|
basically BIP 100 give miners more control while can' even guarantee blocksize increase.
|
|
|
|
|
why didn't you post this question to shadowcash ANN thread ?
|
|
|
|
|
I have same concern, BIP 100 can't promise bigger blocks while it undermines decentralization by giving miners more control. I want blocksize increase but if i have to choose between BIP100 and staying at 1MB forever, i would choose the latter. Core devs need to reject this proposal.
|
|
|
|
I have been trying to avoid the constant debate but BIP100 definitely seems like the best decision, I am happy that there was all the drama as it looks to have come to a true solution and fixes the issues we have had and would have had in the future.
Unfortunately, BIP 100 allows a miner with 21% of the hash rate to prevent any and all block size cap increases. The other 79% of the miners could theoretically collude and begin ignoring size cap votes under a certain threshold, but that is hardly ideal, and antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin - they would be knowingly ignoring valid blocks. Do we really want to head down that road? These large mining pools care about one thing, profit and they aren't going to prevent any and all block size cap increases if it hurts the price of bitocoin, they don't even care about the size much they were all fine with it being 8mb blocks as it really doesn't hurt them to do that. Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong. History of Bitcoin has proved that: 0day exploit, MtGox collapse, BTCGuild having 50% hashpower, .... And there are so many way that Bitcoin can go wrong with BIP 100. Giving miner more power to control Bitcoin is horrible idea. Oh wait, Jeff Garzik is working for a mining firm, that why he has this proposal. Miners should only do that job that they are designated to do: include transactions to blocks. Miners control the network and always have, if they wanted they could always have formed up a super pool and killed the network or force any action they want to dissolve, they just don't want to ruin their profits. You're blindly trusting miners to be not evil. I would like to remind that #1 reason for people using Bitcoin is that we don't have to trust anyone with our money. Mining centralization is the problem that even Satoshi didn't foresee it when he designed Bitcoin and POW. So why would we want to make this problem worse ? People are thriving to see bigger blocks and they are willing to jump in any "proposal" satisfying that without thinking about long term consequences, first BIP 101, now this. Any reckless decision now can lead to collapse of system. |
|
|
|
I have been trying to avoid the constant debate but BIP100 definitely seems like the best decision, I am happy that there was all the drama as it looks to have come to a true solution and fixes the issues we have had and would have had in the future.
Unfortunately, BIP 100 allows a miner with 21% of the hash rate to prevent any and all block size cap increases. The other 79% of the miners could theoretically collude and begin ignoring size cap votes under a certain threshold, but that is hardly ideal, and antithetical to the idea of Bitcoin - they would be knowingly ignoring valid blocks. Do we really want to head down that road? These large mining pools care about one thing, profit and they aren't going to prevent any and all block size cap increases if it hurts the price of bitocoin, they don't even care about the size much they were all fine with it being 8mb blocks as it really doesn't hurt them to do that. Murphy's law: What can go wrong will go wrong. History of Bitcoin has proved that: 0day exploit, MtGox collapse, BTCGuild having 50% hashpower, .... And there are so many way that Bitcoin can go wrong with BIP 100. Giving miner more power to control Bitcoin is horrible idea, it's even worse than keeping 1MB limit. Oh wait, Jeff Garzik is working for a mining firm, that why he has this proposal. Miners should only do the job that they are designated to do: include transactions to blocks. |
|
|
|
Hi, i'm planning to install Electrum as cold wallet on my offline laptop running Ubuntu. However the installation instructions require me to connect this PC to internet in order to have Electrum installed: sudo apt-get install python-qt4 python-pip
sudo pip install https://download.electrum.org/Electrum-2.4.4.tar.gz Is there any executable for Linux/Ubuntu or alternative method to install without connecting offline PC to internet ? Oh nvm, now i realized that i can run Electrum straightly from source. Btw is there any advantage in term of usage from install as above compared to running from source ? I got the warning "You are offline" window and "Error: Cannot read config file" in the terminal" during first run but they disappear in later attempts. |
|
|
|
Hi, i'm planning to install Electrum as cold wallet on my offline laptop running Ubuntu. However the installation instructions require me to connect this PC to internet in order to have Electrum installed: sudo apt-get install python-qt4 python-pip
sudo pip install https://download.electrum.org/Electrum-2.4.4.tar.gz Is there any executable for Linux/Ubuntu or alternative method to install without connecting offline PC to internet ? |
|
|
|
I got this error after completed 90% of compiling Monero: [ 90%] Building CXX object tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/blockchain_db.cpp.o
In file included from /home/***/bitmonero/tests/unit_tests/blockchain_db.cpp:40:0:
/home/***/bitmonero/src/blockchain_db/berkeleydb/db_bdb.h:28:20: fatal error: db_cxx.h: No such file or directory
#include <db_cxx.h>
^
compilation terminated.
tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/build.make:100: recipe for target 'tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/blockchain_db.cpp.o' failed
make[3]: *** [tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/blockchain_db.cpp.o] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/***/bitmonero/build/release'
CMakeFiles/Makefile2:1880: recipe for target 'tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/all' failed
make[2]: *** [tests/unit_tests/CMakeFiles/unit_tests.dir/all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/***/bitmonero/build/release'
Makefile:127: recipe for target 'all' failed
make[1]: *** [all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/***/bitmonero/build/release'
Makefile:58: recipe for target 'release-all' failed
make: *** [release-all] Error 2 Happened on both my VM and Azure VPS. |
|
|
|
|
where is the source code for db branch ? I want to try it out on VM.
Found and compiled, didnt know that it is right in official branch. But I'm curious why can't we have new binaries why the new version is already on the git ?
|
|
|
|
OP need to choose a better picture for this post, the Model say 60GB SSD  |
|
|
|
Please use your eyes and read this: Bitcoin transaction fees go up when transaction data volume goes up, the blockchain functions perfectly normal regardless of transaction # or size.
Except that it can only perfectly function at the rate of 3tx per second. |
|
|
|
|
those pools support bigger blocks but they won't switch to a fork like XT, if i remember correctly they said that once.
|
|
|
|
Plenty of room in ^there^ for all you Theymos and BashCo haters.
BashCo own /v/Bitcoin which is not censored and has decent number of subscriber. |
|
|
|
Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn. He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'... Not really. They have ulterior motives with this fork. Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.
This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.
And that is exactly why an imposer appeared to please retards like you http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.htmlI have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
There is no way to prove that guy is real Satoshi, that message didn't have signature. |
|
|
|
Of course its dumping. Every freakin IPO does. Poor bastards who are late to market or holding are going to lose money or baghold.
We will have to open a section " Ethereum Bagholders Anonymous". "Free tissues".
ETH is trading, in BTC terms, between 4-5x the initial IPO price at the moment. Please spare ETH 'bag holders' your sympathy  Let's not forget that BTC price was 600+ when Ether IPO start. With this speed of dropping, even IPO investors will see their break even (in USD) very soon, if i was them i would sell now to take some small profits. |
|
|
|
|
Market cap is meaningless for premine/IPO/ICO coins, don't even try to mention it.
|
|
|
|
i think bitcoin system made it's own back choosing for the valid chain
No the system didn't correct itself. It required those pools updating their software in order to mine blocks properly. |
|
|
|
OMG WTF guys? I`m getting scared. So if i just send now a transaction, then i lose my bitcoins and it doesnt get to the other end? Also what if i buy now bitcoin with € do i get fake bitcoin if the merchant is on wrong chain? This could be a serious problem. No FUD intended but seriously, i`m starting to panic/  OMG WTF please read carefully before getting panic. Everything is settled, those who using Bitcoin core older than 0.10 and was receiving payment during fork period should wait at least 30 confirmations. |
|
|
|
|
wasn't the problem fixed shortly ?
those pools went back to valid chain so what are we worrying about ?
|
|
|
|
|
i don't see what's the advantages of moving discussions to a dedicated forum beside avoiding trolling/critics. A lot of people like me don't have enough time to afford browsing several crypto forums daily.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
