Topic: Is Bitcoin still experimental? - page 2. (Read 532 times)
Both Core and Bitcoin itself are probably still experimental. We barely have it as a legal tender and proper regulations anywhere in the world. There is a very small number of countries trying to help, but from here to mass adoption and to the real test (worldwide real usage, not just crypto fans) is a long way to go. I think only mass adoption would make it non-experimental.
Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change. 
It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate.I was slightly amused to see this release happen just a few weeks after I stumbled upon this website on "Software's most popular versioning scheme": https://0ver.org/
Almost as if you guys felt called out
However even then Bitcoin was already marked as having left the school of ZeroVer, so whoever runs the website seems to have been aware of your pull request.
When you go to Bitcoin Core source readme file ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin )
You will see very early line
Quote
What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone,
In my opinion, whole word is an experimental.
In that sense, I do not see why BTCitcoin would need to state itself as an experimental.
It is more than 10 years old. I would just say it is in active development.
It is. You still can lose all your money over night and nobody will bail you out. Most people that invest in crypto are not aware of this. It doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing as long as you don't invest more than you could afford to lose.
This may not even have been a bug. Instead it may have been done intentionally for scalability. It is an arbitrary item that is popped from the stack and ignored, a soft fork could have been introduced to interpret that item too. For example an extra script so that each OP_CheckMultiSig(Verify) would need to perform additional checks.
Like extra bits for future use, seems a good argument to explain it,I suggest should write it as a comment on the lecture for other learners
When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first
This may not even have been a bug. Instead it may have been done intentionally for scalability. It is an arbitrary item that is popped from the stack and ignored, a soft fork could have been introduced to interpret that item too. For example an extra script so that each OP_CheckMultiSig(Verify) would need to perform additional checks. 
When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first.
So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?
So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?
It is still there. It has nothing to do with the version number.
It will never change because it is not really an issue, and changing it would require a hard fork. FYI, there is also a bug in which the new target computed each 2016 blocks is computed incorrectly. It will also never change for the same reason.
They said in the MIT lecture11 about fees (min 6:30 in https://youtu.be/wXWbdiOBW5w) that there is a bug from the original Satoshi code and was still there till the lecture time April 2018 that
When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first
So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?
When you're spending from a multi-seg transaction you have to push a zero byte in the stack first
So is it still there, or has something to do with the zero in the version number?
Alright, but even then I wonder who decided on that and why etc., I mean sure it's just a version number, but I wonder how I missed this change completely..
The PR is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20223.I wrote the change, and 12 other developers (including most of the maintainers) ACK'd it. It was also discussed multiple times in some issues and on IRC.
The why is primarily to stop the constant questions of "when 1.0" every time a release is made. Additionally the change aligns the version number with our actual process (we were incrementing the minor version number for versions designated as major releases) and how many people perceive the version number (I see a lot of people who wrote and said the version number without the leading 0).
I myself like just dropping the 0, it's the easiest and aesthetic choice, but had no issues with keeping the 0 either, I don't think it implies there should be a 1.x eventually. 
Alright, but even then I wonder who decided on that and why etc., I mean sure it's just a version number, but I wonder how I missed this change completely..
The PR is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/20223.I wrote the change, and 12 other developers (including most of the maintainers) ACK'd it. It was also discussed multiple times in some issues and on IRC.
The why is primarily to stop the constant questions of "when 1.0" every time a release is made. Additionally the change aligns the version number with our actual process (we were incrementing the minor version number for versions designated as major releases) and how many people perceive the version number (I see a lot of people who wrote and said the version number without the leading 0).
Hey, Meitzi, you should note this:
If you're asking if Bitcoin is still experimental, then I'd gently respond it'll most likely be until the whole world adopts it. But, saying that the software, the Bitcoin client developed by the Bitcoin Core team, is experimental isn't the same thing.
Look, they both are in an experimental stage, but there's difference between the currency as a social experiment, and the software, as a developing project. They obviously have a connection, since the whole thing relies on the software, but Bitcoin could still be experimental while the software entirely idle and considered “completed” from significant changes.
Bitcoin Core still (intentionally) contains a line that says "this software is experimental".
If you're asking if Bitcoin is still experimental, then I'd gently respond it'll most likely be until the whole world adopts it. But, saying that the software, the Bitcoin client developed by the Bitcoin Core team, is experimental isn't the same thing.
Look, they both are in an experimental stage, but there's difference between the currency as a social experiment, and the software, as a developing project. They obviously have a connection, since the whole thing relies on the software, but Bitcoin could still be experimental while the software entirely idle and considered “completed” from significant changes.
Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.
It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate. It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing 
The version number is not an indicator of experimental or beta status.Bitcoin Core still (intentionally) contains a line that says "this software is experimental". The line saying that Bitcoin Core is beta software was removed in 2014.
Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change.
It is a cosmetic change and does not indicate anything of significance, so there was no announcement or celebration because there is nothing to announce or celebrate. It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing
Wait for real? I just noticed this, that it went from 0.21.0 to 22.0! Is there an announcement for this anywhere? I don't think the release notes of 22.0 included anything about this numbering change. 
It is no longer experimental, because the latest version is "22.0" instead of "0.22.0", the leading zero is missing
When you go to Bitcoin Core source readme file ( https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin )
You will see very early line
Quote
What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is an experimental digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone,
In my opinion, whole word is an experimental.
In that sense, I do not see why BTCitcoin would need to state itself as an experimental.
It is more than 10 years old. I would just say it is in active development.
Jump to: