No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions. I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way. [/quote] Pure strawman. I was talking about security exploits, not specific features that some altcoins may or may not have. You can joke all you want, but Bitcoin is still losing market share to the alternative cryptocurrencies and that is a fact.
I was not joking when I said mister V was behind it. I am familiar with the history of Dash, I do not consider it to fundementally undermine the currency of Dash today. I can agree that the history is "shady" but whether that effects the viability of the currency today is again an opinion.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. We know the definition of the word 'shady' and it perfectly aligns with what happened with DRK in the first few days. This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain.
No. The chain is not immutable, as was demonstrated with a rollback. As soon as you do this once, it sets a dangerous precedence. Please let me know if my DAO fails miserably why you won't roll back and bail me out like the Fed? Oh wait, "The DAO" was too big too fail. I wonder where we've heard that before.  Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.
Straw man. Maybe it is best not to get into a full discussion of the pros and cons of these events and of the design of Ethereum and Bitcoin, but as proof of work blockchains their governance, and transaction immutability are actually identical on a technical level at least. So my point is that your opinion on these altcoins are an opinion and not a fact.
No. Stop defending mutable shitcoins. Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact?
Yes. I can't tell you how though, since that's confidential. The transaction volume on these chains is obviously much lower, but the transactional capacity of these chains is much much higher.
I'll believe it once I see it. Until such time, these are just unbacked claims.
Hint: Every-time you say "Bitcoin maximilism" to back up your arguments, you just end up looking like a fool. |
|
|
|
|
The database was stolen back in 2015. I have not received any kind of spam email. What are you going on about?
|
|
|
|
Forums can be held liable for defamation by their users if they know about it and don't remove it.
No, I highly doubt anybody is going to remove something that doesn't break the rules unless requested by a court order. I doubt that this reaches that threshold but if a site allows other users to troll newbies in such a way it doesn't say much good about the site.
You aren't being trolled, and such users usually deserve what they get (i.e. it is a consequence of their actions). Thousands of newbies are doing just fine here. |
|
|
|
Yes, at a 1mb transaction limit, it would scale linearly from today's worst case and still allow any transaction that is currently valid.
Who are you to prevent me from making a 1.01 MB transaction if the block size allows it? I see a bad precedence here. If you pay for a data rate and they don't deliver that data rate they have breached your contract.
Flat rate is usually based on fair usage. You should read the small print. Other coins are working hard on massive throughput and are continuing to grow.
None have succeeded with that, nor do they have many users. Not that this is a bad thing. The promise of bitcoin was not that everyone can run a node. The promise was that no single entity could control the issuance of money.
They are both related. You lose decentralization, you will also likely lose values such as that. I disagree with the last part, that was not *the only promise*. The good news is that if it doesn't, some other coin will.
There isn't even a single viable candidate yet. |
|
|
|
I'm a respected member of the crypto community.
A respected newbie? I think he should be banned.
Trust ratings aren't moderated unless there are extreme cases of abuse, ergo they won't be banned. |
|
|
|
First of all, use good grammer. Do not use "u 2 4" and other things like that. Make sure your comment is about the post and it states an idea and is constructive. Also make sure your comment is not less than 100 characters. Maybe 100 characters is a lot but comments like "I agree" "Yes, it is a scam" "+1" are of bad quality.
Those examples are not examples of posts that are nonconstructive, but rather those that are of very low value and as such would be deleted by the forum moderation team (as those break the rules by default). Also when your done writing your post look for red underlines and it will help correct most grammar and spelling mistakes people make.
This is good advice that I can agree with; the browser should be able to detect common spelling mistakes (it doesn't really work on grammar). Unfortunately, not too many people use this. Just dont copy or repeat what others have already said.
Copying content will get you instantly permanently banned. You may be talking about 'rewriting' what others have said. Do a through research before posting and last but not least be original,honest and speak your mind
Those three values are useless if you post on topics where your knowledge is either lacking or very flawed.
For the others that have mentioned it: The length of a post does not matter at all. Stop throwing in random trivial numbers and flooding this thread with bad advice. |
|
|
|
As you see, there is a demand for Ukrainian local board, so if more activity in Ukrainian topic is the main requirement, so ok, I think I will be able to gather people together and you will see more activity within next month than in last two years.
It is really hard to get a group of people to post "I need/want X" on Bitcointalk. This demand is still far from adequate and it doesn't justify a section. If you're able to activate the Ukrainian community first within the respective thread that they currently have, then it should work out in the near future. |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is a lot of work, if someone really wants me to catalogue these, I'll continue, but otherwise, I'll keep it at that for now.
Will continue when I have time.
Thank you for doing that! I'm not an expert on trading these cards, but if you want to auction them maybe you should group them in lots by rarity (e.g. shadow-less cards, and then by sets or something). Nice thanks I'll also be interested in buying shadowless cards in near mint condition.
I would also be interested in doing this, so it may be worth auctioning them off (as also mentioned above). |
|
|
|
To those wondering about the price - I listed my conditions pretty clearly in the OP. Send me your offers.
It is really hard to make an appropriate offer without knowing what I'm actually able to buy here. The pictures make it hard to analyze the whole lot. A full list of card names would definitely be helpful. That is likely going to result in much higher offers. |
|
|
|
Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.
No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions. Thirdly as I proved earlier in this post Bitcoin has been losing market share steadily over the last two years, while the altcoin market cap is growing consistently.
That doesn't matter since the market cap of Bitcoin has been growing. It has been the highest it's even been since early 2014. Besides, we all know who's behind the altcoin pumping schemes. Hint: The last name starts with a "V". I can give you many examples, and I support all three of the projects I just mentioned, I could go into defending each of them on their merits, but I am busy enough attempting to defend the original principles of Bitcoin here on this forum.
You can say why you like them, or why they may be good but you can't change any of the things that I've said because they're facts. There's no need to sugar-coat it. |
|
|
|
I can see Bitcoin easily being overtaken during this period, this is one of the reasons I am also invested in the altcoins. Bitcoin truly seems stagnant in comparison to me, the alternatives are able to innovate much faster and already have much greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin.
Stagnant based on what, having the highest market capitulation since late 2013/early 2014, having the higher number of transactions per day than it ever did, having the by far(!) the best development team in the ecosystem? Please tell me what's the "stagnation here". Hint: Not being able to process a number of TXs that you want != stagnation. I think it is ridiclous for you to say that 2MB is not safe. We have discussed the reosons for this extensivly already, for anyone intrested just look at our post histories.
I'd use a nice word that I use for people that usually say this, but then you'd cry out to ad hominem. 2 MB is not safe, not matter how you put it, no matter what you say, it doesn't change that since it's a fact. Obviously you can use 2 MB safely if you create normal transactions. However, it's just a matter of time until someone starts constructing TXs that will DOS the whole network as validation will take too long. I am presently mining 17MB blocks on the testnet using Bitcoin Unlimited.  I couldn't care if it were a million TB blocks, that doesn't change the fact that they're inherently unsafe and carry a huge security risk (disregarding the fact that such blocks would kill decentralization very quickly). Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivizing collateralized full nodes that also vote and can handle greater load. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.
Dash has a very shady history behind it, I know since I was an early adopter. ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized. Additionally, they've had very troubling security problems with the DAO and now with geth. Monero will likely end up being illegal if it picks up. Don't even get my started on the transaction volume on those chains. Anything else? |
|
|
|
I am also correct in saying that doing segwit as a hardfork makes it much more efficient.
This would take a lot more time, and wouldn't be "much more efficient" in it's current state. Deploying it with a hard fork isn't even a big change. There was a post by maaku on reddit stating that it's rather just a few lines of code. Can they hardfork the ability for Node hosts to get a small reward? It would be nice to upgrade my Raspberry Pi.
A hard fork can pretty much change anything. However, the question is always "Should we change that?". The answer to your suggestion is a clear: Not likely going to happen. |
|
|
|
Moderators,
please create separate section for Ukrainian language in Bitcoin Forum > Local
Then community will available to create different threads and child boards
We need it
It was already explained, several times and by several members, why that isn't true and that it's not likely going to happen. Have you even read a single post in this thread? I highly doubt that you did. |
|
|
|
I think that are specifically wrong in saying that you are anti controversial hard forks, I think that increasing the blocksize will always be controversial because of the culture of believe that has now been build up in the Bitcoin community, according to that reasoning we should therefore never increase the blocksize limit? I think this is fundamentally flawed, especially considering how important a parameter this blocksize limit actually is. I think part of the difference in our opinion is that you are also not taking the competition into account.
No, that's not what a controversial hard fork is. A consensus based upgrade (via a HF) of the block size limit is very possible. A controversial fork would be one trying to push only up to a certain percent of miners, which make up a 'majority' or even a minority, which is far different from upgrades based on consensus. My argument stands on its own, if Core simply increased the blocksize limit to two megabytes it would reunite much of the community and Bitcoin would not be currently suffering from a congested network, which is currently causing transaction delays, increased fees and unreliability.
We have been down this path before, it is unsafe to do so. Just because you may not know or understand why that is, that doesn't make it any less true. There may even be security issues at 1 MB that are not publicly disclosed for the obvious purposes. Whoever you ask about such, I doubt that they would disclose them outside of their 'inner' circles due to safety reasons. I know you like to paint me as being an extremely unreasonable person, however what I am proposing here is very reasonable, most people outside of this field would recognize that the small blockist are taking an extreme and fundamentalist position. Most big blockist are applying pragmatic rationalism. Ideally I would just remove the blocksize limit completely or use an adaptive blocksize, as a compromise we proposed the mechanism within Classic, for an increase to two megabytes, we went from 20MB to 8MB and finally to 2MB, and I could argue using Bitcoin Unlimited we could even agree to a 1.1MB blocksize limit. There has been zero compromise from the small block camp, after 18 months. There is not even a blocksize limit increase on the Core road map.
As soon as the quadratic validation time problem has been solved, I see a semi-near future in which it is possible to increase the block size to a total of ~3-4 MB (includes the base expected amount that Segwit should provide, which is around 180%, i.e. 1.8 MB). However, the parameters are certainly going to be much different that you guys are expecting them to be. Doing a HF, which requires ALL custom implementations to be upgraded (this takes time for big businesses) just for a block size limit upgrade is also inefficient. The next HF should be optimally carry desired changes that require a HF in addition to a capacity increase with a grace period of 6-12 months. |
|
|
|
Pa 100% je sigurno da onaj koji organizira "kocku" (casino i.c.) zaradjuje na nju...  Sigurno je i to samo ako imaš igrača. Ali da, generalno svaki Casino ne bih trebao da moze propasti jedino ako su nesposobni ili se daju prevariti. Ovo sto neki tvrde da imaju neke sigurne metode da dobivaju pare kockajuci su obicni lazovi (da ne koristim grublje rijeci). |
|
|
|
|
I also think that you should start an auction and try to group up cards by rarity. This makes it much easier for collectors that aren't invested in this particular area do their research and places bids. I also highly suggested posting the names of the cards per lot on auction. It would make it much easier to do research conveniently.
|
|
|
|
Is it allowed to have several language topics in "Other languages" section? For example one topic for markets, one topic for news and one general topic?
No, you should not do that. All the discussion should be taking place within the singular thread until such time has come where there's a need for a separate section. Then, and only then will you be able to create multiple threads about differentiating topics in that language. |
|
|
|
What Bitcoin wallet are we talking about here? With Bitcoin Core an old wallet backup should work with the -rescan option if: 1) You do not generate more than 100 addresses (as these are pre-generated but hidden). 2) You do not import any other addresses afterwards. In which file is stored most important data that i want to backup and protect?
For Bitcoin Core you just need to backup the "wallet.dat" file found in your DATADIR. This file is usually under 1 MB. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
