Szatoshi has spoken!
"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
Notice the P2P thing.
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 49. (Read 378992 times)
"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
Notice the P2P thing.
Agreed. One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.
It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.
come back whenever the spam stops.
We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.
Whom are you talking with?
We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.
Best regards to all of you censorship cheerleaders.
Agreed. One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.
It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.
come back whenever the spam stops.
We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.
You're completely bonkers with this constant repetition of fantasy as reality: the market has already rejected unlimited blocksizes, because it recognises the value of limited blocksizes. Why are you still here? To get censored and subjected to ad hominem attacks? (neither of which allegation are founded in reality either?)
Go home, Zara (it's called forum.bitcoin.com, get going)
Agreed. One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.
It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.
come back whenever the spam stops.
We'll be back. 2016 is the year of at least the remove of your beloved 1MB cap. Forget the fee market that blockstream core wants to enforce with this cap. It won't happen, because it won't be accepted by the market.
"Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics."
Szatoshi has spoken!
"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"
Agreed. One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.
It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.
come back whenever the spam stops.
Agreed. One of the most regrettable things about this block-size snafu in my view is this characterization of 800% or 2000% increases as "modest" or a _doubling_ as being too small to consider.
It is very modest, compared to a completely removed cap, which has been set as a temporary anti-spam measure.
Szatoshi has spoken!
Nick Szabo: Bitcoin More Secure Than Gold
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/nick-szabo-bitcoin-more-secure-than-gold/36100
Bitcoin as a Better Reserve Currency
"Due to bitcoin’s superiority over gold in terms of security, Szabo also mentioned that the digital currency may be useful as a reserve currency for banks and governments. He explained:
“Reserve currency — this one [bitcoin] hasn’t been used for yet, but it’s something I envisioned when I was [developing] bit gold and something you could still do with bitcoin. Governments and banks could use [bitcoin] as their reserve currency. When political distrust rises — when wars break out — it’s going to be a lot more secure to be holding cryptocurrency than to be holding gold, especially since a lot of the world’s gold is held and entrusted in the United States anyway.”"
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/nick-szabo-bitcoin-more-secure-than-gold/36100
Bitcoin as a Better Reserve Currency
"Due to bitcoin’s superiority over gold in terms of security, Szabo also mentioned that the digital currency may be useful as a reserve currency for banks and governments. He explained:
“Reserve currency — this one [bitcoin] hasn’t been used for yet, but it’s something I envisioned when I was [developing] bit gold and something you could still do with bitcoin. Governments and banks could use [bitcoin] as their reserve currency. When political distrust rises — when wars break out — it’s going to be a lot more secure to be holding cryptocurrency than to be holding gold, especially since a lot of the world’s gold is held and entrusted in the United States anyway.”"
I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.
This doesn't make any sense. I'm also curious what will happen when pigs will battle sheep for domination of the skies.Don't pay ChoadStress any mind.
He's the Gavinista LOLcow that gives sour milk.
but can we say that this thread from talking about the death of bip101 and bitcoin xt becamed a debate about the fact that people still goes behind it?
I'm curious what will happen when miners will not be able to pay for their bills.
This doesn't make any sense. I'm also curious what will happen when pigs will battle sheep for domination of the skies.Don't pay ChoadStress any mind.
He's the Gavinista LOLcow that gives sour milk.
It's good that instrumentation and controls are coming. IMO they are a couple years late.
I must have missed your contributions... Less snarkily, they required upgrades to the commonly deployed p2p behavior before they could be deployed.Is there more data behind the plot? It would be useful to look at the distribution and the performance for specific pools vs. the topology involved, including machines and link rates. (I can appreciate that some of this data may be proprietary or otherwise unavailable.)
I have detailed per pool data; but I would prefer to not publish information that could be used for competitive comparison because there are various ways to cook the results, including ones which are bad for the network (in particular always perform verification free / SPV mining). E.g. if bar pool feels pressure because it's slower than foo pool, it'll switch to spv mining. The information broken down by pool is pretty noisy, because many find fairly few blocks. There are performance differences, though the spread isn't huge over most of them; there is one or two that reliably perform quite poorly-- and these end up always excluded by that "time to reach half pools" metric.
I did all manner of multifactor analysis; including checking an IsChina effect and considering all pairwise pairs. IsChina in aggregate didn't have a statistically significant effect when also considering the individual pool performance. Likewise, none of the pairwise parameters rose to significance. A couple of the pools have a statistically significant this-pool-sucks effect; but per pool bandwidth numbers didn't differ significantly from the mean overall (I assume more due to not having enough data, and because the impact depends both on block sources and destinations, rather than no effect).
Quote
I can speak from personal experience as a small scale miner. Last summer I was solo mining with two S3s that I was still running despite the heat and managed to score a block on solo.ckpool.org. The 0.5% fee was well worth it for use of a high bandwidth connection, because the orphan risk out of my DSL based home office would have been unacceptable. (You might ask, why was I solo mining? That's a another question, but it certainly looked like some of the pools had a consistent run of bad luck indicating that something was seriously wrong.)
FWIW, P2pool integrates an efficient relay mechanism similar to the relay network client protocol. In spite running on all manner of home equipment; it had the lowest orphan rate of any pool back when it had enough hashrate to measure it; you can quasi solo on it by turning your share difficulty all the way up to 1/10th the block difficulty.
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
Imho the whole problem lies in the belief that bitcoin (itself and as is) is somehow dependent of a dev community to sustain it (patch it).
To me bitcoin works perfectly as expected, as
I think the bitcoin project really lift off with satoshi's "hornet's nest" declaration and do not need any further 'improvement', beside bug adjustments. (He then brightly disappeared, removing himself as the only point of failure, and gavin meets with CIA.)
All the previous BIPs attempts failed, and they were not about such a controversial (and there is a reason for that) parameter as the block size.
So I am open to 'on-top' innovations, that do not curb bitcoin's technology to fit their agenda. Gifted devs have an avenue to come up with awesome stuff, getting rightfully rewarded for that, and build a better world based on the most secured and transparent network. What pisses me off is the braindead shortcuts comparing bitcoin to dumb payment processors such as visa or paypal.
The true power (ie. value) of Bitcoin lies within its inalienable, ungovernable protocol.
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
Imho the whole problem lies in the belief that bitcoin (itself and as is) is somehow dependent of a dev community to sustain it (patch it).
To me bitcoin works perfectly as expected, as
I think the bitcoin project really lift off with satoshi's "hornet's nest" declaration and do not need any further 'improvement', beside bug adjustments. (He then brightly disappeared, removing himself as the only point of failure, and gavin meets with CIA.)
All the previous BIPs attempts failed, and they were not about such a controversial (and there is a reason for that) parameter as the block size.
So I am open to 'on-top' innovations, that do not curb bitcoin's technology to fit their agenda. Gifted devs have an avenue to come up with awesome stuff, getting rightfully rewarded for that, and build a better world based on the most secured and transparent network. What pisses me off is the braindead shortcuts comparing bitcoin to dumb payment processors such as visa or paypal.
The true power (ie. value) of Bitcoin lies within its inalienable, ungovernable protocol.
The Great Zerg nailed it:
One response to the idea of a "star blockchain, with sidechains and overlays around it?" is yes but Bitcoin does not have to be and should not be the smallest, slowest chain. What bitcoin HAS going for it is adoption. What it doesn't have is fancy features.
So some other sidechain can be the 1MB or 100KB setttlement network between banks.
One response to the idea of a "star blockchain, with sidechains and overlays around it?" is yes but Bitcoin does not have to be and should not be the smallest, slowest chain. What bitcoin HAS going for it is adoption. What it doesn't have is fancy features.
So some other sidechain can be the 1MB or 100KB setttlement network between banks.
Gavin Andresen gave up his role as lead dev at Bitcoin Core to take a role as Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, which had nothing to do with decentralising development at all, and everything to do with centralising Bitcoin public relations. So, you're wrong Veritas Sapere.
He gave up control over the Bitcoin Core code, I am not wrong about this.I am not even going to debate such accusations like Gavin and Mike are working for the CIA, even if that was true. You do not have the evidence, so even discussing this is ad hominem and not productive for constructive discussion, you are attacking these people without proper grounds instead of actually countering their arguments. I could have easily started attacking Core on the same grounds but I have not because I realized that this would not have achieved anything.
What on earth are you talking about? Your reply needs to make sense in context in order for it to qualify as a reply
...
Litecoin is essentially a bet that Bitcoin won't scale.
If Bitcoin fails to scale, Litecoin use rockets. I'm assuming CL has a big chunk of LTC, and even if not, I'm sure he'd like to see his baby grow. Not judging, just seems like the obvious rationale.
...
Litecoin is essentially a bet that Bitcoin won't scale.
If Bitcoin fails to scale, Litecoin use rockets. I'm assuming CL has a big chunk of LTC, and even if not, I'm sure he'd like to see his baby grow. Not judging, just seems like the obvious rationale.
...
Litecoin has basically nothing to do with scaling. The chain structure is nearly identical. Seems that Litecoin was more focused on dealing with centralization problems since it's initial focus was to (try to) employ a CPU-friendly POW algo. By the time Litecoin was started, the 'arms race' for mining had moved to GPU and the ill-effects were already making themselves known. Other than that and a tweak to the cycle frequency it seemed to me that Litecoin was a pretty close knock-off.
I've little reason to believe other than that C. Lee was being truthful when he claimed that he did Litecoin mainly as an exercise to teach himself how Bitcoin worked. (Some guys have more rigorous definitions of the term 'understand' than do others.)
It seemed Litecoin tried to 'get serious' about scaling, but that happened mainly under Toganami's management and after Lee moved on.
*Note: I never owned any Litecoin and never studied it closely. I liked the algo ideas, at least, but not enough to capture my attention in part because I found the cycle time increase to be a regression. My statements above are not to be taken as 'fact'. Just my interpretation based on tid-bits I ran across over the years.
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.
Pointy Headed CEOs do not listen to their Dilberts and Wallys (IE coders/engineers).
Indeed, using Litecoin for coffee purchases sounds like a fantastic solution to me until we get LN.
I'm curious why Charlie Lee has not been able to knock some sense into Brian Armstrong.
Pointy Headed CEOs do not listen to their Dilberts and Wallys (IE coders/engineers).
awsedrr
He wants coffee buyers to use... litecoin?
freetrade
Yep. I'd say that is exactly what he wants.
Litecoin is essentially a bet that Bitcoin won't scale.
If Bitcoin fails to scale, Litecoin use rockets. I'm assuming CL has a big chunk of LTC, and even if not, I'm sure he'd like to see his baby grow. Not judging, just seems like the obvious rationale.
Zaromet
We did see that last time we had price spike and we had full blocks and even fees of 0,4$ didn't work to get you in a block for hours. LTC blocks got big... Imagen what happens when that process takes even longer...
There is a major hole in your ad hominem and conspiracy theory. Gavin willfully gave up his power in Core out of principle to further distribute development.
Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.
I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.
He didn't give up anything, he never had "control" over the Bitcoin Core code. No one does. Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.
I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.
In practice Wladimir had been the actual maintainer of the repo even before Gavin's announcement.
The announcement stemmed from Gavin's inactivity in terms of contributing code & ideas, nothing more. He more or less realized the project & state of the technology was now out of his league.
Every time your choose to ignore facts to support your biased position you reinforce your status as disingenuous shill.
Quote
UPDATE (8th April 15:18 GMT): Bitcoin's new lead developer Wladimir van der Laan tells CoinDesk via email he was "surprised" to be offered the role and hadn't expected Gavin Andresen to step down:
"I had noticed that Gavin had been much less active in the Github project lately, but I did not expect him to step down as lead developer. But it makes sense, there is a lot more theoretical work with regard to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general making it a full-time job just to keep up with that (and giving talks, travelling, and such). On the other hand, I have been effectively the maintainer of the code for quite a while. In practice nothing changes."
"I had noticed that Gavin had been much less active in the Github project lately, but I did not expect him to step down as lead developer. But it makes sense, there is a lot more theoretical work with regard to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general making it a full-time job just to keep up with that (and giving talks, travelling, and such). On the other hand, I have been effectively the maintainer of the code for quite a while. In practice nothing changes."
http://www.coindesk.com/gavin-andresen-steps-bitcoins-lead-developer/
As for the notion of repo maintainer and its role in open-source development once again you are oblivious to reality given your outright ignorance of technical aspects in general.
There is a major hole in your ad hominem and conspiracy theory. Gavin willfully gave up his power in Core out of principle to further distribute development.
Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.
I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.
He didn't give up anything, he never had "control" over the Bitcoin Core code. No one does. Great leaders do not desire power. He gave up his leadership position in Core out of principle only to have Core turn against him to disallow the changes he wanted to implement. This reminds me of the story of Cincinatius, who was a roman dictator who also freely laid down his power, this should be considered admirable.
I should not have even responded to such a silly post, however that was to glaring of a fault in your reasoning not to point out.
In practice Wladimir had been the actual maintainer of the repo even before Gavin's announcement.
The announcement stemmed from Gavin's inactivity in terms of contributing code & ideas, nothing more. He more or less realized the project & state of the technology was now out of his league.
Jump to: