|
If you are planning on setting up a node, you should be fairly committed to it. More nodes are better, but only if those nodes are reliable ( have high availability) Nodes that pop up every now and again at random intervals can actually be detrimental to the network. I dont think there is a hard science to it, but it should be borne in mind.
If you want to run a node and be a real asset to the network, then you should be prepared to have a machine that is always on.
|
|
|
|
OK finally... Why did the market wait a whole week to dump 10K coins for 3 dollar discount?  Is this it? Or will we dump another 10k and get our $255 coin? because the fork is actually happening now. This isnt going to be good for the price. As I understand it the fork is a very slow process. It is until it isnt. The writing is on the wall now. I am of the opinion this is going to be very bad for bitcoin. This fork only makes difference when majority (75%) miners have switched to the new fork. Actually, since everyone can see the progress in the blockchain, once it is close to 75%, most of miners and nodes will switch already. So in my opinion, there will be no noticeable fork happen at all. Depends on your perspective. From the perspective of a merchant or an exchange, it is very much going to affect them as there are going to be two copies of the blockchain and that means two copies of spendable coins. This is not going to be good. There will only be a fork once 75% have moved to XT. Up to that point there is but one chain. Once the fork occurs, there will be a very rapid migration of the remainder to the consensus chain. There will be no extended period of duplicate chains. |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. Side chains are implemented on top of bitcoin - they dont directly change the underlying protocol, only interact with it - like a wallet would. However, some changes to core are required to support certain sidechain proposals. Edit: Actually, when you tke into account the tokens for using sidechains ( eth, factoids, etc.) then, yeah, the lines really do begin to blur. Maybe call it alt-coin-lite?  |
|
|
|
I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,
But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)
During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.
Way out of the mess: Core adds a largeblock patch, different from gavins but who cares. Othere XT patches are delayed to make them look important. If not, they go the way of the Xfree86 developers - into the fog. Next fight is over the name. I suggest renaming XT to core by april depending on 75% supermajority as expressed by just doing it.  It would have to follow a BIP. But isnt this scenario what MH and GA wanted all along? The failure to get this resulted in XT. |
|
|
|
|
I can understand that theymos is in a very difficult spot - he is probably right (in a literal, technical sense) in the assertion that XT as a theory is on topic, but as a viable, downloadable solution it becomes an alt-coin. Until it reaches consensus,
But what troubles me is the zeal with which this policy is still being executed across the platforms. At this point, who really benefits from a suppression of debate?
(bear in mind that we are free to discuss it here and many other topics)
During the fall of the Berlin wall, there was a pivotal moment when the border guards finally recognised the futility of their duty, and allowed people through unchallenged.
|
|
|
|
In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.
Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?
If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat. I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt. The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed. Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today. Pointing out one would be foolish to attempt to undermine Bitcoin's economic majority is not "bullying tactics." The Sandinistas are Marxist-Leninists, the "oldskool" Free Shit Army. Do you really need me to explain what happens to freedom fighters ( and everyday people) under Marxist-Leninist regimes? The main reason Castro-wannabe Ortega seeks to be another Marxist Dictator For Life is to maintain his immunity from prosecution for the crimes of raping and abusing his daughter from the time she was 11 until 21. From the Guardian, hardly a right-wing source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/07/thecomandantewhobecameacaThey still won. If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you, |
|
|
|
if public gets notice of this fork-thing we could easily go double digits.
We are just waiting for the conclusion of the debacle, then MOON! you're an idiot if you think Hearn is taking you to the moon ... he's the lead engineer on the train to the gulags. You damn troll, away with you!! To the List!!! Even I dropped my jet-pack in for a service today - just in case... |
|
|
|
It would be nice if Satoshi would weigh in on the debate now that it has come to a head with Mike's release of XT. The last time he did was in response to the media potentially using the Dorian Nakamoto story to discredit Bitcoin in a big way. This issue seems more pressing.
I'm sure he's out there watching closely. Maybe his silence says it all.
That was a hoax - someone having a laugh using an account that had become dormant and hackable. |
|
|
|
I for one believe the depressed growth in price is largely influenced by the risk of bitcoin failure, and i suspect we'll see a lot of action when we get new information and certainty on Block size.
this is true. between now and when this whole block size issue is resolved...there will be a ton of volatility. I would have thought the exact opposite - nobody wants to move until things are clearer. Gently sideways.... |
|
|
|
In the remote possiblity XT becomes a matter of more importance than the hype, mirth, and scorn it generates at present, MPex and other 1MBer Elder Whales are prepared to use substantial (possibly exhaustive) portions of their extraordinarily massive war chests to repel 8MBer attacks. To them, this is Holy War, with barbarian Gavinista hordes clamouring for a Free Shit Junta at the gates of their bespoke civilization. They are more of a mood to impale heads atop spikes than reward with compromise Hearn's attacks on decentralization, Tor, and the consensus process.
Are you still sure you want to risk your tiny stash playing Hard Fork Poker with such ultra-high-rollers?
If you are relying on simple bullying tactics to defend your position then I fear that you are already tacitly accepting a high possibility of defeat. I like your analagy of Gavin as Freedom Fighter (Sandinista). It is, in an oldskool fashion, quite apt. The Sandanistas took on the american hegemony in South America, and despite the best (illegal) efforts of the CIA with the Contras, they prevailed. Daniel Ortega is president of Nicaragua today. |
|
|
|
…
At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.
I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way. What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit. Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ." What would happen? Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB. This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes. I'd expect many people to do the same thing. Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size. We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks. Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows. TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit. Indeed, a fixed block limit may not be necessary at all. A fair limit can be decided by the network, as a balance between the higher real costs of larger blocks ( more difficult hash target against fixed subsidy) and the reward of increased fees from a larger number of tx' s. I think this would allow blocksize to grow, but requiring sufficient tx's to justify it. This growth could be controlled within a set 'range' of difficulty, enforced by an algorithm in the code, the bounds of which are determined from such factors as a weighted average of the difficulty for the previous n blocks.... However, this doesn't deal with the issues raised by spam. |
|
|
|
Yuan devaluation does nothing. Bitcoin is its own kind  I wondered about that too. The yuan price of btc should go up, relative to the dollar price of btc. ts not really being devalued. They are merely changing the rules they use to decide where it trades. Todays rule is to fix based on where it closes in the previous days trade, which is effectively 'unpegging' from the dollar because previously the midpoiint for this trading band was dictated centrally, and not by the market. The yuan has been, and remains, woefully undervalued against the dollar. If it were allowed to trade freely, it would probably gain as much as 20% on the dollar in a short period of time. You need to read into the articles to get the truth here. They all headline the \devaluation' but play down this fundamental change to how they value the yuan. Take the guardians coverage http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/11/china-devalues-yuan-by-2-to-boost-flagging-economyYou need to go to the very end to get this nugget: The devaluation may be an attempt to make trading more open and market-based, observers said.
“I don’t think this is a reaction to the weak trade data over the weekend, I think it’s because of the SDR,” said Zhou Hao of Commerzbank in Singapore.
“They need to have a market-based mechanism and they need volatility.”
|
|
|
|
That's the whole point. They get to interpret what their own arcane language means, not somebody else.
Thats what your advocate is for!! In most jurisdictions (outside the US, anyway) overly vague or expansive legislation usually gets hammered fairly quickly. Tragic cases make bad law, but so does fear and lack of understanding of the subject under review. Most of the submissions in response to the DFS proposals were centered on refining the scope, but I think this largely fell on deaf ears. They did, however, remove references to software services which had been part of it. |
|
|
|
I think the big issue with the terms of bitlicense are to do with how they define Virtual Currency Business Activity. Good. Bitcoin is not a virtual currency. It is a digital currency. Section 200.1 of the DFS Proposed Rules, Codes, etc. states: (p) Virtual Currency means any type of digital unit that is used as a medium of exchange or a form of
digitally stored value. Virtual Currency shall be broadly construed to include digital units of exchange that (i)
have a centralized repository or administrator; (ii) are decentralized and have no centralized repository or
administrator; or (iii) may be created or obtained by computing or manufacturing effort.
I see what you say, and agree with your definition, but like I say, the language they use is arcane and open to misinterpretation. |
|
|
|
I don't think that the 5000$ fee was a the problem with BFX. That would be just silly. I think that the problem was with regulations that regard shady schenanigans, like insider trading.
If the bitcoin market wants to become something serious, then it would have to be regulated and run openly. If the market is unregulated, and all the exchanges can just do whatever they wish, then you can be certain that they will abuse their position to get the upper hand in the trading game. Then it's not trading anymore, it's gambling in a virtual casino, run by the exchanges.
The Real Drop will start when people will finally realize that bitcoins price is as high as it is, only because of the past shady schenanigans of the exchanges.
I think the big issue with the terms of bitlicense are to do with how they define Virtual Currency Business Activity. Its worded in a way to include any and all activities that could be linked to VCBA. That would have the potential to create a bureaucratic nightmare for any business. Like I said earlier, they need to word this in the ubiquitous language of the technology, not try and fit it to what they understand traditional financial activity to be. |
|
|
|
I converted 800 bitcoins into cash one time back in the day through BitPay.
I think authorities would view that use of BitPay as "Laundering", not "conversion" |
|
|
|
I think you are confused if you don't think Bitpay need a bitlicence for NY customers, professor. Man up and admit you were wrong  This from BitPay's CCO, Tim Byun. BitPay does not have any contracts or relationships with consumers. Consumers’ only interaction with the Processing Service is through
a Merchant’s website or point-of-sale system that has integrated the Processing Service. As BitPay
offers no consumer-facing services, consumers cannot engage BitPay to remit bitcoins to another per-
son, buy or sell bitcoins for themselves, or store their bitcoins. |
|
|
|
Its funny when you read into the bones of the NY bitlicense, its pure 19th Century thinking for dealing with a 21st century technology. |
|
|
|
I call it the Nyxit, lol.
Thats very good. |
|
|
|
So the $300 dream is good as dead now? But the $500 dream still intact in my brain. I don't know why. Maybe because of the incoming halving?
$300 dream ded, confirmed. And your brain is the only brain aware that such halving is inbound. Maybe after 200k worth of goxcoins get distributed, 70k US and AU govcoins to be sold, a maxblocksize argument that seems to have donned cement shoes is resolved... maybe. Wow, really? Yet Bitcoin is still up ten million percent in just six years. The world just needs to try to wrap its head around that fact. Those kind of numbers just don't fit into any kind of analytics. Most of the world has many broken paradigms to replace as well. Just relax and be glad you are here with us witnessing such an historic event. It takes 10 million percent to get $0.0001 to $10. And in only 6 years!!! You are doing so well. Returns are like risk - a huge increase in something tiny is still tiny. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
