If Luke-jr would quit dumpster-diving 486s, we might start getting somewhere.
Good one! I can't stop laughing!
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19548. (Read 26609709 times)
January 20, 2016, 05:09:12 PM
Good one! I can't stop laughing!
January 20, 2016, 05:03:21 PM
Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.
I actually believe the full node should run in the background as a service and you should never see it. Fire up the wallet and bam, your ready to go.
I think the user experience of running a node has more to do with why people don't run it than disk space issues. If Luke-jr would quit dumpster-diving 486s, we might start getting somewhere.
January 20, 2016, 05:02:02 PM
January 20, 2016, 04:59:55 PM
January 20, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
Thanks for any help that can be provided. I'm trying to wrap me head around the market implications and how to properly proceed with coin storage. Or should I just convert to fiat with money ready to be wired to exchanges to buy? The delay concerns me, as markets move fast. If only there was a more expedient option.
It gets more complicated also.
It's quite possible (even likely) that a transaction you create from either wallet could end up leaking onto the other chain and get mined into a block. So if you send me some bitcoins on wallet #1 and Coinbase some on wallet #2, you might end up sending both to me or Coinbase.
So it turns out that you have to have a transaction that gets on one chain but not the other. Typically this would be by ensuring it got mined into a bigger block (so that the small block chain would reject it). How this is done is left as an exercise to the reader but it would quite likely involve sending to yourself until it happened.
January 20, 2016, 04:55:07 PM
Ok, so brg444 is claiming victory on behalf of Core because some core devs made a deal with f2p to raise the limit to 2mb in 2017.
What am I missing?
Edit: Anyhew, nice read: http://belshe.com/2016/01/18/bitcoin-blocksize-and-the-future/
What am I missing?
Edit: Anyhew, nice read: http://belshe.com/2016/01/18/bitcoin-blocksize-and-the-future/
January 20, 2016, 04:54:21 PM
I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.
Good. We need all your bitcoins. Thanks. January 20, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
I am tired of all that shit. I quit Bitcoin until the next ATH.
I failed to quit. 
January 20, 2016, 04:51:04 PM
I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him?
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
Yes, I am aware that Adam doesn't have many coins, as he wouldn't fit the description being that he joined in 2013 with his first coin being purchased at ~180.
Look around you a bit and pay attention and don't merely select an exception to the rule that fits your agenda. I'll admit there are indeed some large bagholders which I can name that support bitcoin classic. Are you suggesting that a majority of bagholders support classic over core? If this is true you are delusional. For one thing, the core devs are almost all extremely large bagholders as they have been around since the beginning. Why do you think they are so interested in bitcoin succeeding and thus volunteering their efforts?
I never suggested anything of that kind. You brought up the notion of bagholders throwing their weight around. I personally dont think it will ever come to that - it would be like the Bank of England trying to fight off Soros when he shorted the pound years ago. The more coins they throw at it, the more they loose.
No, the threats are just that - threats. Except for the one you mentioned earlier - they can carry out nasty attacks, such as the ddos campaign on XT nodes.
But that is a reason I would be less inclined to support them - not more.
January 20, 2016, 04:47:32 PM
What this means is that some blocks which appear to be 75% full are, effectively 100% full. This skews the averages. I'm not going to have ChartBuddy change the way he calculates the averages but I am going to have him mark them in the dots. I think purple will be the color to use.
Sorry, bug in the last couple of widgets that meant non-75% blocks were showing up as purple and 75% not showing up at all (average indications not affected). Fixed now.
January 20, 2016, 04:47:06 PM
Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.
Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function.
There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone.
Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one.
Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH?
Electrum is not a full node ....
Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.
You're complaining about it validating, well a full node needs to validate. Electrum does not so you're not comparing fairly.
Have you tried running bitcoind headless?
Haven't, will look into it, thx.
January 20, 2016, 04:46:53 PM
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
Didn't you get the news?
What news?
The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.
Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.
So sorry, not tonight dear.
Meeting core this weekend to do what?
Give permission? Are we doing Permissioncoin now?
January 20, 2016, 04:34:22 PM
Why are we still discussing Classic like it's not a failed project already?
Didn't you get the news?
Didn't you get the news?
What news?
The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.
Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.
So sorry, not tonight dear.
lol really ?? wow.. ok.... well at least we survive another year by kicking the can down the road some more... whew that was close one. wait till billyjoe hears about this.
January 20, 2016, 04:32:07 PM
Even though I have been here long enough to not get too excited with a quick price rise, it is nice to see Bitcoin up when the World economy is dipping down.
Hows cashing out of bitcoin working for you today Mike Hearn? hehe
Hows cashing out of bitcoin working for you today Mike Hearn? hehe
He's still comfortably up if he converted to fiat, and if he switched to XMR, ETH, DASH he's up considerably more. I'd wait if I were you with comments like this until they make sense.
Not necessarily. I haven't read his harangue, but I would guess he didn't say that he sold out specifically on that day.
January 20, 2016, 04:30:59 PM
I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him?
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as fucked up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
Yes, I am aware that Adam doesn't have many coins, as he wouldn't fit the description being that he joined in 2013 with his first coin being purchased at ~180.
Look around you a bit and pay attention and don't merely select an exception to the rule that fits your agenda. I'll admit there are indeed some large bagholders which I can name that support bitcoin classic. Are you suggesting that a majority of bagholders support classic over core? If this is true you are delusional. For one thing, the core devs are almost all extremely large bagholders as they have been around since the beginning. Why do you think they are so interested in bitcoin succeeding and thus volunteering their efforts?
January 20, 2016, 04:29:56 PM
You can stop at 2, as the other 'options' are just slash and burn/scorched earth policies that will end badly for those foolhardy enough to believe in them. Most rational players will want to conserve whatever value they have put into bitcoin and are unlikely to be as petulant as the core devs will be. They will follow the longest valid chain.
Changing the POW is just empty sabre rattling from a dev who is seriously worried that this is getting away from him.
Agree they are unlikely possibilities (although not completely off the table because some of us, really , really do not want a paypal 2.0 and will make great sacrifices in order to insure this doesn't happen) which is why I suggested this more likely attack vector :
I don't believe you have really thought things through with regards to the possible attack vectors that large btc holders can have. First of all a 51% attack created by 75% of the hashing fork cannot steal individuals coins that are not being spent on the minority chain and the hashing majority has no idea which wallets are friend or foe. Large bagholders (almost all the core team and early crypto-anarchists who tend to prefer conservative implementations that prioritize security and privacy above mainstream adoption) can carry out some pretty nasty attacks where they can quickly devalue the chain with the most hashing power scaring all the miners to support their chain or they can simply quickly and secretly buy up mining farms and ASIC's and attack the main chain without risking any of their investments.
In fact, this course is a much more likely course that could occur over them changing the PoW algo.
In fact, this course is a much more likely course that could occur over them changing the PoW algo.
The question one must ask , is who really is indeed the greatest economic majority?
The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.
Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.
Yes, I was wondering about that when I read Bitfury's post which appeared to contradict all the principles of Bitcoin Classic.
From Cointelegraph article, 7/2015 back regarding prior blocksize debate
http://cointelegraph.com/news/114776/knc-miner-slush-pool-bitfury-at-odds-over-block-size-increase
BitFury
Unfortunately, the biggest Western mining pool – BitFury - did not respond to CoinTelegraph's inquiry regarding the block size limit. According to Bitcoin Core developer Jeff Garzik, however, the Dutch-American pool that accounts for some 13% of hash power on the Bitcoin network is conservative as it comes to raising this limit. Garzik, who knows the team behind BitFury from several Bitcoin conferences*, said on IRC that BitFury is willing to raise the maximum block size to 2 MB, but not much more.
On the IRC channel for Bitcoin development, #bitcoin-dev, Garzik commented:
“Just heard from the BitFury guys – they are pro-conservative. [...] 2 MB is ok, more is potentially worrisome. [That in] contrast with [Chinese] suggestion [for] 8 MB.”
Given the fact that Classic has essentially issued an ultimatum, is it safe to say that, the 'gloves are off' and they have no choice but to attempt a fork?
Regardless of whether core decides to make changes can classic implement changes faster? It seems like a game of chicken that needs an ending
January 20, 2016, 04:20:27 PM
Luckily most mining pools are intelligent and have our best interests in mind like most of the developers and these drastic steps likely will never be needed.
Its a fatal misapprehension to believe that any actor in Bitcoin has your best interests in mind. Bitcoin works because everyone can work to their own advantage. Its been designed that these interests naturally self align without any central coordinating function.
There is no invisible hand here - and devs have no business guiding anyone.
Satoshi obviously understands human nature and planned Bitcoin accordingly. One of the mistakes he admitted was offering no reward for running a full node. People still do it with the best interests of the network in mind, but there are decreasing numbers of people prepared to do it for nothing. There would be an order of magnitude more nodes if people were rewarded for running one.
Having a decent wallet would help too. Switched to Electrum today, I really got sick of of the QT-wallet fucking up the block-index, verifying stuff for no apparent reason and for looking fugly while doing it. I never could wrap my head around why not more energy was put into a more sexy looking and properly working wallet... Except I understand a lot of ppl think the end user is not that important, BTC was designed purely for either tech nerds or speculators, buying a cup of coffee and running a cool wallet at home is supposed to be done with other crypto's like DASH?
Electrum is not a full node ....
Exactly. I'd love to run a full node and did for a while, but Bitcoin QT just sucks ass. More energy should be put into developing a wallet that is also a full node, which would make it nice to run instad of a pain.
You're complaining about it validating, well a full node needs to validate. Electrum does not so you're not comparing fairly.
Have you tried running bitcoind headless?
January 20, 2016, 04:19:32 PM
Large bagholders (almost all the core team and early crypto-anarchists who [...] can carry out some pretty nasty attacks
I presume you are referring to Adam Back there, and yeah, I agree that he is more than capable of what you suggest, but is that a reason that I should be following him?
Because he will fuck me up if I dont? Seriously, R3CEV must be reading this and pissing themselves laughing.
No, I think I will take my chances that the majority of bitcoin is not as messed up as these guys and willact rationally to maintain the value of their coinz.
BTW - You know he has no bitcoins, right? He said so when he joined at the ATH in 2013.
edit: apologies for language, but its after 9pm here....
January 20, 2016, 04:10:51 PM
You can stop at 2, as the other 'options' are just slash and burn/scorched earth policies that will end badly for those foolhardy enough to believe in them. Most rational players will want to conserve whatever value they have put into bitcoin and are unlikely to be as petulant as the core devs will be. They will follow the longest valid chain.
Changing the POW is just empty sabre rattling from a dev who is seriously worried that this is getting away from him.
Agree they are unlikely possibilities (although not completely off the table because some of us, really , really do not want a paypal 2.0 and will make great sacrifices in order to insure this doesn't happen) which is why I suggested this more likely attack vector :
I don't believe you have really thought things through with regards to the possible attack vectors that large btc holders can have. First of all a 51% attack created by 75% of the hashing fork cannot steal individuals coins that are not being spent on the minority chain and the hashing majority has no idea which wallets are friend or foe. Large bagholders (almost all the core team and early crypto-anarchists who tend to prefer conservative implementations that prioritize security and privacy above mainstream adoption) can carry out some pretty nasty attacks where they can quickly devalue the chain with the most hashing power scaring all the miners to support their chain or they can simply quickly and secretly buy up mining farms and ASIC's and attack the main chain without risking any of their investments.
In fact, this course is a much more likely course that could occur over them changing the PoW algo.
In fact, this course is a much more likely course that could occur over them changing the PoW algo.
The question one must ask , is who really is indeed the greatest economic majority?
The news that f2pool doesn't care for Classic. That Bitfury was just bluffing and is meeting Core this weekend.
Some sort of compromise is being worked out that would lead to a 2MB hard fork in........ Feb/Mar 2017.
Yes, I was wondering about that when I read Bitfury's post which appeared to contradict all the principles of Bitcoin Classic.
January 20, 2016, 04:09:15 PM
...
Hope you're right brg444, I think this is the best & least disruptive solution for all of us (well except big block paid shills & the dev defecters).
Hope you're right brg444, I think this is the best & least disruptive solution for all of us (well except big block paid shills & the dev defecters).
Dear Luddite:
Welcome to the ash heap of history!
http://s22.postimg.org/9hasbke4h/Capture.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws
Jump to: