Please provide your github link and proof so that I (and others) can check it.
That should be the end of this conversation. lolYou would think so - but still he continues to spout nonsense.
Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 6. (Read 8104 times)
You would think so - but still he continues to spout nonsense.
To be more clear in regards to the whole "Bitcoin is a protocol" point it needs to be pointed out that Bitcoin is actually not a protocol but a software implementation of a protocol (the protocol has never been published in fact).
actually.. bitcoin-core.exe is just an implementation.. bitcoin is not just an implementation
what makes "bitcoin" different from "litecoin" is the rules that define them as different things..
bitcoin i admit is more than just a protocol. because it it not just a set of defined rules.
bitcoin is also an asset ledger
bitcoin is also a payment network
but bitcoin-core.exe is just one version of many versions that all can happily talk to "bitcoin" without accidently talking to another altcoin or accidently creating their own coin..
i rewrote the whole lot into a different language.. thank you very much..
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow
So it passes every regression test that is in the Bitcoin repository then?
Please provide your github link and proof so that I (and others) can check it.
That should be the end of this conversation. lol
i rewrote the whole lot into a different language.. thank you very much..
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow
So it passes every regression test that is in the Bitcoin repository then?
Please provide your github link and proof so that I (and others) can check it.
To be more clear in regards to the whole "Bitcoin is a protocol" point it needs to be pointed out that Bitcoin is actually not a protocol but a software implementation of a protocol (the protocol has never been published in fact).
so here goes again
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.
So - you have coded every C++ quirk that is in Bitcoin?
Do you even know C++ well enough to have done that?
(I am going to ask you to prove your knowledge of C++ if you want to really continue this silly argument)
i rewrote the whole lot into a different language.. thank you very much..
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow
so getting back on topic
tell me why you think bitcoin-core is the only implementation in the world that can successfully talk to other nodes?? and why suggest that non bitcoin-core nodes are an altcoin.. yet they are using the same chain and talking to the same nodes as bitcoin-core.. meaning its the same network
A more careful reader would note that my post was as much a question as a 'suggestion'. No need to be insulting. Maybe you know more about the situation than me, or maybe you don't, but we can't know either way without having the discussion :|
Okay - sorry if I was insulting - but I do know for a fact that the Chinese nodes you are referring to were running Bitcoin Core and not some other software.
so here goes again
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.
So - you have coded every C++ quirk that is in Bitcoin?
Do you even know C++ well enough to have done that?
(I am going to ask you to prove your knowledge of C++ if you want to really continue this silly argument)
What's the harm in a jump to 2MB??
If you were here to converse in good faith, you would have already researched that exhaustively-debated topic.
I admire your 'energy vampire' attempt to wear us down by repeatedly asking already answered questions and attempting to restart the conversation back at square one.
I don't think you are actually a Toominista; you smell more like a Buttcoiner here to troll.
IOW, you are not here to converse in good faith, and thus cannot be bothered to establish basic familiarity with the exhaustively-debated "why not 2MB Right Fucking Now" topic.
Sorry, not tonight dear!
bitcoin-core.. is not a protocol.. its not the only way.. bitcoin-core is just a implementation of code which within that code are some protocol rules..
Why don't you go and write us a Bitcoin application then?
(oh yes - you are not capable - but apparently you are capable of understanding how they work fundamentally - I think not)
It is pretty obvious to others that people like you "have an agenda".
You don't listen and you never learn.
already have my own, thank you very much..
and dont be fooled by me trying to keep things laymen.. it doesnt mean i dont know my stuff, it just means im not here to impress people with geekspeak.
i prefer to code using geekspeak and then lay out conversations in basic plain english that even an old granny would understand.
so here goes again
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.
so it doesnt matter who codes it. how they are paid, what language it is wrote in. as long as the 2% of code that does the important bit follows the rules that the consensus want.. it will all talk to the same chain.. without issue.
bitcoin-core is not the only religion..
bitcoin-core is not the ony team of programmers.
trying to say bitcoin core .. "is bitcoin".. rather then "is part of bitcoin" makes you look like you want the blockstream team to be gods
I don't know really. But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right?
They were still using Bitcoin Core to do that (if you didn't realise this then why post incorrect suggestions?).
A more careful reader would note that my post was as much a question as a 'suggestion'. No need to be insulting. Maybe you know more about the situation than me, or maybe you don't, but we can't know either way without having the discussion :|
The phrase or name "bitcoin classic" is an acceptance that bitcoin is an altcoin that will be exceeded by others.
That being said, the multiple people making alternate bitcoin nodes is bothering me. It seems that the altcoin creators are invading bitcoin - they should stick to making their own scamcoins.
That being said, the multiple people making alternate bitcoin nodes is bothering me. It seems that the altcoin creators are invading bitcoin - they should stick to making their own scamcoins.
indeed - what's next?
Bitcoin Magnum with Chocolate Chips? Extra Almonds?
These takeover attempts start to resemble some lame ass marketing fudges.
My guess is that they will keep falling flat on their faces with increasing speed.
I think the answer is simple: You try to get consensus through cooperation and communication,
but if you can't, one side will eventually win by force.
Sure, and if BU, or classic can get 95 % of economic support than this should be not only allowed but encouraged.
As long as its honestly understood-
1) Bitcoin classic is a coup with attempts to remove any influence from many core developers ( Peter R "cooperative" animation is misleading)
2) It is irresponsible and will damage everyone by setting the bar at such a low number as 75%
I understand that technically , all that is needed is 51% , but anyone that decides to fork with 51%- 75% is fundamentally changing the social contract from one that is more anarchistic to one that is more democratic where the majority can coerce and harm the minority.
Many people that I have spoken to make a fundemental misunderstanding that the 95% bar is too high and merely an attempt to stall the project and allow 5-6 % to thwart the efforts of the majority. They fundementally, aren't considering the roots of bitcoin (Cipher-punks , crypto-anarchists ) and how the social contract is not democratic but far more anarchistic. The reason the bar is set so high is because there are ethical considerations we have to consider when we change the consensus rules.
I don't know really. But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right?
They were still using Bitcoin Core to do that (if you didn't realise this then why post incorrect suggestions?).
bitcoin-core.. is not a protocol.. its not the only way.. bitcoin-core is just a implementation of code which within that code are some protocol rules..
Why don't you go and write us a Bitcoin application then?
(oh yes - you are not capable - but apparently you are capable of understanding how they work fundamentally - I think not)
It is pretty obvious to others that people like you "have an agenda".
You don't listen and you never learn.
Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of all the different version strings?
I think that you are (if miners are using completely different code to Bitcoin Core then please give me the github link to their source).
I don't know really. But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right?
I think 'completely different' is unlikely, in any case. But you could change a lot of stuff and still not be 'completely different'.
If you followed the "libconsensus" efforts you would understand this.
*Exactly* (I had also mentioned that a few posts back but it got lost).
For some people all the efforts that are being made are just ignored for pure politics.
I like you and I'm sure some others do appreciate the technical work that has been (and still is) going on with the Bitcoin developers.
blah blah blah bah..
now your trying to mis-understand it yourself so you can twist it into any direction you please..
i think you need to have a cup of coffee and think for a few minutes.
my node which downloads the blockchain, relays transactions. checks validity, makes and signs transactions, stores private keys. etc etc.... is......
.. wait for it...
hang on.. just a couple more seconds to catch your breath...
......
not bitcoin-core.exe
but it works..
bitcoin-core.. is not a protocol.. its not the only way.. bitcoin-core is just a implementation of code which within that code are some protocol rules..
anyone.. YES ANYONE can make their own implimentation, own little extra features. different GUI, etc etc.. but as long as the main rules within the code that allow it to handshake and communicate to other peers is the same.. they can all communicate happily
I think what core supporters are forgetting or failing
to acknowledge is that the entrenchment of one group
calling the shots makes consensus changes more difficult
to acknowledge is that the entrenchment of one group
calling the shots makes consensus changes more difficult
Sighhhh ... No, the opposite is true. Consensus is easy when development is centralized with a small group. Consensus is difficult with many implementations and modularity. Bitcoin core is trying to make the consensus rules more modular and more open to encourage greater diversity of implementations. This will make consensus more difficult but it is a price worth having.
If you followed the "libconsensus" efforts you would understand this.
Jump to: