Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 11:19:32 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise  (Read 11029 times)
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 08:27:54 PM
 #61


Comparing fiat to crypto is apples to oranges. Replacing one fiat with another is not the same thing as replacing fiat with a non-government currency. I think you are arguing details and failing to see the point.

Your emission scheme is just that - a scheme. Why would you want to peg to something you want to replace? That doesn't make sense. My guess is you're an older fellow who just can't wrap your head around life without the USD.

It takes years of brainwashing, like majoring in Economics-style-brainwashing, to think deflationary currencies are bad and elastic money supplies are good. Its the foolishness, if not downright insanity, of thinking that there is a magic algo or philosopher kings who can decide what the volume and value of money should be on any given day rather than leaving it to the market.
Right, let's just get this straight.  

The US dollar is not volatile compared to Bitcoin.  Furthermore, the volatility in the day that it has typically varies around the same price range, while Bitcoin can swing by huge percentages in the course of a few days.

People here can imagine a life without USD, but that's just it:  imagining.  It will take time because Bitcoin's volatility is based on people's confidence, which is not as high as it will be yet.

Sure, it's not 100% accurate (the Big Mac Index is pretty close), but it's a damn good way to determine what the value and spending power of your Bitcoin is and what it has been in the few years that it's existed for.

Bitcoin is volatile in terms of US Dollars. My point to dinofelis is: So what? Why is that a problem?

Another question for dinofelis: Why do people/businesses accept US Dollars in the first place?
1511306372
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511306372

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511306372
Reply with quote  #2

1511306372
Report to moderator
1511306372
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511306372

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511306372
Reply with quote  #2

1511306372
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511306372
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511306372

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511306372
Reply with quote  #2

1511306372
Report to moderator
1511306372
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511306372

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511306372
Reply with quote  #2

1511306372
Report to moderator
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 08:28:14 PM
 #62

In this thread: people whining that they're unable to force third parties to compromise Bitcoin.

Bitcoin will not be compromised
cryptoanarchist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 08:31:28 PM
 #63

In this thread: people whining that they're unable to force third parties to compromise Bitcoin.


Actually we were sidetracking into an economic discussion. You might want to read over it, you might learn something.
Sr.Urbanist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 08:31:47 PM
 #64

Nothing stops freedom money from having an issuing mechanism that more or less regulates its value to a constant, and hence can become a much better unit of account

This reminds me of Panama's currency: the Balboa.  Like Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil and other Latin American countries they suffered from high inflation.  So, they pegged the Balboa 1:1 with the USD.  After a while, they figured why print Balboas if they are pegged to the USD.  They now use USD and call it Balboa.

Cab: "5 Balboas"
Me: Hand them $5 USD and call it a Balboa.


In as much as bitcoin was a great idea ... it has no elasticity.

How does this compare with the elasticity of the USD?  They can print more, but aside from gift cards and similar tokens - which are pegged 1:1 with the USD - you don't have much option.  I've had a difficult time getting anywhere to accept my Quetzales, except in Guatemala  They seem to like them there.
 


Also, gold "always existed" in a certain way, and the only thing that new gold sources did, was a "gold rush" which was always an economic disaster, from the demise of the native American civilizations to the disasters elsewhere

Spain never saw the hyperinflation coming after bringing back gold from their "conquests".  Good point.



But nobody actually wants "internet money" - except dark markets.

I use it as money.  I buy clothes, musical stuff, flowers with it.  I also offer a 20% discount if people pay with BTC or LTC because I know PayPal won't take the money out of my account one day because somebody's account was hacked and they would prefer I pay the cost than they do.


People want "digital gold on steroids" to become rich quickly in a greater fool game.

Core.  I would suggest that is what Core wants and that's why we have the rise of Bitcoin Unlimited.  If you're interested watch SegWit v Bitcoin Unlimited with Roger Ver and Johnny from Blockstream on YouTube.  

 

My idea is that this is what kills crypto's soul, and that we're just seeing the crypto version of a huge "complex derivatives" market on which people speculate.

It is for that exact reason, after much contemplation, that I finally decided to switch to a BU mining pool and run the full node BU client.  Putting some numbers on a hard drive and wanting to get rich by doing nothing is stupid and is why I am diversifying.  I want to be able to send money to my son on the other side of the world and for him to be able to use it.  I want to see it used for remittances because it is faster and more secure than walking out of a Western Union with pockets full of cash.

I understand PoW used for both insuance and consensus... still, i think its kind of pointless to say "PoW not as good as DSA".  You can't solve the double spend problem simply with digital signatures.  That's why they invented Bitcoin Wink

Agreed.  RipplePay and PayPal did exactly that - only nodes.  PayPal went the way of tying to bank accounts and RipplePay went nowhere, until copying Bitcoin and creating "Ripple" (still going nowhere, imo).

Big Mac of course.  How many Big Macs could you buy with 1 BTC in November last year ?  And how many big macs can you buy now with 1 BTC ?

How many Big Macs could you buy with $1000, in November ?  And right now ?

It depends.  I love that their is a BigMac Index.  

If I buy a bean burrito, in USD, in El Salvador it's priced at 99¢ at Taco Bell.  In the USA, it is priced at $1.49.  It's the same product pegged to the same currency (USD is EV currency as of 2004, so they could get a highway), but in different locations.  

Everything is relative.  When I lived in the Netherlands, the price of the Euro was so high that it made the same item 1.6x the price as the USA because I was paid in USD to a US bank account.  

Hydrogen
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 616



View Profile
May 14, 2017, 09:37:15 PM
 #65

Big blocks are similar to the tendency americans have to throw random piles of money at problems and hope they go away.

Bitcoin Unlimited: "Let's make blocks bigger and hope all of bitcoin's problems disappear."

That's not a good policy. We can do better.

Mr. Green
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 159


I learnt about experts they're experts on fuck all


View Profile
May 14, 2017, 09:43:04 PM
 #66

You want compromise? How is this?
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 12:16:17 AM
 #67

Big blocks are similar to the tendency americans have to throw random piles of money at problems and hope they go away.

Bitcoin Unlimited: "Let's make blocks bigger and hope all of bitcoin's problems disappear."

That's not a good policy. We can do better.

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.

digaran
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630


COINPAYMENTS.NET


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 12:47:32 AM
 #68

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.
Wu was it your name?
From my point of view I see you BU guys and gals acting like you own Bitcoin, you are not even entitled to it or if you are then it is equal to every body in this community, you constantly talking like we're retarded and don't understand anything so we need you to tell us what is good and who is bad.
Godmother more concern than a mother? that's a saying if I got it right though.

With all the love and respect for Satoshi, fack his vision dude, he was just around for one year and either diverted Bitcoin and whole community towards his di*k or one of you guys killed him back then lol.

Core devs are around and active for more than 6 years but for more than 4 years Satoshi's vision was blinded or you were blind? then coming out since 2015, there was no SW back then was it? then what was the excuse to create BU? are we not running on the same chain until now ever since? I'd say they have done a great job so far and now that they are trying to move to the next big level they became the enemy?

Some damn decent enemies they are working in our favor up to $1800.

You think that we can't see that you saw an opportunity and grabbed it in the air after realizing with enough hash power and friendly full nodes at your side you could take over? 

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
Sr.Urbanist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 01:31:17 AM
 #69

We can do better.

Do you have a proposal?
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 01:38:41 AM
 #70

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.
Wu was it your name?
From my point of view I see you BU guys and gals acting like you own Bitcoin, you are not even entitled to it or if you are then it is equal to every body in this community, you constantly talking like we're retarded and don't understand anything so we need you to tell us what is good and who is bad.


Not retarded, you just bought into some (apparently very effective) propaganda.


 
Quote
With all the love and respect for Satoshi, fack his vision dude, he was just around for one year and either diverted Bitcoin and whole community towards his di*k or one of you guys killed him back then lol.


So, you understand Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin as peer to peer cash that can scale worldwide, but you'd rather have Blockstream's settlement network?  Have you thought about what the next step would be after the high fees we're seeing?  

Quote
Some damn decent enemies they are working in our favor up to $1800.

Are you that simplistic that all you can see is the current price and not understand the fundamentals underneath it and where they are going?

Quote

You think that we can't see that you saw an opportunity and grabbed it in the air after realizing with enough hash power and friendly full nodes at your side you could take over?  

I'm not a miner.  Just a concerned investor.

freebutcaged
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462


https://gexcrypto.io


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:02:11 AM
 #71

Because as it seems miners are not educated enough to review the codes of either proposals and need to be taught which direction to take.
If all the miners were experts they could've figured out which is what and who is blocking the development.
That alone is a very good sign as it proves and demonstrates that Bitcoin is indeed decentralized.
Hey lets increase the block size, lets compromise:

'Sure why not here you go this is the compromise you asked for'.

Oh so with some small storms you just gave up and handed over everything to another party?

With billions of dollars at stakes they are doing the best thing not compromising, if they were so easily to give up on everything then no one would've trusted them thus far.
We as users want the name of the BTC and also demanding what only altcoins can currently provide but we don't want them since their price, market and acceptance is not as wide as Bitcoin.
We want to eat fast food but not getting fat by eating it and that is not how the universe works mates.

               ███
     ▄▄▄▄▄     ▀▀▀
  ▄█████████▄
 ███▀     ▀███▄
███         ███
███         ███
 ███▄     ▄████
  ▀████████████
     ▀▀▀▀▀  ███
            ███
███▄       ▄███
 ▀███▄▄▄▄▄███▀
   ▀▀█████▀▀
gexcrypto
E X C R Y P T O

Global Trading Corp.
████
████
████
████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
      ████
      ████
      ████
      ████
YOUR COMPREHENSIVE CRYPTO TRADING PLATFORM
|       WHITEPAPER       |       FACEBOOK       |       TWITTER       |       ANN THREAD       |
████
████
████
████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
      ████
      ████
      ████
      ████
mackenzied
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


Hoqu.io – Decentralized Affiliate platform


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:16:25 AM
 #72

Big blocks are similar to the tendency americans have to throw random piles of money at problems and hope they go away.

Bitcoin Unlimited: "Let's make blocks bigger and hope all of bitcoin's problems disappear."

That's not a good policy. We can do better.

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.

For current problems, they need to give a larger number of blocks. However, larger blocks meant security risks, which made the core worry. However, segwit can completely solve the problem. But I do not know why they reject segwit.

.....HOQU....
.MARKETING OF THE FUTURE!.






                                              
       ████████████████████    ██████████████████
    ██████              ██████   ████         █████
   ████   █████████████    ████   ███████████    ████
 ████   ██████      ██████   ████  ████   ██████   ███
████  █████    ████    █████  ████  █████    ████   ███
████  ████   ██████████   ████  █████████████   ███   ███
████  ███  ████     █████  ███  █████     ████  ████  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ██████████████       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ██████████████       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███                             ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███                             ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███                             ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ██████████████       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ██████████████       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
███  ████  ███        ███  ████  ███       ████  ███  ████
████  ███  ███████████████  ████  █████████████  ████  ████
 ████  ████   █████████████  ████   ██████████  ████  ████
 ████  █████    █████  ████  █████    ███     ████   ███
  ████   ███████  ████  ████   ███████    ███████  ████
   ████    ███████████  █████    ████████████   █████
    ██████         ████   ██████              █████
       ██████████████████    ████████████████████
           █████████████████     ████████████ 





............................................Decentralized affiliate platform...........................................
▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬▬▬▬▬▬ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▮ ▬
Facebook   Twitter   ANN Thread   White Paper   Telegram   Medium





[
Sadlife
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322


Why so serious?


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:19:43 AM
 #73

All these Segwit compromise and conpiracy theories talk is really exhausting if you dont want to implement segwit then it's fine we haven't really tried all the available options and im sure in the near future new scaling proposals will be presented.
Segwit will activate if there is an emergency in bitcoin, thats all there is to it.

Darkbot
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 57


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:32:41 AM
 #74

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.

R.I.P BU Troll Jonald Fyookball
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:40:35 AM
 #75

Core refusing to provide bigger blocks IS the problem.

R.I.P BU Troll Jonald Fyookball

I'm not associated with BU nor did I mention it here

jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 02:42:58 AM
 #76

  But I do not know why they reject segwit.
  the miners were promised a blocksize increase HF to go along with segwit, in Hong Kong by Blockstream CEO Adam Back, and they never got it. 

Viper1
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 03:16:48 AM
 #77

  But I do not know why they reject segwit.
  the miners were promised a blocksize increase HF to go along with segwit, in Hong Kong by Blockstream CEO Adam Back, and they never got it. 

"Technically", they said they would do it as long as there was "agreement" amongst other core developers. But yes, the fact that they seem to have reneged on that and given certain individuals over there that have become a detriment to core and IMO bitcoin in general due to their attitude, I can certainly see how miners etc are so pissed off they're not willing to just bend over. But we're reaching the point where they're going to have to make a final decision to suck it up and just do it, or risk the future of bitcoin for everyone.

BTC: 1F8yJqgjeFyX1SX6KJmqYtHiHXJA89ENNT
LTC: LYAEPQeDDM7Y4jbUH2AwhBmkzThAGecNBV
DOGE: DSUsCCdt98PcNgUkFHLDFdQXmPrQBEqXu9
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 03:18:36 AM
 #78

I will be petitioning miners to signal bigger blocks.

Sr.Urbanist
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 03:35:29 AM
 #79

If all the miners were experts they could've figured out which is what and who is blocking the development.

I have an advanced degree in my own profession. I ran the pro-formas. I also did a thorough review and, after much consideration, came to the conclusion that it is a debate of Bitcoin as a commodity vs. currency. I believe Bitcoin is a currency to use.  I am running a proforma and needing to convert BTC to USD to show the government because I am going to work mostly in Bitcoin, Litecoin because of their security and certainty that they are not fake.  I also want to support the system and believe they are a great form of payment!

After considering the facts, I made the most informed decision I could in order to support Bitcoin as a currency.  I believe we need faster confirmations and low transaction fees (micro-payments) in order for this to work. I think this will help more people adopt it and increase its usefulness.  I see larger block sizes as the most logical answer: (a) it addresses an immediate need; (b) provides for additional scale-ability in the future and (c) does not prevent layer II solutions.  

I, also, believe we need to hit the top of "S-curve" market adoption (if it is one) in order for most of the SegWit options to function optimally.  That is how I arrived at my decision to run and support BU.  Now, it's up to each person to arrive at their own conclusion.  That's how I made my decision: BU is the only way to scale blocksize and it's not perfect. I prefer BIP101 because of the predictability, but it's up to each person to make up their own mind.  

Name calling brings down the community.  
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
May 15, 2017, 03:52:21 AM
 #80

I think my argument is quite watertight concerning the non-power of full nodes, and I've never seen a LOGICALLY ARGUMENTED rebuttal to it, that doesn't confuse full nodes with users, or doesn't confuse it with the power game of a hard fork.
You've spent too much time arguing with dumbasses and marketroids which caused you to start believing in your own bullshit.

Almost from the inception people understood the importance of distributed node network, even if under centralized control:

1) ability for nearly anyone and relatively cheaply audit (in the accounting sense) the totality of the system.

2) distributed node architecture makes it easy and cheap to hide the actual expensive nodes (either due to mining or transacting/exchanging) from both attacks launched over the network.

3) not currently implemented by Core, but possible, the broadcast architecture makes it possible to use non-Internet methods of communication with super-extreme bandwidth asymmetry (high download but little upload).


1) audit, yes, I do not deny this.  You can find out for yourself whether the bitcoin block chain is doing what you thought it was supposed to be doing (that is to say, whether it corresponds to the protocol programmed in the node software).    Now you can learn whether that is a yes or a no.  But that's about it.  
It is like checking a signature.  You can see whether it is right or not.  But that's about it.  You can't DO anything about this.  You can write an article about it here on the forum, or you can write this on coindesk or something.  "hey, guys, the unique block chain is not checking on my node !".   Duh.  
You may use that knowledge to sell your coins (using *another* node that will allow you to send transactions, and does accept the block chain's protocol!) because you may think that bitcoin is screwed now.  But that's about it.  Yes, it will INFORM you.  No, it won't do anything about it.

2) how's that ?  We know their IP addresses.  Why would an attacker bother to attack Joe's node in his basement, when he knows the node IP of BitFury, say ?  But I will agree with you that a P2P architecture has some network advantages if direct internet connections are problematic.  However, you don't need the BITCOIN P2P network for that.  You can use just ANY P2P network, like Tor, to do the network communication between the customer (the wallet user) and the provider (the miner pool backbone).  You can argue: yes, but what if THEIR backbone fails ?  Well, in as much as the bitcoin P2P network finds a way around, just ANY internet connection will find a way around.

3) actually, that would rather be the direct connection between user wallets (customers) and the miner pools (providers).  Note that these miner pools may just as well have a DISTRIBUTED network of proxies (distributed, but centralized under their control) in the same way that google and facebook have distributed but centralized proxy servers all over the world.  What full nodes do, is to provide miners with a free proxy service.  

The point is that non mining full nodes don't contribute to the DECENTRALIZATION (not to the distributedness) of the network.  Decentralisation is about power and politics ; distributed is about network architecture.  full nodes don't have the slightest bit of political POWER.

Quote
Dinofelis, you clearly seem to have some academia background. But it must have been some theology school (or something equally anti-scientific) to be so unwilling to actually refer to the available references and verify your own assumptions.

This is funny, because I'm the only one never to use something else but logical arguments, and try to reason from a given to a result, without thinking about politics, autority, "others say so", etc... but just sheer reasoning.  I'm totally a scientist.  I'm actually the one thinking I came in some sort of church or something, where established dogma may not be questioned.  One of these is "full nodes are important to the decentralization of the network".

Now, given the fact that this in my honest opinion totally flawed statement is so often used to take decisions, I would think it is important to establish its veracity or its falsehood.  You would think that if Pythagoras' theorem is used all over the place, that *there's a solid logical proof* of it.  But no.  If presented with a proof of the opposite, there's no watertight demonstration of the veracity of the theorem in sight.  Only "you're wrong" or "you're a shill" or "you're religious" or whatever.  No mathematician ever would say, to someone that says "I think Pythagoras' theorem is wrong", "you're religious".  He would just give the demonstration of the theorem.  That should convince.  I think I have enough arguments to show that full nodes don't contribute anything to political decentralized power.  Show me the proof of the opposite.

For that, I discussed elsewhere the following Gedanken experiments, which will abstractly show one or the other: full nodes impose their view on miners, or the other way around.

Starting condition: today.  Miners and nodes agree on the same, current, protocol.  I consider two (abstract) cases to come to the conflicting situation, where miners and full nodes are in disagreement: A: the miners change something ; B: the full nodes change something.

A) suppose that the 20 miner pools (>99% of hash power) decide amongst themselves, to start mining blocks of 1.2 MB.  They publicly announce this, and there's also a version of bitcoin node software that can do this.   No non mining node agrees.  They all stop.  The miners continue making the block chain with 1.2 MB blocks.  What happens ?   Do users connect their wallets to the miner nodes, and continue using bitcoin, or does bitcoin come to a grinding halt, no exchanges, no transactions, nothing, all the time these miners keep making the new chain (and no old protocol chain is available) ?

B) suppose that the 20 miner pools keep on working on the bitcoin chain as today, but ALL non mining full nodes want to impose blocks of 0.5 MB as from tomorrow.  For one or other reason, all full nodes agreed upon that.  So they all implement the new software, that doesn't agree any more with the block chain the miners are making.   Do users connect their wallets to the miner nodes, and continue using bitcoin, or does bitcoin come to a grinding halt, no exchanges, no transactions, nothing, all the time these miners keep making the old chain (and no new protocol chain is available) ?

From these two exercises, what can we conclude about the political power of full nodes over miners concerning bitcoin's protocol ?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »  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!