|
Title: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 09, 2016, 04:40:50 PM Im just brainstorming here. #1 Reason to fork bitcoin is to remove the Ninja mined Satoshi coins. See what I did there, the parallels to the eth attackers coins... Opposite direction from No really, I'm sure you've thought that an Ixcoin 2.0 reboot would allow for some extra freebees given to the ixcoin foundation for future developments. Step 1. Fork bitcoin Step 2. Add in ixcoin merge mined code etc Step 3. Add in a special address with new foundation coins. Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Amph on August 09, 2016, 04:49:57 PM ninja mined coins? those were necessary to mine to support the nertwork, and since bitcoin was worth zero at that time, i see no comparison with etheruem
Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: unamis76 on August 09, 2016, 05:52:58 PM This seems to be a fork with the sole objective of blacklisting coins and/or diminishing the total supply, thus this fork is effectively an altcoin (this thread will most likely be moved)
Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Cyrus on August 09, 2016, 06:29:02 PM Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: iGotSpots on August 09, 2016, 06:35:20 PM Lol, step 2 is funny. If BTC is going to be the auxilliary, then who's the parent?
Why even move this thread, just delete this clueless bullshit.. Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Kellor on August 09, 2016, 06:47:12 PM Satoshi did not ninja mine the coins. He was there to support the network. Satoshi's coin should be kept.
Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 09, 2016, 07:25:03 PM Im not calling for removing satoshi's coins.
But since we are on that topic if you applied the same scrutiny to bitcoin that we do with alts then yeah, bitcoin was stealth mined. Yes satoshi needed to support the network but he also could have burned the initial big blocks of coins, who knows, his coins might be lost already due to loss of priv keys. Eth is brought up as an an example of a blacklist. But Really i was bringing up the idea of adding in coins to a special foundation account for future development, which would be a premine of some sort. Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 09, 2016, 07:28:12 PM Lol, step 2 is funny. If BTC is going to be the auxilliary, then who's the parent? Why even move this thread, just delete this clueless bullshit.. Bitcoinix merged with bitcoin. Why can't bitcoin fork and add mege mining to one of the chains and merge with itself? Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 09, 2016, 07:30:03 PM This seems to be a fork with the sole objective of blacklisting coins and/or diminishing the total supply, thus this fork is effectively an altcoin (this thread will most likely be moved) This thread is for discussions of a hypothetical topic. Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: scamrise on August 09, 2016, 07:45:54 PM i dont like fork
i dont like etherium Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: European Central Bank on August 09, 2016, 08:14:24 PM i'm sure satoshi woulda been absolutely delighted to share mining with as many people as possible as early as possible. it's extremely easy to forget how nothing it was when it got started. and I don't buy this million coin thing.
Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: iGotSpots on August 10, 2016, 12:27:19 AM Lol, step 2 is funny. If BTC is going to be the auxilliary, then who's the parent? Why even move this thread, just delete this clueless bullshit.. Bitcoinix merged with bitcoin. Why can't bitcoin fork and add mege mining to one of the chains and merge with itself? That's even worse Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: MarketMagic on August 10, 2016, 11:30:25 AM Satoshi did not ninja mine the coins. He was there to support the network. Satoshi's coin should be kept. Surely satoshi has earned those coins by creating bitcoin in first place?Should he work for free?? Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 10, 2016, 01:32:36 PM Lol, step 2 is funny. If BTC is going to be the auxilliary, then who's the parent? Why even move this thread, just delete this clueless bullshit.. Bitcoinix merged with bitcoin. Why can't bitcoin fork and add mege mining to one of the chains and merge with itself? That's even worse Thanks for all the explanation spots. Even though I've witnessed many taking a shot at you over the years for being a coin cloner, I've never said anything. You are the guy that makes lots and lots of clones only to drop all your shit on the scene right? Well why don't you have an actual opinion other then 3 words you goof. Title: Re: New Bitcoin Fork BitcoiniX discussions Post by: Nasakiotoes on August 10, 2016, 01:34:27 PM Satoshi did not ninja mine the coins. He was there to support the network. Satoshi's coin should be kept. Surely satoshi has earned those coins by creating bitcoin in first place?Should he work for free?? Im not calling for removing satoshi's coins. But since we are on that topic if you applied the same scrutiny to bitcoin that we do with alts then yeah, bitcoin was stealth mined. Yes satoshi needed to support the network but he also could have burned the initial big blocks of coins, who knows, his coins might be lost already due to loss of priv keys. Eth is brought up as an an example of a blacklist. But Really i was bringing up the idea of adding in coins to a special foundation account for future development, which would be a premine of some sort. Remember reading? It works great. |