Topic: ... - page 11. (Read 61013 times)

They really should have kept the difference between XT and Core the same EXCEPT the size limit. This Mike Hearn guy seems to get everybody's feathers ruffled on a regular basis like he's feeding on the fallout.

^^-- LIKE

JorgeStolfi, if you read the thread topic, the goal is to not run software that does blacklisting, or more specifically, introduces centralized trust, which is a systemic risk and counter to the principles of Bitcoin.  What differentiates Bitcoin from everything that came before it is that it is a TRUSTLESS SYSTEM.

I think most people support larger blocks overall, but don't support the additional logic being thrown into XT.  It looks like Mike has turned block size into a red herring for other agenda, permitting him to take over bitcoin code and introduce other "features" that run counter to the trustless network that Bitcoin was designed to be.  

By fake, I mean advertising accepting BIP101 blocks but in fact rejecting them, which Slush it not doing. Anyone that runs NotXT might as well be running NotBIP101 on core since it's the exact same deceitful practice. It doesn't help demonstrate support for alternative BIPs; it might help fracture the network in January. I know you're not dumb enough to have ignored the game theory - anyone that runs NotXT is gambling with everyone's money without any upside.

So the same is for Gavin, he was here from the beginning.

The core team has maintained Bitcoin for years, don't you think they know what's best for us?

correct

Help me understahd: the "anti XT" camp here is euphoric with the idea that slush or other miners may run their own 8 MB software, as long as it is a private patched copy of Core rather than a private copy of BitcoinXT -- that is a patched copy of Core.  Is that so?

So the real issue is only whose boots are to be licked, Adam's or Mike's?

Here you go:



% RealXT blocks:        0
% FakeXT blocks:    100
% #R3KT Hearn: >9000

I missed that. What did Slush say about his pool? Link?

Yes, the only "XT" blocks mined thus far are actually from a FakeXT node.  Slush must be a gambler!  

So much for canth's pompous "I for one don't believe" opinion.

Apparently, nobody (especially Slush) cares what canth does or does not believe.  

Oh boo hoo, let's all cry about slush's "deceitful indication of larger block support" (which was "a likely scenario" after all).  

Yes, of course.  LOL!


Try just South of where you found the 'taint'.

Yeah, that seems quite easy. Why didn't I think of that? [/sarcasm]


Estimates of people who own some bitcoin range from 3'000'000 (Coinbase, BCI claims) to 300'000 (me).  The latter is my estimate of how many people own at least 1 BTC; together, those users own 99% of all bitcoins in existence.  

So, how many bitcoiners do you think know enough about the bitcoin protocol to understand how they can get get their transactions executed in one chain only; and know how to do that without messing up their wallet file; and can obtain a few satoshis that were mined after the fork; and are interested in handling split coins; and can find buyers who can also do all of that; and are dumb enough to buy coins that may die in a few days?

To help you: Reddit's /r/bitcoin section lists 172,115 subscribers, but less than 1000 are logged in at any time.  However the moderators of /r/bitcoin delete most posts about BitcoinXT, so I doubt that its readers will learn about that there.  There are new sections for bitcoiners who dislike censorship and for people interested in BitcoinXT; they have ~2000 and ~12'000 subscribers, respectively.  

My most optimistic guess is that the "market" for minority-branch coins will not exceed 300 people, worldwide.  There is of course a network effect there:  once they realize that they are so few, they will realize that their chances of making money from coin splitting are small, and they will lose interest -- and then there will be fewer still...


Yes, I have observed already that, for the fanatic bitcoiner, *every* detail of bitcoin is a feature; and *everything* that happens is "how the system works".  

Sorry, but it is a bug that the coins on each branch may or may not be moved independently, with most clients being unable ot understand or control what is happening.

Hackery is what you propose to do: move coins independently on the two branches by tainting them with coinbase coins, and sell the version you think will die to anyone fool enough to buy them, or to anyone naive enough to not understand what he is buying.   The 100 block delay was probably meant to discourage that kind of hackery after forks -- soft, hard, or accidental.


Correct.  More precisely, any UTXOs that were created before the fork exist and can be used on both branches.  If you try to move them without tainting, they will be moved on both branches, to UTXOs that are still untainted.  Once you get hold of some satoshis that were mined on one branch (either one), you can first move all your old UTXOs on that branch to new UTXOs, with tainted transactions, and then you can move again the same old UTXOs to still other UTXOs with untainted transactions, that will be executed only on the other branch (because on the first one those outputs are already spent).  

Well the same way you get satoshis right now. You either mine yourself or find someone that can provide you with them.

If you think 99.99% of the bitcoin holders will NOT know about that then you are lying to yourself. I do agree that there will be some that will not know about this, but 99.99% is an absurd percent. Also it's not a bug. It's a feature. It's how the system works. It seems that you still don't understand it.


It's 100 blocks, not 50. And it's not a hackery. It's how the system works! Is that so hard to understand?

Also you don't need to taint the coins from the 25% branch if a hard fork happens because you already have coins on that branch. You will need to taint coins on the other branch that has 75% because on that branch you need tainting. Are you drunk?

This is not the thread for security. The short answer is that if you have reasonably good secure computing habits and a modest level of your personal wealth in bitcoin, it's best to secure them on your laptop or phone with a paper backup in a safe place. If you don't have good security (aka, letting other people use your computer, not keeping it up to date, installing random software off the internet, browsing pr0n, etc) you're better off keeping your coins on coinbase and using 2FA.

If the amount of coins you hold would be 'life changing' if you lost them, invest in a Trezor, Case, KeepKey (not out yet) or use Armory and a dedicated offline laptop.

As far as regular wallets on a desktop are concerned - core or XT are fine. Electrum is an alternative light SPV client if you don't have ~ 50GB of free space.

if i just wanted to store my coins is bitcoin core a good option? i currently have them in coinbase but people tell me thats not safe

1) BIP100 is miners voting for miners to maintain control. Hardly shocking.
2) There's no code. It's a little early to call this game over.

Even if 100% of miners vote for BIP100 that doesn't make it assured - users and merchants need to accept it or it's back to the drawing board.

Well stating the obvious that I'd be surprised if anyone who thinks they know anything about bitcoin wouldn't know ...
1) Coincontrol ... how long has it been in the core qt? ...
2) 101 confirms
3) BIP100 is now 60% (without Bitmain's 2 pools) ... yeah, XT BIP101 will not be happening ... with still less than 1%
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

and the guy at Bitmain who we discussed and came up with the /BIP100/ identification will probably convince them to add it soon too ... hopefully
... hmm close to 80% then ...

Well nothing left to talk about in this thread ... no need to look at and skip all the failed expert lectures any more ... ... sayonara ...

It seems you have not read what I wrote at all.



Of course I know that.  But how do you get those few satoshis?

Do you realize that 99.99% of the bitcoin holders will NOT know about that bug feature of the protocol, or would not have the means or interest of exploiting it? 

So how are you going to meet the 0.01% of users who know that, have got some coinbase satoshis from one of the branches, and are interested in trading single-branch bitcoins? 

By the way, there is a minimum delay of 50 blocks (IIRC) before one can use coinbase coins, presumably to discourage this sort of hackery.  On a branch with 25% of the mining power, that means at least 2 days. Wlll that branch survive that long?

Everyone will know it either before any fork or very shortly after.  I've described the formula several times to spur people's interest in learning the basics of how spends are created.  Hopefully a few people will have taken and interest and took the 5 minutes it takes to understand this, and many more will be aware that it is a TODO before they get ripped off by on-line service providers or dodgy SPV client apps.

I chronically overestimate people's abilities, but I am quite sure that this stuff is simply not rocket science.  Someone will have written some code to auto-split coins well before it's needed (if they've not already) and if they don't, I'll start coding again for the first time in a number of years.  IIRC, some of the same techniques were employed to either exploit or work around exploits associated with the mutability issue.

Well it seems that you are not paying attention to the threads where you post on.

In this thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/guide-surviving-the-fork-or-how-to-double-your-bitcoins-or-save-fiat-1157679 we have the following information:


It's not rocket science and it's not a hack. It's just how bitcoin works!