Bitcoin Forum
April 19, 2014, 12:48:34 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  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 52 53 54 ... 58
61  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: WinRT / Windows 8 Client Development on: April 03, 2013, 09:04:17 AM
It may be better to write a new gui that replaces the bitcoin-QT client.

Since Windows 8 (and windows phone Cool supports C++ now.  Smiley
62  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-03-22 The Guardian - Bitcoin: The fastest growing currency in the world on: April 01, 2013, 10:54:01 PM
you all sound like a bunch of catty bitches

wow lumos!
63  Economy / Speculation / Re: BTC/USD: Ready for "The Running of the Bears"? on: March 27, 2013, 06:30:45 AM
I don't see why we don't just discuss Bitcoin without getting personal...

Welcome to Bitcointalk.  Cheesy
64  Economy / Services / Re: Looking for someone to create/modify software for this forum [3600+ BTC] on: March 27, 2013, 05:42:39 AM
with the kitty so large, I think that it would be a good service to make it required that the code is released, with an open-source friendly licence.  Cheesy
65  Bitcoin / MultiBit / Re: MultiBit crash & lost wallet (Mac) on: March 27, 2013, 05:05:10 AM
what version of mutibit do you have, the wallet is stored in standard places. So you should be able to find it still.

If you find you wallet, you should be able to recover it with https://blockchain.info/wallet/
66  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open Transactions (Windows Builds) - v0.88.k on: March 27, 2013, 03:41:16 AM
I've updated to version 0.88.k
67  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-03-22 finextra. Bookie Offers 9/4 on BTC at $500 by Year's End on: March 23, 2013, 07:30:53 AM
Would be a really dumb bet since you can get 9:1 just by buying btc itself

500/70 ~= 7/1
68  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: 2013-03-22: JPMorgan On The Inevitability Of Europe-Wide Capital Controls on: March 23, 2013, 06:46:48 AM
Sorry about that. Where should articles that have an impact on the future of Bitcoin go?

In the General or the Politics forums.
69  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you guys think of DEFCAD.com? on: March 14, 2013, 08:45:25 AM
Yep, they're taking bitcoins now. 15ZCeqnsAHRUAcrqoyyqJQmkCR95UN6UZB (https://defcadcom.wufoo.com/forms/crowdfunding/)

update link:  but no bitcoin address?  https://defcadcom.wufoo.com/forms/defcad-crowdfunding/
70  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-03-12 IEEE Spectrum: Major Bug In The Bitcoin Software Tests The Community on: March 13, 2013, 11:36:25 AM
0.8 wasn't backwards compatible, but 0.7 had the bug that caused the split. I'm totally with Mike Hearn, although I don't see how this requires the hard fork any earlier. It will require a soft fork very soon though, as we want to get back to the 1MB limit, and that can only be done with 0.8.

Completely wrong.  0.8 had the bug, since it didn't imperilment the protocol as defined by the 0.7 clients.  The fact that the limitation in the 0.7 clients was unknown and undocumented is besides the point.

The absolute thing that 0.8 needs to do is not allow blocks that are considered invalid under 0.7 clients.  (no-matter how, or why they are considered invalid).


This is was an "Undocumented regression of the 0.8 client"  nothing more, nothing less.  The fact that it comes about from a "undocumented limitation of the 0.7 (and before) clients" is besides the point.
71  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: How many Kilojoule will it take to calculate the private key from the public key on: March 11, 2013, 12:54:47 PM
in-fact the amount of energy required is quite a calculable problem.  The problem lies in the answer, where the energy is greater than all the energy in the universe.
72  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) on: February 28, 2013, 02:42:57 AM
He is also saying his fork will continue to exist regardless. That's fine, he can use his inconsequential fork as long as he has another node to connect to (even if it is his own). He can also use Open Transactions he is selling as a solution all he likes too.

Except it isn't just me, there are hundreds of users (and owners of bitcoin) like me, who signed on to a system that we thought would have LOWER relative costs to verify in the future.  That one day every, even the cheapest computer, could become a full-node.

The thing is that these people don't post on the forums about this change.  Because they are not arguing FOR a change. They are quite happy with bitcoin is atm.

They don't even need to be convinced about the change.  Their Bitcoin; the current Bitcoin; the real Bitcoin.  Will continue to work just fine.
73  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) on: February 28, 2013, 01:28:22 AM
I'm part of that sticky group of people that WILL NOT accept a larger block size.  I doesn't matter what other people say; or the reasons that they give.  Frankly, I would reject (with my full node, and SPV nodes) any non-bitcoin chain.  Any block breaking the 1mb/10min avg limit will not be a bitcoin for me.
If they developers commit to scaling the network as far as the demand for transaction requires so that it can be the replacement for PayPal, and for Visa, and maybe even national currencies that we've all been promised, then I'll start up an extra full node to replace yours.


That isn't the point either.  The fact is that my nodes will continue to run quite fine; rejecting your blocks.  I will be using bitcoin, and you will be using some alt-rule-chain that I don't consider to be bitcoin.

My coins will be spendable in both chains.  Smiley

The thing is that if 10% (or even 1%) of the Bitcoin USERS do not accept the change, the change will not happen: because the economic consequences will be too-large.


We are not working in a democracy here.  We are working with a "do what the you want, but I'm not going to change my code mkay."
For this change to be successful, the bar isn't 50%, or 90%, or 99%, but rather closer to 99.9%.
74  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) on: February 28, 2013, 01:08:13 AM


So yes, I think that there is AT LEAST a key 10% of the Bitcoin user population (including me) that will veto any such changes.

Phew, for a moment you had me worried, but with 90% following one side of a fork - then worries over.

da2ce7, please consider that nearly everyone on this forum has bitcoin's interests at heart. That it why thousands of posts debate the minutiae of any software change. Then consider how much progress there would be if 100% agreement was needed before any action took place...

But, for such a change, even 1% can veto it... That is what makes Bitcoin so great!  The economic problems caused by 1% forking makes it not worth for the 99% to implement the change.
75  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Mt. Gox hits all-time Bitcoin high on: February 28, 2013, 12:54:56 AM
YAY!
76  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) on: February 28, 2013, 12:29:50 AM
I see the block size (and frequency) as much as economic rules as the total number of coin is.  I disagree with Satoshi that it is just something that we can 'change.'

I'm part of that sticky group of people that WILL NOT accept a larger block size.  I doesn't matter what other people say; or the reasons that they give.  Frankly, I would reject (with my full node, and SPV nodes) any non-bitcoin chain.  Any block breaking the 1mb/10min avg limit will not be a bitcoin for me.


However I am not worried.  I know that Bitcoin will be just fine with a 1mb block limit; as MarkM so eloquently put is, we need to get over having only one chain, but rarther think of having a ecosystem of hundreds of merge-mined chains that all fullfill different roles.


One of the reasons, (there are many), that I work on Open Transactions is that I believe that we need secure and cryptographically auditable off-chain transactions.  Making the need for more than 7tx/s on the Bitcoin block chain much (completely?) negated.

The best part is that I am in control of this problem.  Even if every other person moves to larger (or more frequent) blocks, I know my bitcoins are safe, and for-me bitcoin will keep-on working. (well other than the attack of a drastic lower hash-rate maybe)

So yes, I think that there is AT LEAST a key 10% of the Bitcoin user population (including me) that will veto any such changes.
77  Economy / Speculation / Re: Crash!!crash!!crash!! on: February 23, 2013, 05:12:51 AM
still very low volume:

78  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer - MtGoxUSD wall movement tracker on: February 23, 2013, 04:50:20 AM
79  Bitcoin / Project Development / Re: Open-Transactions v0.88.f: OTMadeEasy, Credentials, Linux Tarball, iPhone suppor on: February 19, 2013, 01:27:39 AM
Like! Cheesy
80  Bitcoin / Press / Re: 2013-02-17 Slashdot: Mega Accepts Bitcoin; Email, Chat, Voice, Video, Mobile Com on: February 18, 2013, 02:01:46 AM
I think that the wiki dose a pretty good job at it...  However we need to be more active in moving over content from the forum to the wiki.
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 52 53 54 ... 58
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!