Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
"Hard forks are the only way for the market to express its will, which is the only way for Bitcoin to remain both decentralized and viable" -ForkiusMaximus
I've been thinking about this statement, and I think that it is 1) correct, and 2) not generally understood by most people.
So, because of this disconnect, it could be a good trading/information arbitrage opportunity. If we get to a situation where a contentious hard fork seems imminent, then we should be more hopeful for Bitcoin's future. But if many market participants do not understand this, they might panic and the price could drop. Just need to wait patiently, with vulture funds at the ready
I've been thinking about this statement, and I think that it is 1) correct, and 2) not generally understood by most people.
So, because of this disconnect, it could be a good trading/information arbitrage opportunity. If we get to a situation where a contentious hard fork seems imminent, then we should be more hopeful for Bitcoin's future. But if many market participants do not understand this, they might panic and the price could drop. Just need to wait patiently, with vulture funds at the ready
YarkoL
Active Member
If you're on ubuntu gpg is your friend. Lots of tutorials around,
here's one
https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/02/17/basic-guide-pgp-linux/
Ideally, we should have many code forks, or even better, many different implementations that are not interrelated. Bug for bug compatibility we specially do not want. The best situation is that no single implementation has majority."Hard forks are the only way for the market to express its will, which is the only way for Bitcoin to remain both decentralized and viable" -ForkiusMaximus
I've been thinking about this statement, and I think that it is 1) correct, and 2) not generally understood by most people.
So, because of this disconnect, it could be a good trading/information arbitrage opportunity. If we get to a situation where a contentious hard fork seems imminent, then we should be more hopeful for Bitcoin's future. But if many market participants do not understand this, they might panic and the price could drop. Just need to wait patiently, with vulture funds at the ready
Then, a bug, or a rule that is not well defined, will leave a minority of nodes in the dark, leading to prompt bug fix or clarification of the rule.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
gavinandresen [12:08 AM] I should bang out udp broadcast of block headers and validationless mining so we can stop talking about propagation time....
https://bitcoinclassic.slack.com/archives/welcome/p1454195309003119
https://bitcoinclassic.slack.com/archives/welcome/p1454195309003119
@Norway
That is the way for classic to fix this. Implement the very simple changes to lower propagation delay that should have been done by core 0.9 but were blocked. These changes BTW are much more simple than SWSF.
Miners would switch simply to lower their orphan risk. It also exposes even more how core was not addressing their needs.
That is the way for classic to fix this. Implement the very simple changes to lower propagation delay that should have been done by core 0.9 but were blocked. These changes BTW are much more simple than SWSF.
Miners would switch simply to lower their orphan risk. It also exposes even more how core was not addressing their needs.
Nice article from Jameson Lopp even though it (strategically?) throws quite a few bones to small blockists. Looks like /r/Bitcoin is taking it seriously.
http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-save-bitcoins-node-network-from-centralization/
http://www.coindesk.com/how-to-save-bitcoins-node-network-from-centralization/
Lol. James Hillard, aka lightsword, is arguing this is a selfish mining block https://gist.github.com/jameshilliard/1693a637f3860aff2887
"
antpoolselfish394048.txt
Block 394048
Found by antpool
1. stratum.btcchina.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:44.209000
2. stratum-us.f2pool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:44.761000
3. stratum.f2pool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:45.382000
4. stratum.mainnet.mining.strateman.ninja:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:33.715000
5. solo.ckpool.org:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:33.963000
6. stratum.kano.is:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:34.300000
7. us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:35.712000
8. eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:35.981000
9. sg.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:36.034000
10. stratum.mining.eligius.st:3334 2016-01-19 13:16:36.377000
11. pool.bitclubpool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:36.706000
12. cn.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:37.141000
13. mint.bitminter.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:39.427000
14. stratum.bravo-mining.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:40.895000
15. nl1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.268000
16. uk1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.386000
17. eu.eclipsemc.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.655000
18. us1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:57.603000
19. stratum.bw.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:17:02.769000
20. solo.antpool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:21:24.951000
"
antpoolselfish394048.txt
Block 394048
Found by antpool
1. stratum.btcchina.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:44.209000
2. stratum-us.f2pool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:44.761000
3. stratum.f2pool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:00:45.382000
4. stratum.mainnet.mining.strateman.ninja:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:33.715000
5. solo.ckpool.org:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:33.963000
6. stratum.kano.is:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:34.300000
7. us-east.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:35.712000
8. eu.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:35.981000
9. sg.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:36.034000
10. stratum.mining.eligius.st:3334 2016-01-19 13:16:36.377000
11. pool.bitclubpool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:36.706000
12. cn.stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:37.141000
13. mint.bitminter.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:39.427000
14. stratum.bravo-mining.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:40.895000
15. nl1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.268000
16. uk1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.386000
17. eu.eclipsemc.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:53.655000
18. us1.ghash.io:3333 2016-01-19 13:16:57.603000
19. stratum.bw.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:17:02.769000
20. solo.antpool.com:3333 2016-01-19 13:21:24.951000
Took the freedom to make this a little bit more visible:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43iup7/mike_hearn_implemented_a_test_version_of_thin/
And look, luke-jr is already trying to do damage control. Also, the reddit votes seem to fluctuate a lot. Someone doesn't like this to be public...
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/43iup7/mike_hearn_implemented_a_test_version_of_thin/
And look, luke-jr is already trying to do damage control. Also, the reddit votes seem to fluctuate a lot. Someone doesn't like this to be public...
Since I was recently reminded that not everybody is aware of all the bad behaviour coming from Bitcoin Core and its supporters over the years, here's an example of what btcd was put through when they successfully produced a consensus-compatible, independent implementation of the Bitcoin protocol.
If you check any /r/bitcoin posts about btcd in the 2013 - 2014 timeframe, you'll see a consistent pattern of FUD.
The exact same tactics are used against all potential competition to Bitcoin Core.
If you check any /r/bitcoin posts about btcd in the 2013 - 2014 timeframe, you'll see a consistent pattern of FUD.
The exact same tactics are used against all potential competition to Bitcoin Core.
I wonder: Did anyone ever submit a thin blocks change to Bitcoin Core?
@Peter Tschipper : Did you try to open a PR with Core on your propagation scheme?
@Peter Tschipper : Did you try to open a PR with Core on your propagation scheme?
@Justus Ranvier
so i click that Reddit link of yours above and top comment is a guy named midmagic who starts attacking davecgh. i thought i saw "midnightmagic" and my first reaction was, "oh, that attack makes perfect sense given the viciousness with which he's attacked me in the past". then i noticed the subtle name difference but begin to think they might be the same person. well, looking back thru midmagic's post hx, it's hard to not think he is one in the same person, a sockpuppet, if you will. for ex:
here he attacks @Peter R
here, Olivier:
and here, midnightmagic attacks all of Bitcoin along with probably @Aquent. turns out he's an r/Bitcoin mod which isn't surprising given all the banning going on. and look down further on this page for a ringing LukeJr endorsement:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zu1j2/who_is_midnightmagic_and_why_is_he_a_mod_of_all/
there's more but all you have to do is comb thru the posting hx of both these accounts.
btw, it wouldn't surprise me a guy with this much toxicity resorting to almost anything to maintain power control.
[doublepost=1454260329][/doublepost]btw, i already made the case that anyone in midnightmagic's position as a core dev, r/Bitcoin mod, and someone who has staked such a highly visible and vicious vocal position on the blocksize debate should identify himself so we might be able to assess any financial COI.
so i click that Reddit link of yours above and top comment is a guy named midmagic who starts attacking davecgh. i thought i saw "midnightmagic" and my first reaction was, "oh, that attack makes perfect sense given the viciousness with which he's attacked me in the past". then i noticed the subtle name difference but begin to think they might be the same person. well, looking back thru midmagic's post hx, it's hard to not think he is one in the same person, a sockpuppet, if you will. for ex:
here he attacks @Peter R
here, Olivier:
and here, midnightmagic attacks all of Bitcoin along with probably @Aquent. turns out he's an r/Bitcoin mod which isn't surprising given all the banning going on. and look down further on this page for a ringing LukeJr endorsement:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zu1j2/who_is_midnightmagic_and_why_is_he_a_mod_of_all/
there's more but all you have to do is comb thru the posting hx of both these accounts.
btw, it wouldn't surprise me a guy with this much toxicity resorting to almost anything to maintain power control.
[doublepost=1454260329][/doublepost]btw, i already made the case that anyone in midnightmagic's position as a core dev, r/Bitcoin mod, and someone who has staked such a highly visible and vicious vocal position on the blocksize debate should identify himself so we might be able to assess any financial COI.
These guys have gone crazy (or perhaps they always were crazy).
They keep talking about how my fee market paper is "fundamentally broken" yet can't seem to explain their logic with simple straightforward statements. And now they attack my subchains paper, where they claim I "stole their ideas," but can't seem to demonstrate how.
They realize that the world has woken up to the fact that there is really nothing at all special about the "Blockstream Core developers." But part of their identity is being "Bitcoin wizards," which is now just a crumbling veneer, exposing the anti-social misfit hackers underneath for all to see. They lash out in desperate attempts at technical critiques and character assassinations, hoping to retain a piece of their dwindling credibility; yet all they do is break off another piece from their peeling veneer of respectability.
Remember, most were here since 2011 or so--a time when the pool of potential developers was a hundred times smaller. For every "Core developer," there are now 90 equally talented developers and 10 that would blow the current crew out of the water.
What we need is an efficient way to fund these new developers.
Actually the subchains paper is the funniest because sometimes they revert back to their "this work is fundamentally wrong" argument, so somehow it is both wrong and is work that I stole from them.
Last edited:
relished at my first opportunity to indulge in @Aquent's new description of core dev principles, or lack thereof:
Peter Tschipper
Active Member
- Jan 8, 2016
- 254
- 357
@awemany No I didn't put in a PR for Xtreme Thinblocks to Core. I really thought it would be better to get it up and running here in BU first and get people using it. Then if they want it they can pull it in or request a PR from me. With all the current politics around block size I really didn't think it would be a use of good time to open a PR in Core.
