264 entries in 0.901s
assbot: Sergio Lerner: "1) I'm finalizing a BIP: A new Efficient Compact SPV Proof scheme. A chain of 2016 hdrs can be compressed into 10 hdrs, proving 50% of work. / 2) This will be key piece for 2-way-peg system we (Rootstock) contribute to Bitcoin, via
hard-
fork. / 3) Yes, can also be soft-
fork." : Bitco ... (
http://bit.ly/1QnQwei )
adlai wonders whether we'll first see a
fork fail soft or
hard thestringpuller: mircea_popescu was right. this
hard-
fork thing forced hearn out of bitcoin
thestringpuller: person claims Coinbase et. al will use consumer deposits to finance their side of the
hard fork war
mircea_popescu: Anything that is more of a soft
fork will kick in immediately (as long as it doesn't drop pre-
fork clients off the network). Anything on the p2p layer (ie.
hard forkable) will be kept in the wings until the next
fork date (as roughly estimated from block height) and then is enabled.
mircea_popescu: Every 6 months, either on March 15 + September 15 or on April 15 + October 15, the Monero network will have a
hard fork. 30 days before the
fork we will have a code freeze + tag + release, and if there are no major changes we'll have an increase in the protocol version (ie. that's at a minimum). A similar
fork system to Bitcoin will apply, whereby a rollover to the new code after the trigger block will only occur if a
mircea_popescu: "Basic bottom line: every 6 months there's a
hard fork. You get 1
hard fork's grace before you have to update or be left behind.
mircea_popescu: "here's the
hard fork. mine the first block or go away"
mircea_popescu: since we're doing nonsense ("you can't teach a class in nonsense. but the history of nonsnese - that's scholarship!"), can anyone explain why exactly would a
hard fork not start with its own genesis ? outside of the fundamentally fraudulent, pious or otherwise, attempt to pretend like it's something it is most assuredly not ?
mike_c: this terminology.. how is yet another altcoin a
hard fork punkman: "BitBeat: Bitcoin’s Noisy Size Debate Reaches a
Hard Fork" some hilarious titles
BingoBoingo: "This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually
hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks."
mod6: so i guess there is still a bit of a
fork in the road; even if we do all of the
hard work of ensuring peoples host dependantcies are installed before any compiling is even attempted, do we even want that to be a thing, as stan said, this is now obsolete. And do we now maintain a lot of other things for buildroot?
mats: i have been considering the possibility of .cn backing the
hard fork assbot: Logged on 18-06-2015 16:30:55; mircea_popescu: a
hard fork is this enchanted moment when you borrow the heavenly forge and ... well... rewrite the rules.
ascii_field: in fact, even if nothing is visibly changed, a sane rewrite is in fact arguably a
hard fork assbot: Logged on 18-06-2015 16:21:50; mircea_popescu: but for the record, no
hard fork proposal can be seriously considered that fails to include a fix for such scatteromobilia throughout the codebase.
mircea_popescu: a
hard fork is this enchanted moment when you borrow the heavenly forge and ... well... rewrite the rules.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: but for the record, no
hard fork proposal can be seriously considered that fails to include a fix for such scatteromobilia throughout the codebase.
☟︎ danielpbarron: and the unix timestamp thing is a good example of when to
hard fork thestringpuller: so garzik proposes a soft-
fork, and the shills act more retarded than ever stating, "No. We need to
hard fork the network and up the cap."
danielpbarron: do you still think a
hard fork is "acceptable for expediency's sake" ?
thestringpuller: wake up this morning and all I see in my BTC feed is derps talkinga bout
hard-
fork?!?
thestringpuller: asciilifeform: seems like "clustefuck to the
hard fork" type deal goin on.
copypaste: Yep, haven't heard of him in a while. When his buddy Andressen tried to be relevant again everyone just laughed at him until he gave on his
hard fork idea.
danielpbarron: "I don?t really have a strong opinion on block size either?but if we?re going to do a
hard fork, let?s use this as an opportunity to create a good process for
hard forks (which we?ll inevitably need to do again in the future)." << leave it up to these guys and the 21 million cap will be lifted in a matter of years
nubbins`: 'cause there was totally a
hard fork duod.
assbot: Moderator asks audience, "Who here thinks there will be a
hard fork missile crisis?" /petertoddbtc raises his hand.
assbot: Successfully added a rating of -1 for NewLiberty with note: He think's a
hard-
fork is, and I quote: acceptable for expediency's sake.
mircea_popescu: "He has made an investment in up to 10k nodes that would be obsolete if Gavin pushes through his
hard fork."
danielpbarron: "Thanks. This is very enlightening and reveals the true motivations behind Mircea Popescu objections. He has made an investment in up to 10k nodes that would be obsolete if Gavin pushes through his
hard fork. Why doesn't he honestly bring to the community these concerns as one of his principle motivations so we can try and find a solution together? The fact that he is not being forthright with this concern is troubling to sa
danielpbarron: well if they aren't reporting a greater version then they might as well not be using it (the version is used to decide with the
fork,
hard or soft, happens)
thestringpuller: so is the bitcoin incentive program going to scale into "If you upgrade to
hard fork, we'll incentivize you *wink wink* ?!?"
felipelalli: to "confiscated" the gold (I heard about that but I have to study more deeply). I came to this conclusion because I know bitcoin can't be available 24/7 forever. It will eventually fail in some situation (for example during a bad made
hard fork - either because Gavin's gang spoiled or not) and at that time everybody should already is using some strong second coin to be used as backup during a temporary "bitcoin blackout". I think this coin
assbot: Logged on 21-01-2015 18:11:39; gavinandresen: a
hard fork means everybody running a full node must upgrade, or they will be on a different chain
CoraCrisT: so Kim Kardashian is publishing her new book/photo album called Selfie or Selfish... Amazon is selling a book with Satoshi`s posts from bitcointalk and gavin wants to
hard fork bitcoin...
felipelalli: increase the 21M max coins is possible through a
hard fork?
gavinandresen: ben_vulpes: yes; a soft
fork makes the protocol more strict. You have to
hard fork to make it more lenient.
davout: ben_vulpes: a soft
fork is making the set of valid blocks smaller, a
hard fork is the opposite
gavinandresen: a
hard fork means everybody running a full node must upgrade, or they will be on a different chain
☟︎ gavinandresen: … that was a soft
fork, not a
hard fork, but it still caused people to accuse me of trying to destroy Bitcoin
mike_c: which isn't really true. and the fact of that will become interesting when mpex takes a side on the
hard-
fork.
mircea_popescu: The 1 MB block size limit needs to removed as soon as possible, and replaced with something that scales automatically, rather than through risky
hard forks that require political consensus. It's 2015, Microsoft, one of the largest companies in the world, accepts Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin network can only handle 3 transactions per second, unless there is a
hard fork. Getting rid of the 1 MB block size limit is long overd
mircea_popescu: could lead to Bitcoin community splitting into two networks, or a
hard fork could end up not happening due to community infighting. Both of these would be disastrous for the Bitcoin economy.
mircea_popescu: reddit : "You're only looking at the technical side of it. Leaving the 1 MB block size issue for later is risky due to political/social reasons. Every
hard fork brings with it uncertainty and risks because it requires wide consensus to be carried out smoothly. As long as these risks hang over the Bitcoin economy, many companies will be hesitant to make long-term commitments to the Bitcoin economy. Afterall, a
hard fork danielpbarron: what with all the
hard fork drama, i'd say anything that can be kept centralized should probably remain centralized
thestringpuller: i kinda want him to release statement "I'm going ahead with
hard fork"
mike_c: and this is before the
hard fork.
assbot:
Hard fork block size politics: do we want decentralized digital gold, or just another Visa? : Bitcoin ... (
http://bit.ly/1DON8PY )
mircea_popescu: "This is one of the shittiest pieces of fear mongering I've ever read.
Hard forking is and should be a natural and regular occurance and never has any
hard fork ever threatened the block chain. It's called natural selection. Have a little faith in the educated masses"
mircea_popescu: <sgornick> First, gotta get some vocabulary simplified. When we had the unplanned
hard-
fork March 2013, we had the protocol "pre-v0.8' and "v0.8" . What do we call this protocol with the
hard fork implemented vs. that without the
hard fork (i.e., unchanged? ) << bitcoin vs gavincoin.
davout: sgornick: it was a
hard fork in the sense that not all implementations behaved the same way, not in the sense that a rule was changed
davout: sgornick: it wasn't a
hard fork in the sense that no rule was changed
sgornick: First, gotta get some vocabulary simplified. When we had the unplanned
hard-
fork March 2013, we had the protocol "pre-v0.8' and "v0.8" . What do we call this protocol with the
hard fork implemented vs. that without the
hard fork (i.e., unchanged? )