Bitcoin Forum
May 28, 2016, 03:59:24 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 224 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 27, 2016, 07:09:52 AM
The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.
luke JR did not sign the roundtable as Luke JR - 'eligius inventor and general programmer'.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Matt Corallo did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
PEter Todd did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.

If they mislead anyone-- though they assure me they didn't-- that's on them, no one else-- doubly so because assurances were made to other contributors that no such thing would be done when concerns were raised in advance about the ethics of trying conspiring to set network rules in closed meetings.  My prior exasperated comments were precisely because I think it's naive to think that whatever understanding there actually was at the time that it wouldn't be spun as something else-- exactly as you're doing.

As far as contributor it's true that they are-- but:  Matt's last merged commit was December 13th (6 months ago), Peter Todd's last merged commit was Jan 31st (5 months ago), Luke's was Feb 27th (4 months ago).  Valued though they are, these are not exactly the most active contributors (and to be complete, they do now all have recent pull requests open).  Their signatures were accurate in any case-- anyone can be a contributor, it doesn't imply any particular authority... but nor did the subject of the agreement require any authority. Considering that the goalposts are shifting, -- now people suggesting that core has to accept whatever they propose (a promise they never could have made), or that this proposal has to come before SW... I don't know why they'd bother with it at all now. It seems clear to me that they're getting played.

I was thinking that it would be interesting to see 2 alts in the market (I am dead serious):

SegWit and Classic.

Then see which one gets the biggest hashrate. It would be interesting I think.

Problem is how miners will be motivated to open their old asics for this, I mean probably nobody will be interested to speculate on these alts, I maybe dead wrong though!

If "Classic" were to hardfork in any case, they could simply make it merged mined.  When I heard the name I initially assume that was precisely what they were going to do-- make it into a spinoff with merge mining, and apply the deceptive "classic" moniker to try to privilege it as the original thing.

2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 26, 2016, 01:15:04 PM
who want 5.7mb blocks
I guess you think if you just keep screaming your lies louder and louder people will finally believe you?  Pure "Classic".
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 25, 2016, 11:01:19 PM
what the fuck is a "confidential payment code"? ... in any case, things like any additional commitments come out of the block size limit-- they don't add to it.

There is no math to provide, you're just outright lying-- and trying to obscure it by stringing together your jibberish with addition symbols. The faux-formalism might make it look truthier but it doesn't make it true.

2MB blocks are "Bitcoin Classic"'s roadmap, I suppose that the confusion is justified since that is the subject of this thread.
4  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 25, 2016, 10:33:00 PM
so now gmaxwell is trying to say i must be lying.. the only way that can be true is if the roadmap doesnt exist..
and that lauda has not been the main glossy leaflet advertiser
Thanks for confirming that your lying is intentional and not just a product of ignorance.

That is a Bitcoin Core roadmap, not blockstream, and has nothing about 2017 or "5.7mb potential real data transmission per block".

5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / MOVED: WLOX Project Has Insecure Code on: May 25, 2016, 04:30:30 PM
This topic has been moved to Project Development.
6  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 25, 2016, 02:38:51 PM
2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)
What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?
You're wasting your time with that guy. According to him, I'm in Blockstream's PR department.  Roll Eyes
No kidding-- the only value in replying is that most people don't expect such audacious lies, and if there is no correction at all these jerks will keep doubling down on their dishonesty until joe-bystander, who can tell that it's at least 99% rubbish, thinks that at least 1% of it must be true.
7  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 25, 2016, 02:42:05 AM
2mb was bad, yet blockstreams 2017 roadmap is a whopping 5.7mb potential real data transmission per block(due to other features)
What the @#$@ are you talking about?  "blockstreams 2017 roadmap"?!?!?! Where can I get a copy of this?

And "potential"? The fact that a miner could create contrived high cost blocks is nothing new, right now miners can create blocks that take something like 20 minutes of cpu time to validate. But this sort of intentional bloat-block is almost equivalent to just delaying publication of the block.  What matters for the long term system cost is the average size of blocks, not the potential for a single unusually costly one. Without segwit the unusually costly risks are just different (instead, they take the form of utxo bloat blocks or signature hashing bloatblocks). If your metric of risk is the worst case time it can take to transfer and process a block, segwit does not increase this over the current state: It does allow more data to be sent in the worst case, but segwit transactions have massively faster worst case validation. The end result is that the worst case block with segwit is exactly the same as the worst case block without, you can't use segwit transactions if you want to make a block that propagates very slowly.

segwit is perfect. (yet not even released publicly)
Segwit has been public for a long time... Block 0 on the current segnet has a date in January, and segwit is live on testnet now.

Where is Bitcoin Classic's segwit implementation? Hell, where is their mediantimepast and CSV implementations?  Even when they can just copy code from core they can't seem to keep up. If you're going to complaint about something not moving fast enough, it's not core you need to look at...
8  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 24, 2016, 11:30:20 PM
Beyond a leadership vacuum, Bitcoin’s “leadership” is less clear and toxic. Greg Maxwell, technical leader of Blockstream which employs a solid chunk of core developers, recently referred to other core developers who were working with miners on a block size compromise as “well meaning dips***s.”

What? you don't read this thread? Smiley (the comment he was referring to was a few pages back)-- I guess it's interesting to know that Coinbase's executives are reading this thread.

More deceptive garbage-- in particular, it makes it sound like I wasn't referring to my own freeking employees there, or that my flip comment had something to do with working with miners on compromise when instead I explicitly pointed out it was because they went off to hold a secret meeting and let themselves get coerced (literally locked in a room until 3-4am) into an agreement which-- in the sense it was understood-- was physically impossible for them to comply with (because none of them have the authority to control what core releases or what the network runs)... and they did so after explicitly promising other people-- concerned about the ethics of meeting in secret to collude with miners-- that they go only to learn and share information and not make agreements. I don't feel any hesitation in calling that a foolish move. (and not just in hindsight, I warned about this kind of outcome in advance)

But while we're on the subject of foolish moves, whats the deal with coinbase continually insulting bitcoin technology and antagonizing the people whom are actually working on it?  They contribute _NOTHING_ to the technology, they don't even contribute to maintaining their beloved "classic".  I guess they might be happier with Ethereum, since it's a far more centralized system they'll know exactly who to lobby to get whatever they want without putting in any effort themselves...  But, considering that Coblee was bragging months ago about how much Ethereum people at coinbase were buying, I think the main attraction is something Bitcoin couldn't match: the ability to use their company to pump an asset they could all buy personally on the cheap-- it's much harder to do that for a system which is mature and less based on speculation.
9  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 24, 2016, 05:43:23 PM
Segwit's implementation is done, and has been for some time now. It's in review and testing (both on testnet and the dedicated segnet) right now.

Any person or organization who is interested can help hurry it along by contributing to review and testing.

Bringing it back on topic:  Looks like "Bitcoin Classic" has still not integrated CSV support.  The CSV BIP is 9 months old now-- and was almost deployed in Core along with 0.12.0, but was given more time to mature first. It's now been out in Core for over a month-- and the BIP9 starting date was sent a bit in the future, in part to give other implementations time to update.

Signaling for it has started now and is already hitting half the hashrate.  This triggered "Classic" nodes to start warning that they didn't appear to be consistent with half the hashrate.  Did this spur a quick catch up? No: The response of classic's developer was to rip out the notice infrastructure.  Ironic: That this is happening after months of "Bitcoin Classic" advocates howling incorrectly about soft-forks silently downgrading the level of validation their nodes do... Doubly ironic: If changes like this were hardforks users of under-maintained projects like "Bitcoin Classic" and Bitcoin XT would be forced by the change to use Bitcoin Core instead of their preferred software.
10  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 19, 2016, 12:32:53 AM
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.

But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
11  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Secret Information via Blockchain? on: May 17, 2016, 04:17:24 AM
Alice and Bob want to tranfer a secret letter. How can they transfer the information with the use of the chess game?
12  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 13, 2016, 11:02:52 PM
Like it or not a significant amount of 'economic majority' want
Over and over, the concrete evidence shows that the hardfork at all cost push comes largely from shills, conmen, and their victims.  When actual Bitcoins are put on the table in a cryptographically provable way the result is 180degress off from what the claims are in trivially sockpuppeted forums.


If you want to resist the kinds of things your signature is talking about you need to steel yourself against claims like that, because they're a primary attack vector.

Besides, if wishes were horses beggers would ride:  Classic is a release behind core now, and not keeping up with network features which have been in the works for a year. It's headliner devs continue to not do anything, just as they were not doing anything with Core. Meanwhile, core continues to set the pace with both invention and development that to deliver improved scalablity, capacity, flexibility, privacy, etc. There is a clear reason why you can't get engineers who care about their reputations and about Bitcoin to back these HF at any cost initiatives-- they're no good for either.

The situation is pretty clear too and not just to me-- the big Classic voices, who are still haven't come to grips that with the fact that Wright defrauded them and denouncing wright are ramping up the complete and total dishonesty... such as mischaracterizing Theymos' repeat of the (good or bad) perennial proposal to make apparently lost coins secured with vulnerable cryptosystems unspendable after a long announcement and delay to prevent economic turmoil when someone steals them all at once, or claiming that a couple core contributors musing about potential countermeasures to the patent encumbrance of a vulnerability in SHA256 mining creating a government granted monopoly on mining is some move to make existing mining hardware unworkable, or claiming that Bitcoin core devs are totally going to line up and work on classic if only miners use it, or other such nonsense.
13  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 13, 2016, 08:24:05 PM
Pfft. I'm not going to mislead people by failing to call it what it is-- going to have some secret meeting where you are massively outnumbered with no strong negotiator on your side where you let yourself get compelled to commit to random things which are either largely meaningless or violate other people's trust and confidence in you (or, in fact, commitments you made to others before leaving) is a truly foolish move, if not quite "publicly endorsing scammer-wright" grade.

It's not the end of the world, people screw up, shit happens, goes on on-- but someone here asked the question as to why Luke was going around polling segments of the community what kind of hardforks they'd find acceptable, and that is why. It is a disappointment because its likely to exacerbate and prolong some drama which could otherwise be largely over now.
14  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: May 13, 2016, 07:55:18 AM
It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community. All this struggle is based on the mistaken idea that anyone external to the project cares what they personally committed to work on...

I think it's a shame, since with Wright's fraud behind us, I think the biggest behind the scenes driver of this drama is likely gone. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
15  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Anatomy of the Bitcoin scaling debate, Part II: Bitcoin Core development/develop on: May 12, 2016, 06:11:59 PM
There aren't 'hubs' in lightning, especially not any form of it I support. Blockstream has no business plans to collect bitcoin fee income from lightning, never has, and the claim otherwise is just whole cloth fabrication.
16  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Anatomy of the Bitcoin scaling debate, Part II: Bitcoin Core development/develop on: May 12, 2016, 03:18:47 PM
Transactions have been fast as lightning lately. Faster than they have ever been actually.

Can any of you developer guys out there confirm whether or not scaling has already taken place?

I used to wait several hours for a transfer to confirm on LocalBitcoins. I specifically remember waiting more than 6 hours back in november.

Over the last month or so all of my transactions have been confirming within 10 minutes

Anyone have any insight into this?
There aren't any fewer transactions, but six months ago the service you were using likely didn't implement fee estimation.  Without sane fee handling flood attacks can create big delays for otherwise ordinary transactions.
17  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Best way to destroy bitcoins? Send them to the value 0 address? on: May 12, 2016, 01:47:31 PM
There is no 'value zero' address. A secret key of zero results in a public key which cannot be represented at all.

The only way to destroy bitcoins in an absolutely sure manner is the OP_RETURN advice given.   Bitcoin Core provides no facility for this, because destroying coin is something most users would only ever do by mistake.  I'm sure that for a small percentage of that 65000 btc someone will happily implement it for you.
18  Economy / Services / Re: origin of tx_index in API on: May 12, 2016, 01:33:28 PM
They've even previously reset the numbers for all transactions on their site. You shouldn't be using that information for anything.
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Univalue on: May 08, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
Is univalue compatible with json?
I have been trying to use a miner for solo on the new version of bitcoin with no success.
Univalue should be _strictly_ compatible: strictly producing and strictly enforcing.

Many things that produce JSON produce incorrect encodings, and many things that consume JSON will accept incorrect encodings. That may be the case here, or there could be a bug in univalue.  Without seeing your software, its hard to say.
20  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: IF the NSA wanted to take control over Bitcoin, how would they do it? on: May 08, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
A huge lumbering bureaucracy?    How about-- take over the Bitcoin Foundation and then find themselves surprised when it doesn't control Bitcoin.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 224 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!