Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Inca]

@sickpig What we need right now is EXACTLY that. We need an automatic build process to prepare for our release. I want to have a signed but unofficial release ready before an AMA I am doing on Dec 8, with more than just my node on the network. The official release will be the exact binary, if BUIP001 is voted yes. PM me!

We also need Windows testing.

@Inca can you run a node? It would be great to have nodes online by Dec 8 so searches turn up more than just one.

Yes I can run a node. Just tell me the platform..

 

[_mr_e]

@sickpig What we need right now is EXACTLY that. We need an automatic build process to prepare for our release. I want to have a signed but unofficial release ready before an AMA I am doing on Dec 8, with more than just my node on the network. The official release will be the exact binary, if BUIP001 is voted yes. PM me!

We also need Windows testing.

@Inca can you run a node? It would be great to have nodes online by Dec 8 so searches turn up more than just one.

I can run a windows node.

 

[albin]

@catlasshrugged

Apologies if it seemed like words were being put in your mouth, it's very apparent that you're totally neutral in the discussion and merely talking about technical concerns.

Basically looking around trying to figure out where the claim that wallets are asking for this feature is coming from, and having an extremely hard time seeing how that's remotely possible.

 

[cypherdoc]

all aboard:

[doublepost=1448834529][/doublepost]uh oh. China pulling ahead again:

 

[cypherdoc]

geezuz crimony. talk about a spanking:

 

[cypherdoc]

here's the GBTC chart from Friday. looking good:

 

[Inca]

Thezerg: how political and philosophical is BU to be?

May I suggest that we don't merge the RBF changes?

The community clearly is not happy with recent changes in Core. There is appetite for a new reference client and this is the chance to launch. Have we approached Gavin?

 

[Impulse]

geezuz crimony. talk about a spanking:

That dude is my hero.

 

[cypherdoc]

here's the GBTC chart from Friday. looking good:

"Each share currently represents approximately 0.0959 BTC. Friday’s closing price implies an underlying bitcoin value of $490, which is a 36% premium to the actual bitcoin price of $359. Shares hit an intraday high of $51.50, their highest since hitting $57.00 during bitcoin’s spike to $500 earlier in the month."

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/trading/premiums-on-bitcoin-investment-trust-gbtc-hit-6-month-high/

 

[rocks]

May I suggest that we don't merge the RBF changes?

The community clearly is not happy with recent changes in Core. There is appetite for a new reference client and this is the chance to launch. Have we approached Gavin?

I would suggest going a step further and have the client reject any transaction flagged as RBF by not rebroadcasting the transaction. If enough clients did this RBF transactions would propogate slowly or not at all. RBF transactions are completely against satoshi's vision for bitcoin.

Regarding the price action, I think it is exciting to see, but if bitcoin cannot find a way to route around the current attack then regardless of what the price does we have real long term problems.

If Peter is able to break zero-confirm transactions just like that, and most users and miners continue to run the blockstream client, then bitcoin looks to be a lot less anti-fragile than I originally though, with centralized development as the attack vector.

Since they look dead set to move forward with this horrible change, then I think we will find out but the end of the year just how anti-fragile bitcoin is. I hope it successfully routes around this, but for the first time have my doubts...

 

[theZerg]

Thezerg: how political and philosophical is BU to be?

May I suggest that we don't merge the RBF changes?

The community clearly is not happy with recent changes in Core. There is appetite for a new reference client and this is the chance to launch. Have we approached Gavin?

Don't suggest it to me, write up a BUIP and post it over in the BUIP forum...

 

[albin]

I would suggest going a step further and have the client reject any transaction flagged as RBF by not rebroadcasting the transaction. If enough clients did this RBF transactions would propogate slowly or not at all. RBF transactions are completely against satoshi's vision for bitcoin.

Is it possible this might inadvertently help a double-spend attacker, by increasing the pool of first-seen nodes who will only the see the subsequent double-spend?

 

[cypherdoc]

@albin

the idea is to cut off the first tx so a merchant wouldn't even get to the point of releasing his product.

 

[rocks]

Is it possible this might inadvertently help a double-spend attacker, by increasing the pool of first-seen nodes who will only the see the subsequent double-spend?

But an attacker using RBF transactions can just as easily double spend the original transaction with a new transaction whether or not the first was seen at all. That is the whole problem with RBF, first seen transaction means nothing, which is a fork from satoshi's implantation.
[doublepost=1448865092][/doublepost]It sounded that coinbase, bitpay and other merchants were getting fed up before.

I wonder what adjective best describes their reaction to Peter's RBF fork?

 

[albin]

@rocks

I think this is their reaction: (3:43:06 if on mobile)

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Greg is posting up a storm about RBF:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3urm8o/optin_rbf_is_misunderstood_ask_questions_about_it/

 

[awemany]

Here's a bit which shows some of Greg's manipulation tactics:
"Pruning doesn't remove transactions, not without a radical departure in the security model to "SPV (trust the miners) security" for history."

I am pretty sure I remember that he's the guy who mainly pushed for 'we need all transactions since the beginning for trustlessness' in various threads on BCT.

That there's still a trust root (genesis block, what are valid transactions) and that the 'all transactions since genesis' is just a particular approach, that he conventiently leaves out.

In my opinion, having validated UTXOs and getting history from miners for (lets say a year back) would be enough to prove that all is fine. Because else, the whole network would need to lie to you for a full year.

Why is it that such ideas are completely excluded from Blockstream Core's 'Overton window'?

 

[sickpig]

it was fast

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7119

maybe I'm misreading but it seems that Peter Todd have just proposed to change the default way Bitcoin core wallet will use to send funds.

default true full-RBF option

edit: grammar

PR closed [1] by Gmax with a real surreal (no pun intended) message.

I'm closing this, it's just going to be a magnet for harassment due to people dishonestly misrepresenting what a pullreq means and I can't see us taking this particular patch as is.

Btcdrak is even funnier:

Yes. This PR is uncontroversial if this value defaults to false since we're just adding command line configuration options.

What's this? a doublethink/newspeak contest ?


[1] Peter Todd create a new PR (#7132) with opt-in full-RBF set to false

 

[lunar]

Bitstamp on the 101 train

What are your thoughts on the whole bitcoin scaling debate?
We support BIP 101.

Will bitstamp follow most of the rest of the industry and switch to BIP 101 this December?
Yes.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/post10195.html#p10195

 

[rocks]

@lunarboy
It is great to see the list of companies on the list, but in the end we need miner commitment. So far I'm only aware of KnC supporting bip101, are there any others?

If we gain strong merchant support but do not gain miner support, it will be an interesting situation to say the least. It is unclear how that plays out.