Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2017, 02:17:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: "Required" upgrade for Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind versions 0.7.2 and older  (Read 2490 times)
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 04:15:21 PM
 #1

http://bitcoin.org/may15.html

I don't like the language used. No one can "require" me to do this. I understand why I should and I will but the wording seems wrong to me. Opinions?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
1513131452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513131452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513131452
Reply with quote  #2

1513131452
Report to moderator
1513131452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513131452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513131452
Reply with quote  #2

1513131452
Report to moderator
1513131452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513131452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513131452
Reply with quote  #2

1513131452
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513131452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513131452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513131452
Reply with quote  #2

1513131452
Report to moderator
1513131452
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513131452

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513131452
Reply with quote  #2

1513131452
Report to moderator
kseistrup
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 565


Unselfish actions pay back better


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 04:30:54 PM
 #2

I agree.

Klaus Alexander Seistrup
http://about.me/kseistrup
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 04:34:11 PM
 #3

How about, "Upgrade or be left on a dead fork"

1D7FJWRzeKa4SLmTznd3JpeNU13L1ErEco
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 04:38:01 PM
 #4

Indeed. In fact that's another complaint. It doesn't even explain properly why you *should* upgrade.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
eb3full
VIP
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 198


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 04:53:37 PM
 #5

Let us know what you think of 0.7.2 in a few months.

"With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." John von Neumann
buy me beer: 1HG9cBBYME4HUVhfAqQvW9Vqwh3PLioHcU
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


If you want to walk on water, get out of the boat


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 04:55:28 PM
 #6

Indeed. In fact that's another complaint. It doesn't even explain properly why you *should* upgrade.
The code is open source, check it and you will discover why
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 04:59:28 PM
 #7

I think required is the appropriate wording. only 0.7.2 is required (with work-around), 0.8.1 is recommended.

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 05:02:09 PM
 #8

Let us know what you think of 0.7.2 in a few months.

Reading comprehension not your forte?

If you don't upgrade you'll be snivelling in the dark crying why no one warned you to upgrade.

Yeah, OK....

The code is open source, check it and you will discover why

That's an advertisement for Bitcoin for sure... I am a person who *would* be able to comprehend the source and *I* don't want to read it.

Simply saying "If you stay on 0.7, you are likely to end up the wrong side of a forked blockchain", which is what I assume is at issue, would have been enough.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 05:04:09 PM
 #9

I think required is the appropriate wording. only 0.7.2 is required (with work-around), 0.8.1 is recommended.


I think "strongly recommended" or "urgently recommended" would be appropriate. There is currently no one with the authority to require anything wrt bitcoin.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 05:09:33 PM
 #10

I had the same concern when I saw how this announcement was worded.

bg002h
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


I outlived my lifetime membership:)


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 05:16:20 PM
 #11

Required is unarguably the appropriate term. If you don't upgrade, you're technically not running Bitcoin anymore (and may end up on your own split chain). Required doesn't mean you must...it means you must if you want to run Bitcoin.

Recommended would imply if you do nothing you'll still be running Bitcoin. 

Hardfork aren't that hard.
1GCDzqmX2Cf513E8NeThNHxiYEivU1Chhe
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 05:31:04 PM
 #12

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
evilpete
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77



View Profile
March 19, 2013, 05:51:52 PM
 #13

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Not as such.. but more than 51% of the hash power is running 0.8.1 which has the code to automatically withdraw the artificial limit that buys people time to upgrade in an orderly fashion.  The train has already left the station.

Yes, the wording is a bit strong, but as we saw there are a lot of people who are confused or unclear about what they should do.  You obviously understand the situation and have already made an informed decision.  But think of the other people who aren't paying as much attention, or just don't care.  All they want is to be able to send, receive, and get confirmations.  They do have to do something if they don't want to get left behind on the wrong side of the next block that breaks their client.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Richy_T
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330


1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 05:59:34 PM
 #14

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Not as such.. but more than 51% of the hash power is running 0.8.1 which has the code to automatically withdraw the artificial limit that buys people time to upgrade in an orderly fashion.  The train has already left the station.

Yes, the wording is a bit strong, but as we saw there are a lot of people who are confused or unclear about what they should do.  You obviously understand the situation and have already made an informed decision.  But think of the other people who aren't paying as much attention, or just don't care.  All they want is to be able to send, receive, and get confirmations.  They do have to do something if they don't want to get left behind on the wrong side of the next block that breaks their client.

I don't disagree with any of this. Just the wording.

I think it's important if not essential that Bitcoin remains a decentralized, collaborative effort and the language should reflect that.

With that said, I think I've made my position clear so I'll leave the floor for others to discuss now.

1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
oOoOo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 06:05:14 PM
 #15

Is there any info on who actually wrote that?
tysat
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Keep it real


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 06:13:11 PM
 #16

http://bitcoin.org/may15.html

I don't like the language used. No one can "require" me to do this. I understand why I should and I will but the wording seems wrong to me. Opinions?

Worry less about wording and more about upgrading?
coretechs
Donator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 360



View Profile
March 19, 2013, 06:15:05 PM
 #17

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRUaDGW7WQ

http://bitcoindoc.com - The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin | http://nxtportal.org - Nxt blockchain explorer
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 19, 2013, 06:24:05 PM
 #18

Sez who? Bitcoin central control?

Says the miners in control of the majority of hasing power, after consultation with developers. There used to be a link to a thread including Gavin's diplomatically worded e-mail at the top of the forum.

Was only able to find this earlier thread where they ask miner to revert to 0.7
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152030.0

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
JeromeS
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 08:13:29 PM
 #19

I agree with what everyone else said about the wording.

Also, I think our benevolent dictator dev(s?) decided the only thing they can do to push this (unnecessary) upgrade is to use stronger language without giving any reasons or details, which is comforting to me tbh.

Bitcoin is not decentralized until it's working like an actual protocol with multiple clients and possibly blockchains. Right now there's only a handful of people who understand the (undocumented) source code and who are writing its future as they see fit. This cannot be good.

I think an intentional fork is exactly what we need right now. At least to have something to come back to as the main bitcoin becomes less and less attractive.

1MHMLCSdxzyaBEYQsQYYNPYkaBjeV1aSNZ
tysat
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Keep it real


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 08:16:22 PM
 #20

I think an intentional fork is exactly what we need right now. At least to have something to come back to as the main bitcoin becomes less and less attractive.

Are you saying you want 2 blockchains going?  Your wording is a little confusing there.
Pages: [1] 2 3 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

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!