Lead Embedded James hilliard bitcoin and James Hilliard 00whiterabbit, also 'Unrealistic': BIP architect for a cryptocurrency and I.C - Amid Market Boom. 'Unrealistic': and open Bitcoin discussion Set New All-Time Highs and open Bitcoin discussion Hilliard discovered an exploit new stealth projects/companies. Python, Segwit2x. James hilliard Bitcoin has been praised and criticized. Critics noted its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity victimised by miners, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. whatsoever economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble. James hilliard Bitcoin is A new currency. If you are living in a country where you have associate degree official Bitcoin exchange, you don’t need to trouble some nearly buying Bitcoins. You hindquarters quickly employ skyward for these exchanges and transfer monetary system from your financial institution account to James hilliard Bitcoin.
James hilliard bitcoin'Unrealistic': BIP 91 Creator James Hilliard Has Choice Words for Segwit2x - CoinDesk
Up until recently it really was. Setting up a full node or even just trying to use bitcoin core as a wallet is just a horrible user experience the first time. Waiting 2 days to download and synchronize the blockchain? It sucks and it's partly why I haven't run a full node in years. High fees and a mempool backlog are more recent problems.
Also, you can single out individual devs, and definitely some of them get under my fingernails at times, but bitcoin core being design by committee means that it is robust to the quirks and oddities of individual people. But it won't happen because he's one of many devs.
Be thankful of that. People should be furious at anyone who's been part of the effort to hold back segwit for over a year. Really just a shitty thing to do and shows how little some people care about Bitcoin and the community. Putting their personal political interests and feelings over real progress. Just unbelievable that anyone can tolerate such people in the community.
It still pisses me off that Barry Silbert chose to validate these bad actors with his 'agreement' that just rounds up some of the worst offenders and attempts to elevate their status as decision makers or controllers of Bitcoin, while the whole community is here having our scaling roadmap delayed for a year or more. Oh wow you mean they are giving in to AXA's demands? What ever happened to that argument? Are they OK over there at rbtc? Uh oh, they didn't drink our koolaid did they?!
Looking forward to segwit without a redundant node centralizing hard fork. It's always nice to see the best ideas prevail, and the shitty ones dissipate into the air, like the credibility of that charlatan with the million eth smile.
Be thankful it's not EC, at least. The last thing we need is giving miners with high hash rate another tool by which to secure their dominance. There's also another small bit of comfort for you: it takes a hard fork to increase block size, but you can decrease it with a soft fork. We need miners approbation to downsize the block or we can unilaterally SF down without them having a say? Nodes can soft fork a block size decrease without miners. It would be a UASF situation of course I don't think we'll need to do this, though.
I understand the slippery slope argument, but the hard fork plan so far really doesn't increase block size that much. I think it'll be fine. Nodes will feel it, I'm sure, but not enough to lead to centralization. Commonly, the argument is that we want to see what happens to the capacity once segwit is released and blocks steadily grow to include more transactions.
If LN makes it to the scene rapidly, and gains wide adoption fast, a blocksize increase is not required, and should be avoided. Unfortunately, that scenario will probably not happen, as wide adoption of LN will probably not happen in a timeframe that prevents another backlog as we are currently experiencing.
It lowers security, lowers distribution and lowers censorship-resistance. The 3 main selling points of Bitcoin.
I'm a bot. Thats why we need UASF's and tbh. There has to be some sort of negative consequence. Otherwise they will just continue herp derping like they do now. Most miners, some are obviously vocally against. I've noticed the same. They mine as-is until something doesnt work. Then they scramble to fix it. Soft forks aren't supposed to require any particular support threshold, and there are a large number of soft fork activation systems. BIP 8, for example, which seems like a big contender for future soft forks, and it technically doesn't require anything at all - it's a "this is happening in 12 months but you can make it happen sooner if you want" type deal.
Other soft forks can even elect to not require miner signalling at all. At the end of the day, soft forks are backwards compatible. This means that the actual activation is actually determined by whether or not anybody bothers to run it, and consequences are not really a big deal if it doesn't get a majority of support.
Now, hard forks, that's a different story. You want a lot of hash rate support and hopefully even node support for something like that. The BIP is unclear to me. What is its purpose? So there is zero chance of a chain split. Segwit will not activate as intended. The conclusion is not to force it into existence, but to fix the problems surrounding it and try again. In fact I think a better proposal might be a pre-mature deactivation of segwit by rejecting all segwit signaling blocks starting Aug 1st.
Edit: correction I've been advised that 0. Hey man can I have 0. Rounded down that's like 0 BTC, so you won't mind right? Can I have another 0. And another the day after that? That's fine, right?
Stop spreading FUD please. Not going to happen. Also for those less informed 'coins wiped out' would only apply to transactions happening after the chain split, and then only if magically this 0. So far you've accounted for 0. So that chain will fork off. Bye bye. There are almost 2 months left, plenty of time to gather more hash power behind BIP Don't judge too soon. It's better to activate Segwit on August 1st than sit another whole year doing nothing but fighting over what should be done..
Until Jihan pulls the plug on it, so that he can enjoy another year of unimpeded Asicboost mining. I actually think Jihan and others will mostly stick to their guns on SegWit2x. For the simple reason that they can't blame core this time when the agreement falls apart The numbers could change sure. Lots of things are possible. BIP is bad because it is likely to cause a chain split even if side has low hash power.
If they have large hash power the situation is worse for everyone, really really worse. At that level, I can't help but wonder whether this lowered threshold would lead to a chain split anyway. Segwit's main selling point was that it could offer a major update without disrupting the network. Proposals like the one here and UASF challenge the very premise on which segwit's current implementation is built.
Instead of an upgrade with very little risk of a chain split, we're more likely than not to have one. Under these conditions, segwit might as well be deployed as a hard fork. At least then, the update need not trip over itself trying to maintain backward compatibility. It's still much safer as a soft fork because new nodes will be able to relay legacy blocks and transactions. Under a hard fork, the new nodes would be told that legacy blocks and transactions are outright invalid.
They must also maintain that majority over time. The point of BIP-9 was to ensure just that. Interesting to know. How's a PoW change going to change anything? Don't you think that BitMain will be dominant again given their existing experience, infrastructure and financial power?
Perhaps when changing to an existing PoW such as scrypt it could push non-BitMain hashpower up in the short term. That's just because it's a scamcoin nobody cares about. I have to say, it's refreshing waking up to something that at least on a preliminary glance actually appears to work equally with both sides.
I'm curious though. This would seem to lead to a SegWit lock in before the NY agreement nodes go live. Now I assume some signatories only really care about SegWit. Might they pull out of the agreement if they see the opportunity? If the signatories were all on board with the hard fork, they wouldn't need to reinvent the SegWit signaling and activation system to couple the two things.
All rights reserved. Bitcoin comments other discussions 3. Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds. Submit link NOT about price. Submit text NOT about price. Get an ad-free experience with special benefits, and directly support Reddit.
Bitcoin join leave 1,, readers 7, users here now Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Only requests for donations to large, recognized charities are allowed, and only if there is good reason to believe that the person accepting bitcoins on behalf of the charity is trustworthy. News articles that do not contain the word "Bitcoin" are usually off-topic. This subreddit is not about general financial news.
Submissions that are mostly about some other cryptocurrency belong elsewhere. Only select developers and companies were originally invited to the mailing list and the Slack group where testing is being done and talked about. Although, the Slack opened to new members as of yesterday. Bitcoin Core contributors unanimously reject the proposal, for instance, yet their feedback has been ignored or outright dismissed.
And to many, Hilliard deserves the credit. James Hilliard image via Flickr. Read more about Disclosure The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group , which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups. Market Wrap.