Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 04:05:13 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 [1545] 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806852 times)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 03:59:17 AM
 #30881


Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out?  It's getting confusing.

Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.

 Grin Grin Grin  

When t = t*.



Simple function, 1000 words.


Im just here observing your desperation curve, wondering where it will intersect the bitcoinXT adoption curve.


Good luck observing the "bitcoinXT adoption curve."  You're going to need it.   Wink

We have entered the fog of war, with version stamp weaponization ensuing exactly as I predicted.

This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".

This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.

This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.

Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.

It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable.

https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xt

Your move, hearn@sigint.google.mil.   Cool

Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.
1481256313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256313
Reply with quote  #2

1481256313
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481256313
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481256313

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481256313
Reply with quote  #2

1481256313
Report to moderator
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:01:44 AM
 #30882

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large.

Indeed, using straightforward crypto they could be very large. 

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:07:12 AM
 #30883

Speaking of sidechains, the one thing I never understood after reading the Blockstream paper was whether anyone had actually devised a technique to implement the "efficient SPV proofs."  This is the "cutting-edge crypto" required to move the coins back to the main chain.

No, read again, absolutely not what Matt is referring to.

I'm talking about the crypto required to produce an efficient SPV proof to move the coins from the sidechain back to the main chain (Appendix B).  We don't have to call it "cutting edge" if you don't want to; however, can you link me to a paper that fully specifies how such an "efficient SPV proof" could be implemented for Bitcoin?  

To be quite honest I'm not sure of the technical details but I don't believe that an actual SPV proof involves any "cutting edge" crypto. I believe the confusion may come from several debates on how to make these proofs more compact as they can be rather large.

Indeed, using straightforward crypto they could be very large.

No worries, we've got large blocks now as well, haven't we  Cheesy

You'd think they are goddamned stubborn at Blockstream. Why worry about innovating zero-knowledge proof to scale their sidechain when we can just inflate the block size to infinity!

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 04:17:50 AM
 #30884

Simple function, 1000 words.

The function is simple.  Observing the actual XT adoption curve, through the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely.

I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster.   Grin


Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.

Core is using XT's own strength (mob rule popularity contests) to thwart its attack.

That's elegant judo, not hockey violence.   Cool

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:30:28 AM
 #30885

Simple function, 1000 words.

The function is simple.  Observing the actual XT adoption curve, though the fog of war and despite weaponized version stamps, is another matter entirely.

I'm not surprised you'd rather gloat about the funny picture than address what happens when XT is led down our garden path, into premature aggression and subsequent disaster.   Grin


Using the analogy (throwing the hockey stick) was apt before its time.

Core is using XT's own strength (mob rule popularity contests) to thwart its attack.

That's elegant judo, not hockey violence.   Cool

You foresee multi petahash mining concerns running a client posing as XT just to give MP an orgasm, I don't see it happening that way.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:32:22 AM
 #30886

Quote
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:37:34 AM
 #30887

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:39:20 AM
 #30888

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:44:54 AM
 #30889

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 04:58:11 AM
 #30890

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise. 
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
August 17, 2015, 05:04:17 AM
 #30891

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama Alistair Darling, Chancellor of the Exchequer. Confirmed

Fixed your comment by removing the butthurt.   Wink

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:06:55 AM
 #30892

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise.  

See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot.

I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account.

If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam".

I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows".

Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind.   

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:10:28 AM
 #30893

About the Satoshi comment:

Quote
Zeke says:
It's a brilliant comment, made even better by its plausible deniability. If the author really is SN, and he signed it to prove authorship, then he would be invoking personal authority rather than reason to influence the debate. And would also completely undermine even a reformed Gavin, b/c now we would know that SN is waiting in the wings to offer divine guidance. Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

When you think about it, if Satoshi really had something to say that is exactly how he would do it.

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Yeah, the real SN would definitely invoke Barack Obama. Confirmed

I don't see why he wouldn't? Care to explain your logic? Because you didn't "portray him" that way?

I didn't "perceive" him that way? Maybe. He always rose above the political BS and focused on the bolts.

And any message delivered in this manner, under the name "Satoshi Nakamoto"... is an ad verecundiam, regardless of whether you are able to contort your mind to believe otherwise.  

See it appears you either didn't read the post I mentioned or "perceive" Satoshi as a complete idiot.

I for one think he's absolutely smart and perfectly conscious that the post would create confusion and that most would simply disregard it as just another scammer using an old, hacked satoshi email account.

If we believe this to be true then it should follow that being the wise guy he is, he wouldn't sign the message and "confirm" his identity so that the nature of his message would shine through his action : let ideas stand on their own and stop idolizing idiots. You could say he "walked the walk" exactly to avoid "ad verecundiam".

I'm not suggesting I actually believe 100% it was him. "Only god knows".

Simply proposing it isn't out of character or a particular stretch of the mind.   

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:13:05 AM
 #30894

So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

What? You think he'd write you a fucking essay? A love letter to Gavin?

Quote
Instead, we have a comment that points out with convincing reasoning that regardless of originalist doctrine, SN's early opinions are not canonical. Furthermore, it is equally plausible that a present-day SN would disagree with the approach of coercing a hard-fork to XT.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:14:16 AM
 #30895

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

Quote from: Thermos
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.

If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:17:16 AM
 #30896

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

It's increasingly apparent to me that this idea does not hold. Consider:

Quote
Recently Bitcoin came close to unmitigated disaster, in the following way: Gavin diplomatically suggested that miners increase their block size, from the previous magic number of "250k" to something they themselves pick. This approach is flawed: the solution to the problem of having a magic number in the code is not passing the responsibility of choosing it to a larger group. It may work politically, in the sense that where large, vague groups are responsible for a bad move nobody will ever be hung. It does not work practically.
http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:17:50 AM
 #30897

Quote
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:21:26 AM
 #30898

Wow, just wow.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/

Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post.

What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market.

Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened.

At least the absurdity is fully out in the open

Quote from: Thermos
Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.

If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.

Wow indeed. I wonder if we should shut up in this thread too? Decentralized project for th[break]
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:23:58 AM
 #30899

Quote
Hearn has in the past been a consistent advocate for having more Bitcoin users pushed onto less reliable SPV wallets instead of fully validating Bitcoin nodes, a move that is dangerous in an environment with substantially larger blocks and a higher orphaned block rate. The use of SPV wallets clearly and plainly increases the risk of users being duped by double spend attacks during common one to three block forks triggered by orphaned blocks, events which would likely become far more common as increasingly large block sizes and block verification times make XTCoin security measurably weaker than that of Bitcoin.

http://qntra.net/2015/08/hearn-releases-code-to-potentially-fork-xtc-from-bitcoin/

Maybe XT should be renamed SPVcoin? Any takers?

Bitcoin was designed to have most users on SPV wallets.

Which seems like a mistake in retrospect, wouldn't you think?

One that was accurately pointed out to Satoshi only days after his first Bitcoin email:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09968.html

Now I'm not saying they're completely useless but that naive reliance on SPV features is a dangerous game.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 05:27:53 AM
 #30900



7-1/2% and climbing. 

Over 8% now:


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 [1545] 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 »
  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!