|
This is pretty good work! Most devs have already posted their opinions but on several sites, on different posts, scattered around. It would be nice if devs noticed this and posted their opinions in the same place.
|
|
|
|
To sum it up can we just get this over and done with?
Not really. Whatever change is made it needs to really be discussed and not everyone will be happy about it... There will always be discussion. |
|
|
|
Color and capacity? Any particular reason for selling? Does it come with warranty/purchase receipt?
Price seems too good to be true, despite your feedback.
16GB iphone 6. What color do you need? Space Gray. I'd more easily consider 64GB. Is the purchase receipt from the Apple Store? |
|
|
|
Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...
Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign? Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase. Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues. so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.
The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service  really? did you read posts like this: Minimum benefits, lots of potential damages. XT only worsen the situation of bitcoin. Investors are panicking now because of the "split" which is just unnecessary. Idk why they are pushing bigger block size when in fact 1mb is just right in this current times. What's the most plausible explanation why they are pushing higher block size?
1MB isn't right. We're already at 50% capacity(and increasing). I think the recent stress tests showed us that 1MB isn't sufficient. LN looks great, but it's not ready yet and won't be for a while. This will help hold us over until other scaling solutions are ready to be deployed. I don't like the increase schedule in XT, my hope is that XT is the catalyst to get Core team to agree on some sort of increase and we can reassess later once we see how other scaling solutions are progressing. Just because the network moves to 8MB blocks now doesn't mean that we're beholden to the every two years schedule built into XT now. The stress tests proved that blocksize isn't an issue. I love how some people come to the completely opposite conclusion. Even with magnitudes more transactions than usual the network ran smoothly. The doomsday backlog that the stress test people projected never materialized, transaction fees went up to balance the spam and legitimate transactions continued to go through in the next block. The Bitcoin Core team said block size doesn't need to be increased, and many people here have that view. Propaganda in the media is tricking many into thinking this is an issue when it is not. Or you're just simply focusing on BitcoinXT supporters post? I've read such posts and others in the forum. The backlog did not materialize, obviously, their tests failed consecutively and had offline times... They already proved that in full blocks you either pay up fees or you have delays. If you don't want delays you must pay higher. The network handled the situation as desired. But the situation we were in during stress tests wasn't as favorable as the one we have now. This doesn't have anything to do with supporting XT or Core. This has to do with the blockchain being 100% capable of handling transactions on the next block with small or no fees. |
|
|
|
It's something to send a message that has already been received and is being worked on... The goal must be pissing everyone We've had enough of stress tests, further tests are useless... |
|
|
|
Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...
Are you sure about that? did you read posts from the anti-BitcoinXT campaign? Here is a summary: their crystal balls tell them we have a long way to get to blocksize limit increase. Yes, I am pretty much sure we already got the message. Otherwise, block size increase probably wouldn't be in the talks right now. The message is "you need to do something if you want many transactions to go through". That's what we already doing. Message has been clearly received and we are working on solving issues. so I don't really see what's the point of this stress-testing aside from pushing XT fork to happen.
The point is probably creating chaos or disrupting their own service |
|
|
|
I think this is a pretty good initiative. I don't know how are currency controls there, as mainstream media haven't really been talking about Greece, but if I'm not mistaken they're still in full effect, so this is more than needed. Even if they didn't have controls in place, these ATM's make a lot of sense due to their currency problems. Greek people should realize it's a danger to have all the eggs in the same bag and they should diversify their portfolio to Bitcoin  |
|
|
|
|
Again? Is this test going indeed to be on it's finest or are the servers crashing again? And why? We already got the message, thank you...
|
|
|
|
This kind of spoofing will just drive away further Bitcoiners. If a fork is prematurely deployed, it will be even bigger chaos than it already is. More harm done with these fake nodes.
I think that's the point though. Why risk switching to XT and the potential chaos, even if you support it or it's features? This is kind of a crucial point that's not been made enough: if Mike and Gavin tried to start a real alt coin, not one that relies on Bitcoin's infrastructure, they would fall flat on their faces (and they've not done much better than that otherwise). There is little to no demand for alts, people want bitcoin. If chaos is the point, then another thing to consider when using this. If one believes in XT, he should switch to XT, if one believes in Core he should stay with core. |
|
|
|
|
Color and capacity? Any particular reason for selling? Does it come with warranty/purchase receipt?
Price seems too good to be true, despite your feedback.
|
|
|
|
If these notes can randomly appear to users without people having to pay a dime, it would be great. There could be a subscription menu where users can opt in or out of things that they're interested/not interested... And the posts with most likes from those categories would appear on people's feeds. But obviously Facebook isn't going to give us anything free  |
|
|
|
I'm also curious if the festival indeed went ahead. Also, it would be nice if a share system existed... I'm not an expert on these things, but as far as I can see by the thread, if your business opportunity is legit it has nice promises. Ticket cost is cheap for what we usually see in the states. Unfortunately this will be a festival for "kandi kids" Safer investment in Europe  Completely possible to have profit in the US though. |
|
|
|
Several have asked for more information and or a website on this product but seems like nothing is forthcoming.
If the OP is serious about doing business then he should at the very least post more information here in regards to the product, software etc... People will use this product to store small to large amounts of bitcoins and doing so without all the information required to make an informed decision is in my opinion a major risk.
I like the look of the product and would easily buy one but not without the OP disclosing full information about the product and not without some form of verification of such information.
There are presently more than enough alternatives [Trezor, Ledger, KeyKeep, Case etc..] where all the information has been shared and verified so no reason to waste anymore time on this product until such time as the requested/required information is shared.
Precisely my thoughts That was the objective of my post. I like to see different hardware wallets and as far as the visual aspect of the thing this one looks pretty solid. But no information about it is really provided... |
|
|
|
|
This kind of spoofing will just drive away further Bitcoiners. If a fork is prematurely deployed, it will be even bigger chaos than it already is. More harm done with these fake nodes.
Core and XT exist. Why run something else anyways? More code to audit unnecessarily. Time wasted.
|
|
|
|
|
P2pool seems your option, as far as I've read, but there doesn't seem to be any blocks mined with clients supporting bigger blocks, so far.
|
|
|
|
|
Does it stay offline always? It might be a permissions issue on the blockchain folder... I've had a similar situation when migrating to Windows 10.
|
|
|
|
official BEwallet is ready. take a look latest pics on the top of this post.
What's the difference between Cube and Circle? That's quite a price difference between the two. Also, any website where we can see more information? the function is similar. different size, shape and thickness. cube is more easy to put in your regular wallet. So, for more 70 USD, you get exactly the same, in a different shape? And more info about this? Pre-ordering website? Any review units? Does it use it's own software? Can it be reviewed/audited? |
|
|
|
Can someone post a link or explain the cons and pros of running a pruned node?
I have not found such information.
What are the implications in running a pruned node for the Bitcoin network?
tia
You can read about pruning here. Unfortunately there isn't much discussion about this, as far as I know (probably because not many people use pruning yet...). if there are some discussions about this new feature and it's future I'd also like to know! I have read that entirely but I wanted something more like a debate, user's test results, etc... That would be very pleasant Unfortunately I don't see that happening with the current Core version. |
|
|
|
Very interesting thread! Watching. And the short description comparing BIP's is a must. It has been floating for quite some time but many people seem to have never read it.
That being said, good to see quite a bit of support for big blocks from more than half of the hashrate. But until they're validating blocks with another client, it doesn't really mean anything.
Why is that? Neither ********* supports big blocks now. Either client can be modified to support bigger blocks when the community agrees. There's a client supporting bigger blocks, as can be seen on release notes. Rules: 1. This is a self-moderated thread. Posts violating the rules may be removed. 2. This thread is NOT for big block debate. If you want to debate please go somewhere else. I believe there are plenty of places for this. 3. I don't want this tread being censored. Please avoid directly mentioning or linking any specific big block enabling bitcoin client. For sarcasm or not, call them BitcoinXX, Bitcoin**, BitcoinCensored, etc. Welcome to internet censorship4. No trolling Thanks for pointing it out, post edited. |
|
|
|
|
Very interesting thread! Watching. And the short description comparing BIP's is a must. It has been floating for quite some time but many people seem to have never read it.
That being said, good to see quite a bit of support for big blocks from more than half of the hashrate. But until they're validating blocks with another client, it doesn't really mean anything.
(Edited to comply with thread rules)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
