Topic: theymos! sMerit please!! - page 3. (Read 1641 times)

Thanks for your support and the merit you sent. I immediately used the 2 sMerits LOL

10. (Edit: Sent 4 merits however I would love to send one more merit before replacing it by a new one.)

(edit: Sent 2 more. One more to go then I will replace this with something else. Thanks The Pharmacist)

Scripts are being evaluated/run so that we can verify the validity of the given transaction. Depending on the script itself and the implementation, this evaluation could take a much longer time than normally expected.
As a challenge, try to come up with such scripts that could take longer than normal (could be 10 second, minute or hour!). There are also some rare examples out there on the internet from old days that you can find and post here.

• The script doesn't have to be standard but it has to be valid (eg. no disabled OPs).
• It doesn't have to be in a full transaction. It could be as scriptPub, scriptSig and if available redeemScript or witnesses. Or simply 1 script from start to end.
• It should also include the expected time that it takes to evaluate.

This topic is self-moderated to prevent it from going off-topic.

I definitely love the idea of a forum coin. Back when Satori was still making chips/coins, Hhampuz who had done several group buys for the collectibles board/community had been in touch with them about producing a custom chip/coin for the community. Unfortunately right as we started to get serious about making it happen, Satori closed shop. However we came up with some ideas for it that I think could be applied here..such as having a design competition.

I would absolutely love it if Casascius, Smoothie (Lealana), or Kialara would be interested in taking on this project, however I can tell you the likelihood of that happening is slim to none. I think having either an active maker or someone who’s willing to take on the project (with a strong background in crypto coins or coins in general) as well as winning a design competition would be a cool and fair way to chose whom is to make the coin.

As for whether the coin is loaded or not..I would highly recommend we try and make it a loaded piece. There are ways around producing and selling a loaded coin in which you’re not breaking any laws or acting as a money transaction service without a license  (breaking FinCEN regulation like what Casascius ran in to).

I voted for 300 coins. I know there’s likely 100 of us in the collectibles sub who’d want a coin, and it would sure be a shame if the hardcore collectors like us would not get a chance at grabbing one. If the forum paid for it that would obviously be amazing. I wouldn’t mind paying for a coin however ( plus this might be more feasible   ).

If we do end up running a competition I’d like to throw my hat in the ring..however I’d much prefer if Casacius, Lealana or Kialara took the reigns, but again, HIGHLY unlikely imo.

Thanks for brining this to life!

Rust is a new-er programming language, and has a reasonably good reputation:

• liked for being more difficult to make mistakes with than C/C++ (although not impossible, of course)
• for being sufficiently powerful in expressiveness, yet relative simplicity compared to C/C++
• disliked because compiling the actual Rust compiler was until recently not possible (we have gnu's guix system to thank for that)

So, there's been a Rust implementation of Bitcoin around for a while, and some good programmers actually preferred to spend their time re-implementing the existing Bitcoin client in Rust than to work on the reference C++ implementation. Which is a good plan in and of itself, as a proof of concept if nothing else.


There are now plans to implement Rust code into the main Bitcoin implementation: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17090

speaking as a non-expert on either language, but as a Bitcoin user who does understand something about coding and computer science, I'm unenthusiastic about this.


I understand the rationale:

• Rust code has lower review burden
• The plan is to duplicate non-consensus C++ code, to add redundancy to network consistency/reliability
• Rust is proven these days, compiler can be bootstrapped

that's all ok.

however, one plan is not to use a Rust compiler that is bootstrapped from a trustworthy source (Canonical's Rust compiler). Call me nuts if you so choose, but that seems like a very cavalier decision to make with software that should be putting security first. You can say "trusting Canonical is subjective", in which case, it should be ruled out altogether in such a critical piece of software as Bitcoin

my other concern would be the "thin end of the wedge" argument.

The rationale for putting the specific Rust code into the Bitcoin codebase is sound; if headers fetching code fails in some unknown circumstance, maybe only the C++ implementation of the headers fetching code will fail, and the Rust headers fetching will continue to function without incident. Hell of a supposition to make, but it's somewhat reasonable, as there is some acceptance that Rust can be written in such a way that certain types of bug are less likely (but not impossible)

But this would make it too easy to say "let's just re-write the main implementation in Rust, piece by piece! After all, failover Rust code is working great so far!"


In the end, such a radical change (I'm sure that statement will be a point of contention, but it's essentially self-proving by the virtue of the fact that this is a contorversial change of direction) was always bound to be divisive.

The developers who are keen to send Bitcoin in this direction should realise that there's no real practical difference between doing something divisive for good reasons, or doing something divisive to cause problems in the project.


usual thread rules, + 1 extra:

• no trolling
• no trolls
• discussing personalities or intentions or politics of those debating is not allowed, and will be removed, e.g. "Bjarne Sostroup says x about Rust" is disallowed, everything must be provable in it's own right, here in the thread, written by you

the technical merits and the consequences to how the Bitcoin project is managed are the focus of this thread

We can use automatically connect to a server or we can manually connect to a server from the given list.
I am a little bit confused-
Who own the servers? There are a lot of servers. Is all these from Electrum?

Difference between automatic connection and manual connection?

I just wanted to confirm your toughts... Ip's are not stored in the blockchain... If you create a transaction and initially broadcast it to one or more nodes, these nodes could theoretically store your ip. However, these nodes simply do not know if you broadcasted a new transaction, or just rebroadcast a transaction you yourself received from somebody else.
It's a little different for SPV wallets, for example electrum. Theoretically, an SPV wallet does not rebroadcast transactions. So if an electrum wallet user is connected to an electrum node and sends a new tx to this node, the node operator could potentially store the ip together with the tx, so he'll be able to identify you (that's where tor might come in handy)

That's true, untill you decide to spend those unspent outputs. If you spend multiple unspent outputs funding several addresses, everybody will be able to link those addresses together. And with some clever analysis of the receiving address, the amount of outputs (change),... one could potentially start to trace you (like you said before, as soon as you filled in KYC info for a service and somebody is able to link you to this service, you are no longer anonymous).

A big exception to all this is the people that were ignorant enough to use a web wallet, exchange wallet, casino wallet. Next to making their clients vulnerable to loads of other attack vectors, the online wallet operator could link every address to a user.

If you are a newbie here or even 1 more 2 years old but newbie in trading in this forum, it's very important for you to justify the feedback before you go upfront.

I will share some forms of positive feedback which doesn't mean that you can go upfront.

- The person is very helpful.
- The person is very knowledgeable.
- Purchased something, he went upfront. Good communication.

etc.

Now, going straight to an user's positive feedback-
User- Zerbis

3 positive feedback-
- Paid upfront for items won at auction. Great communication throughout. Thank you!
- This member won a couple physical coins from me and paid right away, smooth transaction and great communication. Thanks
- won my auction, paid directly. Smooth transaction. Thanks

This positive feedback doesn't mean Zerbis is trusted and you can go upfront, from this feedback, it's understandable that feedback provider risked much, in fact, nothing at all.

Depending on this feedback, BitSat19 had sent 0.03 BTC upfront for a deal and Zerbis didn't pay yet. In fact, no communication after that.
Here is the scam accusation- https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/zerbis-is-a-scammer-5200663

So, if you are going to do any trade here-
- Don't rely on the feedback.
- Always check users post history and if they have any outstanding loan.
- Use Escrow.

I have created this topic here to create awareness among the newbie because newbie are the persons who don't understand the trading system here.