It's actually fucking amazing that this is first MAJOR bug in 4 years.
Amen.
Topic: In re Bitcoin Devs are idiots - page 9. (Read 25374 times)
What difference does what I can or cannot do make in this discussion?
You're either a jackass braying by the side of the road or you're fixing the jackass's wagon. Which one are you?
That and the fact that we didnt even have an emergency plan for things like this, everyone just meeting in irc and it even took like 30mins for the first forum thread to show up. What a joke.
We do. We just never considered this specific possibility, so we were limited to the fallback plan: Emergency rule change Let's try and stick to the topic.
The topic is you calling a group pf people idiots that are doing something you can't do.
Right now there's no question that they deserve to be called idiots. What's happening now was easily preventable and shouldn't have ever happened under any circumstances.
The topic is you calling a group pf people idiots that are doing something you can't do.
Seriously now. Try and think things through before you post them. What difference does what I can or cannot do make in this discussion?
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
Yes. This will be the death of Bitcoin. When a fully specified crypto currency comes along, it will leave Bitcoin behind. "The implementation is the protocol specification" is wrong, and at Internet scale it is very wrong.
That and the fact that we didnt even have an emergency plan for things like this, everyone just meeting in irc and it even took like 30mins for the first forum thread to show up. What a joke.
But then, i dont blame the devs, they are doing a great job, maybe we just need more people working on it?
I would have no problem paying like 1% of my Bitcoin earnings as donation to people working on Bitcoin.
JGarzick warned us about this 
. He literally suggested we leave the blocksize ALONE. BTW to all who defends the devs.Why do you want us to praise them when they do it right and now since they were total idiots you defend them? Have some consistency!
0.8 was a mistake. Fix it. Say you are sorry and were idiots. Bear the price nosedive and suck it up. Sleep it off.
- Lophie
. He literally suggested we leave the blocksize ALONE. BTW to all who defends the devs.Why do you want us to praise them when they do it right and now since they were total idiots you defend them? Have some consistency! 0.8 was a mistake. Fix it. Say you are sorry and were idiots. Bear the price nosedive and suck it up. Sleep it off.
- Lophie
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
Yes. This will be the death of Bitcoin. When a fully specified crypto currency comes along, it will leave Bitcoin behind. "The implementation is the protocol specification" is wrong, and at Internet scale it is very wrong.
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
The problem was with the old version of bitcoin. The mistake appears to have been not waiting for enough of the network to upgrade to the new version before enabling block sizes that were supposed to have been legal all this time. On 2011 an external factor made Bitcoin nose dive...... Imagine what would happen this time.... Don't kid yourselves like some people in the IRC room. This is the biggest problem Bitcoin ever faced and it is waaaaay bigger than the MTGox. hack.
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
No cause we're too cool for testnet and elbow grease, gotta spend 16 hours a day on -dev talking about what we think of Satoshi Dice and how many whales fatass Gmaxwell could swallow whole.
First off: BTC development is a free market. This is the tragedy of the commons. If MP is unsatisfied with the code he should stop leeching like a welfare queen and pay for development.
Secondly, maybe it's time to consider Google Chrome-esque updating for BTC clients? There was already a game-breaking bug like this years ago with the integer overflow problem. It really only improves the security of the network.
Secondly, maybe it's time to consider Google Chrome-esque updating for BTC clients? There was already a game-breaking bug like this years ago with the integer overflow problem. It really only improves the security of the network.
What's stopping your company from hiring one developer to do nothing but code cleanups and submitting them to GitHub? There's nothing centralized about that.
The whole attitude of only having a single full implementation.
Let's try and stick to the topic.
The topic is you calling a group pf people idiots that are doing something you can't do.
On 2011 an external factor made Bitcoin nose dive...... Imagine what would happen this time.... Don't kid yourselves like some people in the IRC room. This is the biggest problem Bitcoin ever faced and it is waaaaay bigger than the MTGox. hack.
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
I am not pulling out I am just pissed off Bitcoin will suffer greatly because the DEVS MADE A MISTAKE! you dont freaking PUSH such things without proper testing. EVER HEARD OF TESTNET!!!!!!
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes.
Then you should develop your own cryptocoin with code that even a blind man could read. It sounds like you already have it figured out.
This is an experiment. Something like Bitcoin has never been done before. I don't recall getting any guarantee when I got my coins or sent transactions, do you?
This (and the rest of the mindless crap) has nothing to do with the matter. A guarantee or no guarantee doesn't make the lift eyelid insert fork person any less of an idiot.
Let's try and stick to the topic.
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes.
Then you should develop your own cryptocoin with code that even a blind man could read. It sounds like you already have it figured out.
This is an experiment. Something like Bitcoin has never been done before. I don't recall getting any guarantee when I got my coins or sent transactions, do you?
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
That would be correct. It's a huge issue.
Because cleanups would require very deep reaching changes.
And?If you say you know what the problem is, and have the ability to correct it, why complain about it unless you're going to do something?
I guess that's your cue to leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out!
Another way to state the real problem: There is no Bitcoin Protocol Spec, most semantics buried in the hairball of the C++ reference implementation
Jump to: