Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 09:21:22 PM

Not very smart of you.
1. You can be tricked into believing a transaction has been confirmed when it is not.
2. You leak information about which addresses belongs to you to full nodes you are talking to.

Well it is much less of a problem then getting hacked and loss all your coins on core. And you can't use it without a computer. Unless you use TeamViwer and get hacked that way... It must have some backdore since even with 2FA someone connected to it and downloaded wallet.dat for 2 times. So I really don't see how you can use core in any practical way...

Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 09:21:22 PM

It used to run fine on N900, but the blocks are too large now. You statement will be true in the future as well if the block size is increased.

It is not safe. Still just a core. And you need 20GB and Trezor is missing... And I'm sure it is not an app but something you need to compile... So not for normal user... Battery life?

Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 09:21:22 PM

Any node can make up its of mind about what spam is, and have the right to decide it. There are some default filters, and some of them can even be adjusted by command line options. If you don't like it, use a bank. If you use an SPV wallet, the random full node it talks to will decide for you if the transaction you are about to send, or one you expect to receive, is spam or not. Users won't know what the policy of an individual full node is. The average policy of the network will be estimated by full nodes, and translated into fee and priority estimates. If you run a full node, you will know what is required to get a transaction confirmed with good probability within a given number of blocks. If you send from an SPV wallet, you must trust the defaults and the full node you are talking to.

If you don't understand why the idea any node can make up its mined is dangers I can't help you. Normal user will think that if something works one day it will work the next. Even BitGo has problems today(service that pool is using). If that is not a problem I don't know what is... And running full node doesn't give me any idea what fee should be or rules on the network... And it is a security risk if you have funds on it...

Quote from: sturle on July 09, 2015, 09:21:22 PM

Remember the last soft fork (BIP66)? We had a six block chain split after the fork because F2Pool didn't take the time to verify the blocks it got before building upon them. Why didn't they verify? Because it takes time to verify a 1 MB block. Why was this a problem? Because F2Pool announced support for the soft fork, while actually they didn't. Now try with a hard fork to even larger blocks.

Yes 1 hour and problem more or less solved. And I really don't see how big blocks will be any different. I think they learn the lessen and will be checking when next fork happens... And it was not like they didn't verify. There was a bug in a code they use. As sone as they got a block they start hashing the next one and checking one they got. But for some reason when they couldn't verify it they didn't reject it but start building empty blocks on it(I can explain you in full if you are interested why empty blocks).

Quote from: knightdk on July 09, 2015, 09:24:25 PM

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 09:15:17 PM

Quote from: knightdk on July 09, 2015, 09:11:05 PM

Quote from: Lucko on July 09, 2015, 08:29:42 PM

Quote from: HigsonPP on July 09, 2015, 06:27:39 PM

What's the transaction fee for it? I think you guys need to clarify all these things from the very beginning ,so it doesn't pose a problem for us. Also i found last test rather interesting. This one was okayish,

It is not a fee problem. It is getting rejected since pool(not BTC mining pool but pays in BTC) is sending to more then 200 addresses. It worked yesterday but now it doesn't. Well to got confirmed after more then 24 hours... So I don't like this soft antispam(what the f**k is spam hire anyway???) fork that doesn't work as it should and it was not announced so we would know how to make transactions that will not be spam according to it. Changing rules like that can kill bitcoin not 20MB blocks.

What are you talking about? There was no soft-fork for antispam rules. The soft-fork was for BIP66 which has to do with transaction signatures. Also, a fork cannot be unannounced because the fork only happens when miners mine blocks for it, which can only happen with a code change. They won't change their code for no reason, so fork had to be announced.

I'm calling it soft fork since nodes and some miners have implemented antispam rules that reject valid transactions. And as far as I know it is unannounced.

What antispam rules? I know that Bitcoin Core will drop and not relay dust transactions, but that has been there for a very long time and it must have been announced and discussed to ever have made it into Bitcoin Core.

Yes but if you would read some more you would see that some additional rules were added in last days by some big pools and also big nodes. And it is a big problem for some services like BitGo...