Community Directory

Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Video: Tokenly Pocket installation and use

    Tokenly Pockets en espanol! es muy facil y rapido!

    You know if somebody wanted to localize all the text which isn't that much we could probably let users change the language of the interface.

    paging @loon3 how much trouble am I in saying that?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship


    @adam I enjoyed that Sangye, i'd say if you want to go through an do a round of revision (just to tighten it up), i'd be interested in including your reading of it on an upcoming episode.

    Sure, i'll do that, my writing process always needs a lot of revisions. I'll work on it and send it to you in case it is relevant to what you're doing. Some of what i say is regurgitating other ideas i have picked up, but i am doing rounds of contemplation on this to see if i can get into other perspectives.

    I don't think you need to change it that much.

    It's only regurgitation if what comes up is worse than what went down.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    I enjoyed that Sangye, i'd say if you want to go through an do a round of revision (just to tighten it up), i'd be interested in including your reading of it on an upcoming episode.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    Of course

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @frankenmint That's what I used initially and then one day it just didn't show approved token balances anymore. Now the wallet system says there's a bug in that address that prevents me from verifying signatures with it.

    Yup, there are some stability and legacy problems (such as message signing)

    That's exactly why we bothered creating our own wallet implementation which fixes those problems (you can sign messages in the apps tab)

    Any particular reason you don't want to use it? It's actually more decentralized than counterwallet since it does everything in-browser instead of needing to make calls to a counterwallet server which can and often do fail.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @frankenmint how soon till i can use counterparty again? You suggest to use tokenly plugin but I don't want to use it personally.


    You can always use - Why wern't you able to use it before?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @dlight @Adam

    I'm extremely surprised that LTB would be supporting this obvious attempt at a "coup d'etat" against the Bitcoin system. To put control over the system in the hands of one guy is nuts.

    We're not supporting it but we are very much supporting its right to exist and be talked about.

    @Cryptonaut's statement "For the record, at LTB we will be switching all our nodes over to Bitcoin XT to ensure we stay on the proper chain when the fork is triggered early next year."

    is clearly stating that the LTB network is taking sides - which is a big mistake.

    I'll assume you haven't read the whole thread because this has been discussed at length. We are not supporting XT but we are planning to take steps to be compatible with the network, whatever network, emerges from this kerfluffle. Whether or not XT happens, we'll be working explicitly because we're not taking an idealogical stance against the upgrade.

    So to recap, by upgrading our nodes (which, since they do not produce blocks do NOT contribute to the XT change) we are protecting our services and our users from disruption, not taking an ideological stance. @cryptonaut and I have both explained this in previous posts - "proper fork" does not mean that XT is the proper fork, it means whatever the network decides we will be compatible with.

    The whole point of a distributed system like Bitcoin is that it should be a set of rules that are extremely hard for anyone to alter. The idea that one guy (using the Gavin's name recognition) can fork the network is outrageous and pretty much defeats the whole purpose of crypto-currency.

    While it probably doesn't hurt anything to increase the block-size to 8MB - the further increases up to 8GB are extremely questionable - opening the network to attack in the future. Plus there are numerous other changes to the XT code which are not even being discussed. Why should all of Mike Hearn's pet projects suddenly become adopted with no discussion? Not to mention all of his future pet projects.

    At the moment the public has largely forgotten about Bitcoin so traffic on the system is minimal. But once the public wakes up to the fact that Bitcoin is alive and well - traffic could increase by orders of magnitude in a short time. Just increasing the block size by 8 times doesn't even catch one order of magnitude.

    So as many have said - increasing the blocksize is just a stopgap measure until far more scalable solutions - like payment channels are introduced. Solutions which could handle the many orders of magnitude increases that will be required for Bitcoin to become widely adopted globally.

    Fundamentally bitcoin is a peer to peer system. Peer to peer means that blocks must get bigger or instead of scaling vertically the system will need to scale horizontally (more blockchains that can each be intercompatible with each other but stay smaller individually) if it is to stay a "peer to peer" system

    Payment channels are interesting, Lightning network is interesting, lots of things are interesting but none of them are solutions by themselves and all of them contain sacrifices that aren't really discussed when we talk about them as if they are solutions.

    We need to remember that these increases tend to happen all at once - not gradually. The network needs to be able to very rapidly explode in size without choking. Just altering the blocksize doesn't achieve this.

    But allowing a coup just to make this temporary fix - is crazy. As the person claiming to be Satoshi said - it will give Bitcoin the appearance of a failed experiment - since it will give dictatorial control to a single person - one who has vowed to do whatever he wants regardless of what the community thinks.

    I hope @Andreas weighs in on this and I definitely request that cryptonaut remove his prominent statement declaring that LTB is switching over to XT.

    I understand your frustration but appreciate that actually it is you who have picked a side here, not me. You view one potential fork as not having legitimacy in your eyes to exist, you've picked your team and now you're fighting for your team.

    I have not picked. LTB has not picked. Tokenly has not picked. We are being conservative, taking precautions to not be impacted regardless of what happens to the bitcoin network and watching the behavior and arguments coming from both camps.

    There isn't really any advantage to be had picking sides for those of us who just want a good outcome and aren't invested in a particular team. I'd encourage you to step back and just see how this thing plays out rather than crying heresy and supporting the inquisition just because people you respect are calling an undesirable alternative (from their perspective) a coup.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .