Author

Topic: Suggest To Add The latest Version Of BitcoinCore To News (Read 735 times)

copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
- There is an attempt to coerce people who agreed to a certain set of "immutable" core consensus rules into abandoning these rules.
These two problems don't exist for softforks or network policy changes. Old nodes continue to follow the rules they agreed to, but they will still be on the same network/currency as new nodes.
I would disagree with your point that softforks and network policy changes does not affect Bitcoin the same way that a hardfork affects Bitcoin. While yes everyone would still be on the same network/currency, how people and entities interact with the network/currency can potentially change significantly and to the point that major previous uses of the network/currency are no longer possible.

Yes even though full nodes can ignore network policy changes, if even a minority of full nodes adopt a network policy change, anyone not following this changed policy would essentially have a blind eye when looking at which transactions are most likely going to end up on the "final" blockchain.

By (essentially) allowing any unconfirmed transaction to be double spent trivially, RBF and the fee market essentially make it impossible to rely on any unconfirmed transaction ever getting confirmed, which is currently a large part of the Bitcoin economy.   


They're also very good features. The mempool policy is especially useful. I had one node on a somewhat low-memory system that would often crash due to an overly-large mempool, and 0.12.0 fixes that. And RBF will allow for solving the "stuck transaction" problem in future releases. (If I thought that some changes were especially bad/damaging, I'd probably point to some consensus-compatible fork of Core like LJR instead.)
There are very few (proposed) features that do not have any positives to them.

A better solution to a low-memory system crashing due to a large mempool would be larger blocks. The fee market feature makes it so that nodes will receive more (what they believe to be) invalid transactions and will make the differences of what transactions are stored in the mempool vary widely on a node-to-node basis, verses being mostly the same today.



This is also slightly off topic, however is somewhat relevant -- I believe that the policy of considering any contentious hardfork proposal to be an altcoin (eg XT and classic are considered altcoins until if/when their HF is successful) may have some unintended consequences. As you most likely know, in recent days, the mempool has grown to be very large, and the status of the network right now is one that has resulted in many people broadcasting transactions that will not confirm after several days. For the most part, the vast majority of the blocks are essentially as large as they can be. I am not sure if this is some kind of "stress test" or if this is the result of "actual" increased activity by users of Bitcoin. If it the later, then there will eventually be very loud calls for a HF to happen very quickly to increase the maximum block size in order to clear out the backlog of transactions. This could result in a HF that is potentially implemented that is even more contentious then the likes of XT or classic (and will likely have less discussion about), and the time users will have to upgrade (the time from when the "decision" to implement the HF to when it actually gets implemented) will potentially be much less then what was proposed under XT and classic.

I don't know how large a role the moderation policy of bitcointalk and r/bitcoin had on XT failing however I believe it to be a fairly large one. Now XT is essentially dead, and there is a risk that an even more contentious HF will (be attempted to) get implemented. I would argue that a contentious HF via XT (or possibly classic) would not be the best thing to happen to BItcoin (although I disagree on your definition of consensus and "significant opposition", and I believe that both XT and classic make attempts to prevent them from being contentious and a HF to classic might not be contentious), it would be the lesser of two evils.
administrator
Activity: 5222
Merit: 13032
If theymos were to follow the same rules regarding allowing the discussion of XT/classic-like proposals in the Bitcoin section as he does these kinds of features, then discussion about 0.12 should belong in the altcoin section and 0.12 should not be advertised/announced by the forum. 

If RBF was a hardfork, there probably wouldn't be sufficient consensus, and 0.12.0 would not be Bitcoin. But RBF and the new mempool policy aren't changes to the consensus rules at all, not even a softfork. The utilitarian reason for the hardfork policy is not because I think that somewhat-controversial changes are inappropriate in general, but because in the specific case of contentious hardforks (and soft-hardforks):
 - Bitcoin is split into two pieces, which is extremely damaging to Bitcoin.
 - There is an attempt to coerce people who agreed to a certain set of "immutable" core consensus rules into abandoning these rules.
These two problems don't exist for softforks or network policy changes. Old nodes continue to follow the rules they agreed to, but they will still be on the same network/currency as new nodes. Likewise, for non-contentious hardforks, Bitcoin is not split, and very few people are disenfranchised.

They're also very good features. The mempool policy is especially useful. I had one node on a somewhat low-memory system that would often crash due to an overly-large mempool, and 0.12.0 fixes that. And RBF will allow for solving the "stuck transaction" problem in future releases. (If I thought that some changes were especially bad/damaging, I'd probably point to some consensus-compatible fork of Core like LJR instead.)
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
It is the currently however 0.12 contains some controversial features

What do you consider controversial?
In this particular release, or are you asking what I consider the definition of controversial to be?

If you are asking the former, then I would say:

Replace by fee(RBF):
--snip--consensus:

  • Create a proposal that has no significant opposition. A proposal has significant opposition if it is strongly opposed by any of: [snip] one large exchange or company (Coinbase, etc.),[snip]
  • --snip--
--snip--


I believe that f2pool would qualify as a "large company"
Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB. Seg-wit may be deployed together in this hard fork if it can be ready in time, or it can be merged later. Non-controversial features in the hard fork wishlist, if it does not delay the hard fork process, can be deployed at the same time. The hard fork should be implemented in Core, eventually. “Bitcoin” Classic, which despite was born on the same day that XT dies, is an attempt that could make the hard fork happen sooner. We welcome Classic. We are going to cease support for FSS-RBF after upgrading to version 0.12, some time in the next few weeks. We may not implement the opt-in RBF feature. We believe that we should do everything we can do to make 0-conf transactions as secure as possible. We do not believe the concept of fee market.
The bold above shows their opposition to these features.

I also believe that Brian Armstrong (Coinbase) and bitpay are not in favor of either the fee market, nor RBF, although I do not have quotes on this currently.

If theymos were to follow the same rules regarding allowing the discussion of XT/classic-like proposals in the Bitcoin section as he does these kinds of features, then discussion about 0.12 should belong in the altcoin section and 0.12 should not be advertised/announced by the forum. 
legendary
Activity: 3262
Merit: 1614
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
The message on the front page is more than enough to draw attention as it made me upgrade to 0.12.

This.

I saw it as soon as I came on here today. Think I'm going to upgrade tomorrow, can't be bothered right now.
Great that a stable version of 0.12.0 is here though finally. I guess the next upgrade will incorporate SegWit.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1179
The message on the front page is more than enough to draw attention as it made me upgrade to 0.12.
legendary
Activity: 3556
Merit: 9709
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
It is the currently however 0.12 contains some controversial features and IMO shouldn't be promoted by the forum. I know that I personally won't be upgrading to 0.12

I would think that the "new" tag is inappropriate for the above reasons

Can you elaborate buddy?
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
https://dreamtowards.net/?inviter=venan
Hello,

I suggest to add the Latest version: 0.12.0 of Bitcoin Core link to bitcointalk.org

Thanks... Smiley

can you explain me what this core 0.12.0 means? i dont understand anything. thanks
legendary
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1185
dogiecoin.com
It is the currently however 0.12 contains some controversial features

What do you consider controversial?
copper member
Activity: 2926
Merit: 2348
It is the currently however 0.12 contains some controversial features and IMO shouldn't be promoted by the forum. I know that I personally won't be upgrading to 0.12

I would think that the "new" tag is inappropriate for the above reasons
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Hello,

I suggest to add the Latest version: 0.12.0 of Bitcoin Core link to bitcointalk.org

Thanks... Smiley
Jump to: