This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Low value, introductory thread.

That guy has been banned for some time now. I've spotted him not long ago.

It's unfortunate that some campaigns don't care whether their members have negative rating or not, otherwise the people from DT could do something about this as well. Quickly skimming through the last two pages: I've found zero posts that are worth reading.

I concur with this (fair point on the second sentence).

I can't answer that, thus you have a fair point.

The same applies the other way around: All I know is that you're a random member who's demanding that I remove their signature based on inconclusive evidence. You may very well have some history with them that I'm not aware of (an example).

I don't have to burn someone at a stake beforehand though.

Please talk about EcuaMobi in regards to that.

No, it shouldn't. The service in question would be negatively rated if it was a clear scam and that was not the case at the time (which is what I checked while entering, and after getting the PM). If I kept prioritizing things every time I got a message from a random member, I wouldn't have time to do anything.

How about you stop talking nonsense? I've joined Betcoin 6 days ago.

Someone finally gets it. If anything, DT members should have higher priority in such cases IMO.

I try to rationally accept the disrespect. That's the best that I can do I guess. I can't know to whom those alts belong, although the previous 2 threads were created by shills.

I don't see why I would do that.

How you forgotten about admin(s)?

No, you said "I wouldn't advertise for any coins in the world" and posted 2 links, which is less than OP PM'd me and equally useless to me ATM. That was about 2 days prior to the first PM of OP.

It should be, and would be deleted if it was not appropriate. Rules should be applied without exceptions regardless of a members position.

This is a trust related issue, right? So mind telling me why I'm being prioritized as a staff member (e.g. over a DT member) only when it (could) is 'negatively' effecting me? Additionally, don't be surprised if more 'random' people, that I've had strong discussions with (e.g. Core vs. Classic), hop on this bandwagon.

I've actually PM'ed EcuaMobi asking him to please provide me with the results of his own analysis, and it was inconclusive:
I suggest building a strong case again Betcoin first (no, you don't have that). That's the best way that you could 'effectively' stop their campaign if the company was truly a scam. This is what I've written via PM to someone and it still holds ground: "All that was required was to either give me a few days of time or provide a conclusive 'investigation' by a non-random (or possibly DT member) and it would have been removed." Guess what I had time to do besides sending a few PMs because of this thread (reading, processing and formulating takes up a lot of time) so far? Nothing. Additionally, the first experienced DT member concluded that there was no conclusive proof.

That argument doesn't really have a solid standing ground. Remember the times when the average block size was much lower, i.e. there was a lot of room for transactions (and users)? So why didn't the number of nodes increase (there are surely a lot of new users)?

The wording "fix of the lightning network" is bad and doesn't make sense. Lightning is not a centralized system.

Bitcoin is pretty cheap considering what it offers. It's unfortunate that some are just greedy and want to rush user adoption as soon as possible. What we should be doing is continue developing a very secure and resistant system (the less decentralized it is, the less resistant it is) that was supposed to help us move away from the corrupt traditional system (money out of thin air).

People really need to stop listening to him when it comes to technicalities.

This is somewhat of an issue right now, and this makes one wonder why anyone in their right mind would propose changes that would give the miners even more control (e.g. control the block size limit).

There is so much misinformation and misinterpretation in the Bitcoin ecosystem that it is amazing. The halving is just one of those events that draws attention and misinterpretation is bound to happen. I've seen articles about 'everything being in the hands of the miners' and other nonsense as such. I've also seen a lot of 'doomsday' scenarios regarding the halving & the hashrate in addition to some 'fee event'. It becomes increasingly difficult to find correct information and thus almost everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

That is only 'logical' and normal. It takes time for the market to feel the effects of a reduced supply.

Understood. It would be only natural, according to what you're saying, that the service in question received those ratings first IMO. So mind telling my for what reason am I singled out here, out of so many members (there's at least 1 DT member wearing their signature) and Betcoin itself? After a certain amount of time and accounts it becomes obvious to one.

I'm not and I haven't done anything wrong either. What you're saying would only be fair in case that every single participant receives that negative rating.

It would have an impact on the block timing (confirmations) until the difficulty was re-adjusted. Depending on the time (in the adjustment interval) at which miners turn off their machines (I'm not saying that this is going to happen), it would be a very 'annoying' < 2016 blocks.

No, that's a full wallet. I was actually recommending SPV which is better than using web wallets IMO. A SPV wallet such as Electrum does not take up much space and requires very little time to set up.

I don't think that we are going to see a drop in the hashrate (besides some temporary, small ones maybe).

Incorrect. I have asked the OP (kindly; now I see that it was a mistake) to give me some time because I have a backlog that needs to be worked down from. I added that disclaimer temporarily until I am able to verify what is going on, yet I get attacked even for that.

This has become a daily routine now.

All that was required was to give me time to evaluate the claims and decide or provide a conclusive 'investigation' by possibly a DT member (which ended up as inconclusive). Until that time, I don't see why I should comply with the requests of a random person. I don't even want to comment on this further, it is quite disrespectful at best.

---

Don't be surprised if Lauda is at fault for all of those as well.

Okay, that makes a bit more sense. That is indeed correct: If a sudden drop in the hashrate does occur, then the usual '10 minutes on average' would not be true until the next difficulty adjustement.

I highly recommend ditching Coinbase for a desktop wallet.

The correct wording (IMO): transaction speed (near instant) & confirmation speed (10 minutes on average).

If a decent amount of hashpower gets shut down, then it is likely that the average block timing will increase (until a difficulty adjustment).

There is no 'stable', they are always stable. You can't say the network is unstable because you've included a fee that was lower than the recommended at time. The miners determine whether your TX will get included in a block (mostly based on the fees included).

No. The halving can most certainly not have a direct impact on transaction speed. You don't seem to understand the difference between transaction speed (usually near-instant) and confirmation speed (10 minutes on average). The reason for which some people are experiencing unusual confirmation times is because they don't include adequate amount of fees.

In the case that mining is not profitable for some miners, it would not be surprising to see (some) turn of their machines. In that case the difficulty would decrease (assuming that other 'groups' haven't turned on more gear). That does not mean "the blockchain can become more stable again". The blockchain always was and will be 'stable'.

That may be very well a temporary thing. It is just a matter of time before a certain 'group' of people attempt to incite even further disruption with their nonsense. They've been pushing the date of the 'catastrophic-all blocks are full-event' further and further into the future. It just doesn't seem to come. The capacity boost that should be provided with Segwit should come gradually which should help 'ease' the additional resource usage by nodes.

This has nothing to do with the speed of transactions, which is practically 'almost' constant, i.e. is almost instant.

Well, that's not a 'problem' yet. This is a soft fork, meaning the community does not necessarily have to adopt it. Although with greater adoption comes greater capacity.

Before you post, complain about moderation or decide to go on a crusade against the staff, you should read this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0

It outlines general rules, answers some questions and gives a somewhat good idea overall of how the staff handles certain things. Feel free to leave suggestions in the linked thread.

You aren't using the right word IMO. I think that you mean 'activated'. Segwit is already implemented (the code is ready and works - segnet, testnet). In any case, Core can't be blamed for stalling anything. Good luck to the people with destructive behavior.

Indeed.

That coin is a prime example of what happens when you let inexperienced people run the show.

How about either reading my previous post or doing some research? Segwit is both released (in April) & merged (in Juni). Currently the developers are finalizing the release of the next client (0.12.2 and 0.13.0). They also have to set up Segwit activation parameters and then everything will be 'ready' for activation. Since this is a soft fork, it requires no such thing as you've mentioned (whatever it may mean).

Why waste time speculating when it is obvious that you're not familiar with the development process?

No. There is no 'being sure' when it comes to the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. The media, and the people in our communities would just be speculating as to who she is (or they are) as there is no conclusive evidence in that aspect. Additionally, as some people say it doesn't even matter who she is and I actually think that it is better that we don't know. Bitcoin does not need central figures such as that, it is better that they remain anonymous.

No, stop drawing to conclusions based on your own political bias. The moderators who are able to do something in this situations (or similar ones) are not 'strong' supporters of any implementation from what I've seen. They have avoided participating in those discussions. Just because they may or may not agree with you that does not mean they're biased.

Just a big 'no' to this suggestion. There is currently no option to report several posts at once either.

How about you don't talk about things which you barely understand? It is obvious that you are not familiar with the development process in Bitcoin nor the activation of a soft fork, else you would not be making such statements. You are not helping.

---

Soft fork deployment takes time (check how long CSV took).