Perfect for people that want to rob you! Find some nice decently filled wallets, locate the person and rob them.. I wouldnt want this personally.

I don't know if you have noticed from the OP's signature but you just advised a 13 year old to gamble....
Not quite sure if that was a good advice.

I guess Gavin's the heir apparent?

Feel free to discuss...

There's more work to do on DoS, but I'm doing a quick build of what I have so far in case it's needed, before venturing into more complex ideas.  The build for this is version 0.3.19.

- Added some DoS controls
As Gavin and I have said clearly before, the software is not at all resistant to DoS attack.  This is one improvement, but there are still more ways to attack than I can count.  

I'm leaving the -limitfreerelay part as a switch for now and it's there if you need it.

- Removed "safe mode" alerts
"safe mode" alerts was a temporary measure after the 0.3.9 overflow bug.  We can say all we want that users can just run with "-disablesafemode", but it's better just not to have it for the sake of appearances.  It was never intended as a long term feature.  Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain.

Builds:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.3.19/

You sure they're not joking about doubling their bitcoins for profit? I haven't seen anyone seriously advocating forking because they want more bitcoins. It's pretty obvious they would be devalued.

I strongly doubt the authorities will rethink the current regulations.

A large number of exchanges/businesses have already applied for licences to the authorities will not be concerned about the few who packed up and left.

I doubt Satoshi would have been able to cover all his tracks.. Something like this is easily overlooked, besides, I doubt he was trying that hard in the beginning..

The concerns of most devs has nothing to do with hard drive space but propagation time, bandwidth limits(especially upload) and mempool problems created by larger blocks.

Selfish miners

Selfish mining, is one such attack which was clearly explained in Satoshi’s paper as a possible weakness of Bitcoin.  This entails a miner, who has a significant amount of hashing power, mining blocks but not publishing them, thereby creating a secret longer chain that the rest of the network does not know about, with the intent of broadcasting it later, and in doing so will reverse some transactions that may have already been confirmed on the public (but shorter) chain.  This is the infamous double spend attack.  Normally this can only be accomplished reliably when one possesses over 51% of the hashing power of the network.  What most people don’t know is that network propagation is also a factor here.  Satoshi admitted that his calculations on the percentage of hashing power in order to be able to pull off a 51% attack reliably assumes no significant network propagation delays.  Indeed the danger of allowing block size to increase to the point where the expected delays in block propagation through the network has been discussed ad infinitum in the past, and the reason why the block debate has been ongoing since at least 2011.

In this regard, I can understand why Gavin feels that he must do something drastic to force the issue.  The attack goes as follows: If blocks were allowed to be ‘too big’ (big enough to add plausible delays to propagate to all nodes) then a miner would be incentivized to stuff the block they are mining full of txns that pay himself (or a cohort), up to the allowable block limit.  They do not broadcast these transactions to the network unless they solve the block themselves, removing the possibility of paying miner fees to some other miner.  If they manage to solve the block, they immediately broadcast all their spam txns and block solution.  The other miners would have to drop what they are mining, and start downloading the new (very large) block (which may take some time) and verify it, which involves checking the validity of all contained transactions (which will take some more time).  All this results in a appreciable head start that the attacking miner can enjoy in mining the next block.  So what he has successfully done is increased his ‘effective’ hashing power giving him a slight edge over his competitors.  Of course this is a game-theoretic problem, so we can assume that once one miner starts doing this, then either all miners will start doing this, as well (and make orphan blocks and double spends a lot more common) or band together to share high bandwidth connections/nodes (and push the system more towards a centralized one) both situations are bad for Bitcoin.  So everyone can agree that too big of a block size would open up bitcoin to a certain type of fragility that has up until now, not been a problem.

They only implementation right now supporting 8mb (BIP101) is XT. If Core doesn't implement it, they will go to XT.

First, this is a terrible analogy. Changes to the Bitcoin protocol should not be made in any way similar to the way presidents are elected. In any case, presidents can be (and often are) elected by a plurality, not a majority. A candidate with less than 50% of the vote won in 1992, 1996 and 2000.


I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous. I started to write that I have a "deep interest" in Bitcoin, but I'm not sure that's true anymore. What I see happening now makes me tend to think the Bitcoin "community" isn't so different from other communities. People split into tribes, shout at each other, call each other names, and then celebrate their victories or console themselves with their losses. I suppose I was too optimistic to think a cryptocurrency community would be different. One reason I thought it was different was that I had the impression that the fundamental rules were fixed and no longer in the hands of fallible humans. It turns out this isn't true.

Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?


I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.

Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.

You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.

It's natural when people get into these kind of tribal arguments that statements such as "XT should be opposed" or "XT should be supported" themselves rise to the level of axioms, or, fundamental beliefs. Once that happens, any statements that would contradict the fundamental belief are immediately rejected. At that point it's impossible to have a consistent set of beliefs/axioms that would imply the opposing statement. In other words, eventually people are so sure of their position that it's impossible to convince them of anything contrary to it. If that's what's happened here, then every logical argument someone could give which concludes "XT should be opposed" would necessarily have at least one axiom you would reject. Your only other choices would be to change your mind about the conclusion or ignore the argument. Realistically, ignoring arguments is typically what people do in these situations.

From your reply i think you like to be smart , than ok

First u said i depend on asswipes called money ? Stop talking shit   cause we all do . thats why you are here  

Money rule was always there , controled by "The real criminals maybe like illuminati" , anyways im talking about what people call them "criminals" while infact these people are giving new opportunities for lots of unlucky people like in africa to live better .

i think you will not understand cause im sure you have a nice dady called "dany"

I lost my wallet   please change my address
my new bitcoin address is  1LStHUdUYTYtkBDxJ44Yr7no5y1aNytQUE

Most of people dont know that "criminals" are the reason to creat cryptocurrencies, fiat or anything , actually i think "criminals" are the base of everything good or bad.

Criminals = New opportunities for a better life.

I dont call them "criminals" i call them Awesome people.  i thank them for making this world full of opportunities for non criminals to live better , oh, wait who is the criminal now?    


Hypocrite motherf****kers

if bitcoin went down to $100 I'd start buying again. I remember buying coins for $30... good times. Nothing much would change I guess. hashrate would go down due to miners shutting down.

I would advice nobody do this.  It's just plain stupid.

The Stanford University Offers Cyber Security Certificate Program to Study Crypto Currencies

The Cyber Security graduate certificate program requires participants to pass four courses from among six topics, including "Computer and Network Security," "Technology and National Security" and "Crypto Currencies: Bitcoin and Friends." The latter course is being taught by Dan Boneh, a professor of computer science at the Stanford School of Engineering.

You can find more information here: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/08/20/new-stanford-cyber-security-certificate-to-study-cryptocurrencies.aspx

This must be a good move in Crypto Currency World.

XT = freedom

Core/Blockstream = slavery

When I got into bitcoin, I subscribed to transparency, independence and freedom, not the tyrannical rule of a select few.