|
My proposal: a slow, progressive and cautious approach. First we increase to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. Doubling the block size seems the sensible approach - increase it in one single step by x20 seems overkill.
The reasons argued by those who defend a cautious and slow growth are solid; on the contrary, those argued by Hearn and his acolytes are reckless BS.
|
|
|
|
|
What is quite unexplainable is why Gavin is proposing such an abrupt change: going directly to 20MB blocks. It would be much more rational to have a "slow" approach, ie increasing the block size to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. I'm 100% sure consensus will be much easier to reach in that scenario. 2MB will double the current capacity with no difference at all in overhead for miners and full nodes.
Why in the earth is Gavin proposing such a dramatic change which could have deep implications instead of taking a cautious, slow and progressive approach?
|
|
|
|
Is $1.5 million for a website a legitimate price? It seems extremely pricy to me, who has literally no experience in website design. I mean, unless it's like a site for Microsoft or something I can't imagine spending that much for a website.
Also, $100,000 a month to a company that no one really knows anything about? It just seems strange, to myself, a total outsider.
You should split those 1'500'000 dollars to all the slickage team (~10 person) and you will see that it is not a lot of money ... ~150'000 dollars to each component of the team for a 1-2 years of work (and maybe they will receive more money, who knows?). 10 persons? AFAIK they are just 4 developers and they were supposed to complete the job in 1 year - so you could bet they will charge more for a 2 years job. Furthermore, could anyone show us a track record for Slickage? Any previous work done by its founders? |
|
|
|
BTW: I'm curious to know if Nick Szabo will comment on this matter. I guess we could assume is Satoshi's opinion  |
|
|
|
|
I believe Gavin did many good things for Bitcoin, but I also believe some of the things he defends are not based on solid grounds - I also believe he did some shady, or at least dubious, things in the past. The fact that he sides with Mike Hearn is very telling, as Hearn always tried to kill bitcoin decentralization and fungibility trying to push awful proposals like blacklisting.
On the contrary, people like Maxwell, Wuille or Peter Todd always convince me with their reasons. I know for sure with whom I'm siding with - the latter group. I'd bet most miners will stand with them too.
|
|
|
|
What surprises me is how long it took for them to publish the Nick Szabo theory: On the contrary, Nick Szabo (Nakamoto Satoshi) fits incredibly well. It is painfully obvious that Nick is one of the main (if not THE main) inspirators of Satoshi's work. Again: Nick was the inventor of the "smart contracts" concept and he developed extensive work on blockchain-like decentralized ledgers; his bit-gold is simply "bitcoin beta", but he is not even cited as a reference on the Bitcoin whitepaper - the only plausible reason for such ommission is again, OPSEC/compartimentalization. Similarly, Szabo almost never wrote about Bitcoin, despite it is clearly the system he has been writing about from 1996 to 2005. Every question to Szabo about BTC is duly ignored, he just wrote/commented about Bitcoin once after many questions, even if it clearly is the realization of years of his work. Additionally, the last paper on e-currency he wrote was published in 2005, and his very last comment on that matter (which was a central part of his work for at least 9 years) was published on his blog in 2008, shortly before the bitcoin paper was published.
Given the above and other many factors (similarity in writing style and political views, etc.) I give 75% chance that NS is SN. This obviously doesn't mean I want Nick to be "outed": privacy is a fundamental right that should never be taken away for anybody.
|
|
|
|
|
The transaction has now +90 confirmations so I guess we can now close the case.
|
|
|
|
Thats not very informative; is there a way to tell if that isn't an _inbound_ connection that someone is trying to make towards you?
100.64/10 is reserved private address space and not generally routable on the internet; see RFC 6598.
I'll try to get ASAP the packet captured with Wireshark, hopefully that's more informative. FYI: my reverse firewall lists this connection as an outbound one - you can see in the screenshot I uploaded an arrow pointing to 100.64.68.8, that means the connection was outbound, when it is inbound the arrow points to the opposite side and I get a different type of pop-up warning. Summing up, either my firewall is screwing up or this is definitely an outbound clearnet connection attempt from a Bitcoin Core instance which is supposed to connect only via Tor. Should I worry? |
|
|
|
I'm running Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 and while I have it configured to run through Tor only its been a few weeks that the client tries to bypass Tor and connect directly to 100.64.68.8 or other IP addresses in the same subnet.
My reverse firewall is blocking it, but it seems very strange to me that the client tries to bypass Tor, that looks like a privacy/security problem.
Anyone has seen the same behavior?
Can you reproduce this every time? I mean, does it happen right when you start the program or at random times? Today it happened right when I started Bitcoin Core, but usually it happens at random times. Certainly shouldn't happen. Are these connection attempts to remote port 8333 or something else? Maybe you can get a packet capture. Yes, these connections definitely attempt to remote port 8333. Didn't have wireshark running, but here goes a screenshot of my reverse firewall.  |
|
|
|
I'm running Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 and while I have it configured to run through Tor only its been a few weeks that the client tries to bypass Tor and connect directly to 100.64.68.8 or other IP addresses in the same subnet.
My reverse firewall is blocking it, but it seems very strange to me that the client tries to bypass Tor, that looks like a privacy/security problem.
Anyone has seen the same behavior?
Can you reproduce this every time? I mean, does it happen right when you start the program or at random times? Today it happened right when I started Bitcoin Core, but usually it happens at random times. |
|
|
|
|
I'm running Bitcoin Core 0.10.0 and while I have it configured to run through Tor only its been a few weeks that the client tries to bypass Tor and connect directly to 100.64.68.8 or other IP addresses in the same subnet.
My reverse firewall is blocking it, but it seems very strange to me that the client tries to bypass Tor, that looks like a privacy/security problem.
Anyone has seen the same behavior?
|
|
|
|
Full article: http://blog.wizsec.jp/2015/04/the-missing-mtgox-bitcoins.htmlExcerpts: A large amount of stolen MtGox bitcoins appear to have been sold off at MtGox and other exchange markets, which would have somewhat pushed the bitcoin price down. However, since the coins were moved relatively slowly over time, and this was back before the bitcoin price exploded, the net monetary effect on the market may well have been pretty limited.
While a decent chunk of MtGox deposits were in a sense "fake" after all (that is, made using stolen funds), the net result for the creditors remains fairly unchanged; if the thieves deposited stolen coins onto MtGox, sold them for cash and then withdrew that money, we're still left with creditors who bought those coins for real money in good faith.
Notably, the fact that the coins were real, stolen and at significant risk of already having been spent would seem to further dim any hopes for creditors of recovering any more bitcoins. Realistically, we are left to hope the payout percentage might improve as invalid and illegitimate claims could potentially be filtered out.   |
|
|
|
While I agree with some posters that the idea of using someone's wealth as a parameter to establish the "weight" of their voice is flawed and counterproductive, I can see how it can be useful for some applications. Furthermore, I think this is the key sentence in the OP: it will at least ensure that everyone involved in the discussion at least shares the commonality of having some bitcoins In this case the OP proposes a forum in which you can post only if you prove you hold a certain amount of coins - that's the "commonality" the users of that board will share. I think we can have many more use cases in which users could prove a certain fact (not necessarily wealth) in a decentralized and trustless way thanks to blockchain technology. A silly example: open source developers could prove in an accurate, trustless, counterfeit-proof and decentralized way that they have committed a certain number of lines of code to a certain set of projects. Another example: users of certain products could prove ownership of such products thanks to data embedded in the blockchain, and so on... TL;DR: Elwar's solution seems very interesting to me in a broad sense and from a technological standpoint, even if I dislike the idea that someone's wealth should be used to establish the "weight" of their voice. |
|
|
|
A tamper-proof, transparent public ledger.
I really miss the word distributed - that's one of the core characteristics of the blockchain. I'd say: A tamper-proof, transparent and distributed ledger. |
|
|
|
Who could've predicted that Windows is a really insecure VM host?  I guess it wouldn't be difficult to create the kind of script btcchris posted for OSX and Linux too. |
|
|
|
Rampion, Congratulations you are first person to notice / post about the little surprise the Factom team sent out today! We purposefully sent a little bitcoin to your address from the 1Factom vanity address. The reason the Factom team sent these bitcoins out is to recognize you as an early adopter / supporter of new blockchain technology projects. (Your address was among many on the bitcoin ledger who previous supported other community projects) We hope you will check out the Factom Software Sale and use this bit of bitcoin to claim your first Factoid(s) and thus be able to join our community as a beta tester / early adopter. https://koinify.com/#/project/FACTOMIf you aren't interested, that's cool just keep the BTC as a small tip for being an active part of the community. You rock. Love Team Factom Thanks djohnston, I supposed it could be advertising but it seemed strange the dust didn't come directly from the vanity address, I guess it was sent from a change address |
|
|
|
|
Just to let you know that Armory 0.93.1 is working like a charm on my OS X 10.10.2. No more db errors and superfast start up. Is it my impression or the database is a tad smaller compared with the previous version?
Good job!
|
|
|
|
Slickage = unknown startup which doesn't even have a website on its own. 4 developers, $375k per year per developer. Well played  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
