So Mike Hearn?
I don't have an opinion on that. But I am quite surprised by your hunch that Satoshi wrote/sent his white paper from the central US. I'd be even more surprised if it turned out Satoshi was American...but, what fact do I have to base my shock on - none.
Nice find.
Mike Hearn is not Google. Nice straw man fallacy. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions. If BIP101 (whether through XT, Core or some other implementation) gains 75% of hash power support, it will become the longest chain and thus it will empirically be "Bitcoin." The other chain--assuming it doesn't die very quickly--would IMO become largely irrelevant.  Amazing, so if I create DelekCoin using the same blockchain than Bitcoin but processing transactions like: Inputs are outputs, satoshis value are multiplied by 3.1415962 and every address starting with 1DELEK gets all fees from every transaction it will be part of Bitcoin?, AMAZING. I will do that. Ooooppss, but I will not have consensus  Bingo, that's what is happening with altcoin-Bitcoin XT!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Why would we find out after 50 years? And what hard evidence do you have that Satoshi is google? (BTW I think unicorns are real and pigs fly to get around. Just saying)
I'm not in a court, no need to prove anything. I simply think that Satoshi is Google.  I can't? Sorry, I will think like you then.  |
|
|
|
|
Nonbank
PS: Is this a valid English word?, my native language is Spanish.
|
|
|
|
I'm holding Bitcoins because here in Argentina our currency has some severe inflation problems, so saving money on my official "coin" is the same of losing 20% of it every year. I believe in Bitcoin so much so almost 100% of my money saving is inside my cold storage paper wallet.  |
|
|
|
I really love how clear and from a elevated point of view he explain what is going on. Thanks for the video, FeedbackLoop. |
|
|
|
|
BREAKING NEWS: This thread should be moved too, to the graveyard.
|
|
|
|
Since when THE MAJORITY is harming Bitcoin? Stop saying this SHIT; at least until the XT miners/nodes count reach a no-miserable value. PS: that will never happen. |
|
|
|
|
We will find out who Satoshi is after, like, 50 years of Bitcoin. And that day will be amazing.
PS: I think Satoshi is Google, btw.
|
|
|
|
I don't know if it was already said but: Bitcoin is better because his original creator is unknown. Something that cannot be imitated never, that's the another special thing about the first Cryptocoin in the world. |
|
|
|
These are the guys that transform PayPal -> Bitcoin in ScamLand.  |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, supporting bigger blocks is not the same as XT. I was trying to find its opinion about Bitcoin XT and the Fork of both the Satoshi client and the Blockchain.
|
|
|
|
There are any public declarations about it?, I really admire Andreas but I couldn't find any post or speech about the XT vs CORE thing.  |
|
|
|
The thing is: You can't REALLY calculate how much hashpower is in each side BEFORE the fork, only AFTER the fork. This is undeniably true. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set" What will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? (imagine a Miners-war + Nodes-war) What will happen if we activate XT by counting those version bits but the actual hashpower is 49.3% and 50.7%? Goodbye Bitcoin. We are only approximating the hashpower. Trusting only in those bits for something so delicate as a Fork is stupid. However, I know that this is rare to happen, but possible after all, and that probability is transforming "in cryptography we trust" to "in god we trust", at least for me. Please tell me that there's another way to achieve consensus than those bits. We need a real votation system? |
|
|
|
But then what happens if a lot of xt miners are also producing blocks to the point that the forked chain had enough halshpower to survive?
That's the point. You can't REALLY know how much power is in each side BEFORE the fork, only AFTER the fork. What will happen if we get that 75% of blocks were mined with those bits setted but, in reality, the hashpower is 49.3% and 50.7%. Goodbye Bitcoin. This fork COULD BE a mess, maybe not, but could be in the scenario that I'm describing. This is REALLY necessary?, it is too much risk mate. We should stay with Bitcoin Core and make a new version of it, not building ANOTHER client to fork the blockchain. |
|
|
|
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki"Activation is achieved when 750 of 1,000 consecutive blocks in the best chain have a version number with bits 1,2,3 and 14 set (0x20000007 in hex)." So, what will happen if NO XT miners start setting those bits only to activate prematurely XT? Without the needed hashpower, XT will become surely an altcoin with near-zero value?
|
|
|
|
This is absurd. Whenever a new Bitcoin Core release occurs, it doesn't have consensus, either. Are you cool with also calling new releases of Bitcoin Core an altcoin? You are making up your own semantic definition of what an altcoin is, just to be able to add guilt by association to XT -- when, in fact, your argument also bad mouths any new release of Core.
A new Bitcoin Core version will not fork the chain. New Blockchain = Altcoin Bitcoin XT = Altcoin since 2016 |
|
|
|
|
In the wrong chain?, if you freeze your coins now you will be IN BOTH CHAINS.
|
|
|
|
|
I will only recommend that only if the S5 runs a full Linux distro natively. Android is a very dynamic OS, an update in his internal .apks or the OS itself can ruin everything your wallet does (permission things, connection capabilities, etc)
Another thing to considerate is a full backup routine, maybe every week or something like that. (and I don't know if that will break the "full autonomous hardware wallet" principles)
|
|
|
|
Ok this is the final one I think: static String getAddressFromXCoord(String xpub, int x, int z, boolean priv){
NetworkParameters params = MainNetParams.get();
DeterministicKey root_xpub = DeterministicKey.deserializeB58(null,xpub);
int x_positive=x>0?x:x*-1, z_positive=z>0?z:z*-1;
DeterministicKey key = HDKeyDerivation.deriveChildKey(root_xpub, new ChildNumber(x_positive, false));
key = HDKeyDerivation.deriveChildKey(key, new ChildNumber(z_positive, false));
if(x<0)key = HDKeyDerivation.deriveChildKey(key, new ChildNumber(x_positive, false));
if(z<0){
key = HDKeyDerivation.deriveChildKey(key, new ChildNumber(z_positive, false));
key = HDKeyDerivation.deriveChildKey(key, new ChildNumber(z_positive, false));
}
return key.toAddress(params).toString();
}
I need to know if this technic (for every x and z) is SECURE, SAFE and re-usable with the same xpub on a server. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
