 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
|
I'm inclining to agree with Adam that the biggest problem with bitcoin is the core devs, and that the best course of action for Counterparty is to expect nothing from them, except perhaps deliberate obstructiveness, and move to considering Litecoin, or some other faster blockchain without the baggage of these guys. I don't see much constructive development from them over the last year in comparison to what the Counterparty devs have acheived in a few weeks anyway. They seem a lot more like traffic cops than devs on any open source project I've come across.
If Counterparty is on top on Litecoin, would that mean IPO/Betting/CFD settlements will happen in LTC? If so thats really sucks. People want to use BTC, not litecoin, freicoin or whatevercoin. Without BTC as the backbone of the value exchange that happens within Counterparty, Counterparty will dramaticly lose its appeal. People want to use BTC now, because they have no idea of what will be available in the future. I'd say it's just the opposite. Without Counterparty, BTC will dramatically lose its appeal! By the way, even if there is some compromise reached on this issue, can you imagine having to work with Luke forever?  |
|
|
|
Is Luke-Jr the only person thinking what he thinks or are others BTC core dev agree with him?
I think the reason people in this thread are so wound up is because there is a perception (from Jgarzik's comments in part, but of course from the OP_Return from 80 to 40 change as a whole), that Luke Jr's opinion/attitude is very much indicative of the position of the the other core developers as well. (Especially since none of them have come forward to provide sound technical reasoning for the change). OK. What would happen if there is a consensus in the BTC community that one guy shouldn't be a core developper anymore. Does a procedure exist? If there isn't such a procedure there ought to be. It's pretty clear from Luke's entire posting history that he is a constant source of friction, and takes obvious delight in it. I'm inclining to agree with Adam that the biggest problem with bitcoin is the core devs, and that the best course of action for Counterparty is to expect nothing from them, except perhaps deliberate obstructiveness, and move to considering Litecoin, or some other faster blockchain without the baggage of these guys. I don't see much constructive development from them over the last year in comparison to what the Counterparty devs have acheived in a few weeks anyway. They seem a lot more like traffic cops than devs on any open source project I've come across. The bottom line is that without innovation Bitcoin is going to be left behind. It's a shame to throw away all that hashing power and first mover advantage, but from the silence of any of the other 'Big 15', and the attitude of Luke and Jeff in this thread it seems pointess to keep begging for a tiny peice of their territory to work with because they have made it very clear that they just don't care about what Counterparty is attempting. |
|
|
|
My understanding is that Counterparty is functioning, right now, using Bitcoin as a transport layer. In order to do so, it must be using existing, accepted features of Bitcoin.
It is abusing a bitcoin feature in an unintended, unaccepted way that obviously impacts the network to its detriment. In what way is the array of benefits Counterparty provides to Bitcoin an abuse? Spam is an abuse. Inserting religious messages is an abuse. Counterparty is a *use*. Because you and Luke do not accept what Counterparty is doing does not make it 'unaceptable'. The two of you may be big wheels around here, but that can change fast if you act in ways that a majority see as counterproductive to Bitcoin, and in this case I think it is clear that you are. Please spell out here, in detail, with numbers, how you *hypothesize* that Counterparty is impacting the network to its detriment. If you can put a clearly defined cost on its use then perhaps that can be weighed against its obvious benefits. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, what's the problem with changing the limit in IsStandard() back to 80 bytes? I have yet to see any argument for why 40 is better than 80, and using the latter value would benefit everyone involved immediately. For relay, probably no immediate problem. For mining, it encourages spam. For long-term, it's unnecessary. If that is what your argument boils down to, it seems to be completely inadequate to explain your insistence on this issue. |
|
|
|
I'm tired of assholes who wastes their money on the disgusting misogynistic car culture instead of doing something useful with their money. Go pick up a copy of any car magazine and there is, I guarantee, a scantily clad woman being objectified in one of the pages.
You need to go argue this point in the comments section of http://heartiste.wordpress.com or http://www.returnofkings.comPeople are more interested in money than feminism here.  |
|
|
|
Thank you for your inability to add a non-shit non-scam coin
Your obnoxious childish attitude is not helping this project. Grow up! |
|
|
|
|
Poloniex working now. XCP safe.
|
|
|
|
I can't login to poloniex.com, no.
No connection to Gox, I hope? |
|
|
|
I'll post again, Busoni will you kindly Release: - the text of emails exchanged between you and the hacker + email headers;
- the email address he used on poloniex;
- the nick name he used in poloniex;
- the IP address used in poloniex;
If you will not then please say Why not +1 +2 Can you guys even log in to Poloniex right now? |
|
|
|
Thanks for confirming. Tense times  |
|
|
|
|
Is anyone else having problems logging in to Poloniex? I'm getting a blank teal blue page after signing in on the login popup. Busoni?
|
|
|
|
And for the last time I don't give a fuck about Bitcoin's legal status, and neither should anyone else. In fact, we should assume that's illegal and make sure our infrastructure is robust enough that it doesn't matter.
Sometimes I think you're about the only MAN on this forum, Justus.  |
|
|
|
Where did I go wrong? Can anyone help please?
You might have gleaned from the internet that Bitcoin is by far the hottest investment of 2013. Where you went wrong is in thinking that it is still being given away for free. That applied 3 or four years ago, but since then Bitcoin has hit the bigtime. What you need to do is sign up with Coinbase if you are in the US, or Bitstamp or BTC-E if you are in Europe or elsewhere, and send them some money. Then you can participate. |
|
|
|
well if its true then foundation is gonna lose their credibility in this community.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . ." Ringing any bells? |
|
|
|
Careful what you wish for.
Don't worry, I've thought it through quite carefully. You have nothing to lose but your chains Why don't you take a couple of hours to appreciate the genius of Murray Rothbard: https://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.aspIt'll put your mind at ease. |
|
|
|
|
I think what is needed at this point is an official Anti-Bitcoin Foundation.
Just a simple website that states the position of bitcoin users who do not agree that the Bitcoin Foundation represents them, and explicitly refuses to be bound by any agreements made by the Bitcoin Foundation, and makes it clear that we refuse to comply with the regulations of any state, whether it be Thailand or the USA.
Why? Because we want Freedom, we are tired of Slavery, and we will NOT comply any longer.
|
|
|
|
governments CANNOT regulate bitcoin unless we allow it
Yes, and you can see in this thread the people who will allow it. Because it's "inevitable". Because they want to comply with the government. Because they are scared. Because they put greed over principle. Frankly, I don't care about what the people do with bitcoin v.0.8. They almost certainly will turn it into Govtcoin. But the genie is out of the bottle. The true bitcoin is in our very immediate future, and it will UTTERLY DESTROY states around the world. |
|
|
|
|
