|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you see garbage posts (off-topic, trolling, spam, no point, etc.), use the "report to moderator" links. All reports are investigated, though you will rarely be contacted about your reports.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
 |
March 13, 2013, 10:17:48 PM |
|
Due to the recent changes implemented by theymos I would not trust to post in a thread I've not started. Sorry. |
|
|
|
|
kuzetsa
|
|
March 14, 2013, 06:26:01 AM |
|
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
That would be correct. It's a huge issue.  |
|
|
|
|
Chris Weber
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 37
Merit: 0
|
|
March 14, 2013, 07:55:48 AM |
|
@MPOE-PR
What about making the reference some text sticking to RFC rules? I really think this is not easy but worth the effort.
You even could go for support of the BF to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 14, 2013, 10:52:42 AM |
|
Holy fuck! I'm talking WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY beyond my area of expertise. I hope that I don't get humiliated by like 90 guys that actually understand what I'm talking about.
Shit. You all beat me to it. Smartass, this thread is actually earlier than the devteam announcement. Stopped to think about that for a second? @MPOE-PR
What about making the reference some text sticking to RFC rules? I really think this is not easy but worth the effort.
You even could go for support of the BF to do this.
That's kinda the plan, roughly speaking. |
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 14, 2013, 11:14:10 AM |
|
By the time I have to talk about Bitcoin coding issues the ball has been dropped so far by so many people so many times it's not even funny anymore. So let's have a simple fix: PEOPLE QUIT BEING IDIOTS and I'll be happy to never have to post in this subsection of the forum ever again.
Noone is actually forcing you to talk about this stuff. Using bitcoin is entirely your own choice and your own risk. Unless you actually contribute you're nothing but a joke when you bitch about stuff not being fixed. Fix it yourself or STFU and GTFO... Nobody needs you. Let me rephrase this: The bitcoin community does not need you or your bitching. In fact, i bet this community will be better off without narcissistical personalities like yours that see idiots everywhere except in the mirror. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 14, 2013, 05:39:27 PM |
|
Noone is actually forcing you to talk about this stuff. Using bitcoin is entirely your own choice and your own risk.
Unless you actually contribute you're nothing but a joke when you bitch about stuff not being fixed.
Fix it yourself or STFU and GTFO...
Nobody needs you.
Let me rephrase this:
The bitcoin community does not need you or your bitching.
In fact, i bet this community will be better off without narcissistical personalities like yours that see idiots everywhere except in the mirror.
I thought we got past the "gift horse in the mouth" argument a while back. Attacking me doesn't make idiots less idiotic. |
|
|
|
rebroad
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 26
Merit: 9
|
|
March 15, 2013, 12:10:07 PM |
|
What does this even mean? "independent devs doing it". Dependent on what/whom? If you'd had 100 variants of the original Satoshi client all being developed and bug fixed separately and 100 variants of the mining software all being developed and bug fixed separately then we'd have had many more hardforks by now, with no-one really knowing anymore which is the true bitcoin. Do you go by the first version of the client which allowed anyone to give themselves a billion (well, a lot) bitcoins? Or some arbitrary version someone developed based on that? It simply wouldn't work. Bitcoin needs a majority client in order to not hard fork, and therefore in this sense, it can never be decentralised. The developers of this majority client will always have the power and can make decisions to change what bitcoin is whenever they like. For example, let's say they decide to increase the blocksize from 1MB to 10MB. Who's going to stop them? The users downloading bitcoin-qt? I suspect not. Most people just download it and use it without caring what changes are going on. Yes, we were supposed to be able to vote with our feet, but the people who actually do that are usually in the minority and so will lose. Considered, yes. One problem is the centralization issue stemming from that approach. The one correct way to handle Bitcoin development is exactly as designed: independent devs doing it. The problem is that instead of doing it they spend their time opining on things that utterly ain't their business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
mobodick
|
|
March 15, 2013, 12:39:33 PM |
|
Noone is actually forcing you to talk about this stuff. Using bitcoin is entirely your own choice and your own risk.
Unless you actually contribute you're nothing but a joke when you bitch about stuff not being fixed.
Fix it yourself or STFU and GTFO...
Nobody needs you.
Let me rephrase this:
The bitcoin community does not need you or your bitching.
In fact, i bet this community will be better off without narcissistical personalities like yours that see idiots everywhere except in the mirror.
I thought we got past the "gift horse in the mouth" argument a while back. Attacking me doesn't make idiots less idiotic. I don't argue a given horse. I argue that if someone volunteers to do programming for a whole community you should give them some respect. The more because you do not or cannot do this work. This whole community, including you, voluntarily uses the fruits of their labour mostly without compensating them. Calling them idiots and slaves like you did is just pretty fucking disrespectfull. |
|
|
|
|
|
MPOE-PR (OP)
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:33:14 PM |
|
What does this even mean? "independent devs doing it". Dependent on what/whom? If you'd had 100 variants of the original Satoshi client all being developed and bug fixed separately and 100 variants of the mining software all being developed and bug fixed separately then we'd have had many more hardforks by now, with no-one really knowing anymore which is the true bitcoin. Do you go by the first version of the client which allowed anyone to give themselves a billion (well, a lot) bitcoins? Or some arbitrary version someone developed based on that? It simply wouldn't work. Bitcoin needs a majority client in order to not hard fork, and therefore in this sense, it can never be decentralised. The developers of this majority client will always have the power and can make decisions to change what bitcoin is whenever they like. For example, let's say they decide to increase the blocksize from 1MB to 10MB. Who's going to stop them? The users downloading bitcoin-qt? I suspect not. Most people just download it and use it without caring what changes are going on. Yes, we were supposed to be able to vote with our feet, but the people who actually do that are usually in the minority and so will lose. Considered, yes. One problem is the centralization issue stemming from that approach. The one correct way to handle Bitcoin development is exactly as designed: independent devs doing it. The problem is that instead of doing it they spend their time opining on things that utterly ain't their business.
I don't hold myself responsible for your endless string of presupositions. You think they're true, that's fine, I don't happen to care and it doesn't happen to matter. I don't argue a given horse.
I argue that if someone volunteers to do programming for a whole community you should give them some respect. The more because you do not or cannot do this work. This whole community, including you, voluntarily uses the fruits of their labour mostly without compensating them.
Calling them idiots and slaves like you did is just pretty fucking disrespectfull.
I am giving them *some* respect. Rehashing a defeated (and mostly nonsensical) argument in new terms doesn't lead it more credence. |
|
|
|
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
|
|
March 18, 2013, 09:31:59 AM |
|
The risk is that v0.7 nodes would be vulnerable to attacks by double spends, 51% attacks and accepting newly generated coins from the incompatible v0.7 generation blocks.
Actually this is incorrect. The Satoshi client goes into safe mode when it notices that a branch it believes is invalid has become the longest one by more than 6 blocks. This actually happened to the 0.7 clients, which is what Pieter Wuille is talking about here in the original fork announcement: If you're on 0.7 or older, the client will likely tell you that you need to upgrade.
Some more details and links to the code are here if you are interested. |
The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators. So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
|
|
|
|
MooC Tals
|
|
April 10, 2013, 01:46:04 AM |
|
jgarzik In an unfunded open source project, arguing all day about the lack of full-engineering-team rigor is entirely wasted energy. Blame the dev team if that is your favorite target, that will not magically create extra time in the day or extra manpower to accomplish these extra tasks being demanded by non-contributors. Is this what is supporting bitcoin? What happens when they all decide they want to work on some other project? I know I am not fully understanding bit coin but someone who like driving a bus and wants to drive a bus better be driving the bus. I'm amazed it has gotten this far to be honest. anyways you all can go back to ignoring the noob. |
|
|
|
|
|
