Bitcoin Fork Divides Community 185
HughPickens.com writes: The Bitcoin community is facing one of the most momentous decisions in its six-year history. The Bitcoin network is running out of spare capacity, and two increasingly divided camps disagree about what, if anything, to do about the problem. The technical issue is that a block, containing a record of recent transactions, currently has a 1MB limit. Increasing the block size would allow more transactions on the network at once, helping it to scale up to meet growing demand. But it would also make it more difficult for ordinary users to host full network "nodes" that validate new transactions on the network, potentially making the digital currency more centralized as a result. Now Rob Price writes that two high-profile developers have released a competing version of the codebase that risks splitting the digital currency in two.
Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn have released Bitcoin XT, an alternative version of the core software that supports increasing the block size when required. Bitcoin users will now be forced to decide between "Bitcoin Core" and Bitcoin XT, raising the prospect of a "fork," where the digital currency divides into two competing versions. According to Price, Core and XT are compatible right now. However, if XT is adopted by 75% of users by January 2016, it will upgrade to a larger block size that will be incompatible with Core — meaning that if the other 25% don't then choose to convert, it will effectively split the currency into two. So far, 7.7% of the network has adopted XT, according to website XTnodes.com. "Ultimately, how the dispute is resolved may matter more than the specific decision that's reached," says Timothy B. Lee. "If the community is ultimately able to reach a consensus, the process could become a template for resolving future disagreements. On the other hand, if disagreements fester for months — or, worse, if a controversial software change splits the Bitcoin network into two warring camps — it could do real damage to Bitcoin's reputation."
Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn have released Bitcoin XT, an alternative version of the core software that supports increasing the block size when required. Bitcoin users will now be forced to decide between "Bitcoin Core" and Bitcoin XT, raising the prospect of a "fork," where the digital currency divides into two competing versions. According to Price, Core and XT are compatible right now. However, if XT is adopted by 75% of users by January 2016, it will upgrade to a larger block size that will be incompatible with Core — meaning that if the other 25% don't then choose to convert, it will effectively split the currency into two. So far, 7.7% of the network has adopted XT, according to website XTnodes.com. "Ultimately, how the dispute is resolved may matter more than the specific decision that's reached," says Timothy B. Lee. "If the community is ultimately able to reach a consensus, the process could become a template for resolving future disagreements. On the other hand, if disagreements fester for months — or, worse, if a controversial software change splits the Bitcoin network into two warring camps — it could do real damage to Bitcoin's reputation."
LOL (Score:5, Funny)
...and two increasingly divided camps disagree about what, if anything, to do about the problem.
Any bitcoiner worth his salt will tell you that any problem will be taken care of by the market!
Re:LOL (Score:4, Informative)
No, but this problem will. If BT-XT gets enough traction to switch over, every other client will add support too, since the alternative is being incompatible with 3/4 majority of the network. The same goes for any other solution or change anyone might come up with.
And that's pretty obvious, too. It's what happens with every network protocol change for every P2P network. What makes this one interesting is the emotional responses it draws out. Just what are those directed against? The usually quoted reason, "pyramid scheme", can't be the real one both because Bitcoin is not a pyramid scheme and because actual bona fida intentional scams - like Mars One - don't draw nearly this amount of outrage. Do people simply love PayPal so much they can't bear the thought of them losing business, or do they fear some economic meme - for example "deflation is bad" - being proven false?
Economics holds the place of religion in our society, but has gone unchallenged since the Soviet block fell, so it's fascinating to see what issues and conflicts get dragged into light as the dawning Information Age hatches a new round of revolutions.
Re:LOL (Score:4, Insightful)
This isn't some Betamax vs VHS debate. This is a very niche group of enthusiasts that have managed to attract some attention from speculators. If they break the standard the speculators will go find something else to try to get rich off-of, the corporations that have appeased the market by accepting Bitcoin will stop accepting it, and it'll crash.
Bitcoin's reputation? (Score:5, Insightful)
There wasn't much left of a reputation before this new crisis...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it'd be like lighting the burned out building on fire again. Or letting the hooker convince it's her first time.
Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:2, Insightful)
HAHAHAHA what the hell, Bitcoin's reputation is fucking awful as a scammers paradise. How the hell can you damage something no sane person would touch?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value. If Bitcoin didn't do that, there would be no ability to use it to scam.
Why aren't you claiming that dollars have an even worse reputation because they're involved in even more scams? Are you insane, or do you refuse to touch US currency?
Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly.
For a lot of people to adopt Bitcoin as a currency, they will need to see the value of a bitcoin stabilize and not swing around wildly.
That's right. All the people 'investing' in Bitcoins need to stop getting a return. The things need to be passed around, not speculated in.
Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Value in comparison to what, exactly? Where is your proof that Bitcoin scams cause its value to "swing wildly?"
Do you not consider the economic events circa 2008 to be the result of scams related to US dollars? Why don't you consider the current US Federal Reserve policy of printing money in order to prop up the economy to be a scam?
Bitcoin has been more stable than multiple national currencies (Venezuela being only a recent example).
Rather than making unsupported blanket claims, perhaps you should focus on documented facts.
Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market dropped over 50% (DJIA). The US unemployment rate doubled (Oct07-Oct09).
Support your claim that Bitcoin fluxuates by more than 2x daily, or admit you're ignorantly making things up. You can't, because it's never happed on even a single day, let alone consistently as you claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you comparing entirely different things? BitCoin is a currency (or that is what it is promoted as), not a stock market or employment.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not happy with comparing a currency to things which are supposed to represent value, such as the stock market or earnings potential, what do you suggest?
In any case, the comparison was already accepted in the GP, which went on to argue the magnitude with pulled-from-his-ass numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Currency comparison is well established - when the ratio changes, both moved. One got stronger, one got weaker. Its no different with Bitcoin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 50% drop in stock market valuation is not the same thing as a 50% drop in the value of dollar. For that you'd have to look either at buying power or compare it to other major world currencies.
At no time during the crisis did the dollar's real buying power decline by 50% Bernake was terrified the entire time the buying power of the dollar might increase and did everything he could to stop that actually. I an no fan of the feds measurements. I think the basket goods they use and the hedonic adjustments
Re: (Score:2)
The fact it's value swings widely compared to commodities, major currencies etc is so painfully obvious only a troll or a blind zealot would be dumb enough to argue otherwise.
I doubt it can be proved that 'scams' are why it fluctuates so violently, but that's hardly a good thing for bitcoin. At least if it's lack of stability was down to scams there might be something that could be done about i
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin has been remarkably stable for quite a while now.
If you count a 50% drop in a year remarkably stable, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
6 months is not "quite a while". Come back in 10 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin has been more stable than multiple national currencies (Venezuela being only a recent example).
Source?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you don't have any other source for what you just claimed other than Googletard?
Re: (Score:2)
VEF 1 year max/min (dolartoday.com) 696.77/82.46 ~= 845% (real world VEF/USD exchange rate, not the "official," government regulated one)
Bitcoin max/min (coindesk.com) over past year 516.16/177.28 ~= ~291%
Both relative to USD (although the ratio is inverted) for simplicity.
Re: (Score:2)
So, you are telling me that the value of the Venezuelan Bolivar I should use for reference is the one that the street traders in some lost city of Colombia (Cúcuta) are willing to pay for it?
Well, in that case the price of Bitcoin dropped almost to zero since if I go around in the street (and well, I live in city bigger than Cúcuta by almost 1 order of magnitude) where I live and ask people to trade/accept bitcoin for payment, nobody accepts that (even the bitcoin vending machine we had is gone no
Re:Do damage to Bitcoin's reputation??? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ass Pennies
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The US Currency scams don't cause the value of US currency to swing wildly.
The US currency is backed up by the USA government. Bitcoin is backed up by an algorithm that crunches numbers and serves absolutely no other purpose. As soon as people realize there is no point in keeping a computer crunching numbers with no practical purpose (highly likely if the price of bitcoin continues to crash), Bitcoin looses it's value. US Currency can only loose it's value when people see no point and using it to pay the USA government their taxes or any other contribution, even if they decide to
Re: (Score:2)
"Why aren't you claiming that dollars have an even worse reputation because they're involved in even more scams?"
Because of clawback, of course.
Re: (Score:3)
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value.
Store value with Bitcoin ? This is pretty risky. However, Bitcoin is great to transfer value in a quick and cheap way.
Re: (Score:2)
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value
Not really. It just has to be a perceived a speculative asset in order to use it as a scam. A classical example is the usage of Tulip futures as an highly speculative asset during a small period of the XVII century in Holland. Clearly the tulips where certainly not an useful store of value, and yet, due to the high speculation about it's price, it became a heaven for scammers to use it, leading to a major crash that affected the Dutch economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Which can only be true if Bitcoin serves its intended purpose as a useful store of value.
Intended purpose? There is absolutely no mention of "store of value" in the Satoshi paper. [bitcoin.org]
There's a lot of people like you who want to claim this or that as the "intended purpose" of bitcoin...you comprise an endless parade of ideologues trying to hijack a revolutionary idea and fit it into your preconceived notions of how the world works. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Cash," "coins," and "value" are all mentioned in the paper, and most people who speak English understand what the term "store of value" [wikipedia.org] means.
LOL! Yeah, "cash", "coins" (why is this in your list?) and "value" are in the Satoshi paper. But "store" is not, is it? Why is that?
Look, you don't have to go any further than the paper's abstract and introduction to see bitcoin's purpose explicitly stated. Sure, people can read a Wikipedia article and understand what "store of value" means. That bitcoin may or may not serve as a store of value isn't the point - your claim is that bitcoin's "intended purpose" is to be "a useful store of value" is. Yo
Whee (Score:5, Funny)
This Week In Dunning-Kruggerands
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I propose Bitcoin Mega eXtreme: "For when you really need to lose a lot of money in a hurry!"
Re: (Score:2)
Pssh, Bitcoin MiniITX will be the new hotness.
Re: (Score:2)
politics (Score:2)
Why is the limit a problem? IS it a problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing I don't understand about this, and that the articles never cover, is how much of a problem it is that the current block size is limited to 1MB in "core" Bitcoin. Is the situation that the Bitcoin network is coming dangerously close to having enough transactions to exceed that 1MB limit? Is it that Bitcoin has a problem like IPv4, where it has a set date at which it will likely exceed that 1MB limit and start having issues?
I would think that there must be some sort of issue, but then again it seems like the people behind Bitcoin XT stand to make a lot of money if the big Bitcoin exchanges switch over to their version of the currency, so I'm not so sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the situation that the Bitcoin network is coming dangerously close to having enough transactions to exceed that 1MB limit?
It is not, although the transaction rate is steadily increasing. The question is more about how Bitcoin should evolve, rather than imminent problems.
Bitcoin at its core is a notarization network using scarce tokens to prevent spam and data size limits against DoS. Relaxing the limit means more entries, which both helps with monetary use of these tokens as well as the their utilization for other purposes like asset transfers, dispute mediation, digital copyrights, etc. It also means more resource requirement
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious that if you want to be able to have more transactions/minute, the block size limit will have to go up. Everyone knew it had to happen sometime.
Check out this thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=322748.0 [bitcointalk.org]
Back then, 2013, large block sizes (granted, occuring once in a few weeks - not much considering there's one block every 10 minutes or so) reached 900k and even 990k. We're two years later, adoption goes up, and two core maintainers think it's about time we raise that limit.
Why not? Wh
Re: (Score:2)
The block size limits the number of transactions that can be processed in a given timeframe. In practice there is a limit of about 4000 transactions per 10 minutes with a 1MB block size, and if there are more than 4000 transactions in that time some of them have to wait for the next 10 minute period.
Increasing the block size means that more transactions can be processed per 10 minute period. It also increases the bandwidth costs for nodes on the network.
Some people argue that keeping bandwidth costs down an
Re: (Score:2)
Part of me wonders if the right solution is to increase block size, or to increase block rate. If the effort and reward for blocks were reduced, then you'd have less time between blocks, which still gets you a higher transaction rate, but it also gets you less latency.
What I don't understand is the relative impact on communications, processing, and storage of all those blocks.
There is a bit of a fundamental limitation on the nature of bitcoin. Right now the whole model of bitcoin relies on clients maintai
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure he knew that when he made his comment, which was kinda the point...
Bitcoin is dead. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How does Dogecoin address the same problem?
BitCoin is a Joke (Score:2)
You can't pay me in BitCoins. No real food. No firewood. No rent. No clothing. Millionaires starving out on the street because all they have are BitCoins. Sad.
Re: (Score:2)
But they'll be able to buy Oxycontin on the DarkNet and hire FBI agents to kill their ex-girlfriends, so in the end, they won't need rent, and they'll get three meals a day as guests of the state.
So in the end, it all works out for the best.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting and awkward solution to virtual money.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't pay me in BitCoins.
You can't pay me in Pesos or AUD. Does that make them non real currency?
No real food.
There's a food vendor (NinComSoup) in Old Street roundabout in London which accepts BTC. I passed the other day and was rather surprised to see that.
Re: (Score:2)
I can buy food at from over 1000 restaurants here, incl international chains like Dominos and Pizzahut.
(cue people saying those >1000 places don't exist, due to them not liking Dominos/Pizzahut)
neologism (Score:2)
From this day forward, a Bitcoin fork shall be known as a "bork".
It is so decreed.
In 1637, (Score:2)
Tulip bulbs sold for a quarter million in today's dollars, then someone realized that was crazy. What is a bitcoin again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of you (a) sending a bitcoin is borne by: (b) miner, (c) users running nodes - who have to store and verify your transaction for all eternity.
The miner and sender arrive at a fair price in this free market. Neat, right?
But, you do see that that conclusion rests on (c) being negligible, right? And, that's where the block size debate comes in.
Already, people's hard drives (and backups) are filling up because Joe sent Jack some 0.0000001 bitcoin somewhere. Imagine your hard drive, and everyone's hard drive filling up every time one of the billion users sends another of the billion users one cent for a negligible cost (because cost above 0 is free extra money to the miner.)
If blocksizes are not limited, (a) and (b) together maximize their profit by externalizing their costs to (c) where the cost gets amplified manifold.
So I'm not sure I understand the issue.
The 1MB block, what does it store exactly? What happens when it fills up under the current implementation? Is Joe unable to send Jack the 0.0000001 bitcoin? Is it really laggy? Do the records of some old transactions get discarded?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The simple Economics of it all: (Score:5, Informative)
Each transaction has a few KB worth of data.
You make a transaction of say 0.5 btc to an address. In a few seconds all nodes know about it, but it is not validated until it finds its way into a block
Miners choose a few of the unvalidated transactions to form a block and perform all the math needed to get a hash with the desirable characteristics (I wont expand on this here)
They are more likely to choose transactions that pay the fee (which is optional and can vary in generosity)
A new block is added to the blockchan network from the competing miners (whoever get the right hash faster). The difficulty of the right hash is adjusted every two weeks so that on average that happens every ten minutes
I had to say all that to explain the 1MB size. The way thigs are now, 1MB block size allows for about 7 transactions per second, so about 4200 per ten minute block. The size of the bitcoin quantities moved matters but does so relatively little so small transactions have relatively high cost in bandwidth (and bandwidth is what you pay for)
So imagine each block as a 4200 passenger seat train or plane. Thousands of passengers are waiting to get a seat. Some might get the next plane, other might get the next one or the one after. Naturaly, those that pay more will be guaranteed a seat while the freeloaders will be defered to the next one. As more candidate transactions appear all the time and paying ones get prioritized by the miners, some free or cheap ones will never get through and if a transaction doesnt get through in 48 hours (I think) it is simply dropped from the network like it never occured at all
So if nothing changes, people will simply avoid making pointless transactions of a few cents worth because the fees required to make them validated will not be worth it.
If the block size increases, fees might not have to but the blockchain will continue to get bloated and so will bandwidth costs for nodes.
I prefer the former. We can always use other coins for small transactions and keep btc as the standard for longer term store of value
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting is that if only about 7 transactions per second are possible, Bitcoin is by design invalid for the very purposes people are aggressively trying to adopt it. You can never pay with bitcoin on a convenience store and you can never use it to exchange trivial things, as even the slightest hint of acceptance for this kind of business would immediately saturate the network - small towns process much more transactions per second than this, let alone the whole world.
Also, if I read that righ
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin proponents like to talk about how Bitcoin provides an alternative to regular monetary transfers. So let's say it catches on: all transactions which are currently done in regular currency are now done in Bitcoin. Are you really suggesting that 7 transactions per second is sufficient to handle the global economy?
No argument there. Bitcoin is sometimes touted as a micro-transaction system, but in reality it isn't really scalable even as a macro-transaction system.
I could see how it could evolve into some kind of large-scale currency exchange/basis/reserve system that other more scalable micro-transaction systems become based on. So, bitcoin controls the overall supply of currency but all the day-to-day happens elsewhere. I'm not sure how that would even work.
However, the idea of the average person doing average t
Re: (Score:2)
Everything the Feds need to trace it back to a drug dealer a few transactions ago and take it off your hands if they want once they take bitcoin seriously. Oh, you thought it was harder to trace than cash? You people really thought that? You were not joking?
No, not economics at all (Score:5, Insightful)
People who received a play-money system from a mysterious unknown person and actually convinced themselves that it has value are now facing a schism over the money market failing to grow without bounds. Unless, that is, the software is modified in a way that might, over time, disincent people from playing the game.
I can't be the only one who is thinking that the only problem is that these folks believe bitcoins have value.
Hell, I thought that the fiat currency of nations was a bad deal. This is an order of magnitude worse.
Re: (Score:3)
"these folks believe bitcoins have value"
Is there any currency in the world that has actual value beyond what the users believe? People believe that pieces of paper with writing on them have value, but the minute people lose faith, it becomes toilet paper. Your bank account is nothing but data stored on a hard drive, but you believe it represents purchasing power and you conduct transactions by shuffling bits around with other people who share your belief.
Fiat currencies have been around for centuries and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have to apologize for national fiat currency, it's silly too, and I don't keep my assets in cash. My problem with Bitcoin is that it is even less credible than "the faith and credit of the United States government", which has been the justification of the Dollar since it was allowed to float. It seems to be nothing but "wish and it will come true".
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to believe that BTC has long-term value to use it. It's a perfectly valid way to transfer money, for example, and the exchange rate really doesn't matter in that scenario.
Re: (Score:2)
Where's your math? This whole 5-point score rant is basically a big long ad-hominem argument, with not even a single link to back up your claims (who disagrees with Gavin?...).
If you want more transactions per minute, you're going to need a higher limit; a higher limit puts more stress on the nodes and the network [bitcoin.it]. That's where the argument lies.
Adoption rises and technology progresses, so, from continuity, there is some point in time where the higher stress is not as much an issue, and we will need the roo
1MB ought to be enough for anybody? (Score:3)
I can't believe that 30 years after it was first published,
When we set the upper limit of PC-DOS at 640K, we thought nobody would ever need that much memory. — William Gates, chairman of Microsoft (April 1985)
That people are still thinking small-time even when we've known for a decade that data usage is increasing at an exponential rate.
1MB is half of a Intel Celeron CPU cache, and even the N720 Atom has 512kB.
And you expected to run a digital currency system from 2009 until the end of time?
Inexcusable to have a hard-coded limit.
Re:1MB ought to be enough for anybody? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like PHP. Horribly designed, but it does something nothing else was able to do at the time.
PHP: horribly insecure, but a quick and dirty way of mixing in dynamic HTML with some DB access without mucking with forced MVC of servlets and jsp.
Bitcoin: not ready to scale, not convenient for normal folks, has various attack modes, but easy enough to make paymensts long ditances with some measure of anonymity and "hands off" ness. I think of it more as an escrow system (that allows speculation) than an act
Reputation? (Score:3)
Reputation?
I suppose since a pyramid scheme needs a fresh supply of suckers to function that would be a very major worry. If it isn't such a scam then it doesn't matter so much does it?
I wonder when the DOSing starts (Score:2)
Get X wallets together and pass around .00000001 bitcoin between them as fast as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
and everyone else learn a lesson without having lost too much.
Given that Ponzi schemes have been around for centuries, that seems . . . unlikely. They'll just convince themselves they need to invest earlier, next time. Some of the people, all of the time.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments can't inflate it, but everyone else can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they can increase the maximum block size, they can also increase the maximum number of of bitcoins.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like regulations to me.
Re: (Score:2)
If the price is in freefall, that means that the time to invest is coming up. The lowest price is the time to invest, as it will go back up.
Re: Transaction speed (Score:3)
Transactions are already verified in seconds. Each node in the network looks at an incoming transaction, and performs a number of tests on it (is the digital signature valid, did they have sufficient funds to make the transaction, etc.). If it fails any test, the transaction is not relayed to other nodes. Verified transactions eventually reach miners, who attempt to find a checksum (hash) for a block of transactions. Finding a valid hash is computationally difficult, on purpose. That makes it hard to e
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy a bitcoin online for $X and then spend it immediately on some sites to get $X worth of products.
Where's the scam?
Re: (Score:2)
You can go to nearly all sites and spend money that is recognised via major credit agencies, why take a chance on a do nothing vapour ware middle person, just why. Unless of course you intent is to break various countries laws which is why you choose to launder and hide transactions. So trust criminals if you want to be one?
Re: (Score:2)
You can go to nearly all sites and spend money that is recognised via major credit agencies, why take a chance on a do nothing vapour ware middle person, just why
No matter, that still doesn't make it a scam.
Re: (Score:2)
You can give your credit card number to people you've never even met and hope they're nice enough to not misuse it, yes. Why anyone would prefer this to a system where people aren't in a position to initiate more transactions from your account after you've done business with them is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy a bitcoin online for $X and then spend it immediately on some sites to get $X worth of products.
Where's the scam?
Bitcoin is currently dropping in price. Incredibly fast since the fight/fork was announced. So no, you can't buy for $X and spend for $X, the dollar value of the coins you purchased drop as soon as you give someone money.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is currently dropping in price. Incredibly fast since the fight/fork was announced.
Can you provide some evidence of that? I don't know much about Bitcoin, but a quick google got me to this graph [coinbase.com] which shows a Bitcoin's value to be fairly stable since the beginning of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin is currently dropping in price. Incredibly fast since the fight/fork was announced.
Can you provide some evidence of that? I don't know much about Bitcoin, but a quick google got me to this graph [coinbase.com] which shows a Bitcoin's value to be fairly stable since the beginning of the year.
That chart shows a halving in the BTC exchange rate over the last year. I suppose that you can argue that a persistent downward trend is "stable".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)