Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
@AdrianX

we are in violent agreement then :p

a "normal" node could not update, the price to pay for this choice will be losing more and more validation power as time pass and more soft forks are deployed.

a "miner" node have to upgrade once the soft fork is enforced, otherwise it won't produce valid blocks anymore.

this is just to say that if the decoupling between validation and mining functions hadn't happened, the very concept of soft-fork wouldn't have even existed.

ps where's @rocks when someone need him ?
 
Last edited:

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
I have a little challenge to the coders on this forum. (@Peter Tschipper? @sickpig? @theZerg? Others?)

Can you fix the malleability issue with just a few lines of code?

Rick Falkvinge is suggesting that it's possible in this recent interview, and giving some ideas on how:
At 27 minutes:
Is a hard fork allowed?
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
I have a little challenge to the coders on this forum. (@Peter Tschipper? @sickpig? @theZerg? Others?)

Can you fix the malleability issue with just a few lines of code?

Rick Falkvinge is suggesting that it's possible in this recent interview, and giving some ideas on how:
I'm not a C++ coder though, but I'm getting older and somewhat wiser... So if solving txs malleability with a few lines of code had been possible, it would have been fixed by now... or maybe it didn't happen just because Core didn't want to use hardforks to fix it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
I'm impressed with your ability to not get angry at these tactics. I'm furious looking at this. The hypocrisy and double speak have gotten to me.
@Peter R is right. Xthin is such a powerful improvement that, probably for the first time ever, BS-Core are being reactive and playing catch-up. Yes, they rebrand for political purposes, and disgracefully give no credit to the prior art of Xthin. The question now is whether their "Compact Blocks" is released first or gets bundled with SegWit, so the Core-believers have no real choice, SW+Fast blocks or its Zombie node time.
 

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
I'm not a C++ coder though, but I'm getting older and somewhat wiser... So if solving txs malleability with a few lines of code had been possible, it would have been fixed by now... or maybe it didn't happen just because Core didn't want to use hardforks to fix it?
I don't even know the difference between a hard and a soft fork. I'm just thinking that bloatware is bad, and a problem should be fixed as simple as possible :)
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
The differences between Soft and Hard are semantic now. All forks are Hard forks if you are a miner. It's just PR we've been conditioned to accept Soft porn as R rated and OK for the masses provided one has traveled around the sun X number of times, and Hard porn is socially unacceptable and need universal "consensus" before deployment, it's like all forks are hard forks, and zomby nodes just follow along and drop off one by one.

Core have failed to understand why relaying and validating nodes are deployed in the first place, if the status quo is maintained one can expect to see the count drop dramatically, Hint it's not the size of blocks or the blockchain that are discouraging node operators from running nodes, it's Core Developers making it irelavant and usurping the efforts of node operators to maintain the protocol.

I hope this sell off is a result of the Australian auction and not the realisation that Core just knocked a nail into Bitcoins coffin. :eek:
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
i think if there's any question now about who's leading who around by the nose, it's been answered. hint: it's not the miners.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@AdrianX

we are violent agreement then :p

a "normal" node could not update, the price to pay for this choice will be losing more and more validation power as time pass and more soft forks are deployed.

a "miner" node have to upgrade once the soft fork is enforced, otherwise it won't produce valid blocks anymore.

this is just to say that if the decoupling between validation and mining functions hadn't happened, the very concept of soft-fork wouldn't have even existed.

ps where's @rocks when someone need him ?
This was one of the recent moments when gmax'es trolling and lies were very visible. He said on reddit something along the lines of that 'Classic is outdated'. That completely counters all of the 'soft forks are oh so gentle' propaganda that he did before.
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327
"i think if there's any question now about who's leading who around by the nose, it's been answered. hint: it's not the miners."
 
  • Like
Reactions: steffen

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
We should dig up some good comments from when BS/Core was saying that Xthin was pointless "because Relay Network" and "because blocks-only mode."
Hat-tip to /u/redlightsaber for digging one up:

"...I've compared [Xthin] to two distinct things: Blocksonly mode which has about 8 times the bandwidth savings; and the fast block relay protocol, which has much higher coding gains (e.g. 4k vs 70k transmission) and half the base latency.

Thinblocks, of the kind implemented by XT were proposed and implemented over two years ago by Pieter Wuille and put aside after measurements showed they didn't offer really interesting performance improvements considering their complexity. Perhaps they'll come back some day for core, but they're kind of an odd duck compared to the alternatives."
- Gmax

I guess "some day" is 3 months later (y)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Lots of people seem to think that miners are the ones with all the power and are driving the 1MB blockade. I happen to think not. Anyone following this multi year debate can see that miners were initially onboard with 8MB scaling; that is until Blockstream kore devs started attacking them and the large blockists with FUD and personal attacks. Thus it is kore dev leading everyone around by the nose, imo, specifically because of their financial confliction.

"i think if there's any question now about who's leading who around by the nose, it's been answered. hint: it's not the miners."
[doublepost=1466647720,1466646806][/doublepost]more reality setting in:

 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Bitcoin back to its old tricks. Shouldn't fall much further or the thesis for a mega bubble later this year is debunked. If it does hold in the 450-600 range then bitcoin has found a new base to launch off later this year.

I suck at trading. Back to virtually what I started with now. :/
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
the problem with smart contracts that @balajis and geeks in general are missing, is that contracts typically involve conflict. counterparties inherently don't trust each other, which necessitates a contract to begin with, to try and hold ppl to their promises. unfortunately and all too commonly they don't work out and ppl head to court as they both disagree on what the contract says.
[doublepost=1466648159][/doublepost]
Bitcoin back to its old tricks. Shouldn't fall much further or the thesis for a mega bubble later this year is debunked.
while i think most of this pullback is due to trader profit taking, i'd bet that there is a component of folks who believe that the Ethereum/DAO failure has something to do with Bitcoin. not.
[doublepost=1466648324][/doublepost]ah, that's better. @balajis realizes that Bitcoin needs to increase it's usage as a money or payment system before smart contracting really can be developed. that's what i've been saying:

 
Last edited: