I love that part because it describes what he and his lackeys are up to right now, as I type this.It's easily possible for a sufficiently aggressive minority to end up taking over Bitcoin through social means, regardless of the technology it has.
at least "that tool" (as you said) helped us to talk about the blocksize and we will hopefully come to a solution.mike hearn is a tool
he must be stopped
I love that part because it describes what he and his lackeys are up to right now, as I type this.
More to the point, the bug was in the old version. The fork would still have happened without Mike Hearn's code that inadvertently fixed it, because the Berkeley DB code wasn't just inconsistent with his Level DB code, it was also inconsistent with itself, so it would randomly reject blocks or not depending on how long it had been running, and how files happened to be laid out on the disk.Bugs are a normal part of software development.. It has nothing to do with being a bad developer..
Mike has the right intentions and he's working hard for bitcoin, I don't get the level of agression some people feel for him.
My smart phone wallet based on his BitcoinJ is doing a pretty good job by the way.. no bugs until now..
Are you still talking about the Berkeley DB fork? Like I say it was a long-standing bug in the previous version, not a problem with the LevelDB implementation. It wasn't even an incompatibility between the old version and the new, correct version, because the old version was also incompatible with itself.all i know is he is bad at testing code.
do you really want bad code testers behind the reigns of a multibillion dollar cap (potentially trillions and quadrillions) transaction network?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests