was with a start-up and we needed to have the tests done by Monday when we had already sold the service. IIRC I only got the circuit in the datacenter commissioned and the load balancer configured by close-of-business Friday. |
|
|
|
My little creation that I am espeically proud of fell victim to the censors: what do you mean its still here? I got a mail in my inbox saying the post was deleted as 'off-topic'. I didn't even bother to check. cypherdoc's thread shows up as locked so it's not very interesting to me. |
|
|
|
|
What is raised my eyebrows is 'bctd' (presumably for 'bitcoin daemon' as the string bitcoind was taken by Satoshi.) This should not be confused with 'bitcoin dark' which is easy to do.
Anyway, 'btcd' is implemented in the programming language 'go' who's development was significantly sponsored by Google. One of the things it touts is a clean and well documented implementation which is a widely admitted deficiency in the Satoshi-based C code.
What I find interesting it that it seems to be a well funded effort undertaken by necessarily talented developers, but they are relatively unknown it seems.
Another interesting thing is that it is highly promoted by certain 'old timers' or people who's positions have been puffed up over the last few years through media attention and accolades. justusranvier comes to mind.
I will be interested to see if it 'makes sense' to switch the reference implementation of XT over to a btcd codebase if/when the takeover by XT from a (none-)fork of the Satoshi codebase gets traction.
|
|
|
|
|
Transplanted from the now heavily censored 'gold collapsing' thread:
---
To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk. It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.
The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain. That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not. And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.
It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary. Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much. Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.
|
|
|
|
My little creation that I am espeically proud of fell victim to the censors:
Who's the shilliest shill we know?
cypherdoc! cypherdoc!
Who's Mike Hearn's biggest Ho?
cypherdoc! cypherdoc!
Who will nuke your eyes 'till they glow?
cypherdoc! cypherdoc!
...
|
|
|
|
Just a quick question (still need my fix as I'm having withdrawal) is you "crack" pure and un-moderate like the stuff I used to get over at the other place befor the authorities shut it down?
Your text is a bit difficult to parse, but I would say: 'Yes, kicking your crack habit would be advisable if you can do it.' you mean leave bitcointalk? Shudder the thought! bitcointalk.org is my life and I'm sure it is the same way for everyone  I followed up with this edit: edit: More seriously, I don't expect this thread to go anywhere. I am pretty negative about censorship generally and I've credited theymos repeatedly for running a forum which is intolerant of it more than almost any I know of. I can imagine only a tiny corner-case where I would censor any thread. I never pay any attention to a moderated thread unless I don't notice that it is moderated. In fact, I requested that moderated threads are more noticeable on the forum display as one of the few suggestions I've made on meta so I can not accidentally post to them or read them. I believe that it is probably impossible to switch a non-moderated thread to a moderated one mostly because I've never seen it happen. If it were possible cypherdick would probably have done it on his epic sister thread long ago. Instead he just locks it from time to time when the going gets rough. |
|
|
|
Just a quick question (still need my fix as I'm having withdrawal) is you "crack" pure and un-moderate like the stuff I used to get over at the other place befor the authorities shut it down?
Your text is a bit difficult to parse, but I would say: 'Yes, kicking your crack habit would be advisable if you can do it.' edit: More seriously, I don't expect this thread to go anywhere. I am pretty negative about censorship generally and I've credited theymos repeatedly for running a forum which is intollerant of it more than almost any I know of. I can imagine only a tiny corner-case where I would censor any thread. I never pay any attention to a moderated thread unless I don't notice that it is moderated. In fact, I requested that moderated threads are more noticeable on the forum display as one of the few suggestions I've made on meta so I can not accidentally post to them or read them. I believe that it is probably impossible to switch a non-moderated thread to a moderated one mostly because I've never seen it happen. If it were possible cypherdick would probably have done it on his epic sister thread long ago. Instead he just locks it from time to time when the going gets rough. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
