|
Wow. As a physician, I am humbled by your adaptive capabilities. I think most of us, myself included, use much lamer excuses for not getting stuff done.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
FinCen doesn't make Bitcoin legal or illegal...they just recognize that Bitcoin works as money and they want everyone to know that financial cimes with this type of money is under their jurisdiction...just like if the beaureau of tobacco, alcohol, and firearms declared laser pointers to be firearms...this doesn't make laser pointers legal or illegal...and it doesn't imply that other government agencies can't regulate laser pointers or declare their possession or production illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
Required is unarguably the appropriate term. If you don't upgrade, you're technically not running Bitcoin anymore (and may end up on your own split chain). Required doesn't mean you must...it means you must if you want to run Bitcoin.
Recommended would imply if you do nothing you'll still be running Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
5,I have registered the domain name (such as coinlab.cn bitmit.cn bitinstant.cn),These domain names are very suitable for the bitcoin trading platform operating in china.
that's called cybersquatting, and it's illegal. Which Chinese law does it violate? I highly doubt it breaks any law in China; their economy has done very well with variations on that theme. |
|
|
|
I just want to emphasize, I have no criticism against anyone in the bitcoin community. I most certainly did not mean to make the particular point that I would call what happened as technically a 51% attack (and it wasn't a bad thing, it was simply the decision that was made at the time and bitcoin is still alive and kicking). Also, I did not mean to make Gavin look like a terrible dictator, only that I see it as there being a focal point where network-wide decisions are made (and this is not a bad thing, it's simply the way it is and bitcoin is still alive and kicking). Like I said, everything is fine and I believe bitcoin was designed in such a way that things will eventually all work out (until a competing currency takes it's place). My point with this thread was to simply emphasize that the network is still young, as evident by the fact that this decentralized network still relies on a very strong (and excellently performing) developer community. I think they're doing a great job, but please note that as long as we need to rely on the developers of the single most dominant client, the network is still very immature. The protocol is not yet a protocol if there's only one de-facto client using it. In this case, it's simply the client's implementation, not a protocol.OP: you're right. But I think you miss the point of the Bitcoin project: to create a decentralized payment processing network. Your observation would be better put: "we're not done yet!"
Notice the title has a "yet" in it  Bingo. I agree. This experiment is still in progress. A true protocol it is not. Is that the goal? Yes. But we need to survive until we get there. The 1.0 release will be very interesting...hopefully it won't come too soon. We can't have oopsy network splits in 1.0. |
|
|
|
|
It's not the miners who make the call in the max_block_size issue, right? I mean, all the miners could gang up and say: "we're not going to process blocks with more than 2 transactions," if they wanted too. It's the validating nodes that make the call as far as what will be a valid block. If all the nodes ganged up, they could change the limit as well.
I think miners should keep their own market determined limit on transactions. If I was a big pool, I'd make people pay for access to my speedy blocks. They're being nice processing no fee tx's as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Are we still vulnerable to a network split? I mean, surely a very similar block to the one that caused all the problems will pop up again shortly...
|
|
|
|
|
OP: you're right. But I think you miss the point of the Bitcoin project: to create a decentralized payment processing network. Your observation would be better put: "we're not done yet!"
|
|
|
|
There only like 5 million bucks on MtGox.
well over 8 and that is just on the open orders Exactly...there Isn't much money available if someone tried to sell millions of coins all at once...certainly not $500 million! We can't all sell our cons at once and all of us make "money." |
|
|
|
|
Idealistic thinking meets practicality...I think an unintended network split would have been foolish to just let happen...making two weaker Bitcoin networks is in no ones best interest. This wasn't a fork per se, all transactions were broadcast to both halves of the split network. Not many transactions would've been "reversed". Most transactions were on both chains anyway. As I understand it, the balance of hash rate on each network was about equal...thus the split network could have persisted for a very long time....increasing the possibility of more transactions becoming reversible. It's probably a still possible attack method on the network.
|
|
|
|
|
What fraction of the first n Bitcoins ever created have been spent? I would presume the first 1 million or so belong to Satoshi. I think
He was likely smart enough to periodically mix them though.
|
|
|
|
Exactly. There's not much money on Gox. |
|
|
|
|
There only like 5 million bucks on MtGox.
|
|
|
|
All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446
You should know what happens next...
I bet merchants would think twice before they decide to accept Bitcoins after the incident.
Good thing someone honest was the cause of the double spend... |
|
|
|
So if I may say something... I learned about this glitch fairly early on and immediately hopped into the bitcoin-dev IRC room. The impression I got was one of many brilliant, professional, dedicated bitcoin developers working together to resolve the issue. I was immensely impressed with them.
Even people like Luke-Jr and myself, who seem to be mortal enemies, worked politely together and did what was needed to contain the situation and fix things. Most of the people in the room stayed respectfully quiet and let the important work occur.
To all the amazingly intelligent devs who make this crazy shit actually work, my hat is off to you (even you, Luke-Jr!). Eternally impressed with your work, coordination, and skill. And this all being done for the simple passion of Bitcoin. Quite inspiring, really.
Quoted for posterity. Hats off to you gents! |
|
|
|
why the hell is Deepbit only on 0.3.21 Tycho has been very resistent to any change. ... and Luke on 0.6.0? Eligius is actually running both 0.6.0 and 0.8.0 concurrently, but has 0.6.0 prioritized so it trumps 0.8.0 when there's a conflict. It noticed and began reporting the problem immediately, but I guess wizkid057 was busy with something at the time. I love this guy. Luke -- perhaps this is a good strategy for miners to adopt. Perhaps someone should pay you (the Foundation?) to keep running like this to catch bugs quickly. |
|
|
|
Satoshi told me that Bitcoin was roughly 2 years in the making before it was released. I am very skeptical he was at that meeting. Much more likely is that he simply copied the BibTEX citation code from here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.13.6228As you can see, the "booktitle" attribute is simply the name of the meeting @INPROCEEDINGS{Massias99designof,
author = {H. Massias and X. Serret Avila and J.-J. Quisquater},
title = {Design Of A Secure Timestamping Service With Minimal Trust Requirement},
booktitle = {the 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux},
year = {1999}
}
I think this sort of thing is a waste of time. He clearly wanted to be left alone. If one day he decides to rejoin the project, I'm sure he'll be willing to answer questions about his background. That's interesting. That bibtex is incorrectly formatted to begin with. If that's the way it's publicly available, yeah I agree it's a waste of time. It's very odd to not see page numbers in the reference. That reference doesn't actually tell you where to find the abstract. It's possible Satoshi did not have the page information at the time, if he only had the paper and not the whole proceedings available. As you can see the paper as Massias published it does not contain that information. http://www.uclouvain.be/crypto/services/download/publications.pdf.9ca0971b29e9c614.7064663131332e706466.pdfThe typical scenario for having knowledge of the presented paper but no published reference to it is having the meeting program (given to attendees). You cite that way before the proceeding are published (which is some time after the meeting). But if someone's put it out publicly and not cited it as "in the proceedings of..." it's gonna get propagated that way. It would be nice to at least look at the proceedings from the meeting though. |
|
|
|
Satoshi told me that Bitcoin was roughly 2 years in the making before it was released. I am very skeptical he was at that meeting. Much more likely is that he simply copied the BibTEX citation code from here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.13.6228As you can see, the "booktitle" attribute is simply the name of the meeting @INPROCEEDINGS{Massias99designof,
author = {H. Massias and X. Serret Avila and J.-J. Quisquater},
title = {Design Of A Secure Timestamping Service With Minimal Trust Requirement},
booktitle = {the 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux},
year = {1999}
}
I think this sort of thing is a waste of time. He clearly wanted to be left alone. If one day he decides to rejoin the project, I'm sure he'll be willing to answer questions about his background. That's interesting. That bibtex is incorrectly formatted to begin with. If that's the way it's publicly available, yeah I agree it's a waste of time. It's very odd to not see page numbers in the reference. That reference doesn't actually tell you where to find the abstract. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
