Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 136 results by Westin Landon Cox
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
0 conf rules ..da fuq
Don't worry. If you like your 0 conf, you can keep your 0 conf.*
*Disclaimer: 0 conf was never secure in the first place.
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right?
Re: Hearn's "Faith in Humanity Shaken" after People Awaken to His EVIL Plan!
Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.
You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.
Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0
I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.
Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.
Great work! You might actually be THE person that saved Bitcoin from the banks!
To everyone: you're welcome.
Brg444 #REKT
Theymos #REKT
Theymos #REKT
Actually I think Theymos is backing Classic now.
It would be surprising if Theymos were really backing Classic. Your assertion prompted me to look through some of his recent reddit comments. Here's one from "1 day ago":
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/40zs8h/instead_of_whining_about_the_block_size_we_better/cyywmvg
Quote from: theymos_on_reddit
If you change Classic's rollout mechanism to just a flag day 6 months from when it's introduced, it looks reasonably safe to me. There may still be problems with worst-case blocks taking many minutes to verify, though.
SegWit basically does the same thing, though, and better. With the Core roadmap, we'll have blocks effectively 2 MB in size in only around 4 months, and it'll be backward-compatible. Also very important is that it enables future deployment of fraud proofs, which will make Bitcoin way stronger against attacks by miners (a serious concern with the existing amount of miner centralization). It also fixes the slow verification issue. Late this year a "real" max block size increase following something like Classic's design can be scheduled. So the Classic change seems entirely worse to me, especially when so many experts have signed onto the Core roadmap.
(To be clear: I'm talking about the changes in Bitcoin Classic. Since Bitcoin Classic implements a contentious hardfork, I wouldn't support it unless it actually overtakes the economy.)
SegWit basically does the same thing, though, and better. With the Core roadmap, we'll have blocks effectively 2 MB in size in only around 4 months, and it'll be backward-compatible. Also very important is that it enables future deployment of fraud proofs, which will make Bitcoin way stronger against attacks by miners (a serious concern with the existing amount of miner centralization). It also fixes the slow verification issue. Late this year a "real" max block size increase following something like Classic's design can be scheduled. So the Classic change seems entirely worse to me, especially when so many experts have signed onto the Core roadmap.
(To be clear: I'm talking about the changes in Bitcoin Classic. Since Bitcoin Classic implements a contentious hardfork, I wouldn't support it unless it actually overtakes the economy.)
Keccak is SHA3..
which will totally kill off ASICs of todays current design.. and would cause the system to take weeks to solve one block because the difficulty is soo high, by the time that 2016 blocks are solved (years) to then downgrade difficulty, would be too late...
which will totally kill off ASICs of todays current design.. and would cause the system to take weeks to solve one block because the difficulty is soo high, by the time that 2016 blocks are solved (years) to then downgrade difficulty, would be too late...
Yes, it will kill off today's ASICS. But I disagree about the difficulty. Obviously the hardfork would not only change the PoW but initialize the difficulty to a reasonable value for that PoW.
The github pull request by luke-jr that everyone is concerned about was closed by jtoomin. No longer a concern your ASICS are safe. luke-jr seems to be a bit of a loose cannon:) As I read the repositories they are trying to make the implementation as simple as possible with just a 2 MB patch to gain support from the pools. Since a client is not even available yet that support remains to be seen.
I don't have any ASICS. I agree that Bitcoin Classic won't merge Luke Jr.'s PR. But don't worry. There's a proposal for Bitcoin FU (Forking Uninhibited) that will hard fork away from SHA2 the same time Bitcoin Classic forks away from 1MB.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330447.0
Everyone will get what the Bitcoin they want and we can finally put all this drama behind us.
Keccak is SHA3..
which will totally kill off ASICs of todays current design.. and would cause the system to take weeks to solve one block because the difficulty is soo high, by the time that 2016 blocks are solved (years) to then downgrade difficulty, would be too late...
which will totally kill off ASICs of todays current design.. and would cause the system to take weeks to solve one block because the difficulty is soo high, by the time that 2016 blocks are solved (years) to then downgrade difficulty, would be too late...
Yes, it will kill off today's ASICS. But I disagree about the difficulty. Obviously the hardfork would not only change the PoW but initialize the difficulty to a reasonable value for that PoW.
Mutual Assured Forking (How the Miners can Vote to Fire the Miners)
Bitcoin Classic is planning to hard fork the block size limit to 2MB. Details are sketchy at the moment, but it seems they plan to use some activation based on a majority of the mining (e.g., 750 of the last 1000 blocks, like BIP101/XT required).
I'm more on Core's side in the debate that's raged the past year, but at some point I mainly just became sick of the fighting. The Core roadmap (Sig-Wit now; reconsider the block size in a year or so) seemed fine to me. But, it's clear a lot of Bitcoiners aren't fans of the Core developers and demand a hard fork.
So fine.
I suggest when the code for Bitcoin Classic is released, someone create a fork of it. Call it Bitcoin Forking Uninhibited (FU) or something. The reason for forking Bitcoin Classic is to have their exact mechanism for activating the hard fork. But in Bitcoin FU it would activate a different hardfork: one that would change the PoW algorithm. Luke Jr. suggested a hard fork changing the PoW from SHA2 to SHA3 (Keccak): https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-6-fix-mining-centralisation
Assuming the current miners activate the 2MB hard fork on Classic, they would also activate a hard fork changing the PoW on FU. The current miners could continue to mine on the "Classic" 2MB chain. GPU miners could mine on the 1MB "FU" chain.
This insures both parts of the community get the kind of Bitcoin they want.
I know the argument that it's in everyone's economic interest to come together on one chain.
But I'm sure I'm not the only one -- on either side -- who's no longer interested in being on the same chain as people from the other side. If there's going to be a fork, let's actually fork.
I'm more on Core's side in the debate that's raged the past year, but at some point I mainly just became sick of the fighting. The Core roadmap (Sig-Wit now; reconsider the block size in a year or so) seemed fine to me. But, it's clear a lot of Bitcoiners aren't fans of the Core developers and demand a hard fork.
So fine.
I suggest when the code for Bitcoin Classic is released, someone create a fork of it. Call it Bitcoin Forking Uninhibited (FU) or something. The reason for forking Bitcoin Classic is to have their exact mechanism for activating the hard fork. But in Bitcoin FU it would activate a different hardfork: one that would change the PoW algorithm. Luke Jr. suggested a hard fork changing the PoW from SHA2 to SHA3 (Keccak): https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-6-fix-mining-centralisation
Assuming the current miners activate the 2MB hard fork on Classic, they would also activate a hard fork changing the PoW on FU. The current miners could continue to mine on the "Classic" 2MB chain. GPU miners could mine on the 1MB "FU" chain.
This insures both parts of the community get the kind of Bitcoin they want.
I know the argument that it's in everyone's economic interest to come together on one chain.
But I'm sure I'm not the only one -- on either side -- who's no longer interested in being on the same chain as people from the other side. If there's going to be a fork, let's actually fork.
Re: Hearn's "Faith in Humanity Shaken" after People Awaken to His EVIL Plan!
Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.
You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of your confusion.
Hearn clearly said that he intended to subvert all of China by using checkpoints. He also said he would subvert all SPV wallets using the same methods. This would of course affect anyone not using his version of the software. You must not grasp what he outlines here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0
I never claimed he could be successful, I was attempting to explain his intention per a user's request.
Hey, I'm the guy who made that youtube video using interview excerpts of Hearn on Epicenter Bitcoin in mid-2015. Thanks to everyone who linked to it and helped expose Hearn's willingness to "ignore the longest chain" using "checkpoint blocks." I'm glad Hearn's the problem of bankers and not bitcoiners now.
It does look like "Classic" is getting a significant number of the mining power to pledge support.
I'm not interested in a version of Bitcoin that goes against the opinion of most of the experts. I like Luke Jr.'s plan:
Fire the Miners!
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/416qtj/please_support_this_pull_request_to_fix_mining/
I'm not interested in a version of Bitcoin that goes against the opinion of most of the experts. I like Luke Jr.'s plan:
Fire the Miners!
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/416qtj/please_support_this_pull_request_to_fix_mining/
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie
I know I'm missing a whole lot here.
Ah, poor forker brg444. When you run out of ideas, just play the ad hominem card...
I might have to agree with you here. Referring to anyone as "JStolfi" -- even JStolfi himself -- just seems like too dirty of an insult.
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests.
I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks.
If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling.
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178
I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their own position.
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178
I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their own position.
Coinbase can go fuck itself. Look at the "freedom" they allow their customers. They're an example of the bullshit bitcoin was designed to get away from. This is best expressed in a quote from me:
Quote from: CryptoCox
Coinbase can go fuck itself.
The XT dead enders want to take away my freedom of choice to keep using Bitcoin by killing the real chain. Oh, but only if 75% of miners agree, I know. I've had enough of losing fucking elections. I signed up for bitcoin to get away from that shit.
Look: you have the freedom of choice to use XT or BU or whatever, but you can't demand to be listed on someone else's website. If you really want 101 to activate, you're even free to change the activation criteria by adding a checkpoint or switching to Scrypt. But the XT dead enders want more than that. They insist on killing the real chain.
Well, spoiler alert: they won't. Even if they think they're about to, some of us will make sure they don't.
It's not a debate anymore. The debate is over.
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
Re: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)
Holy shit, this thread is still going?! I just figured I'd check in since Coinbase decided to go with a dead fork overnight. Couldn't happen to a dumber company.
I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.
There have indeed been some very positive developments recently. Bitcoin Unlimited has also been officially released. 
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software
Horrible. Random people without any sufficient expertise think that know what is best (if one takes a closer look at the members page). Just don't come complaining about ad hominem, because this isn't the case. http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software
I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.
Today I followed a link to a funny 5 part youtube series called "Love Gov". It basically portrays government as a stalkerish boyfriend. Each part is only about 5 minutes.
Part 1 has a funny indirect (dismissive) reference to Bitcoin, but Part 4 has a funnier direct reference. It's part of a dialogue between Alexis and Libbie.
Libbie: Everyone has a blind spot. Yours is Gov and mine is...well, if I knew it wouldn't be a blind spot.
Alexis: It's thinking people want to hear you talk about bitcoins.
Libbie: Everyone wants to hear about bitcoins. The block chain is the future of global currency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGgm8TIMFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd9uGC_hWB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPfWwy4G1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-whSiHSmkQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfVrGYgtTlk
Part 1 has a funny indirect (dismissive) reference to Bitcoin, but Part 4 has a funnier direct reference. It's part of a dialogue between Alexis and Libbie.
Libbie: Everyone has a blind spot. Yours is Gov and mine is...well, if I knew it wouldn't be a blind spot.
Alexis: It's thinking people want to hear you talk about bitcoins.
Libbie: Everyone wants to hear about bitcoins. The block chain is the future of global currency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSGgm8TIMFU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd9uGC_hWB8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPfWwy4G1Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-whSiHSmkQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfVrGYgtTlk
Re: Stephanopoulos, Fiorina, Clumps of Cells and Letting It Burn
A professional ad has been made about this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhn0DdH8M-0
Whatever you think about abortion or Fiorina, the media needs to be tarred and feathered for lying about the contents of the Planned Parenthood videos. They're shameless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhn0DdH8M-0
Whatever you think about abortion or Fiorina, the media needs to be tarred and feathered for lying about the contents of the Planned Parenthood videos. They're shameless.
Quote
But other sources claimed Clinton has suffered three secret strokes, according to the report, and it seems to be taking a toll. Out on the campaign trail, another close source said, "behind the scenes she appears exhausted, dazed and confused at times." Her most trusted aide, Huma Abedin, even sleeps in her hotel room to keep an eye on her "in case there's a medical emergency," the insider claimed.
http://radaronline.com/photos/hillary-clinton-president-multiple-sclerosis-disease-series-strokes-report-claims/photo/1186651/
Re: Andreas Antonopoulos about censorship on bitcointalk and reddit
Another interesting fact is that is that is that Satoshi actually gets to decide what fork wins. People don't notice that in the case of a hard fork, Satoshi has a 1000000 BTC stake in both forks. He can choose to sell his coins in one fork, buying more coins in the other. - This alone will dictate the winner of the fork. So if Satoshi wants to stay at 1MB blocks - well nobody else can out-compete his economic power.
I've thought about this too. It was a relief to me to see evidence (e.g., the email from satoshi@vistomail.com) that Satoshi was against the XT fork.
Free speech is still protected in this country,
I don't mean to derail the discussion, but the First Amendment is also imperiled. The publishers at Paladin Press (a fine Boulder establishment, iconoclastically enough) might have something to say about prior restraint.
I bring this up only to point out that, once you go looking, every tenet of our Bill of Rights is routinely violated with impunity. Like the civil forfeiture issue, it is hiding in the shadows where the blissfully ignorant never deign to look. Which, I believe, is how these injustices are allowed to fester.
Yes, this is true. The only one of the Bill of Rights that (arguably) isn't being routinely violated is the third amendment (quartering of soldiers).
This is why everyone must use a brain-wallet. Lets see how they can seize bitcoins from someone's mind!
(Note brainwallet.org is not to be confused with a brain wallet... the two are actually opposites)
(Note brainwallet.org is not to be confused with a brain wallet... the two are actually opposites)
ever heard of a waterboard ?
That's why you need to have a throwaway brain wallet to give up under torture. Plan ahead, people.