And Classic is presenting that hard fork as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB." Is that really the case? Hmm... why would the chosen quote begin mid-sentence. You conveniently cut the "It starts with" from that sentence. Could it be that the entire paragraph goes a bit differently? We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It starts as a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We have ports for 0.11.2 and 0.12.0, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.
In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community. Gee. It sounds to me like they're doing exactly what they said they were going to do. I left it out because Classic hasn't increased the blocksize limit to 2 MB. If they had, it would have forked already. So yes, it is dishonest to say "it starts with" when that isn't true. It actually "starts with" other "features" (like hard-coded SPV mining) that have absolutely nothing to do with increasing the block size. More importantly, there is really no question that Classic has been marketed by everyone involved as increasing the block size -- there has been virtually no discussion of anything else at all. Just as Bitcoin XT was. Do you recall how XT similarly had "features" coded into it that the community did not support? lol read more. he wants the code available in april. to be activated at the turn of the block 420,000 (when the reward halves) so that miners do not lose out instantly.
have a nice day
Um, source? https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012492.htmlDepends on the hashrate drop, and tolerance for higher fees, both of which are largely unknown at this time. At least having code prepared for the negative scenarios in case of an emergency seems reasonable, even if we don't end up needing to deploy it. He also clarified the very same day regarding the link you posted: This probably isn't a practical timeframe for deployment, unless/until there's an emergency situation. So if the code were bundled with SegWit, it would need some way to avoid its early activation outside of such an emergency (which could possibly be detected in code, in this case). So either you need to "read more" or you're just being dishonest here. On that note, Paul Sztorc has some enlightening thoughts on why having such code ready is very important: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-March/012501.htmlAn emergency hard fork (as in 2013) is just that. There is no plan to activate this rule at halving, and Luke is not suggesting that. So stop spreading misinformation, please. And that fail of a quip you just made doesn't change the fact that your own thread shows that all of your assumptions about why the proposal is bad, were wrong. Have a nice day |
|
|
|
That doesn't support anything you said.  I think it may be reasonable to push for at least code-readiness before July, and possibly roll it into any other hardfork proposed before or around that time. Are you not aware of the Hardfork Wishlist? It's been around since at least January 2012. The premise is that if bitcoin ever needs to hard fork, these are desired improvements that can only be implemented with a hard fork and therefore should be included. Luke's proposal has been on the Wishlist since at least January 2012. It's always been considered a bug to be fixed when possible. And he speaks of including it in a future proposed hard fork -- not a hard fork for the sake of implementing that bug fix alone -- as would be expected. The concept isn't controversial in the slightest (assuming sufficient testing). But feel free to explain how it is. Also, you misunderstood regarding 3 months. He said it could be rolled into anything proposed around that time, because the code should be ready by then. He says nothing about the time period between consensus on rule activation and fork in regards to this proposal, though he is known to be conservative in that regard. Your assumptions about Luke's proposal were also shown to be false: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1387549.0;all |
|
|
|
Side note: Wasn't Classic being passed off as nothing but a bump to 2MB, because of the controversial changes that were coded into XT? What else is Gavin planning on slipping in?
what else is luke Jr planning on slipping into core.. what else is Sipa planning on slipping into core.. its a bit of tit-for-tat Luke and Sipa are not releasing a contentious hard fork. Gavin is. And Classic is presenting that hard fork as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB." Is that really the case? See https://bitcoinclassic.com/Says it right on the front page. Further, Luke and Sipa can't just slip anything into Core anyway. Not at all. Core has a drawn-out code review process that prevents anything like that. Classic has only a few developers and no peer review. Big difference. luke is proposing a hard fork.. to mess with the difficulty purely so his eligius pool can survive a few more weeks after the reward halving.. it might be worth to investigate blockstream just as much as any other bitcoin development group. by the way there are 12 groups.. not two. so feel free to expand your mind, and to be less blindly faithful to one team Don't confuse things: I am faithful to the protocol's consensus mechanism, NOT "a team." Core happens to be the only "team" that respects consensus in this debate. Regarding this alleged hard fork, link to the BIP? I'm fairly sure you're mischaracterizing, as usual. No comments on the fact that Classic is selling itself as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB"....when things like SPV mining are being coded into the software? Seems pretty shady. |
|
|
|
Side note: Wasn't Classic being passed off as nothing but a bump to 2MB, because of the controversial changes that were coded into XT? What else is Gavin planning on slipping in?
what else is luke Jr planning on slipping into core.. what else is Sipa planning on slipping into core.. its a bit of tit-for-tat Luke and Sipa are not releasing a contentious hard fork. Gavin is. And Classic is presenting that hard fork as "a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB." Is that really the case? See https://bitcoinclassic.com/Says it right on the front page. Further, Luke and Sipa can't just slip anything into Core anyway. Not at all. Core has a drawn-out code review process that prevents anything like that. Classic has only a few developers and no peer review. Big difference. |
|
|
|
- snip -
if this gets adopted, and you run a lite/SPV/api node wallet (electrum, multibit, blockchain.info etc) make sure you wait for additional confirmations (6+)! 0-2+ confirmation transactions will be much less safe for anyone that does not run a full node.
Absolutely true. Assuming that those 0-2+ confirmations all come within 30 seconds... https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/152There is a hard-coded 30-second timeout; if the full block data takes longer than 30 seconds to get validated and propagated across the network, or is never sent, miners switch back to mining non-empty blocks on the last fully-validated block. So, I definitely agree with trashman43. You should absolutely wait for more than your usual number of confirmations (unless 30 seconds have already passed since you received the payment, in which case it looks like it may be ok to just go with whatever your usual number of required confirmations is). Hmm. Not sure about that. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4apl97/gavins_head_first_mining_thoughts/d13nv7pIn other words, the code changes do not do what the description claims they do. It may do everything possible to limit it to 30 seconds on the node end, but as already mentioned this is ineffective with current miners which will refuse to ever switch back to an old block. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4apl97/gavins_head_first_mining_thoughts/d12op9jMining code currently sees such an attempt as if it were a malicious pool trying to fork the blockchain, and will refuse to mine on the old block. It's a safety measure against a compromised or malicious pool. Now, if miners stop using that code --- and nothing in the node software can force them to do that AFAIK --- what kind of trade-off are we making? What are the risks? Theoretically this would make attacks by a malicious pool more likely, to make attacks based on SPV-mining vulnerability less likely. That trade-off is only necessary because SPV-mining would be hard-coded into the software that all miners run, rather than a bad practice used by some miners --- and making the practice ubiquitous simply exacerbates the dangers that SPV-mining already poses. In other words, Gavin is hard-coding changes that improve orphan risk for miners at the direct cost of user security. Is that really the best choice? And if so, let's get some more numbers and risk simulations rather than the usual on bitcointalk/reddit, which is to take Gavin's word that every change is both warranted and safe. Why, I remember something like a year ago, Gavin made it seem like the world would end if we didn't increase the block size immediately. That simple fact should make everyone weary of his judgment and expertise, particularly when hard-coding bad miner practices into the protocol. Side note: Wasn't Classic being passed off as nothing but a bump to 2MB, because of the controversial changes that were coded into XT? What else is Gavin planning on slipping in? |
|
|
|
|
What about the exchanges? Do they have any liabilities to worry about if they start sending customers "Classic" coins after they've bought bitcoins? It seems like there could be no question that the original 1MB version of the software would be "bitcoins" before a court of law, but what about coins that are only valid on the forked network?
|
|
|
|
Okay. I can also compare "black" to "white" and "night" to "day." That doesn't prove anything. This is pretty much it right here. This bargainbin guy is like black is white and night is day and then when asked to explain how he is like you are a frustratingly dense douche
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about
you are retarded
you have an undisciplined mind and inability to focus
The guy can't make a single point that isn't ripped to shreds and then he tries to act condescending.....LOL..... And you round out your complete butchery of logic with an ad hominem. And not even an original one.  Mashes [UPVOTE] button |
|
|
|
You folks and your constant bickering will be the death of Bitcoin.
I'm sure there were people that tried to stop Hitler? Just so we are clear, who exactly is "Hitler" in this context? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not a democracy (have you not even read Satoshi's paper?).
Satoshi said 1 vote per CPU (not 1 vote per person) so surely you can understand that one person can have more than one CPU?
Yes, in this sense it is not a democracy... maybe a technocrazy... cpu's are voting... So at the end the wealthy has more power. Was inevitable. But still it is some kind of decision finding. And the strongest wins because he can. Uhhh, shouldn't the best code win? Perhaps then, we should leave development as it should be -- meritocratic. Not based on a Reddit/Twitter political campaign. You better hope miners don't support the mob rule Classic approach....because if this tiny minority of developers is to replace Core....it will be very dark days ahead for bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Fiat doesn't let you be responsable of your own moeny which means it has a lot of implicit tradeoffs. With Bitcoin for the first time in human history you can be your own bank. This is just too big to deal with for some people, they just don't get what this really means.
Well, sure it does. Some of us have put some of our fiat savings into things like gold and bitcoin.  Bitcoin is great, but it is still a "beta" technology.... buggy and experimental. The idea of decentralized money is great, too -- and at the end of the day, I have to concede that there may someday be a decentralized ledger that surpasses bitcoin in adoption. But fiat, too, will always have its place as long as governments exist.... and anywhere where government is in control, fiat will be the principle form of money. |
|
|
|
I would suggest doing it in half satoshis instead to make it worth even more.
Why the focus on making it worth more (or rather, making it seem like it's worth more)? This obsession with the moon really gets tiresome sometimes. I think the unit is fine as is... |
|
|
|
1h, 4h BB bands getting tight as hell. The next move is gonna be big, will go on for a while. So no point trying to call it now. Just gonna ride the breakout.
Yeah I got chopped a couple times trying to trade this sideways. Now waiting to see something strong to follow, no point bleeding my money away. |
|
|
|
i believe that 0.0001 fee is the best my transactions always get confirmed with it
Yeah, 0.0001 will get you through the vast majority of the time. I just set it to 0.0002 in case there is any backlog in the mempool or stress test happening. I don't really care about a few cents, so I'd rather not even think about it and make sure my tx gets confirmed in the next block. |
|
|
|
it is evident from previous halvings that bitcoin prices doubles after each halving, so i think that prices will not skyrocket after halving. 500 dollars is what i am speculating, as there is currently no news of mass adaption of bitcoins which can skyrocket its prices.
previous block halvings were when bitcoin had a very small market cap, which makes it very easy to get the price up in a quick fashion. the upcomming halving won't result in a double price. If you think people won't stock up on coins in the months before the halving, you are mistaken Indeed, I imagine many have been accumulating coins all year in preparation for the halving. The trouble is, how many halvings did the 2013 bubble price in? I wonder if expectations are too high here..... |
|
|
|
I was introduced into Bitcoin about only half a year ago, and I have read so much "Bitcoin is dead" news in that time that I do not pay much attention to them.
I think people often equate "lack of progress/innovation" with "death" -- slow death through stagnation. The thing is, teaming up with banks to bring you bitcoin payments at Starbucks is not the end-all of innovation. Some people clearly don't understand that. Bitcoin has made great strides over the past several years from its infancy, scaling from nothing to blocks consistently above .4MB. In that time, network security (and therefore the storage of value of our wealth) has been at the forefront. We won't be at $10k overnight, if ever, and that is obviously a real problem for some people. |
|
|
|
He pumped Bitcoin to $1000+ by doing fake trades and bitcoiners still hate him? Weird people...
Mark single-handedly pumped bitcoin to $1000+? Color me impressed. And all this time, I thought there was legitimate demand for bitcoin.  I think the price action on Huobi in 2013 was a hell of a lot more telling than that of Mt Gox. Agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
I think you'll be left disappointed buddy, the price seems unaffected by this bull shit (so far).
It's only few days passed, 2+ weeks ahead. oh god, are they actually going to do this for 2more weeks?.  Just kick back and enjoy it. I'm certainly not fretting. People need to learn at some point that the fee paid in an incentive-based system is not static. If you get a transaction stuck once, it shouldn't happen again. |
|
|
|
in fact, criminal, considering they allow you to send them cash and bitcoin without providing the stated services/providing a way to recover your money
Criminal for not babysitting you? Or you call "criminal" everything that few guys in govt labeled as "criminal"? What? They are, in effect, stealing any money that is sent to them. Go ahead: load their website, assume their promises to credit any cash that you send them in a mail (yes, they provide an address for cash-in-mail), and see what happens when you send it. You will simply have your money stolen. What are you talking about? If you are endorsing the act of theft, then agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
