Bitcoin Core v0.14.0
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.14.0
Bitcoin Unlimited v1.0.1.0
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/releases/tag/1.0.1.0
Bitcoin Classic v1.2.1
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.1
Libbitcoin v3.0.0
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/releases/tag/v3.0.0
Bitcoin Knots branch-0.14
https://github.com/luke-jr/bitcoin/releases/tag/branch-0.14
Bitcoinj v0.14.4
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.4
Topic: Competing nodes - List of BTC implementations in competition for the Blockchain (Read 4453 times)
March 10, 2017, 03:17:44 PM
February 04, 2017, 10:46:36 AM
Bitcoin Core v0.13.2
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.2
Bitcoin Unlimited v1.0.0.1
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/releases/tag/1.0.0.1
Bitcoin Classic v1.2.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases/tag/v0.13.2
Bitcoin Unlimited v1.0.0.1
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/releases/tag/1.0.0.1
Bitcoin Classic v1.2.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.2.0
August 16, 2016, 08:40:51 PM
Bitcoin Knots v0.13.0.knots20160814
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/0.13.x-knots/doc/release-notes.md
https://bitcoinknots.org/files/0.13.x/0.13.0.knots20160814/
Also, a part of the market is proposing the idea of forking/forks without a voting/trigger system:
http://bitcoinforks.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Btcfork
The main rule of these possible future forks is that all of them will maintain the current blockchain until a block X, then they will fork.
So holders will have the same amount of coins on all blockchains, at the time of the fork. (the current and the new one)
These proposed forks will also maintain intact the main economic rules, as the 21M amount of bitcoin and the current inflation velocity.
https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/0.13.x-knots/doc/release-notes.md
https://bitcoinknots.org/files/0.13.x/0.13.0.knots20160814/
Also, a part of the market is proposing the idea of forking/forks without a voting/trigger system:
http://bitcoinforks.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Btcfork
The main rule of these possible future forks is that all of them will maintain the current blockchain until a block X, then they will fork.
So holders will have the same amount of coins on all blockchains, at the time of the fork. (the current and the new one)
These proposed forks will also maintain intact the main economic rules, as the 21M amount of bitcoin and the current inflation velocity.
August 01, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Bitcoin Unlimited v0.12.1bu “Xpedited”
Changelog: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-v0-12-1bu-%E2%80%9Cxpedited%E2%80%9D-official-bu-release.1350/
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/tree/0.12.1bu
Bitcoinj v0.14.3
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes#version-0143
Changelog: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-v0-12-1bu-%E2%80%9Cxpedited%E2%80%9D-official-bu-release.1350/
https://github.com/BitcoinUnlimited/BitcoinUnlimited/tree/0.12.1bu
Bitcoinj v0.14.3
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
https://bitcoinj.github.io/release-notes#version-0143
June 25, 2016, 06:05:15 AM
Bitcoin XT v0.11F
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11F
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/releases/tag/v0.11F
June 22, 2016, 09:25:42 AM
Bitcoin Classic v1.1.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.1.0
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/releases/tag/v1.1.0
June 09, 2016, 02:54:43 PM
Haskoin v0.3.1
https://github.com/haskoin/haskoin/releases/tag/v0.3.1
I've also added a new implementation:
Bcoin (new implementation in Javascript)
Site: http://bcoin.io - http://bcoin.io/browser.html
Code: https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin
https://github.com/haskoin/haskoin/releases/tag/v0.3.1
I've also added a new implementation:
Bcoin (new implementation in Javascript)
Site: http://bcoin.io - http://bcoin.io/browser.html
Code: https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin
June 02, 2016, 06:51:16 AM
April 17, 2016, 10:27:32 AM
March 17, 2016, 07:01:07 AM
March 10, 2016, 11:18:12 AM
So it will be automatically democratic?
I don't think that "democratic" is the right word.On Bitcoin it isn't 1 opinion = 1 vote.
The value of the opinions of some worth more than others, but anyway everything is market driven.
Someone, even if he is someone with a huge following, he can't "force" other to follow his will if this is really against their interest.
Moreover, if he tries that, users will just move on other currencies.
Both nodes and miners (but nodes come first) should want this change.
I would call Bitcoin largely meritocratic. Miners that produce valid blocks quickly have a larger vote on the system than those that produce invalid blocks or at a relatively slower rate.
There isn't as direct of a metric as mining hashrate, but one could say the same meritocratic influence exists for large exchanges and their largest customers, etc. The largest traders will be able to influence exchanges more so than smaller traders. Large exchanges influence miners and other participants that they conduct on-chain transactions with, etc. Developers that write code that is accepted by other devs and ultimately users get a stronger 'vote' based on their work, etc.
March 10, 2016, 11:07:57 AM
So it will be automatically democratic?
I don't think that "democratic" is the right word.On Bitcoin it isn't 1 opinion = 1 vote.
The value of the opinions of some worth more than others, but anyway everything is market driven.
Someone, even if he is someone with a huge following, he can't "force" other to follow his will if this is really against their interests.
Moreover, if he tries that, users will just move on other currencies.
Both nodes and miners (but nodes come first) should want this change.
March 10, 2016, 10:10:28 AM
So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not?
So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
With Classic possible fork, it could happen 28 days after 750/1000 blocks signed as BIP102.So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
I said it "could" because miners aren't forced to make bigger blocks, anyway after these 28 days Classic nodes will start accepting bigger blocks.
Bitcoin then (after the possible fork) will be the chain with more work.
So it will be automatically democratic?
March 08, 2016, 09:22:45 PM
So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not?
So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
With Classic possible fork, it could happen 28 days after 750/1000 blocks signed as BIP102.So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
I said it "could" because miners aren't forced to make bigger blocks, anyway after these 28 days Classic nodes will start accepting bigger blocks.
Bitcoin then (after the possible fork) will be the chain with more work.
March 08, 2016, 01:55:24 PM
So I am curious now to what will happen when serious amounts of hashpower start splitting consensus.
I see pools are supporting this in a 'voting style' like slush making pools for each to let the miner vote with their hashpower.
So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not?
So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
I see pools are supporting this in a 'voting style' like slush making pools for each to let the miner vote with their hashpower.
So my question is will this create giant forks and if so, how will it be determined which one is "Bitcoin" and which ones are not?
So far its quite puzzling to me. Thanks.
March 08, 2016, 10:22:17 AM
Is the problem on Bitcoin or in this single linux scanner?
How much bigger is the problem now?
How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages?
How much bigger is the problem now?
How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages?
No, I dont think its a significant problem now. It might become more pressing in the future. I doubt windows will stay the prominent OS, thus new viruses will emerge for Linux and MacOS and more snake oil will be sold to users to protect them.
However, it isn't a removed feature, it is just disabled by default.
If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants.
Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network.
If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants.
Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network.
I dont disagree with you. I just missed the downsides when I read the patch notes.
March 08, 2016, 10:07:01 AM
Is the problem on Bitcoin or in this single linux scanner?
How much bigger is the problem now?
How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages?
However, it isn't a removed feature, it is just disabled by default.
If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants.
Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network.
How much bigger is the problem now?
How much does it cost to fix it on possible disadvantages?
However, it isn't a removed feature, it is just disabled by default.
If someone will need it, he will be able to enable it again whenever he wants.
Disabled or enabled it doesn't change the experience of the other users/nodes of the network.
March 08, 2016, 09:05:46 AM
@shorena
Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it.
EDIT
From Tom Zander on Slack
Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it.
EDIT
From Tom Zander on Slack
Quote
its an awful idea to make everyones chainstate unreadable by older or competing software while this only happens on Windows (not exactly the most used server platform) and then only on machines that have a crappy virus killer (which practically no servers do have).
Makes sense, but the problem is not limited to windows only. There is at least one[1] linux scanner that also detects virus signatures in the chainstate folder. I suspect that it will be a problem for all OS in the future.
[1] https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/found-8-virus-on-chainstate-1388201
March 08, 2016, 06:26:27 AM
@shorena
Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it.
EDIT
From Tom Zander on Slack
Maybe they thought that could be a problem from retro compatibility with older versions, but it is still be possible to enable it.
EDIT
From Tom Zander on Slack
Quote
its an awful idea to make everyones chainstate unreadable by older or competing software while this only happens on Windows (not exactly the most used server platform) and then only on machines that have a crappy virus killer (which practically no servers do have).
Jump to: