And of course it is worth re-quoting, This pull request is the first step towards a market between miners (who want higher fees) and merchants/users (who want lower fees, but also want their transactions confirmed). Miners can already control what fees they accept, this pull lets users control (very clumsily, improvements on the road map) the fee they are willing to pay.
Please re-read this before complaining  |
|
|
|
You can all thank Erik "Tony Hayward" Voorhees for polluting the blockchain so badly that this has come to pass.
Let's not take this down a hyperbolic road. There are enough flames and threads on this issue as it is... SatoshiDICE sending "dust" for losing bets is not The Reason For This Change. People started dumping wikileaks cables, GPG encrypted data, python scripts and other data into the blockchain recently. |
|
|
|
At worst, it should be a compile-time flag.
It is an option in the configuration file. Part of the impetus of the change is to make it configurable, rather than compiled in. In other words, it is getting easier to change these guidelines. |
|
|
|
the satoshi spam is not a threat, it is a view of the future payment value and volume once bitcoin exceeds $£1000 each. Gavin should be looking for ways to make the block chain cope, not ignore!
Part of the issue is that people were starting to use the blockchain for data storage, not currency transfer. Below a certain economic value, it becomes trivial to use ultra-low-value transactions as data transmission. |
|
|
|
I personally think that it would be much better if those "policy settings" in the client were tunable via config file and cli params and Gavin simply suggested the best ones via defaults.
This change does exactly that: takes previously compiled-in "minimum relay" defaults, and make them configurable. |
|
|
|
|
Updated OP to reflect new article title.
|
|
|
|
will you owner finance? if I pay cash?
Sorry, no. Maybe someone else on the forum will finance... |
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that no business interests should be on the foundation's board,
That's pretty silly for a trade group, especially in a community that believes in the free market. |
|
|
|
PYTHONPATH=/path/of/python-bitcoinrpc:/path/of/python-base58:/garz/repo/midstate \
nohup ./eloipool.py 2>&1 >/dev/null &
Did you all change the "/path/of/" and "/garz/repo/" paths to point to the proper directory? |
|
|
|
Well, according to CoinLab http://coinlab.com/pressAs an established player in the North American Bitcoin industry—registered and fully compliant with the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)— CoinLab provided Mt. Gox with U.S. financial and investment partnerships necessary to drive more U.S. volume and pave the way for institutional investors and high net-worth individuals to buy and hold large amounts of the digital currency.
|
|
|
|
Whoever he is, he decided to claim back bitcointalk.org.
No. It was long ago agreed to split the forum away from forum.bitcoin.org, into a separate domain, moving the politics etc. away from the more apolitical bitcoin.org. It was agreed that the new domain would be given to the current bitcoin.org domain holder, Sirius. I was the one who registered bitcointalk.org originally, so I should know. I turned over the keys myself to Sirius. |
|
|
|
More drama in bitcoin land, it seems. reddit is worth reading too. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1dl6uz/coinlab_sues_mtgox/c9rfq4pReading the contract they signed, Mt.Gox is clearly in violation. You can't contract for exclusive access and then turn around and go "Oh, nevermind"
What do you want CoinLab to do? Sit around hoping Mt.Gox will follow through? Breach of contract is a reasonable and classic time to take it to the courts.
I think it's retarded of Mt.Gox to have signed the contract to begin with.
|
|
|
|
I agree it's unjust to hand-pick a small group of "bitcoin representatives" for the press page. The bitcoin-press mailing list is not very democratic or transparent either. I vote for removing it.
sirius, please reconsider what you've just been lured into doing. You're giving weight to venom, vitriol, and cruelty which is matched in its rhetorical slipperiness only by its sheer determination. Perhaps true, but hey, pointing it to the Bitcoin Foundation seems reasonable. If other press centers grow organically, maybe just a link. That moves the press stuff off bitcoin.org at least, which doesn't seem unreasonable. Many of us have been saying that bitcoin.org should focus more on the open source project and technical aspects. Let's put those words to the test. I certainly prefer a more apolitical bitcoin.org myself. |
|
|
|
that won't work either b/c Luke is the moderator who has demonstrated even less equanimity there as here for the Press Ctr.
Multiple people agree that luke-jr is very heavy-handed with the wiki. And I have no objection to any of Sirius' suggestions. |
|
|
|
|
Similarly, protect your smartphone with Bitcoin Wallet.
|
|
|
|
seems some miners are mining over the 250k limit - is this okay? Will these blocks propagate fine?
Yes. |
|
|
|
Some call it conspiracy theory, Gavin called it "tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy-mongering"
I don't know Gavin personally, but I know of a lot of people that would give up some liberty and independence for a steady paycheck. Vessenes provides that for him. And what better method than cornering the market is there than approaching the biggest player and 'take over' their business ? We must be incredibly naive if we think that major business players enter the market for any other reason that serving their own business interests. I don't say that all businesses are purely motivated by financial gains, but take that element away, and most players will obviously withdraw from the scene. As you know from other threads, I've agreed with some of your other criticisms, but this insinuation is pure bunk. Trade groups like the Linux Foundation, upon which BF was modeled, are formed precisely because they are a vendor neutral, third party way to support key open source developers that are essentially working for the entire community. Linus Torvalds is paid by the Linux Foundation, so that Intel, AMD, Red Hat, Canonical and other competitors do not need to worry about paying him directly -- with the conflict-of-interest that would imply. All available evidence shows Gavin, Peter V and BF are acting similarly, with zero evidence to the contrary. If there is a better, sustainable, more neutral way to fund Gavin or infrastructure projects, we are all open to that. Being funded by a neutral trade group frees developers to focus on bitcoin's needs full time, without distraction. |
|
|
|
|
Sirius needs to be poked about better security, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
