but oh wait...it isnt. and you are not a shareholder. you are just some random noob claiming to be of overaverage importance.


you have to make it work before you make it pretty.


business - human element ... oxymoron anyone? 

testing started   


sounds good!

define "good".

and then you have a deterministic wallet that is a few bytes big  + hundreds of isolated keys including the backup keys. very useful.

the existing format sucks and armory has a completely different and imho way superior approach. its better to make a clean cut early than to carry on with a bad solution because of backward compatibility.
its not like there a millions of people out there depending on their old addresses.

not to my knowledge, no.

its a little stale indeed. on the other hand i was quite amused by the thought that the whole trouble was caused by a 50:50 in the first place 

most likely wrong. the transition from solo to pooled mining was mostly over when these statistics began.
i think the market share of the other clients is still pretty small though it might have some effect on the statistics. imho best explanation for the decrease in nodes is that the big media attention last summer brought many new users that were only superficially interested in bitcoin but installed the client with run on startup enabled. many lost interest quickly and are now actively uninstalling or more like just switching/reinstalling operating systems and dont bother installing bitcoin again because they never really used it in the first place.

cool story bro except this counts nodes not miners 

+ many people mine because they already have the pc + gpu for it. thats a lot of small miners who can compete because they dont have to pay for hardware and they usually dont account their time into the price either.

gavin, what they talk about in the video is one person derailing a whole project over extended periods of time. based only on information on this forum it seems to me that luke definitely had its part in not meeting a deadline that was already ambitious and even people agreeing with bip 16 didnt agree with the need to rush.
i also dont really get that part. either its really just a "different color of the bike shed"-problem. if its just a minor technical issue and doesnt matter much anyway then not just choose bip 17? on the other hand if its not so minor why rush it?

i understand why you are really pissed. but i think because of this you also overestimate the negative influence this whole affair has on the public. for me personally the bug in the encryption for example was way worse than this delay and public display of disagreement resulting in a litte bit of fud.
the fud btw would have been smaller if the other developers had voiced their opinion a little more loudly.

i also agree with the people that think a vote by the developers on the bips is a good solution. you may even vote on excluding luke from the development alltogether. but what you do is just incitement imho and therefore equally unproductive.

vs2010 should ask you to convert the file when you open it.
its not in the instructions because you dont have to do it for vs2005 and its pretty much automatic.

i use vs2010 and followed the build instructions. worked from the start without adjustments (except converting the .sln file of course)

bip 17 sounds more elegant, straightforward and less complex. i think it deserves some time for proper testing.

that being said i am not sure if i can fully assess the downsides of implementing neither bip. longer addresses, bigger blockchain (is there an estimation how much bigger?). any security problems?

edit: btw: its stated as an advantage of bip 16 that you can put more multisig transactions in a block. doesnt that make miners favor multisig transactions? (higher fees and you can still include many in a block)
if so, wouldnt the fees of normal transactions converge to the fees of multisig transactions once the blocks get fuller and there is actual competetion about which transactions go into the first possible block?

hm i liked gavins approach of changing things very conservatively. that on the other hand doesnt sound so conservative 


the devs mostly have power since they have much more knowledge about the proposals and the existing code. its hard to do anything about that without many people each spending a big amount of time aquiring that knowledge. the power of the big pools on the other hand is diminished with a few clicks from everybody.

25cents is less than 0.05 btc. to lose the other 0.05 on transaction fees you have to make 50 transactions.
btw: who is fuck is going to secure 0.1btc with a multisig?
...0.1btc, seriously...
...maybe you just trade them back for the five wow-gold you bought them for and stick with a currency thats meant as a toy 





ps2: sorry for venting. it just annoys me that of all the thing one could possibly criticize about bitcoin some people really come up with the usually-less-than-one-cent fee.

rotfl, excellent 

+1 for no drm, for the stated reasons.

i dont know if that was already mentioned, but with DRM the magazine cant be used as promotional material. i guess there are quite a few people willing to pay one issue and then give it to friends to get them more interested in bitcoin but certainly dont want to pay 3$ fifteen times just to get their friends onboard.
selling the digital is totally the right way to go. there are likely a lot of international customers who will go for the digital version for 3$ instead of 9$ including shipping. but DRM will not only alienate the enthusiasts but also limit the exposure to people who wouldnt pay anyway but might take a look when they get it for free recommenend from a friend.

filesonic basically shutdown itself as a precaution. several others closed their affilliate programs and/or are massively deleting files. looks like the feds were quite effective in making an example of megaupload.

das netzwerk einigt sich alle 2016 auf eine neue difficulty, so dass die durchschnittliche lösungszeit mit der durchschnittlichen hashrate der letzten 2016 blöcke zehn minuten beträgt. das sieht konkret so aus, daß festgelegt wird, mit wievielen nullen der hash der nächsten 2016 blöcke beginnen muss. je mehr, desto schwieriger. was der solominer bzw. pool dann macht ist folgendes: er sucht sich transaktionen raus, die er in den block mit aufnehmen will. anschließend sucht er eine zahl, bei der der hash der zahl + dem restlichen block inkl. der gewählten transaktionen mindestens die geforderte anzahl nullen hat. anschließend verteilt er den block dann und falls nicht direkt davor oder evtl. sogar gleichzeitig ein anderer einen block gefunden hat, der sich bei der menge der transaktionen mit dem gefundenen block überschneidet wird der block in die blockchain aufgenommen.
das ist so die erklärung ohne jegliche details - für die mit details müßtest du jemand anderen fragen