Topic: ... - page 28. (Read 61015 times)

That is so not the case. If you really believe this please stop. It will get you in trouble if you are doing something illegal... You really need to know what you are doing for this be almost right. Bitcoin is not anonymous or private. It is public. And if someone with enough power has a reason can find you. Just ask DPR...

EDIT: the only thing protecting you is that it is not easy to connect name and address. But it is posible... Even using multiple addresses doesn't help if you are not careful enough.

So whats the consensus here?

Are we agreeing to differ?   

Look, I think we all want bitcoin to succeed, or we would all be on pornhub right now.


bitcoinXT is a move towards trying  to address some ( but not all) of the immediate shortcomings in the protocol. Its far from perfect - I now accept that the code can do a live connect to tor to get an exit node list, something I am absolutely against - but in principle I feel that it is a valid release within the spirit of open source and bitcoin.

I dont believe that it will be a magic potion that will suddenly allow us to give Visanet a run for its money. But it does get the ball rolling and get the debate into a wider arena.


Okay, this makes some people very unhappy, but you will never keep everyone happy in a project of this nature. It comes down to a straight choice - given all the factors you either decide to run with XT as a vote towards its core value of bigger blocks, or you stay with core, where you say that you dont want to move on without full consensus.


Bitcoin is more than capable of absorbing forks of this nature (whether you class them as software forks, hardware forks or schisms) - whats more important is that it doesn't decent into the naked hatred that has been evident here lately. There is no need. I myself am guilty of contributing to that. But I'm now drawing a line under that, I dont want to personalise this any further as a battle between guys on one team versus guys on another. They have all worked together in the past, and I am sure they will be able to do so in the future - irrespective of the outcome of the XT plebiscite.

I dont know, maybe a last minute patch to core that offers a compromise between the two implementations might be more appropriate. But I can't judge whether there is an appetite for this or not.

Im against XT at all costs, but the real question is here, how much non-regulation and super privacy can we afford if we want to see BTC go mainstream? I cant wait for confidential transactions to be operative but I wonder if more privacy will scare governments away even more.

if it really is recording IP addresses of bitcoin users then it would be seriously against the freedom and anonymity that bitcoin offers.

but it looks like it is to block the DoS attack via Tor!! https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/pull/20

I don't know what to believe anymore

What Hearn wants is for Bitcoin to become regulated for KYC/AML etc. ...

Then the fight will be between the Wild West vs. Regulation and that on a global scale.

fuck blacklisting! go work on ripple if you want blacklisting.

there are services which requires authoritative controls and there are services that are made specifically for the free world aka BITCOIN.

Bitcoin (decentralized) and ripple (centralized) can come hand in hand to serve the world.

For those that want to control their own wealth and value privacy can use Bitcoin and for those that are afraid of theft can use centralized services, like the BANK or Ripple.

This.
Pro bigger block but against all the other changes which hadn't been discussed and never been a topic before.
It sounds fishy when someone says: This client supports bigger blocks. Besides that I did some minor changes but this is not much relevant so don't worry.
Dangerous or not. I don't like that.

+ this https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoinxt-and-you-what-every-bitcoin-holder-needs-to-know-1157123

 in case it hasn't been posted here yet, nice recap:

http://shitco.in/2015/08/19/the-bitcoin-xt-trojan/

yes, if bitcoin can repulse the Hearn-Andresen XT PanoptiCoin FUD panic and forking social attack we'll be in good shape for the next leg up  (and hopefully well shod of those two little ratbags)

http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

Lets see how meono and co try their best to hide facts now


Stop XT!

Slush Pool mines the second BIP101 (BitcoinXT) Block. Block 370661

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1

actually this could be a good test to see how strong bitcoin is, if we can sustain this giant problem caused by two influent guy, then we are done, bitcoin will prove that can defeat anything even internal disputes

all those problems will make bitcoin stronger

Just my two cents,

I support the block size limit increase and was already on the way to upgrade my nodes to XT, I was assuming that the block size limit was the only change.

At this moment I really don't care if its prioritization or banning in the code, the main reason I will not upgrade to XT is the fact that other changes were implemented that were not advertised - changes that obviously deserve their own separate vote.

The block size limit should be the only thing we should be talking (fighting) about right now, and the XT devs made a huge mistake by implementing this kind of stuff, they just made everything more complicated. This could easily wait for another version, and from my knowledge of the network, DDOS is not such a big problem for the network at the moment as is this block size limit controversy.

I think we need an upgrade that includes only the block size limit change, everything else should be left for other upgrades since the block size is important enough by itself. So that people have only one thing to vote for.

Hope the core team will do a cleaner alternative for the block size limit increase. XT is way too tainted in my eyes now.

Is making the headlines now.
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115153/bitcoin-xt-fork-can-blacklist-tor-exits-may-reveal-users-ip-addresses

so

We have two chains

If one gains 75% the system will change? Will that be easy done without affecting the network in a negative way?

Did bitcoin "run out of capacity due to someone ddos attacking the network"? https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/Iov4vcCOg9M/qOTSP07wQEUJ




I would like to have a second thought about this from you

If someone could control IP addresses then he could potentially destroy use of the network by simply banning every IP that has used it in history.
BitcoinXT is more suited for North Korea.

Did you really write this?


You complete and utter tool.

OK this really looks serious. Gavin and Mike are starting the first real attack against Bitcoin and all that it stands for.

Stop XT!

Needless to say, it's very concerning.