its not about a bigger market capitalization..
its not about more money.
Nonsense. The people who are primarily pushing for ridiculous block sizes are the ones crying out that we need more users. It's obviously about money. If it wasn't about money, you'd be taking a safe path with scaling as there is zero need to risk anything. As I've previously stated, I'm not anti-HF as in consensual upgrades, not controversial splits. I think that Bitcoin will split multiple times, within the next six months. Nobody can really stop it, that is a beautiful thing. I suppose somebody could create a "genesis fork" with a six month grace period, it would most likely not be the first chain to split off the Bitcoin network and gain a significant market share.
Just by saying that splitting up the userbase, infrastructure and network as a whole is a "beautiful thing" makes me question the sanity of some people. Nothing good can nor will come out of that. Just confusion that will generally have negative side-effects. core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy
No, Core isn't prevent anything. You're free to write a HF proposal as a BIP and see whether it gains attraction. |
|
|
|
|
I don't see the point in threads like these. Bitcoin is a currency. You can acquire Bitcoin the same way as you can acquire any other currency, and that is by doing work. If you are skill-less, and lacking capital, then you are likely going to do something that provides you with a very small amount of money (e.g. faucets, signature campaigns). Generally, most of the signature spammers are probably from the low class if not poor. Besides, since you have access to internet you also have access to unlimited learning potential. You could start with something easy, such as learning HTML and CSS and expand into website development.
|
|
|
|
To vam nije neka nova ideja. Odavno je to poznato pod pojmom "arbitrage": Arbitrage is the simultaneous purchase and sale of an asset to profit from a difference in the price. It is a trade that profits by exploiting the price differences of identical or similar financial instruments on different markets or in different forms. Arbitrage exists as a result of market inefficiencies.
Samo to je mnogo teže u praksi raditi kako bi se zaradile neki bitni novci. Naročito kad je razlika toliko niska (u ovom slučaju 12$), te kada uzmete u obzir sve naknade (fees), da vam je potrebna velika količina Bitcoina da zaradite bilo kakvu solidnu svotu u krace vrijeme. |
|
|
|
Go ahead, bury your head in the sand. That is the normal response from morons who don't want to see anything other than their own stupid ideas on matters.
False. I'm very open to ideas, this one is just idiotic. It is you who's the ignorant fool trying to push through a catastrophic ideology. Fork is not dangerous. Fork is good.
So breaking the whole network infrastructure is good? Sure, let's all vote today and fork it in 28 days. If you can't update your custom implementations in that time-frame, you shouldn't even be a part of the ecosystem. All praise the amazing fork!  Fork is an opportunity for everyone to vote.
Again, there are several proposals. The problem is that nobody sane wants them. Preventing a fork is Greg Maxwell's way to assure Blockstream will soon be forcing everyone to pay 'sidechain fees'.
This is just pure bullshit. Nobody will be forced to pay "sidechain fees".
Isn't it interesting how people would sacrifice the intrinsic blockchain values inherent to Bitcoin, just in an attempt to gain a wider user-base, i.e. bigger market capitalization, i.e. more money? |
|
|
|
Just use the search function and/or look around in this section. There were several threads regarding this. Here's one: Turns out the forum is still listed in the PBL. I'll remove it from there.
There are a million little things you have to do to make a new IP "clean" from the perspective of many email providers...
|
|
|
|
Here's another representation of the data that we have collected so far. Out of the first 40 sets, we know the location of 71% of the coins: 
Out of those found coins, minerjones is the owner of 30% of them: 
The next manifest update is on hold until we open yet another box. |
|
|
|
It seems that it may be the right time to ignore this user before someone starts accepting some of this obviously misleading and false information. Nobody is preventing anything, nor is this bullshit true: In Satoshi's view, a fork is very readily available everyday. Anyone can fork and forking is good. Now, the fork action is prevented because of collusion of miners and Core. With no fork, no consensus.
There are several HF proposals, the problem is that nobody wants that crap. Forks are very dangerous for a widely developed system if not properly planned and deployed. |
|
|
|
Well I respect your opinion about this, but by making this topic facilitates it more rather than reporting in silence.
I appreciate the report, however you are wrong. I have said this numerous times now: Reporting obvious cases such as this one is much more convenient and faster. Moderators usually work through their report list before checking out Meta (or at least that's how it is for me). In addition to that, this creates unnecessary clutter (if we start opening threads per-user). A thread may be better in difficult cases, or bulk reporting neither of which is the case here.
It's just a matter of time before hilarious or Cyrus sees it. I've notified one of them just to be sure. |
|
|
|
Advertising spam is not allowed: Advertising spam is not allowed, this includes mining pools, gambling services, exchanges, shops, etc. Mining pool ops should make a thread within the Mining section of Alt Currencies. Most OP's already link to pools available so advertising your pool is unnecessary and leads to too much spam. Exchanges, shops, gambling sites, etc, should make a thread in the Marketplace section of Alt Currencies.
Where exactly have you posted regarding your pool?
Update: Nevermind, OP is banned. |
|
|
|
I follow the rules here
please explain me why mod prohibit my post?
What did I do wrong?
I can't really tell you anything if you don't give me the link to your account. I work just here to earn money from bitcoin,are you happy to see all my children are starving, when I stopped off here,if I lied about my situation, you can look at my life and see house measuring 2x3 meters.
That's not really my problem, and as such is irrelevant to your ban. This makes me think that you were likely banned for spamming the forum as a signature participant. |
|
|
|
1 , e , 1 , e so far. Will pay when it starts filling up if OK.
I've reserved all your tickets. It is fine to pay up later, as it is likely going to take a while before it fills. Thank you for participating. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Ref. spam.
|
|
|
|
Why cant they combine it? Isnt that how a pool works... combining lots of smaller miners? Isnt that what happens with a 51% attack? The owner of the pool is able to do whatever they want with the hash of the pool?
Well, I think the word "combine" is wrong, since we are talking about multiple pools and hundreds/thousands of miners. There's a distinct difference between everyone mining on 1 pool, and people mining on 5 pools owned by the same person (with different locations and servers). However, I get your point now. I've viewed this from the wrong perspective. Franky1 explained it, in a semi-decent way: you dont need to combine it.
-snip-
you just need 4 pools of 13% = 52%
Tl;Dr: If you wanted a rule change, you could 'push' the updated software on all of your pools at the same time. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Begging.
|
|
|
|
I hope you noticed the question mark at the end... I was thinking one location and two pools, not separate locations with different pools. I have my doubts if this is true decentralization. I would rather want to see separate companies hosting 1 pool than having 1 company hosting 2 or 3 pools under the same umbrella. If I am wrong, I apologize.  I understand. I wouldn't prefer to see two pools being hosted at the same location under the same owner. This doesn't promote much decentralization as seen in my node example. I do agree with you (separate companies hosting their own pools). If I own the top 5 pools (even if they are in different locations and such) whats the difference in that and owning one huge pool with the same hashrate? In either case I am the single owner and could potentially use that hash at my own will. Being in multiple locations doesnt even make it harder to consolidate the hash together. Just point and shoot.
You're talking about it like the pool owner is the owner of all the hashrate, not just the pool. They can't just easily "consolidate" all the hashrate of a huge number of miners, mining at several locations/pools, connected to different servers. However, your example is also a bit hyperbolic. I don't think Bitmain is going to gain a lot more hashrate (total combined of both pools), but who knows. |
|
|
|
How is one company creating a secondary pool, promoting decentralization? You just pull the wool over people's head, by creating the illusion that this is a separate entity to the original pool. Most people will not even know that it's the same company after a few years.
So you're telling me that if I host two separate pools, possibly even in two completely separate locations (as opposed to having only 1 pool in 1 location), it won't help decentralization at all? I beg to differ. Example: Hosting 5 nodes under the same ISP/cloud service/etc. is much more centralized that hosting 5 nodes all around the world, regardless of who the owner is. I'm fully aware that it would be much better for a completely separate entity to host another pool, however this is better than nothing (IMO). |
|
|
|
You are thinking about this from a very limited perspective. Do you really think that Bitcoin would ever be legalized in places like the US if it were 100% anonymous (hint, nothing is 100% anonymous)? The answer is obviously no. Generally I'm very pro-anonymity and privacy, however it should be opt-in, not opt-out. There are some proposals that will help with the anonymity such as Tumblebit.
A good way to make Bitcoin fully anonymous is to sell it and buy monero in its place.
This sentence does not make sense, and has nothing to do with making Bitcoin fully anonymous. If/when Mycellium starts automatic mixing with their rumored new wallet will make that easier. The more people mixing, the harder it becomes for our privacy to be cracked.
I don't think it's a question of 'if' anymore, but rather just 'when'. I've read about that feature not long ago, should be very useful indeed. Drug dealers are not the only group of people who want privacy. People like Snowden or journalists who will get beheaded for talking smack about their government on the internet do too.
Correct, however there are plenty of methods to obstruct blockchain analysis to a certain degree. In addition to that, they can't really prevent you from converting to fiat (you can always face-to-face with someone for cash). |
|
|
|
|
As we've observed with ETH, hard forks can go terribly wrong when rushed. A minority is enough to keep another chain alive. This sets a very bad precedent, both by forking without consensus/reverting events and by rushing a HF. In addition to that, a rushed HF would render a LOT of custom implementations invalid pretty quickly. Do you even realize how 'long' it takes for companies to both update, test and deploy new software to their whole infrastructure.
I'm not saying I'm anti-HF in general, however I'm against irrational decision making with a very limited view point. I think that a HF, with a grace period of 6 months may be plausible and would likely not be against it (dependent on the change-set of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
