More processional demeanor:


Not victims no. I couldn't care less what nonsense comes from you guys. I just think that bigrcanada is either ignorant about the behavior of the Dash community or deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way I'm going to point out his error.

If your body gives out, the won't get done at all.

Anyway, best of luck with the treatment. I hope it is successful.

In the meantime, wellness and not overtaxing your system matter. Find a balance.

That's essentially the same as blocking all transactions and thereby preventing the protocol from being used at all (so people would then have to use another, transparent, one, which doesn't even need to be limited to a view key but could include signing it with your name).

Anyway, I made exactly this point last year. Too much crap got posted last year for me to find it though, but the conclusion was identical.

I'd just add that power-of-10 is not required by the protocol even today. That is just a convention. One might imagine other useful conventions that when further defined require only implementation in wallets. Anyway, the last part isn't too important since protocol changes are fine and even expected at this level of maturity.

That doesn't invalidate or disagree with your comments about timing attacks, etc. I think careful use can mitigate most timing attacks even today, but that's not a solution for end users who don't know how to be careful and won't. So none of these solutions is fully ready for prime time today. Some are better than others is about the best we can claim right now.

WTF???

I count two in favor, three against. How could that possible be viewed as the sort of consensus the core developers would need to act?

(I think you have the names slightly wrong, but that's not the point.)


Yuck. If you're going to fork, at least fork in a clean way.

This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)

What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.

EDIT: added missing word "not"

I never stated probabilities. Unless you believe you can support that the probabilities are "outrageously implausible" (and if so based on what???) we don't necessarily disagree at all.

Furthermore, getting back to your original post, I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive on the matter of fee markets over the next 10-20 years (though to be clear that is only a portion of the overall block size debate), generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

EDIT: edited to clarify that the paper is, by its own stated conclusions, relevant to the next 10-20 years. No one seems interested in my observation that the final paragraph of the paper is in fact highly relevant beyond 10-20 years. I guess we will have all cashed out by then?

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

Fake volume created by bots trading with each other on scam exchanges doesn't count. Coinmarketcap wouldn't remove it (why might that be?), but I will

Bytecoin Markets
Volume (24h)

$21941
$2049
$1

Total: $2050

Yes that's what was meant. I think its on the development/research goals document.

As far as modifying PoW that is not on any active agenda. We've always open to the possibility and we've looked at cuckoo cycle and some other things but there aren't any current plans to change it.

It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved.

As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully.

Yes you can download the page, save it offline, and then use it.

That's correct. You can do it on a computer that isn't even online (in fact that can be safer).

It does that by default. In fact it even works behind NAT, if you relay the port (18080). If the NAT supports UPNP the relay could theoretically happen automatically but I've never seen that work (I guess my routers don't support UPNP or it is turned off).

Current chain height as I write this is 593690, so I guess you are synced?

Maybe to check or reply to PMs?

Can you be more specific as to the problems you are having?

I have no idea what they are doing. They are certainly aware of the upgrade and have said they are upgrading on Monday (why wait?), and if you look at their trollbox you have users telling other users to stop wasting their hashrate by mining, the support guy on there ignores it and they for some reason they don't just turn it off. Very strange.


It gets 2x+ depending on the hardware but the block target is now 4 minutes so the old fork will have more blocks with less work.

Hidden? It was certainly disclosed in their ICO documents, I remember reading it.

I don't know what the rules are for that ** marker though. Apparently huge scams like BCN with phony blockchains don't count. Who knows about ETH.