Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2022, 01:17:22 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / 2 blockchains coexisting is NOT what will happen. on: May 31, 2015, 10:24:12 PM
So, I've been reading all the recent threads about the 20 MB proposal and how Gavin will implement it in Bitcoin-XT. This has led to many people freaking out and discussing whether they will need to trade “Chain-A coins” for “Chain-B coins” or some of that nonsense. The problem is that people who say that don't understand how the changes will actually be applied.

When a fork is about to happen, first the client is updated to broadcast a new version (I think it would be “v4”), and only after more than 90% of the network is broadcasting it, the fork will start to function. So, either the 1 MB block stays and we never see two blockchains, or the 20 MB block wins and we never see two blockchains.

Please understand everything before spreading lies and FUD.
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Not everyone can run a full node, and that's OK on: February 23, 2015, 09:38:58 PM
Given the recent hard fork proposal, I've noticed there are some complains about how increasing the block size means it would be cost prohibitive to run a full node, because of either storage or bandwidth issues.

However, I think that these people are complaining about a non problem. First, Satoshi himself stated that his vision of Bitcoin would be that as it becomes more popular and more widely used, most people would start to use SPV clients, and that full nodes and miners would only be available to few dedicated servers. So, Satoshi understood that decentralization doesn't mean that everyone can be a full node, but that everyone with the resources could become one, in the same way that in a free market, not everyone can sell products, but everyone with the resources and willing to invest can start to sell them.

Now, some people dislike when Satoshi is brought up because they feel it's an appeal to authority fallacy, and I agree with that. However, there are other arguments that support his idea.

I've said in another thread that the key to the success of humanity as species is specialization. Since the times of the first humans, there were hunters that went all day looking for animals to eat, and others who stayed at home taking care of the crops and the rest of the people such as kids.

As time progressed, humans have had more diverse and specific activities, I don't even know how many. For example, a student can choose to be an accountant, a graphic designer, an architect, a programmer, a civil engineer, a physicist, an entrepreneur, etc. They may choose not than one career, but trying to do all of them is unrealistic. Society works because there are people that know how to do one thing, but how to do it perfectly.

Another idea, already presented in other thread, is that not everything should be decentralized. Decentralization needs consensus of everyone involved for it to work, and as we've seen before, said consensus is quite difficult to obtain. Consensus also means that people understand the topic they're deciding about, which most of the time doesn't happen. People, as specialized as I've said, can only be expert in so many topics, and so expecting them to decide on everything turns out to be far from ideal, since they will choose what they think might work, it just choose what everybody else is choosing without even understanding what's going on. And this already happens with government elections. People sometimes vote for the most handsome candidate (and I've seen it, it's not a joke).

OK, so that's about consensus and specialization, but there's another issue here. Opponents of the fork argue that the new block size would severely limit access to the full node for those who can't afford larger bandwidth plans. But they somehow assume that the current software can be used by anyone in the world. To begin, around 40% of the world population has an internet connection today (, which means that 60% just can't host a full node (how could they?). If you want to make the full node more inclusive, you need not to leave the limit at 1 MB, but actually decrease it to 0 MB so that everyone can participate (mathematically this makes sense, but it's obvious why this doesn't make sense). The other only option would be to give everyone Internet, but that it's tangential and not part of Bitcoin or Satoshi's plan.

Now, let's take the 40% that do have Internet. Can everyone have a full node? Should everyone? Well, no. Having a full node essentially means running a server (this was true even in 2009, but the servers were smaller). And running a server is not something everyone can do. We've talked about specialization before, and running a server requires knowledge of computers, networking, and protocols (in this case, the Bitcoin protocol). Someone that wants to run a full node either needs to already know about these concepts or be willing to learn about them. And then there's consensus.

Bitcoin is decentralized, so every time a new version is proposed, it means nothing until 95% of the network is willing to run it. Full node users must make the decision whether to do the upgrade or not, which ideally should be done if they are capable of taking that decision, not just leaving it to random chance or letting other people decide for them.

So, summarizing, why is the new block limit a bad idea? Because then not everyone could be able to run a full node? There are people right now who can't run it, and people willing to do it may not be prepared to deal with the responsibility of maintaining the server.

Let specialization do its work and allow anyone capable and with the resources to run the full nodes.
3  Other / Meta / News link goes crazy when replying to a topic on: February 17, 2015, 05:36:38 PM
The news header, the one that currently says that the latest version is 0.10.0, is shown differently when replying a topic. Instead of being a link, it shows the actual URL of the link, which is pretty big.

Something like this:

News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.10.0 ( [Magnet (magnet:?xt=urn:btih:170c61fe09dafecfbb97cb4dccd32173383f4e68&dn=0.10.0&] (New!)
4  Other / Off-topic / Has anybody created a Funguscoin yet? on: February 14, 2015, 11:28:50 PM
So that you can have a fungible fungus?

5  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin is not gold on: February 12, 2015, 08:51:53 PM
Regarding the recent discussions about the new fork, I see that some of the arguments refer to Bitcoin being like gold, and like gold, it should not be used for small transactions.

Now, I wonder... why do people insist that Bitcoin should work exactly like gold? What's so fantastic about the yellow metal that they want to replicate?

Bitcoin was not planned to be “like gold”. It was planned as a digital currency that enables payments and money transfer all around the globe, and the proposal never planned a restriction on the value of the transfers.

I understand the similarities between Bitcoin and gold (such as fungibility, durability, and others), but trying to limit its development just because it will be less like gold seems silly and unfounded.
6  Other / Off-topic / Swatch Internet Time on: February 11, 2015, 06:00:02 AM
Have you heard of it? Do you like it? What do you think?
7  Other / New forum software / Ditch signatures altogether on: February 10, 2015, 03:16:22 PM
A proposal for the new forum is to not include signatures at all. Why not?

Well, what exactly is the purpose of a signature? I know that forums have had signatures for decades, but most of the time people put obnoxious pictures on them, bigger than the post itself (this doesn't happen here, as far as I know, but on other forums), or sell them for advertising (which happens here as signature campaigns). People who use their signatures for something more decent are rare.

Maybe you think: the signature is something I can customize to my liking, similar to my profile. In that case, then I think we should give more options for profile customization (similar to what social networks are doing: a profile picture and a background, among other things).

The reason I propose this, is because signature campaigns significantly affect the quality of the posts. People are posting just to get more views on their signatures without contributing with a useful idea or thought on the topic.

I do have a signature, but it's something too simple: it's just a phrase. I don't think it's important enough to be kept in the forum.
8  Economy / Service Discussion / Warning: Phishing email on: February 08, 2015, 01:50:18 AM
It's actually the first time this happens to me, but I just received an email, stating that “17.099848400 have been credited to your account” (it doesn't even mention the currency, but I assume it's Bitcoin due to the link shown).

9  Other / New forum software / When will we see a beta of the new forum? on: February 06, 2015, 04:57:38 PM
Some months ago, when somebody asked about the new software, it was said that a beta would be done somewhen around February 2015.

So, it's February now. Are we expecting something for the end of this month, or will it still take more time?

I'm just curious.
10  Other / Meta / What to do with threads that use weird characters? on: October 19, 2014, 06:28:17 AM
I've recently found a thread that reads something like this:

███ Why Bitcoin Exists ███

all with the annoying black boxes. It's obviously done to call for attention, but it certainly does so negatively.

Can I report these kind of titles? Or should I just deal with it and move on? It's not the first one I see here.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / In * we trust? on: August 27, 2014, 01:55:46 PM
When people do these Bitcoin physical mockups, why do they always use some variation of the motto “In God We Trust” (e.g. “In Cryptocurrency We Trust”, “In Bitcoin We Trust”, “In Satoshi We Trust”, etc.)? Why don't people come up with something better? The motto is very specific to US currency, and as far as I know, the main ideology behind Bitcoin is to ditch fiat currency (which includes the US dollar). Also, the motto talks about faith in a deity, and I don't think we should blindly have faith in Bitcoin (we however, can trust it works by analyzing its source code).

On the other hand, there are other mottos I like, like “Vires in Numeris”, that had no reference to other currencies.
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin 2.0? on: August 04, 2014, 12:24:00 AM
Why is everyone talking about Bitcoin 2.0 if we haven't even reached version 1.0?
13  Other / Off-topic / Decentralized poker on: March 14, 2014, 02:26:32 AM
I was checking my old books, and found one called Game, Set and Math by Ian Stewart. I liked this as a kid because it had interesting math problems (although at the time I couldn't fully understand them).

I decided to check it, and found something interesting. In one chapter, two characters called Tweedledim and Tweedledumb discuss about playing poker by phone. They are worried that the other one can cheat, so they develop a trustless system with an asymmetric encryption, in such a way that one of them can shuffle and deal the cards without knowing which are which.

Obviously I didn't know Bitcoin when I was a kid (simply because it didn't exist), but now I do, and I find some similarities in the concepts. And seeing that Bitcoin is real and has worked for years (even if it's still economically unstable) I'm curious about this “poker by phone” idea.

Has anybody developed an actual implementation of a decentralized poker game (or any other kind of game, for that matter)? Or is there something wrong with the theory that would make this impossible?
14  Other / Meta / Using external smileys on: February 28, 2014, 06:27:55 PM
Can I use external images as smileys on my posts here? (example: )

Or should I always use the ones from the forum? (example: Smiley)

Is there any kind of restriction about this?
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Transaction from the future? on: February 03, 2014, 06:51:26 AM
I was looking at some transactions in my address, and found this:

Just look at the date of the transaction: 2063-08-04 05:00:33

Why is it in the future? Is this some sort of Y2K-like bug? Is it just in

As far as I remember, I already have that money (but it was from those “free BTC” sites, so I wouldn't mind if it was invalid).
16  Bitcoin / Wallet software / SPV library for .NET on: January 26, 2014, 08:37:55 PM
I want to announce that I've started developing a SPV library for .NET (basically a port of bitcoinj). Currently it's largely incomplete, but I would appreciate anyone's help on the development.

Here's the link of the project, hosted in CodePlex:
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / How did “satoshi” become the name of the base unit? on: January 09, 2014, 08:18:44 PM
I'm pretty new to Bitcoin, but I know some basic things, like who Satoshi Nakamoto is (or isn't... since it's a pseudonym) and how his name was used for the base unit of Bitcoin (1×10^-8 BTC)... but why is it called like this? Did Satoshi decided this name, or others started using it in their honor? What's the history behind this?

I'm asking mainly because I've seen the recent “0.0001 BTC name poll”. Is this how the base unit was also named?
18  Bitcoin / BitcoinJ / Using BitcoinJ in .NET (C#) on: November 05, 2013, 03:26:57 AM
Hello! I'm trying to develop a Bitcoin app for the Windows Store. I'm doing this like a hobby, so in many things I'm still new to this.
I've seen that many programs use BitcoinJ, but as the name implies, it's for Java. I've found some .NET ports, but they are from 2011, so I don't think they are that reliable.
But then I found about a program called IKVM, which can convert a Java library to a .NET one.

As this is a very delicate subject (an app that handles money), I would like to ask you: Is it OK if I follow this approach? Or maybe I should manually port it to .NET? (which will take me a long time since I'm still in university)

What are your opinions?
19  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Bitcoin debit card on: April 15, 2013, 06:08:05 AM
The other day I was talking with my brother, explaining to him what Bitcoin is. After the explanation, he asks me if one can pay using bitcoins the same way that using a debit card. I said “No, because...”, but then I realized I don't know exactly how debit cards work.

When paying in a POS, you hand over your debit card, which then is passed through the device and then takes some amount from your account. This could only work if the debit card has some sort of key, right? If so, then how can I be sure that the key won't be stored in the POS and more money won't be taken without my permission?

People everywhere say that you should protect your Bitcoin private keys very carefully, but if I understand correctly, a debit card key has similar risks. If the POS is indeed very secure and will never store any key, could a “Bitcoin debit card” be developed and used in the same way any other debit card is used?
20  Economy / Economics / Selling goods or services with a fixed bitcoin price on: April 14, 2013, 04:18:19 AM
Right now, when you want to sell something with Bitcoin, what you're actually doing is setting the price in a fiat currency (such as USD or EUR), and only then converting to Bitcoin using the current exchange rate. This has the consequence that you have to constantly verify the price because the exchange rate is very unstable.

But what would happen if someone started selling using a fixed Bitcoin price? For example, let's say that I want to sell my computer at BTC20, and always at BTC20 regardless of the exchange rate. Would it be a good or bad idea? What consequences would this have?

I personally think that if more people sold with fixed Bitcoin price, the currency would be more stable; but then I'm no expert.
Pages: [1] 2 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!