Friday, 31 March 2017
Subbed for at least a year and a half now; still clueless
Rodolfo Novak: I think many BU supporters are rightly frustrated w/ high fees, but point your anger at the ppl spamming the network & blocking LN / SegWit
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 04:02AM by tasmannn http://bit.ly/2oiRjFq
Sergio D. Lerner unveils new proposal to stop the BU/Core conflict
Waste not, want not! (BFL Jalapeño, 3 years later)
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 07:15AM by Cheezmeister http://bit.ly/2nFALVh
Let's draw a Bitcoin symbol on /r/place
Reddit's april fools thing is /r/place, where each Reddit user can place one pixel at a time. The thought occurred to me that we might try to maintain a Bitcoin symbol on the canvas.
I created this guide: http://bit.ly/2nJiMyP . If an orange pixel is missing or miscolored, create it. The white pixels on my model can be allowed to be any color except orange, I think. This link will center you on the correct area.
LIVE UPDATES:
- 23:45 /u/Pacelek is heading up a project to create an orange circle around the black-bordered symbol, while /u/VerlorenesMetallgeld and others are creating an additional nearby symbol at (358,863).
- 23:36 Now it has a nice black border. In addition to fixing any errors that are introduced, maybe an orange circle or duplicate symbol could be added. Let's try to avoid getting in the way of Megaman, though.
- 22:00 Mission accomplished! At some point the left border was thickened compared to my model, which looks better. Now a black border around it is being made, and errors are being corrected as they are introduced.
- 21:00 Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that we're going to be totally overrun by the blue corner, so I moved our symbol from (746,968) to (370,877)
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 03:37AM by theymos http://bit.ly/2nos4gj
For Litecoin, F2pool signaling SegWit
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 04:54AM by byset http://bit.ly/2oqKXB2
F2Pool is signaling everything, it's an April's fool.
Bitcoin Core: Statement against binary releases (proposal by Greg Maxwell)
Let's draw a Bitcoin symbol on /r/place
Bitcoin Core - IRC Meeting Summary (March 23, 2017)
Is there a list of all BU supporting companies in the bitcoin space? I'd like to make sure I don't give them any business.
I have a feeling it's not going to be a problem, since there is very little support for BU, but if there is such a list somewhere, I'd love a link.
I can't do much to help Core/segwit (besides my full node ofc!) but if I can avoid giving any business to BU supporting companies, I'd feel a bit better.
Thanks in advance for any links/tips.
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 12:21AM by Holographiks http://bit.ly/2nnI3v0
Another day another lie on /r/btc [part 2]
Yesterday one of the /r/btc trolls was spreading the typical Blockstream bullshit on /r/Bitcoin. Sadly he wasn’t banned right away, so I decided to waste some time debating him. I was naïve enough to think I might be able to talk some sense into him.
An hour later, Greg sees his comments and starts to join the discussion (apparently Greg was as naïve as I was). Of-course the troll uses the exact same lies he used in the debate he had with me. So apparently he didn’t learn a lot.
Not much later his motives become clear, because he turned it into a personal attack on Greg at /r/btc. :(
So I asked him wtf was wrong with him and why he did all of this. Of-course I got downvoted to oblivion as is standard protocol on /r/btc. And of-course not much later someone asks me to kill myself. :(
Which is also standard protocol on /r/btc.
Finally the /r/Bitcoin mods ban the troll (bit late).
And today all of this turned into the top post at /r/btc.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 05:27PM by -Hayo- http://bit.ly/2nGGThq
Rodolfo Novak: I think many BU supporters are rightly frustrated w/ high fees, but point your anger at the ppl spamming the network & blocking LN / SegWit
For Litecoin, F2pool signaling SegWit
We've drawn the mood this days on the bitcoin community. Historian in hundred years study this image set forever in the blockchain
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 10:20PM by yodark http://bit.ly/2ohGHqe
Purse.io missing 2btc of mine and deleted my post from their subreddit
How can I get in touch with Purse.io? The contact link isn't working on their site, I emailed them 3 days ago and never heard back, and my post on their subreddit was deleted.
I deposited almost 2btc to their site. The blockchain shows everything as confirmed and okay. Purse's transaction history shows the deposits... However, my wallet was never updated to reflect the deposit.
I am unable to get my orders fulfilled because the money I deposited is missing. It says I have a negative balance.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 11:14AM by PurseUser19 http://bit.ly/2nCuREi
Anything But Bitcoin Unlimited: 75 Percent of Experts Favor SegWit Survey Reveals
Fork or Not? Bitcoin & Blockchain Experts Are Giving Their View
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 02:54AM by cryptopay http://bit.ly/2nrvtf6
@DanDarkPill's answer to Roger Vers "core slides" - absolutely hilarious :D
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 11:09PM by viajero_loco http://bit.ly/2opwDc1
Is there a list of all BU supporting companies in the bitcoin space? I'd like to make sure I don't give them any business.
Get Ready For Decentralized Exchange - Agama Development Roadmap
Submitted April 01, 2017 at 01:53AM by rokybd http://bit.ly/2nnIuW2
Adam Back to Jihan Wu: SegWit Not 'Complicated,' Fixes Satoshi's Bug
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 08:06PM by Suberg http://bit.ly/2oiJ4Jy
Huobi/OKcoin to resume withdrawals awaiting PBOC Green light
BU vision of the future is like a horse and buggy with unlimited number or horses and dirt roads a mile wide.
@DanDarkPill's answer to Roger Vers "core slides" - absolutely hilarious :D
Yawn
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 07:37PM by silver_89 http://bit.ly/2nmFWaA
"Please, please continue using debt-based currency"
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 05:18AM by joeydekoning http://bit.ly/2nBqQQi
BU is not providing a market alternative. They are launching an attack on an established and stable network in order to seize it.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 12:01AM by Lite_Coin_Guy http://bit.ly/2nko0xp
We've drawn the mood this days on the bitcoin community. Historian in hundred years study this image set forever in the blockchain
Soft-forking to the power of one-fee-one-vote.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 09:57PM by grimmeld http://bit.ly/2nqMwhr
Price (per 1 MH/s): $5.50, 1.6% to 2% Daily - 1 MHs Register Bonus
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 10:25PM by muzo2543 http://bit.ly/2nHCUBl
10 days after and Roger Ver dont get the deal for 1 by 1 60.000 BTU for BTC
SEGWIT IS CLEARLY THE WINNER! MINERS LISTEN TO YOUR USERS!
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 04:28AM by BitcoinReminder_com http://bit.ly/2nFSuNH
Interview with Vinay Gupta, Founder at Hexayurt by Pavlo Tanasyuk, CEO Blockverify. Talking about Blockchain, Identity, Resilience and future Social Order.
Ryan Selkis: I like Roger Ver, but this deck made me cringe. No investor I know would have even taken a meeting if this deck came in from someone else.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 04:14AM by tasmannn http://bit.ly/2omJdsv
Nicolas Dorier: "Core has no center because contributors are united around technical soundness, not around personalities...difficult to grasp for politicians"
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 05:10PM by nopara73 http://bit.ly/2oig8Sc
Adam Back to Jihan Wu: SegWit Not 'Complicated,' Fixes Satoshi's Bug
Yawn
Eric Lombrozo: Bitcoin by design makes it much easier to block consensus rule change than to force it. This is an important feature, not a bug. If you find this to be too frustrating, Bitcoin is probably not for you.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 11:38AM by shesek1 http://bit.ly/2oFkL4R
Bitcoin’s volatility to remain lower than Oil; turns it into a stable investable asset
Another day another lie on /r/btc [part 2]
Bitcoin Logo Construction Animation
There are two types of Bitcoin people
Nicolas Dorier: "Core has no center because contributors are united around technical soundness, not around personalities...difficult to grasp for politicians"
Japan recognizes Bitcoin as a method of Payment; Accounting operations to be finalized • Bitcoin IRA
7% - 8% - 9% -10% Daily For Life Time
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 04:44PM by muzo2543 http://bit.ly/2oorlxt
Anti-FUD: The BIP148 enforcing client - a walkthrough.
There seems to be a lot of FUD going around surrounding http://bit.ly/2oER6bR <--that little guy. I'm a programmer, so let me walk you through what, exactly, is changed, and how you can verify what changes for yourself.
So, to get started, click on the 'Compare' button just below the green button that says 'clone or download'. link
This shows you every single change that has been merged between bitcoin core, in the 0.14 branch (the branch that was used to create the 0.14 Core client many of us use) and this repository's version of the 0.14 client, which requires any blocks after August 1, 2017 to support Segwit.
So, let's go through the page, top to bottom, and explain what it is telling you.
19 commits 4 files changed 3 commit comments 3 contributors
That tells you that 19 times someone has changed something in the code base, in total, 4 files were changed by those 19 commits, 3 commit comments were made (think of these as replies to a thread on reddit), and 3 people total have made contributions to the code differences represented below.
Below that is a list of what commits were made on what day. You can click on the second column (BIP148 / Update client name to Satoshi BIP148 / etc) to see what changes were made in that version (compared to the version before it) specifically.
Scroll down until you hit
Showing with 19 additions and 5 deletions.
This is where the 'fun' (programming) begins.
src/clientversion.cpp
-std::string FormatSubVersion(const std::string& name, int nClientVersion, const std::vector<std::string>& comments) +std::string FormatSubVersion(const std::string& name, int nClientVersion, const std::vector<std::string>& comments, const bool fBaseNameOnly)
Red lines, which always start with a minus sign, means that line was removed from the file. Green lines, which always start with a + sign, mean that line was added. "But the line wasn't removed, just some stuff was added to the end!" Correct! This is a 'diff-ism'. Diff being the name of the program used to show differences between a file. Diff doesn't highlight just the part of the line that changed, it highlights the entire line, and leaves it to you to spot the changes in the line.
From the above, we can see a parameter was added to the end of the line. "But what does the line do!" Well, what you're looking at is a function declaration. What is a function? Well, imagine you wanted to build a robot to make sandwiches for you. You could make the sandwich yourself, but it's easier if an automated system does it for you. The function is like the robot; you put a specific set of tasks into the robot's programming, give it a specific set of inputs (bread, knife, meat/cheese/spreads/etc) and it returns the resultant sandwich. The way to read the declaration is this:
std::string FormatSubVersion(const std::string& name, int nClientVersion, const std::vector<std::string>& comments, const bool fBaseNameOnly)
- std::string The first argument is the return type of the function. In this case, a C++ string.
- FormatSubVersion This is the name of the function
- (const std::string& name, the first parameter of the function, since it is unchanged from Core, and unmodified by other changes in the file, I will not bother explaining what it does.
- int nClientVersion, Second parameter to the function. Same thing, original, unmodified, skipping.
- const std::vector<std::string>& comments, Parameter 3, unchanged, skipping.
- , const bool fBaseNameOnly) Parameter 4, 'const bool' means two things: 1) we cannot change the value of this variable in the code. 2) it's a 'bool' type, which is short for boolean. It an either be true or false, those are the only values it can ever have. What does it do? Let's keep reading.
std::ostringstream ss;
That's important for later, make note of it.
if (!fBaseNameOnly) ss << "UASF-Segwit:0.2(BIP148)/";
The above is the change uses the newly minted parameter 4 to add a bit of text into the output stream. Specifically, the string "UASF-Segwit:0.2(BIP148)/" is tacked on to whatever is ahead of it in the output stream. The net result of this change is that clients using this code will report their client version as '/Santoshi:0.14.0/UASF-Segwit:0.2(BIP148)/' instead of the standard value of '/Santoshi:0.14.0/'.
File complete! Next file.
src/clientversion.h
Within C or C++ programming, you have the concept of 'code files' (ending in .c or .cpp) and 'header files' (ending in .h). Strictly speaking, any code can be in either file and the compiler will figure it out (assuming you give it enough information to do so). However, programming conventions exist. Since I assume the readers of this post are (largely) not programmers, I won't bore you. It's a convention used for sanity only, and it is a convention followed by the bitcoin source code. In general, program code that 'does stuff' goes in .c and .cpp files, and the code needed to tell the compiler (compiler = the thing that converts these text files into a program) where to 'find stuff' goes into .h files.
-std::string FormatSubVersion(const std::string& name, int nClientVersion, const std::vector<std::string>& comments); +std::string FormatSubVersion(const std::string& name, int nClientVersion, const std::vector<std::string>& comments, bool fBaseNameOnly = false);
Well, because this is the exact same function call we just talked about in the previous section, I'll skip going through the parameters one by one, and instead focus only on the change: , bool fBaseNameOnly = false).
"WAIT! It has 'const' before bool in the .cpp file! That's bad right!?" No. The compiler will see const in the .cpp file and mandate the variable be const.
"WAIT! Here it says '= false' and in the .cpp file it doesn't!" Again, not a problem. Remember how I said some code goes in .c/.cpp files, and some in .h files? Well, this is a case where which file contains what code actually does matter. Basically, you can't set a default value for a parameter inside a .c/.cpp file. You can only do that in a .h file. So...that's 100% correct. Here is the souce code for a quick little program to see this behavior:
--test.cpp--
#include "test.h" #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> int main() { function(); } int function(const bool tmp) { tmp = !tmp; }
---test.h---
int function(bool test = false);
--If you tried to compile this, you'd get--
g++ test.cpp test.cpp: In function ‘int function(bool)’: test.cpp:12:6: error: assignment of read-only parameter ‘tmp’ tmp = !tmp;
In this case, 'read only' means 'was declared const'.
Remember how a 4th parameter was added in the code above? Well, you have to tell the compiler to expect that parameter, which you do here, in the header file. That line of code tells the compiler to expect the 4th parameter. It also sets the default value of the parameter, should the caller not specify it, to be false.
Thus, you can call this function two ways:
- FormatSubVersion("Test", 99900, std::vector<std::string>())
- FormatSubVersion("Test", 99900, std::vector<std::string>(), true)
Using method 1 would result in a User Agent string of '/Test:99900/UASF-Segwit:0.2(BIP148)/', because the program uses the default value of 'false' and so it sticks in the bit about BIP148 support. Using method 2 would result in '/Test:99900/' "Wait, wait, how did you figure that out?" Look here, scroll to the bottom (line 88) and that is the FormatSubVersion function we went over above. All you do is built the string in steps as you read the code:
- Line 90: ""
- Line 91: "/"
- Line 92: "/Test:99900" {the 'Test' comes from the 'name' parameter, parameter 1. The : is statically coded (<< ":" <<) and the 99900 comes from nClientVersion, parameter 2}
- Line 93: From the function call, we see that parameter 3 is initialized 'std::vector<std::string>()', this is an empty vector. If the vector had anything in it, it would look like this: std::vector<std::string>('a')
- (because the if statement in line 93 fails, we go to: ) Line 101: "/Test:99900/"
- Line 102: (are we doing a version with or without the 4th parameter set to true?)
- Line 103: (if parameter 4 is false, line becomes "/Test:99900/UASF-Segwit:0.2(BIP148)/"
- Line 104: Convert the 'ss' variable to a standard C++ string and return the that string to whatever asked this function to be run.
SO, in total, this function literally just creates a string. Much like the robot-sandwich example, you give the function a client name, version, and list of comments and it builds you a string containing those things.
src/test/util_tests.cpp
This file is part of the automated testing for bitcoind/bitcoin-qt. When you compile the software, you'd typically run 'make check' before installing the software, to ensure that your changes didn't break anything and that your compile didn't go wrong. With the effort I've put into explaining the change to FormatSubVersion in the past two section, I believe you can now see that the only change made to this test is to ensure that the newly added code performs as expected.
That said, there is a 'defect' in this code. He should not have removed the 3 existing tests. He should have added 3 new tests. That way he'd have both 'positive' and 'negative' test case coverage. That said, it isn't something to fret about.
src/validation.cpp
All right, finally, the big file where all the cool shit happens!
+ // BIP148 mandatory segwit signalling. + if (pindex->GetMedianTimePast() >= 1501545600 && // Tue 1 Aug 2017 00:00:00 UTC + pindex->GetMedianTimePast() <= 1510704000 && // Wed 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 UTC + !IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, chainparams.GetConsensus())) + { + // versionbits topbit and segwit flag must be set. + if ((pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) != VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS || + (pindex->nVersion & VersionBitsMask(chainparams.GetConsensus(), Consensus::DEPLOYMENT_SEGWIT)) == 0) { + return state.DoS(0, error("ConnectBlock(): relayed block must signal for segwit, please upgrade"), REJECT_INVALID, "bad-no-segwit"); + } + } +
The entire section is newly added. Anything it does will be 'in addition to' whatever is already done. Let's go through the change line by line:
- Line 1854: Add a comment (comments can begin many ways, // is one of those ways. Anything after a // on a line will be part of the comment.
- Line 1855: GetMedianTimePast is defined in src/chain.h (line 295-307) and returns the average timestamp of the last 11 (or fewer) blocks. Basically, because there are more than 11 blocks in the blockchain, and assuming you aren't looking at the first 10 blocks, this code will always give you the median time at which the last 11 blocks occurred. So..., let's say the last 11 blocks occurred at: 100,120,140,190,210,230,240,250,270,275,290 this function would return: (11 - 0) / 2 = 5, so it would return the 6th (computers count from 0) element of that list, so 100 is the 0th element, 120 is the 1st, so it would return 230 as the 'Mean' time.
"Ok, but what about 1501545600? How do we know that?" It's an epoch timestamp. Google 'epoch converter', copy-paste that number in, convert to UTC, and you'll see it is correct for what the comment says it is.
The '&&' at the end of the line means 'and'. So in this case, 'if the mean age of the past few blocks is greater than or equal to <date1> and ...'
- Line 1856: 'the mean age of the past few blocks is less than or equal to <date 2> AND...'
- Line 1857: Use's Core's own function to check whether the previous block (to the current one we are validating) support Segwit. So, at this point, the logic says: 'if the mean age of the past few blocks is greater than or equal to <date1> AND the mean age of the past few blocks is less than or equal to <date 2> AND the previous block did NOT support segregated witness, then do line 1859's actions (the bit inside the {}), otherwise, go to line 1865.
- Line 1860: This uses a bitwise-AND mask to determine what features the block supports. The mask is defined in src/versionbits.h Version bits are a feature of BIP9 which is easily explained at a high level at that link. In essence, this if statement says "If this block supports BIP9...". This is hard for the non-programmer to understand by reading, so I'll explain it this way: If you use the bitwise-and mask on a block with the format of a non-BIP9 block, then the result of the bitwise-and is the value of VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS. That is why it says !=, which means 'not equal to'.
You can see proof of this claim in the tests written in src/test/versionbits_tests.cpp lines 277-281. line 277 creates an 'old format' block, then (line 279) checks that the ComputeBlockVersion function works, then verifies that the bitwise-and function returns TOP_BITS, as expected.
- Line 1861: Parses the version mask to see if the mask signals support for SEGWIT. As of this line, the inner if statement reads: 'If this block does not support BIP9 messaging, or this block does not signal support for SEGWIT, then go to line 1862, otherwise, go to line 1863.
- Line 1862: Reject the block, stating that the block must support SEGWIT.
If you are concerned that more might be needed to reject a block, simply view src/validation.cpp on line 1892 and see that standard bitcoin Core code rejects blocks in the same way as the SEGWIT patch does.
"So wait, what is the total requirement to reject a block again?"
- If the mean age of the past few blocks is greater than or equal to <date1> AND the mean age of the past few blocks is less than or equal to <date 2> AND the previous block did not show that Segwit was in 'active' state:
- If all of the conditions in step 1 are met AND the block either does not support BIP9 messaging, or does not signal support for SEGWIT
- Then it will be rejected.
"So wait, what happens after the first segregated witness block pops across the network? Hasn't that already happened?" No. Blocks that support segwit have come across the network, but in order for IsWitnessEnabled to return 'true', the SEGWIT state would need to switch to 'active' (see BIP9 spec), which is the final state of any proposal, and the point at which the setting is considered an accepted part of the blockchain.
Conclusions
So, you see, no muss, no fuss. The day-1 bug where the logic was backwards has been fixed. There is nothing to fear. Feel free to ask questions and I'll explain them over the next few hours/days as I am able. I'll try to talk to your level if I can. I like teaching in general and abhor ignorance in all its forms. Understand: ignorance strictly means 'not knowing', rather than the typical 'negative' connotation it gets in English speaking society. I would like everyone to realize just how simple this UASF patch is and that the FUD surrounding it not being 'verified' is absolutely a bad joke.
edit: Logic fix thanks to Phil. Like shaolinfry, I had my negated logic backwards. Oops.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 07:05AM by Kingdud http://bit.ly/2nR87Cv
Purse.io missing 2btc of mine and deleted my post from their subreddit
Thursday, 30 March 2017
"Please, please continue using debt-based currency"
Bitcoin's core value add is and should continue to be decentralization and trustlessness.
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 07:39PM by mably http://bit.ly/2nz01fW
Ryan Selkis: I like Roger Ver, but this deck made me cringe. No investor I know would have even taken a meeting if this deck came in from someone else.
Charlie Lee: Wow! Twitter just did a softfork today and increased the char limit by not counting reply to names against the limit. It's just like SegWit!
Announcing the Bitcoin Core Config Generator
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 10:44PM by statoshi http://bit.ly/2nkgMtm
Roger Ver: I made some slides explaining why I think Core is on the wrong path for Bitcoin's future
F2Pool founder on Twitter: "I love my new [hard fork] shirt", uploads picture with GA Stone, BU's lead developer.
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 09:53PM by Drakaryis http://bit.ly/2ocHcBW
#SegWit increases the block size; there's no such thing as a "big blocker vs small blocker" only big heads & small minds.
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 07:27PM by Lite_Coin_Guy http://bit.ly/2nyXFxh
Pieter Wuille lecture on new bech32 address format
TIL about the original HODLER
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 07:46PM by fixone http://bit.ly/2mSyzwv
ViaBTC at its finest
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 10:47PM by dontthrowbtc http://bit.ly/2olAnLA
After Changetip’s Failure – Minitip Retries the Bitcoin Tipping Thing on Reddit
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 02:16AM by pinmore http://bit.ly/2nwGFIi
Ledger raises $7M to accelerate worldwide adoption of security solutions for Bitcoin and blockchain
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 11:01PM by murzika http://bit.ly/2njQrvx
BU is not providing a market alternative. They are launching an attack on an established and stable network in order to seize it.
Announcing the Bitcoin Core Config Generator
BTC ASIC Profitability Info
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 01:21AM by Bermuda_Shorts http://bit.ly/2mTjquM
First Bitcoin ATM Launched In Markham, ON, Canada!
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 07:18AM by localcoinatm http://bit.ly/2nBJEAF
MANAGED MINING CRYPTO CURRENCY LOW POWER
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 11:17PM by Navipro http://bit.ly/2nDX6UO
Ledger raises $7M to accelerate worldwide adoption of security solutions for Bitcoin and blockchain
London is against a contentious HF
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 12:14PM by smeggletoot http://bit.ly/2oAY4yv
Coins.ph supports a single version of Bitcoin, which is Bitcoin Core (BTC)
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 02:53PM by Lite_Coin_Guy http://bit.ly/2nmGQoo
F2Pool founder on Twitter: "I love my new [hard fork] shirt", uploads picture with GA Stone, BU's lead developer.
ViaBTC at its finest
Bitcoin's core value add is and should continue to be decentralization and trustlessness.
How Japan Prepares to Recognize Bitcoin as Method of Payment on April 1
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 03:04PM by nbie http://bit.ly/2oBEEtx
TIL about the original HODLER
Big headline Germans tabloid Bild: 40 out of 400 savings banks start charging for cash withdrawal from their own ATMs. The poll in that article shows that 93% of the readers are outraged.
#SegWit increases the block size; there's no such thing as a "big blocker vs small blocker" only big heads & small minds.
In light of Wang Chu's (F2Pool) recent suggestion to drop the blocksize limit in 2020 with the 32MB protocol hardlimit in mind: even 24MB blocks would grow the blockchain by it's current total size (106GB), *each month*. 32MB = 1.6TB/year.
SegWit failures on segnet
Our @ElectrumWallet server is now signaling for UASF. Connect to 158.69.102.114 port 50002! We will always stick to @bitcoincoreorg chain
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 07:49AM by klondikecookie http://bit.ly/2ocFXCX
Bruce Fenton"GMax has a point...people asked for capacity increase and core DID deliver with SegWit." '
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 11:38AM by mcr55 http://bit.ly/2oAIFi2
So, looks like litecoin will activate segwit leading to massive pump - no telling where bitcoin would be now if segwit got activated
Coins.ph supports a single version of Bitcoin, which is Bitcoin Core (BTC)
How Japan Prepares to Recognize Bitcoin as Method of Payment on April 1
Antminer s7 slight problem
On the status bar when I first reboot the machine, all chips are Os. However, after a few minutes of running, one chip becomes x. This happens all the time; is that chip actually damaged or is it just trolling me?
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 04:05PM by Icethrone5 http://bit.ly/2nOsdO0
3% for 60 days automatically to your Wallet
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 04:33PM by muzo2543 http://bit.ly/2oByARG
How Bitsquare would deal with a BU hard fork
Using 21 to Survey Blockchain Personalities on the Bitcoin Hard Fork
London is against a contentious HF
Bruce Fenton"GMax has a point...people asked for capacity increase and core DID deliver with SegWit." '
Bitcoin entrepreneur Amir Taaki quizzed over fighting in Syria
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 01:43AM by Scerdoo http://bit.ly/2o9clWI
Well, I didn't see this coming: Amir Taaki (Bitcoin developer, Intersango & Darkwallet founder) has been fighting ISIS in Syria - BBC News
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 04:29AM by Drakaryis http://bit.ly/2oiKJMh
How an Anarchist Bitcoin Coder Found Himself Fighting ISIS in Syria
Submitted March 30, 2017 at 04:39AM by xezirone http://bit.ly/2ozR5WK
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
In the words of Satoshi. Longest chain means nothing if it is created by malicious miners.
From Bitcoin whitepaper
"The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers." Satoshi Nakamoto
BU has every right to fork, problem is that BU specifically Peter R is threatening to attack the bitcoin valid chain with dedicated hashing power in intentions of killing it and making it unusable by mining empty blocks and orphaning. Instead of seceding peacefully , this is a threat to overthrow in attempt to force everyone against their will onto a system he feels is better. We are not infringing on BU's right to exist or create their own fork (and yes, technically BU is a fork). But they are infringing on our rights as bitcoin users by threatening our existence. By definition such is a tyranny.
In the words of Satoshi, the longest chain is valid unless the longer chain is result of attackers.
Or at least this is the way I interpret it. Satoshi, if I am misinterpreting your words please correct me.
Submitted March 29, 2017 at 10:52PM by Cannon-C http://bit.ly/2o7Swiz