Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 290. (Read 2032266 times)

my node still registers as Satoshi:0.10.1/ on bitnodes.io

contact Mike Hearn or Gavin.  they're looking for help. golden opportunity to get involved.

doug@armory claims it should work just fine.  they aren't worried a bit.

how many do we have so far?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=NODE_GETUTXOS

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/383jam/support_larger_blocks_by_running_a_bitcoin_xt/crsfori

on windows, just run the installer and all works, all config files are preserved and all CGminer scrips work as expected, cant say if Armory has any issues but I think it would just work.

yeah, i think so.  i got alittle confused a bit along the way but got it up and running.  if you run into trouble, install the dependencies from here:  https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

Was it as easy as expected? Just install and run with existing bitcoind directory? Or were there any catches?

there's nothing in there that hasn't been addressed by pro-block increase folks:


1.  again, he talks like 20MB will be instantly produced as a reason the network will choke.  no they won't, it will gradually increase over years during which bandwidth and storage will improve
2.  he talks about full nodes w/o ever considering users.  this is the problem i spoke about yesterday; these guys think the node is the fundamental unit which is wrong.  he mentions that merchants should be the ones to increase the #nodes; i agree.  but merchant businesses won't be created if there aren't users.  so grow the users thru wider adoption via cheaper fees and reliability.  don't choke them off with unconf tx's and high fees.
3.  he's right that "need" won't stop at 20MB but will just increase.  but that will take time as i said above and just how is that a bad thing to have all the extra users driving the system?  that will mean Bitcoin has successfully spread out thru growth.  but that growth can't happen if you have a technical choke on the system.
4.  i don't buy the fact that with 20MB that somehow large miners are going to pump out large blocks for a perceived benefit over small miners.  first off, all miners large and small probably have equal internet access speed.  it's a small cost to have one and any business running a pool is sure to have one so connectivity shouldn't be an issue.  as for the ability force small miners to process large blocks, this comes at the risk of the large miner getting orphaned trying to do so.  i've already explained why they shouldn't be bothered playing these games trying to hurt an undefined supposed enemy pool size.  Game theory effectively argues against this.  why shoot themselves in the foot undermining confidence in the system and crashing the price?  why alienate all their hashing clients who will pull out and punish them ala ghash?  it doesn't make sense.
5.  of all the Blockstream devs, Pieter would be the one who'd i think would be least captured.  but i have $21M that says he is at some level.

How do we get involved to improve the bitcoin xt?

Or is it like a invite only for now, for the core dev team?

Do we really have to attack each other that soon? Wait for when theres 2 bitcoins, and I think you'll know who to blame, his name is in the thread's pool.

lol, what can i say about such idiocy?  it's just a node ffs.  but then, you  wouldn't know the difference anyways, eh?  it always amazes me the vomit that you are so willing to spew forth.

I figured that cypherdoc's stash would vanish eventually, and probably has been draining away through one scam or another over these past years.  He is a classic case of 'falling down in shit and coming up smelling like a rose', but it's inevitable that a guy of his caliber will have their luck run out eventually.  Now we see how the big one is likely hit him...by converting to an alt. 

True.  Monero solved the block size issue on day one with adaptive block sizes and costing.  I'm not in favor of rushing anything and like sipa's list of todos before any increase of Bitcoin block size, but there is some urgency for that.
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090896/

Sounds better then just 1 mb lol.

And this is something we would have to do every 5 years then? increase the block size? based on transaction volume etc.

marcus, we're still waiting.

That was confusion with Meni's earlier proposal. The out of band issue (where miners change fees in some way other than via the normal Bitcoin fee mechanism, though it may still be in the transaction itself) does not apply to his new proposal.

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.

Yes, I've seen that quote from 2010 before and am still against 20mb blocks at this time.  My turn:

Satoshi's own words:


TL;DR Gavin's own math (when corrected) shows 8MB, not 20, is the right answer, so now he's willing to accept 8.

How are they using the term out of band in this context?

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do