... - page 26. | Bitcointalksearch.org

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 04:37:03 PM

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:23:45 PM

turvarya - It is nonsensical to jump into a debate to accuse one of the participants if you have no knowlege of the course of this debate. I was only reacting to an attack by meono, and I am just one of the people he attacked. I have posted enough arguments, but you ignoring that fact and jumping to conclusions is interesting in and of itself.

Let me guess turvarya, do you support XT? If so, please tell us why exactly?

I am all over this XT-bashing-threads, I read most of them. And again, I was in this thread before you. And again, I can just beg you, to stick to the facts.

Why do I support XT? Because there is currently no better solution. If another solution arrives(in code not just endless talk), I might jump ship. I am not really that big of a fan of Mike Hearn and I don't like the position, that I have to defend BitcoinXT, but I just can't stand the bullshit, that is all over this place.

Who told you there was need for a solution? Mike Hearn?

What is the problem?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:19:52 PM

meono, meono, I know the matter at hand exceeds your mental capacity, which leads to never ending personal attacks. The next time you want to have something explained, I advise you to just politely ask for it.

The quote you posted referred to a suggestion of a local tx/s limit in standardized executions and is in no way contradictory - in fact not even related - to the other quote you posted.

So meono, please again, tell us all why you are here? What is your interest in spreading continuous lies and personal attacks?

In your post you asked core dev to "block malicious nodes", did you not?

Yeah its everything related to this thread.

So i guess i'm right that you're a hypocrite asshole

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:23:45 PM

turvarya - It is nonsensical to jump into a debate to accuse one of the participants if you have no knowlege of the course of this debate. I was only reacting to an attack by meono, and I am just one of the people he attacked. I have posted enough arguments, but you ignoring that fact and jumping to conclusions is interesting in and of itself.

Let me guess turvarya, do you support XT? If so, please tell us why exactly?

I am all over this XT-bashing-threads, I read most of them. And again, I was in this thread before you. And again, I can just beg you, to stick to the facts.

Why do I support XT? Because there is currently no better solution. If another solution arrives(in code not just endless talk), I might jump ship. I am not really that big of a fan of Mike Hearn and I don't like the position, that I have to defend BitcoinXT, but I just can't stand the bullshit, that is all over this place.

ChetnotAtkins

full member

Activity: 131

Merit: 101

turvarya - It is nonsensical to jump into a debate to accuse one of the participants if you have no knowlege of the course of this debate. I was only reacting to an attack by meono, and I am just one of the people he attacked. I have posted enough arguments, but you ignoring that fact and jumping to conclusions is interesting in and of itself.

Let me guess turvarya, do you support XT? If so, please tell us why exactly?

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:00:18 PM

meono, you can be observed to repeatedly evade facts and to conduct continuous personal attacks against people like turtlehurricane who support this community by working through the code to reveal things that every Bitcoin user needs to know.

I can see your account was created just for the blocksize debate. So please inform us, why exactly are your here? Why do you have an interest in dividing Bitcoin and it's userbase?

Instead of attacking meono, because he uses a new account, you should attack his arguments. Attacking a person instead of his arguments, just shows how weak your standpoint is.
turtlehurricane hasn't worked through the code, he worked through comments of the code and variable-names, which are also in Bitcoin Core. This whole thread is based on a mail someone else send to the dev-mailing list and turtlehurricane just picked it up to make this thread. He was repeatedly asked to point to the code snipped(not comments), on which he takes so much offense, but failed to do so.
If you think, meono is dodging questions or facts, point us to them.

And btw. you might see, that my account was not just created for the blocksize debate. My account is older than yours, but I don't hold that as an argument, that would be silly, wouldn't it?

ChetnotAtkins

full member

Activity: 131

Merit: 101

meono, meono, I know the matter at hand exceeds your mental capacity, which leads to never ending personal attacks. The next time you want to have something explained, I advise you to just politely ask for it.

The quote you posted referred to a suggestion of a local tx/s limit in standardized executions and is in no way contradictory - in fact not even related - to the other quote you posted.

So meono, please again, tell us all why you are here? What is your interest in spreading continuous lies and personal attacks?

Lucko

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 1000

More then 30 hours and still no code? Come on if it is there you should have found it by now! Unless it is not there...

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:00:18 PM

meono, you can be observed to repeatedly evade facts and to conduct continuous personal attacks against people like turtlehurricane who support this community by working through the code to reveal things that every Bitcoin user needs to know.

I can see your account was created just for the blocksize debate. So please inform us, why exactly are your here? Why do you have an interest in dividing Bitcoin and it's userbase?

Speak for yourself, some kind of twisted character you got there

Are you sure you dont have a mental issue?

This is what you wrote, isnt it

Quote from: ChetnotAtkins on August 20, 2015, 04:55:18 AM

Already have there been dubious code segments detected in XT's code base. XT is a trojan horse that plans to base it's hostile takeover of Bitcoin on manipulating the notoriously stupid masses.

I for one will dump ALL my Bitcoins immediately on the XT chain, should it ever be tradeable, which will certainly not be without effect. Bitcoin simply cannot be in control of two people with very questionable motives and tactics. It is a tool of the cypherpunks

Quote from: ?? on ??

How are developers responding to this severe limitation of Bitcoin's usage. There are currently 72000 (!) unconfirmed transactions but it seems they don't really want to acknowledge it.

Perhaps set a limit of tx/s to discourage spamming the mempool and block malicious nodes.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Mobius on August 20, 2015, 01:33:12 AM

This needs more exposure! I don't understand why the Core team won't just double size to 2mb and end this nonsense. In a few years time, we can re-visit the issue and possibly bump it up to 4mb if there are still no solutions. The devs are acting like babies.

Even if they wanted to, core devs have no power to force the rest of the system to support 2mb. That's not how Bitcoin works. XT works like that (Mike "Final Call" Heam), and that's exactly why Gavin, Mike, you, and all the other malcontents are most welcome to fuck off and launch your own independent altcoin.

You are the one demanding instant satisfaction (regardless of consequences) and complaining about the delay of your gratification. That is acting like a baby.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Cryddit on August 20, 2015, 01:01:27 AM

It was plain bad judgment to do anything else at the same time though, because now the block stream shills get to scream FUD about something else in order to fight the block size increase.

You're damn right we do. Cheesy

Thanks to the spectacle of unforced Gavinista errors, our FUD screaming is now more effective as it draws additional attention to their "plain bad judgement" (a perennial problem with Heam).

"Do you really want these two blundering possibly compromised idiots in charge of Bitcoin?" is our new narrative. Better get used to it. Wink

ChetnotAtkins

full member

Activity: 131

Merit: 101

meono, you can be observed to repeatedly evade facts and to conduct continuous personal attacks against people like turtlehurricane who support this community by working through the code to reveal things that every Bitcoin user needs to know.

I can see your account was created just for the blocksize debate. So please inform us, why exactly are your here? Why do you have an interest in dividing Bitcoin and it's userbase?

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 20, 2015, 03:46:37 PM

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 12:15:52 AM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 19, 2015, 11:56:11 PM

it's political because Gavin went off on his own and tried to fork bitcoin when core devs didn't take to his ideas

Thats your perspective due to your lack of understanding the issue. Its not my way or highway, its due to one side refuse to compromise to come to an agreement.

Yes i do insult other members when its clearly their agenda is to spread BS and attack the opposite side. They werent here to see everything. To me ditching and trashing Gavin because of some conspiracy is a disgrace of this community.

We're ditching and trashing Gavin because he (like Mike) is a shitlord:

Quote

If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary.

Is coblee's perspective also due to lack of understanding the issue? Wink

Well his shitcoin is useless and non innovative. Hes just mad like you. However from this thread you will always be a number 2 no matter what you try. Turtlehuricane top your charts in every way.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: dooglus on August 20, 2015, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.

You seem confused. There are thousands of lines of code in Bitcoin Core itself concerned with the whitelisting and blacklisting of peers based on their behaviour. I get that you're trying to "help", by railing against XT, but when you overstate your case it isn't helpful. You're unable to point to specifics in the XT changeset that implement blacklisting because they don't exist.

Specifically, the 'fShouldBan' member which you keep quoting is already part of Bitcoin Core, and has been for a long time now. It is nothing to do with XT.

See this code in the original Bitcoin repository.

Hearn's changes are relatively small if you ignore the IP list itself which makes up the majority of the diff.

It does the following:

* fetches a list of Tor exit nodes from torproject.org, leaking your IP address to that site in the process
* in the event that your node is full, it will disconnect a Tor exit node if a non-Tor peer attempts to connect

That's about all.

I don't know why anyone would think it's a good idea to lump a bunch of unpopular changes in with the silly change which increases the block size limit from 1 MB to 8000 MB. Each extra already-rejected-by-people-who-know-their-shit change you add in surely just makes the whole package even less attractive. Unless maybe the strategy is to make the shit sandwich less unappealing over time by removing one turd at a time until only the blocksize change remains. Then everyone will exclaim "boy, there's only one turd in this sandwich - that's so much better than five turds" and gobble it up.

I hope not.

Wouldn't you say it's worth a thorough review considering this statement? You'd be one of the people who suffers first from the blacklist so you better check twice.

I would like to start a discussion and brainstorming session on the topic of coin tracking/tainting or as I will call it here, "redlisting". Specifically, what I mean is something like this: Consider an output that is involved with some kind of crime, like a theft or extortion. A "redlist" is an automatically maintained list of outputs derived from that output, along with some description of why the coins are being tracked. When you receive funds that inherit the redlisting, your wallet client would highlight this in the user interface. Some basic information about why the coins are on the redlist would be presented... I think this is a topic on which the Foundation should eventually arrive at a coherent policy for.

-Mike Hearn, BitcoinXT developer, lead author of Anti-DoS "patch"

A dog would have value its integrity more than you value yours.

Seriously do you ever have any self respect?

You knew your FUD is exposed and you're still trying to stick to it and continue causing more harm the the community? Your agenda is nothing but want to lead ppl to make ill-informed decision.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 12:15:52 AM

Quote from: madjules007 on August 19, 2015, 11:56:11 PM

it's political because Gavin went off on his own and tried to fork bitcoin when core devs didn't take to his ideas

Thats your perspective due to your lack of understanding the issue. Its not my way or highway, its due to one side refuse to compromise to come to an agreement.

Yes i do insult other members when its clearly their agenda is to spread BS and attack the opposite side. They werent here to see everything. To me ditching and trashing Gavin because of some conspiracy is a disgrace of this community.

We're ditching and trashing Gavin because he (like Mike) is a shitlord:

Quote

If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary.

Is coblee's perspective also due to lack of understanding the issue? Wink

c4p0ne

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Solutions?

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: dooglus on August 20, 2015, 01:31:08 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I work for myself, no one is behind this but me. My career is Bitcoin so I have an obligation to protect it.

You seem confused. There are thousands of lines of code in Bitcoin Core itself concerned with the whitelisting and blacklisting of peers based on their behaviour. I get that you're trying to "help", by railing against XT, but when you overstate your case it isn't helpful. You're unable to point to specifics in the XT changeset that implement blacklisting because they don't exist.

Specifically, the 'fShouldBan' member which you keep quoting is already part of Bitcoin Core, and has been for a long time now. It is nothing to do with XT.

See this code in the original Bitcoin repository.

Hearn's changes are relatively small if you ignore the IP list itself which makes up the majority of the diff.

It does the following:

* fetches a list of Tor exit nodes from torproject.org, leaking your IP address to that site in the process
* in the event that your node is full, it will disconnect a Tor exit node if a non-Tor peer attempts to connect

That's about all.

It's valiant of you to try, dooglus, but turtlehurricane is only going to deflect this because he's not interested in having an honest discussion. If he were to admit the truth that half the code he's jumping at shadows for is already present in core, it would undermine the entire premise of the thread, which is to cause undue alarm. He's worse than a politician for not being able to give a straight answer to a simple question. And yet for some reason, every thread he starts exclaiming the sky is falling, half the forum buy into the fear campaign. This is why we can't have nice things.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=fShouldBan

"OMG THERE'S BLACKLISTING IN CORE TOO! ABANDON SHIP!" Roll Eyes

turvarya

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

@turtlehurricane
Why don't you answer my question?

Quote from: turvarya on August 20, 2015, 01:28:21 PM

So, what (Bitcoin) projects have you worked on?
Give us any reference.

Maybe because you are a liar?
You proved again and again, that you don't know shit about Bitcoin.

tsoPANos

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

In math we trust.

Quote from: johnyj on August 20, 2015, 02:49:39 PM

This kind of discussion is useless due to the complexity is out of reach of majority of users

If you have been here enough long, you will understand that bitcoin protocol was 100% centralized in the hands of a few core developers. Although everyone can submit their code, but core devs have the right to decide what code goes in and what should not go in

In early days, they even have support of the large mining pools, thus they could easily direct majority of the hash power to kill an unwanted fork during 2013

But now the political landscape has changed. Hash power has mostly moved to industry miners, this dramatically increased their political power in deciding where bitcoin is going. And since industry miners mostly care about making profit through mining, any change that could hurt their profit will not be accepted by them. So we can imagine that even core devs are lobbying the industry mining guys to accept their vision, if any change that could potentially cause the bitcoin's value to drop, they will not consider it

Money's value comes from trust, and trust comes from integrity and stability

This post has a huge value/character ratio.
I couldn't agree more.

One example of how devs behave depending on their interests.

Quote from: Bitcoin XT #3 difference compared to Core https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/blob/0.11A/README.md

3. Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent.

The Lighthouse crowdfunding app in backed by Mike Hearn, and if you want to accept bigger blocks, you will also have to support his patch to make his app possible.

I am deeply dissapointed by every high-ranking dev involved in this, and even our administrator seems to censor XT.
I do believe that XT is more centralized than Core as it follows Hearn's agenda only, Core is in a similar situation though.
Censoring one or another causes bad on bitcoin, and any bitcoin enthusiast has no reason on doing so.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: johnyj on August 20, 2015, 02:49:39 PM

This kind of discussion is useless due to the complexity is out of reach of majority of users

If you have been here enough long, you will understand that bitcoin protocol was 100% centralized in the hands of a few core developers. Although everyone can submit their code, but core devs have the right to decide what code goes in and what should not go in

In early days, they even have support of the large mining pools, thus they could easily direct majority of the hash power to kill an unwanted fork during 2013

But now the political landscape has changed. Hash power has mostly moved to industry miners, this dramatically increased their political power in deciding where bitcoin is going. And since industry miners mostly care about making profit through mining, any change that could hurt their profit will not be accepted by them. So we can imagine that even core devs are lobbying the industry mining guys to accept their vision, if any change that could potentially cause the bitcoin's value to drop, they will not consider it

Money's value comes from trust, and trust comes from integrity and stability

miners would not want their mining fees reduced to nil because of large blocks and considering halving incoming too.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

This kind of discussion is useless due to the complexity is out of reach of majority of users

If you have been here enough long, you will understand that bitcoin protocol was 100% centralized in the hands of a few core developers. Although everyone can submit their code, but core devs have the right to decide what code goes in and what should not go in

In early days, they even have support of the large mining pools, thus they could easily direct majority of the hash power to kill an unwanted fork during 2013

But now the political landscape has changed. Hash power has mostly moved to industry miners, this dramatically increased their political power in deciding where bitcoin is going. And since industry miners mostly care about making profit through mining, any change that could hurt their profit will not be accepted by them. So we can imagine that even core devs are lobbying the industry mining guys to accept their vision, if any change that could potentially cause the bitcoin's value to drop, they will not consider it

Money's value comes from trust, and trust comes from integrity and stability

Topic: ... - page 26. (Read 61003 times)