Topic: Did you read this? This is crazy shit. - page 2. (Read 4245 times)

Equivalent, except for the hostility towards Tor and neutrality toward RBF.

And anything else which was 'accidentally' left out of the README's description of diffs.

I am open to both sides of the argument. I cannot agree with all the points Mike made, especially about businesses can speak for users. At least I can see proposals for solutions to the 1M limit. I can't say the same for the Core Devs. When is there proposed solution? When will the sidechains be usable?

Once again: confirmation delays was a wallet problem, not Bitcoin's. The higher fees (not very high, because you could pay anything above the spam fees to get your tx confirmed) were a direct and expected result of the attack.

Supposed? Who decided that? AFIAK from the whitepaper, Bitcoin is supposed to be a trustless payment system with store of value. You know, even Gavin has argued for the fee market to be developed in order for Bitcoin to work long term. This fee market has been demontrated by this attack.

Some people are arguing that if the block space is not a scarce resource, the fees will approach zero in market conditions (that hasn't happened yet because of client policies of setting fees and not relaying some zero-fees txs -- not a market approach). If fees approach zero, who will pay miners when block reward dwindles?

I know there have been counter-arguments like: the block space is not free for miners even if unlimited -- it has costs related to orphaning probabilities. But then again we have a concept of Invertible Bloom Lookup Tables -- proposed by Gavin and examined by Rusty Russel -- which makes block propagation a constant time process regardless of blocksizes.

These are difficult problems, and I believe they can't be solved by changing some magic constants in code. We'd better discuss how to solve them long term without undermining built-in incentives structure.

We have at least two alternatives apart from doing nothing - BIP100 and BIP102. We also have a Pieter Wuille's proposal (BIP103 unofficially) and Adam Back's idea of extended blocks.

Haha you are definitely right there, it's never boring in the Bitcoin world! And this is turning into real soap opera, one with the happy ending I hope though!!

no, but bitcoin is fine as is. what I won't do is following 2 rogue devs and their decisions.

Less than 100?! This would be great for speculators,  if the price will hit 100 i will buy a Lot.
I don t think this would happen

I am aware of the facts, but unlike you i don't care who the speaker is or what his motives are, i only care about progress being made.
You know that old one : "Even a blind chicked finds the corn at times .."  and "i don't have to like someone to agree with him .."

So whats the alternative, just leave bitcoin as it is ?

something sure needs to change but we should also take note of the one who is proposing the change. mike hearn only says what people wanted to hear, not the whole truth.

see my sig.

Ofcourse not, this has been known for ages and should not suddenly have any impact on the price because TS made a thread about it...

This pending potential fork is not enough to harm bitcoin that much that it would go to 100 USD...

I'm not as sure as you. The spam attack did some serious damage to confirmation times, or on the other hand at the least extorted users to set up a very high fee to get confirmation in some regular time.
Bitcoin is supposed to be cheap and fast solution, but there it was either one or the other, but certainly not both. Something obviously needs to change.

cheers

This situation is similar to voting for political parties during elections. The problem is often all the people you can choose to vote for are jerks and their policies are all crap. It's a pity there are only two groups of devs to choose between. If Satoshi returned and recruited a whole new dev team I'd vote for that one.

He is a developer of bitcoinj - a Bitcoin Java library used in many wallets. Also I believe he was the first to implement SPV in his library, but I may be wrong. I believe he's a notable developer and has been with Bitcoin since long time ago. But that doesn't give him any authority over others.

Mike Hearn is a (former?) bitcoin core developer that have a habit of coming out with all kinds of ridiculous patches. and to make it worse Gavin listens to him.

Who the fuck is this 'Mike' anyways? And why should anyone care about him?

I don't see any major price change happening

It's debatable whether Bitcoin really needs to change this way. It's also debatable whether this is an effective solution to spam.

I don't buy the spam argument at all. As I have argued, Bitcoin withstood that attack pretty well, and functioned as intended. The problem was that not every user had proper fee estimation algorithms built into their wallets, so some users have experienced delays. Had they used proper fees, there wouldn't be any problem, apart from slightly higher average and minimum fees.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the limit, but the reason for this is different.

Remember when ASIC's came along, what was the other thing? I don't even remember, every time this shit happens I roll my eyes as well, everybody forgets about the open source nature of cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin itself, there will be changes, people will disagree but in the end conclusions will be drawn and we'll experiment with what works and what doesn't.

This is how economic and political problems should be fixed, not through a narrow minded viewpoint forcing everyone else to co-operate at the barrel of a gun.

None the less, bitcoin needs to change and solve the possible spam from happening once again.
imho, just chill til jan 2016, and if you can't, sell and try to rebuy on the quite possible dip within next week.
News from op are not really news, it was debated many times over and over again.

No dude, calm down 

Quick ELI5:

Running XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.

Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other.

Interestingly, Mike mentions Satoshi so many times in his post... This is called appeal to authority and doesn't constitute an argument.