Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 Released

[Hyena]

1. I'm taking my chances, it is very important for Bitcoin to reject SegWit. If it fails we lose BTC, and it will become yet another Ethereum centralized bankstercoin

Nonsense FUD by someone who's either very misinformed or just trolling.

2. Yes I am a bitcoin holder since 2011 and I belive the price will rise more without SegWit.

Doesn't matter even if you were satoshi, this does not give you more credibility.

3. Unlimited blocks is the most decentralized and best free market based attempt for scaling. I support Satoshi's original vision. If you disagree with Satoshi go ahead and create SegWItCoin as an altcoin to Bitcoin.

No. Unlimited blocks are inherently safe. Also stop appealing to authority. Just because Satoshi created it, or had a vision, that does not mean that that is the utmost correct and perfect way to move to.

You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy. I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.

[Lauda]

You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Why? Because some random alias had supreme knowledge of everything ? Appeal to authority.

There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy.

"Network speed will cap"? What kind of ludicrous made up thing is this? With no hard limit, any malicious entity should be able to DOS the network.

I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.

What numbers? The minority of nodes and hashrate on BU?
Note: This is all off-topic to this thread. We should stop derailing it. Create a separate thread.

[Hyena]

You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Why? Because some random alias had supreme knowledge of everything ? Appeal to authority.

There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy.

"Network speed will cap"? What kind of ludicrous made up thing is this? With no hard limit, any malicious entity should be able to DOS the network.

I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters.

What numbers? The minority of nodes and hashrate on BU?
Note: This is all off-topic to this thread. We should stop derailing it. Create a separate thread.

It's not off-topic. Since 0.13.1 includes foul code for the first time it is just the right place to discuss it.

Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster, thus stealing the block reward). There is no way to DOS the network because individual nodes can choose to reject blocks based on their individual preferences. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size limit.

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin. The Core devs are not authors nor legal owners of the Bitcoin software. For that reason they should not act like ones. This is called theft of intellectual property.

[Lauda]

It's not off-topic. Since 0.13.1 includes foul code for the first time it is just the right place to discuss it.

False. Segwit is the most peer-reviewed and tested change to date. There is nothing foul about it. If you want to discuss foul things, then you may want to take a look at the *ex-convicts* supporting BU.

Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster, thus stealing the block reward).

There's nothing preventing a malicious miner from doing this.

There is no way to DOS the network because individual nodes can choose to reject blocks based on their individual preferences. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size limit.

There's nothing prevent someone from creating a super-majority of nodes and manipulating this metric as well. You could easily end up with a minority of nodes not accepting such blocks.

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

For that reason they should not act like ones. This is called theft of intellectual property.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

[Hyena]

...

What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere.

[Lauda]

...

What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere.

A clear example of argumentum ad lapidem. You have no valid points to defend an invalid stance, hence the dismissal.
I'm done. Someone else is free to address this.
Update: Now we have false dillema and poisoning the well.

[Hyena]

...

What you just said is simply false and you keep repeating it. I guess this argument leads nowhere.

A clear example of argumentum ad lapidem. You have no valid points to defend an invalid stance, hence the dismissal.

I don't really care. I'm expressing my opinion for the sake of people who can actually do their own thinking. You clearly cannot (perhaps because you are being paid to lie?) SegWit will eventually lose just like Killary Clinton did. People are waking up to the lies. BTW, you seem to be fanatically holding on to the assumption that I support BU so much. I don't. I don't think BU should even get the majority of nodes because that will lead to more centralization again just like it is the case with Core. Bitcoin Unlimited is currently the best alternative simply because it includes the logic to deal with competing chains. If Core enabled options for the users to disable SegWit on their node and to define my own maximum block size then I would consider using Core. If you oppose decentralization which you clearly do then you do not belong to the Bitcoin community. Why are you here then? Ethereum or Ripple would suit much better to you. Have you heard of them?

[gmaxwell]

Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster,

If any any point miners find that blocks are being orphaned because they are too slow to propagate then the rational, natural, and previously observed behavior is that miners will simply centralize since doing so eliminates that cost. Because the effect of orphaning can be made arbitrarily small (by centralization or other means), your proposed effect cannot constitute a long term effective control on resource utilization.

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

[Jake-R]

How are maxconnections=__ controlled now? Is it now n-1?

In my bitcoin.conf file I can set maxconnections=10 but only nine other clients will connect. If I set maxconnections=11 then only ten other clients will connect. Is this a bug, or feature?

[gmaxwell]

How are maxconnections=__ controlled now? Is it now n-1?

In my bitcoin.conf file I can set maxconnections=10 but only nine other clients will connect. If I set maxconnections=11 then only ten other clients will connect. Is this a bug, or feature?

An extra connection is reserved for short lived 'feeler' connections which the node uses to explore the network.

[Hyena]

Network speed cap is the maximum block size that can travel through the network fast enough so that it would not be orphaned. Miners are never going to mine blocks that are so large that they will be orphaned (another miner mining a much smaller block will get to propagate it faster,

If any any point miners find that blocks are being orphaned because they are too slow to propagate then the rational, natural, and previously observed behavior is that miners will simply centralize since doing so eliminates that cost. Because the effect of orphaning can be made arbitrarily small (by centralization or other means), your proposed effect cannot constitute a long term effective control on resource utilization.

Oh will they really? You're from the future or something? So you are proposing one form of centralization as a solution to the hypothetical other? Well if that's the choice then I'd still go to the direction of empowering the full nodes and taking power away from the development team of a particular branch of the bitcoin software. We have seen mining centralization in past and it was solved. What gives you the fantasy of it not getting solved in the future? That's right. You've got nothing.

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

[(No subject)]

I just download Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 setup file from link in forum header, before install I checked with

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a7d1d25bbc46b4f0fe333f7d3742c22defdba8db9ffd6056770e104085d24709/analysis/

is it safe to install?

[MadGamer]

I just download Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 setup file from link in forum header, before install I checked with

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a7d1d25bbc46b4f0fe333f7d3742c22defdba8db9ffd6056770e104085d24709/analysis/

is it safe to install?

I just scanned my setup file too which I downloaded when this version first got released from Bitcoin.org and I'm having the results as you so I assume It's a false positive and there is nothing be worried about.

[achow101]

I just download Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 setup file from link in forum header, before install I checked with

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a7d1d25bbc46b4f0fe333f7d3742c22defdba8db9ffd6056770e104085d24709/analysis/

is it safe to install?

I just scanned my setup file too which I downloaded when this version first got released from Bitcoin.org and I'm having the results as you so I assume It's a false positive and there is nothing be worried about.

Double check the hashes and verify the binaries by following https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1588906.0. If it all checks out, then it is a false positive.

[MadGamer]

I just download Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 setup file from link in forum header, before install I checked with

https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/a7d1d25bbc46b4f0fe333f7d3742c22defdba8db9ffd6056770e104085d24709/analysis/

is it safe to install?

I just scanned my setup file too which I downloaded when this version first got released from Bitcoin.org and I'm having the results as you so I assume It's a false positive and there is nothing be worried about.

Double check the hashes and verify the binaries by following https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1588906.0. If it all checks out, then it is a false positive.

Hashes are definitely the same but I'm not sure what I did wrong here , I imported all the developers PGP keys theymos posted and while trying to verify this : https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/SHA256SUMS.asc , I get KEY NOT VALID

[achow101]

Hashes are definitely the same but I'm not sure what I did wrong here , I imported all the developers PGP keys theymos posted and while trying to verify this : https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/SHA256SUMS.asc , I get KEY NOT VALID

Verifies fine for me. Are you sure you imported the key properly? The release key is the second key in Theymos's list of keys.

[Carlton Banks]

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

Except this fork is a soft fork, so it is backwards compatible by definition. You're advocating a hard fork, which is not backwards compatible. By definition. So you're wrong.

[MadGamer]

Hashes are definitely the same but I'm not sure what I did wrong here , I imported all the developers PGP keys theymos posted and while trying to verify this : https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/SHA256SUMS.asc , I get KEY NOT VALID

Verifies fine for me. Are you sure you imported the key properly? The release key is the second key in Theymos's list of keys.

Yes , I tried with importing the key of that guy alone and with importing them all at once but It's not working . Importing keys  works just fine with GPA but verifying doesn't. Are you using the same software as me ?

[achow101]

Hashes are definitely the same but I'm not sure what I did wrong here , I imported all the developers PGP keys theymos posted and while trying to verify this : https://bitcoin.org/bin/bitcoin-core-0.13.1/SHA256SUMS.asc , I get KEY NOT VALID

Verifies fine for me. Are you sure you imported the key properly? The release key is the second key in Theymos's list of keys.

Yes , I tried with importing the key of that guy alone and with importing them all at once but It's not working . Importing keys  works just fine with GPA but verifying doesn't. Are you using the same software as me ?

I believe so. I used GPA on Windows 10 to verify the contents of the file.

[Hyena]

It is important to respect the vision of Satoshi Nakamoto because they are the author of Bitcoin.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

Says someone who wants to rewrite the network rules in a way radically unlike and incompatible with the state that Bitcoin's creator left it.

Except this fork is a soft fork, so it is backwards compatible by definition. You're advocating a hard fork, which is not backwards compatible. By definition. So you're wrong.

An ugly hack soft fork is no better than a proper and elegant hard fork. So you are wrong.

edit:
What is more, neither of these options will activate without strong consensus. So if we are going to have a consensus either way then let's do a proper and elegant hard fork (has happened before and worked like a charm). There's absolutely nothing bad about a hard fork if we have a strong consensus. Since SegWit won't activate without consensus there is no point to have it in the first place.