MEONO IS A xtSHILL
not even brave enough to post under his real account.
as for gavin and mickey, go fuck yourself. ignored.
Life's not been a happy experience for you, has it?  |
|
|
|
I'm not sure that block is really an XT block. It was mined by Slush pool, which is still creating all version 3 blocks. That particular block has a bizarre version field for some reason. That's true. It could be a BIP 101 block... I don't really think it's either - the version in that block is "536870919", where the version field in a normal block (up to now) has been 1, 2, or 3. I don't think any of the current BIP proposals or XT client creates weird versions like that, do they? I would have expected maybe "4". I confess that I have not looked at the XT code to see what it puts in the version field, but I would not expect what appears to be a large random number. I think maybe the version field just got corrupted in that block somehow. Try looking at that number in hex, and then referring to the specs. |
|
|
|
i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.
i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.
Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled. Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening) If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this. So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda. Yes indeed that's what I mean - what is your agenda for ignoring all the other changes in your statement? It isn't just block size as you stated. Ahhhh... look at the title of the thread. Just following the topic. edit: to clarify,.. The thread above was based on a flawed premise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered |
|
|
|
i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.
i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.
Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled. Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening) If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete. Are you ignoring stuff there for a reason? If the XT altcoin became a defacto (which it wont) then people would be accepting a whole list of changes - not just the time controlled block size increases. ... and I don't see any direct mention of IP blacklists on the XT fud web page. Although fungibility may mean nothing to you, it's a pretty important factor to me as I have brought up on the forum a few times over the years. blacklists in there mean I wont support it And by the power of bitcoin, you have been given that choice. By continuing with core, you can demonstrate this. So really, there is no issue unless people want to be divisive for a different agenda. |
|
|
|
you got that wrong my friend, if the miners switch to the new client, exchanges wont have any other choice but to follow, because the old chain will be dead..
Not really, because new miners can jump in and resurrect the old chain. There was a recent case of an altcoin, I don't remember which one, which tried to hard fork but couldn't because the one exchange it traded on stubbornly refused to go along. That might be an issue for a small network, where one player may have the power to do so, but as Phil Potter from Bitfinex said, "we will see what our competitors are doing, if there is a consensus, we will follow it' tl;dr This is not about taking sides, its about following the money. |
|
|
|
 That article says the judge dismissed the personal claim.
|
|
|
|
many don't understand that the new code in XT will be active only if 75% of the network actually runs it
And many don't understand that the 75% is not of the network but of the mining pools. And this can be easily manipulated! Anyway, XT altcoin fork is dead now. Block size debate was just a cover up now revealing hidden agenda to introduce among bitcoin users the XT client that is simply an IP logger and blacklist aggregator! Well, I said this few years ago, Bitcoin is not BitTorrent, bitcoin is a financial instrument and will be heavily regulated, you can try to fight it now, but whether you like it or not, these things will eventually happen... or Bitcoin transactions will be deemed illegal and businesses will be forbidden from using it, and there the mass adoption dream vanishes in front of your eyes. just another clueless shill for tyranny. And you? You are just a knowledgeable shill for corporate interests. Or your own Bag. |
|
|
|
1BTC = 2BTC soon
After this crash XT fork is basically dead. I doubt Core devs will even discuss whatever block size increase now. You should listen to Phill Potter on the whaleclub soundcloud. Crash was due to usual bitcoin leveraged hopium. Please, do keep up. |
|
|
|
And only active in certain situations.  Yes, in situations where the person running the node configures it that way. |
|
|
|
i cant beleive it, if this is true XT loose all my respect, freedom and privacy and our flag and they destroy it.
i will wait for a reply from the XT core devs and watch this thread carefully, but if finally we discover that this is true.... well maybe this is a good news so we can concentrate our efforts on what is needed, THE ORIGINAL BITCOIN.
Whats your question? The thread above was based on a flawedpremise to start with, but the substantive issue of IP Prioritization has been answered - its configurable by those running a node to be either on or disabled. Bitcoin core still exists, so no need for extra concentration there. This is simply a poll to let nodes/miners make a choice as to whether they want to increase limits now or wait for consensus ( that doesnt look like happening) If bitcoinxt achieves majority, it will be the one everyone continues with. If it fails to achieve the numbers required, it will become obsolete. |
|
|
|
I just hope somebody spreads this info on Reddit, which is where most of XT zombie supporters lurk.
What? you want to be laughed at there as well?  so the OP may have been looking at the wrong code by accident. |
|
|
|
This NotBitcoinXT going to destroy the trust in the XT ecosystem.
So true. When is XTnodes.com going to acknowledge they have no way to tell genuine Gavinista nodes from NotXT and Pseudonode spoofs? I guess they like misleading the public, just like Gavin and Mike Heam.  Big businesses and miners that relies on bitcoin scaling won't read your silly posts on bitcointalk. Infrastructures are going to switch unless Core moves its ass faster than this. I'm not gonna bet on the later though. As if the spoofed node count wasn't bad enough, now it turns out XT is designed to spy on/blacklist users. The wheels are coming off Gavin's Panopticoin, no matter how much you love its yappy-yay manifesto. You forget that the people who are smart enough to run a node are also smart enough to read the release notes and set configuration as they require. If they want to hide where they are coming from, they set IP priority off. Its really that simple. But keep up the "control every bitcoin user" rubbish - its pure comedy gold. Right up there with your Mani Rosenfel quote!!  |
|
|
|
This NotBitcoinXT going to destroy the trust in the XT ecosystem.
So true. When is XTnodes.com going to acknowledge they have no way to tell genuine Gavinista nodes from NotXT and Pseudonode spoofs? I guess they like misleading the public, just like Gavin and Mike Heam. I believe you quoted MeniRosenfeld last night, but you deleted it. Let me remind you of the shaky foundations you stand on: But anyway, I do strongly believe that the possibility of forking Bitcoin - even if at first it has no consensus - is vital to Bitcoin's health, growth and survival. It's the glue that holds everything together and makes sure the Bitcoin economy has a say in case something goes wrong with the development. Ideally a contentious fork would forever remain a theoretical possibility - but if it is possible it means it can happen, and that's what we're seeing right now. Rejecting a fork on the grounds that it's a fork is wrong. |
|
|
|
Transaction fees increase so transactions decrease, just about equal and opposite forces so no backlog develops.
So how long do you think we can support an ever decreasing number of transactions? And at what number of transactions do you think we will have full equilibrium? 1? 10? In this scenario, everyday transactions just move to sidechains and bitcoin becomes simply a unit of account for sidechains with no value outside it. Fees become a settlement channel between sidechain operators and the miners directly. |
|
|
|
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. Notice how your thread is totally devoid of any intellectual content or insight. That's because you're the OP. it will never amount to anything because you have nothing of intellectual value to offer . Just thuggery. That list of guys you put yourself in can and will enjoy each other's circle jerk. Bro, your fork, it's broken: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1156489.0I'm saving all the code here just in case they decide to hide it. We need a skilled programmer to go through this and see just how bad it is, there's so much code itd be easy to hide some malicious stuff in here. Keep in mind this code is all for the IP logger and blacklist, they worked hard on this! I would just post it here but it is an absolutely immense amount of code. There's both a whitelist and a blacklist, like Coinbase. From what I can tell it is NOT all objective, they can subjectively put people on the lists. This would give them complete control of anyone who uses Bitcoin. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByLnBVYGlyDsT25MNExSUDB2NTA/view?usp=sharingKeep in mind this code was reviewed and given stamp of approval by your very own Gavin. If you dont like that 'feature' - switch it off.. That said, it would have been better if it was off by default, but I doubt the hysterics would have gone any different. No need to keep things on google docs btw - there is a thing called source control, its all historied and open. |
|
|
|
This is really fucked up. Basically a 'feature' like this is the anti-ethos to what Bitcoin was created for, just like increasing the blocksize squeezes out the users it was made to help most
Just when I thought my respect for these two couldn't get any lower..
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but its on the way for core too... You have privacy issues but dont care about being vulnerable to DDos? set -listen=0 set -disableipprio=0 Problem solved. Now, nobody will know where you are relaying from. +void InitIPGroups(CScheduler *scheduler) {
+ // If scheduler is NULL then we're in unit tests.
+ if (scheduler) {
+ // Don't use in regtest mode to avoid excessive and useless HTTP requests, don't use if the user disabled.
+ if (GetBoolArg("-disableipprio", false) || Params().NetworkIDString() == "regtest" || !fListen)
+ return;
+ // If we have a proxy, then we are most likely not reachable from the internet, so don't use.
+ proxyType dummy;
+ if (GetProxy(NET_IPV4, dummy) || GetProxy(NET_IPV6, dummy) || GetProxy(NET_TOR, dummy))
+ return;
+ } |
|
|
|
What is happening? Can anyone explain to me?
Ignorant media articles about the XT non-fork making whales sell to start a panic and buy again cheaper to finish it. Hodlers just sit around and enjoy fresh popcorn. No. longs on margin were liquidaded, and oddly enough the exact number of buyers were waiting. |
|
|
|
|
what, about 40K btc change hands there? And we are back up to Inca's bounce point.
|
|
|
|
HOLY SHIT 10Mil$ in longs closed!
How do you see that? it was 33million last time i checked now @ 23,728,660, and you gata imagine some smart money is opening some new longs are people get liquidated They are buying faster than the poor bastards are being liquidated. What an adjustment. |
|
|
|
Well, it seems to me after watching some of the technical debates that bitcoin has a serious problem with the beta status and a value of $4billion. It makes it extremely hard to fix technical issues just because of it's value. It can never really get out of the beta status and fix the real issues.
Mr. Contradiction, from where did you buy your crystal ball ? Kindly tell me as your crystal balls sucks tbh !! Lol, not perfect, but has there ever been a technology where the first implementation where the successful one in the long run? Did you hear about the internet ? The internet used NCP ( under arpanet) until 1983 when they changed protocol to tcp/ip. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
