Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2018, 10:14:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
  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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 358 »
901  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I accuse Bruce Fenton of outright lying based on evidence in this thread's OP. on: January 06, 2016, 01:01:55 AM
Bruce responded. From what I've seen, I think that he is sincere here and is honestly trying to rebuild the Foundation into something not-bad.

I admit that I’ve always been a little skeptical of Bruce Fenton's work history claims.  Different firms with limited web presence and no specific deals listed anywhere.  Poorly crafted main website that also doesn't list any employees or specific deals done:  http://www.atlanticfinancial.com/

>>>>TRUE - haven't updated the website in ages because the focus isn't relevant, haven't accepted retail clients for years.

So I did a little more digging, it does seem at a minimum that there is some puffery in his bio and some misstatements in some comments he made as part of his running for Director of the Foundation.  I’ll go through my research in the order it occurred, as some of the conclusions evolved through the process, and am trying to be neutral.  Also, I note that all the info linked is either information Bruce has published, or is publically available info by virtue of his business activities.

First, take a look at his linkedin page:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucefenton  Give it a read, looks pretty impressive.

>>>>> Everything on this LinkedIn is accurate, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent or inaccurate

And then go to this link which shows the form ADV for his current firm, Atlantic Financial.  On the left, there is link for "view all in PDF."  http://www.adviserinfo.sec.gov/iapd/content/viewform/adv/Sections/iapd_AdvRegulatorStatusSection.aspx?ORG_PK=159167&RGLTR_PK=50030&STATE_CD=MA&FLNG_PK=00AFF2940008017C01A413100562A635056C8CC0

So let us start at Item 5 - employees.  He has only one listed, himself.  This seems a bit at odds with his claim on linkedin that "Atlantic Financial is a full service investment and wealth management company founded in 1994 and was the first full service investment firm on the Internet."

>>>>> How is this at odds?   We use independent contractors.

Now lets go to 5.D.  5.D.1. shows his client allocation by % of clients.  But then in 5.D.2 it shows "approximate amount of your regulatory assets under management (reported in Item 5.F. below) attributable to each of the following type of client."  Bruce checks "None" for every single category.

>>>>> Yes, that's correct we don't use the RIA to manage assets,

Now on 5.G, type of services he provides, he checked the box for "financial planning services" and "portfolio management."  So maybe the reason for the "none" above is that his business is more about "financial planning services" than "portfolio management."  But, it appears no, as 5.H says he provided planning services to 0 clients in the past year.

>>>> My work for the last six years or more has been big picture deal focused and economic advisory work which does not fall under the services of a registered investment advisor.  My main clients during this time were a $60-70 billion private equity firm and a $60 billion private foundation.  When you work at that level the assets are not counted under your assets under management -- it would be inaccurate to count the full assets -- also the work is typically done on a flat fee, retainer or contract based on time, not assets under management like smaller client relationships typically are

Note that his linkedin says he:  "- personally placed or sourced over $5 billion in investments during career" and "- created and managed $500 million in-house investment services group for 100 year old law firm.”

>>>>> Yes, this is correct, the majority was mutual funds, followed by equites, I also raised money for private equity deals - the law firm is Bowditch and Dewey who I created and a managed the investment advisory practice for for about 7 years, this contracted ended some years back and they still have the investment group


Now let’s look at Item 6, "Other Business Activities."  He lists none.  But his linkedin page notes that he is also a managing director of Boston Gulf Advisors.  Incidentally, the facebook page for Boston Gulf Advisors is here:  https://www.facebook.com/BostonGulfAdvisorsGroup/  It lists the company website as http://bostongulfconsulting.com/  When I click that link, I get "Error establishing a database connection."

>>>>> Boston Gulf Advisors Group is not an outside business activity, it is simply a trade name of AF Asset Management which was made at the request of the foundation client because my Saudi Arabia economic advisory work overlapped with my investment client work (speaking to the same sets of people on behalf of two different clients) and it was easier to segregate the two with a DBA / trade name as the foundation did not want to be confused with private equity

There is more we could do here, but lets take a detour.  Go back to the main page and look on the left for "Brochures."  Click ADV Form 2B.  Scroll down to "Education."  Yes, he lists a BA from Bentley University, as with linkedin.  But unlike on linkedin, here he lists a graduation date of 2006, well after his first financial job as a VP at Morgan Stanley in 1992.  So not on outright misstatement, but a little obfuscation.  And, if he had been in the investment banking group at Morgan Stanley, there is no way he would get hired without a college degree and make VP in two years.  But the investment advisor group could be different.

>>>>> Absolutely not a misstatement in any way -- after high school I joined the Navy, I started work in the investment business prior to having a college degree - later in life I attended Bentley as an adult evening undergrad and received a degree in 2006, I don't usually include the Bentley grad date because people often assume that you were standard college grad age at that time and I would not want someone to glacé quickly and inaccurately assume I had only 8-9 years professional experience

Next, look at "Business Background."  His Atlantic Financial experience here begins 9/2011, versus linkedin where his experience for that firm is: "December 1994 – Present (21 years 2 months)".

>>>>>>  This is completely consistent and both are accurate.  This accusation off base comes from not understanding the investment business and how it works.   I founded Atlantic Financial in December 1994 and this has been my company all this time.   That's been my business card, email and letter head and my legal employer on my tax return.  As an independent firm, owned by me, I engaged various companies over the years to serve as my back office and hold my licenses.   Like many thousands and thousands of firms, I did not serve as my own broker dealer or clearing firm I hired someone else to do this and placed my license with them.  This is standard for most independent firms.   I was not an employee of Cantella and did not work in their offices, but they did hold my license.  During all of this time I had an Atlantic Financial business card and that name on my door.

He also doesn't list Morgan Stanley, Boston Gulf, or any other experience from his linkedin page.  But he does list "03/1998 – 09/2011 Registered Representative Cantella & Co. Inc."

>>>>> Again, this is because you don't understand how FINRA registrations work, that's fine, no one other than FINRA members and lawyers do understand this, what's not fine is making an accusation based on so,etching that you don't know much about...especially without simply asking me first  -  Hwre is how it works:  the FINRA Broker Check you looked up is taken from your U4 form - the U4 form has a very different format and purpose than a LinkedIn page -- the U4 primarily focuses on your actual broker dealer licensing and registrations and does not ask or care about the names or corporate status of Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction (OSJs) or the incorporated / business name of the entities of a registered person -- in 2011 we stopped using outside back officer providers and became an RIA only with no broker dealer affiliation so at that time there was no other group holding my license.>>>>>>

Now, my first reaction was that this was a pretty huge lie, but on digging around more on Cantella and Bruce Fenton and from what I know of the financial advisor / broker dealer space, it seems like it is possible that while technically being a registered rep at Cantella, he could still market himself as Atlantic Financial.  For example, see this link:  http://209.132.84.78/investing/fidelity-advisor-worst-days-followed-by-gains.pdf

>>>>>>  No, not a lie in any way at all, not remotely, indirectly in any way at all.  It is an extraordinarily common practice used by thousands of firms and tens of thousands of representatives.  It is completely in compliance and FINRA regulations have several rules recognizing and governing Offices of Supervisory Jurisdiction.  Unfortunate that your first reaction was that I was lying rather than you asking me or doing more research, you've now thrown my name out with accusations which are unfounded


Although looking at his Finra history, Cantella is expressly listed as his employer:  http://brokercheck.finra.org/Report/Download/40521359 (if direct link does not work, enter 2286983 in the spot where it asks for name or CRD number.)  And, again to try and be balanced, it also shows he was previously registered at Dean Witter Reynolds around the same time as his Linkedin profile claims he was a VP at Morgan Stanley.  Dean Witter was a retail brokerage that merged with Morgan Stanley, a more prestigious and international full service investment bank.  But that merger occurred well after Bruce was there, in 1997.  So more puffery in trying to use what I view as a more prestigious name.  Also, it is still odd the dates don’t match exactly, and that he is listed as having been registered with two other firms that appear nowhere on his linkedin bio.

>>>>>> Dean Witter doesn't exist anymore, all my employment records and old licensing are at Morgan Stanley - all of the people I worked with are at Morgan Stanley and anyone wanting to check my records or verify anything would have to call Morgan Stanley.  The other firms don't appear because they were only back office service providers.  Who you are registered with for U4 / FINRA purposes is different than who you are actually employed by.  The exception is a large wirehouse like UBS or Morgan Stanley where the one holding your license and your employer are the same company.

This is why I say there is definitely some puffery in his bio.  In my mind, there is a big difference in being a financial advisor “representative” affiliated with various firms over the years, going from being a young VP at Morgan Stanley to founding a global “full service investment and wealth management company founded in 1994 [that] was the first full service investment firm on the Internet.”

>>>>> Atlantic Financial is the first full service investment firm on the Internet and is global -- this isn't puffery

It also raises the question of why he left Cantella relationship.  And it now appears that the reason for the form ADV listing zero amounts is that he must have left that relationship, to finally create his own advisory firm that needed to be individually registered.  Those amounts may be zero because he was unable to bring clients over, or was not able to until he got registered.
 
>>>>>> No, again you are speculating with, unfortunately, no knowledge whatsoever -- I really wish you would have asked me before publicly accusing me of dishonesty, all of your items are easily explained.   I left Cantella because my practice was changing with more large clients and big picture economic advisor work, I no longer needed the FINRA broker dealer status or back office as that type of activity was less than 5% of overal revenue at the time yet comes with it a great deal of hassle -- also, as I was beginning to spend about 50% of my time outside the US it did not make sense to be an OSJ of an American broker dealer>>>>

Interstingly, that same Finra link lists several "Disclosure Events", all of which seem to be in the category of: "Financial".  If you go to the full report, they appear to involve 3 instances of renegotiating debt with credit card companies.  In the most recent, he managed to settle an amount due of $35,000 to Citibank for $6,100 in June of 2011.  Interestingly, that is around the time he left Cantella (September 2011.) 

>>>>>>> Yes, as I've explained in the other thread which dug up this info.   These are my only disclosures in 20 years.  Zero customer complaints, zero regulatory actions, no lawsuits, babkruptcies, fines, sanctions, disciplinary actions or issues with anyone supervised by me.  It is considered a spotless record from a compliance standpoint.  As for the credit cards, we had an employee have access to credit in my name, credit card debt was accumulated and the bills were sent to an apartment / office I had in NYC.  The employee left and the office was closed.  I didn't even know about the debt until some time later, collections called me and I explained the situation, they knocked off the penalties and let me pay only what I originally owed them.   As I said on Reddit, I don't even think this qualifies as a financial disclosure but my compliance officer at the time wanted it listed anyway.  It does not count as a black mark on the U4.  Essentially Negotiating to have penalties removed is the worst thing my record covers in 20 years.


Note that in his Reddit election AMA (https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qqsnh/hi_reddit_rbitcoin_im_bruce_fenton_running_for/cn8s80f) he noted:  "the only disclosable event on my FINRA U4 license is that I renegotiated about $20k in credit card debt in around 2006 I believe -- I actually dont think this was required to be disclosed as a material financial event but my compliance officer at the time encouraged me to do so to be sure."  And the other two events that were listed on the Finra form were both in 2010.  So he was off on the amount, the date, and the number of disclosures.

>>>>>> Yes,  I did not go back and check the amount, just as I'm not checking it based on your post now, it was minor either way.  I'll take your word for it, whatever the amount you say is listed.
 
So the Reddit comment is an outright lie, and it does make you wonder why a successful money manager needed to renegotiate credit card debt in the two years before he left his employer of more than 12 years.

>>>>> Not a lie at all - it's a super minor amount from a long time ago I really don't remember much more and have never thought about it other than these two times it's been brought up on chat boards.  I have good credit, I own my home, I pay my bills, I've never been sued or bankrupt etc.
 
And to give him credit, that same report mentions in "Other Business Activities" his involvement with FDVT, advising private industry and governments on various things, and that he is a consultant for XXXX XXXXXXX [removed by Bruce]  for activities related to the Middle East, where he is compensated on a flat fee basis.  But we still have no proof that he "placed or sourced" $5 billion of investments over his career.

>>>>> Okay, so, since my client name is already Doxxed on this shit show of non-logical and incorrect accusations --- doesn't this make a bit of sense?   Are you familiar with that company?  Doesn't this pretty much explain all your theories?
 
So that is the current summary.  I’ve tried to be neutral, and am open to any response from Bruce or others on this booard.  But I have to also say that at a minimum, the puffery and misstatements in his background, as well as his combative attitude on this board, don’t make me that optimistic that the Bitcoin Foundation is in much better hands.

>>>>>> My attitude towards this board is partly based on a tendency to accuse without full data.  I hope you consider offering an apology.  It is extremely serious to attack someone's credibility and accuse them of lying.  Everything on my LinkedIn is completely accurate, differences with the U4 data from FINRA are completely normal and, in fact, it would not be accurate for someone to claim they worked for a broker dealer when they did not but had an OSJ registered with them.  After my explanations, the only possible complaints you could still have are about a minor debt settlement (to be clear this isn't a lawsuit, bankruptcy or anything along those lines, simply negotiating a lower payment) and the use of the name of the post merger Morgan Stanley instead of pre-merger Dean Witter.  I'm really not trying to bolster my resume for something from 20 years ago, I used the post merger name because I think it makes sense and this is who has my records at this time.



What a lot of time you spent on this.

Most of your comments are easily and logically explained or are premises based on not having a full understanding of how the investment business works.

Answers included above.
902  Other / New forum software / Re: New forum? on: January 04, 2016, 10:52:41 PM
The beta isn't officially launched yet. If you use it, expect lots of problems and downtime. Also, throughout the beta, posts made on the beta will occasionally be cleared, and stuff done there will never be transferred back here.
903  Economy / Auctions / Advertise on this forum - Round 163 on: January 04, 2016, 07:46:17 PM
The forum sells ad space in the area beneath the first post of every topic page. About 25% of ad income goes to the forum moderators as thanks for all of their work. (There are many moderators, so each moderator gets only a small amount -- moderators should be seen as volunteers, not employees.) The rest is stored in the forum's treasury (verifiably), where it sits until the forum needs it.

Ads are allowed to contain any non-annoying HTML/CSS style. No images, JavaScript, or animation. Ads must appear 3 or fewer lines tall in my browser (Firefox, 900px wide). Ad text may not contain lies, misrepresentation, or inappropriate language. Ads may not link directly to any NSFW page. Ads may be rejected for other reasons, and I may remove ads even after they are accepted.

There are 10 total ad slots which are randomly rotated. So one ad slot has a one in ten chance of appearing. Nine of the slots are for sale here. Ads appear only on topic pages with more than one post, and only for people using the default theme.

The ad lasts at least 7 days starting from when I put it up. (However, if you look at the ad history you'll see that ads usually get at least 8 days, and sometimes as many as 12, but this is random and definitely not guaranteed.)

Stats

Exact historical impression counts per slot:
https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adstats

Info about the current ad slots:
https://bitcointalk.org/adrotate.php?adinfo

Ad blocking

Hero/Legendary members, Donators, VIPs, and moderators have the ability to disable ads. I don't expect many people to use this option. These people don't increase the impression stats for your ads.

I try to bypass Adblock Plus filters as much as possible, though this is not guaranteed. It is difficult or impossible for ABP filters to block the ad space itself without blocking posts. However, filters can match against the URLs in your links, your CSS classes and style attributes, and the HTML structure of your ads.

To prevent matches against URLs: I have some JavaScript which fixes links blocked by ABP. You must tell me if you want this for your ads. When someone with ABP and JavaScript enabled views your ads, your links are changed to a special randomized bitcointalk.org URL which redirects to your site when visited. People without ABP are unaffected, even if they don't have JavaScript enabled. The downsides are:
- ABP users will see the redirection link when they hover over the link, even if they disable ABP for the forum.
- Getting referral stats might become even more difficult.
- Some users might get a warning when redirecting from https to http.

To prevent matching on CSS classes/styles: Don't use inline CSS. I can give your ad a CSS class that is randomized on each pageload, but you must request this.

To prevent matching against your HTML structure: Use only one <a> and no other tags if possible. If your ads get blocked because of matching done on something inside of your ad, you are responsible for noticing this and giving me new ad HTML.

Designing ads

Make sure that your ads look good when you download and edit this test page:
https://bitcointalk.org/ad_test.html
Also read the comments in that file.

Images are not allowed no matter how they are created (CSS, SVG, or data URI). Occasionally I will make an exception for small logos and such, but you must get pre-approval from me first.

The maximum size of any one ad is 51200 bytes.

I will send you more detailed styling rules if you win slots in this auction (or upon request).

Auction rules

You must be at least a Jr Member to bid. If you are not a Jr Member and you really want to bid, you should PM me first. Tell me in the PM what you're going to advertise. You might be required to pay some amount in advance. Everyone else: Please quickly PM newbies who try to bid here to warn them against impersonation scammers.

Post your bids in this thread. Prices must be stated in BTC per slot. You must state the maximum number of slots you want. When the auction ends, the highest bidders will have their slots filled until all nine slots are filled.

So if someone bids for 9 slots @ 5 BTC and this is the highest bid, then he'll get all 9 slots. If the two highest bids are 9 slots @ 4 BTC and 1 slot @ 5 BTC, then the first person will get 8 slots and the second person will get 1 slot.

The notation "2 @ 5" means 2 slots for 5 BTC each. Not 2 slots for 5 BTC total.

- When you post a bid, the bids in your previous posts are considered to be automatically canceled. You can put multiple bids in one post, however.
- All bid prices must be evenly divisible by 0.05.
- The bidding starts at 0.50.
- I will end the auction at an arbitrary time. Probably the end time will be 7-12 days from the time of this post, though it could be anywhere between 4 and 22 days from now. (I will probably end the auction 1-3 days before the ads are scheduled to go up.)
- If two people bid at the same price, the person who bid first will have his slots filled first.
- Bids are considered invalid and will be ignored if they do not specify both a price and a max quantity, or if they could not possibly win any slots

If these rules are confusing, look at some of the past forum ad auctions to see how it's done.

I reserve the right to reject bids, even days after the bid is made.

You must pay for your slots within 24 hours of receiving the payment address. Otherwise your slots may be sold to someone else, and I might even give you a negative trust rating. I will send you the payment information via forum PM from this account ("theymos", user ID 35) after announcing the auction results in this thread. You might receive false payment information from scammers pretending to be me. They might even have somewhat similar usernames. Be careful.
904  Economy / Auctions / Re: Advertise on this forum - Round 162 on: January 04, 2016, 07:40:35 PM
Auction ended. Final result:

Slots BTC/Slot Person
2 2.15 MariaQin
1 1.60 libertyvps
5 1.50 victorhing
1 1.35 champbronc2
905  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: XT Supporters... Why not run an XT node? on: January 03, 2016, 06:33:41 AM
This topic has been moved to Altcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312806.0
906  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / MOVED: Bitcoin XT bashers Officially #REKT (also goes for BRG444 fraud) on: January 02, 2016, 03:07:07 AM
This topic has been moved to Altcoin Discussion.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1311534.0
907  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Does libsecp256k1 get included within 0.12? on: January 02, 2016, 12:03:13 AM
For certain performance-critical things, libsecp256k1 has both a C version that'll work on ~all platforms and an optimized version in x86_64 assembly code, which will be somewhat faster. libsecp256k1 should still be faster than OpenSSL overall even on ARM.
908  Other / Meta / Re: Bitcoin XT and my post got deleted on: January 01, 2016, 08:34:00 PM
I think that the post is related to Bitcoin enough to be allowed to stay on the main boards. It's mostly about the interaction between Bitcoin and XT, not XT itself. So I restored it to the newbies section.
909  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: Bitcoin vs Bitcoin XT on: January 01, 2016, 08:33:01 PM
XT takes Bitcoin and modifies some of its core consensus rules. Right now, it happens to be compatible with Bitcoin in most cases. But because it uses different rules, it can (depending on what miners do) split into a totally separate currency. Therefore, XT is not Bitcoin. A similar sort of thing was done with Feathercoin, which split off from Litecoin.

Some sort of block-size limit is necessary because if miners make blocks too large for a long period of time, then this makes it difficult for people to run full nodes. (In other words, block size is a negative externality suffered by full nodes due to the actions of miners and transaction-makers.) If not enough of the economy is backed by independent full nodes, then Bitcoin is totally insecure for everyone (see here and here). And there's no reason to think that miners would voluntarily keep blocks small enough -- they don't have the right incentives. So the network needs to enforce some limit. In the long-run the limit can't stay at 1 MB forever (and Satoshi acknowledged this), but this works well enough for now.

People often think that Bitcoin is ruled by miners, but this is wrong. Miners are merely employees of the network. Even if every miner decided to make 2 MB blocks right now, everyone running a Bitcoin full node would simply ignore their blocks. Bitcoin is composed of immutable rules (called "consensus rules") that all full nodes enforce no matter what. Modifying these rules requires creating a separate currency and having everyone else move to this separate currency. If pretty much everyone agrees in advance that it's OK to do this, then this is a consensus hardfork, and the result is still Bitcoin. If there is significant controversy, then the new currency is not Bitcoin. See this diagram.

Quote
And to me it seems that the block size limit would be a problem right? Wont it either dramatically increase fees and/or causr transaction favoritism/selection? Bitcoin is special because all transactions are treated equally?

If blocks sometimes get full, then paying a too-low fee might significantly delay your transaction. If blocks are consistently full, then if you don't pay a sufficient fee, your transaction might never confirm. The exact fee required will depend on how many other transactions are being created and how much block space is left. Increasing the max block size will allow for lower fees.

Bitcoin is special because it is decentralized and to a very large extent incorruptible by humans, not because it might in some cases allow cheap transactions. If it can be done safely, the max block size should be increased if fees become a significant problem. But if the max block size is at the maximum safe size, then we shouldn't abandon the decentralization, security, etc. of the base Bitcoin system in order to achieve lower fees. We should instead look for some other solution. And there are in fact a variety of solutions in the works, both to make max block size increases safer (eg. IBLT and/or weak blocks) and to reduce the number of on-blockchain transactions that people need to perform (eg. Lightning). And if these "perfect" solutions are insufficient, there are various imperfect solutions which increase scalability at some security cost for its users. There might be some hiccups along the way, but I am very confident that the Bitcoin currency/ecosystem can both remain secure+decentralized and eventually scale to encompass all world transactions if necessary.

The max block size is planned to be effectively increased to about 2 MB sometime this year with the SegWit softfork. See: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases . An increase to much more than this is not viewed as safe by many experts.
910  Other / Meta / Re: Can't see new msg when logged in. on: December 30, 2015, 09:58:13 PM
Are you talking about the link that looks like this: ? I don't really see how that could break. I think that it's always constant. Maybe your ad-blocker is messing with the page?
911  Other / Meta / Re: Are carding discount offers allowed on this forum? on: December 30, 2015, 05:08:58 AM
That's illegal pretty much everywhere and therefore not allowed here.
912  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Is there any PHP-MySQL full node implementation ? on: December 30, 2015, 12:20:53 AM
Implementing a full node in any language is extremely difficult because you need to match the behavior of Bitcoin Core exactly, even including bugs and unknown behavior. Don't try it.

It has occurred to me that it might be useful to do payment processing or a wallet by writing a non-verifying "node" in PHP which talks exclusively to a trusted full node over a secure connection (note that Bitcoin network connections are not by themselves secure). I wrote some working PHP code for Bitcoin protocol communication back when I was running blockexplorer.com. It's not that difficult.
913  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: UTXOs with Expiration Dates on: December 24, 2015, 06:08:35 AM
This is a very old idea which has been discussed to death.

People joined Bitcoin knowing that bitcoins would gradually be lost over time. This is an important part of how the Bitcoin currency works. Therefore, reassigning "lost" BTC would be extremely similar to increasing the money supply beyond 21 million, and so it is an absolutely prohibited change. Nothing that does this can ever rightly be called Bitcoin, no matter how much consensus it has. If we ever run low on satoshi, the solution will be to increase precision, not to add more satoshi.

Expiring very old UTXOs but not reassigning their value is acceptable, though. In fact, this can be done in a softfork. I think that doing this would be a good idea:
- If apparently-lost BTC is at risk of being recovered illegitimately due to cryptographic weaknesses. The release of so many lost coins would be a major blow to the the economy. Once it looks like ECDSA will only be secure for 5 more years or so, I think that a timer should be started to expire all ECDSA-secured UTXOs at the expected point at which they will become too insecure.
- If storing the UTXO set becomes a very major bottleneck for full nodes and there are no other good alternatives to UTXO expiration on the table. Several years of advance warning should be given before the first expiration.
914  Other / Meta / Re: Watchlist - Wrong sorting on: December 24, 2015, 12:23:04 AM
Edit 2: I see the error now, there is a "?" missing, shouldn't be hard to fix

Fixed, thanks.
915  Other / Meta / Re: Watchlist - Wrong sorting on: December 23, 2015, 07:09:25 PM
Hm, I can't believe it took until now for someone to notice that bug. Fixed.
916  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 22, 2015, 06:38:03 PM
Quote from: Wladimir
Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!

 Grin
917  Other / New forum software / Re: Will Position and Usernames be transferred to the new forum? on: December 19, 2015, 04:26:53 AM
Everything except passwords. IIRC it was disclosed that users would need to reset their passwords via email prior to logging in the first time.

That's how it'll be during the beta, but after total migration there'll need to be a somewhat-hidden page for using your old password. Otherwise people with invalid emails would get locked out.
918  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What unit do you find more comfortable when measuring BTC values? on: December 16, 2015, 03:49:33 PM
I'm most comfortable with BTC, though I think that "bits" might become the most common unit in the future.

"satoshi" is too much of a mouthful. I wish people would just start saying "sat" for that unit.
919  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 15, 2015, 10:16:58 PM
When I heard yesterday that btcdrak was made a moderator of /r/btc, my first thoughts were "Maybe /r/Bitcoin finally has a bit of competition" and "I wonder how long that'll last". The answer: probably not very long. As someone (iCEBREAKER?) predicted, these people will just keep forking themselves into oblivion.
920  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) on: December 15, 2015, 07:00:31 AM
You make it sound like Core just resurrected Hitler and reinstated the third reich.

IIRC that's not planned until 0.14.
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 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 ... 358 »
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!