Converted my first node to XT today.
Was it as easy as expected? Just install and run with existing bitcoind directory? Or were there any catches? on windows, just run the installer and all works, all config files are preserved and all CGminer scrips work as expected, cant say if Armory has any issues but I think it would just work. doug@armory claims it should work just fine. they aren't worried a bit. |
|
|
|
Converted my first node to XT today.
Was it as easy as expected? Just install and run with existing bitcoind directory? Or were there any catches? yeah, i think so. i got alittle confused a bit along the way but got it up and running. if you run into trouble, install the dependencies from here: https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt |
|
|
|
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook. Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys. True. Monero solved the block size issue on day one with adaptive block sizes and costing. I'm not in favor of rushing anything and like sipa's list of todos before any increase of Bitcoin block size, but there is some urgency for that. http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090896/there's nothing in there that hasn't been addressed by pro-block increase folks: 1. again, he talks like 20MB will be instantly produced as a reason the network will choke. no they won't, it will gradually increase over years during which bandwidth and storage will improve 2. he talks about full nodes w/o ever considering users. this is the problem i spoke about yesterday; these guys think the node is the fundamental unit which is wrong. he mentions that merchants should be the ones to increase the #nodes; i agree. but merchant businesses won't be created if there aren't users. so grow the users thru wider adoption via cheaper fees and reliability. don't choke them off with unconf tx's and high fees. 3. he's right that "need" won't stop at 20MB but will just increase. but that will take time as i said above and just how is that a bad thing to have all the extra users driving the system? that will mean Bitcoin has successfully spread out thru growth. but that growth can't happen if you have a technical choke on the system. 4. i don't buy the fact that with 20MB that somehow large miners are going to pump out large blocks for a perceived benefit over small miners. first off, all miners large and small probably have equal internet access speed. it's a small cost to have one and any business running a pool is sure to have one so connectivity shouldn't be an issue. as for the ability force small miners to process large blocks, this comes at the risk of the large miner getting orphaned trying to do so. i've already explained why they shouldn't be bothered playing these games trying to hurt an undefined supposed enemy pool size. Game theory effectively argues against this. why shoot themselves in the foot undermining confidence in the system and crashing the price? why alienate all their hashing clients who will pull out and punish them ala ghash? it doesn't make sense. 5. of all the Blockstream devs, Pieter would be the one who'd i think would be least captured. but i have $21M that says he is at some level. |
|
|
|
Converted my first node to XT today.
I figured that cypherdoc's stash would vanish eventually, and probably has been draining away through one scam or another over these past years. He is a classic case of 'falling down in shit and coming up smelling like a rose', but it's inevitable that a guy of his caliber will have their luck run out eventually. Now we see how the big one is likely hit him...by converting to an alt. <snicker> lol, what can i say about such idiocy? it's just a node ffs. but then, you wouldn't know the difference anyways, eh? it always amazes me the vomit that you are so willing to spew forth. |
|
|
|
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately). You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  . Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now? I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise. You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar. marcus, we're still waiting. |
|
|
|
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately). You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.' . Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now? I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise. You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar. |
|
|
|
Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB. We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.) Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject: As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.
Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.
I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1doHow are they using the term out of band in this context? |
|
|
|
|
Converted my first node to XT today.
|
|
|
|
[gossip about personalities] This seems very plausible. It's also irrelevant. 20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs. All other core devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users. |
|
|
|
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook. Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys. |
|
|
|
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.  both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain. Is that even supposed to be funny marcus? Surely you have more imagination than iCELatte? Of course, you're not man enough to admit you always throw the first stone are you?: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/381ygv/who_is_in_favour_of_reducing_the_blocksize_limit/crsjw15 |
|
|
|
I'm working for Nick Szabo.
Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.
enough with the hints, spill the beans please. The beans were spilled a long time ago, but most people (including StarbucksDoc apparently) weren't paying attention: The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy. - David Chaum 1996i also like iCELatte. has a nice ring to it. |
|
|
|
i read about this here one time but i don't fully understand it nor the implications, not being a coder.
a spec is a written, detailed, normal language description of how the protocol works, is that correct? wouldn't the current developer's guide qualify as something similar?
where as the code is what actually executes within the operating system and carries out the protocol rules?
and why NL, do you believe it would've prevented what we have going on now?
The Bitcoin Core is in such bad shape that fully specifying its behaviour is indistinguishable from impossible. You could say this is Satoshi's fault. What we now call Bitcoin Core started out life as a prototype and evolved into its present condition - it is not an engineered piece of software. Yes the Bitcoin core evolved in a convoluted and non-ideal manner, but I think the reason we have a situation where "the code" = "the specification" is more basic. Even if the Bitcoin core code was well designed, we would still be in the same situation where the code is the specification. The reason is in a distributed system such as Bitcoin, there is no rule enforcer. i.e. a centralized entity with the power to tell the distributed system when it is not functioning according to spec. The result is if the majority of nodes run a common set of code, that code becomes the specification even if the code deviates from the spec. The majority will follow that deviation, because it is the code they are running. If you think about it, that is exactly what a hard fork is. A hard fork is a majority of nodes agreeing to deviate from the existing specification. This holds true whether the hard fork was intentional or if the hard fork was unintentional (due to a bug). Since the majority of nodes in the beginning ran the bitcoin core, that core became the spec, and any other implementation that deviated from the core would be kicked out of the system. I think the best course of action would be to acknowledge that the prototype has served its purpose and retire it in favour of treating a non-prototype codebase as the reference implementation for which a specification can be written.
Even if we did this, and put a large amount of open effort into creating the a new perfect core, we would still have the above issue. That core would be the specification if the majority ran it, including all of it's unknown bugs. The problem is that there are two very different things in play here: - How humans think the Bitcoin protocol behaves
- What Bitcoin Core actually does
There is no case where a divergence between these two things is good. It means that despite years of effort Bitcoin Core is in some ways still a black box capable of surprising behaviour instead of predictable behaviour. We have no guarantee that Bitcoin Core is self-consistent (like it wasn't in March 2013). Due to the way that code was written, it's likely that we never will have such a guarantee. The only way out of this mess is to deprecate Bitcoin Core in favour of more-specifiable implementations as rapidly as possible. If Bitcoin Core (and derivatives) were a minority of the nodes in the network, then the next time one of Bitcoin Core's surprises manifested it would be a problem that a minority of the network would need to fix instead of newly-discovered behaviour that the entire network would need to implement.And that there is the solution IMHO, we need two things. - A clear specification, and
- A situation where there are many separate individually developed cores run on the network, where no one core represents a majority of nodes
If you have those two things, then if any core has a bug, it is up to that core to fix itself to adhere to the spec. Without both, then we are back to the situation where a bug becomes the spec, no matter how well engineered the core is. that's helpful tho i'm alittle confused about a couple things. when you say different "cores", you mean like Bitcoin Core & btcd? i thought everyone was referring to them as different "implementations" of the bitcoin protocol? so is a spec a generalized description written in plain language that is supposed describe what the protocol does from a practical standpoint and thus acts like a broad ruleset to which different cores or implementations are to adhere? |
|
|
|
Wladimir van der Laan, who seems to be Gavin's appointed lead for the project now, is " weakly against in the near future" because the solution seems to delay better ones. Seems he'd go along if it came down to a fork: I understand the advantages of scaling, I do not doubt a block size increase will *work* Although there may be unforseen issues, I'm confident they'll be resolved. However, it may well make Bitcoin less useful for what sets it apart from other systems in the first place: the possibility for people to run their own own "bank" without special investment in connectivity and computing hardware. see, this is where i think the devs understandably relate to the wrong fundamental unit of the system; the full node as opposed to the user. no, the individuals bank is not the full node, it's the user and his wallet. yes, to a degree, the security of that wallet depends on full nodes and miners but fundamentally it's the user and his wallet and why so much emphasis is placed on it via security R&D and specialized wallet implementations. MetCalfe's Law applies to the user base. that base will only grow via access to easy, cheap, reliable tx's. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?
wish there was a thanks button on BCT same with me he posts the same BS over on Reddit. |
|
|
|
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately). You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.' Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now? both versions are on github. Hearn's claims there is only 2 functional differences. how hard would it to run a diff? shouldn't be. have you? |
|
|
|
that was a great read. thanx. i had suspected as much. not being a coder but watching dozens of coders here and on reddit criticize bitterly not only Bitcoin's code but other code as well, i always got the feeling that it is just a given that everyone criticizes everyone elses code either out of envy or just trying to appear smarter than everyone else. it's not like anyone can really tell or hold them accountable. Peter Todd fell right into that trap yesterday on LTB with that stupid remark that Satoshi made a mistake. just who the hell is Peter Todd? answer: just an armchair critic who hasn't done anything significant with his life. Satoshi was the best thing that ever happened to him; he provided himself as a target that can't defend himself from the likes of Peter. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
